Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Appropriate_Garden26 OP t1_j3560gg wrote

Personally I'm pretty disappointed with the new design. What could've been a pretty cool looking building is now gonna be a generic soulless skyscraper towering over the whole city. It's like the developers catfished the city to get it approved.

56

Cycle-path1 t1_j35qn0q wrote

Coming from a design field you give the, "to the moon" design that gets everyone super excited to get approval and over all positive sentiment. Then through DD it gets watered down due to cost and over all feasibility. This will probably not be the last iteration/concept.

20

TheSausageFattener t1_j35id63 wrote

Wasn’t the issue here that the city wouldn’t approve it, so the state intervened and gave the approval?

5

Kelruss t1_j35rg4y wrote

The Senate wanted it, the Zoning Board didn't approve it, the Council overrode the Zoning Board, and the Senate was so annoyed the General Assembly stripped the City of zoning jurisdiction over the I-195 land.

11

acfun976 t1_j35qbhs wrote

IIRC the city did give approval but bypassed it's guidelines in doing so and then a citizens group challenged the city's approval but lost in court.

2

jakejanobs t1_j378gg9 wrote

Increasing the housing supply is a necessity at this point. Hell, I’d prefer commie blocks to the current hellscape of homelessness and unaffordable rents

1

MahBoy t1_j43pxyx wrote

Adding luxury apartments to a city where the median income is $24,891 does not increase the housing supply. Sorry, but no.

2