250 Taylor & Hyatt Unbound | 130'-0" & 245'-6" | 10 & 21 floors | Completed & Dead - Page 13

Abide · #**241** Posted **Apr 27, 2016, 6:35 AM**

I think the design is fugly.

cailes · #**242** Posted **Apr 28, 2016, 2:10 AM**

That slanted roof from the sidecar to the transition between buildings looks like something I would have doodled in grade school. Make it boxy to match the auditorium or don't match it at all.

maccoinnich · #**243** Posted **Apr 28, 2016, 7:28 PM**

Drawings [PDF - 25MB].

urbanlife · #**244** Posted **Apr 28, 2016, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Drawings [PDF - 25MB].

It looks like they have really cleaned up the design, looking much better....though it actually makes me wish this hotel were a bit taller. Though it will still be quite a lose to lose the old Lotus Room building.

Derek · #**245** Posted **Apr 28, 2016, 8:17 PM**

I agree 100%, urbanlife. This is a decent looking tower. I wouldn't mind if it was another couple hundred feet tall either.

tworivers · #**246** Posted **Apr 28, 2016, 8:32 PM**

I feel like Ankrom is stretched thin design-wise on this one. The east face of the building looks like it has potential. The sidecar, though, looks to me like something from 90's-era DC. I don't see it engaging in any conversation whatsoever with the beautiful Auditorium building, other than, maybe: "wait, you're still there? I totally forgot!".

I wish they'd keep the Albion and do something creative with it -- renovate it and add a penthouse on top -- and make the hotel taller. I don't think this combination of developer and architecture firm has the vision and talent necessary to do something interesting/smart here.

The "progress" and "property rights" arguments in favor of demolition on this site do nothing for me. We'll just have to agree to disagree. There's no black-and-white answer: it comes down to values and how much control the public (via government, e.g. the Design Commission) should have over private enterprise when it comes to private undertakings in the public sphere.

MarkDaMan · #**247** Posted **Apr 28, 2016, 9:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers

I feel like Ankrom is stretched thin design-wise on this one. The east face of the building looks like it has potential. The sidecar, though, looks to me like something from 90's-era DC. I don't see it engaging in any conversation whatsoever with the beautiful Auditorium building, other than, maybe: "wait, you're still there? I totally forgot!".

I wish they'd keep the Albion and do something creative with it -- renovate it and add a penthouse on top -- and make the hotel taller. I don't think this combination of developer and architecture firm has the vision and talent necessary to do something interesting/smart here.

The "progress" and "property rights" arguments in favor of demolition on this site do nothing for me. We'll just have to agree to disagree. There's no black-and-white answer: it comes down to values and how much control the public (via government, e.g. the Design Commission) should have over private enterprise when it comes to private undertakings in the public sphere.

The problem with keeping the Albion (more than it's dilapidated state) is that they need to build a high quality contiguous event center across the entire second floor. If they only had the quarter block, they couldn't fit in a 4,000 square footish ballroom with necessary breakout space. While guest room RevPAR is at an all time high, hotels need to attract events to fill the hotel when demand isn't summer hot.

2oh1 · #**248** Posted **Apr 29, 2016, 1:39 AM**

I know it's a ridiculous thought, but I wish they could save the brick mural from behind the Lotus and build it into their lobby. Ridiculous, I know, but it's a neat piece of history I hate to see disappear. Then again, it's been covered by ads for years... so, in a sense, it already disappeared. Sigh...

I agree with urbanlife. The tower appears to have been cleaned up quite a bit, and it's looking good.

tworivers · #**249** Posted **Apr 29, 2016, 4:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2oh1

I know it's a ridiculous thought, but I wish they could save the brick mural from behind the Lotus and build it into their lobby.

Not ridiculous at all. Cool idea -- the kind of thing that would reflect good values on the part of the developer in terms of respecting history and not merely fulfilling some pro forma bullshit.

Mark, thanks for the info about the event center. I didn't realize that. I suppose that renovating the Albion in such a way that the two 2nd floors lined up, creating one vast space, would be too expensive.

Honestly, I'd be fine if they came back with a compromise to take down the Albion but save the Temple. I'm realistic like that. Or take down both but build something world-class. Losing both buildings to a developer who saw fit to hire Ankrom as their architect doesn't sit well with me.

maccoinnich · #**250** Posted **May 4, 2016, 5:49 AM**

Ankrom Moisan Architects have submitted the office portion of 3rd & Taylor for Design Review:

Quote:

New 10 story creative office building with ground floor retail space, bicycle parking, and rooftop amenities.

maccoinnich · #**251** Posted **May 9, 2016, 7:42 PM**

Images from last week's Design Review hearing. Write up at Next Portland.

maccoinnich · #**252** Posted **Jun 9, 2016, 5:30 AM**

Revised drawings [PDF - 24MB].

2oh1 · #**253** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 2:20 AM**

Ugh. It looks like they're dumbing it down. The west facing sides had such nice clean lines as seen in the images above. Now, the parts of the west faces of the building are getting blocky (the darker section of the building). The east facing side is more blocky now too. The clean lines above looked better.

ORNative · #**254** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 8:28 PM**

I am so very disappointed. The original design was beautiful and I thought it was one of the most elegant new buildings of the past several years. Very disappointed with the changes.

tworivers · #**255** Posted **Jun 10, 2016, 9:13 PM**

I'm not going to mince words. I hate this thing. Not nearly worth the trade-off of losing a historic fabric building --and a unique one at that, if awkward. I get an overwhelming sense of the 1980's in this design, especially the sidecar, but maybe that's just me. I feel like I should be doing a line of coke off of it.

Go taller with the tower and leave the Temple alone, then I'll no longer care so much about the Ankrom-ing of the design itself.

Rob Nob · #**256** Posted **Jun 11, 2016, 12:22 AM**

This project doesn't sit on the Temple building site.

maccoinnich · #**257** Posted **Jun 11, 2016, 12:46 AM**

Revised Staff Report, which recommends approval.

tworivers · #**258** Posted **Jun 11, 2016, 1:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Nob

This project doesn't sit on the Temple building site.

You're right, my bad. I only feel slightly less unhappy realizing that this is the Lotus site. This whole project just sucks IMO. Bottom line developer without vision + a service firm not up to the task.

eric cantona · #**259** Posted **Jun 11, 2016, 1:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers

You're right, my bad. I only feel slightly less unhappy realizing that this is the Lotus site. This whole project just sucks IMO. Bottom line developer without vision + a service firm not up to the task.

+1. strongly.

Abide · #**260** Posted **Jun 12, 2016, 7:06 AM**

They did improve the west side quite a bit, but yeah, I think it's quite blah overall.