AgdaPkt 2003-04-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

_APP. -02 -2003 WED 0500 PM THE INNISFREE COMPANIES FAY, N0. 4153326417 t, fit _ 4,1� Cathy Coffman From: Yann Taylor jyet(6fieldpaoli.com) Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 3:09 PM To: dcirmer ®innisfreecompanies.com Subject: latest Watry memo. David: just a short e-mail regarding Nick Watry s latest memo. Please feel free to forward this e-mail to whomever you wish. These comments are all in addition to my memo dated March 31 First of all, I am noticing that as Mr Watry is beginning to incorporate some of the project criteria that we have been dealing with, the estimated cost difference between long span and conventional is rapidly diminishing (from 3 million to 1.3 million). I believe that as ALL the project criteria are included, cost differences between the two schemes will further diminish and most likely disappear. Secondly, Mr Watry is paying scant attention to the first floor layout of the project. Having exhaust fans at the north end will impact the prime retail frontage of the project, namely the Broadway frontagel Similarily, If Mr. Watry looked at the retail floor layout he would also understand why we are unable to provide light wells into the garage. In any case, the "people place" we are trying to create is not the garage, but the streets around our project. We are developing an exciting graphics program for the garage based on the golden age of the movies, and this in my opinion will help create a people - friendly garage without having to carve out ground floor area or sidewalk area to create lightwells, which are not conducive to a pleasant street -level experience. Thirdly, because Exhibit A attached with Mr Watry's memo only contains a very diagrammatic plan, I am unable to ascertain whether it still has the same structural coordination issues as the his previous plan (namely the need for extensive transfer structures to reconcile the extremely regular and inflexible long span layout with the extremely irregular and equally inflexible layout of the movie theaters). This alone has the potential to add cost and significantly decrease the efficiency of the long span scheme, to the point that it doesn't make sense. Finally, as regards to the location of the entrance, Mr Watry suggests that it should not be on Jefferson because Jefferson is a "major face" to patrons of the downtown, yet at the same he suggests that it should not be there because it will be hard to find. How can both these statements be true? If Jefferson is indeed a major face, then the parking will be easy to find, certainly easier to find than Mr Watry's proposed location. Also, how can access to the garage in Mr Watry's proposed location provide access to lot 2 parking, given the culvert location? Mr Watry's point about "line of site" lines is well taken; we currently have a distance of 12' - 9" between the face of building and the face of curb, which will allow us to direct pedestrians away from the exit ramp. We need to make sure that this will give exiting vehicles adequate visibility. On the whole however Mr Watry seems too focused on the garage to the