The "Why can't we have buildings like THIS in Portland" Thread

[Drew-Ski]

I love that second skyline photo!

[PuyoPiyo]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

hmmm...I do like our new skyline shot!


(from amandafritz.com blog)

I like it! Better than the first one.

[zilfondel]

^ that one's real tho.

[westsider]

Every time I cross the sellwood I think about how cool that view is, even more so when SOWA is built out.

[Dougall5505]

Inspired by the increasing monotony in sowa, and the boxy office towers in downtown, this thread is for all the buildings, proposed or completed, around the world we wish would be built in portland.
I'll start
New York (i think)

Copenhagen

Moscow City

NYC

San Fran

[urbanlife]

probably because Portland has always been very conservative minded about architecture, and very Swedish. We are very much about not being flashy, which can be annoying from time to time, but overall, we have an amazing city because of it.

[zilfondel]

err... this thread could go on forever!

^^^ you forget that real estate doesn't cost very much here; the more expensive a project is, the more money is going to be spent on design. Usually.

Plus there is no tradition of design in this city. All the design-oriented news in hipsterville is extremely fresh, relative to the city. Probably our biggest selling point is our historic preservation, architecturally.

[cab]

The 200ft grid. All our hip firms stick to the cube box shape. Keeps everything clean, simple and boring.

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

probably because Portland has always been very conservative minded about architecture, and very Swedish. We are very much about not being flashy, which can be annoying from time to time, but overall, we have an amazing city because of it.

There are a lot more people from different artistic/creative/cultural backgrounds in the city. There were other people in the region before the Swedish influence came. I think their shapes, colors and styles were/are largely ignored. The same is for the growing numbers of new residents from many backgrounds. There's room for more diverse designs. I say this about Seattle too.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by mSeattle

There are a lot more people from different artistic/creative/cultural backgrounds in the city. There were other people in the region before the Swedish influence came. I think their shapes, colors and styles were/are largely ignored. The same is for the growing numbers of new residents from many backgrounds. There's room for more diverse designs. I say this about Seattle too.

I agree with you, just seems in general new pushes in architecture only really happens on the small scale.

Actually a funny comment about Portlanders and architecture that my teacher made, who deals with this on a regular basis. Portlanders are either cheapskates or DIYers. I think at the present day, this comment is very true, but I think this is going to change the more the city takes in people like me, who was not raised here. After a while these new residents will want to start to bring something with them that reminds them of where they came from. This is already showing up in the food in Portland. I no longer live in the southeast states, but I know where to get a true pulled pork sandwich downtown, something that I thought I would have to give up.

[RED_PDXer]

These are all fun looking buildings, but they're all just renderings. The flashiness tends to disappear when buildings are actually constructed. In the end, you experience the building mostly at the ground level and this is where Portland excels and beats out most cities. Our city is walkable and pedestrian friendly. I'd take that over an iconic skyline any day.

That said, can't we have both?

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

These are all fun looking buildings, but they're all just renderings. The flashiness tends to disappear when buildings are actually constructed. In the end, you experience the building mostly at the ground level and this is where Portland excels and beats out most cities. Our city is walkable and pedestrian friendly. I'd take that over an iconic skyline any day.

That said, can't we have both?

Very well put.

[sopdx]

I think the zoning code should incorporate added height bonuses for buildings that include energy generating elements - solar or wind. I think Portland could make a huge statement by doing this. If a building was say 40 stories tall, but had solar and wind turbines atop that would extend another 40+ feet, it would be both iconic and serve a purpose.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by sopdx

I think the zoning code should incorporate added height bonuses for buildings that include energy generating elements - solar or wind. I think Portland could make a huge statement by doing this. If a building was say 40 stories tall, but had solar and wind turbines atop that would extend another 40+ feet, it would be both iconic and serve a purpose.

that sounds very Portland.

[Sioux612]

[pdxman]

^^^Let me guess--Dubai? Or somewhere in the middle east?

[sopdx]

See, those are huge wind turbines. If the city adjusted it's bonuses to give height for energy production...we could

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by Sioux612

Towers in a park... what a farce. NOT what we need in Portland.

[PacificNW]

I imagine that park is man made to compliment the tower and ped activity. I don't think anyone would advocate/allow building a tower in Washington or Forest Park. I don't think this particular tower, and its siting, is much different than if a tower was constructed along Naito Pkwy (across the blvd. from Tom McCall Waterfront Park, imo. I like the tower.

[bvpcvm]

^ i think rsbear is referring to le corbusier's "towers in the park" - large buildings surrounded by dead space, ostensibly providing relief from the city (right?) but in fact killing the pedestrian environment