Field Office (2 buildings) | 84'-0" | 6 floors | Complete

[maccoinnich]

[58rhodes]

looks like a great place -I like this one

[2oh1]

The yoga rendering is silly, but man oh man does the use of wood here look amazing. If it looks like that when it's actually built, it'll be fantastic.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

If it looks like that when it's actually built, it'll be fantastic.

So when this is built and it doesn't look like the renderings (and let's face it, the finished product NEVER looks like the renderings), is everybody here then gonna hate on it because it isn't shiny enough? Or woodsy enough? Or exactly like they imagined it would be?

And it goes both ways too. Sometimes the renderings are crap, but the building turns out to be pretty decent after all.

[PacificNW]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

So when this is built and it doesn't look like the renderings (and let's face it, the finished product NEVER looks like the renderings), is everybody here then gonna hate on it because it isn't shiny enough? Or woodsy enough? Or exactly like they imagined it would be?

And it goes both ways too. Sometimes the renderings are crap, but the building turns out to be pretty decent after all.

[Derek]

The difference is that this isn't a high rise in a prominent location. I agree this project looks great in the renderings, but the finished product won't have the same impact that Yard has.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

So when this is built and it doesn't look like the renderings (and let's face it, the finished product NEVER looks like the renderings), is everybody here then gonna hate on it because it isn't shiny enough?

Are you suggesting that we're wrong for calling out Skylab? There's no point of a design review if developers can show off pretty pictures that are pure fiction and then build whatever they want. Then again, it's also true that there's no point of a design review if the developers aren't held accountable for not building what they agreed to.

You said it yourself:

Originally Posted by 65MAX

How is it possible that the Yard didn't do an energy code analysis?

I think it's foolish to NOT call Skylab out on their ineptness.

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.

So, it's about more than just meeting energy efficiency standards, though that is obviously a major factor. But there is also post design review cost cutting. And we don't even know if we've seen the worst of it yet because we haven't seen what the base of the tower will end up looking like other than in these works of fiction:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

I think we're right to complain. The Yard is such a high profile project. Skylab should be embarrassed. I certainly hope there are repercussions.

The difference between the Skylab debacle and the project in this thread ("Field Office") is that this one is nowhere near as high profile. But, to answer your question... if these renderings turn out to be pure fiction too, and the wood that I commented so positively on ends up being nasty cheap looking metal panels (for example), you can be sure I'll complain, and I'd hope I'm not the only one.

What's the point of having a design review if the developers can significantly cheapen and dumb down designs after they've approved but build anyway?

[bvpcvm]

Could someone ELI5 why we're so certain this is Skylab's fault, rather than the developer's?

I don't think any of us really know what happened here. Maybe Skylab came up with their design, got it approved and then later on the developer came back and asked them to value engineer it. In this case, it seems like Skylab could still legitimately show off a design that would have worked if the developer was less cost-conscious. Alternatively, maybe the developer made changes without even consulting Skylab (is this possible? not an architect).

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

Could someone ELI5 why we're so certain this is Skylab's fault, rather than the developer's?

I don't think any of us really know what happened here. Maybe Skylab came up with their design, got it approved and then later on the developer came back and asked them to value engineer it. In this case, it seems like Skylab could still legitimately show off a design that would have worked if the developer was less cost-conscious. Alternatively, maybe the developer made changes without even consulting Skylab (is this possible? not an architect).

That's a good point which I'll be the first to admit I hadn't taken into consideration. Who is the developer? And whose job is it to make sure the building meets specific energy standards?

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

So when this is built and it doesn't look like the renderings (and let's face it, the finished product NEVER looks like the renderings), is everybody here then gonna hate on it because it isn't shiny enough? Or woodsy enough? Or exactly like they imagined it would be?

And it goes both ways too. Sometimes the renderings are crap, but the building turns out to be pretty decent after all.

Not always, there have been a number of buildings built here that I liked the rendering and the final built building. The projects in the Slabtown neighborhood are all examples of that. Heck, SoWa, I have been pleased with most of the buildings there as well.

The Skylab building is turning out to be a complete let down from the rendering beyond just not being as flashy as the rendering.

[maccoinnich]

I don't see the facade as being the tough element to pull off on this one. The landscaping is what has the potential to make this exceptional (or a bit of a letdown).

[maccoinnich]

Hacker Architects have submitted the Field Office for building permit review:

below grade parking structure and foundation work includes mechancail

[maccoinnich]

The Dockside Saloon Will Live Forever In A Slot In This Building, Just Like the House In Up

Finally, Portland development that everybody can get behind



The Dockside, apparently, is forever.

We have often lamented the loss of old bars with shared community history in these pages, and new development has put a lot of people on edge about losing Portland's aged and beloved things.

Well, this before and after proposal shows something entirely different—new and old in somewhat cheerful coexistence.

...continues at the Willamette Week.

[urbanlife]

It has been years since I have been in there, but I am happy to see this one not going away due to development.

[downtownpdx]

That's great! I wish every new development would respect and make room for history like this.

[maccoinnich]

Notice of a Type II Decision [PDF], approving some minor changes.

[maccoinnich]

A foundation permit was issued to Hacker Architects for the Field Office:

The Partial Permit scope of work includes: a) erosion control; b) ground improvements; c) shoring d) tiebacks; e) excavation and earth work; f) deep foundations; g) foundations; h) basement-level mat; i) basement walls and j) at-grade post tension slabs. Also includes all mechanical, plumbing and electirical installation up to level 1 slab. Separate MEP permits required for this work.

[MarkDaMan]

A 300K-square-foot urban office campus is coming to inner Northwest Portland (Photos)
Aug 17, 2016, 11:59am PDT Updated Aug 17, 2016, 12:07pm PDT
Jon Bell Staff Reporter
Portland Business Journal

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/...705&j=75468702

Right now, there's not much on a roughly 2.5-acre swath of land along Northwest Front Avenue behind the Dockside Saloon & Restaurant in Northwest Portland.

But in about a year-a-half, the site will be home to what's being billed as one of the largest spec office projects in town, a 300,000-square-foot urban campus that could be just the kind of outpost that a tech or creative giant might be looking for.

We came across this property here that we felt could be a great opportunity — it's close in, it has the zoning — to really create what we think will be an amazing campus-like space in the city," said Jonathan Ledesma, a partner at project^, a Portland real estate developer and one of the team members behind the new project.

Called Field Office and technically located at 2030 N.W. 17th Ave., the two-building development recently broke ground and should complete in late 2017 or early 2018. In total, the two six-story buildings will offer 300,000 square feet of rentable office space, with floor plates spanning from 23,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet...(continues)

[2oh1]

Wow! In all of those renderings, I completely missed that this is going up literally around the Dockside. I don't know how I missed that! Neat. Here's a bit more info:

The Dockside Saloon Will Live Forever In A Slot In This Building, Just Like the House In Up

Finally, Portland development that everybody can get behind

"The Dockside will stay exactly how they are," says lead architect Stefee Knudsen. "We're not touching it, we're staying away from it to the best of our ability, to accommodate this historic pub."

"The Dockside was not on the table," says Jonathan Ledesma at developer Project.

Ledesma says they carved out extra space along the lot line to give the bar some breathing room, and have been in constant contact with Kathy and Terry Peterson, Dockside's owners.

...continues at Willamette Week

[Sioux612]

Link

This area has a lot of potential. It is kind of odd that all the development is concentrated in one area. This is still a part of the industrial district, yes?

More flickr gold (publicly viewable): Link