I was under the impression it was stuck in bankruptcy proceedings. The overseas money that was supposed to back it is out of the picture and other investors are waiting to see if it will be auctioned off on the cheap
That little concrete “backbone” that lines the back of the tower is appalling. Hopefully they clad it over with some glass, whenever construction resumes.
I’m probably the only one here, but I like the stark contrast between the smooth rounded edge glass and the harsh concrete.
I’d rather the concrete be clad in something such as metal. The bare concrete won’t age well and will get gross as time progresses. That concrete does not look good at all even in its current state.
Here’s a picture I took of the site a few weeks ago.
The real problem with this building is they didn’t get enough presales to continue construction which made financing impossible. People bet too much on luxury financial district demand and this is a poster child.
I like the work of Arthur Erickson; so that raw concrete look for me is more ‘artful’ than ugly. I agree with your point in the sense that this type of architecture may be too esoteric: most people will not like it, and will not ‘get it’ as a distinct Architectural Style. When some member of the general public does not ‘get it’ and views this building, the response is puzzlement as to why the facade was not “finished” . That meaning “finished” as in ‘completed’ or “finished” as in applying a coat of paint or decorative surface treatment of some type. So, the end result is ‘most’ people will either not ‘get it’ or ‘like it’.
My point being: Architects need to avoid ‘esoteric’ design features that will not ultimately be a ‘crowd pleaser’…
This post contains a video that features much of Erickson’s work. I hope this building gets some more public admiration; as I find this one to be Architecture with a capital ‘A’. Always good to hear opposing opinions on the aesthetics of Architectural Design.