[Jarrek]

What I don't understand is why they couldn't just make the pedestrian streets line up.

You're just way too forward thinking.

 

[doady]

What I don't understand is why they couldn't just make the pedestrian streets line up.

Profits. Three towers instead of two. Just yet another example of the city putting developer's interests ahead of the interests of its citizens.

 

[Dan416]

Sigh. I was hoping for maybe some kind of reason for doing it that I wasn't seeing that was actually beneficial. Doesn't seem like it

 

[Mike in TO]

Profits. Three towers instead of two. Just yet another example of the city putting developer's interests ahead of the interests of its citizens.

I'm not sure your jumping to a quick conclusion has anything to do with it. The allocated density could have been reallocated within the site plan to produce the same number of units while lining up the pedestrian streets.

 

[doady]

I'm not sure your jumping to a quick conclusion has anything to do with it. The allocated density could have been reallocated within the site plan to produce the same number of units while lining up the pedestrian streets.

Well, the original site plan called for two towers and perfectly-aligned pedestrian streets, so I'm sure my conclusion has everything to do with it. Daniels didn't add a third tower and screw up the alignment of the street at the bidding of the city.

 

[Sallycat]

Well, the original site plan called for two towers and perfectly-aligned pedestrian streets, so I'm sure my conclusion has everything to do with it. Daniels didn't add a third tower and screw up the alignment of the street at the bidding of the city.

I'm confused...which third tower did they didn't add??

 

[Observer Walt]

Perhaps the decision was made for aesthetic design reasons. An "offset" pedestrian street shortens the view lines and provides a more interesting view (at least to some people's eyes) along shorter streets than a rigid grid with a long view, especially when looking south from the north end, as that view would include the park as well as the block(s) between buildings. I'm not sure that was the reason, but I can speculate that someone may have found it more attractive. I doubt that "profit" had much to do whti it. As alresdey pointed out, the approved density could have been allocated in more than one way.

 

[doady]

I'm confused...which third tower did they didn't add??

In the middle block, the one with the park, there were originally two towers planned, and the pedestrian path was originally in perfect alignment with the other two. But now the path was shift to the west, and there's three towers instead of two, two of those towers on the east side of the path.

 

[interchange42]

...for the project south of Limelight, not Limelight itself. Limelight will only have two towers.

42

 

[Sallycat]

In the middle block, the one with the park, there were originally two towers planned, and the pedestrian path was originally in perfect alignment with the other two. But now the path was shift to the west, and there's three towers instead of two, two of those towers on the east side of the path.

Ah, I see it now. Thank you so much for the explanation.

 

[ProjectEnd]

...for the project south of Limelight, not Limelight itself. Limelight will only have two towers.

42

I believe he/she is referring to the 'block' containing Limelight I and II and Chicago - not a phantom Limelight III.

 

[Jasonzed]

from today

 

[khris]

They don't put tiebacks in the bedrock? I assume it's just not necessary?

 

[prospect_p93]

Question: is this hole where the south tower is being built? or both the south and north towers?

 

[yyzer]

Question: is this hole where the south tower is being built? or both the south and north towers?

Both towers....