LOL! It's a funny question only to those who've lived in one of their buildings. Kind of like, "Why would they leave an inch wide gap under the windowsill, exposing the apt. to cold air, rodents and insects?" Or "Why would they renovate an old building with bad roof and NOT start by putting a new roof on, but instead, just patch the holes?" Or "Why would they renovate any building that has an 8,000 gallon fuel oil tank buried next to it without removing the tank...AND THEN put a giant electrical transformer on the ground above it?"

They're all valid questions, and ALL applicable to Tower's construction.

__________________
~Sugarcoma
-waiting for the terror alert to go up- election in 4 weeks!
http://www.bethbrennan.blogspot.com/

http://www.myspace.com/o1o1o1o1

Which is building is that in the photos? The new one on 2nd?

Tower Investments as a whole leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I am an Interior Designer and the firm I used to work with gave a presentation for the proposed restaurant on the ground floor of Hancock Square. (nothing ever materialized from that presentation, but I'm getting ahead of myself).

During the presentation, Mr Blatstein proceeded to order a sandwich, answer his cell repeatedly (like 12 times), call hello to people passing by the doorway to the conference room and then proceeded to eat his sandwich.

Very distracting and extremely vulgar behavior.

It's called Hancock Sq. located on 1001 N. 2nd St. It's the new modern looking one. Belying its name, it is not on Hancock St.

I am sure that this is due to the architectural designs. The building has an industrial flair. It really doesn't look bad at all. And I suppose Tower got lucky (as well as I did) in that if these walls had been drywall or plaster, the leaks would be creating even more problems.

I reported Tower to L&I. Things seem to be in motion.