From the docs:

1679509011541.png


1679509079984.png



Site Plan:

1679509197118.png
 
This can only be massing at this point… I wouldn't get too attached to the elevation and axonometric drawings. They still have lots of time to craft a far more detailed underwhelming exterior expression.

42
 
This can only be massing at this point… I wouldn't get too attached to the elevation and axonometric drawings. They still have lots of time to craft a far more detailed underwhelming exterior expression.

42
So tl,dr: It's going to be another grey glass box, Jim. >.<
 
Kinda a big boy for this part of the Entertainment District isn't it?

I wonder if we'll be seeing more buildings in the area burst above the tabletop with new or revised proposals. Putting aside issues of quality of execution which plague this area in general (and the city), some more variation in height around here before the entire area gets fully built out might happen in the next phase of development of this area.
 
You know everyone on board truly cares when they can't be bothered to update their titleblocks for the submission...

View attachment 463692
I mean this is surprisingly common if you pay attention to drawings. Often there is a “issued list” table as well with a list of dates which the drawings were issued, and the main date on the title block remains unchanged.
 
If this location supports that parking ratio, no reason the Rail Deck proposal just down the street can't cut back its parking.
 
If this location supports that parking ratio, no reason the Rail Deck proposal just down the street can't cut back its parking.
My thoughts exactly. Where are that many cars even going to go? There's a reason major suburban GO stations have massive parking garages, because there's no space for thousands more cars on downtown streets and transit is highly encouraged...
 

Back
Top