Quote:
Originally Posted by pdxhome
"Save Portland's Memorial Coliseum, but for what?"
This is the question that should have been asked three weeks ago!!!
I love how the first picture highlights the building's weathered facade. This thing is going to cost a fortune to "re-purpose"!
|
You're right, let's just get rid of everything that's old and no longer contemporary.
Look, this isn't the prettiest building, but it is architecturally significant, even if you think it's ugly. It's part of our history; it plays a part in telling a story about who we were when the thing was built. We all gnashed our teeth when the Rosefriend came down, because it was one of a diminishing number of old apartment buildings in downtown. Well, there are even fewer of these international style buildings in town. It's a different style, but one that is even more endangered than the style the Rosefriend represented.
Most of us on this forum claim to support a dense, urban environment - one that is in stark contrast to the suburban sprawl which makes up 98% of the built environment in America. We crave this type of environment partly because it's different, unique, hard to find. But our enthusiasm for this diversity doesn't extend, apparently, to a diversity of architectural styles. We either want Thom Mayne or we want the Flatiron building. Anything from the middle of the century need not apply. That's hypocritical, in my view. Things will change. What we build now says something about who we are. We should be able to point out buildings to our children and say "that's what they were building back 19xx, and the idea behind it was Y and the context was Z". Once they're gone, that's much harder to do.
This building might, indeed, cost a fortune to re-purpose. Passing on some sort of heritage, no matter how nebulous that sounds, is priceless.