Quote:
Originally Posted by rgarri4
Is it just me or did the taller building get a lot wider in those elevations?
|
I think the tower has the same footprint it has always had. It is parallelogram in shape, so it's going to appear a lot wider in elevation from the north and south than it will look in perspective.
They may have reduced the height to help themselves in the public review process, a little give and take to show they are conceding something to the public, but it's also possible that they did it for financial reasons. The underlying zoning on the short tower is only DX-5 (Floor area ratio of 5) but they are requesting an FAR of 8.7. Reducing the FAR used on subarea A may have been necessary to reduce the amount needed to be paid to the city to increase the feasibility of the project.