mr. atkinson just showed. i think it is important to understand what the real issues are. i find the package that was submitted difficult to understand, somewhat misleading. i should be able to see it with a glance. that is not the case. but it seems important to go back to what this project is. this project is a submission to build on a substandard lot in a dense urban environment. in 1982, a very good architect designed a building which had a twin building mirror around its axis to create something which i consider to be ingenious. at that time, we did not use that word much. but it is a really integrated project. the mere fact to take it out of symmetry is arrogant and someone missing the point. building on a substandard lot, the provision for separation applies then and applies today. it is a fact. in addition, a think other things are being snapped in which i find personally unacceptable. the spiral stair on the rear i