HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Downtown & City of Portland


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2007, 10:45 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2007, 2:37 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays
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.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2007, 8:36 PM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2007, 9:30 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2007, 9:37 PM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
Here are some examples of older technological buildings:


Woolen Mills, Jefferson City, Tennessee - 1908




The 'Glass Palace' (1935) in the Netherlands - functional and open


Villa Savoye - Corbusier - 1929


Bauhaus building - Walter Gropius - 1926


Maison de Verre - Pierre Chareau - 1932


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/...tml?1155003502



http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/...tml?1110934626

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/6790/40217.jpg
another machine shop in Detroit


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


Boeing Hangar




Hadid BMW plant

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


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...

Last edited by zilfondel; Apr 8, 2007 at 6:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2007, 9:45 PM
PDX City-State PDX City-State is offline
Well designed mixed use
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: under the Burnside Bridge
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Portland's architecture is often very avant garde.
Still waiting...Examples?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2007, 9:48 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
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/Propert...urrent/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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2007, 9:56 PM
cab cab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,450
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2007, 10:26 PM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cab View Post
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:


Eliot Tower:





flickr


Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by cab View 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.
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2007, 10:32 PM
awg awg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown PDX
Posts: 141
Quote:
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?

Quote:
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).

Last edited by awg; Apr 6, 2007 at 10:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2007, 10:35 PM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2007, 3:14 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by awg View Post
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/m...21/ai_n8580920
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdf...bldgs_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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2007, 8:51 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
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.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).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2007, 9:26 PM
awg awg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown PDX
Posts: 141
mhays, a couple of observations from your most recent post:
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2007, 11:20 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2007, 1:37 AM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,129
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.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2007, 4:07 PM
tworivers's Avatar
tworivers tworivers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland/Cascadia
Posts: 2,598
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.

Last edited by tworivers; Apr 8, 2007 at 4:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2007, 6:23 PM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
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:



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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2007, 6:54 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
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/ore...370.xml&coll=7
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2007, 2:06 AM
MitchE's Avatar
MitchE MitchE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 487
You can view the campus plans here:

http://www.ohsu.edu/ohsuedu/about/tr...brief40207.pdf
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 > Downtown & City of Portland
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:38 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.