^ I figured the design had something to do with the immediately-adjacent-to-10 CSX tracks, and for some reason they didn't curve slightly north like they did at Michigan Ave.
Let's think this out: why didn't they build a diamond, like the one at Michigan Avenue? The obvious answer is that they wanted a high-volume semidirect ramp for the westbound 10 to southbound 163 movement. It's not obvious to me, though, why they couldn't have built the southwest quadrant of the interchange as it is and the rest of the interchange as a diamond.
It appears to me that the design was driven by the desire for that semidirect ramp from southbound 163 to eastbound 10, which required the mainline 163 bridge to be a great deal higher and therefore longer than it otherwise would've needed to be. They could've gone with a loop ramp for that movement instead, especially since the layout of the westbound-to-southbound ramp created a nice, big space for it, but it would've required a lot of bridgework, too, and the ramp would've been inferior. That said, going with a semidirect ramp instead of a loop also created a need for something other than an at-grade left turn from northbound 163 to westbound 10. Cha-ching.
So, why was that movement deemed so important? The only thing I can think of is that the planners anticipated a lot of traffic using McVey Drive to access I-10 there, enough to overload a signalized left turn movement. Anyway, once the decision was made to elevate so much of the interchange, there was no point in curving the mainline away from the railroad.
Or maybe they just wanted to build a cool interchange there.
