Yard | 200' | 21 floors | Complete

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by BrG

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.

I can't imagine that happening. The Brown Behemoth is what we're stuck with. It's the Eastside Skyline Skidmarks.

[cityscapes]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

I can't imagine that happening. The Brown Behemoth is what we're stuck with. It's the Eastside Skyline Skidmarks.

Someone email BDS or the planner assigned to the project and bring the render / reality discrepancy to their attention and lets see what happens.

Not our city, but a neighboring city has a precedent for when this has happened. See here for the One Wall Centre glass color issue in Vancouver.

[Abide]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

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.

This sounds like a logical explanation for what we're seeing. The bottom of the tower matches the renderings perfectly, but now that they just attached the exterior on the 5th-from-top floor, there most definitely seems to be more glass on the equivalent floor in the rendering than in real life.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

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

Ah yes, shiny. Very, very shiny. Overbearingly so. Detail? Character? Not so much. But hey, if I was paying $1000/sf for a condo, I'd sure want something sparkly.

[Photogeric]

So two things in regards to that render. First off, the reflectiveness of the windows are way off in the renderings. Granted it is cloudy in these recent photos, but the windows essentially blend in with the structure at some angles. Also, the progression of the windows is all off. In the rendering it looks like it goes from around 40% windows on the lower floor to 100% on the top, when in reality it has been more like 40% to 60% at the current state with only a few more floors to go, so I am hard pressed to see them get anywhere close to 100% windows, like in the renderings. The vent systems on the side of the building don't help matters, and those weren't in the renderings.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

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

Agreed.


Realistically, what could be done at this point in the construction process if it's challenged? Would they be forced to strip down the exterior panels and essentially redo it, or would they just get a slap on the wrist on be told not to deviate that much from an approved design again? I, and many other Portlanders, don't want to be stuck with this bad of a design. It's in such a prominent location, we deserve better. People wouldn't hate on it so much if it didn't look like crap.

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by Derek

Agreed.


Realistically, what could be done at this point in the construction process if it's challenged? Would they be forced to strip down the exterior panels and essentially redo it, or would they just get a slap on the wrist on be told not to deviate that much from an approved design again? I, and many other Portlanders, don't want to be stuck with this bad of a design. It's in such a prominent location, we deserve better. People wouldn't hate on it so much if it didn't look like crap.

Pretty much. Maybe a slap on the wrist and a fine. But it's looking like we're stuck with this behemoth huge black wall. What a travesty. They should have just used all glass like the ZGF Tower on the other side of the river or something.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by Abide

The bottom of the tower matches the renderings perfectly

I'm not seeing that.

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Reality:

Originally Posted by Photogeric

The real thing looks so brown and dingy. Even if you only compare the bottom half of the images above, it's like night and day. Or, in this case, day and night.

[DMH]

In all of this discussion of the Skylab project, and for that matter, in discussions of many projects on this site, some folks keep referring to 'renderings' as 'renders'.

Render is normally a verb. Rendering is a noun, the product of the verb's action, so it is the correct word to describe the color 3-D images of buildings.

[AltJ]

Originally Posted by 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.

I am not in a position to comment on the details of this situation, but suffice it to say the Design Commission is well aware of the discrepancy between the renderings and what is being built. It appears that there were indeed changes to the design between DR and construction. It may be difficult for the city to force the developer to change what is currently under construction.

[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.

[zilfondel]

I agree with what you guys are saying in that the rendering doesn't match the built product. There does seem to be a lot less % of glazing the higher up you go - instead of the metal panels "tapering off" (so to speak), it seems a pretty constant 50% or so glazing/paneling.

However, don't forget that "renderings" are pretty much just an illustration - but the most accurate drawings for external views are actually the elevations. Renderings are almost never 100% accurate, due to the sheer amount of time needed to model AND render every. single. little. detail. Oftentimes renderings are simplified (especially window frames and structural details).

Unfortunately, people are heavily reliant upon 3d renderings as they most closely emulate what you actually see in real life! But not every company does them or can afford them. Or can afford to constantly recreate the building design in a 3d model for every iteration and change.

Still, I can't believe Jeff Kovel sat in front of an entire public audience and talked about his design concept becoming more glazed and reflective as you went further up... to have it gutted from the final design. Boo!

[i2m]

The differences between the renderings and reality here are huge. It is clearly more than some artistic license which is exercised in most projects,

In my projects, I have had city staff review every elevation and detail to verify that design review drawings match construction documents. I respect this kind of care and follow through.

Most major changes occur after design review and before building permits. Budget, code, and energy issues and pressures usually force changes before CDs are complete....and allow review by city staff.

I often use Design Review approval as leverage with my clients to resist design changes after design review. Before I submit to design review, I'm clear with clients that once approved, this is what we are building. I'm as committed to the city's design review as to my clients once approved.

Often small changes occur after design review and all of these should be resubmitted to city staff for approval - Although this rarely happens. Clients and architects make product substitutions and small design changes almost weekly and never review these with the city.

This project suffers from BIG design changes that were not reviewed by the city. The city will never require corrections although it's a significant problem for this design and developer team in the future.

I'm disappointed the architect didn't press for city review of budget or energy changes. The client wouldn't be happy although this building will be here for 75+ years - and your reputation as an architect is worth much more than the love of any one client.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

However, don't forget that "renderings" are pretty much just an illustration - but the most accurate drawings for external views are actually the elevations.

This is true, but the facade that is installed doesn't seem to match the elevations either. This is what was approved by the Design Commission (click through for a super high resolution copy):

[RainDog]

I took a walk by this project earlier today and took a couple photos that might illuminate what is going on here.

The paneling is definitely a matte black, not brown. There are panels that appear to be a glossy black, or some kind of glass... or possibly windows... It is hard to tell. Those glossy panels do increase in frequency as the building increases in height... However at a distance they are virtually indistinguishable from the flat panels.

In the picture below you can see what I am talking about. On the top row of this picture, second from the right you see one of the glossy panels. Even standing right up next to the building it is hard to see the difference.



And further away...

[urbanlife]

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.

And there is the let down we have all been expecting. This sucks for such an iconic location for a building. Could you imagine if they cut costs with Big Pink, we would have an awful second tallest building.

I get the energy efficiency part, but the cheapness part just bothers me. Just charge more for rent, they are already gonna charge an arm an a leg to begin with, or better yet, why not cut into the profits a little so an iconic building doesn't look cheap.

[marlonwarren]

" 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."

A) I wish the City would have done their job right the first time and held Skylab to a higher standard. Is this another Portland Building in the making?

B) Do we know how much was cut from the original budget

C) If they would have used the more expensive reflective glass would it increase energy efficiency.

D) Right now the windows are non reflective and the metal panels appear the wrong cost-cutting-low budget finish was applied.

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.

We as Portlanders deserve a better design solution on such a important site.

[innovativethinking]

Damn what a total disaster this has been. I wonder when the news media will pick it up..

[soleri]

I'm going to speculate here that the problem here might be Skylab's lack of experience with major projects. Their inability to correctly estimate material costs led to a lowball construction bid, which they then took to the bank in Hood River. I can't imagine Jeff Kovel would simply let his reputation be tarnished for reasons of greed. It had to be the kind of money-crunch that became a trap. At any rate, that's my guess.

[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.