Yard | 200' | 21 floors | Complete

[Abide]

Originally Posted by marlonwarren

E) My only hope is the metal panels will improve with age. Say maybe 5, 10 or 20 years and not buckle like the panels on the building down the street.

Is that what happened to the county building at the corner of MLK and Couch? I was wondering why those panels were getting ripped off after only a few years.

[innovativethinking]

I think when the 20 story wooden tower goes up next to this ugly behemoth it won't stand out too much

[pdxtraveler]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

I'm not surprised Skylab is using images that are flat out lies on on their website.



That is absolutely dishonest. It is NOT what they're building.

I am sure to them it isn't "flat out lies". To them they had to make some sacrifices, but, by and large, it is the same building. I am sure they are as disappointed as some of you. I still like the building, would it have been nicer as intended? Yes.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by pdxtraveler

I am sure to them it isn't "flat out lies". To them they had to make some sacrifices, but, by and large, it is the same building. I am sure they are as disappointed as some of you. I still like the building, would it have been nicer as intended? Yes.

They're using the images on their website to promote their work, but the images don't represent their work. The images represent what they agreed to build but were unable to. The images represent fiction. Using them, at this point, now that they know the images no longer represent what they're able to build, is lying. Those images don't represent their portfolio. Those images are pure fiction.

This building went from being the most exciting development under construction to being the biggest disappointment in a long time.

[tworivers]

2oh1: They're using the images on their website to promote their work, but the images don't represent their work. The images represent what they agreed to build but were unable to. The images represent fiction. Using them, at this point, now that they know the images no longer represent what they're able to build, is lying. Those images don't represent their portfolio. Those images are pure fiction.

This building went from being the most exciting development under construction to being the biggest disappointment in a long time.

I'm with 2oh1 on this one. I don't care who is truly at fault here, the developer or Skylab, but Skylab should alter the renderings to reflect what is actually being built. The fact that these changes were made apparently without City approval should be illegal. Both developer and architect should be subject to hefty fines that go straight into an affordable housing fund.

The damage that this sort of thing does to the general public sentiment about the current building/density boom is impossible to measure (I'm just waiting for the media to catch wind of this), but I have heard nothing but griping about this building from virtually everyone I know. I'm hoping that it at least looks better once there are residents in place, as well as all the final details.

[eric cantona]

hyperbole!

[cityscapes]

Originally Posted by tworivers

The damage that this sort of thing does to the general public sentiment about the current building/density boom is impossible to measure (I'm just waiting for the media to catch wind of this), but I have heard nothing but griping about this building from virtually everyone I know.

This is a very important point to make. Everyone I know hates it too. I kept telling them just be patient it will transition to reflective glass at the top and look really cool, but nope. I was trying alleviate concerns about the "weird black wall" being built against the river, but now they went and built exactly that. This adds so much fuel to the crazy NIMBY anti-development camp in the city.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by tworivers

The damage that this sort of thing does to the general public sentiment about the current building/density boom is impossible to measure

Absolutely. For example:

Originally Posted by cityscapes

This adds so much fuel to the crazy NIMBY anti-development camp in the city.

And I agree very strongly with this:

Originally Posted by tworivers

The fact that these changes were made apparently without City approval should be illegal. Both developer and architect should be subject to hefty fines that go straight into an affordable housing fund.

How do we know Skylab didn't already have plans to scale this sucker back while they were presenting the bogus renderings?

[NESteve]

Looks like an urban prison. My architect friends have taken to calling it the Eastside Death Star.

[Abide]

I always liked the Dumbbell more than others on here and now, I think with the extremely dark Yard and Block 75 as back drops, the pop of color the Dumbbell will provide with be very welcome.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

Everyone I know hates it too. I kept telling them just be patient it will transition to reflective glass at the top and look really cool, but nope. I was trying alleviate concerns about the "weird black wall" being built against the river, but now they went and built exactly that.

Yeah, I've done the same thing (both on here, a few pages back, and in real life).

Originally Posted by soleri

I was talking to a Skylab architect last night and he essentially said everything that's being speculated about here is true. That is, there was both cost-cutting going on and a need to meet some kind of energy efficiency standard by reducing the window exposures. He also said the city really has no leverage here except to lean a bit more heavily on Skylab next time a project goes before Design Review.

The Design Review approval has the standard city language as a condition of approval:

Approvals per Exhibits C.1-C-162, signed, stamped, and dated December 19, 2013, subject to the following conditions:
A. As part of the building permit application submittal, each of the 4 required site plans and any additional drawings must reflect the information and design approved by this land use review as indicated in Exhibits C.1-C.145. The sheets on which this information appears must be labeled, "Proposal and design as approved in Case File # LU 13-192030 DZM. No field changes allowed.”

I guess the leverage that the city has is that they can withhold the Certificate of Occupancy. It's a nuclear option that I doubt they'll use, but it is there.

[AcmeGreg]

Perhaps to a less dramatic degree this same scenario is playing out with the NV tower? Another example where the finished product is not matching up with (or living up to!) high expectations created by the final design renderings. All the more frustrating since both are very high-profile projects designed by prominent and highly respected architects. It's really quite remarkable to witness the degree to which the almost universal admiration of the Yard has devolved into derision. Of course we're now discovering that this is more than simply a case of overstated or exaggerated renderings, and it makes me wonder if similar events have conspired over at NW 13th & Overton? I'm actually more bummed by the current state of the that dull building than I am the Yard, which has other things going for it that perhaps – once all the lights are turned on – give it a fighting chance to still be an interesting, if not outstanding piece of architecture.

[Mr. Walch]

Disappointing that it was not built as rendered but still a handsome building that is better the much of the banal work being produced. That being said, the city should hold them accountable. What is Design Review for if people can just ignore it when construction begins. I live in Seattle and a building that was under construction up the street from my office was denied a certificate of occupancy because the colors of the spandrel panels differed from the approved drawings. They had to delay opening until they got it fixed.

As for this:

Originally Posted by 2oh1

They're using the images on their website to promote their work, but the images don't represent their work. The images represent what they agreed to build but were unable to. The images represent fiction. Using them, at this point, now that they know the images no longer represent what they're able to build, is lying. Those images don't represent their portfolio. Those images are pure fiction.

This building went from being the most exciting development under construction to being the biggest disappointment in a long time.

This is a misunderstanding of what constitutes work in architecture. The images they show on their website represent the quality of their design work. Design is the work of architects. The fact that the developer value engineered the project does not take away from the thoughtfulness of the original design. Clients/builder wreck havoc on project during construction all the time. Many firms use images of unbuilt projects or the pre-VE images to convey their design thinking and aesthetic. It is a normal and accepted practice.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by Mr. Walch

This is a misunderstanding of what constitutes work in architecture. The images they show on their website represent the quality of their design work.

The images they show on their website represent their design work which could not be built as designed, which means the design failed. To me, that speaks poorly of the quality of their work. They're still using those images, as if to say "This is what we can do." But those images represent what they can't do.

Anybody with Photoshop can design buildings that can't be built.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

The images they show on their website represent their design work which could not be built as designed, which means the design failed. To me, that speaks poorly of the quality of their work. They're still using those images, as if to say "This is what we can do." But those images represent what they can't do.

Anybody with Photoshop can design buildings that can't be built.

I said from the beginning this building is a POS--everything thats has been proposed there fails somehow--remember the steel skeleton that stood there back in the 80s? for several years I might add

[TowerPower]

Bring out the torches! lol. It's certainly not the most egregious example in the city (of developers building cheap at the expense of good design), but given it's location it's probably the most prominent. Wait for a sunny day, and like most buildings, it will look a lot better. Haven't had many of those recently though.

[Photogeric]

Ok so I took a few pictures today of the building in the 30 minutes of sunlight we had. It definitely looked a little better. The windows actually stood out a bit. I'll upload them in an hour or two.

[Photogeric]

[Abide]

Horrible building? No. Good building? Also no.

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

I said from the beginning this building is a POS--everything thats has been proposed there fails somehow--remember the steel skeleton that stood there back in the 80s? for several years I might add

Aw man, the Bridgeport Hotel. Truly a changed world.

[Tykendo]

In that one shot, it has a mosaic quality to it when the sun hits it straight on. It is definetly a structure who's mood will change with the weather. It will grow on me for sure. The Cosmopolitan has it's detractors too, but I really love it.