[MarkDaMan]

OHSU's waterfront vision: 2 million square foot campus
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
DYLAN RIVERA
The Oregonian

Oregon Health & Science University, which opened its first South Waterfront high-rise beachhead just last fall, is now headed toward its biggest transformation ever.

The university's preliminary vision for its 20 acres on the South Waterfront, made public this week, proposes a true college campus from scratch that would eventually rival the Marquam Hill campus. The new Schnitzer Campus, on land donated by the Portland family in 2004, would become the center of gravity for a new educational mission uniting student doctors, nurses, dentists and others in interdisciplinary classrooms.

Five university schools would eventually relocate to the waterfront campus, while the hospital, clinics and some research would remain on Marquam Hill.

For the first time, OHSU is openly contemplating housing -- condos, apartments or student housing -- in floors above medical education centers. Making room for biotechnology industries, for years an anchor of OHSU's planning, has faded.

The scope of the plan is audacious, not just for its sheer size -- another 2 million square feet of university space is planned, about 40 percent the size of the Marquam Hill campus. Its likely massive price tag remains an unknown, though a recent $40 million donation certainly helps.

The university's intent is to create the medical campus of the future, with room to grow for decades, OHSU President Joe Robertson said Monday.

"This campus is something that will develop over the next three decades, not over the next three years," Robertson said. "We do not have a specific plan at this point. It would be presumptuous for us to have a plan at this point."

University officials stress that their plans are only a preliminary vision, but they have real hopes of putting students there within five years under a timeline being offered for the first time. A $40 million anonymous gift already in the bank will be used to break ground on their first building.

Looking ahead

Deans and professors from across the university have spent months discussing how they want medical education to work a generation from now. Portland city planners have helped them put their ideas into lines on a map that represent potential buildings, roads and parks.

In recent weeks, university officials have shown neighborhood activists and some city officials their preliminary vision, which outlines in broad terms the locations of streets and sites of buildings on the 20-acre parcel. Haggling over street locations, building designs and uses of specific planned buildings will likely follow.

The university plans 250-foot-tall buildings along Southwest Moody Avenue, with shorter buildings closer to the river. It calls for a combination light-rail and streetcar bridge to land south of the property, closer to the recently opened aerial tram landing, but different from the city's plan for a bridge to the north.

The intensely urban plan contrasts sharply with the ideas advanced over the years by the Schnitzer family, which raised the possibility of suburban-scale biotech development with a 25-foot setback from the river.

Yet OHSU's plan already presents some potential shortcomings, and issues city planners and others are likely to pick apart.

It has become more oriented to medical education than goals of thousands of private-sector biotech jobs university officials trumpeted several years ago in making a public pitch for OHSU's expansion. Because of costly underground contamination, some of its potential 6,000 parking spaces may be built in upper floors of buildings, likely to disappoint planners who push for housing and offices that overlook sidewalks.

A 100-foot riverfront greenway would comply with city code but fall short of some environmental aspirations.

"We view this as the beginning of a conversation, not the end of a conversation," said Mark Williams, OHSU South Waterfront project director. "We're very eager to involve our neighbors, city bureaus, elected officials and others in having a discussion about what this ought to look like."

With federal research dollars leveling off, and the state-financed Oregon Opportunity fund already spent, OHSU's research spending will grow at a slower pace, Robertson said.

"The Schnitzer campus was given by the Schnitzer family predominantly to enhance the educational mission," Robertson said. "It will facilitate the research mission."

It takes longer to get biotech ideas from patent to marketable product than for the standard high-tech products, Robertson said. That wasn't known as recently as five years ago, said Robertson, who became OHSU president last year.

In contrast with prior insistence that biotech companies would fit into the high-rise plans for South Waterfront, Robertson and Steve Stadum, executive vice president for OHSU, conceded that rising construction costs and high density make the waterfront a challenging sell for private-sector biotech. They said shorter building sites closer to the river would offer some lower-cost opportunities for commercial development.

Positive reactions

Only two city commissioners, neighboring landowners and the South Portland Neighborhood Association have been briefed in person so far on the vision. OHSU has met with staff of most city commissioners and the mayor.

So far, the reviews seem positive, even from neighbors and politicians who have clashed over South Waterfront in the past.

City Commissioner Sam Adams said the university's idea for a 24-hour district with high density development contrasts sharply with what the Schnitzers had proposed.

"The last conversations were for a much less robust development than OHSU has put on the table with this proposal," Adams said. "So in that sense, it feels like this proposal is ahead of what the previous owners had envisioned doing."

Commissioner Randy Leonard said he likes the transit orientation of the vision.

"If we are creating a community down there where a car becomes more of a liability than an asset, people can buy more of a house and have amenities that they couldn't otherwise afford," he said.

The Zidell family, which still runs a barge building business adjacent to the waterfront condo towers and has sued the city over its high-rise plans, likes the vision presentation, said Bob Durgan, a consultant for the family. The Zidells still want more information on the district's transportation needs and costs, he said, but it's open to selling or swapping land to help OHSU's campus.

"We're open to all alternatives," Durgan said. "We're going to work with them on anything that's symbiotic and mutually beneficial."

So far, the vision appears to have won over even the South Portland Neighborhood Association, which includes many residents who fought for years against OHSU's aerial tram.

Residents have come to terms with the high-rise scale of the waterfront section of their area, neighborhood Chairman Ken Love said.

"Overall, it's going to be a great thing for Portland," he said. "Getting away from all the condos and just getting something positive going with OHSU there."

Dylan Rivera: 503-221-8532; dylanrivera@news.oregonian.com
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/1175658921288200.xml&coll=7

[MarkDaMan]

if someone has a scanner available, there was also a site map with the tower shapes on the front page of the O's business section.

[Snowden352]

Somewhere in Northwest Portland, Jack Bogdanski is fuming...

[cab]

Wow watching jack Bogdanski go though a midlife crisis in public is kind of sad. Just like Stanford at the tribune the city has outgrown these guys and they can't handle it. Both need to move on to more stagnate pastures.

[pdxman]

You can include Jim Karlock on that list too ^^^

[cab]

Karlock's in Mid-Rigamortis crisis.

[nehalem5]

I've always felt that OHSU's claims of attracting biotech industry to the south waterfront were disingenuous. Not that me ,and a ton of other people I know, dont hope for Portland to attract some biotech to create opportunities to stay here rather than pay to live in san diego, boston, or the bay area.
This campus, if truly interdisciplinary and collaborative, could easily elevate OHSU into a more innovative creative center for basic science research rather than the quasi corporate model it is run as today. from pure basic science research comes the true innovative technologies and therapies...and spin offs.
I think Portland will get biotech, just by being between seattle and san fran (genentech in hillsboro for example), but this campus will foster the more important mission of just research for research sake.
and as an architecture dilletante, I can only hope that the spaces and buildings constructed will be just as innovative and inspiring, say like the salk institute in san diego.

[MarkDaMan]

on a related note:

PSU-OHSU merger idea refuses to quietly go away
State representative brings idea back for third go-around
Portland Business Journal - March 30, 2007
by Aliza Earnshaw
Business Journal staff writer

Though most people at Oregon Health & Science University and Portland State University oppose Rep. Mitch Greenlick's proposal to merge the two institutions, no one is sorry he's brought it up -- for the third consecutive session.

Greenlick's bill proposes separating Portland State from the Oregon University System, much as OHSU was separated from the statewide higher education system 12 years ago.

Greenlick also proposes enlarging the board governing OHSU and having it govern Portland State, with the idea of merging the two over 10 years.

Greenlick, a Democrat from Portland who has had a long career in medical administration and academia, believes that economic progress throughout Oregon is hampered by the lack of a major research university comparable to the University of Washington, University of California at Los Angeles or Berkeley, Stanford University, and a host of others.

Greenlick is not alone in his belief. Economic development professionals often point to this gap in Oregon's portfolio.

Large research universities win more federal and private grants for research, spin out more companies, and attract higher-caliber faculty and students than smaller universities normally do.

Officials at OHSU and Portland State didn't like Greenlick's idea when he brought it up in the last two legislative sessions, and they don't like it any better now, even though it has a chance of being passed by a Democratic Legislature.

But they are taking this proposal as an opportunity to make the case that more funding for higher education -- and more consistent funding --is what Oregon really needs, not a costly merger between two big institutions with very different purposes and cultures.

The issue of inadequate state funding for its universities sharpened last week, when the Oregon House Ways and Means Committee recommended a higher-education budget that falls far short of Gov. Ted Kulongoski's proposed budget.

Oregon's level of support for higher education is source of continual friction between the education and legislative communities. The business community also is affected by the issue.

People at Portland State might be open to the idea of splitting off from the state university system, if not a merger with OHSU, said Mike Burton, vice provost at PSU's School of Extended Studies and a former CEO of regional government Metro.

"OHSU has done some things as a private corporation that have been good for them," said Burton. "Maybe we can look at those things and see if we can do them at Portland State. But first, you have to remove yourself from the state university system, and we should be able to have those discussions."

The main objection to merging PSU and OHSU is that the very different nature of the two institutions could result in a merger nightmare, and dilute the focus of each.

PSU is a general urban university, serving mostly undergraduates, and relying heavily on tuition for its funding.

OHSU is a medical school that relies on hospital revenue, research grants, private donations and tuition for its operations.

Both universities receive state funding, but that has diminished sharply over the years as a percentage of their total budgets.

Officials worry about a culture clash, added administrative burden and the up-front costs of a merger when both universities feel their staffs are already stretched to the limits.

OHSU took over operation of the Oregon Graduate Institute in 2001, a merger that has so far cost about $5 million -- a level of expense that's affordable within OHSU's $1 billion-plus annual budget.

However, a PSU merger would be 10 or 20 times larger, and cost much more, said Joe Robertson, OHSU president.

He also worries about losing professors and researchers.

"After progressive and successive cuts in funding, I don't think the faculty would believe that this proposal would be adequately funded," Robertson said.

"Our faculty is barraged by offers" from other institutions that can offer much more money. "Frankly, retention is sufficiently fragile that if you cast another element of uncertainty into it, you threaten it," Robertson said.

Dan Bernstine, president of Portland State University, wonders how PSU will manage if the state cuts its support for the university on leaving the statewide system, as it has done with OHSU.

"If we lose the $137 million we get annually from the state, and become a quasi-private corporation, that still has to come from somewhere," said Bernstine.

Lacking OHSU's vast network of hospital and clinic services, Portland State's opportunities to support itself don't begin to compare.

Scott Gibson, who serves on OHSU's board, thinks that while a PSU-OHSU merger isn't suitable, Oregon's universities could benefit from two other mergers: a single business school combining those at PSU, University of Oregon and Oregon State University, and a merger of PSU's engineering school into OSU's.

"It makes more sense to do some smaller integrations that are profound, selected and thoughtful," he said.

Merging like entities would be "more manageable, with much quicker payback" than a PSU-OHSU merger.

Some university officials are suggesting that not only PSU, but also Oregon State University and University of Oregon might be better off outside of the overall university system.

These three universities have more opportunity to win research dollars from federal agencies and others, as well as milk their relationships with alumni and other donors for endowment and building funds.

Pulling the three larger universities out of the system could leave more funding for Oregon's three smaller regional universities, which are in even more dire financial shape than the larger three.

aearnshaw@bizjournals.com | 503-219-3433
http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2007/04/02/story6.html?t=printable

[65MAX]

Thank god they're not doing the original suburban-style campus plan. That would have been a tragic waste of prime central city land.

[mhays]

This new plan sounds pretty cool. I'd love to see a rendering.

Too many cities are pinning their aspirations on biotech. Portland has a fine chance at it, but few cities will be successful on a major scale. So kudos to the powers that be for adjusting the SoWa concept to something that's in-tune with what they can deliver.

[65MAX]

Agreed. Plus, this plan wouldn't preclude adding biotech to the campus should they have real success in pursuing that type of R&D.

[tworivers]

*double post*

[tworivers]

Does anyone here think that OHSU really has the means or the interest in cutting-edge design to pull off something like the Salk Institute? Kohler and the Ctr for Health & Healing give me some hope, but still I wonder. Wasn't the Salk featured in a recent issue of Metropolis? Or Dwell?

[nehalem5]

The vollum institute up on the ohsu main campus is an example of higher aspirations in terms of design for OHSU. the founder of tektronix gave a large sum of money to ohsu. instead of dividing it among various OHSU departments they decided to invest in a world class neuroscience institute. The result was the Vollum which was built for around 15 million (no small change back in 87). I think ZGF was the architect. Its no salk by any means but it did advance the concept of research space in terms of open bays to encourage interactions between scientists. The vollum lacks the elegant lines and stark isolation of the salk because it was built between two existing buildings but it does exude a stately ivory tower ambience. given the high profile location of this campus, perhaps a few more large donations could happen to make design a factor. make the link between design and creativity or even health in a holistic sense and the sky's the limit, at least up to 250 feet.

http://www.ohsu.edu/vollum/

[zilfondel]

I'd opt for something like the Terrence Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research at the University of Toronto. It's a gorgeous building.

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/ccbr/ccbr102.jpg

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/ccbr/ccbr092.jpg
pics from http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/ccbr/

Or, the Vancouver, BC Cancer Research Lab:

from canada.archiseek (http://canada.archiseek.com/british_columbia/vancouver/bc_cancerresearchcenter.html)

They removed the pic, so check out the link above.

[nehalem5]

well, even cincy has more cutting edge academic architecture than we do...
http://vontz.uc.edu/architecture2.cfm

[Dougall5505]

this is great but on a different topic has anyone noticed how bright the OHSU center for health and healing is at night? It seems like a building that boasts of its energy effency like this one does would think about turning off the lights at night to conserve energy. Maybe this is a stupid observation but im just putting it out there

[pdxman]

Interesting that they're floating the idea of a streetcar extension down the middle of the proposed campus. It seems like the "in" thing to do these days in portland. I'm not complaining tho...Hopefully they think a little out of the box in regards to the architecture of the campus. I'd hate to see a bunch of wellness centers along i-5.

[mhays]

I'd opt for something like the Terrence Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research at the University of Toronto. It's a gorgeous building.
http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/ccbr/ccbr092.jpg


Yes, but what's that hideous monster looming above it?

[sirsimon]

"Yes, but what's that hideous monster looming above it?"

^ UFO!

[zilfondel]

^^^ Uh, that's the building I was referring to. The upper part houses the labs, I believe. The older part is also part of it... not such a good angle for the photo, it looks really cool from a different angle.

The other Vancouver research center rocks tho - Arthur Erickson described it. Both buildings won architectural awards.

More pics of the Terrence Donnelly Centre

http://www.architecture.com/imageLibrary/jpeg330/11150.jpg

http://www.architecture.com/imageLibrary/jpeg330/11152.jpg
http://www.architecture.com/go/Architecture/Also/Awards_5357.html

http://archiguide.free.fr/PH/CAN/Tor/TorontoCCBRBeAl.jpg

It won the 2006 British RIBA award.

[mhays]

I'm sure architects love it. But I suspect the local citizens would rate the old building far higher, and that many would have nasty words for the new one.

PS, my last comment was supposed to be ironic!

[PDX City-State]

But I suspect the local citizens would rate the old building far higher

But what do local citizens know about architecture? Not much. Ever been to a neighborhood association meeting in Portland? Most folks want buildings that look like they were built 100 years ago--and they still want them to be as green as possilble. It doesn't work like that.

[mhays]

This has been argued elsewhere. Personally I agree with the public far more often than I agree with architects. Comparing two buildings of the same construction quality, I'd take the one based on century-old design over 90% of the modern designs out there, whether it's to live in, to work in, or to walk past every day.

Portland's architecture is often very avant garde. This is causing a serious backlash, because some of the projects most beloved to Portland's architects (and some people on this board) are absolutely despised by much of the public. I agree with them. Some of the ugliest architecture I've ever seen is in Portland, sometimes right next to very good architecture. I've never a nimby, but I'd think twice if I lived in Portland.

As for sustainability, there are many examples of renovated old buildings and new construction that meet high LEED ratings with traditional architecture or aspects of traditional architecture. You don't get points for natural lighting (which is relevant) or views (questionable relevance). But these points can be offset, even within the arbitrary LEED system. For example, bigger windows sometimes mean bigger heating and cooling systems.

[MarkDaMan]

Portland's architecture is often very avant garde. This is causing a serious backlash, because some of the projects most beloved to Portland's architects (and some people on this board) are absolutely despised by much of the public. I agree with them. Some of the ugliest architecture I've ever seen is in Portland, sometimes right next to very good architecture. I've never a nimby, but I'd think twice if I lived in Portland.

how bout you back that statement up with examples of terribly bad architecture...and since Portland has some of the worst architecture, I'm sure you can provide us with more examples than the Wells Fargo.

[zilfondel]

Sustainability YES, but:

Portland is certainly NOT a leader of cutting edge or avant-garde architecture! I have no idea where you get that from, because we are extremely backwards. Most of the stuff coming out of our best firms ala ZGF, Skylab, Holst, etc would be considered mundane in Japan and Europe. Perhaps the only cutting edge building we have in Portland is the Tram towers/stations, and perhaps this new Bside6 and boat towers (which are, of course, still unbuilt).

oh, I forgot - the Portland Building is avant-garde. Over 20 years ago, and the architect himself apologized to the city of Portland, as Post-Modernism generally didn't turn out so well.

I'd take the one based on century-old design over 90% of the modern designs out there, whether it's to live in, to work in, or to walk past every day.

We're talking about science labs here. Not residential, not cute little single-family homes. Lab facilities have spatial and technological needs that really cannot be accomplished by renovating an old building. In the Terrence Donnelly Centre, circulation and offices (I believe) were placed in the older building, while the labs were put in the modern vertical portion. The space between the two of them is for circulation and public space.

As far as the Vancouver research lab - you do realize how modern that city is, right? It has around 100+ glass highrise towers.

I just don't really see any connection between a modern day biolab to an old brick apartment building. You do realize that many turn of the century laboratories were themselves very cutting-edge, modern buildings themselves?

Anyways, I hate it when people relate architecture to a simplistic aesthetic 'style.' There is waaaaaaaaaaay more to architecture than simply what skin you slap onto it... architecture has always been about utilizing cutting-edge technology, from the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, to today. I particularly don't find anything wrong with expressing the modernity of technologically-based activities (such as biotech, engineering, etc) in buildings that express and embody those ideas in them.

As a disclaimer - yes, I like old brick buildings, no, I won't design them. How can you design something to be 'old?' If you do, you are essentially creating a theme park ala Disneyland.

[mhays]

how bout you back that statement up with examples of terribly bad architecture...and since Portland has some of the worst architecture, I'm sure you can provide us with more examples than the Wells Fargo.

bSide6.

[zilfondel]

Here are some examples of older technological buildings:

http://patsabin.com/etn/postcards/woolenmill.jpg
Woolen Mills (http://patsabin.com/etn/postcards/woolenmill.htm), Jefferson City, Tennessee - 1908



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d1/Glaspaleis_front-west.jpg/300px-Glaspaleis_front-west.jpg
The 'Glass Palace' (1935) in the Netherlands - functional and open

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Villa_savoye_cote.jpg/250px-Villa_savoye_cote.jpg
Villa Savoye - Corbusier - 1929

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Bauhaus.JPG
Bauhaus building - Walter Gropius - 1926

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/MaisonDeVerre.jpeg
Maison de Verre - Pierre Chareau - 1932

http://www.arthistory.upenn.edu/spr01/282/w4c2i01.jpg
Shoelast Factory - Walter Gropius - 1912
http://www.arthistory.upenn.edu/spr01/282/w4c2i01.htm

unless otherwise stated, all pics courtesy of wikipedia

Then there's the old airplane & automotive factories that were built prior to WW2:

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/6790/39021.jpg
http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/6790/39227.html?1155003502

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/6790/39644.jpg
http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/6790/39680.jpg
http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/6790/40008.html?1110934626

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/6790/40217.jpg
another machine shop in Detroit (http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/6790/40389.html?1111462014)


...then there is, of course, the modern-day equivalent - the airplane assembly hangars and new Zaha BMW factory in Leipzig:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/boeing747-400f/images/Boeing747Freighter_15.jpg
Boeing Hangar (http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/boeing747-400f/boeing747-400f5.html)

http://www.arcspace.com/architects/hadid/bmw_central/1bmw.jpg

http://www.arcspace.com/architects/hadid/bmw_central/10bmw.jpg
Hadid BMW plant (http://www.arcspace.com/architects/hadid/bmw_central/bmw_central.html)

The cars in the BMW factory roll on a track above the offices of the management and designers:

http://www.deutsche-bank-kunst.com/art/images/413/15.jpg
http://www.deutsche-bank-kunst.com

===============

The point of those photos is to illustrate to you how architects and designers were pushing the envelope of contextual architecture for industrial buildings as far back as the industrial revolution started (although I couldnt find any more pics from the 19th century). Most of those older buidings (posted above) were technologically innovative, and did not follow in the footsteps of any previous historic 'style.'

With the development of new types of buildings (condo tower, factory, biotech lab), you have to design around the needs of the function within. Therefore, it makes quite a lot of sense to also reflect those functions in the architecture itself, even on the external massing & skin. That's what the original biotech labs in Canada were about - reflecting a new kind of activity inside them.

You can broadly define it as basically in keeping with the 'spirit of the times.'

While I personally think that historic preservation is a very worthy cause, it also makes no sense to model new building types off of unrelated historic 'styles.' Slapping brick and a cornice on a modern building doesn't exactly make a lot of sense. Are we trying to pretend it's something it's not???

Also of note - brick is not indigenous, nor is it a very common matererial for the Northwest.

==============

sorry about the long post. had to post my views on the subject...

[PDX City-State]

Portland's architecture is often very avant garde.

Still waiting...Examples?

[mhays]

Zilfondel, for a nice looking lab building look at 307 Westlake. It doesn't try to look "old", but it carries a lot of "old" lessons forward, including brick. It was also a pilot project for LEED-CS for labs and is rated silver. http://www.slufan.org/projects_plans/307westlake.htm

King Street Center is another example of an office building that uses some "old" aesthetics while also including new elements. It's LEED-EB Gold (EB stands for existing building -- KSC was completed in 1999 before LEED). http://www.wrightrunstad.com/Properties&Services/Current/KSC.htm

LEED isn't especially friendly to historic renovations and it's new to multifamily housing. However, here's a fantastic recent conversion that is scheduled to achieve LEED Silver. http://www.unicoprop.com/property/seattle/cobb.aspx

By avante garde, I just mean "cutting edge", in the sense that Portland seems to have a lot of designs that are more....risky aesthetically than most Seattle projects.

Architecture is far more than style. But the public has the right to favor styles we think are good looking vs. ones we think are ugly.

[cab]

Nice post. What I think is an issue here is that in these photo's form followed function. Today's modern architects at times try and mimic the "in" style of the moment, in this case Factor/labs "look" instead of letting todays function dictate or create a new form. Not to defend the "brick" crowd, but don't today's architects have to gain the publics trust? There are so little "great" modern building in the US. I just don't think architects have made a strong case yet that they should be trusted, especially after introducing to the world things like brutalism and some modernism architecture that are not only bad, but soul deadening.

[zilfondel]

Zilfondel, for a nice looking lab building look at 307 Westlake. It doesn't try to look "old", but it carries a lot of "old" lessons forward, including brick.

Not to defend the "brick" crowd, but don't today's architects have to gain the publics trust? There are so little "great" modern building in the US. I just don't think architects have made a strong case yet that they should be trusted, especially after introducing to the world things like brutalism and some modernism architecture that are not only bad, but soul deadening.

Funny. Modernists had the public's trust back in the 50s and 60s, but then the whole shibang went down the tube (not entirely architect's fault, however - look at the entire building industry and the guys paying for it all).

However, right now there IS a new architectural revolution. If you hadn't noticed, there is a new crop of flashy 'starchitects' - although they are much more than just creating newsorthy projects with bling: many have socially progressive agendas as part of them, providing clean, well lit buildings that integrate public spaces as part of them. Seattle Public Library is one of a handful of examples in the NW - we don't see much of the action up here.

As far as materials - you can use them in many ways. The projects mhays posted are very conservative simple boxy structures with a brick skin w/punched windows.

However, they are far different than the historic buildings they purport to emulate! For one, they don't even appear to have operable windows. The floors are likely much deeper (like most suburban office buildings), requiring tons of artificial lighting and HVAC. This is bad for people and the environment. Why can't they put in more windows that open? Skylights? Shallower floor plans so people are happies?
Yes, they will change what the building looks like, but since 99% of the public will never step inside of it, who the hell cares what they think about the outside, as long as it isn't oppressive and banal?

You can do a lot of interesting things to make a building non-boring. The ones above, to me, are dull.

Take a look at the brickwork on some of the historic buildings sometime... it is very rare that, aside from a few precast concrete cornice pieces, that you will find any attention to detailing on a modern building. Architecture today has, in many cases, supplanted materials detailing & motifs with big tectonic moves (like the broadway housing building in PDX)

There are many projects that do detail the structure and materials, but you typically only find them in more expensive projects such as the Seattle Art Museum's facade shutters, Seattle Public Library (although it is rather dull as well), and the detailed facade of the Eliot Tower. Again, lots of examples in other countries, too.

Broadway Housing:
http://www.pac-intl.com/pics/featured_projects/broadway_housing2.jpg

Eliot Tower:
http://www.amaa.com/_uploads/photo/project/81_lg3_Eliot.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/144713550_bd2b3f60e0.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/77/208595823_49c64b7485.jpg?v=0
flickr (http://flickr.com/photos/danfellini/208595842/)


Architecture is far more than style. But the public has the right to favor styles we think are good looking vs. ones we think are ugly.

Really? To what end? The homogenization of building types has already been accomplished in America, such as the typical house, McMansion, and shopping center.
I, for one, do not believe it is a particularly good thing to simply wallow around in one's own mud for eternity. I would rather be innovative and invent new things - I mean, for god's sake, every other profession in the world has the opportunity to be innovative and creative! But somehow, architecture is not? We're just supposed to figure out how to make every new type of buliding look old, using brick? (brick wasn't even that common of a material in the NW!)

Kind of like Vinyl Siding: it looks like wood, and you install it on your house so it functions the same way as wood siding... but it ain't wood!

What I think is an issue here is that in these photo's form followed function. Today's modern architects at times try and mimic the "in" style of the moment, in this case Factor/labs "look" instead of letting todays function dictate or create a new form.

All of those buildings above were attempting to reconcile the new functions of the building with innovative structural and material technology in a way to express that reality.

The adages "function follows form" and "form follows function" are rather simplistic descriptions of this design philosophy.

With the labs posted at the top, I believe, from what I know, the architects were also trying to create structures that expressed the contemporary nature of the activities within and the structural & envelope technologies they were using.
Although the round windows are pretty funky: CLICK (http://canada.archiseek.com/british_columbia/vancouver/bc_cancerresearchcenter3_lge.html)

[awg]

There are so little "great" modern building in the US. I just don't think architects have made a strong case yet that they should be trusted, especially after introducing to the world things like brutalism and some modernism architecture that are not only bad, but soul deadening.

I came across a quote a while back that I love: "The world demands mediocrity". In fact, that's dead on for the definition. Its not the US. Or Europe. Or Japan. Or wherever. The average building anywhere in the world is not great--it couldn't be. The premise of great is that there is very little of it (whatever "it" may be). I also don't buy the argument that architects have not made a case to be trusted. What does that mean? Compared to popular music? Politicians? Industry? Who has? I am not trying to be intentionally confrontational, but could you please sell me on your point of view?

LEED isn't especially friendly to historic renovations and it's new to multifamily housing.

I also take exception to this. In what way is LEED unfriendly to historic renovations? As you are probably aware, there are in fact points that can be obtained specifically because a building is being renovated (reusing the existing shell)? Portland has numerous examples of this--the recently Platinum certified Armory and two of the Brewery Blocks (the building that has Whole Foods in it and the old brick brewery).

[zilfondel]

Now, let me say again that I absolutely love old buildings! I even really like brick... as long as it is used in a creative and expressive manner (PSU Urban Center, for example) to showcase it's finer points.

But I don't really like it when a building is simply massed like a historic building, while the 'historic' materials, such as brick and historic-y windows are hung off the side of the buiding as a flush, airtight curtain wall. It just doesn't reflect their true nature.

I did see some good post modernist structures in London that I didn't mind - and that was a much more conservative architectural community in the 80's than we ever had here.

[mhays]

I also take exception to this. In what way is LEED unfriendly to historic renovations? As you are probably aware, there are in fact points that can be obtained specifically because a building is being renovated (reusing the existing shell)? Portland has numerous examples of this--the recently Platinum certified Armory and two of the Brewery Blocks (the building that has Whole Foods in it and the old brick brewery).

The most obvious example is that on a protected building the original windows generally need to be kept. Another is that LEED apparently gives you more points for using materials than it does for saving original materials. Here are the first two hits on Google:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BPR/is_12_21/ai_n8580920
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/ee_historicbldgs_leed.pdf

Regarding other comments:

Narrower bay depths to foster light and air? That would mean inefficient use of land. Higher density is crucial to reduce land use and encourage walking and transit.

I certainly wouldn't want operable windows at work. That would make for a constant too-hot-too-cold environment. It would also be massively noisy in a downtown environment.

As for skylights, I used to sit under one, and moved due to the direct sun during summer afternoons -- it was infinitely hot, and also shined on my screen. My coworkers generally close theirs and leave them that way all summer.

Chalk up Eliot as another project that won't win awards from the general public.

[zilfondel]

Narrower bay depths to foster light and air? That would mean inefficient use of land. Higher density is crucial to reduce land use and encourage walking and transit.

I certainly wouldn't want operable windows at work. That would make for a constant too-hot-too-cold environment. It would also be massively noisy in a downtown environment.

As for skylights, I used to sit under one, and moved due to the direct sun during summer afternoons -- it was infinitely hot, and also shined on my screen. My coworkers generally close theirs and leave them that way all summer.

Chalk up Eliot as another project that won't win awards from the general public.

I don't know about you, but I do the work/school thing downtown, and I, along with all of my classmates and coworkers, absolutely HATE buildings with non-operable windows. "It's like working in front of a TV screen" about sums up what it's like to have a view in an air-conditioned tin-can.

Yes, noise may be a bit of an issue, but it's sure nice to have the option of opening or closing it.
On the new PSU engineering building, the windows automatically open/close for the stack effect.

For your other comment regarding density rather than natural light... umm, reducing people's impact on the environment is one of the largest reasons for urban density. You can still increase density and have good lighting (with a proper floor layout) - it doesn't have to be one or the other. Natural lighting is where you can make some of the largest energy savings - and those savings mean less CO2 in the atmosphere (not to mention less $$$ for operation). It has also been proven that people who have access to natural daylighting work around 30% more efficiently. Biz Journal article (http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/1999/05/31/focus1.html)

http://www.sunlight-direct.com/benefits.html

And yes, sun shades during the summer are largely a necessity here: we're at almost the same lattitude as Italy and Spain, so of course we have to mitigate between winter & summer sun! The fact is, however, that there are only a handful of buildings in portland that have even bothered to do this (OHSU buiding in SOWA, for instance).

You clearly haven't been inside a well-designed, natural lit office. They are quite nice! I would suggest taking a peek at Opsis' office in NW Portland - it's almost perfectly lit using skylights and windows (although they don't open).

[awg]

mhays, a couple of observations from your most recent post:
The most obvious example is that on a protected building the original windows generally need to be kept.

It is true that the goals of LEED and historic preseveration are at odds on this and can be a challenge to reconcile (though not impossible--for example: new windows can be purchased that look the same and are much more energy efficient). Preservationists are generally very strict about the exterior character of a building and the period windows are typically integral to this (and very, very energy inefficient as they can often be single paned with no low-E coating). The focus of LEED in regards to glazing is energy efficiency. The question comes down to what is more valuable--a strict interpretation of preservation or a relaxed view of preservation that accommodates our improved technology.

Another is that LEED apparently gives you more points for using materials than it does for saving original materials.

This idea is taken out of context and the article did not do a good job of describing this--likely because it was written for practitioners and not the general public. The result is that it is speaking not to general examples but to rather specific conditions. LEED does not work in the way you have assumed. There are separate points related to saving original materials (generally referring to the exterior shell) and reusing materials (for example using recycled woods or recyclable carpets). The recycled materials credit is based on a percentage of the overall amount of money spent on all materials relative to the overall amount of money spent on all recycled materials. The LEED system is not perfect but it is not as antagonistic to historic buildings as could be inferred from these two quotes.

The comment about narrower bay depths and density is simply wrong. Many European cities have strict regulations on how much energy can be consumed in a building based on sq ft and the distance a worker can be from natural light. This requires smaller bay depths. The amount of density lost in most cities from surface parking lots has much more to do with density than bay depths in an office building.

The noise from an operable window can be annoying to some employees--in fact the building I work in has them. I don't mind it but some people do. Its a simple thing to walk over and close them at that point. Many of us find it rather nice to have fresh air and the noise of the city at times. The too hot too cold thing is really not a concern. On cold days, the windows stay closed. On warm days we open them up and the mechanical system in the building responds--its certainly not a constant too hot too cold situtation.

The skylight you had at your place of work was not designed for computer use--perhaps it was designed for other activities or perhaps it was simply poorly designed. It faced the wrong direction and gave you direct solar gain. But that doesn't make skylights bad. It makes bad skylights bad.

[mhays]

You're right, I'm not an expert in LEED, just a marketing guy. I simply take what my coworkers tell me when I write about their projects for award submittals, proposals, etc., such as Cobb, 307, King Street Center, PSU ES&T, etc. I generally know little about our Oregon projects aside from basic scope and a few images.

We run up against the historic vs. sustainable dilemma often. At UW Tacoma Phase 2b (LEED Silver), we were allowed to remove windows only when they were in bad condition. At Cobb, which is on the National Register, we weren't allowed to remove any, and improvements were limited to installing a film on the glass.

We can disagree about bay depths and density. I say maximizing floor area within the zoning is crucial. If you don't maximize it, you're causing more space to be built elsewhere. 307 basically maxes out its site, and KSC is a fairly thick "L" shape.

Few developers would build shallow bay depths. Not only are they losing floor area, which is anathema to them, but they're paying a much higher price for exterior enclosure per square foot of rentable space.

Yes, the skylights I'm talking about are simply see-through, two-layer plastic on the roof of our 1899 office building. If you're under one, it's direct sunlight.

[WonderlandPark]

Oh man, Zilfondel had me going, the Zaha Hadid building for BMW is NOT in Munich :(. I am going to Munich day after tomorrow and that Hadid is not there, its in Leipzig. Oh well, would have loved to see it IRL, you had me searching for the address for a couple of minutes.

[tworivers]

Back to the Schnitzer Campus, I hope that they connect the waterfront trail between Riverplace and S waterfront pronto. Even an asphalt strip is fine with me for the time being. Some landscaping and trees would be good, too, on whatever portion of the land they don't build on first.

I'm also curious if the parking lots are likely to stay there for 30 years. I'm assuming that OHSU will develop from south to north, unless the new MAX stop goes in as planned at Riverplace... which could be partly why they are suggesting that the west end of the new bridge touch down closer to the Ross Island: the new tracks otherwise will go right by and/or over their parking lots. Very Lloyd Center-esque.

I thoroughly enjoyed that discussion/debate, btw.

[zilfondel]

You're right. It's in Leipzig. I edited the post. I got it confused with the huge BMW headquarters that I saw in Munich.

It's not quite as beautiful:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Bmw-hochhaus_1.jpg/200px-Bmw-hochhaus_1.jpg

but they do have a new museum they are adding to the complex. Some pics here: http://www.archidose.org/Oct02/102802c.html

...but if you're going to visit Munich, make sure to check out the 1972 Olympic Stadium - it's crazy! We don't have anything like it in the PacNW.

[MarkDaMan]

a map accompanied this article. I had no idea that Zidell owned half of the vacant strip between Riverplace and SoWa. From the Ross Island to roughly half way through that strip is Zidell, and then from the Zidell property to the Marquam Bridge is the new campus.

On the waterfront, on the edge of greatness
The nexus of OHSU's interactive campus, transit and business along
Sunday, April 08, 2007
RANDY GRAGG
The Oregonian
I t's hard to imagine a more tantalizing city-building prospect than the creation from scratch of the nation's first truly urban medical science university.

Portland has a shot, at the intersection of light rail, the streetcar and aerial tram, right on the Willamette River's shore. All that the city, TriMet, the Zidell family and, most of all, Oregon Health & Science University have to do is not muck it up.

Last week, OHSU unveiled initial concepts for a new campus on the 19 acres of South Waterfront land that the Schnitzer family donated in 2004. Bowing to longtime criticisms of its secretive planning and development on Marquam Hill, OHSU officials showed what are basically napkin sketches for about 2 million square feet of classrooms, teaching labs and offices.

Groundbreaking for the first building is at least two years off. Completion of the campus? Maybe 20 years. But seeing even cursory plans at such an early stage, free of budget limitations and politics, offers a chance to focus on the biggest opportunities -- and the biggest problems standing in the way.

OHSU has long envisioned moving core educational facilities to South Waterfront, starting in 1998 with the first mention of an aerial tram from Pill Hill to a Center for Women's Health. By the 2004 Marquam Hill Plan -- which set the stage for the tram -- OHSU envisioned itself in zones: more patient care and research on the hill, more outpatient and education on the waterfront. The Schnitzer bequest expanded the opportunities. Where former President Peter Kohler's mantra was putting OHSU in the top tiers of research, current President Joe Robertson and his faculty want to push the boundaries of medical education.

Some will argue it's just a fresh slogan to snag more public money. I'd argue it's an important long-term strategic turn, not just for OHSU but also for the city. An interactive campus

Medical science universities traditionally educate students in the silos of individual schools: medicine, dentistry, nursing, etc. OHSU wants to change that, designing a campus from the get-go to foster interaction. Plenty of individual new buildings reflect that ideal, from Stanford University's recently completed Clark Center to Texas A&M University's Interdisciplinary Life Sciences Building, under construction. But few universities have 19 blank acres to try it from bottom up, particularly at the center of a city in a stunning waterfront location.

Conceptualized by Los Angeles architects Perkins + Will, OHSU's master plan shows what it might look like: eight city blocks with eight buildings, five of them seven- to eight-story "podium" buildings topped by narrower towers. The lower floors feature a mix of commercial retail, classrooms and the all-new breed of laboratories, where budding docs, dentists and nurses test their skills on electronic dummies and in virtual reality. A K-12 school or science academy might even be in the mix. Individual schools and student housing fill the towers.

But pull the lens back and even more powerful synergies come into focus.

TriMet has revived the long-delayed Portland/Milwaukie light rail extension. That puts OHSU's proposed campus on the proposed MAX line between the necessary new bridge to OMSI and, a short ride away, Portland State University. In short, what emerges is a concept that Portland Planning Director Gil Kelley outlined almost a decade ago: a "fertile crescent" of science education, research and public programming sweeping from the inner east side to Marquam Hill to downtown.

In a two or three decades, Portland could easily find itself pondering a second aerial tram between OHSU and PSU, turning the crescent into a full moon.

Sure, it all requires money, some from taxpayers and from plenty of knocks on the doors of Oregon's thinly stretched philanthropic community. But the Schnitzer family waterfront donation and the recent $40 million anonymous gift to OHSU's medical school are the kinds of bets on the future that raise the ante. Parking perplexity

As exciting as the notion is, it raises tough questions.

First up is parking. OHSU projects a need of 5,500 to 6,500 spaces. That's an extraordinary number to cram below, around and inside only 2 million square feet of buildings on eight city blocks. It's as many as 2,200 more spaces than serve the 5 million square feet OHSU operates on Marquam Hill.

OHSU's South Waterfront project director, Mark Williams, claims that even with so many parking spaces, more than half of the new campus's visitors will have to come by mass transit -- a percentage comparable to downtown.

The form the parking takes in these early sketches is scary. Due to soil contamination and a high water table, only one or two levels can be buried. So the plan also calls for every building to have two levels of parking above the street level -- with the classrooms, offices and labs on top.

For a taste of that stale architectural club sandwich, walk around the ODS Building at Southwest Second and Morrison, known among local architects and urban designers as the "Odious Building," in part for the lifeless walls concealing the parking above the retail.

Odious is only one block. Grotesque is the word for the five blocks in OHSU's current plans, some 200 by 310 feet. For such a constrained site, OHSU needs to look seriously at denser, mechanical systems for parking.

It also needs to have more confidence that the nearly $1 billion in tram-streetcar-MAX transit infrastructure surrounding the future campus will mean fewer drivers.

Another big issue is the location of the Milwaukie MAX bridge over the Willamette. Plans from the first attempt to build the line in 1998 -- when SoWa was barely a dream -- set the bridge's west shore landing roughly beneath Marquam Bridge. That's the far north end of the proposed campus, 1/3-mile from the tram landing.

The bridge needs to move to the far south end of the new campus for tighter connections to the tram. TriMet's construction chief, Neil McFarlane, says that will cost as much as $40 million in additional track. But the move is critical to making MAX more central to the neighborhood, the campus and the city's other transit investments. The Zidell factor

And that brings us to the last, potentially most far-reaching question: What will be the fate of the Zidell family's property?

To the south, Zidell's barge-building business stands between the new campus and the four blocks OHSU owns adjacent to the tram. To the east, a narrow stretch of empty Zidell land cuts OHSU off from the shore.

Family leader Jay Zidell has floated plans to cram a row of towers on his riverside strip by narrowing the city's required 100-foot riverbank setback to 50 feet. He's even filed a Measure 37 claim he hopes will force the deal.

But the federal government also has a say: This is the only stretch of the downtown waterfront where the city might achieve the restoration of fish habitat demanded under the endangered species listing for Willamette River salmon and steelhead. The city wants a greenway and offshore natural habitat area that will require every foot of the required setback and preferably more.

What better, picture-perfect front yard for a medical science university than a nature reserve and river study center -- one more slice to add to the fertile crescent.

Zidell has often spoken of transforming his family's history on the waterfront into an urban legacy. He once backed up the rhetoric with an important check: the first $50,000 for an international design competition for the tram. Despite the heartburn about the tram's final price, eventually we'll appreciate how Zidell's early support of ambitious design made the difference between greatness and mediocrity.

Zidell stands at that crossroads again. But the personal stakes are a million-fold higher: his land, his business, his employees and his family's future wealth. But let's not forget that $1 billion in transit infrastructure that's benefiting him, too. Wedged between the tram and future MAX with the streetcar line running by, public investment is rapidly making Zidell's land as valuable as any in the region.

So, who's the dealmaker here: the mayor, a city commissioner, a Metro president, a governor or a U.S. senator?

Stay tuned for who will recognize -- or won't -- that history is offering a one-time chance to show the world how science, education and beauty can be blended into a bold new form of urbanism.

Randy Gragg: 503-221-8575; randygragg@news.oregonian.com



http://www.oregonlive.com/living/oregonian/randy_gragg/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1175891112323370.xml&coll=7

[MitchE]

You can view the campus plans here:

http://www.ohsu.edu/ohsuedu/about/transformation/future/upload/schnitzer_brief40207.pdf

[Snowden352]

I didn't really feel this deserved its own thread, so I'm posting it here, enjoy!

DC to fund South Waterfront bioscience industry sector
Portland Business Journal - 4:19 PM PDT Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Print this Article

Oregon Health & Science University and the Portland Development Commission have agreed on a five-year plan to promote development of a bioscience industry sector the South Waterfront district of Portland.

Under the agreement, PDC will give $3.5 million of tax-increment funds to OHSU-PDC initiatives aimed at capitalizing on the work already completed in the district -- roads, mass transit, sewers, power lines. The plan further calls for developing facilities for early-stage local bioscience companies.


OHSU and PDC will also explore the development of a bioscience business accelerator/incubator facility in the district. The two parties also will begin an already completed joint bioscience development, recruitment and marketing strategy.

Finally, the two parties will team with the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department to study the bioscience industry.

That strategy would include timelines for producing marketing and branding materials, dispatching OHSU, PDC and OECDD representatives to promote the South Waterfront at major national and international bioscience conferences and trade shows, and mounting trade missions to recruit bioscience businesses based elsewhere in the country to locate there.

Of the $3.5 million, $2 million is earmarked for improvements needed to assist in construction and improvement of bioscience facilities already in the district. That effort would include using federal, state, local and private investments in initiatives such as the Oregon Translational Research and Drug Discovery Institute , a proposed new state-supported research center.

PDC has agreed to work independently with developers to promote development of mixed-use facilities and lab space required by bioscience companies and to hire by August a consultant to evaluate the potential for attracting existing bioscience companies to the South Waterfront. PDC will be allocated $125,000 of the $3.5 million for those and other purposes and would also tap city of Portland general fund dollars that are made available to PDC's Economic Development Department for target industry efforts.

The remaining $1.375 million will go toward joint funding by OHSU and PDC of a program that focuses on bioscience industry development, industry research relations and recruitment.

[zilfondel]

^^^ so they haven't given up on it, eh? Interesting.

[PacificNW]

I wonder if the NIH (National Institutes of Health) or the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) would be interested in placing one of their facilities in the development?

[MarkDaMan]

OHSU forms new real estate unit
Portland Business Journal - 2:53 PM PDT Monday, June 4, 2007

A new campus planning, development and real estate unit has been established by Oregon Health & Science University.

Mark B. Williams will lead the unit, effective July 1. His title will be associate vice president.

The new unit will oversee OHSU's South Waterfront activities, including planning for the Schnitzer Campus, as well as the office of space planning, which administers the university's space planning and off-campus lease arrangements.

The move reflects a "strategic realignment of existing units within the university," OHSU said in a press release.

Williams currently is director of OHSU's South Waterfront Project, a position he assumed in October 2004.

http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2007/06/04/daily8.html?t=printable

[PDX City-State]

I wonder if the NIH (National Institutes of Health) or the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) would be interested in placing one of their facilities in the development?

Wouldn't that be good for Portland. I think what hurts OHSU is its lack of status as a top-notch research institution. It's innovative in some areas, but lags behind larger research powerhouses. I think that's the objective of the very probably long-term plan of merging OHSU and PSU.

[pdxman]

Lot is a blank canvas for OHSU addition
by Fred Leeson, Special to The Oregonian
Thursday January 01, 2009, 3:36 AM

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p179/bard410/large_OHSU_rendering050508.jpg
Courtesy of Oregon Health & Science University
This rendering shows how the new Schnitzer Campus might look when it is finished in about 30 years. No details of new buildings have been revealed; work on the first building could start within a couple of years.

Someday, the 19 acres now devoted to surface parking immediately south of the Marquam Bridge will be the training ground for new generations of doctors, nurses and dentists.

But when? The site hugging the Willamette's west bank was donated by the Schnitzer family more than four years ago to Oregon Health & Science University. Nothing other than a parking lot has happened since.

"All I need is a couple billion dollars, and we'll start moving dirt around," jokes Mark Williams, an OHSU executive who manages campus planning, development and real estate.

Humor aside, construction could start in the next couple of years on the first building in what will be called OHSU's Schnitzer Campus. Gov. Ted Kulongoski's capital budget for the 2009 Legislature includes a Life Sciences Collaborative Center, which likely will be the first piece.

Still, total build-out of several other new buildings on campus could take 30 years, Williams says. Though little has been happening on the ground, a team of professional planners has been working on the concept of a "green campus" that they hope will be a model for new construction and medical training programs.

Key elements of the overall plan include:

• A new street grid with key streets running perpendicular to the Willamette, which maximizes solar energy potential for buildings and encourages human connections to the river.

• Working within the confines of the existing "central commercial" zoning designation that imposes fundamental height limits of 75 feet.

• Placing all vehicle parking in two subsurface levels.

"Parking will be a huge issue here," Williams says. Though few medical students may need cars, the campus will be a magnet for patients and visitors. It will be served by MAX, the Portland Streetcar and a bus line.

But to get two levels of parking, Williams says, the land may have to be raised by 8 to 10 feet. That's because an impervious cap, now 4 feet below the surface, traps polluted soil from chemical production and scrap metal operations decades ago. The cleanup was approved by the state Department of Environmental Quality and is monitored regularly.

"We need to get parking without digging down into the stuff we don't want to disturb," he says. "We know it will be expensive."

Williams says the long-term goal is to build an attractive campus for students and visitors. Instead of building separate "boxes" to train doctors, nurses and dentists, the campus will encourage collaborative training for new health professionals.

Williams says OHSU expects a continuing surge in students because the generation of baby boomer health professionals is retiring in numbers exceeding current graduation rates.

Each new campus building will face review by the Portland Design Commission, because the land is part of a zone noted for special scenic, architectural or cultural values. The concept won general praise at a recent informal discussion.

One commissioner, Jeff Stuhr, liked the central promenade and commitment to green space. Another, Gwen Millius, urged OHSU to consider affordable housing as part of the campus mix.

Williams says medical students generally don't need help with housing, but OHSU is thinking about housing for foreign students or a hotel for visitors and visiting faculty.

Because of its proximity to the river, downtown Portland and Portland State University, each piece of the Schnitzer Campus will face major scrutiny.

This comes as no surprise to Williams. "We are not creating just our own campus," he says, "but a brand-new part of the city."

--Fred Leeson
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/01/lot_is_a_blank_canvas_for_ohsu.html

[MarkDaMan]

• Working within the confines of the existing "central commercial" zoning designation that imposes fundamental height limits of 75 feet.

that is the first requirement needing to go!

[PacificNW]

From that rendering it looks as though some of those facilities are taller than 75'....one can hope.

[urbanlife]

actually that campus rendering looks like it would make many of those buildings pretty close to 75ft tall.

[davehogan]

that is the first requirement needing to go!

We can only hope so.