Boathouse Row

[kevinpate]

Very exciting. My son is arriving from Iraq today (I am VERY happy about that) and he's not been in the US for anything but a short vacation for four years. I'm really looking forward to showing him around OKC, and I think he'll be impressed. The river still had grass in it when he left for college.

I'm happy for your family. Please pass on our thanks for his service as you show him around. I have to imagine he'll be rather impressed with the changes.

[Pete]

Some interesting updates from that blog:

Chesapeake Finish Line Tower Site - mobilization and construction to commence next week with March 2011 completion

So, the tower has been delayed until next spring from the previously announced fall 2010 completion date.

University of Oklahoma Boathouse site with "prow" nearing completion; OU and UCO Boathouse construction details to be announced. UCO "prow" to begin construction next week.

So, it DOES look all four structures (Devon, OU, UCO and finish tower) are or will soon be under construction. I bet the latter two boathouses will be finished in the spring as well.

Additional construction details:
Reconstruction of 6th Street - phase one: Completion in September 2010
Development of Boathouse District parking lots - phase one: summer
Shoreline contouring, sodding, and completion of sidewalks - June 1 completion
South side boat ramp and parking lot (west of Lincoln Bridge) - construction underway, phase 1 completion in April
Transmission line removal - phase one (swing out from Boathouse District to 6th Street) - late March 2010 completion; Phase two - complete removal from north bank (including Chesapeake Boathouse area) - 2011

Very, very exciting! This setting will really help OKC stand apart and will provide a great, signature skyline shot.

[jonno]

Thought I'd share a picture I took today of the Boathouse Row area under construction. This was taken on the Lincoln Blvd. bridge over the Oklahoma River looking east. Looking good!

[metro]

Thanks for the picture! A slight correction, it's actually Byer's Ave. Bridge.

[betts]

An interesting update today on the Chesapeake Finish Line tower. It sounds like it's going to be a really unique addition to the landscape:

Boathouse District Development

[OKC@heart]

I am a huge fan of the development of our river front and am so encouraged that the boathouse row has become such a draw nationaly and internationaly. I have to say that of all the renderings that I have seen of the facilities that are going in, the one that is posted on the blog link above of the finish line tower, totally underwhelmed me. The one shown in the masterplan and the revised one shown in the Maps III images showing Finish Line tower were breathtaking! I know that the reality of execution often lessens the conceptual impact of many designs, and maybe it was simply that it was taken from a direct elevational perspective, but it felt to me like the dynamism of the earlier images got replaced by cantelevered 4 story office building with no soul that happens to be right at the rivers edge. This is just my opinion and I realize that it quite possibly could be the result of a poor image being chosen to portray it. (I really hope that is it) but would be interested to see the final plans or some additional renderings to make confirm that. Love seeing the images and thanks for all who have taken the time to post the progress shots what a great time to be in OKC!!!!

[circuitboard]

An interesting update today on the Chesapeake Finish Line tower. It sounds like it's going to be a really unique addition to the landscape:

Boathouse District Development

That is sweet!!

[OKC@heart]

I am a huge fan of the development of our river front and am so encouraged that the boathouse row has become such a draw nationaly and internationaly. I have to say that of all the renderings that I have seen of the facilities that are going in, the one that is posted on the blog link above of the finish line tower, totally underwhelmed me. The one shown in the masterplan and the revised one shown in the Maps III images showing Finish Line tower were breathtaking! I know that the reality of execution often lessens the conceptual impact of many designs, and maybe it was simply that it was taken from a direct elevational perspective, but it felt to me like the dynamism of the earlier images got replaced by cantelevered 4 story office building with no soul that happens to be right at the rivers edge. This is just my opinion and I realize that it quite possibly could be the result of a poor image being chosen to portray it. (I really hope that is it) but would be interested to see the final plans or some additional renderings to make confirm that. Love seeing the images and thanks for all who have taken the time to post the progress shots what a great time to be in OKC!!!!

This is what I am talking about, follow the link to the architects web site and see the design for Finish line tower and then see the one that is posted on the blog. Completely different design articulations, the one on Rands' Site is elegant, transparent and light. Very fitting and complimentary with the other structures as an icon of the river.

Elliott + Associates Architects

Then the second as...well it is not very exciting and lack the grace and execution that I would have hoped for. I will leave it at that.

[Pete]

Yes the latest version (on top) is a very far cry from what was originally proposed:

[betts]

Are we sure that's not just a different angle? The lower drawing would look very similar to the upper one if looked at head on.

[sroberts24]

I think they are the same u just can't see thru the glass on the new one

[Pete]

I hope you guys are right!

[OKCisOK4me]

Looks the same to me!

[OKC@heart]

I realize that it quite possibly could be the result of a poor image being chosen to portray it. (I really hope that is it) but would be interested to see the final plans or some additional renderings to make confirm that.

You will notice that in the first post that I expressed hope that it was, but regardless the image was probably the worst one to show to get people excited. The structure free and mullion free design shown in the architects renderings have such a dramatic transparancy that it makes the geometry elegant and light.

with the more traditional window wall with the horizontal and vertical mullions expressed on the exterior it completely changes the articulation and makes the design seem clumsy and overly heavy for the cantelever.

The former can be achieved by having the glazing structure behind the glass, but it increases the cost substantially. I had just hoped that since this is a very significant and vertical building that the additional money would have been justified to make sure the design intent translates. Look closely at the two images posted just previously to see what I am writing about. with transparancy the cantelever of the floors seems appropriate. With the most recent one it seems overly heavy and pointless to have centrally cantelevered. If it was all due to monetary savings then a canted structure that leans out over the water with glazing all the way down would have saved much more money, then utilizing the cantelever.

[metro]

Looks the same to me only a different angle.

[jbrown84]

Yes the latest version (on top) is a very far cry from what was originally proposed:

It looks like the exact same thing to me. It's just a different angle, guys...

The former can be achieved by having the glazing structure behind the glass, but it increases the cost substantially. I had just hoped that since this is a very significant and vertical building that the additional money would have been justified to make sure the design intent translates. Look closely at the two images posted just previously to see what I am writing about. with transparancy the cantelever of the floors seems appropriate. With the most recent one it seems overly heavy and pointless to have centrally cantelevered. If it was all due to monetary savings then a canted structure that leans out over the water with glazing all the way down would have saved much more money, then utilizing the cantelever.

I'll admit I don't follow your terminology completely, but I just don't see the difference. The original rendering is more abstract, whereas the second one is admittedly a bad angle and also depicts the glare that would make the glass less transparent from certain perspectives.

[Dustin]

Looks the same to me as well!

[john60]

Here's the link to the video rendering of the boathouse:

YouTube - Chesapeake Energy's Finish Line Tower

[okrednk]

Are we sure that's not just a different angle? The lower drawing would look very similar to the upper one if looked at head on.

I agree betts.

[OKC@heart]

Most may be the angle, however there are some differences however subtle they may be that lessen the effectiveness of the design if they are in fact design modifications due to value engineering.

If you look at the image posted above and then compare it with the video at 3min.45sec (3.45) you can see that the it appears to be a identical perpendicular shot to the elevation. Granted it is not as close or with as much detail, but nonetheless it appears to me that the structural support of the building in the video is much more asymmetrically positioned and lends to the sleek and dynamic form of the building. Additionally where previously the balcony had a transparent portion articulating the finish line stripe as translated vertically up the skin of the building, it is now replaced with a solid concrete balcony. (I am sure this was a cost saving measure) Next the reflective nature of the glass does make the building seem to gain weight or increase the sense of mass to the structure. You see more of the exterior geometry and less of the integrated transparency and the elegant and bold knife edges formed by the cantilevered floors as the lightly touch the glazed envelope. The corner mullions (the steel supports at the building edges extending vertically on either end of the disappointing rendering further block the transparency and dilute the graceful design intent. (this too may have been a cost saving or "value engineering" revision) which can occur as a way to replace a structurally glazed enclosure (more closely like the original design) with a less expensive stick built curtain wall or even window wall system.

Individually I am sure that most would say that these are relatively minor changes, however the cumulative effects that each have is what has caused my alarm, and I think whether consciously or subconsciously it grabbed Pete's attention in the same way. The difference is always in the details and it truly makes a huge difference to the overall way the building is perceived and can cloud an otherwise crystal clear and well executed concept into the built form. These structures are so unique that you can without a doubt know that the architectural community will take notice and they will be vastly more critical than I am here.

Let me also be clear that I am a fan of Rand's work, and am not trying to be a downer on this fantastic collection of structures that will stand singularly alone as the finest rowing venue in the world when completed. It is because I love pure well done design, and as a designer can empathize with the fact that value engineering is often a harsh reality; however every once in a while a project has such importance (as I really feel this one does) that it impacts the entire development. The finish line tower acts as a crescendo to the procession of row houses. It is such an important and visible structure that I would argue makes it worth the additional dollars. Let the design have the best shot at garnering design awards that will further provide advertising and positive exposure to the city, venue and state. It will help the architect to do so, and the result will benefit the development itself, the organizations invested and involved, the river front, and the city, for years to come. Significant architecture can and will in and of itself draw tourism.

Or it also may be that I need more sleep...lol!

[betts]

To take the opposing argument, you can draw anything. Making that drawing fit a budget or taking into account environmental or other factors is a necessary fact of life. We may not have the additional dollars, or the original drawing may have been a flight of fancy that had to be altered once the reality of making it wind and weather worthy or practical for its intended purpose came into play (I don't know that, just throwing out possibilities).

Although it would be nice to have a very iconic piece of architecture on the river, we're still looking at a drawing and we're looking at it from a vantage point different from how we will view it once it's constructed. The river is still the focal point, IMO, and the tower will be only one part of a collection of structures that will make being on or near the river more aesthetically pleasing.

[OKC@heart]

Betts I appreciate your thoughts and don't feel at all that your viewpoint is in opposition to what I stated. The economic factors are absolutely a fact of life that any designer must work within. It is often a moving target due to market fluctuations in material and labor pricing. I have watched projects that were designed well within budget escalate by as much as 30% due to shortages of steel or glazing supply as caused by the insatiable Chinese appetite and willingness to pay for them. I have also seen projects designed to a certain budget come in under what was anticipated due to similar market fluctuations.

I am not new to the economic realities, I am very aware of structural and construction related capabilities and what can be accomplished as it relates to the wind (lateral) loads that are exerted on a building, among many others. My comments were based on weighing the most probable reasons for the changes that I was seeing.

The difference is in the philosophy that if you are going to do something, and you aspire to do something great, then doing something less great is disappointing, and the level of attention to details and execution of the designed intent can then be misunderstood.

Take any of the boathouses, as an example. There are boathouses around the country; many are simply glorified metal shacks on the river that are simply used for storage of the boats with a dock to launch from. Now look at the difference that the Chesapeake boat house makes to the riverfront. There is no question that it has played a role in redefining what the boathouse can be. It has also brought a great deal of attention to the riverfront and has certainly contributed to the momentum and development of what we are seeing be constructed on the other side of the overpass.

The point being well executed design can essentially pay for its additional costs if the client is forward thinking enough to consider the additional positive PR that can be had among other advantages.

[OKC@heart]

There has been a new post today that clarifies the issues that we have been discussing here. There are new renderings that will be made available soon that will show us the current refined drawings with changes made. They also explained that there were some changes made in the previous post that are not shown in the images of the current one.

Boathouse District Development

[jbrown84]

@heart, the following new renderings don't show the vertical supports in the corners that you were worried about, and they also appear more transparent, like the original render.

[bombermwc]

so as we said...it's the same building. Don't get your panties all in a twist.