Originally Posted by
McIPor
That second hand version of events does not jibe with my recollection of events that I attended.
Acquest did meet with Holdwick and Watkins in a meeting also attended by Zeiler, Brown and I believe Papapanos. In the meeting is was acknowledged that it was good to see that there were plans showed the floor plates could accommodate hotel functions and still meet code.This confirmation from MPA as well as drawings received from the KC architect prior to the Acquest meeting, along with analysis from two certified architects on DEGC staff, reinforced the notion that the contract with Gensler could be modified and indeed it was. Part of Gensler's contract was to perform an analysis of whether modern hotel rooms could be feasible with the existing floor plates. With the analysis presented by KCs architect, then MPA and concurrent review by DDA architects, Watkins correctly concluded that it was reasonable to conclude that hotel rooms were feasible and that the dollars for architectural analysis could be shifted to the examination of facade delamination which was quickly becoming a cause for great concern.
So yes, MPA played a good role in that it triangulated what the DDA already believed to be true, that hotel rooms were feasible.
IIRC:
The drawings by KC and hanging on the wall at the DDA meeting showed a first floor that blew out all the former retail space, relocated the escalators, had a coffee shop & a high end 2 meal restaurant along Michigan and a three meal restaurant along Washington in the old Motor Bar space.
The MPA drawings showed the double corridor and original retail space intact, the escalators in original position and a bar / lounge at the old Motor Bar space.
On the second floor, KC showed a materially different configuration of the lobby and check in areas than MPA. Both plans showed a public lounge space taking advantage of the double height ceilings along Michigan
The third and fourth floor plans showed the resoration of public spaces, especially ballrooms, restorations that ANY development would be REQUIRED to make to obtain historic tax credits. The similarities on those particular spaces were mandated. That said there were also key differences in how the public space such as small conference and breakout rooms were laid out.
A major differeince was the KC plan which showed an addition with a major ballroom with trap door and lifts large enough for cars. The MPA plan did not show a similar addition.
The KC and MPA plans both contemplated hotel rooms of largely the same dimensions [[as one would expect based on current hotel demands and the confines of the existing columns) but there were key differnces in the mix of hotel rooms [[i.e. suites vs. double vs. kings) and the room count differed by more than 15%. The same thing happened with the condos, similar layouts dictated by the building envelope and columns, but again enough material differences that it would have been impossible to conclude copyright violation.
Doug MacIntosh did indeed protest to DDA staff that his plans had been stolen based on the following argument: Both plans showed hotel and condo mix, the hotel rooms were of similar size and both plans showed substantial renovation of ballrooms and historic space. He also approached the representatives of the Stolar Partnership, legal counsel for KC and, with me as witness and party to the conversation, accused KC of stealing the designs from MPA. He bluntly stated that he was going to pursue legal action against KC and the DDA. He also said he would drop the legal action if MPA were brought on board as sub contractors to the project. His statements to Dick Mersman of the Stolar Partnership was the only time I have ever seen Mersman lose his cool. Mersman is a very talented lawyer who essentially put together the St. Louis / Statler deal and with whom I had been dealing with for more than seven months. Mersman took great offense to the notion that his client stole anything or that it had cut corners with the DDA. He pointed out how he could destroy the suit in a matter of minutes because it was completely baseless. In the next 14 months, I did not see Mersman lose his cool again or become that angry with any other party.
The accusations of copyright infringement were and are baseless. They were so egregious as to be completely offensive to reasonable people. The attempt to shoe horn in or be reimbursed for the drawings was a clumsy attempt at extortion.
Any firm that behaves like that is going to have a very hard time regaining credibility with any public agency or any private party. Given that behavior, yes MPA was viewed with skepticism and suspicion - as MPA would do to any party that pulled a stunt like that with them.