As the owner of the building they (the city staff) obviously want to see the contract upheld.
They would be in opposition to any actions taken around the building that would involve breaking the contract and would take this stance if it goes to court.
As the owner of the building they (the city staff) obviously want to see the contract upheld.
They would be in opposition to any actions taken around the building that would involve breaking the contract and would take this stance if it goes to court.
For transactional matters, I like to refer to them as adverse parties, rather than opposed. Functionally means the same thing, but parties can have conflicting interests while sharing the same goal. Once there's a dispute though, opposing party all the way.
The real question now is WHAT tenant would ever want to move into a building with just two elevators? What a joke this design was. Someone fire Burns Mac from the architecture field. Trash.
Only 2 elevators seems woefully inadequate for a building this height even if it is just 8 inhabited office floors above parking. I worked in a 6 story Corporate Woods bldng with 4 elevators. Office buildings require more elevators than residential due to denser daytime population and peak rush hours.
I agree. Burns Mac is clearly out of their league here and it's showing.
The real question now is WHAT tenant would ever want to move into a building with just two elevators? What a joke this design was. Someone fire Burns Mac from the architecture field. Trash.
I thought we established that there are more than 2 once you get past the ground floor.
