Yard | 200' | 21 floors | Complete

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by 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.

On a sunny day with few clouds it probably will look ok, but on the gloomy days it may be a tad depressing.

[AdamUrbanist]

This isn't a terrible building by any means but the issue of changes made after design review sets a troubling precedent. There definitely needs to be consequences, even if its only a fine. I work on a lot of affordable housing projects at my office and we are often struggling to get low budget projects through design review. If our clients knew that the bait and switch strategy usually went unpunished we would be under a lot of pressure to do just that. Load our buildings with expensive materials and design features to please the commission, then cut them out during construction. That's not a position any architect wants to be in and it undermines the whole purpose of design review.

[Marling]

Here's a few more images from that pretty half an hour yesterday. The spandrel glass really isn't getting the job done. I was so very excited by the renderings....and I still like the form, but the CEID is gonna be Brown Town if these recent trends continue.

[cityscapes]

I'm finally starting to see what they did here with these new higher quality photos that were posted over the past 24 hours. They used the glossy black panels to make up for the fact that they got rid of the glass ones to make an attempt at achieving the same effect of the renderings. It isn't very successful. I don't get why they couldn't have made them look like fake windows and gone with a more reflective glass for the entire building for more contrast.

I agree that it sets a horrible precedent, if they can switch up the design that much and ignore the condition of approval without consequence there's nothing stopping others from doing the same thing.

I wrote the BDS about this before someone posted that they're aware of it, when I get a response I'll mention the above just incase someone there hasn't realized this could undermine the whole design review process.

Also, last thing I'll say is that the vents running up the sides of the building look horrible.

[urbanlife]

I was down at Saturday Market today, and I have to say, from the west the building looks okay from a distance. I think when you get up closer to it and the views from the east the building looks less flattering.

I can see how the glossy panels were being used to give the illusion of windows, it just bothers me when architecture is used to create illusions rather than good architecture.

[maccoinnich]

During the Design Review hearing on Thursday for 1127 SE Morrison Tad Savinar asked the architect if they had done an energy code analysis for the building yet. They responded that they had, and it was coming in something around 30% better than code minimum. "Great", responded Savinar, "the reason I ask is that we've had some projects that have not done the energy analysis, have gone into construction, and the design has changed. We're trying to watch that a little closer."

I can't imagine what he might be referring to.

[65MAX]

How is it possible that the Yard didn't do an energy code analysis? BDS requires that for every new building, including SFRs. Even if it's just a simple prescriptive path analysis, you still can't get a permit without it.

Also, FWIW, I think this building is turning out great. Will it look EXACTLY like the renderings all of the time? Probably 99% of the time, no. But you can say that for ANY new building. The renderings are created with the best possible lighting and the optimum vantage points to sell the product to the lenders and future tenants. And quite frankly, a few of the pics posted by photogeric and Marling look amazing. Thanks for those. I think that having a building that changes with different lighting conditions is a good thing, but I must be in the minority here.

[Malix]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

How is it possible that the Yard didn't do an energy code analysis? BDS requires that for every new building, including SFRs. Even if it's just a simple prescriptive path analysis, you still can't get a permit without it.

Also, FWIW, I think this building is turning out great. Will it look EXACTLY like the renderings all of the time? Probably 99% of the time, no. But you can say that for ANY new building. The renderings are created with the best possible lighting and the optimum vantage points to sell the product to the lenders and future tenants. And quite frankly, a few of the pics posted by photogeric and Marling look amazing. Thanks for those. I think that having a building that changes with different lighting conditions is a good thing, but I must be in the minority here.

I have been resisting commenting, but I have been through the process being discussed here. Yes you could make it through design review without having completed an energy study. BUT you shouldn't be showing the design commission WHAT you are not certain you could build(.) slight changes are expected and can be worked out with staff. Big changes to the fienestration pattern with this building would have certainly caused an additional hearing...especially with this building being so relient on the solid and void patterning of the facade to make it less than a dark slab rotated on the grid.

So one of two scenarios happened here...neither which is great for the architect or owner.

You changed the drawings submitted for permit and the plans examiner did not pick up the discrepancy between the approved DR set and the permit set. Is possible given all the movement in the facade patterning. What a job to have to cross check that. The examiner would not have signed off without resolving the discrepancy.
Second option is you are building off drawings that does not match your permit documents being held in the job office. Less likely and ultimately would require some set to facilitate coordination. It also assumes that the on site inspector does not pick it up.
So what is the stick the city would have if they sidestepped the system? Nothing that I am aware of. The least should be that of the reputation of the ones responsible from trying to doup the system. I think this in the end could show serious negligence from the architect. Such a prime gateway site. The city should be pretty upset to have let this happen. Maybe too much reliance on an eager design firm without the record of experience in more complicated building types. A shame..we can wait and hope the building weathers into something pleasing. It will set up a nice backdrop for the quirky dumb bell project.

[Abide]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Also, FWIW, I think this building is turning out great. Will it look EXACTLY like the renderings all of the time? Probably 99% of the time, no. But you can say that for ANY new building. The renderings are created with the best possible lighting and the optimum vantage points to sell the product to the lenders and future tenants. And quite frankly, a few of the pics posted by photogeric and Marling look amazing. Thanks for those. I think that having a building that changes with different lighting conditions is a good thing, but I must be in the minority here.

The renderings showed highly reflective glass making a contrast with the metal panels. The spandrel glass they're actually using looks so much like the metal panels that they might as well not even be glass at all. Whether in sun or under overcast skies, you can barely tell what's spandrel glass vs. metal panel. The contrast of the facade was a big part of the building as proposed. It's not a lighting issue.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by Abide

The contrast of the facade was a big part of the building as proposed. It's not a lighting issue.

And even if anybody thinks the issue is clouds vs clear skies, well that would just speak to poor design since Portland averages fewer than 70 sunny days per year. Any architect who'd design a building for Portland that wouldn't look good on a gray day would be pretty dumb.

[Tykendo]

Portland averages 144 sunny days. 70 seemed way low 2oh1 as I grew up there, and that seemed like an exaggeration. So I checked it out. PDX is not that gloomy.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by Tykendo

Portland averages 144 sunny days. 70 seemed way low 2oh1 as I grew up there, and that seemed like an exaggeration. So I checked it out. PDX is not that gloomy.

That 144 includes days that are also partly sunny - but - let's use your number. 144 sunny days. That's A-OK with me.

365 days a year, minus 144 sunny or partly sunny days = 221 gray days. Only a complete buffoon would design a building that wouldn't look good during the majority of the year. I'm not saying that's what Skylab did here. I'm just saying that if anyone suggests that this building is designed to look good when it's sunny, that would speak to poor design since Portland is NOT sunny more often than it is sunny.

[marlonwarren]

"365 days a year, minus 144 sunny or partly sunny days = 221 gray days. Only a complete buffoon would design a building that wouldn't look good during the majority of the year. I'm not saying that's what Skylab did here. I'm just saying that if anyone suggests that this building is designed to look good when it's sunny, that would speak to poor design since Portland is NOT sunny more often than it is sunny".

"Poor design, poor thinking and cheap materials make for a building that the general public views as a barrier and wall to the East Side"
Portland Native.

[NESteve]

Appreciation of architecture is subjective, however the lengthy design review process that developers have to endure is binding. Design review documents are recorded once a decision is rendered and it becomes an encumbrance against the property; it must be built according to what was approved without deviation. An architect, developer, or whomever cannot modify the envelope of the building for cost savings, energy efficiency, or for aesthetic reasons without going back through design review - that's the entire purpose of the binding recordation against the property.

If design review is going to mean anything at all, the city needs to make sure that what they approved is what's being delivered - right down to the last window. I see this building every day. The debate about how the façade reads in different weather is laughable - the amount of glazing (or what was supposed to read as glazing) has been reduced/altered and while this building was probably never destined for any AIA awards to begin with, it's now simply an eyesore. From my downtown office, it reads as a big black wall constructed for no purpose other than to mask the developing lower Burnside skyline and it zaps all of the energy from the couplet as I'm headed in every morning. I hate this building, and I hope city fries the PDC-romancing developer that promised great things (to some) but delivered a pile of crap to save a few bucks.

Yeah, I'm steamed about this one because it alters the course of what was happening in lower Burnside - and not in a good way.

[petcarpdx]

I'm pet sitting in Kerns at the moment, which has me commuting right by Yard. With this discussion ongoing, I've been paying a lot of attention to what exactly has gone wrong. Here's what I've noticed:

- The fenestration has definitely changed since passing DR, but the new pattern seems to more or less match the old in terms of amount of glass distributed on each level.
- The most notable change to me is the choice of glass and, in particular, the difference between the color and reflective properties of the spandrel and vision glass. Neither is as reflective as the renderings suggested, and the spandrel glass is much darker and less reflective than the vision glass.
- The metal panels show their color just fine in sunlight, but appear black on gloomy days.

In my opinion, the thing that is most harming the project is my second observation. If the spandrel glass 1) matched the vision glass and 2) was more reflective, it would dramatically reduce the dark looming feel of the project. Additionally, eliminating the third material would dramatically reduce visual clutter and allow the "organized chaos" feel of the design to shine through.

This was one of my favorite new projects due to its uniqueness and position, and I've had the "wait and see" conversation with detractors many times. Unfortunately the more I've waited, the worse it has gotten.

[marlonwarren]

NESteve:
" I see this building every day. The debate about how the façade reads in different weather is laughable - the amount of glazing (or what was supposed to read as glazing) has been reduced/altered and while this building was probably never destined for any AIA awards to begin with, it's now simply an eyesore. From my downtown office, it reads as a big black wall constructed for no purpose other than to mask the developing lower Burnside skyline and it zaps all of the energy from the couplet as I'm headed in every morning. I hate this building, and I hope city fries the PDC-romancing developer that promised great things (to some) but delivered a pile of crap to save a few bucks."

Yeah, I'm steamed about this one because it alters the course of what was happening in lower Burnside - and not in a good way.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, thank you. Please send a copy of your statement to the Design Review Board or the Oregonian. The general public and people in power near to hear this. I felt so relieved after reading your post!

[Sioux612]

The only time this tower will look decent is at night.

I was excited about this project. The last time we had this unique of a design was Skylab's 'Weave' building that never got off the ground.

More reflective glass would've made a world of difference.

The developer ought to be outed. Given the location this will be a posterchild for Nimbyism against high-rise projects.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by Photogeric

I really don't get all the hatred for this building. These pics look pretty damn good to me. And the many times I've seen it up close in person, it looks just as good. Moreso as time goes on. It looks different in different lighting conditions and that is a GOOD thing. Not every building has to be relentlessly shiny like the Cosmopolitan. Talk about boring.

If your main critique is that it doesn't look as good as the renderings, then you're all gonna be very disappointed with almost every single building under construction today. NO NEW BUILDING looks exactly like its renderings. And I seriously doubt there was any shady goings on with the architect and/or the developer. That's just paranoid ramblings. You seriously don't think the city has been watching this building go up and been checking the drawings all along? Seriously? Get a grip!

[PacificNW]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

I really don't get all the hatred for this building. These pics look pretty damn good to me. And the many times I've seen it up close in person, it looks just as good. Moreso as time goes on. It looks different in different lighting conditions and that is a GOOD thing. Not every building has to be relentlessly shiny like the Cosmopolitan. Talk about boring.

If your main critique is that it doesn't look as good as the renderings, then you're all gonna be very disappointed with almost every single building under construction today. NO NEW BUILDING looks exactly like its renderings. And I seriously doubt there was any shady goings on with the architect and/or the developer. That's just paranoid ramblings. You seriously don't think the city has been watching this building go up and been checking the drawings all along? Seriously? Get a grip!

Thanks for reposting the pics. I, too, like it....

[innovativethinking]

Why didn't they just use the same material the ZGF tower has