Quote:
Originally Posted by AcmeGreg
When I think of "architect" the words that come to mind are inspiration and design rather than "building within specs". The latter is important, and of course it depends upon the nature of the project (and the architect) but I would hope that most would be pre-disposed to the former.
A developer has any number of architects from which to choose, and through their choice will serve notice as to the intentions for the property. If for example they choose – oh I don't know, Santiago Calatrava they would send a certain signal re their desire for a "compelling" structure. The choice of a "starchitect" would of course make all sorts of statements vis-a-vis the type of project they envision. This developer chose TVA. No Calatrava, but still one of the more discerning firms in town which perhaps is why the solution is somewhat disappointing. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not distinguished. This is a significant building, and it makes me wonder what this developer had in mind when choosing a firm whose portfolio includes local reference points such as the John Ross, Fox tower, and PAW – all examples of interesting design and great attention to detail. Seems like there are any number of less-accomplished firms in town who would have provided them with the same result TVA has produced here. Were they expecting more?
|
The parts you are missing in your description of the architect is 'paid by and answering to' the client. Always. No matter the stature of the firm. It's a business. So, the fee the developer pays an architect will have a huge determination in architect selection.
Additionally, the part that is missing for the developer description is 'beholden to the investor group and/or bank'. They don't play with their own money, except for guys that have a ton of it like Joe Weston. If the fee is too high in the proforma, the banks/investors get uninterested quickly.
You can propose all the innovative, thoughtful design in the world and if the developer cant 'sell' the idea to investors with a pro-forma that yields, you have no project.
Is there an opportunity for this building to be better? Probably. Is the answer the equivalent of hiring a Calatrava type whenever you want a great building? No. (Besides, since the example is Calatrava's design genius ... that is offset by his immense financial, budgetary and and construct-ability problems.)
TVA isn't the problem. Plenty of talented people there. The building is a simply composed, developer driven box. Low and fat, like the city of Portland zoning directs nearly all massing towards, and the developers gladly oblige.
Threaded Mode