Quote:
Originally Posted by Klippenstein
Such a weird game they play. What benefit is gained from taking off 92’? The building is still the same size. It all just seems so strange, but obviously the developer is agreeing to it. So I wonder if they never really intended to have the floating top in the first place?
It’s all pretty ridiculous.
|
The previous design was already approved by Reilly and written into the PD, so this has nothing to do with NIMBYism.
Crescent Heights likely crunched the numbers on the old design and decided it wasn't cost effective to build such a slender tower when they could accommodate the same number of units in a shorter, wider tower. I agree the new design isn't as distinctive without the "lantern" on top and I share the disappointment.
I assume they did their homework before submitting the PD, but something must have changed - maybe the market conditions required them to change the proforma or the unit mix, or construction costs went up more than expected. It takes 2-3 years at least to plan these towers, and developers have to constantly adjust as they go.
Threaded Mode