musicman Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) Sure they did. They could have not built it at all. They could have searched for a location that would accommodate a large surface lot. Likewise, CVS could have leased space in another building or joined a multi-tenant development with attached or underground parking. Instead, they chose to build the same way they build in the suburbs. None of them were forced into their designs. One made an effort and the other didn't. your premise was a comparison of two existing buildings. i'm sticking with that. randall's was forced to design specifically for the lot otherwise the standard template randall's wouldn't work. cvs could use their standard template. Randall's has a smaller and narrower surface lot than CVS. Seems more pedestrian friendly to me, but apparently that's in the eye of the beholder. And relative to the building and lot size, the Randall's has much smaller parking lot than CVS. the entire lots (including parking lot and structure) are basically identical size. walking across the cvs lot is the same distance as walking across the randall's lot. with the doors of both structures are in the middle of the lot, a pedestrian is walking approximately the same distance to enter. Edited September 20, 2009 by musicman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.