HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Downtown & City of Portland


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2018, 9:46 PM
BrG BrG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcmeGreg View Post
When I think of "architect" the words that come to mind are inspiration and design rather than "building within specs". The latter is important, and of course it depends upon the nature of the project (and the architect) but I would hope that most would be pre-disposed to the former.

A developer has any number of architects from which to choose, and through their choice will serve notice as to the intentions for the property. If for example they choose – oh I don't know, Santiago Calatrava they would send a certain signal re their desire for a "compelling" structure. The choice of a "starchitect" would of course make all sorts of statements vis-a-vis the type of project they envision. This developer chose TVA. No Calatrava, but still one of the more discerning firms in town which perhaps is why the solution is somewhat disappointing. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not distinguished. This is a significant building, and it makes me wonder what this developer had in mind when choosing a firm whose portfolio includes local reference points such as the John Ross, Fox tower, and PAW – all examples of interesting design and great attention to detail. Seems like there are any number of less-accomplished firms in town who would have provided them with the same result TVA has produced here. Were they expecting more?
The parts you are missing in your description of the architect is 'paid by and answering to' the client. Always. No matter the stature of the firm. It's a business. So, the fee the developer pays an architect will have a huge determination in architect selection.

Additionally, the part that is missing for the developer description is 'beholden to the investor group and/or bank'. They don't play with their own money, except for guys that have a ton of it like Joe Weston. If the fee is too high in the proforma, the banks/investors get uninterested quickly.

You can propose all the innovative, thoughtful design in the world and if the developer cant 'sell' the idea to investors with a pro-forma that yields, you have no project.

Is there an opportunity for this building to be better? Probably. Is the answer the equivalent of hiring a Calatrava type whenever you want a great building? No. (Besides, since the example is Calatrava's design genius ... that is offset by his immense financial, budgetary and and construct-ability problems.)

TVA isn't the problem. Plenty of talented people there. The building is a simply composed, developer driven box. Low and fat, like the city of Portland zoning directs nearly all massing towards, and the developers gladly oblige.

Last edited by BrG; Jan 16, 2018 at 10:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2018, 1:31 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrG View Post
The parts you are missing in your description of the architect is 'paid by and answering to' the client. Always. No matter the stature of the firm. It's a business. So, the fee the developer pays an architect will have a huge determination in architect selection.

Additionally, the part that is missing for the developer description is 'beholden to the investor group and/or bank'. They don't play with their own money, except for guys that have a ton of it like Joe Weston. If the fee is too high in the proforma, the banks/investors get uninterested quickly.

You can propose all the innovative, thoughtful design in the world and if the developer cant 'sell' the idea to investors with a pro-forma that yields, you have no project.

Is there an opportunity for this building to be better? Probably. Is the answer the equivalent of hiring a Calatrava type whenever you want a great building? No. (Besides, since the example is Calatrava's design genius ... that is offset by his immense financial, budgetary and and construct-ability problems.)

TVA isn't the problem. Plenty of talented people there. The building is a simply composed, developer driven box. Low and fat, like the city of Portland zoning directs nearly all massing towards, and the developers gladly oblige.
This is where an architect has to be able to sell design in money terms. Talk about how much money something will save either up front or in the long run is about the only way to push design ideas. The whole concept of going to college to learn all these creative ideas, then working in the industry only to find out that nothing you learned in college can be applied is really depressing about the architecture industry. It isn't the architects that design the world, it is those that fund the projects that design the world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2018, 6:44 PM
AcmeGreg AcmeGreg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrG View Post

TVA isn't the problem. Plenty of talented people there. The building is a simply composed, developer driven box. Low and fat, like the city of Portland zoning directs nearly all massing towards, and the developers gladly oblige.
So with that in mind I guess I'll give Skylab a pat on the back for at least making an attempt to redefine your developer/zoning-driven massed box. Hypothetically speaking, I wonder what a Calatrava, Mayne or Hadid might propose for a project like this? Could they work within the constraints (including design fees) and produce architecture befitting their stature?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2018, 7:22 PM
eric cantona's Avatar
eric cantona eric cantona is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcmeGreg View Post
So with that in mind I guess I'll give Skylab a pat on the back for at least making an attempt to redefine your developer/zoning-driven massed box. Hypothetically speaking, I wonder what a Calatrava, Mayne or Hadid might propose for a project like this? Could they work within the constraints (including design fees) and produce architecture befitting their stature?
architect's fees run a continuum based on a number of factors. the higher profile, in general, the higher the fees. that works at the scale of Portland, as well. in general, LRS/Mackenzie will be less expensive than Scott Edwards, who will likely be less than BOORA, who will likely be less than Hacker, who will likely be less than Allied Works. Nothing's set in stone, and sometimes offices take on projects for a variety of reasons other than profit, so it's all relative.

someone like Calatrava has international "standing", and would presumably not find a spec apartment building in Portland to meet whatever metrics they use when deciding to accept (or propose) to work on a project. there's a reason why Allied's portfolio of work in town is so skimpy. One is that developers and public clients can't afford the necessarylevel of iterative process that top design firms require to come up with such compelling work. another is that to keep that "standing" in the world of design they need to be very, very selective in the projects they work on.

tl/dr version: high design = high cost in both process and construction, generally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2018, 12:28 AM
BrG BrG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcmeGreg View Post
So with that in mind I guess I'll give Skylab a pat on the back for at least making an attempt to redefine your developer/zoning-driven massed box. Hypothetically speaking, I wonder what a Calatrava, Mayne or Hadid might propose for a project like this? Could they work within the constraints (including design fees) and produce architecture befitting their stature?
Skylab's design parameters actually benefited from the client not pursuing a max F.A.R. scheme. As I recall, that site allowed for 12 to 1 ratio (site/built area). They proposed closer to 9 to 1. Less floor area to be stuffed on the site. I'd hazard a guess based on this project's massing that TVA was not afforded the same luxury by their client. Less leeway to 'sculpt a shape' when you have to grab area wherever you can.

Skylab also deserved credit for cranking the plan 30 or so degrees, to let the single 'bow-tie' shaped mass extend longer (without creating an 'L' shape) to achieve the floor area per level, that was a target. They also deserve credit for convincing the client this was a good design idea, because it meant a less efficient garage layout below. The idea wouldn't have made it past a client design meeting unless the developer was into it. Too bad the exterior of the tower portion fell prey to budget woes and it looks like it does. Blech. Not uncommon to have happen tho.

My opinion: Calatrava designing a PDX developer driven apartment stumpscraper wouldn't happen, because his firm wouldn't take the project on. Not enough potential design 'meat on the bone', when doing one with Portland based financial metrics. The same building (apartment NOT condo) in Manhattan, downtown SFO, LA or Miami all might be different. Those markets could perhaps support a far more costly design. If it was a lux condo, maybe he'd try it if the fee was right. I bet he'd do a bridge here if asked. He did one in semi-rural Redding, CA. As I remember his proposed and ultimately constructed design cost like 6 times the initial budget. The process to achieve it was painful for all involved, especially for the non-profit McConnell Foundation who struggled to raise the funding to keep up with the staggering cost overruns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 2:13 AM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcmeGreg View Post
So with that in mind I guess I'll give Skylab a pat on the back for at least making an attempt to redefine your developer/zoning-driven massed box.
Not at all.

They designed a building that couldn't be built with the budget they had to work with. FAIL.

They designed a building that couldn't meet environmental requirements they had to meet. EPIC FAIL.

Skylab should be embarrassed of their work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 8:16 AM
johnliu johnliu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 197
So I am curious, is there a better design that might have been possible given what you can guess about the budget and FAR requirements? I'm not asking anyone to do sketches or the like. Just wanted to get a sense if you all think this design was likely the best possible within the constraints.

I think that eventually, more of the riverfront will get cleaned up and developed. The buildings lining the river will be very prominent, nothing to hide them. It would be a real shame if we don't have a really nice riverfront. The Yard is a blow. Unclear how MLK will look but probably an improvement. Hopefully the Zidell buildings will be great. If the tall towers are built in Riverplace, they could be very striking. Someday I5 may come down. Then the Willamette could become a corridor of high rises. It is really important, I think, that they be good or better than good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 5:25 PM
eric cantona's Avatar
eric cantona eric cantona is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
Not at all.

They designed a building that couldn't be built with the budget they had to work with. FAIL.

They designed a building that couldn't meet environmental requirements they had to meet. EPIC FAIL.

Skylab should be embarrassed of their work.
There is not enough information available to support your fairly malicious assertions. That is not to say that SKylab may be culpable to some degree, but we really can't know based on the public record.

As an example: I went to UofO in the eighties. The Architecture and Allied Arts building at that time was a structure entirely devoid of ornamentation or warmth. Concrete floors, walls, and ceilings. Virtually no wood anywhere to be seen. Not an inspiring place for artists, architects, and the like to hone their respective crafts. I was told, at some point during my time there, that during excavation for the foundation it was discovered that there was an underground stream running directly below where the building was going up. In order to finish the construction a large chunk of the budget went into the foundation that was not in the original budget. Apparently there was no additional money available for that unforeseen circumstance, so the building was stripped of any non-essential elements in order to meet the budget.

The point, if it's not obvious, is that shit happens. Developers usually set aside contingency funds in their budgets for the little surprises that can occur during construction, and which happen on nearly any project. But buildings are incredibly complex undertakings that require the design teams to make assumptions about subgrade conditions, subcontractor availability, financing requirements, market conditions, and numerous others that effect the budget, which effects the final product. That said, the skills of the architect and construction teams can alleviate a lot of situations simply by having deep experience in what they're tasked with doing.

Until any of us have the full picture it is impossible to fully lay blame at the the feet of any of the players. From my understanding, Skylab made some mistakes and played a bit loose with BDS on Design Review issues. Do they shoulder some of the blame for the end result? Absolutely. But from experience, I would wager that they most likely were not making any of the decisions on the factors that directly influenced the aesthetic issues plaguing the building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 8:56 PM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,389
I'm not going to delete any posts, but any further discussion of Yard should happen in the thread for the building. It's a controversial building where a lot of people have strong feelings so let's keep the debate about it over in that part of the forum.
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

www.twitter.com/maccoinnich
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2018, 9:30 PM
subterranean subterranean is offline
Registered Ugly
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Portland
Posts: 3,628
Quote:

A Fight Over The Height of Portland’s Skyline is Raging. Who Wins May Determine Whether The City’s Housing Crisis Ever Ends.
Jan 23, 2018 at 9:32 PM by Rachel Monahan

A Fight Over The Height of Portland’s Skyline is Raging. Who Wins May Determine Whether The City’s Housing Crisis Ever Ends. “What are we coming to?
Source: http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2018/...sis-ever-ends/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 6:54 AM
johnliu johnliu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 197
Residents of one skyscraper complaining that another planned skyscraper will block their view?

When they bought their condos, they knew full well that other skyscrapers could be built around them.

When we talk about protecting views, I think we should focus on views for the general public using public streets and parks, not views for the owners of specific units in the Cosmopolitan.

That's my "view", anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 7:42 AM
TurnKey TurnKey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 5
Mrs. Penkin just needs to think about this a little differently.

In fact, Fremont Place is adding lots of housing with an un-obstructable view of "the most expensive piece of art in Portland." She should consider renting a unit there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 5:10 PM
petcarpdx petcarpdx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnliu View Post
When we talk about protecting views, I think we should focus on views for the general public using public streets and parks, not views for the owners of specific units in the Cosmopolitan.
I agree with your point, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment and point out that one of the views being partially obstructed is the view from Fields Park. I work nearby and am a little disappointed at that, but there are other views of the bridge. Increasing density is more important than preserving every pretty view in the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 5:57 PM
Leo Leo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by petcarpdx View Post
I agree with your point, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment and point out that one of the views being partially obstructed is the view from Fields Park. I work nearby and am a little disappointed at that, but there are other views of the bridge. Increasing density is more important than preserving every pretty view in the city.
Yeah, losing the bridge view from the park would be a shame. There are plenty of places to increase density in this neighborhood before we have to worry about running out of land ...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 8:43 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo View Post
Yeah, losing the bridge view from the park would be a shame. There are plenty of places to increase density in this neighborhood before we have to worry about running out of land ...
Why would that be a shame? The park was only built, what, 5 years ago? It doesn't have any dedicated viewpoints nor should it. There's a super long waterfront walk with terrific views of the Fremont that will never be obstructed. If we "protected" every view someone in Portland doesn't want to lose, we'd be even more stumpier than we already are.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2018, 11:18 PM
Leo Leo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
Why would that be a shame? The park was only built, what, 5 years ago? It doesn't have any dedicated viewpoints nor should it. There's a super long waterfront walk with terrific views of the Fremont that will never be obstructed. If we "protected" every view someone in Portland doesn't want to lose, we'd be even more stumpier than we already are.
Age and “should” have nothing to do with it. And just because I said I would like one viewpoint to not be destroyed, it does not follow that none should be destroyed. We have lost some as the neighborhood developed; we will lose more as the neighborhood continues to develop. It would be very nice to preserve some views from public gathering places.

I enjoy views from public parks much more than I enjoy tall buildings. Frankly, I’d prefer destroying old buildings to build tall modern buildings instead of destroying views from public parks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2018, 12:55 AM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo View Post
Age and “should” have nothing to do with it. And just because I said I would like one viewpoint to not be destroyed, it does not follow that none should be destroyed. We have lost some as the neighborhood developed; we will lose more as the neighborhood continues to develop. It would be very nice to preserve some views from public gathering places.

I enjoy views from public parks much more than I enjoy tall buildings. Frankly, I’d prefer destroying old buildings to build tall modern buildings instead of destroying views from public parks.
Having been on the discussion about the Fields Park since before Tanner Creek was even under construction, there has never been talk about preserving viewpoints from any one of the Pearl District parks. Same argument could have been used on Tanner Springs and stopped the Cosmo, and now some of the Cosmo owners now want to stop the "next Cosmo" from going forward. Views in a central city should not be expected to be preserved in the vast majority of cases. Those that are preserved should be made through a public process and again, should be limited in the central city.

As for your point about the "one viewpoint" you'd prefer not to be disrupted, there's tens of thousands of citizens that live in the central city. Should each person have just "one viewpoint" they want to preserve, it would literally stop all development.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2018, 5:46 PM
AcmeGreg AcmeGreg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 131
What the heck are we talking about here? I mean ok, there's nothing that stirs my soul more than an intimate view of the Fremont Bridge while sitting in the grass with my honey. Bottle of wine. Crackers and brie. Faint aroma of hydrocarbons. Sound of air brakes, hum of a million tires, honking horns. Peeling paint. Not exactly the St. John's, Tillikum or Calatrava's Puente del Alamillo (sorry, got a thing). I guess if you've taken a place in the Cosmo with a view downriver the big arch would add some interest at sunset. Sitting in that park I'd be more concerned with blindness from the reflected bling on the NV, or third-degree sunburn from the giant mirror next door.

Or sitting in a big pile of poop because the owner of a Neopolitan Mastiff living in a nearby 500 s.f. apartment couldn't keep his doggie on a leash.

This bridge is best experienced from a distance. Like, way far away. My personal favorite is the view upriver from the UP bluffs, the bridge appearing quite elegant from that vantage point. Also, driving south into town on I-5 at dusk when the city just unfolds before you, twinkling lights on the hills, bridge looking quite magnificent as it peels off (!) toward the Pearl hi-rises, downtown towers in the distance: a compressed view that makes our little town seem like a big city indeed. Getting misty-eyed now...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2018, 5:47 PM
Leo Leo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
Having been on the discussion about the Fields Park since before Tanner Creek was even under construction, there has never been talk about preserving viewpoints from any one of the Pearl District parks. Same argument could have been used on Tanner Springs and stopped the Cosmo, and now some of the Cosmo owners now want to stop the "next Cosmo" from going forward. Views in a central city should not be expected to be preserved in the vast majority of cases. Those that are preserved should be made through a public process and again, should be limited in the central city.

As for your point about the "one viewpoint" you'd prefer not to be disrupted, there's tens of thousands of citizens that live in the central city. Should each person have just "one viewpoint" they want to preserve, it would literally stop all development.
Sure, I understand all of that. Frankly, I don't care whether there has ever been "talk about" preserving viewpoints from public parks before. I would support preserving some viewpoints from some public parks for public interest. I would not support preserving viewpoints from people's private property.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2018, 3:49 AM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo View Post
Sure, I understand all of that. Frankly, I don't care whether there has ever been "talk about" preserving viewpoints from public parks before. I would support preserving some viewpoints from some public parks for public interest. I would not support preserving viewpoints from people's private property.
There are a dozens and dozens of public viewpoints that have been reviewed and preserved, many of them in parks.

I've never actually come across this document before but the Google machine is an amazing thing.

I do stand corrected, there has apparently been consideration to preserving the Fremont view from The Fields. The ESEE analysis recommends allowing development that obscures the view. The explanation:

Quote:
The economic benefits of redeveloping the
impacted Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) site
outweigh protecting this Tier II view. In addition,
there are multiple other views of Fremont
Bridge.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/564214
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot

Last edited by MarkDaMan; Jan 27, 2018 at 4:36 AM. Reason: clarifying
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Downtown & City of Portland
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:40 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.