100 Multnomah (lloyd) | x | 19 floors | Dead - Page 5

pdxtraveler · #81 Posted **Apr 25, 2008, 2:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

The Lloyd has great transportation alternatives in addition to great views. For eastsiders, it's an easy commute by three MAX lines, potentially four if folks in nopo don't mind a short walk from Rose Quarter. Westsiders have to troll through downtown though. It's also easily bikeable and has express bus service from several places in the region (Vancouver and SE portland). The district has a very successful transportation management association and relatively low drive-alone mode share. Getting more development, especially more 24-hour activity (ie. entertainment, restaurants, retail and residential) can make this a great place, especially if the Lloyd Crossing plan is realized (the sustainable component).

I totally agree. The Lloyd transporation management association is phenomenal. My company used to be over there and the years Tri-Met pass was SO affordable through them. I never drove to work.

I never had a problem with the Lloyd District, yeah it could be a bit more lively but it had great amenities. I never lacked for somewhere to go at lunch.

zilfondel · #82 Posted **Apr 25, 2008, 4:46 PM**

the only thing that the Lloyd District needs is a few more large buildings and some food carts... and it'll be a done deal!

CouvScott · #83 Posted **May 23, 2008, 1:52 PM**

cab · #84 Posted **May 23, 2008, 2:09 PM**

It needs housing mixed in and around Lloyd center and the convention center to really pop as an area. Ashford Pacific is the key. If they finally start building that huge project on 7th then other will follow.

rsbear · #85 Posted **May 23, 2008, 2:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CouvScott

Well that design couldn't be any bigger of a disappointment if they actually tried to be disappointing.

pdxtraveler · #86 Posted **May 23, 2008, 3:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cab

It needs housing mixed in and around Lloyd center and the convention center to really pop as an area. Ashford Pacific is the key. If they finally start building that huge project on 7th then other will follow.

I agree, cab. That super block development was a great concept. I think it is still on GBD's website.

NJD · #87 Posted **May 23, 2008, 3:12 PM**

I'm so glad someone is blocking all the SB I-5 traffics views of those hideous OCC towers... it will be so appropriate to have a slab building as our city's welcome mat instead.

smendesPDX · #88 Posted **May 23, 2008, 4:32 PM**

that building is garbage. GET IT OUT OF OUR CITY!

cab · #89 Posted **May 23, 2008, 5:34 PM**

I mean look at those views, this building doesn't even try to maximize them. At least turn the slab at and angle on top of a pedestal. Is this an architect issue or a developer? Do architects even TRY and suggest alternatives or are they full bore with the whole full block clean slab design?

urbanlife · #90 Posted **May 24, 2008, 2:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cab

I mean look at those views, this building doesn't even try to maximize them. At least turn the slab at and angle on top of a pedestal. Is this an architect issue or a developer? Do architects even TRY and suggest alternatives or are they full bore with the whole full block clean slab design?

this is what happens when you have a firm that handicaps itself by the developer. The firm could try and suggest ideas or put together presentations for the developer by saying angling it this way would allow for higher profits for the views it would capture. But in cases like this, a developer comes in says I need a tower to cost this much with this square footage and the architect comes back with something like this because it is easy and a large firm can push this out without spending too much money on their part. And who knows the architect might be telling himself crap like, "giving the developer what they want here means we will be able to be more experimental on other projects, which is just a load of crap."

Basically the problem is an architect that managed to lose there balls somewhere along the line and a developer who has zero taste and has no idea how a city functions properly and how they can be apart of that solution. So that is who you blame for this crap. (granted you can also blame the banks for not funding experimental projects or architecture that pushed the limits, they like to fund projects that have been proven over and over, like the big box.)

westsider · #91 Posted **May 27, 2008, 6:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CouvScott

That is one strange design, it seems like a building plan that was dug out of a file from '86.

RED_PDXer · #92 Posted **May 28, 2008, 6:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by westsider

That is one strange design, it seems like a building plan that was dug out of a file from '86.

Maybe it's from the 60's/70's.. it kinda matches the buildings in the Lloyd today..

philopdx · #93 Posted **May 28, 2008, 8:05 AM**

I'd like to see a closer look at the street-level interaction. I'm sure they can do something to spruce the design up!

bvpcvm · #94 Posted **May 28, 2008, 8:24 AM**

this building's getting a lot of criticism, but let's keep in mind that renderings don't really depict how things turn out. i remember a lot of initial praise for what we now call the fugjoy (maybe only praise in comparison to the safeway building), as well as a lot of criticism of both the atwater and ladd tower - both of which have been complimented on this forum lately.

scottyboi · #95 Posted **May 28, 2008, 6:18 PM**

Why isn't it possible to do a 3720-style building in this spot...or god forbid, in downtown PDX...why are we stuck with slab building at every turn?

MarkDaMan · #96 Posted **May 29, 2008, 4:31 PM**

^welcome to the forum scottyboi

How accurate of a rendering is this? Look at the Wells Fargo in the distance. I would like to see more detailed renderings but my initial thought is that it is a step back and extremely boring.

urbanlife · #97 Posted **May 29, 2008, 6:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

this building's getting a lot of criticism, but let's keep in mind that renderings don't really depict how things turn out. i remember a lot of initial praise for what we now call the fugjoy (maybe only praise in comparison to the safeway building), as well as a lot of criticism of both the atwater and ladd tower - both of which have been complimented on this forum lately.

I still hate the Ladd, the base looks like it belongs on a fancy strip mall.

BrG · #98 Posted **May 29, 2008, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife

this is what happens when you have a firm that handicaps itself by the developer. The firm could try and suggest ideas or put together presentations for the developer by saying angling it this way would allow for higher profits for the views it would capture. But in cases like this, a developer comes in says I need a tower to cost this much with this square footage and the architect comes back with something like this because it is easy and a large firm can push this out without spending too much money on their part. And who knows the architect might be telling himself crap like, "giving the developer what they want here means we will be able to be more experimental on other projects, which is just a load of crap."

Basically the problem is an architect that managed to lose there balls somewhere along the line and a developer who has zero taste and has no idea how a city functions properly and how they can be apart of that solution. So that is who you blame for this crap. (granted you can also blame the banks for not funding experimental projects or architecture that pushed the limits, they like to fund projects that have been proven over and over, like the big box.)

Wow, this post couldn't find the water of reality, if it fell out of a boat.

Good attempt at fantasy though. Holy Cats.

mudshark · #99 Posted **May 30, 2008, 7:42 AM**

Forget the neighborhood, they should just call the whole city of Portland "Slabtown." This city has no balls when it comes to imagination and innovation in the building design department.

The bland, no-guts approach to most of the architecture (with some exceptions) proposed in PDX is becoming annoying. This city is afraid to honk its horn. So much potential. So much of it never comes to fruition. And Portland has a reputation for being progressive (?)...We get a cool building about as often as a "sun break" in May.

I love this city, maybe that's why it bugs me so much. This design is a great reflection to how Portland drivers merge onto freeways; clueless, scared, afraid to go out on a limb, the list goes on. Is it a full moon? Jeeeezzzz....Come on Portland, maybe it's time to put down the latte's and drink a good strong cup of coffee.

Yawn.....

dkealoha · #**100** Posted **Apr 20, 2014, 8:11 PM**

Considering all of the recent activity around this area with the Milano finished, "Burgerville apartments" under construction and ongoing talk about the Hyatt, has anyone heard anything about the proposed office building on the empty block at 1st & Multnomah?

Portland Maps says the block is still owned by the city and the last mention of this project I can find is that this company updated their renderings in Feb. 2011.

More renderings on Ankrom Moisan's website.