91ÊÓƵ

The Portland Building Reconstruction
Submitting Companies: Howard S. Wright, a Balfour Beatty Company; DLR Group; DayCPM
Location: Portland
Cost: $195 million
Owner/Developer: City of Portland
Owner’s Representative: DayCPM
Architect: DLR Group
Engineer: KPFF Consulting Engineers
Additional Engineering Firms: PAE
General Contractor: Howard S. Wright, a Balfour Beatty Company
Subcontractors: Advanced Tribal, Affordable Window Coverings, Benson, Big C Industries, Boyter Brothers, Bridgeport Interiors, Buffalo Welding, BMS, Delta AV, Diverse Works, Faison Construction, Floor Factors, Fred Shearer & Sons, Fresh Coat, Greenman Construction, GSM, H2 Wall Systems, IES, Infinity Images, Interior Technology, J&S Masonry, Legend, Milwaukee Crane, Northstar, OEG, Pacific Tint, Pioneer Waterproofing, Portland Coatings, Prestige Tile & Stone, Schonert & Associates, Sign Wizards, Snyder Roofing, Stonhard, Streimer Sheet Metal, Superior Gunite, TCM, Turtle Mountain, United Professional, Viking Sprinkler, Willamette Elevator, Zochert Fence

Built in 1982 as city administrative offices, The Portland Building is an award-winning, iconic design of Postmodern architecture that is on the National Register of Historic Places. However, it faced problems with its structure, exterior and operational systems that repairs alone could not address.

The project included a complete renovation/restoration of the 400,000-square-foot, 15-story building. It involved new exterior cladding; a seismic upgrade; complete mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems replacement; and new interior construction throughout. The team’s scope also included relocating the building’s 1,400-plus employees into temporary office space.

The new design meets the city’s goal of locating public-facing services on the first two floors. Access to upper floors is limited to city employees.
The project team navigated a complex permitting process associated with historic landmark status to obtain approvals to design and construct an over-clad aluminum curtainwall system to replicate the building’s historic appearance. This approach corrected some of the building’s urban design deficiencies, making it more open to and integrated with the surrounding community.

The city’s administrative team participated with the delivery team throughout the design phase’s evolving project scope by re-imagining its workplace, improving internal collaboration between departments, and creating a more cost-effective building asset management model.