HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Parks, Metro, Urban Design & Heritage Issues

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2009, 2:42 PM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 631
^ Think our NIMBY's are bad, try New York City.

Last edited by NJD; Mar 17, 2009 at 2:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2009, 2:26 AM
JordanL JordanL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD View Post
^ Think our NIMBY's are bad, try New York City.
That's a cop out though. Just because the idiocracy in other places is worse doesn't make the idiocracy here okay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2009, 6:30 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 10,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanL View Post


The answer to this thread is very simple: NIMBYs not only exist in Portland, they run our regulatory boards. Every single building older than so many years is a historical landmark that not only must be preserved, but requires the entire nearby area to be preserved as well.

It's good to not rush into demolishing and rebuilding old buildings... but c'mon... we have some truly atrocious building downtown that are "too old to demolish".
Care to give an example of this? Nothing is coming to mind...plus my other question would be, what were they going to be replaced by?

Sure, the desire to preserve everything can become annoying from time to time, but overall I think it is worth it. I wish there was a stronger move for this sooner, maybe we wouldnt of lost so much of Oldtown, which at the time was seen as nothing more than an area of old buildings that were no longer important.


Quote:
It's not like the architects a century ago were God himself descending to earth and grace us with divine design.
No, but often times old architecture is torn down to be replaced with a parking lot or a very sterile building that loses all sense of craftsmanship that an old building had the luxury of using.
__________________
urbanlife flickr images
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2009, 6:37 AM
PacificNW's Avatar
PacificNW PacificNW is offline
"Made In Oregon"
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florence, Oregon
Posts: 3,036
I hate parking lots but admire some "sterile" architecture. I do agree that developers have destroyed many fine examples of past architecture a bit too easily.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2009, 6:38 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 10,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificNW View Post
I hate parking lots but admire some "sterile" architecture. I do agree that developers have destroyed many fine examples of past architecture a bit too easily.
I should add that not all new architecture is "sertile," but I am sure you get my point.
__________________
urbanlife flickr images
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2009, 11:44 PM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 631


"The Portland Crescent Hotel"

...proposed project in Leeds, UK. Looks familiar doesn't it...


pic from www.skyscrapernews.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2009, 2:40 PM
cab cab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,391
Do to finances and in some cases architects who have done value design for so long they lost touch with what quality architecture is, most new buildings just can't compete with older designed buildings. The care and quality of design was just of higher quality. We are stuck in an age where architects build for today with modern designs that are dated a year after being built. They use materials that look good the day the project is completed or immortalized in books but age horrible. The older buildings issue is a non issue in PDX when so much of Downtown is still being underutilized with surface parking lots. Jordon come back with the argument in a few years after a few high profile parking lots get developed and architects grow out the clean lines, sterile fad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2009, 6:04 PM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by cab View Post
We are stuck in an age where architects build for today with modern designs that are dated a year after being built. They use materials that look good the day the project is completed or immortalized in books but age horrible.
It usually is the developer of the project to blame, they want it done cheap cheap cheap, the architects just follow orders and "value engineer" and dumb down the building. Boxes are cheap, stucco is cheap. This has been true throughout the post-war era to today. Good projects still get built, just that they are few and far between.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"

travel, architecture & photos of the textured world at http://www.pixelmap.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2009, 6:33 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 10,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonderlandPark View Post
It usually is the developer of the project to blame, they want it done cheap cheap cheap, the architects just follow orders and "value engineer" and dumb down the building. Boxes are cheap, stucco is cheap. This has been true throughout the post-war era to today. Good projects still get built, just that they are few and far between.
Also to point out with this, building built pre-war all came from very cheap labor. It was still cost effective to have 100 bricklayers working on a small building. The manpower that was needed to construct an old building is just amazing, the cost of labor today along with the insurance, no one could afford to build a building like it use to be...which leaves us in the world of manufacturing and mass producing.

Thankfully there is starting to be a stronger movement for upfront costs that reduce costs and energy consumption down the line...these buildings that begin to reflect the environment begin to take on qualities of past architecture and move away from the "sterile" work that has often been produced the past 50 years.
__________________
urbanlife flickr images
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2009, 7:59 PM
cab cab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,391
I guess what I'm saying is that architects have been making things cheap for so long that they have convinced themselves that the cheap & clean lined box is quality architecture. Give them a giant budget and I bet half would still build a box. Hopefully a new breed of young architects can up turn the system and develop new forms of architecture that can compete with older forms. Regurgitating forms from the last 30 years of modernism is getting old.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2009, 10:12 PM
Leo Leo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 298
Modernist architecture is quite a bit older than 30 years.

I find it interesting that some posters seem to hope that modernism is a short-lived fad, while others are fed up with how long architects have been regurgitating modernist forms (and yet hope that they will resume regurgitating pre-modernist “high-quality” architecture).

Claims of “higher-quality” old buildings have a huge survivorship bias. The 100-year-old buildings that have survived to this day are naturally of high enough quality to have survived that long. But plenty of buildings built a 100 years ago were built so poorly that they literally did not stand the test of time (ie, they collapsed). In a similar manner, the next 100 years will weed out the contemporary buildings of poor quality.

Having lived in one of the “historic” warehouse conversions in the Pearl, I can assure you that value-engineering is not new, and that there were some pretty crappy things built 100 years ago (although the huge timbers they used for construction were pretty neat to look at)...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2009, 1:55 AM
Dougall5505's Avatar
Dougall5505 Dougall5505 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: P-town
Posts: 1,977
this would be nice in sowa


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2009, 2:49 AM
downtownpdx's Avatar
downtownpdx downtownpdx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,158
I like it -- maybe Vestas will throw together something along these lines. Seriously, this building does have a windy, tornado-y kind of effect. SoWa is all modern and glassy anyway, why not push the envelope a bit?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2009, 4:31 AM
Okstate's Avatar
Okstate Okstate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE PDX
Posts: 1,367
Don't think that design could be pulled off at 325 ft. !!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2009, 9:20 AM
RED_PDXer RED_PDXer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 600
nice design, but wouldn't a sculpture be just as inspiring? Why must buildings become sculptures? Buildings lose their human scale when they become art pieces on a large scale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2012, 12:53 AM
Sioux612's Avatar
Sioux612 Sioux612 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 515
Over on the photo forum I came across 'London' by Cityscapes and the first thought that came to mind when I saw this was the Post Office site in the Pearl.

Height limits taken into consideration this shape would be ideal to maybe increase the current resrictions:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2012, 4:52 PM
tyroneshoelaces tyroneshoelaces is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonderlandPark View Post
It usually is the developer of the project to blame, they want it done cheap cheap cheap, the architects just follow orders and "value engineer" and dumb down the building. Boxes are cheap, stucco is cheap. This has been true throughout the post-war era to today. Good projects still get built, just that they are few and far between.
Indirectly and in part maybe but the bottom line it is there is plenty of blame to go around. Lenders, investors, tenants and government planners are all as guilty.

If Apple thought it could make a better return selling old brick type phones of the 1990's because people wouldn't dream of paying $500 for an iPhone you can bet that is what they would be building. They (or other businesses) typically provide what a market wants at a price they are willing to pay.

It is especially difficult to get huge amounts of capital to go after something so big that hasn't been proven or risk a lot on design work that may not be approved by design review. Using the iPhone example, I would imagine Apple made a few hundred or thousand proto-types before committing to a full launch to make sure people like it, it can be built at a budget, it doesn't violate govt. regulations, etc.

How can a real estate developer "try out" a 60 story building at record rents to see if the market will accept it? Even if they were willing to spend the time and money to develop plans and a rendering...maybe...but not too many really can commit to occupying space in 3-4 years. Time adds lots of other risks including economy, interest rates, etc. Plus, few land owners want to have their property tied up for years during design or approval.

it all adds up to a VERY slow rate of change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2012, 8:36 PM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 4,367
But what could ever go wrong in the real estate market?
__________________
Portland Bike Bridge traffic:

2009 - 15,749 | 2010 - 17,576 | 2011 - 18,257 | 2012 - 18,794
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2012, 8:09 PM
Sioux612's Avatar
Sioux612 Sioux612 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 515
Asakusa Culture Tourist Information Center by Kengo Kuma:


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2012, 12:31 AM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 1,961
I don't mind not having that one in Portland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Parks, Metro, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:54 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.