Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMotleyArchitect
I completely agree. I did an analysis that shows that, purely from a study of zoning, bulk, and physical arrangement, the Circle on Central could do a much better job of integrating the historic building without unduly sacrificing their program.
http://motleydesigngroup.com/wordpre...-Picture-2.jpg |
How much more would your idea cost (building so much higher)? Assuming the rule of thumb holds that building higher increases your costs... If you were the owner and wanted to spend money to develop something, would you pay 20% more (for arguement's sake) just to save 70 feet of the original building's frontage (the crappier north half, not even the interior usable space of the north half) for architectural/posterity sake? This design is still unreasonable to me. I'd hope the developer would go for something like this, but it still seems highly unlikely they'd waste the money.
I'd also assume some other neighborhood watchdog group would then complain about the increased height being way too out of scale for the area. And then another person would bitch about a shadow. And then someone else would complain the higher building would block their view of the planes taking off and turning north over the western historic neighborhoods. There is always something ridiculous.