More West End Development: Madison Office Condominiums

After partnering together on Museum Place, the St. Francis and Belmont Dairy, Developer Shiels Obletz Johnsen and GBD Architects have another new building about to break ground: the Madison Office Condominiums.

This is a small little office building that will be situated on 11th Avenue next to the massive Eliot condo tower. The two buildings will share a plaza between 11th and 10th Avenue. SOJ will occupy the top floor, with a restaurant tentatively planned for the ground floor and for-sale office space on the floors in between.

“This is a very small building,” Craig Davis of GBD told me this morning. “We’ve always felt like it had to be sort of a jewel box.”

And indeed, what’s immediately noticeable in the renderings is that the Madison will be colorful. And I’m happy about that, because there are not many colorful buildings here. Also, despite an upper portion of the building that extends outward to break up the mass, the form is fairly simple. I think the color is one of the building’s best assets.

According to conversations I had with Davis as well as Francesca Gambetti of SOJ, the exterior will be comprised of an aluminum composite panel in two colors: blue and silver. The building also includes exposed exterior bracing that will be painted yellow. (I like this trend from GBD of exposing a building’s structural bracing, as they did with two of the Brewery Blocks.) Davis says a glassier building was originally considered, but sustainability concerns ruled that out because of too much potential heat gain.

Although this is a smaller job, I think it has to be said that GBD Architects has secured an astonishing amount of work for themselves in one fairly small area. There are five GBD-designed Brewery Blocks just a few blocks away, and a sixth project building for Gerding/Edlen Development planned there as well. Additionally, near the Portland Art Museum we’ll have Museum Place, the St. Francis and the Madison, all designed by the firm. Without even including all their South Waterfront work, that’s nine buildings!

Gambetti says SOJ and GBD have learned a great deal working together and that relationship makes it easy to trust each other—and therefore for SOJ to depend on GBD for project after project. (Much like Gerding/Edlen). I respect that. I really do. But with all due respect to a very capable architecture firm, at what point should SOJ be held accountable for not giving other firms a chance? Perhaps in the future, SOJ could follow Gerding/Edlen’s lead and incorporate other firms as partners with GBD.

Meanwhile, as always, feedback is welcome on the Madison Office Condominiums and SOJ’s work as developer and architectural benefactor.

Comments

[Cab]

Looks cheap. GBD's usual boxy design. The city is turning into lego land. How about someone throw a curve or two into a design. These things look like they are design by a robot. Nothing in nature is a square why does every building have to be that way?

[Gene Johnson]

One Waterfront Place is one big (proposed) curve. As for this, it's hard to build a curve into a corner without sacrificing profitability in the lost square-footage.

[cab]

I understand a box fits the location, its just the city is filling up with these things. Its obvious this architecture is nothing but an attempt to sell a cheap building. This is possibly why GBD gets all the jobs. They sell the architect community and public on stripped down design and call it quality archtecture. I mean what is modernism other then a way to sell a cheap building. We need to demand a higher standard. Painting a box blue doesn't make quality architecture.

[anonymous]

And how would adding a curve make it nice? I'm a firm believer that slick materials make a slick building, not so much slick geometry. I like the scale of the project. Its nice to see more than one building going in per block. Recently we have buildings and not blocks.

[citizen jones]

throw a curve in for fun.? you might as well throw a cornice on for history. with a building so small, it is easy to apply personal taste. a curve for one is an angle for another.

i agree the colors and scale of elements make it look cheap, but to cast a curve has become a bit cliche. a curve may work in some places, but other places it looks like nothing but warmed up PoMo. Look at the 1/4 block on NW 9th/Burnside.

[cab]

Cliche? And building a box with another smaller "box" sticking out of the top isn't? One would be hard pressed to find anything other then the boxy form looking a PDX skyline.

The NW 9th building at street level is a welcome addition, especially at that price. The curved corners gives the street a little variety and creates a nice urban environment.

[citizen jones]

curve, box over box, or under does not make good design, but it seems lately that a curve must be the answer. the merit of the NW Burnside project in program alone is worthy, the playfullness in the facade is interesting, but all the love given to the curve has been a bit nauseating. it seems the curve is the answer. ?why are right angles so prevelant? maybe for various reasons. a city grid of streets, cost of construction, skills of craftspersons, use of materials and their ability to make curves. for the skyline - don't blame geometry for the bland pdx skyline, blame poor design and lack of community support and awareness. afterall, what about koin, 1000 broadway, all very non-boxy tops, yet i would maintain are as interesting as putting a party hat on either tower. utltimately the building is a composition, and like any sorry artist given the right tools one could make bad design out of boxes or curves. in this case the architect was a poor designer, but the curve is NOT our salvation.

[iDesign]

One question for all of you. How many of you are architects? Also, how many of you ACTUALLY went to school for this? How many of you have ACTUALLY studied architectural theories, the history or architecture, or the movements themselves? I have serious doubts from your comments that any of you could build a better building. One that, in your mind, looked better and STILL has the functionality that this one does. I'm not saying that this building is the epitome of architecture, for it isn't. But very few buildings are or ever will be. So the rest need to remain interesting and functional.

[Brian Libby]

That sounds like more than one question to me. So what are you saying - that only musicians can review music? Filmmakers review movies? Former players can be the only color commentators on sporting event broadcasts? If you're saying that we've been too hard on the Madison Office Condominiums, that's one thing. But don't go insulting everyone else and expect us to be enlightened by your so-called words of wisdom. That said, though, thanks for posting!

[Robert]

I don't think iDesign means to be insulting(although he may come across that way); He has been insulted. Seems likely from his comments that he is an architect somewhere (GDB?).

cab's "what is modernism other then a way to sell a cheap building" is insulting to a lot of architects, Brian. Why not comment on that? I don't think iDesign was trying to insult your non-architect views.

I think non-architects can offer good comments, informed and well reasoned non-architects yourself.
But I have seen a lot of postings here about architecture and art history from people who clearly don't have any idea about the topic, not even a layman's understanding.

Some comments here are from people who have simplified or naive ideas about how art and architecture work.

Like the idea that adding a curve or angle to a uilding is the solution! That's the equivalent of adding a spoiler to your Geo Metro.

I think another good point iDesign has is that some buildings need to be simple interesting background buildings. Every building can't be screaming for attention. The best designs are often very simple and subtle.