Chris:
 
From looking at the original rendering of the building (which Dan pointed out to me didn't make it thru the B-P robot so he offered to post it for me on Pig-Habit-L) it looks to me as though the gun-slits came much later. One could argue whether they improved the look of the building (I'm not fond of prison architecture) or whether going back to the original look is too unfamiliar and therefore too much of a change. It seems to me that going back to the original windows is much more pleasing appearance and, yes, increases the value of the building due to opening up the views.
 
Here is what I sent before (but didn't get thru the bot) in response to Ralph, this time with out the offending attachment:
 
Bruce
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Marcham
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:16 PM
To: 'The listserv that takes flossing seriously!'
Subject: RE: Re: [BP] Austin, Nichols Warehouse - Egyptoid detailing too small to show up.

I agree with my learned colleague on the compound negatives but this (please see the attachment) is what I saw as being the original design (my apologies to those who can't deal with attachments--maybe someone will post it to Pighabit for me?). Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by your "original intelligent design intent" comment but I don't think so (sometime I get the impression that as I get thicker around the middle my ears get farther from my brain). It looks to me as though where the window size & proportions are concerned the delveloper is going back to the original design intent, intelligent or not.
 
 
Yours,
 
Nichaust
 
-----Original Message-----
From: The listserv that takes flossing seriously! [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BP] Austin, Nichols Warehouse - Egyptoid detailing too small to show up.
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: The listserv that takes flossing seriously! [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 11:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BP] Siege Tower

In a message dated 12/9/2005 10:37:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask] writes:
Quite frankly, I like the one with the addition on top.  It looks finished,
I don't like flat roofed buildings.  I had thought from the original
posting I got that they wanted to tear the whole building down and build something else. 
 
Ruth, I believe the nut of the preservationists indignification is   a) any rooftop addition, like the Goldfinger-variety example pictured and b) the developer's wish to substantially widen the slit windows.  The narrow windows made sense when the building was a warehouse, but become rather an obstacle when trying to persuade the stroller-and-Starbucks set to by million dollar apartments in an area  even more remote than Vermont.   A related burr under the developer's saddle is that the apartments could, otherwise, have very broad views. 
 
Sincerely yours,   Portcullis Q. Barbi-cam