Yard | 200' | 21 floors | Complete

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

Is it topped out? If not, how many floors are left for them to make the matte black to glass transition look anything remotely close to the rendering?

Yes, it is topped out. You can see the angled parapets at the top now. So there are about four floors plus the parapets that still need glazing. From what I can tell in the renderings, the parapets appear to all glass

[athorak]

I actually did an overlay comparison on some pictures of the building and the renderings a few weeks ago. There is absolutely less glass on the building that what was shown in the rendering, a lot less. No one is imagining things here.

[innovativethinking]

I don't understand why they just didnt do all glass like the zgf tower or something

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Derek

Well...it's brown. So, no. This thing would look amazing if it was stealthy and black, and actually had windows.

I think it looks black....

[Malix]

Originally Posted by athorak

I actually did an overlay comparison on some pictures of the building and the renderings a few weeks ago. There is absolutely less glass on the building that what was shown in the rendering, a lot less. No one is imagining things here.

I am sure the design review police will use this as a case study. In what has yet to be seen.

[pylon]

imho, having a dark bldg will add some variety to the skyline.

[Photogeric]

Also, I think it also comes down to the reflectiveness of the glass. And when lights start turning on inside, that'll be a difference maker too.

[2oh1]

HHmmmm...

...it looks brooding on a cloudy day.
...it was built in Portland.

Dare I mention how often the sky in Portland is clou... nah. That would be too obvious.

[2oh1]

What we were shown:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

What we're getting:

Originally Posted by Photogeric

[WestCoast]

yeah, render and reality are pretty similar....



--
this is the worst new building I've seen in PDX in 2015. I think the worst part is how visible it is.

Everyone driving through portland on 5 will see it for the next 50 years.
Shameful.

[Sioux612]

Money issues?

They had to scrap the original plans and simplify it.

[innovativethinking]

Maybe when the 20 story wooden tower goes up next to it, it won't be such an eye sore

[cityscapes]

If they deviated that much from the approved design shouldn't they have had to file some sort of adjustment or administrative review to approve the change?

To what extent can a developer deviate from an approved design without another hearing and or public notice? Seems like this is more than a different between render vs reality. They significantly changed the facade design from what was approved and it seems like they skirted around dealing with the city to do so. Doesn't anyone from BDS go around looking at projects making sure they are in line with what was approved? You can't just go and get your permits after approval and go build something different and it seems that this is what they did. Not cool.

[Rob Nob]

The Design firm got it through overlay reviews, then it was handed off to an Architect of record for construction documents... so yes, this should be interesting if it gets challenged.

[2oh1]

I wonder if the interior got downgraded as much as the exterior.

[innovativethinking]

Well by reading this board, safe to say this building is overwhelmingly a failure geez

[65MAX]

A little premature to call the building a failure. At least wait until all of the glazing is installed before getting so bent out of shape about it. And even if they don't have as much glass at the top as originally shown, the building is still FAR MORE interesting and unique than the taller, hyper-glossy, yet somehow mundane, Cosmopolitan.

Geez.

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

A little premature to call the building a failure. At least wait until all of the glazing is installed before getting so bent out of shape about it. And even if they don't have as much glass at the top as originally shown, the building is still FAR MORE interesting and unique than the taller, hyper-glossy, yet somehow mundane, Cosmopolitan.

Geez.

Really? The Cosmopolitan imo is a really nice, slender shiny tower. This one on the other hand is one huge black wall looking behemoth.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

To what extent can a developer deviate from an approved design without another hearing and or public notice?

Theoretically, the drawings submitted for building permit are meant to exactly match what was approved during design review. In reality, small changes are allowed if they aren't of any real consequence. A more fundamental change to the approved design is meant to go through a follow up design review. In some cases this can be a Type II Review, which is a lower level of review that doesn't go before the Design Commission.

Which brings me back to this project. I spent a while last night looking at the approved design review drawings vs the photos. There were three primary materials shown for the tower: metal panel; clear glass; and spandrel glass. Spandrel glass is opaque glass that's used when the designer wants the look of glass, but needs an opaque material to hide slab edges, mechanical areas, insulation needed for energy code, etc. Sometimes spandrel glass is tinted differently and highlighted as a building feature, and sometimes it's specified so that it matches the vision glass to the greatest extend possible. In certain light conditions you can't even tell that much (most?) of the glazing at the Cosmopolitan is spandrel glass.

As clearly shown in the renders, the base of the tower is mostly metal panels, with areas of vision glass. Interestingly the placement of the vision glass doesn't seem to quite match the approved drawings, but the proportional split between metal and glass seems to be about the same. Further up in the elevations there was proportionally more glazing shown, but an increasing percentage of it was to be spandrel glass. In the renders there is no differentiation made between the vision glass and the spandrel glass (like the Cosmopolitan).

I am beginning to wonder if the spandrel glass was replaced by metal panels at some point. That would explain why the top of the building is looking so much darker. If so, that's a pretty significant change that probably should have had a follow up design review. I tried looking for the scanned copies of the permit drawings and/or deferred submittal for glazing, but I couldn't find them.

[BrG]

This much of a change would most unequivocally require a supplemental review.

They MAY have been able to get some minor changes through, with a staff only review. Staff will sometimes approve a material change if it is equivalent to them, in their eyes. But they will never accept a 'downgrade' in quality due to Contractor VE. (Been there... this is when DR approval is your total ally as a designer, despite the difficulty in achieving Type II and III approvals)

If it deviated from design in any material way.... Further review required.

Oh, and someone asked if they go around checking to see if the designs match. Yes, they (BDS Staffers) do.

BDS audits projects all the time, particularly when complaints are received. They have legal right to MAKE the owner change it to what was entitled, and they will.