[MarkDaMan]

HaHa! I'm taking it the project didn't turn out like their rendering?

http://www.thurmanstreetlofts.com/

Lofts raise worries

A building constructed last year on Northwest Thurman Street had board members at the most recent neighborhood association meeting expressing concern that other developers may try to copy its design.

Thurman Street Lofts, 2534-2538 N.W. Thurman St., shares commercial mixed-use zoning with many small-lot buildings along Thurman.

According to John Bradley, chairman of the Northwest District Association planning committee, the commercial mix zone was devised to encourage buildings in which people could combine living and working in a small office.

But the lofts, though built within the guidelines, according to Bradley, emphasize parking on a larger scale than planners had anticipated and de-emphasize the office space.

“What we’re seeing is a small door, then a large garage door, then a very small office, then another door, and everything is built out to the max,” Bradley said. “It’s not great for the streetscape and pedestrians.”

The board has begun talking with the Portland Bureau of Planning about the zoning code.
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=116829764907958800

[urbanlife]

Holst is beginning to bother me like this. Interesting read by the way.

[kvalk]

"Holst is beginning to bother me like this."

What do you mean by that? As it states the building is to code.

Mark's statement has nothing to do with the article. The renderings do match the building, precisely.

As I gather from John Bradely's comments, the board just isn't happy with the zoning code. That's no surprise, it never is, as they continously spend time challenging what is a property owners legal right.

Would th NW neighborhood prefer townhomes, with individual driveways and garage doors facing the street, like the project directly to the east? How is that better for the pedestrian. What if no parking was provided? Would it be OK to provide new housing while adding to the growing parking problem on thurman street?

[urbanlife]

"Holst is beginning to bother me like this."

What do you mean by that? As it states the building is to code.

Mark's statement has nothing to do with the article. The renderings do match the building, precisely.

As I gather from John Bradely's comments, the board just isn't happy with the zoning code. That's no surprise, it never is, as they continously spend time challenging what is a property owners legal right.

Would th NW neighborhood prefer townhomes, with individual driveways and garage doors facing the street, like the project directly to the east? How is that better for the pedestrian. What if no parking was provided? Would it be OK to provide new housing while adding to the growing parking problem on thurman street?


That's my problem with Holst these days, the building is to code....that's all. I use to expect much more from them, but they are turning into one of those firms that has a formula for building that they use over and over, thus killing good design.

My question is, is this building right for Thurman St? Does it add to the problem or create a better life for the neighborhood? I am beginning to wonder if questions like these are being asked at Holst anymore.

[kvalk]

"they are turning into one of those firms that has a formula for building that they use over and over, thus killing good design."

can you explain this formula and provide examples? I'm not sure you understand their buildings very well, or what goes into making a building.

Does using the same exterior material on two buildings create a formula?

"I am beginning to wonder if questions like these are being asked at Holst anymore."
Do you know anything about their office or the people there?

[urbanlife]

they are turning into one of those firms that has a formula for building that they use over and over, thus killing good design."

can you explain this formula and provide examples? I'm not sure you understand their buildings very well, or what goes into making a building.

I can't off the top of my head, but investigating their website will probably lead to these examples. They basically use the same interior layouts over and over, but replace it with different wood colors. These 12x12 balconies that they are doing is only because it is allowed through building codes and serve very little purpose to their design besides repetition. I could probably go on longer on this and if I had a bit more time could probably pull up images to back this up.


Does using the same exterior material on two buildings create a formula?

"I am beginning to wonder if questions like these are being asked at Holst anymore."
Do you know anything about their office or the people there?

Yes I do, or I wouldn't be complaining about them so much. I liked them more when I knew less about them, but after a lecture that I went to and heard them talk, it was just dissappointing to hear. The worst comment of the lecture was when (can't remember his name off the top of my head, so I shall use the word "they") "they" said "it is kind of hard to talk about a building for more than 15 minutes." Weird I managed to talk with one critic for more than 45 minutes about a wall I proposed in studio and have spent the last month or so still talking about it.

[kvalk]

i guess I'll need you to provide some more examples, when you have the time. From what I can tell, most of their projects are actually pretty different if you look close. Do most of the condos have corridors with units on either side? sure, but i don't think that makes them formulaic.

From what I've alwasy heard, and I've heard the partners at Holst talk plenty, their work, as I belive architecture should be, is about experience. And not about the semantics with which you explain it. So perhaps the comment was meant to convey that their architecture should be experienced.

"Weird I managed to talk with one critic for more than 45 minutes about a wall I proposed in studio and have spent the last month or so still talking about it."
I'm very sorry to hear that. Talking about a wall for a month, sounds pretty boring. Perhaps you should look at the bigger picture. It's also a lot easier to waste time when you are in school. Most clients won't be paying you to talk about a wall for a month. Hell most employers won't either. I can see the billing statement now

160hrs: Contemplating the idea of a wall.

ha. good luck.

[pdxman]

:previous: is this urbanpdx in a new form?

[kvalk]

no.

[Drmyeyes]

I haven't seen this building in person. From the rendering, which looks good, viewable via the link provided on this site, I can't see what John Bradley, chairman of the Northwest District Association planning committee was describing in the following comments:

“What we’re seeing is a small door, then a large garage door, then a very small office, then another door, and everything is built out to the max,” Bradley said. “It’s not great for the streetscape and pedestrians.”

If what he says rings true upon seeing the building firsthand, the last sentence may be a valid point. In conceiving and realizing this project, was making it great for streetscape and pedestrians a serious priority for the developer?

[MarkDaMan]

if the building turned out like the renderings, why the fetching from the neighborhood? I think the design is complementary to the area, yet still functional. Some of the other projects in NW are more suited for the burbs...the renderings make this one look pretty decent, maybe not a show stopper, but clean.

[tworivers]

is this urbanpdx in a new form?

That was my question exactly, before I even got down to your comment, PDXman. The spelling errors, the "property owners legal right" line, the "ha. good luck" parting shot. Smells like Urbanpdx.

I have a friend who lives in the Thurman St Lofts. I'll have to finally drop in on him one of these days and see for myself what the fuss is about. Up until that blurb in the Tribune, all I'd heard was glowing praise.

[der Reisender]

i have gone by the lofts. they look a lot like the renderings, and were, i thought, a very nice example of modernist architecture (don't hang me for loose use of architecture terms!). the frontage along the street isn't very large, but i don't think it takes anything away from peds/bikers either. its a great fabric/infill project and more creative than a lot of the townhomes in NW. i wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the backlash is b/c its a box without a pitched roof...just more NIMBY chatter

[kvalk]

I can assure you both that I am not now, nor have I ever been, Urbanpdx.

The spelling errors, yes it happens.

The "property owners legal right" line, strictly plagarism.

[bvpcvm]

i live about a block from that building and i like it quite a bit. there's no feeling, when walking past it, that it's a wall. the office space is quite open and, during working hours there are always a couple people in there. the only mystery to me is why in the renderings it was going to be grey, but turned out brown. maybe the wood is supposed to age that way. but re: NW neighborhood nimbyism, it's quite strong and in my opinion pretty irrational. just recently i was talking w/some neighbors about the looming closure of the bull pen on 27th and upshur and several rolled their eyes and moaned that undoubtedly someone will "build a tower" there. when i pointed out that a "tower" would unlikely be higher than 4 stories - and especially when i pointed out that anything with retail might bring coffee a little closer - they changed their tune. they can be reasoned with - at least the neighbors i was talking with - but they sometimes need a little explanation.

[roner]

I also live the area and really like the building. I also agree der reisender that many homes in the NW (new ones that is) are very tacky and suburban. I don't see what all the fuss is about, the building is in at least the top 50% for the area. Sounds like more NIMYBS at neighborhood meetings to me. Oh, and I generally like most of what Holst has done, far better than alot of the developments in P-town.

[bvpcvm]

I also live the area and really like the building. I also agree der reisender that many homes in the NW (new ones that is) are very tacky and suburban.

no kidding; how about those townhomes on 20th and pettygrove? ugh!

[roner]

^yeah, those just may be the worst of the worst!

[PDX City-State]

kvalk, welcome to the forum. I don't hear any echos of urbanpdx in kvalk's comments and have no idea what makes you guys draw that parallel. Although I supposed it's tantalizing and easy to put anyone who doesn't agree with you in urbanpdx box, I see quite a difference between urbanpdx's textbook libertarianism and the comments above. When have you ever heard urbanpdx talk about architecture being experienced?

[tworivers]

Although I supposed it's tantalizing and easy to put anyone who doesn't agree with you in urbanpdx box

That's a bit of a stretch! And anyways, I fully agree with kvalk's defense of Holst.

Please accept my apologies kvalk. I fell prey to paranoia.

[mcbaby]

i'm not too impressed by holsts track record as far as including neighborhood input nor am i a fan of their poster child randy rappaport (having met him several times). criticism aside, i do think some of their buildings add interest to the skyline. i just don't want to see more historic structures knocked down in favor of this latest style. there are still many parking lots to work with. have at them.

[MarkDaMan]

^developers would prefer parking lots over existing structures, historic or otherwise. It is cheaper to start with an empty lot and build up, than to tear down and build up. Many undeveloped lots are undeveloped because of the property owners themselves.

Goodman is downtown's largest land owner, but has buildings other than parking garages on (I heard this somewhere but don't have the source) less than 5% of his owned properties. He portrays himself as a humble, I just wanna partner with people and build a great city, but than demands incredible concessions from developers in parking revenues (or the ability to sell the garage to an operator for a profit) and also long term lease payments for the lots he refuses to sell when developed.

I think it is important to save our historic treasures, but in neighborhoods like the ones bordering Division, it is important to remember that not every 1900 craftsman home on the main roads should be preserved if it can be moved to a more suitable, away from the busy avenue, lot. The whole metro plan is to build high density corridors, so we need to take stock of the buildings we want preserved and work to get them on some list, and also decide what lots could be developed first...kinda like when we expand our UGB, the less desirable areas go up first, and the most prized are protected.

[Drmyeyes]

I don't have a list of the Goodman's real estate holdings either, but they shouldn't be too hard to find. I know for a fact that the building on Broadway and Morrison (home of Abercrombie ) is a Goodman holding, and there's more. The Goodman's are just "good" business people, and that makes them a force that the downtown business community and city hall can't easily dismiss.

As for the parking lots, think about it: all those surface parking lots with virtually no physical overhead, and lots of people to fill them, that, with the city, seem to be absolutely convinced that such use of urban real estate is neccessary for good urban economic health.

Regarding the impact of new design into existing neighborhoods and upon earlier architecture, that subject, and specifically the phenomena of rappaport upon vintage houses in the path of them, has been visited often before. That guy may have some good ideas, but he's definitely a mixed blessing. Some people might think that Frank Dufay, one of his key critics, is just an old crank, but he's done a commendable job of nailing the rap for his failings as well as giving him credit where such credit is due.

The new era is hopefully one where developers call upon their resources to produce good, exciting and innovative new architecture that respects the neighborhoods into which they're introduced, and their residents, even enhancing the quality of life they enjoy there.

[MarkDaMan]

The new era is hopefully one where developers call upon their resources to produce good, exciting and innovative new architecture that respects the neighborhoods into which they're introduced, and their residents, even enhancing the quality of life they enjoy there.

To get a neighborhood to agree on what is an enhancement, and what is a detraction, is virtually impossible and it shouldn't be the developers job to mediate that. I do agree with public input, but the neighborhood associations need to plan ahead for the upcoming developments in their neighborhoods by doing some of things I mentioned above, like recognizing and protecting properties that are deemed important, before a developer is eyeing the parcel and has received permits.

[urbanlife]

i guess I'll need you to provide some more examples, when you have the time. From what I can tell, most of their projects are actually pretty different if you look close. Do most of the condos have corridors with units on either side? sure, but i don't think that makes them formulaic.

From what I've alwasy heard, and I've heard the partners at Holst talk plenty, their work, as I belive architecture should be, is about experience. And not about the semantics with which you explain it. So perhaps the comment was meant to convey that their architecture should be experienced.

"Weird I managed to talk with one critic for more than 45 minutes about a wall I proposed in studio and have spent the last month or so still talking about it."
I'm very sorry to hear that. Talking about a wall for a month, sounds pretty boring. Perhaps you should look at the bigger picture. It's also a lot easier to waste time when you are in school. Most clients won't be paying you to talk about a wall for a month. Hell most employers won't either. I can see the billing statement now

160hrs: Contemplating the idea of a wall.

ha. good luck.

Actually my wall was anything but boring. You are kind of missing the point, I am refering to the fact that it is important for the designer to care about what they design. An architect spends months, if not years on a project. They should be excited to spend any amount of time to talk about it if they wanted to.

Now I do criticize Holst, but that doesn't mean I don't think they are a good firm, I just think they could be much better.

[kvalk]

urbanlife:
Actually I don't believe I'm missing your point at all. I just happen to think that your point is naive.

In my experience, many architects are self-obsessed and like to hear themselves talk. I don't believe that those who talk about architecture more are better architects, and I don't believe that they care more either.
As I stated, I believe architecture should be more about experiencing buildings and expriencing space. In the end it doesn't matter too much how you got to the end result, as much as the end result itself.

BTW inferring that an architect, and a fairly distinguished one here in town, doesn't care about their work because he doesn't feel like spending a certain amount of time discussing it is ubsurd. Perhaps Mr. Holmes has a better idea of where his work, and we are talking condos here, stands in the bigger picture.

I'd love to see this wall.

And those examples that I discussed before as well.

[mcbaby]

kvalk, are you urbanpdx?

[MarkDaMan]

^nah, you guys need to stop painting this guy as an urbanpdx...Urbanpdx was a typical Portland libertarian blog troll. He didn't seem to care about architecture, buildings, density, design...none of that...he was consumed with the cost of transportation, cost of density, cost of SoWa, cost of taxes, and forwarding his thinking that if we accept subsidies by riding transit, living in a condo, or dreaming about an expanded system, we should be damned...I can't remember him engaging in conversation that actually discussed the fabric of the city. It was all about money and libertarianism...

I have to give Kvalk credit. He has been engaging the conversation and when people rebuttle, coming back to respond...this is how conversation works...urbanpdx would post something asinine and than wouldn't respond to the follow up posts, but would post some completely irrevelant O'Toole link or article.

I am actually interested to hear Kvalk's take on other discussions here, as long as we can keep the conversation civilized and without taking potshots at other posters or their opinions than I say: 'Welcome to the forum Kvalk' :hi:

[kvalk]

No, I am not urbanpdx, as I have now said three times, and PDX city-state can verify.

I'd be happy to provide DNA for any tests that you'd like to perform.

[kvalk]

Thanks Markdaman.

I will chime in from time to time. I've been reading for quite some time, finally decided to chime in.

[urbanlife]

urbanlife:
Actually I don't believe I'm missing your point at all. I just happen to think that your point is naive.

In my experience, many architects are self-obsessed and like to hear themselves talk. I don't believe that those who talk about architecture more are better architects, and I don't believe that they care more either.
As I stated, I believe architecture should be more about experiencing buildings and expriencing space. In the end it doesn't matter too much how you got to the end result, as much as the end result itself.

BTW inferring that an architect, and a fairly distinguished one here in town, doesn't care about their work because he doesn't feel like spending a certain amount of time discussing it is ubsurd. Perhaps Mr. Holmes has a better idea of where his work, and we are talking condos here, stands in the bigger picture.

I'd love to see this wall.

And those examples that I discussed before as well.

Sorry, I do not mean to be delaying with the examples. I am starting a new quarter in college and have been in the middle of a move. So currently I have only been using the school computers and having had much access to my own information on my laptop. So give me time and I will back up what I have to say....possibly by the end of the week.

Also goes for my wall I am talking about. Actually I will probably send you an email and explain it in greater detail if you would like.

Please do not take this wrong because I mean no offense by it, but you are a great example for the difference of who wishes to practice architecture and those who live in architecture. You only care about the end product, as you should because that is what will effect you personally. I care about the process and what went into the creating of the end product because in that is the answers to advancements within architecture.

My points about how long someone can talk about their work has more to do with an expression of ones self. I see my work as an extension of who I am as a person in hopes that others will be able to relate to my work in the same manner. There is no way I can describe myself in 15 minutes. When you can talk about a building in less than 15 minutes, it then becomes about the product....commercialism. It is less about the art and creativity of the person that created it and more about the need to meet a list of demands and codes.

[kvalk]

Urbanlife,
No rush on the examples, I understand other things come first. And I don't mean to antagonize, I just think it could open the dicussion up, and provide some real analysis, could be interesting.

I would like to hear and see greater detail about your wall. Perhaps you can post it here, since I don't like to give my email out, no offense, but I hardly know you.

What I find interesting is that you have assumed that I am not in the architecture field. However, I graduated with a BArch in '96, and have been working steadily ever since, counting summer work, over 11yrs of experience. In addition, my wife is also in the field, working for a competing firm, shee kicks ass, Hello love! Most of my friends also practice, except for PDX city-state, and a few others. Heck my son, Felix, is already running 3d studio VIZ, and he's amazing with Sketch-up. So I'd say I'm pretty immersed in architecture.

The "end result" comment wasn't intended to imply that I have no desire for the process. Indeed I do, I live it daily. But the reality of architecture is once it is completed that stuff doesn't matter to a large portion of the population, and a majority of the people that your architecture affects. They care how that building looks on the street, how it functions for their use, can they turn the shower on without getting wet, does it provide shelter from the rain etc.

In addition the experience of architecture can be very emotional, I'm not talking crying here, although it has happened, but emotional in the sense that good architecture should feel right, it shouldn't have to be explained. Which would make it very difficult to discuss at length. I'm reminded of the thoughts of Peter Zumthor. If you aren't familiar check it out.

So although it may be noble of you to discuss how architecture is an extension of who you are, I'm afraid it could also severly hinder your abilities to see the rest of the world. Architecture involves many people, including clients and users, without whom we wouldn't practice. It is not only for architects and architecture students, hell it shouldn't be for them at all. However, it is not abnormal for arch students to feel the way you feel, wanting to change architecture, wanting to get every detail, wanting to discuss the merits of an idea for hours. Unfortunately It can intensify the self obsession. It's what I believe is an unfortunate flaw in the architectural educational system.

And I'd rather not get into the discussion about wether the opinion of an architect or arch student is somehow more valid than that of an "untrained" individual. I'll assume you've all had that discussion here before.

[robbobpdx]

The "end result" comment wasn't intended to imply that I have no desire for the process. Indeed I do, I live it daily. But the reality of architecture is once it is completed that stuff doesn't matter to a large portion of the population, and a majority of the people that your architecture affects. They care how that building looks on the street, how it functions for their use, can they turn the shower on without getting wet, does it provide shelter from the rain etc.

In addition the experience of architecture can be very emotional, I'm not talking crying here, although it has happened, but emotional in the sense that good architecture should feel right, it shouldn't have to be explained. Which would make it very difficult to discuss at length. I'm reminded of the thoughts of Peter Zumthor. If you aren't familiar check it out.

. . .

And I'd rather not get into the discussion about wether the opinion of an architect or arch student is somehow more valid than that of an "untrained" individual.

Welcome kvalk,

I also read the bog for quite awhile before I joined in the disucssion. I just want to say I totally appreciate your comments and your insight, and I couldn't agree more -- especially about the more practicle side of architecture . . . how is it used, and how it is felt by people after it's built.

I couldn't agree more that in the end people will care how that building looks on the street, how it functions for their use, can they turn the shower on without getting wet, does it provide shelter from the rain etc. :worship:

My view is also that you can appreciate a beautiful design of a building exteriorly (is that a word?), but the building can fall flat on the interior. I actually see a few condo projects that have been built in the past few years to be very exciting on the exterior, but the layout of the interior floorplans leave much to be desired . . . I find myself asking "why did they put that THERE?"

And I guess I fall into that not-an-architect school of thought. I have a life-long appreciation for architecture, and a keen interest in it. But at a very early age I found I didn't have the stamina to get through all the technical parts. So I remain in appreciation of those who do get into the technical and artistic aspect of architecture -- whether the artistic or engineering side.

So I definitely appreciate Urbanlife's side of the equation too. But in the end, I'm the one on the street looking at a building (with no architect around to explain) and either going "Huh?" . . . or maybe "WOW!" I do think architecture speaks for itself in the end, and that goes for (my slogan) inside + out :tup:

[urbanlife]

haha, kvalk I will have to say I jumped the gun a bit. One of the downsides to forums is that it is sometimes hard to understand people other than what they write. On that note, it is good to have another practicing architect writing in here. It really helps open up the conversations a bit more.

As for Peter Zumthor, I was going to mention his work in my last post, but for some reason didn't....funny you mentioned him. I am actually a huge fan of his work and how he works and talks. Zumthor does work based on his past and who he is. He was a furniture maker at one time and he know materials, so all his work is about how materials effect architecture.

I can't remember the house, but it was a project where he joined an old family house to the new one. It was an amazing design to who he was and how the family was. So powerful that you wouldn't need to have Zumthor or the family there to understand the people who lived there.

Actually this point carries into another point. Much of what I have been talking about is less about the difference between architects and architecture students, but more about art and commerce. We have all heard an architect say "we don't others see my work as art?" It is a question everyone asks at one point or another. The simple answer to that is that a musician makes music for himself first. Music that expresses who he is and what consumes his thoughts. After that, it is released to the public and because of that personal connection the musician had to his work, we then can find bits of ourselves in the music. How many times have you heard a song and thought, "that totally relates to how I am feeling or have felt before?"

My theory that I have been developing is, what if architects were to do the same? Would that change architecture for the better, making them more apart of the art field, and more relatable? (basically the basis to my wall I designed.)

Now I say this, knowing full well that the problem of architecture if far greater than that, which ties to Holst. Developers control the money....no questions asked, they just do. Without them we don't have work, unless we become the developer, which is a whole different topic. I am a huge fan of Works PA here in Portland and I love their honesty to architecture. They wish to be creative and design in a way that they would wish to live, but the moment you talk design to a developer is the moment they stop listening. So Works PA talks about money and how such and such design will either save or make more money for the developer. It is kind of a thin line to walk in design, but it is a line that we are all faced with.


robbobpdx brings up a good point about architecture. The "why did they put that there?" question. What if the answer was as simple as they didn't put their personal effects into the works and merely designed for the "they" of the world. This fictional idea of people that we don't know that will be occupying the building. This "they" was created through a list of codes and rules, as if there was an easy way to sum up the human being.

To reference that back to music, a band like Mars Volta makes music for themselves and tries to push their own boundaries in sound, but a pop star like Britney Spears is given a list of songs to sing because market research says that is what teens wish to be hearing right now, leaving us the question "why did they bother making that kind of music?" Answer- money, no different with architecture.


Actually I would of been happier with Holst if they would of said this tower they were building in the Pearl was about money. That by making a huge check on this project, they would be able to do more projects like the Belmont Lofts (which besides the leaking, is their best building they have designed.)

Yeah, I am going to have a long frustrating career in architecture and I wouldn't want it any other way.

[zilfondel]

Urbanlife,
No rush on the examples, I understand other things come first. And I don't mean to antagonize, I just think it could open the dicussion up, and provide some real analysis, could be interesting.

I would like to hear and see greater detail about your wall. Perhaps you can post it here, since I don't like to give my email out, no offense, but I hardly know you.

What I find interesting is that you have assumed that I am not in the architecture field. However, I graduated with a BArch in '96, and have been working steadily ever since, counting summer work, over 11yrs of experience. In addition, my wife is also in the field, working for a competing firm, shee kicks ass, Hello love! Most of my friends also practice, except for PDX city-state, and a few others. Heck my son, Felix, is already running 3d studio VIZ, and he's amazing with Sketch-up. So I'd say I'm pretty immersed in architecture.

The "end result" comment wasn't intended to imply that I have no desire for the process. Indeed I do, I live it daily. But the reality of architecture is once it is completed that stuff doesn't matter to a large portion of the population, and a majority of the people that your architecture affects. They care how that building looks on the street, how it functions for their use, can they turn the shower on without getting wet, does it provide shelter from the rain etc.

In addition the experience of architecture can be very emotional, I'm not talking crying here, although it has happened, but emotional in the sense that good architecture should feel right, it shouldn't have to be explained. Which would make it very difficult to discuss at length. I'm reminded of the thoughts of Peter Zumthor. If you aren't familiar check it out.

So although it may be noble of you to discuss how architecture is an extension of who you are, I'm afraid it could also severly hinder your abilities to see the rest of the world. Architecture involves many people, including clients and users, without whom we wouldn't practice. It is not only for architects and architecture students, hell it shouldn't be for them at all. However, it is not abnormal for arch students to feel the way you feel, wanting to change architecture, wanting to get every detail, wanting to discuss the merits of an idea for hours. Unfortunately It can intensify the self obsession. It's what I believe is an unfortunate flaw in the architectural educational system.

And I'd rather not get into the discussion about wether the opinion of an architect or arch student is somehow more valid than that of an "untrained" individual. I'll assume you've all had that discussion here before.

kvalk, I am very glad that you revealed that you are working in the field, as it completely changes on what level to have some dialogue. I, too am a student at PSU in the same program as urbanlife, and very much agree with what he said above... as it pertains to designers who are interested in pushing the envelope of what architecture can be.

If you are going to ignore the academic philosophical and theoretical aspects of architecture, then of course the end product is extremely important - and as a collaborative process of building and compromise between the client, architect, and builders, most of the actual time spent on any project is not designing, but figuring out how to build it (am I right? I haven't graduated yet) and then building it.

The problem that I see with some firms, and what urbanlife thinks about Holst, is a firm which developed an interesting tectonic construction (a building) through whatever process of design the use, but then continually creating several not-very-different versions of what you can see as essentially the same thing. This is part of the reason people hate Gehry, although Hadid and some other Starchitects tend to do the same (and they don't even focus on budget-limited condos in cheap-ass Portland).

All in all, however, I think we are getting a good deal from Holst and other firms, as by their definition, condo buildings ARE a formula. Perhaps the commie-blocks from the 60's were more "true" and "honest" about their function and origins than any other form of multi-unit housing... ;)

[kvalk]

where to begin...

I'll take this peice by piece.

Urbanlife-
Architecture as Art. It is my opinion that architecture is much more than art. It can be a very creative process, depending on the person, depending on the project, depending on the day. There are aspects of architecture that can relate to art very well, like the emotional reaction of which I wrote earlier. I judge art strictly on an emotional level. However Architecture has a more objective aspect to it than art has, in additon to the subjective.

I have similar feelings regrading the comparison of architecture to music, but are you saying that Holst is somehow similar to Britney Spears? God I hope they keep their underwear on. If you are making that comparison, it's kinda ubsurd.

Works...they kickass, and they are probably watching so say HI...Hi Works! Are you hiring yet? But I can assure you that they are not the only ones convincing clients of ways to save money or ways to make more, if that's what you are saying, but i'm not totally sure, cause it's slightly confusing.

Do you really think Holst worked on the 937 project for a HUGE check? They teamed with Ankrom, Ankrom being the architect of record. The way that works is that then Holst works for Ankrom, which means Ankrom pays Holst, Holst works through DD, less than 50% of the total fee goes towards PD, SD & DD(usually), and that gets shared between two offices. Huge? probably not. But Holst had worked with the developer before (thurman street lofts) and brought the project to Ankrom to collaborate. If they wanted the fee they probably could have hired more people and done it themselves.

Life is frustrating, so is architecture.

Zilfondel-
I'm not sure I would consider it "revealing" that I work in the field. I didn't mention it before because I didn't think it should really have any effect on what I wrote. Do you somehow see me differently now?

"If you are going to ignore the academic philosophical and theoretical aspects of architecture..."

That is not what I said Zil, my point was that in the end a good theory alone doesn't make good architecture. Neither does good philosophy. As for academics, that's more design than architecture anyways. But on the contrary, a buidling with dumb ideas, can still be beautiful and moving.

Now for the interesting part...

"The problem that I see with some firms, and what urbanlife thinks about Holst, is a firm which developed an interesting tectonic construction (a building) through whatever process of design the use, but then continually creating several not-very-different versions of what you can see as essentially the same thing"
Urbanlife wrote a similar statement earlier, I asked for examples, he's kinda busy and I understand, so I'll ask you for examples Zil. But I'll also do a little analysis of my own.

To date I think Holst has 4 completed condo projects, at least that what's on the website. Belmont, Thurman, Division, and Oak Street in Hood River, and a couple under construction. 937, Clinton & 7th & Knott. Of those four built projects, two have Ipe exteriors (belmont & thurman) one is Brick & Concrete (hood river) and one is a combo of Hardi panel and Meranti -just like Ipe (Division), not really seeing this pattern you refer to, but lets look further.

Belmont is a four story building, modified heavy timber with retail on the main street , open parking in the back and three floors of condos above, each floor similar to the others, boilerplate, their first condo.

Thurman is really a five story project, Ipe like Belmont, but as the renderings from the beginning of this whole thing show, is intended to grey out over time in areas, and remain oiled in other areas, a fairly simple solution to maintenance. Below grade enclosed parking, with a small retail space, probably a zoning code requirement. Three floors of condos, with a fifth floor that is set back to allow for two penthouse units, similar construction method to Belmont.

Hood River- a four story PT slab building with brick and concrete frame exterior. Completely different look than the other two, ground floor retail, basement parking, two floors of condos and a top floor with two penthouses. And a very nice courtyard alley along the east edge of the property. It even has a fountain.

Division & 44th - four story modified heavy timber building, hardi panel exterior with Meranti infill at window areas. ground floor retail, second floor are flat style condos while the third and fourth floors are double height units. No elevator, open parking underneath.

Of the projects under construction, 937 is a 16 story building with a brick skin with some fractal patterning, as discussed at the lecture. Clinton is a four story steel and concrete buidling with an exterior of glass and corten steel. 7th & Knott are wood framed townhomes with a stucco exterior, and some meranti boxes.

I'm just not seeing the "several not very different versions of what is essentially the same thing." Have they used a simlar wood, on more than one building? yup, but that doesn't make it formulaic. It's a simple and beautiful material that stands up well to our wet climate. The only thing that all these projects have in common is program, and you can't blame Holst for that.

[urbanlife]

okay so maybe the Holst Britney Spear reference was a bad one, but there was a good point in it...actually the guys at Holst would probably get a kick out of it.

You are right about the 937, Holst was only the design team on the building because Akrom is much larger and can handle this kind of project.

Well I gotta get back to work, so more on this later....been way too busy lately, but it works.

[crow]

this is an interesting exchange going on here. as i cruised down division today i was thinking the same thing as urban about the work by Holst. What was fresh with Belmont is now becoming a bit of a moniker for Holst. i know they are capable of better, and maybe they are suffering from the ills of too much work. i think belmont, thurman, and division are very similar. good to bad respectfully. all are simple cloaked boxes. belmont has a translucency to the skin that is evocative, and thurman shares this, but with lesser attention to detail. division just looks cheap. they have figured out a creative and fresh skin to a building with tight budgets - to their benefit it has been tested, and they can take those lessons to continue to exploit the tectonic nature, and in some ways you can't blame them. the work still looks interesting, but the peeling of the box, and the revealing of the form with layers of complexity has been lost and the complexity is not there anymore, rather the current portfolio seems an exploit of past success. with that said, i have no doubt that they are not on the road to becoming a formula driven firm, and i am sure as madonna they will redifine themselves and others will drool in envy.

[PDX City-State]

e Holst Britney Spear reference was a bad one, but there was a good point in it...actually the guys at Holst would probably get a kick out of it.

Sorry urbanlife--I think you're alone on this one. That was a pretty absurd statement, and if anyone compared my lifework to that of Britney Spears, I would find absolutely no humor in it whatsoever....above all because it really wasn't funny in any way...

[urbanlife]

Sorry urbanlife--I think you're alone on this one. That was a pretty absurd statement, and if anyone compared my lifework to that of Britney Spears, I would find absolutely no humor in it whatsoever....above all because it really wasn't funny in any way...

With my humor, I win some, I lose some...no worries.
I was going more for the fact that when seeing the lecture from Holst, they came off as more of that "popstar" feeling. He seemed stuck on using new slang words to describe things and little things like that, as to say they have more of an interest in what ever new trends come along than to focus on a more real drive with architecture. Saying this, I am not saying they don't have a more invested view of what they are creating, I am saying they have a hard time expressing that and trying to act younger than what they are. Things like that tend to rub my the wrong way.


Actually I think crow might of just explained what I was trying to say best. For me, firms like Works PA do a better job at holding my attention because it is more than just the techtonics that they are looking at when it comes to designing, which comes down to personal tastes.


kvalk, to go along with something you had said earlier that I can't seem to find at the moment. My theory with architecture is anything but naive, I believe that as a designer it doesn't matter what any of us do when it comes to designing. Beyond 4 walls, a roof, a floor, and an entry, that is all architecture really is. The experiences that happen within them and around them is what makes something amazing or horrible, regardless of the design, we base our surrounds on our own emotions. For example on September 10, 2001, the twin towers were two of the most hated buildings in architecture. Easy to prove by reading anything a critic has written about the buildings. I have a book that referred to them as a scar to the NYC skyline. Of course now that is a whole different point of view on the towers because of a different emotional view that we have with them now.

The point that I am making with this is that it is nothing wrong with focusing on techtonics or space relationships or anything with architecture. Which is why I wish to focus on giving hints and telling stories of who I am through what I design I feel that if what I create has a personal connection to myself, then somewhere in that others too may have their own personal connection that while different than mine, might still stimulate feelings of their past within them when they have invested time and thought into the architecture.

But by no means would I ever want to design anything with the intent of that being the end point. I would want everything I do to simply be they intervention in time, that moment that something new is given and everything changes. After that, it is up to those who interact with a piece and moment of myself to take that and change it to fit their needs and personalities. Basically letting the work take on a new life and a new meaning with every new person that interacts with it.

It is alot like my wall, the wood beams that would be added to the stone wall had the intent for people to carve their initials into it and over time creating a change to it that I could never do, it would then be more of a reflection of everyone who has interacted with it, but yet the overall meaning of my childhood would still be there and probably stronger than it originally was.





Again, sorry about the bad popstar reference, I didn't realize how strong the hatred with her was in here.

[Drmyeyes]

Re; the twin towers. 911 didn't make their time as part of the New York skyline any less of a scar. The emotional experience of 911 may have overwhelmed the indignation their architectural obnoxiousness produced. Factoring human experience and response into thier work is something that good architects, designers, developers and many other kinds of people that create things would logically want to do, even if the opportunity is sometimes compromised by the customer.

[urbanlife]

Re; the twin towers. 911 didn't make their time as part of the New York skyline any less of a scar. The emotional experience of 911 may have overwhelmed the indignation their architectural obnoxiousness produced. Factoring human experience and response into thier work is something that good architects, designers, developers and many other kinds of people that create things would logically want to do, even if the opportunity is sometimes compromised by the customer.

Funny thing about that is the towers themselves were actually designed amazingly. They were a true reflection of the architect that designed them, down to the skin of the building and the reason for the windows to be designed the way they were designed.

[Drmyeyes]

Interesting comment from Minoru Yamasaki, twin tower designer (from architecture.about.com):

In the words of Minoru Yamasaki

"There are a few very influential architects who sincerely believe that all buildings must be 'strong'. The word 'strong' in this context seems to connote 'powerful'—that is, each building should be a monument to the virility of our society. These architects look with derision upon attempts to build a friendly, more gentle kind of building. The basis for their belief is that our culture is derived primarily from Europe, and that most of the important traditional examples of European architecture are monumental, reflecting the need of the state, church , or the feudal families—the primary patrons of these buildings—to awe and impress the masses. This is incongruous today. Although it is inevitable for architects who admire these great monumental buildings of Europe to strive for the quality most evident in them—grandeur, the elements of mysticism and power, basic to cathedrals and palaces, are also incongruous today, because the buildings we build for our times are for a totally different purpose."
—Minoru Yamasaki, from Architects on Architecture: New Directions in America, Paul Heyer

"I feel this way about it. World trade means world peace and consequently the World Trade Center buildings in New York ... had a bigger purpose than just to provide room for tenants. The World Trade Center is a living symbol of man's dedication to world peace ... beyond the compelling need to make this a monument to world peace, the World Trade Center should, because of its importance, become a representation of man's belief in humanity, his need for individual dignity, his beliefs in the cooperation of men, and through cooperation, his ability to find greatness."
- Minoru Yamasaki, chief architect of the World Trade Center

and a nice detail picture: http://z.about.com/d/architecture/1/0/i/F/worldtrade-sul.jpg

Many people by now know much more about Yamasaki then I. Closer to home, he was noted for one of the pavilions for the Seattle World's Fair. Anyway, the buildings themselves were cleanly executed, even graceful in their way, mininalist designs. What some may have found offensive was their interruption of NYC's gradually rising skyline prior to their appearance. That bold departure sounds consistent with Yamasaki's outlook as expressed in the comments above and supports their suggestion that his reason for conceiving such a design transcended personal objectives of financial renumeration.

[mcbaby]

Funny thing about that is the towers themselves were actually designed amazingly. They were a true reflection of the architect that designed them, down to the skin of the building and the reason for the windows to be designed the way they were designed.

they weren't designed too amazingly because they turned out to be structurally flawed in the end.

[PDX City-State]

they weren't designed too amazingly because they turned out to be structurally flawed in the end.

What the fuck? Flawed? I don't think the structural engineer had planned for the impact of a 767. Let's kill this thread.

[MarkDaMan]

What was fresh with Belmont is now becoming a bit of a moniker for Holst. i know they are capable of better, and maybe they are suffering from the ills of too much work. i think belmont, thurman, and division are very similar. good to bad respectfully. all are simple cloaked boxes.

Would it be wrong for one developer to clone a 'signature' building around town?

Since noticing a few weeks ago that there was almost an exact replica for the Rosefriend just blocks from the doomed building, I started paying attention to older architecture and have noticed several building in Portland that are almost exactly similiar. Driving through inner neighborhoods I've also noticed sooo many of the older 'craftsman' houses are all the same, with little exterior decoration giving the same floorplate a much different look outside.

I'm thinking that in order to build 'affordable' housing or at least cheaper condos, if a developer could come up with a design, change some aestetical decoration for the location, and clone the building around town, their design costs per building would drop dramatically leading to cheaper prices, or at least larger profits...since they seemed to do this back in the early days of Portland, is it wrong to do so now?

[Drmyeyes]

Clones can be good if the original is good. I should say, can be good if done with pride of workmanship, etc., and if the original design concept is borrowed, sustaining its integrity rather than having been simply knocked off for a cheap hustle. Craftsman and bungalos and garden entry apartments are loved or at least highly regarded because they're good. John Carroll's buildings?

The Rosefriend is a garden entry apartment building. The garden part is very modest, just a little landscaping to either side of the walk approaching the front door. This nicely, modestly gives a little relief from the street and softens the masonry and other elements of the building.

Maybe these new apartment/condo buildings will come to have something of the favorable regard accorded to their predecessors with the passage of time. We'll have to wait and see. The economic boom that allows them to be thrown up so fast doesn't give people time to adjust.

[PDX City-State]

Garden apartments are the ultimate testament to bad design and sprawl. Carroll's buildings, for the most part, are architectural abortions. The Gregory is a short and fat attempt at re-creating Art-Deco in ugly yellow brick, and other than housing a pretty decent Vietnamese restaurant, that building is absolute crap. It might have worked if it weren't so massive and if it were taller than it is wide. The Elizabeth looks decent from certain vantage points, but is so overwrought with unnecessary metal adornment that perhaps a better name would have been "The Gypsy." The Edge is nice from 14th street, but only because Holst helped with the design. And the Ladd Tower? My God, the Ladd Tower... I do, however, like the Mckenzie Lofts. He should have stopped with the McKenzie Lofts.

[Eagle rock]

Garden apartments are the ultimate testament to bad design and sprawl.

I don’t know if you are talking about the same thing. Traditional garden apartments are actually quit nice at creating dense multifamily housing that gives the impression of living in a single family home. Pasadena actually has an ordinance requiring garden apartments. There are some really nice examples of garden apartments in southern California as well as in Southeast Portland.

[PDX City-State]

We are definitely talking about the same thing--I used to appraise them so I know exactly what they are and I think they generally suck.

[crow]

Garden apartments are the ultimate testament to bad design and sprawl. Carroll's buildings, for the most part, are architectural abortions. The Gregory is a short and fat attempt at re-creating Art-Deco in ugly yellow brick, and other than housing a pretty decent Vietnamese restaurant, that building is absolute crap. It might have worked if it weren't so massive and if it were taller than it is wide. The Elizabeth looks decent from certain vantage points, but is so overwrought with unnecessary metal adornment that perhaps a better name would have been "The Gypsy." The Edge is nice from 14th street, but only because Holst helped with the design. And the Ladd Tower? My God, the Ladd Tower... I do, however, like the Mckenzie Lofts. He should have stopped with the McKenzie Lofts.

actually the difference between the buildings you mention and the Edge Lofts, is that one particular firm did all the others. holst had very little to do with the Edge Lofts beyond massing done at the beginning. if you knew what you were talking about you would not make such inaccurate statements.

[kvalk]

a little testy Crow... did you have something to do with the Edge?

[PDX City-State]

You're right crow--I don't know what I'm talking about. I only know architects with every firm in this town. You must work for Ankrom--one of the monkeys chained to a CAD table. You're mad because I don't like Greg or Beth. Sorry if I hurt your feeling.... Do you have more than one?

[crow]

You're right crow--I don't know what I'm talking about. I only know architects with every firm in this town. You must work for Ankrom--one of the monkeys chained to a CAD table. You're mad because I don't like Greg or Beth. Sorry if I hurt your feeling.... Do you have more than one?

so not only are you not well informed, you are now wrong three times. i am sure ankrom has plenty of cad monkies - i am not one. if you read my reply you would notice i don't take offense to your opinion just your ignorance. i too dislike both the gregory and the elizabeth. they have bad proportions, and a prescriptive faux solution to both. the fact that you think you hang out with real "architects" does not necessarily give you any credibility.

[kvalk]

Crow, what was so ignorant about PDX city-state's comment?

[crow]

Crow, what was so ignorant about PDX city-state's comment?

i think it is misleading to be so cavalier to suggest that the edge looks better than the rest b/c holst had something to do with it. look on holst's webpage where they discuss their participation. it doesn't exist. the difference exists that john carroll wanted a certain look - he forces his vision on whatever the design is. gregory, elizabeth and likely the first the mckenzie. the edge was on the edge, and i am sure he felt it needed an "edgy" look - he went to holst, but they did not deliver. it is ignorant to assume that b/c he went to holst to begin with that they are somehow responsible for the end result. it was another firm that did the design, and it was under the direction of John Carroll not Holst.

[kvalk]

Well it would be my opinion then that you're just as ignorant, unless you had direct knowledge of what happened during the project and were somehow part of the process. If that is the case then give us some idea of your role. Why are we to trust you, and who played what role.

[mcbaby]

i actually like the gregory and those other buildings and I don't take offense to art deco whatsoever. why must every new building look like something from blade runner? maybe we could take a poll of pedestrians in the pearl and ask them what buildings they like. i'm sure they enjoy the eclectic feel of the different styles both old and new. at least it's not all monotonous grey cement.

[crow]

Well it would be my opinion then that you're just as ignorant, unless you had direct knowledge of what happened during the project and were somehow part of the process. If that is the case then give us some idea of your role. Why are we to trust you, and who played what role.

instead of wasting your time being a wise ass - check it out and see for yourself, otherwise all you are doing is fueling a wasteful exchange of fact v. opinion. i did not make the false statement - if you want the truth ask it of who proclaimed it. i know the truth - it is up to you whether you want to know the truth or believe everything you read. even what i write - that is your choice.

[kvalk]

wow you really are testy.

and thanks but i'll waste my time anyway I want. Even blogging to idiots like you.

The point is that you are the one calling the statement false, how do I know it's false, how do you know it's false? Come on, Crow step up, answer the question. Fact vs. opinion... what facts have you supplied? Obviously I can decided for myself who to believe, and it's not you, since you have such a difficult time answering any questions regarding your "true" statements.

[crow]

ask holst - check out their webpage - ask john carroll - ask the real estate brokers - debbie thomas - ask pdx how he knows - my guess is it is conjecture. and you call me an idiot, but the blog is the best place for idiots like you to pretend you know a micron of what you are talking about. believe what you want - i don't need to prove anything to you, and you can chose to believe whatever you like, that is the great part of being all grown up.

[kvalk]

you still haven't answered the question. What was your role in the process? Are you afraid GBD will fire you for blogging on company time?

actually I know where PDX city-state gets his info. it's pretty reliable.

[PDX City-State]

actually the difference between the buildings you mention and the Edge Lofts, is that one particular firm did all the others. holst had very little to do with the Edge Lofts beyond massing done at the beginning. if you knew what you were talking about you would not make such inaccurate statements.


John Carrol initially hired Holst to work through design development. Like most of his projects, Carrol had in his mind what the building should look like, and when Holst didn't simply draw that for him, he got upset, and finally had GBD come into the project earlier than expected. The reality is that Holst did much more than massing; they drew the elevations eventually dropped off to the less talented design staff at GBD. In the end I think Carroll used Holst to get his new modern style through Design Review, even though they were already done working on the project by the time design review came along, he made sure to tell the commission that Holst was part of the project. Sounds familiar--eh Crow. You would know--you work for GBD right? Nice yellow brick on the Meriwether by the way. Were they out of the purple?

You're right about blogging. You never know who you're talking to.

[crow]

John Carrol initially hired Holst to work through design development. Like most of his projects, Carrol had in his mind what the building should look like, and when Holst didn't simply draw that for him, he got upset, and finally had GBD come into the project earlier than expected. The reality is that Holst did much more than massing; they drew the elevations eventually dropped off to the less talented design staff at GBD.


it seems you are more in the know than i, so i cannot understand first of all why you give so much credit to holst for the project? it appears more to me that the egos were clashing, and the designers were having a difficult time synthesizing the problem and what the client was after. i did see some of the schematics and i did see the final schematic elevations. the final schematics were of widespread public circulation, and they were vastly improved upon. not my position to tell someone how to manage a client, or their ego, but i can't say i agree with you about the end result being lesser than what holst ended with or a less talented crew at GBD ended executing.


In the end I think Carroll used Holst to get his new modern style through Design Review, even though they were already done working on the project by the time design review came along, he made sure to tell the commission that Holst was part of the project.
actually i thought you were on a roll, but design review was gbd and john carroll. it is difficult to say how the relationship ended, but my guess it was not very sweet and gbd produced something that john carroll would take to design review and eventually build. :shrug:


Sounds familiar--eh Crow. You would know--you work for GBD right?

wrong - but i have some very close friends at both offices. either you do/did, or you work for holst - but either way, your initial comments on the buildings done by john carrolll are purely subjective, and if you want to use your insight, then at least represent it accurately for the benefit of everyone.

Nice yellow brick on the Meriwether by the way. Were they out of the purple?

i guess you are full of it, and just like throwing it around. i seem recall that meriwhether was in fact a project that was a partnership between two firms, where the design partner WAS the design lead - Busby. the yellow is precast not brick - although it is hard to tell if you are being an ass or just ignorant. the solid material and glass for that mater on that building is horrible, but you have to talk once again to the developers, and designers about those choices. i am sure better materials were more desirable, but cost and pioneering developments probably influenced material choices.?

you might say edge was to gbd as williams somona was to holst. both got built, and both executed the desires of the client. but what would you know about that - right?


You're right about blogging. You never know who you're talking to.

[PDX City-State]

your initial comments on the buildings done by john carrolll are purely subjective
Everything is purely subjective. If you want to know the truth, I just wanted to use the word "abortion" to describe a building and felt Ankrom was the most worthy recipient.

although it is hard to tell if you are being an ass or just ignorant.

I am probably one or the other--or perhaps both.

i can't say i agree with you about the end result being lesser than what holst ended with or a less talented crew at GBD ended executing.

That, like my above statement, was purely subjective. And there is no way that I'm wrong

And by the way, I don't work for Holst and never have. I'm not an architect. I also know and have known people in both offices. Portland is small--info goes around. Development projects as you probably know are all about the crashing of egos--and John Carrol happens to have a big one. My hats off to him--it's served him well. He likely drives a nicer car than I do.