Park Avenue West | 501' 7" | 30 floors | Completed

[AdamNorthwest]

I know this has been asked already, and maybe even by me, but what ever happened to Moyer's Broadway Tower? It always appeared to me that PAW's design was inspired by the Broadway Tower's design. Also, I wonder what TMT's plans are for their next Portland tower. They propose one like what, once a decade?

[cityscapes]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

I think the days of 500 plus footers are pretty much gone in Portland

I would hope not given that places like Oklahoma City and Mobile have taller buildings than that. Why not Portland?

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

I would hope not given that places like Oklahoma City and Mobile have taller buildings than that. Why not Portland?

city zoning and height restrictions

[PacificNW]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

city zoning and height restrictions

Those restrictions can't be written in stone. Time, People and Circumstances Change. I would imagine that if Nike (or any corporation/bank) actually wanted to build a 70+ floor, signature World Headquarters tower in downtown Portland city officials would bend over backwards for this to happen. Just my opinion.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by Photogeric

From the Eastbank Esplanade yesterday. If you look close, you can now see them backfilling the windows where the crane was.

Let's be honest.... this is not a 501' building. It's 460' with a (virtually invisible) pole on top. That should no more add 41' to the height of the building than the antennae do on Wells Fargo and USBank.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by PacificNW

Those restrictions can't be written in stone. Time, People and Circumstances Change. I would image that if Nike (or any corporation/bank) actually wanted to build a 70+ floor, signature World Headquarters tower in downtown Portland city officials would bend over backwards for this to happen. Just my opinion.

I agree with the Time part and probably in the future things will change, but I just dont think Portland has a demand at this point in time for even 40 story buildings. Seattle currently has enough for both cities if you take into account the entire regional population. It takes big time $$ to build towers and developers and banks aren't willing to risk what they did back in the 70s through the 90s--But It would be great if we could build a few more towers.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Let's be honest.... this is not a 501' building. It's 460' with a (virtually invisible) pole on top. That should no more add 41' to the height of the building than the antennae do on Wells Fargo and USBank.

ABSOLUTELY. Come on now. That's not a spire. It's a pole. You can't even see it in that picture. I can't imagine how anyone can keep a straight face while explaining how that sorry excuse for a pole qualifies as a SPIRE. It's a pole. I'm sure there must have been a meeting where somebody said "Awe, we're so close to hitting 500 feet. What's the cheapest thing we can do to get over 500?" And somebody else said "Y'mean, like, stick a pole on it?" And some other clown chimed in "No, no no. Not a pole! We'll say it's a SPIRE!"

It's a pole.

Originally Posted by PacificNW

Those restrictions can't be written in stone. Time, People and Circumstances Change. I would imagine that if Nike (or any corporation/bank) actually wanted to build a 70+ floor, signature World Headquarters tower in downtown Portland city officials would bend over backwards for this to happen. Just my opinion.

Definitely... but...

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

I agree with the Time part and probably in the future things will change, but I just dont think Portland has a demand at this point in time for even 40 story buildings. Seattle currently has enough for both cities if you take into account the entire regional population. It takes big time $$ to build towers and developers and banks aren't willing to risk what they did back in the 70s through the 90s--But It would be great if we could build a few more towers.

Agreed. Sigh.

[58rhodes]

I think somebody messed up big time on the spire. Kind of reminds me of the Stonehenge prop from Spinal Tap

[ORNative]

Has anyone heard whether the spire will light at night? I agree it is a nonevent during the day, but it might look cool lit at night.

[Orlando]

Any pics of the spire?

[65MAX]

Photogeric's picture (below) was taken shortly after the "spire" went up. As you can see (or CAN'T see in this case), it is so slender and non-consequential that it's virtually invisible. In terms of calculating official heights of buildings, I don't think this is architecturally significant enough to qualify as anything more than a flag pole. This is a 460' tall building.

Originally Posted by Photogeric

From the Eastbank Esplanade yesterday. If you look close, you can now see them backfilling the windows where the crane was.

[nxnw]

To be fair the "spire" is more visible to the naked eye

The only way it will be significant is if it's lit up at night

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Photogeric's picture (below) was taken shortly after the "spire" went up. As you can see (or CAN'T see in this case), it is so slender and non-consequential that it's virtually invisible. In terms of calculating official heights of buildings, I don't think this is architecturally significant enough to qualify as anything more than a flag pole. This is a 460' tall building.

I'm interested in how the CTBUH will land on this.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

I'm interested in how the CTBUH will land on this.

Well, considering the spire on the WTC1 building in NY almost didn't qualify to get it up to the magic 1776', I seriously doubt they'll add 41' to PAW just so they can call it a 501' tower.

[MarkDaMan]

From the CTBUH:

1. Height to Architectural Top:
Height is measured from the level of the lowest, significant, open-air, pedestrian entrance to the architectural top of the building, including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flagpoles or other functional-technical equipment. This measurement is the most widely utilized and is employed to define the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) rankings of the “World’s Tallest Buildings.”

http://www.ctbuh.org/HighRiseInfo/Ta...B/Default.aspx

If it isn't an antennae and they don't plan to fly a flag, I assume it's a spire. Also, aside from the debates on the SSP WTC page here, do you really know the CTBUH "almost didn't" accept the spire as a fixed architectural element?

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Any pics of the spire?

It isn't a spire, it is a flag pole....the roof line is the true height of this building it seems...

[cityscapes]

It's got a red beacon at the top of the spire which at night looks like a light hovering in the sky above the building.

Hate to sound like a size queen but the building needs more length and the spire needs more girth to really make its presence felt.

[PacificNW]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

It's got a red beacon at the top of the spire which at night looks like a light hovering in the sky above the building.

Hate to sound like a size queen but the building needs more length and the spire needs more girth to really make its presence felt.

[2oh1]

The spire needs to be relevant. This one isn't. It's a flag pole. Put a frigging flag on it.

[Tykendo]

Went back to the webcam to look at the spire and decide for myself. I do like the twin pole feature, and I think it looks good on the building especially on the cam. But it will need to be lit up at night to make it noticeable, and it isn't truly a spire. To be a true spire it would have to be more structural. A sleek dagger-esque spire that was LED lighted would have looked even better. But the twin pole is not terrible, IMO.