kas1 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:43 am
The city is an opposing party?
In a legal sense yes,
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.
kas1 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:43 am
The city is an opposing party?
In a legal sense yes,
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.
moderne wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:36 pm
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.
im2kull wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:42 pm
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.
smh wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:20 pm
It's funny that they've been building this long and they're essentially just now starting on the actual habitable space i.e., the building.
They'll be putting up glass to cover the 1000 floors of parking for awhile before they get to anything habitable.
moderne wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:41 am
What I saw on the south side was grayish, but then it was a cloudy day. Does not look like it will much hide the automobiles.
I think it will turn out like Bridgestone. During the day you won’t be able to see the cars but at night you will when the garage lights turn on.
earthling wrote: ↑Sun Apr 25, 2021 11:54 am
So are those solid plates or opaque windows? If the former, hard to understand why they'd kill premium window space.
energy efficiency was floated as the reason for wanting to reduce transparrent glazing on the east I thought?
