Oregon Square | 2 buildings | XX'-XX" | 5-6 or 8-9 floors | Proposed

[maccoinnich]

In the words of Sinead o'Connor: fight the real enemy.

[2oh1]

I don't care how many people they draw into the illustrations... I think they're trying too hard to make a plaza where there won't be enough use for one, and they're designing it in a way that will discourage anyone who doesn't live in one of the connecting buildings from using it.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

In the words of Sinead o'Connor: fight the real enemy.

Sometimes I don't even know in this country. Should I rip up a picture of the pope?

Edit: and 2oh1, I still share your concerns... I doubt this will be changed. I am just glad we're getting some needed housing. It's fairly dense, but I hope it doesn't set a lower bar for density in the Lloyd district.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

It's fairly dense, but I hope it doesn't set a lower bar for density in the Lloyd district.

???

A lower bar?!!

This 4 block area will have about 2000 people living there, not to mention the hundreds of people working there. How can this POSSIBLY be contrued as lowering the bar? That's 500 residents/acre (assuming the block was split into quarters by automobile infrastructure, as you suggest).

I honestly don't understand your concern, especially given your obvious push to maximize density at all costs. You seem to think this project will be a precursor to EVERY new project getting a public square smack dab in the middle. But there are very few 4 block sites like this in the Central City, so the chances of this design being replicated are almost non-existant. This will truly be a unique space and it will be well used by EVERYONE, not just the residents. Plus, it may also be the densest 4 blocks in the city. You should be thrilled.

[cityscapes]

Most of the discussion seems focused on the square right now but what do we think of the designs of the towers?

I think some of them are too cluttered and choppy. I hope they go with the advice given and go with the more simplified color schemes and window patterns.

For those complaining about the lack of density... This project is adding 904 residential units on top of the 657 units found in Hassalo on 8th and it's only the second phase of the AAT developments in Lloyd. The third plot of land looks to be the largest so I think when it's all built out + Burgerville apartments + the convention center hotel there will be plenty of density in the area to support the public space. There is also a huge entrance right across from the MAX stop so I don't really see how this is that hard to access for those who don't live in the development.

[ORNative]

Great point on the density. That is 1560 housing units in Phases I and II. The Oregonian Article "Affordable housing planned for Pearl at Raleigh Street, documents show" which was published yesterday states that since 1997 Hoyt has built 2,556 housing units in the Pearl. "Of the 2,556 built or under construction, just 28 percent will meet those standards. Now Hoyt Street is required sell land to Portland at a discount." The article does not say how may housing units there are in the Pearl, but Hoyt Street is by far the largest builder in the Pearl.

AAT will reach 1,560 units in a matter five years or so whereas Hoyt Street has reached 2,556 in 20 years. I could be wrong, but it also seems that Hoyt Street's density is lower than that proposed by AAT.

Mac - thank you for posting the DAR 3 link. I encourage everyone to take a look at those. There is much to discuss regarding the design alternatives of the buildings. I agree that some of the more linear designs fit well into the district but have a modern strength and beauty.

Happy Easter weekend all

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

Most of the discussion seems focused on the square right now but what do we think of the designs of the towers?

I think some of them are too cluttered and choppy. I hope they go with the advice given and go with the more simplified color schemes and window patterns.

There was a comment at the DAR that it looks like they started strong and ran out of time as they went around the square designing the buildings. I have to agree.

I really like the look of Block 91, and really enjoy the way they're carving terrace into the building form rather than sticking them on. The way the two primary volumes are intersecting reads in a really graceful way.

Block 102 has some good things going for it in the higher rise section. The primary rhythm is very regular, but it's then broken up by the random placement of the balconies.

Blocks 103 and 90 are starting to lose the coherency though. I'm not sure what's driving the design decisions, other than wanting to break up the facades and avoid monotony. I think they would be much more successful if they took the language of Block 91 and played with it some more.

I understand the desire to make every building look different, but no one is ever going to mistake this for a development that has occurred organically over time. They've created a really strong urban form with a square oriented on two axes, and they therefore need a language that's reads consistently around it. If we look at the great European civic squares (Places des Vosges in Paris, Charlotte Square in Edinburgh, Plaza Mayor in Madrid, the rebuilt Pariser Platz in Berlin, Piazza del Campo in Siena) there is a consistent form and materiality all the around the square. Not every building is necessarily the same, but they do read as a whole.

I hope their budget allows for some high quality materials like stone, brick or precast concrete. It's hard to tell in the renders, but some of the facades read like they're using metal panel or fiber cement panels for really large areas.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

I understand the desire to make every building look different, but no one is ever going to mistake this for a development that has occurred organically over time. They've created a really strong urban form with a square oriented on two axes, and they therefore need a language that's reads consistently around it. If we look at the great European civic squares (Places des Vosges in Paris, Charlotte Square in Edinburgh, Plaza Mayor in Madrid, the rebuilt Pariser Platz in Berlin, Piazza del Campo in Siena) there is a consistent form and materiality all the around the square. Not every building is necessarily the same, but they do read as a whole.

Then again, we only need to look as far as Riverplace for an example of a development that reads tacky and theme-parkish because of the lack of variety or creativity in its design language. I appreciate the way you've chosen to think about this, but I think baroque city planning is the wrong context for a new development in the Lloyd District. And the example you've cited that isn't baroque, Piazza del Campo, is beautiful precisely because it's neither regular nor standardized. Just because this one hasn't 'occurred organically over time' doesn't mean it can't benefit from a varied design palate -- just like Canary Wharf in London, Potsdamer Platz in Berlin, or any of the squares/parks in the Pearl District.

The point of this design is to break out of the gridded monotony of the Lloyd District megablocks. There is, however, a cohesiveness to the architectural language in that every building is oriented toward the square, creating an enclosed, welcoming and accessible space. That's the sort of consistency that's necessary to make this work.

[Edit:] I do share the worry that the plaza as proposed is just too damn big. If I were designing this, it would be smaller (perhaps broken up into multiple courtyards, like Berlin's Hackesche Höfe) and roofed in glass, like the Sony Center in Potsdamer Platz. Why, with Portland's climate during eight months of the year, does it still not have any great glass-enclosed semi-outdoor public spaces, unless you count the passenger drop-off zone in the airport (which, of course, is not for lingering) or the canopy in Director's Park (which shelters only a handful of tables). A space like this, removed from the street, enclosed by buildings and sheltered from the wind, would be perfect for one.

[maccoinnich]

For someone who doesn't seem to like tall buildings, it's interesting that you'd choose Potsdamer Platz as an example of good urbanism. I've been there, and think it's absolutely dreadful - proof that throwing lots of starchitects at a problem doesn't necessarily results in a good solution.

To be clear though - I'm not saying that all 4 buildings need to take the Rockefeller Center approach and look exactly the same. I'm just saying that there needs to be at least some relationship between them all, and I think that's lacking at the moment. Maybe they use brick as a unifying elements for all the buildings, but play with different brick colors and window patterns. To choose a more contemporary example of great public space, the Barbican in London maintains a consistent design language throughout, but the individual buildings vary quite a bit in their expressions.

Riverplace fails as a work of architecture because the buildings are dreadful, and were completed in a period that was not a high point in design. That said, it is quite successful in creating a place that people actually go to.

[Encolpius]

Touché on Potsdamer Platz. Having spent a significant amount of time there myself, my feelings are mixed; some of the parts are significantly more impressive than the whole. Maybe I shouldn't have cited it as an example of an extremely cohesive civic space. I also cited Canary Wharf, which to me represents horrible urbanism; politically, anathema... but it's an example of some design choices that were fairly successful, especially if you confine the analysis to that first impression as a pedestrian emerging from the escalator of the Canary Wharf tube station into the middle of the square. Both of these developments could have benefited from a stronger comprehensive plan, one with better values... but in design terms, I don't think the diversity of architectural styles hurts either one of them.

You also mentioned the Barbican Centre... I have a weakness for Brutalism. But it works so well here because of the incredibly creative way in which a very limited design language and materials palette was employed to integrate extremely diverse spaces... diverse in both formal and functional terms. But that doesn't seem to be remotely the program for 'Oregon Square', and therefore I think making the buildings look different from one another will help a square of this scale to feel inviting -- that is to say, will avoid it feeling monolithic.

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

DAR #3 drawings [Powerpoint - 58MB]

I really like it. I think the plaza will be a great addition, especially if it can be converted for multiple uses like the documents show. Between Phase 1 and Phase 2 this is pretty much the town of Banks getting built in 8 square blocks.

That's a lot of people in a very small area, with even more residents and hotel guests in projects to come and areas along the east side streetcar growing pretty quickly. I can't imagine the plaza not having a healthy amount of traffic in it.

The look of the towers is acceptable to me. They have elements that make them fit the Lloyd Districts general look, while pushing things in new directions. I won't mind if the designs are refined a bit more, but I think it's a nice start.

[maccoinnich]

Oregon Square has been submitted for Design Review.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Oregon Square has been submitted for Design Review.

I wonder how long it will take to see the results?
Hopefully they wont recommend chopping it in half.

[maccoinnich]

Sexy new renders:







Part of an interview with Kyle Anderson of GBD:

Hassalo on Eighth and Oregon Square: GBD's Andersen on making the Lloyd District a neighborhood

BY BRIAN LIBBY

Nearly a decade ago, Portland's GBD Architects saw completion of one of the largest projects of the era, and one that helped redefine a neighborhood: the five-block, seven-building Brewery Blocks.

By the time the final Brewery Blocks building was completed, the Pearl District was well on its way into transitioning from an industrial enclave to a place where people lived, worked, and frequented wine bars and art galleries. But the Brewery Blocks, constructed on the site of the old Blitz-Weinhardt brewery, became an instant success, particularly at street level, where the development wrapped around Powell's Books and used that proximity to create a thriving urban setting full of people. The project, developed by Gerding Edlen, was also noteworthy at the time for having all of its square footage LEED rated for sustainability, something far less common at the time.

Now GBD is at work across the Willamette River designing an even bigger cluster of buildings and public space in the Lloyd District. And the firm faces perhaps an even bigger challenge in terms of placemaking.

...continues at Portland Architecture.

[innovativethinking]

When do they breakground on phase 2? That looks fantastic

[maccoinnich]

Request for Response [PDF], which has some new images. Scheduled for its first formal Design Review hearing on August 13th.

[innovativethinking]

Beautiful! Imagine if AAT owned the majority of the land in Southwater Front. They'd create a skyline boom for sure over there instead of the constant low rises that goes up there

[Tykendo]

Fantastic! I hope it's developed just like the renderings. Hopefully they include a grocer.

[RED_PDXer]

Awesome heights. Not sure I care for how bulky the buildings look with the heavy use of that white material - probably metal panels? Reminds me a little bit of the Wells Fargo Center tower downtown. All in all, I'm amazed at how quickly they are transforming that humdrum district!

[cityscapes]

Originally Posted by Tykendo

Fantastic! I hope it's developed just like the renderings. Hopefully they include a grocer.

There's a grocer in the bottom of the Elwood building in Hassalo on 8th so I'm assuming Oregon Square won't have one. People can walk 3 blocks.