Yard | 200' | 21 floors | Complete

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

I agree that there is a problem that needs to be fixed, but some of you don't seem to understand what the problem is.

I get that you hate the building, really, I get it. Any building that goes against traditional norms is gonna get thrashed, no matter how good (or bad) the design is. And I have no problem if you also hate the architect, that's practically part of the job description. Believe me, I know. You have to have a thick skin to succeed in this profession.

But the problem here is much bigger than just one architect. That's what you all don't seem to understand. Change orders happen every day, that's a fact that will never change. That doesn't mean an architect is inept, or greedy, or egotistical, or sneaky, or negligent, or whatever other derogatory adjective you want to throw at them. Saying so just makes you look ignorant of how the construction process works and it really doesn't help your argument. If an architect is inept or negligent or corrupt, they'll lose their license, just like physicians or attorneys or engineers.

The problem is..... what happens at BDS once a change is made? Does every little change have to go through design review again (which would create a massive logjam and horrendous delays), or just major changes? And who determines what the threshold is to be considered "major"? Obviously a case can be made that this might qualify as a "major" change, but that's apparently not what the reviewers at BDS thought. And a case can also be made that this wasn't a "major" change. Either way, that is what needs to be clarified going forward. I don't know why that is so hard for some of you to understand.

Also, even if this project HAD (hypothetically/ideally) gone back for an additional design review with the reduced glazing area, since they loved it from the outset, it's VERY likely that this current iteration would have been approved as well. I know some of you refuse to admit it, but this is the same building that was originally presented MINUS a few of the upper windows. The form, the scale, the materials, the functionality, the staggered windows, the angular top and freeform pedestal, even the way the glazing increases as it goes up the face of the tower, all the same as what was presented to the design commission. So there's no way you (or David Wark) can convince me that taking a few of those windows out would have changed their minds.

In case you didn't know, I graduated from architecture school, so I am very much a fan of architecture that goes against the norm. This is slab architecture, this is the norm with a bad facade.

We are also aware that this problem is bigger than this one building, it also isn't the first time this has happened. Also, most of us are aware that change orders happen all the time, it is a part of the business. The problem is, at a certain point those change orders need to trip a design review, especially when it involves a major change to the facade.

You claim this current facade would have passed, even though those on the design review committee have stated that it probably would not have passed. Also, no one cares if you change your mind about this, though it is odd that you are defending this building so desperately.

In the end, this building is a failure for an inept Skylab and a failure of the city for not catching this sooner. We may never know if the city knew of these changes or not, but the result is a bad building that we are pretty much stuck with.

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

In case you didn't know, I graduated from architecture school, so I am very much a fan of architecture that goes against the norm. This is slab architecture, this is the norm with a bad facade.

We are also aware that this problem is bigger than this one building, it also isn't the first time this has happened. Also, most of us are aware that change orders happen all the time, it is a part of the business. The problem is, at a certain point those change orders need to trip a design review, especially when it involves a major change to the facade.

You claim this current facade would have passed, even though those on the design review committee have stated that it probably would not have passed. Also, no one cares if you change your mind about this, though it is odd that you are defending this building so desperately.

In the end, this building is a failure for an inept Skylab and a failure of the city for not catching this sooner. We may never know if the city knew of these changes or not, but the result is a bad building that we are pretty much stuck with.

Why doesn't the city just make an emergency request and have them change it to all glass like the ZGF Tower or something of that nature??

I know it would be unprecedented but in a moment such as this failure it would be understandable..

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

We are also aware that this problem is bigger than this one building, it also isn't the first time this has happened. Also, most of us are aware that change orders happen all the time, it is a part of the business. The problem is, at a certain point those change orders need to trip a design review, especially when it involves a major change to the facade.

FINALLY!!! So you do get it!

So, at what point is BDS required to contact the Design Commission about changes? Or maybe there is no mechanism in place to cross check the Permit Set with the DD's that were approved. Either way, it didn't happen, so that reflects poorly on the city, not on the architect.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

You claim this current facade would have passed, even though those (actually, just one person, David Wark) on the design review committee have stated that it probably would not have passed. Also, no one cares if you change your mind about this, though it is odd that you are defending this building so desperately.

Yes, he said it "probably" wouldn't have passed, but it's highly unlikely they would have rejected this current version for the reasons I stated above. And just to be clear, I have no reason to "defend" this building because there's nothing wrong with it. Regardless of whatever changes were made, it's still a great building. That's MY opinion, so why do I have to "change my mind"? The desperation seems to be coming from those of you who are frothing at the mouth because you HATE this building SO MUCH..... almost irrationally so.... that you just can't stand the fact that some people actually like it.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

In the end, this building is a failure (in YOUR opinion) for an inept Skylab (again, YOUR opinion) and a failure of the city for not catching this sooner. We may never know if the city knew of these changes or not, but the result is a bad building that we are pretty much stuck with.

Actually, we DO know that the city knew of these changes, because they approved them and issued a permit based on those changes. That's what's being built now. What we DON'T know is why BDS didn't inform the Design Commission of those changes, or even IF they were required to. If not, then that's a huge gap in the design review process that needs to be fixed ASAP. And I think EVERYBODY can agree about that.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

FINALLY!!! So you do get it!

So, at what point is BDS required to contact the Design Commission about changes? Or maybe there is no mechanism in place to cross check the Permit Set with the DD's that were approved. Either way, it didn't happen, so that reflects poorly on the city, not on the architect.



Yes, he said it "probably" wouldn't have passed, but it's highly unlikely they would have rejected this current version for the reasons I stated above. And just to be clear, I have no reason to "defend" this building because there's nothing wrong with it. Regardless of whatever changes were made, it's still a great building. That's MY opinion, so why do I have to "change my mind"? The desperation seems to be coming from those of you who are frothing at the mouth because you HATE this building SO MUCH..... almost irrationally so.... that you just can't stand the fact that some people actually like it.



Actually, we DO know that the city knew of these changes, because they approved them and issued a permit based on those changes. That's what's being built now. What we DON'T know is why BDS didn't inform the Design Commission of those changes, or even IF they were required to. If not, then that's a huge gap in the design review process that needs to be fixed ASAP. And I think EVERYBODY can agree about that.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions to protect Skylab, when will you admit that they are responsible for this blunder of a building?

Yes, the BDS should require a building to go through the design review when there are changes being done to the facade, though we are not sure they even approved these types of changes. At this point there is no public information about that.

What I can tell you is that Skylab was in over their head with this building and clearly showed they did know the process or procedures to get a building like this built or they would have seen their own flaws from the beginning.

If you have information about this building, then maybe you should start sharing rather than attacking anyone who disagrees with you.

If you don't think anything is wrong with this building, then good for you. I on the other hand think it was poorly executed and we are stuck with a failed idea. So why do I need to change my mind?

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

even if this project HAD (hypothetically/ideally) gone back for an additional design review with the reduced glazing area, since they loved it from the outset, it's VERY likely that this current iteration would have been approved as well.

No. David Wark, the chairman of the design commission, said, and I quote:

"It's one of the largest-scale changes I've seen on a project"

He added that the result is "unfortunate for the Burnside Bridgehead."

"We probably wouldn't have approved the building that's being built. ... It would have been a hard road for that building, as designed now, to be approved,"(source)

65MAX says yes.
Chairman of the design commission says no.
That's pretty much the end of the story.

Originally Posted by 65MAX

I know some of you refuse to admit it, but this is the same building that was originally presented MINUS a few of the upper windows.

No. It's not the same.

The Oregonian says it's not the same.

The DJC says it's not the same.

David Wark, chairman of the design commission, says it's not the same.

Commissioner Dan Saltzman says it's not the same.

Bureau of Development Services Director Paul Scarlett says it's not the same.

Jeff Joslin (former Land Use Manager at BDS) says it's not the same. How about a quote from him:

Kovel's not right, and he knows it. As a long-time practitioner in Portland, he's aware that changes to projects need to go through subsequent review. Someone in his office made a conscious choice to game the system, and submit the changes for permitting rather than communicate with staff and submit for design review and permit revisions simultaneously. Further, it's likely that the decision to not to go through review was made even earlier, and that the material was already on the boat and headed to the site. While such behavior is not unusual for out-of-towners that know better, it's a shameful and obvious disrespect for the system when it comes from one of Portland's homegrown-own.(Source - (scroll down for quote))

Kevin Cavenaugh of Guerrilla Development says it's not the same. Here's a quote from him:

“Every day I waited for more glass, and every day I’d drive across the bridge (and) it wouldn’t come,” he said. “I said to everyone, ‘Just wait. Jeff (Kovel, Skylab’s founder) is one of the most talented guys on the West Coast, let alone in Portland. It’s going to look great.’ Now I feel like calling up my friends and saying, ‘Sorry, I was wrong.’ ”

[source]

Other forum members say it's not the same:

Originally Posted by i2m

The differences between the renderings and reality here are huge. It is clearly more than some artistic license which is exercised in most projects

Originally Posted by zilfondel

I can't believe Jeff Kovel sat in front of an entire public audience and talked about his design concept becoming more glazed and reflective as you went further up... to have it gutted from the final design. Boo!

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

the facade that is installed doesn't seem to match the elevations either.

Originally Posted by Sioux612

The developer ought to be outed. Given the location this will be a posterchild for Nimbyism against high-rise projects.

Originally Posted by BrG

This much of a change would most unequivocally require a supplemental review.

They MAY have been able to get some minor changes through, with a staff only review. Staff will sometimes approve a material change if it is equivalent to them, in their eyes. But they will never accept a 'downgrade' in quality due to Contractor VE. (Been there... this is when DR approval is your total ally as a designer, despite the difficulty in achieving Type II and III approvals)

If it deviated from design in any material way.... Further review required.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

this is basically a redesign of the facade that was never approved.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

My issue comes with the blatant disregard for how buildings are approved in Portland, you can't have a design review and then change the design after the review. Hopefully something will come out of this so that Portland can make an example out of this developer and architect to show this isn't how we build in Portland, there are rules and steps that must be followed.

Originally Posted by WestCoast

This building is horrible because it's a) brown b) a huge slab wall facing the freeway c) nothing like the renders d) looks sort of like a prison.

Sure, it's not a concrete bunker, so you could argue it isn't HORRIBLE... but it's really really bad.

Originally Posted by cityscapes

If you carefully look at the approved drawings and look at what is built thus far there are many things that are different. It's far beyond a simple issue of a rendering looking better than the finished product. This is a different building altogether aside from the shape and height.

I'm sorry, but you're in denial here.

You said The Yard is virtually identical to the design that was approved. It's not.

You said "this building is one of the best we've had in a long time." That's silly.

You even said the materials didn't change. They did.

Originally Posted by 65MAX

No, the materials did not change.

You're in denial. For whatever reason, you're too personally invested in Skylab to see it.

[65MAX]

Well, thanks for letting me know that my opinion is "silly". And thank you for re-posting everybody else's opinion of the building. Again. Because I didn't read their opinions the last hundred times.

Your (and others) rabid attacks of Skylab here are all very disturbing. You make accusation against them that border on defamation, yet completely ignore the real problem within the city's own departments.

IF you can prove that Skylab did anything wrong, anything at all.... no really, ANYTHING.... then by all means, I'll be the first to go to ORBAE and call for Kovel's license to be suspended or revoked. But don't hold your breath. Just because you, and a few of your fellow cohorts, have a hard on about this, doesn't mean Skylab was negligent, or inept, or whatever accusations you want to throw at them. So go ahead and take your torches and pitchforks and righteous indignation and march through the streets if you want. I'll just laugh at you the same way I laugh at the idiots camped out at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, because it's THAT ridiculous.

In my opinion, of course.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

You seem to make a lot of assumptions to protect Skylab, when will you admit that they are responsible for this blunder of a building?

What blunder? You're right that I'm assuming Skylab did nothing wrong because NOBODY has proven otherwise. But if you have proof that they did, then by all means, enlighten us all. I'm still waiting for some facts (not other people's opinions) to back up your accusations.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Yes, the BDS should require a building to go through the design review when there are changes being done to the facade, though we are not sure they even approved these types of changes. At this point there is no public information about that.

What are you talking about? Of course there's public information.... they're called Construction Documents, which were approved by BDS. You're right, they SHOULD have required another design review, but ARE THEY , in fact, required to? If so, then bad on them. But that is what needs to be definitively answered. That is the crux of everybody's consternation.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

If you have information about this building, then maybe you should start sharing rather than attacking anyone who disagrees with you.

(Funny, I seem to be the one under attack here. but anyway, you were saying.....)

If you don't think anything is wrong with this building, then good for you. I on the other hand think it was poorly executed and we are stuck with a failed idea. So why do I need to change my mind?

I didn't ask you to change your mind. I'm just trying to get you to see the bigger picture. This is not just about the architect.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

What blunder? You're right that I'm assuming Skylab did nothing wrong because NOBODY has proven otherwise. But if you have proof that they did, then by all means, enlighten us all. I'm still waiting for some facts (not other people's opinions) to back up your accusations.



What are you talking about? Of course there's public information.... they're called Construction Documents, which were approved by BDS. You're right, they SHOULD have required another design review, but ARE THEY , in fact, required to? If so, then bad on them. But that is what needs to be definitively answered. That is the crux of everybody's consternation.



I didn't ask you to change your mind. I'm just trying to get you to see the bigger picture. This is not just about the architect.

Actually for this building, it is about the architect and their failure with this building, no matter how much you want to defend this building.

Well it seems like you will be waiting for a long time because you seem to ignore any facts about this building that has been given to you.

So it is settled, in your eyes this building is perfect and there is nothing wrong, and this is the same building as we see in the renderings and drafts.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Actually for this building, it is about the architect and their failure with this building, no matter how much you want to defend this building.

Well it seems like you will be waiting for a long time because you seem to ignore any facts about this building that has been given to you.

So it is settled, in your eyes this building is perfect and there is nothing wrong, and this is the same building as we see in the renderings and drafts.

WHEN did I say perfect? Oh right, never. And yes, there is most definitely something wrong..... at BDS.

And I'm perfectly capable of LIKING a building without feeling the need to DEFEND it. But obviously that distinction is lost on you as well. Not everybody is as virulently anti-Skylab as you are.

[Derek]

LOUD NOISES

.....



a

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

WHEN did I say perfect? Oh right, never. And yes, there is most definitely something wrong..... at BDS.

And I'm perfectly capable of LIKING a building without feeling the need to DEFEND it. But obviously that distinction is lost on you as well. Not everybody is as virulently anti-Skylab as you are.

So only BDS is to blame and not the people who designed this building, got it. Also, I have actually liked Skylab's work up until this point and if you go back on this thread you will see I was excited when I heard they would be designing it because up until this point I had no complaints about their work.

Unlike you, I am capable of admitting that I was wrong and Skylab did in fact design a bad building that was not approved by the design committee. Skylab should have known better and BDS should have known better. Unfortunately in the end, we are still stuck with a bad building.

Though this leads to a question about you never saying this building was perfect, though I do believe you said it was the best building in recent years. If there is nothing wrong with this building, then what did BDS do wrong?

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

You seem to make a lot of assumptions to protect Skylab, when will you admit that they are responsible for this blunder of a building?

Yes, the BDS should require a building to go through the design review when there are changes being done to the facade, though we are not sure they even approved these types of changes. At this point there is no public information about that.

What I can tell you is that Skylab was in over their head with this building and clearly showed they did know the process or procedures to get a building like this built or they would have seen their own flaws from the beginning.

If you have information about this building, then maybe you should start sharing rather than attacking anyone who disagrees with you.

If you don't think anything is wrong with this building, then good for you. I on the other hand think it was poorly executed and we are stuck with a failed idea. So why do I need to change my mind?

Why doesn't the city just make an emergency request and have them change it to all glass like the ZGF Tower or something of that nature??

I know it would be unprecedented but in a moment such as this failure it would be understandable..

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

Why doesn't the city just make an emergency request and have them change it to all glass like the ZGF Tower or something of that nature??

I know it would be unprecedented but in a moment such as this failure it would be understandable..

That is a good question, my guess is that they would rather look the other way and just let this go rather than turn it into a big issue. At this point though, we will just have to wait and see what happens.

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

That is a good question, my guess is that they would rather look the other way and just let this go rather than turn it into a big issue. At this point though, we will just have to wait and see what happens.

Yea I mean instead of being stuck with this ugly behemoth for the next 100 years why not change it on an unprecedented emergency request while it's still under construction and before people move in.. It's now or never


I hope they make it like the ZGF Tower and call it good

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

That is a good question, my guess is that they would rather look the other way and just let this go rather than turn it into a big issue. At this point though, we will just have to wait and see what happens.

Is there anything that can be done to get them to NOT look the other way? The idea of being stuck with this thing as is... oh, god. That's awful. It'd be different if it weren't in such a high profile location. But this thing, as is, as a gateway into east side? Oh god. It's so bad.

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Is there anything that can be done to get them to NOT look the other way? The idea of being stuck with this thing as is... oh, god. That's awful. It'd be different if it weren't in such a high profile location. But this thing, as is, as a gateway into east side? Oh god. It's so bad.

If the city won't do nothing about it and change it then the city has no reason to cry and moan about it in my opinion.

They have an opportunity to make them change it while construction is going on and not being stuck with this eye sore. Quite frankly before construction finishes and people move in is the opportunity to change it to a ZGF Tower exterior type of look.

Again it's now or never

[i2m]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

If the city won't do nothing about it and change it then the city has no reason to cry and moan about it in my opinion.

They have an opportunity to make them change it while construction is going on and not being stuck with this eye sore. Quite frankly before construction finishes and people move in is the opportunity to change it to a ZGF Tower exterior type of look.

Again it's now or never

I don't like this building. I don't like it's too wide (for me) bulky mass and I don't like its blackness.

Most of us don't know if this design is the result of developer/architect unapproved changes or City of Portland's failure to properly review the final design. No matter where the responsibility lies, I don't think the building will be changed or improved. Even if the city has the right to require cladding changes- it isn't like,y to happen. The construction costs of changing the cladding and the financial costs of delaying occupancy is many many millions.

If the "problem" was life safety, we might see a change. When the problem (if there is one) is the appearance of the building - business will prevail and this building will open on time, looking as it looks.

[daroon]

Like many here, I have been growing more and more disappointed as this tower has risen. It simply does not even come close to matching the look presented in early concepts.

Usually when the sun is hitting this building, the entire thing glows. I was biking to work over the weekend and found a rare view where the windows were reflective and the steel cladding was not. This small glimpse was only available at a perfect angle. It's still bad. And this is the best I've seen it look.

[BrG]

Originally Posted by Derek

LOUD NOISES

.....

a

I admit it. I laughed out loud. Thanks, Brick!

[BrG]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

If the city won't do nothing about it and change it then the city has no reason to cry and moan about it in my opinion.

They have an opportunity to make them change it while construction is going on and not being stuck with this eye sore. Quite frankly before construction finishes and people move in is the opportunity to change it to a ZGF Tower exterior type of look.

Again it's now or never

The ZGF building skin is probably 70% more expensive. The Cosmopolitan is selling at a blended cost of something like $700 a square foot. Some as much as $1,000/sf. Fancy as it gets inside, etc.

The Yard is an apartment building. Which is economically difficult enough to build in concrete, much less put a Benson Curtainwall on it.

Not viable, as cool as that would be.