HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2009, 5:39 PM
scleeb scleeb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Irvington/Grant Park - NE PDX
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
Well McCain can go F* himself on this one. Granted he is from Arizona and tear down and start from the ground up is how they like to do it down there. From a structural standpoint there is nothing wrong with this building...but the envelope is basically a huge energy leak...not to mention most of the energy that the building uses is being consumed through its lights. None of these issues warrant the need to tear down and start over.

If they did start from ground up, the only right thing to do would be to recycle over 90% of the original building back into the new building which would make the final price tag much higher than this....then we would have to listen to old McCain crying about us wanting too much money. The way I see it, I vote for senators that try to bring federal money to my state, not turn it away.
Wow... McCain can go F* himself? Why exactly? It looks to me like he's doing his job. Why is it that so much vitriol has to be spewed over partisan labels? Ad hominem attacks are usually left to those without good counter-arguments. My original point was that McCain seemed to have a good point regarding the Highest and Best use of these stimulus funds. If you going to expend these types of dollars as part of the stimulus, why not get the best possible outcome? The San Francisco Federal Building cited in the article seems to be a good illustration of this line of thought. I’m not suggesting we do nothing. I’m suggesting we do it better.
Also, regarding you comment about “recycling 90%” of the building, you’ve totally misread the reality of what would happen in the event of new construction. This building would never be demolished. In actuality, the GSA would declare the EG/WW building to be “Surplus USG Property.” It would be appraised and sold at its fair market value, probably to a REIT. The GSA would then lease back its existing space until the new building is completed. The new Federal Building would undoubtedly be built with the highest seismic and LEED specifications (which the GSA requires), thereby meeting the original intent of current renovation.
What does Portland get under this approach? A CBD surface parking lot gets transformed into a standard-bearer building for efficient, new federal construction, as well as a new “property taxpaying” commercial office redevelopment opportunity in the form of the former EG/WW building. It makes sense to me. What am I missing here?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2009, 7:02 PM
Artist Artist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 118
Is the seismic code the same for federal construction in San Francisco and Portland? I have my doubts. Which state, California or Oregon, builds for greater longevity? I don't think it is California. To compare the simple total cost of one fed building to the other, in such different locales, is naive at best and misleading at worst, and is not even relevant. Much better to compare the total cost of demolition and reconstruction to rehabbing. That was probably done for the Portland site. Does anyone have access to that cost comparison?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2009, 7:06 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by scleeb View Post
Wow... McCain can go F* himself? Why exactly? It looks to me like he's doing his job. Why is it that so much vitriol has to be spewed over partisan labels? Ad hominem attacks are usually left to those without good counter-arguments. My original point was that McCain seemed to have a good point regarding the Highest and Best use of these stimulus funds. If you going to expend these types of dollars as part of the stimulus, why not get the best possible outcome? The San Francisco Federal Building cited in the article seems to be a good illustration of this line of thought. I’m not suggesting we do nothing. I’m suggesting we do it better.
Also, regarding you comment about “recycling 90%” of the building, you’ve totally misread the reality of what would happen in the event of new construction. This building would never be demolished. In actuality, the GSA would declare the EG/WW building to be “Surplus USG Property.” It would be appraised and sold at its fair market value, probably to a REIT. The GSA would then lease back its existing space until the new building is completed. The new Federal Building would undoubtedly be built with the highest seismic and LEED specifications (which the GSA requires), thereby meeting the original intent of current renovation.
What does Portland get under this approach? A CBD surface parking lot gets transformed into a standard-bearer building for efficient, new federal construction, as well as a new “property taxpaying” commercial office redevelopment opportunity in the form of the former EG/WW building. It makes sense to me. What am I missing here?
Well my issues towards McCain go back for a while now of watching his actions as a senator. He is happy to not try to bring new money into his state, that is fine, but I am okay with our senators trying to bring money into this state.

Though I will agree, your approach does make sense, but the reason why I would like to see this building renovated than simply building a new building is because we need to start looking at our current crop of buildings and understand how each of them is wasting energy and fix those issues. Building a new energy efficient federal building while keeping this one would actually add to the energy consumption because you will still have the same problems with this building and a new building that also consumed its portion of energy, even it is is very efficient. So that is why I think it is more important for them to fix a current problem before deciding to move to a new building because the original problem doesnt go away just because they are in a new building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2009, 8:06 PM
Artist Artist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 118
I stand corrected on the assumption that a rehab/replace comparison was done. (A little homework before posting is a good idea!) You are right, Urbanlife, that relocating does not solve the problem of the existing building as an energy sink. While this building is relatively new it predates computers, all ideas of energy conservation, and the need for terrorist security. These will all be addressed while living up to Portland's philosophy of reuse and recycle. I admire this philosophy, and think it is cheaper in the long run.

I notice that in most of the articles I read, the greening of the building is most written about. Less attention is given to the security upgrades that come with this rehab. Guess it just isn't sexy enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2009, 10:05 PM
scleeb scleeb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Irvington/Grant Park - NE PDX
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
Well my issues towards McCain go back for a while now of watching his actions as a senator. He is happy to not try to bring new money into his state, that is fine, but I am okay with our senators trying to bring money into this state.

Though I will agree, your approach does make sense, but the reason why I would like to see this building renovated than simply building a new building is because we need to start looking at our current crop of buildings and understand how each of them is wasting energy and fix those issues. Building a new energy efficient federal building while keeping this one would actually add to the energy consumption because you will still have the same problems with this building and a new building that also consumed its portion of energy, even it is is very efficient. So that is why I think it is more important for them to fix a current problem before deciding to move to a new building because the original problem doesnt go away just because they are in a new building.
Urbanlife- I think we both agree that the EG/WW building is not efficient and should be improved. The same can be said of the vast majority of commercial office space in the CBD built prior to 1990. Here is my contention, sell the EG/WW as GSA surplus, then let the private sector investor whom purchases the building make the needed upgrades. In this way, the costs of upgrading the EG/WW are shifted from the public sector to the private sector. The USG could even sell the EG/WW building to a future developer at a substantial discount with the provision that it be upgraded to a LEED certification. Again, I think it’s a win-win for Portland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2009, 4:37 AM
philopdx philopdx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Deep South
Posts: 1,275
Yes scleeb, both McCain and Coburn can go %^&* themselves. Here's why:

I'm always amused by the fact that right-wing rants of fiscal discipline generally come from leaders of states that receive the most federal funding vs. taxes paid to the federal government.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

As the preceding link shows, Oregon paid $23.5 billion in federal taxes in 2005, while receiving $22.8 billion in benefits from the federal government, contributing $700 million to the national kitty by the sweat of our collective brow.

Put another way, we Oregonians received .93 cents in benefits for every dollar we paid in federal taxes.

In contrast, in 2005 Arizona received $44.6 billion in payments from the federal government while paying federal taxes in the amount of $35.9 billion. That's an aggregate welfare payment of $8.7 BILLION, or $1.19 in benefits for every dollar paid to the federal government.

In 2005, Oklahoma received $27.6 billion in federal benefits while paying federal taxes of $19.6 billion. That equates to $8 BILLION of federal welfare payments for dear Mr. Coburn's state, or an impressive $1.36 in benefits for every dollar paid!

While wealthy, elderly white males lose sleep over how Buckwheat and Aunt Jamima caricatures are defrauding the government, it's clear the Coburn and McCain are the ultimate welfare queens - combined they slurped $16.7 BILLION from the government's teet in 2005 alone! MAZEL TOV gentlemen!

I feel rather strongly that these fine men should focus on their OWN state's voracious appetites for gobbling other people's money, and stay out of the business of states that actually carry their own f$%^&g weight.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2009, 3:25 PM
scleeb scleeb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Irvington/Grant Park - NE PDX
Posts: 113
Wonderful sentiments there phil. Excuse me if I don't choose to pile on a person, whom from all outward appearances, seems to be a genuinely decent man. So McCain doesn't like the Stimulus bill and you do. So McCain's a Rep and you're not. I get it. Lets move on, this political tripe gets real old, real fast. What do you think about the original point of all this? Do you think renovation of the EG/WW is better for Portland than new construction? That's the discussion I was hoping to have.

Last edited by scleeb; Dec 11, 2009 at 4:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2009, 5:08 PM
Artist Artist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 118
This is just too good to ignore. I vote for renovation of the fed bldg assuming it is an otherwise sound building that can continue to serve fed needs efficiently. Looking toward Europe, they build for the long term. We discard our buildings after 35-50 years. That is foolish.

As to dumping (excuse me, selling) an inefficient building to a private buyer expecting or hoping he will cough up the millions to rehab it--I just don't see that as very likely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2009, 8:44 PM
pylon pylon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: inner SW PDX
Posts: 154
I was hoping that Portland would have two world-class examples of how to implement green design, in the same neighborhood:
1. a living building- Oregon Sustainability Center
2. a green renovation- the Federal building
__________________
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it”. -Albert Einstein
"Knowledge is Good." -Emil Faber
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2009, 8:51 PM
scleeb scleeb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Irvington/Grant Park - NE PDX
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artist View Post
This is just too good to ignore. I vote for renovation of the fed bldg assuming it is an otherwise sound building that can continue to serve fed needs efficiently. Looking toward Europe, they build for the long term. We discard our buildings after 35-50 years. That is foolish.

As to dumping (excuse me, selling) an inefficient building to a private buyer expecting or hoping he will cough up the millions to rehab it--I just don't see that as very likely.
Actually, local private developers spend millions renovating old buildings every year in Portland. I'm sure you know that. Look at the McMenemins' portfolio, Venerable Properties list of rehabs, the recent Meier & Frank renovation, the Brewery Blocks redevelopment, Unico's renovation of Big Pink's lavatories, the recent renovation of the Federal Reserve by Harsch, just to name a few. I could go on forever. Why does a private sector renovation of the EG/WW seem very unlikely? With all the energy efficiency/sustainability programs available to developers today, I would say a major renovation of the EG/WW building would be quite likely.

Incidentally, I agree that discarding older buildings is foolish. But name the buildings that Portland has "discarded" after 40-50 years? Portland's recent history shows us that discarding older buildings is no longer a common practice here. Those instances are noteworthy for there rarity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2009, 9:07 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by scleeb View Post
Actually, local private developers spend millions renovating old buildings every year in Portland. I'm sure you know that. Look at the McMenemins' portfolio, Venerable Properties list of rehabs, the recent Meier & Frank renovation, the Brewery Blocks redevelopment, Unico's renovation of Big Pink's lavatories, the recent renovation of the Federal Reserve by Harsch, just to name a few. I could go on forever. Why does a private sector renovation of the EG/WW seem very unlikely? With all the energy efficiency/sustainability programs available to developers today, I would say a major renovation of the EG/WW building would be quite likely.

Incidentally, I agree that discarding older buildings is foolish. But name the buildings that Portland has "discarded" after 40-50 years? Portland's recent history shows us that discarding older buildings is no longer a common practice here. Those instances are noteworthy for there rarity.
We are very lucky that tearing down and building new isnt that common in Portland compared to other cities....it does happen here, just not that much.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2009, 12:15 AM
Artist Artist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 118
Oregon will become my home next year. My participation in Skyscraperpage is one means of informing myself of conditions and politics of Oregon. Some of my comments are not well-informed, and I'm glad to read the responses. Scleeb's list of renovations is good, but weren't they done when banks were lending freely? Are banks currently backing private sector major requests in Portland? I think low-risk and low-$ renovations will be the trend for most of the next decade. Hope I'm wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2009, 1:21 AM
scleeb scleeb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Irvington/Grant Park - NE PDX
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artist View Post
Oregon will become my home next year. My participation in Skyscraperpage is one means of informing myself of conditions and politics of Oregon. Some of my comments are not well-informed, and I'm glad to read the responses. Scleeb's list of renovations is good, but weren't they done when banks were lending freely? Are banks currently backing private sector major requests in Portland? I think low-risk and low-$ renovations will be the trend for most of the next decade. Hope I'm wrong.
Artist, thanks for the background. I'm glad to hear you are moving to P-town. As for bank lending. This is a subject I know a great deal about. You are correct that we are currently experiencing a very tight credit environment. Nonetheless, despite the recession, Portland still maintains strong fundamentals. The city is not over-built. The CBD is holding up quite well. Most current leasing activity shows a strong bias toward the CBD (which is close to me heart). There is a flight to quality, and many of the more stable tenants in the marketplace are seizing the opportunity to renegotiate their leases, or upsize/downsize their space. Net-Net, with the exception of a few overextended commercial developers, Portland is faring the downturn better than most and lenders know it. If a good redevelopment opportunity pops up in the next 12-24 months, and a solid business case can be articulated, lenders will lend. Warren Buffet recently said he feels like a mosquito at a nudist convention. I second that sentiment. Asset prices are depressed to multi-generational lows. Liquid investors are ready to pounce. When things start to thaw, they will thaw fast.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2009, 2:05 AM
MR. Cosmopolitan's Avatar
MR. Cosmopolitan MR. Cosmopolitan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artist View Post
This is just too good to ignore. I vote for renovation of the fed bldg assuming it is an otherwise sound building that can continue to serve fed needs efficiently. Looking toward Europe, they build for the long term. We discard our buildings after 35-50 years. That is foolish.
Sorry to contradict but in Europe most 50s 60s and 70s buildings were badly built. I would say even worst built than the American ones.

They were very cheaply built in a desperate attempt to house the people coming out of the slums and the wreckage of the Second World War as well as more lately the extreme growth caused by the baby boom.

These buildings were so poorly built that in some cases didn't even live 30 years. I don't know how the state of this building is, but it must not be a very good one, since it needs such a costly reform. I would say it would be better to demolish it and built a new one on its site, its more economical.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2009, 4:30 AM
philopdx philopdx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Deep South
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by scleeb View Post
Wonderful sentiments there phil. Excuse me if I don't choose to pile on a person, whom from all outward appearances, seems to be a genuinely decent man. So McCain doesn't like the Stimulus bill and you do. So McCain's a Rep and you're not. I get it. Lets move on, this political tripe gets real old, real fast. What do you think about the original point of all this? Do you think renovation of the EG/WW is better for Portland than new construction? That's the discussion I was hoping to have.
What some people call "tripe", other people call facts. Moving on...

The remodel costs $11 million less than a new building, assuming the conditions were identical to the new building referred to in San Fransisco. I gather that the crux of the issue is why spend X dollars when you could have 100,000 more square feet for Y additional dollars? Is the marginal utility of something shinier and newer worth $11 million more of the taxpayer's dollars?

So then, should the government be in the business of spending more money to get something marginally better than what it has (or has planned)? I find irony in the fact that this thinking, normally associated with the ideological left, is now being employed as a "conservative" argument to discredit a "liberal" program. Odd times we live in.

Assuming we do build something new and shiny on another block, what of the net present value of the negative cash flows of the still-standing, inefficient hulk of the GSA building? Are we assuming the private market will swoop in and invest millions to create a shining addition to the Portland skyline, a true beacon of modernity and efficiency? You know, like they did with Park Avenue West?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2009, 4:07 PM
Artist Artist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 118
[QUOTE=MR. Cosmopolitan;4603366]Sorry to contradict but in Europe most 50s 60s and 70s buildings were badly built.

That was indeed a bad patch for construction. I was referring to older European buildings. Given the materials and knowledge they had at the time, those were built to last centuries, and they did. Ours don't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2009, 8:26 PM
Okstate's Avatar
Okstate Okstate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE PDX
Posts: 1,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sioux612 View Post
I finally got a reply from SERA and we'll be getting updated renderings of this project in Mid-December.
It's the middle. I am ready to see this bad boy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2009, 12:26 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
Hmm, I wonder how much a new building would cost. By comparison, the Mark Hatfield US Courthouse building cost $129 million in 1997, thereby translating to $173 million in 2009 dollars.

The Mark Hatfield building is 15 meters taller than the Green/Wendell building, and offers 2 fewer floors (16 vs 18) and 193,000 more sq ft of space.

A $133 million renovation sounds like a total gut & rebuild to me. At least we don't need to pay for additional land acquisition (the current block is worth $14 million) costs and trying to lease out office space in a down economy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2009, 9:59 AM
RoseCtyRoks's Avatar
RoseCtyRoks RoseCtyRoks is offline
shozbot!
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: City Of Roses
Posts: 213
EGWW Building in this article

From the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...829766080.html


DECEMBER 16, 2009 Green Builders Awaiting the Green
Distribution of Billions of Dollars in Stimulus Aid Could Take Months Amid Long Lead Times
By CHRISTINA S.N. LEWIS
The nation's green-building industry is awaiting billions of dollars in economic-stimulus funding earmarked to make government buildings more energy efficient. But based on the slow pace of allocations thus far, it could take months or years for spending to trickle down to contractors.

The General Services Administration, which oversees the federal government's property, was allocated $5.5 billion as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed by Congress in February, of which $2 billion should be allocated before Dec. 31. The initiative is designed to create jobs and to pioneer cutting-edge technology in construction that is environmentally friendly.

At a time when construction on private projects has stalled, advocates of green building hope the GSA, which is America's largest landlord with a 1,500-building portfolio, can use its purchasing power and nationwide reach to lower costs, test emerging products and educate the industry.

The value of having the government lead the industry on such projects "is priceless," said Jason Hartke, vice president of national policy for the U.S. Green Building Council, a nonprofit advocacy organization.

The Edith-Green Wendell Wyatt Building in Portland, Ore., is set for a new exterior "skin" that will make it more energy efficient, including 20,000 solar cells and a series of vegetation fins along one side.
But so far, the agency has allocated just $1.5 billion, or 75%, of the funds it was appropriated for 2009 and is racing to allot an additional $500 million by the end of the year, just two weeks away. The agency said bids for work are coming in under budget, a good thing, but one that slows them down from meeting its benchmark.

In addition, the GSA has paid out only $89 million. "What we've got now is a lot of architects working overtime to get the work done," said Bob Peck, the agency's commissioner of public buildings. Mr. Peck said the delay in spending reflects the long lead time required to draw up building plans, which can take a minimum of six to nine months.

Economists said the delays in putting the funds to work illustrate the challenges of trying to quickly create new jobs in an industry that traditionally moves slowly. And government planners tend to move more slowly than private industry, according to developers.

"Obviously, [the funds] would have to be outlaid for it to create jobs," said Kermit Baker, chief economist for the American Institute of Architects. "But once [companies] feel that money is coming through the pipeline, it'll have a dramatic effect."

The projects that are furthest along are those that already were in the works, but on hold due to lack of funding. For example, the agency broke ground on a federal courthouse in Austin, Texas, in September. Planning began eight years ago.

Some projects also are complex, requiring long planning periods. The central federal office in Portland, Ore., the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Building, was allocated $133 million to modernize the 30-year-old, 510,000-square-foot building, including a daylight-adaptive lighting system that will reduce consumption 50%; and new mechanical, electrical and elevator systems. The GSA plans to hire a construction manager to begin drawing up blueprints in the next few weeks.

The design plan also calls for a new exterior "skin" that will have as many as 20,000 solar cells on the roof and a series of vegetation fins along the building's western side, which is meant to provide a natural solution to the problem of overheating from sunlight. The vegetation will grow lush in the summer, cooling the building. In the winter, the plants will shrink, allowing sun to filter in, Mr. Peck said. The technique has been used in Washington by the Finnish Embassy, he said.

Energy efficiency is in the spotlight this week as world leaders meet in Copenhagen to discuss climate change. Meanwhile, local governments are tackling the issue as well. Last week, New York, with the backing of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, passed rules requiring large commercial landlords to take steps to make existing buildings more energy efficient.

Green retrofits are gaining ground in the private sector as well, as companies realize they can save money long term. For example, Adobe Systems Inc. spent $1.4 million upgrading its San Jose, Calif., headquarters in 2006 and saved $1.2 million a year. Moreover, $400,000 in tax rebates allowed the company to make back its investment in just 9½ months, according to Buildings magazine. New York landlord Anthony Malkin, who is engaged in a retrofit of the Empire State Building, is set to give a presentation on energy efficiency in San Francisco next year.

A commercial retrofit should lower a building's energy costs by at least 15% in order to be financially viable for a landlord, some observers said. Typically, investors make back their money within four years, due to tax incentives and reduced maintenance costs. Commercial real estate accounts for about 30% of the nation's electricity usage.

Meanwhile, construction firms and architects suffering amid the dearth of private construction, hope to snag some of the government's business.

Emcor Group Inc., a $5.5 billion building-systems construction company, said it has managed to replace the roughly 15% to 30% of lost private construction business with public-sector spending on government buildings, transportation, schools and health care, according to Frank MacInnis, Emcor's chairman and chief executive.

Write to Christina S.N. Lewis at christina.lewis@wsj.com
__________________
One can never know for sure what a deserted area looks like.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2009, 7:19 PM
scottb's Avatar
scottb scottb is offline
Illustrator
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 191
Should have renderings soon

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sioux612
I finally got a reply from SERA and we'll be getting updated renderings of this project in Mid-December.
It's the middle. I am ready to see this bad boy.
I've been working with SERA on the renderings for this project, and I can tell you that the renderings are "in the can" and we just need to release them in the right order. By all accounts, this project has captured the attention of the White House, and they would like to control its release for the time being. Shouldn't be much longer though - probably by the first or second week of January. I'll be sure and post them here as soon as I can.
__________________
BaumbergerStudio - Architectural Illustration
www.baumbergerstudio.com
www.facebook.com/baumbergerstudio
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 2:55 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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