HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2014, 6:20 PM
NewUrbanist NewUrbanist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sioux612 View Post
Have they set any kind of timetable for the indoor market project?

IMO this is the most unique project we've seen in years:

The Portland Market has been up in the air for decades. They need a viable funding source or a deep pocket investor willing to write off huge losses while it gets itself underway. That site is challenged - and it's biggest issue is access. You'd need thousands of visitors a day to warrant it's high construction/ operating costs.

Does anyone know of this project status?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2014, 7:49 PM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,389
There's a new concept book [PDF] on their website. The timeframe they're hoping for has building design through 2016, construction starting in the fall of 2016 and a grand opening in the Spring of 2018. According to a presentation [PDF] they gave to Multnomah County this past May they have raised about $2 million. Unfortunately it doesn't state how much they need to raise in total, but the agreed purchase price for the site alone is $10.4 million. I don't quite see how one off dinners at Ruth’s Chris Steak House can raise that kind of money.

I'm a little skeptical that this will ever happen, but I really hope it does. I think it would do wonders for that part of Downtown, and would complement the Saturday market very nicely. If nothing else, Portland is a little short of tourist attractions, and this would really bring them in.
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

www.twitter.com/maccoinnich
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2014, 3:29 PM
cab cab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,450
Architecture competition’s designs found wanting

http://djcoregon.com/news/2014/11/10...found-wanting/

Competition’s designs found wanting

By: Inka Bajandas in Scrolling Box November 10, 2014 4:43 pm
The Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building recently received a renovation that drew praise from judges of design awards handed out by the American Institute of Architects’ Portland chapter. (Sam Tenney/DJC)

The Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building recently received a renovation that drew praise from judges of design awards handed out by the American Institute of Architects’ Portland chapter. (Sam Tenney/DJC)

While New York-based architect Jonathan Dreyfous was in Portland to judge the Design Awards for American Institute of Architects’ Portland chapter, a “Keep Portland Weird” sign reminded him what was lacking in this year’s entries.

“I was looking for some weirdness, some idiosyncratic-ness,” he said Friday during an awards presentation at the Gerding Theater.

Dreyfous, a partner with New York-based CDR Studio Architects, wasn’t the only member of the judging panel who admitted to greater expectations for the projects that Portland-area architecture firms submitted for design awards. Judges Gladys Ly-Au Young, a principal with Seattle-based Sundberg Kennedy Ly-Au Young Architects, and Los Angeles Times architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne said they had hoped to see more innovation, attention to urbanism and high-level design for both exteriors and interiors.

“We were looking for projects that showed tremendous social transformation – something that was more forward-thinking for Portland,” Young said.

Judges chose not to give out any awards in the unbuilt category because they wanted to see more creativity among the entries. They lamented the glut of private multifamily projects and longed for more public ones.

“We thought that side of the ledger was underwhelming,” Hawthorne said of the unbuilt category. “We were ready for projects that had a different idea for the interior. I think because so many of the projects were developer-driven they were a bit safe.”

A “tidal wave” of private multifamily development in Portland led to worries among the panel that architects were spending too much energy on projects’ exteriors to the detriment of their interiors, Dreyfous said.

“The exterior becomes the billboard for the building and we are concerned about the interior living up to the facade,” he said.

The panel’s response wasn’t all negative. One project that garnered significant praise from the judges was the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building renovation designed by Portland-based SERA Architects. The project received a merit award for what the judges considered a thoughtful transformation that incorporated many sustainable elements.

“We felt the designers worked really well to break up the massiveness of the building,” Young said. “You see the old and the new work really well together.”

Hawthorne said he has been following closely the debate on the future of the Portland Building, which suffers from structural issues and leaks. He noted that it could benefit from a renovation similar to the one for the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt building.

“This was the same exercise of remaking a building,” he said. “All of those questions are being tested and examined in this project.”

The judges were impressed by several projects designed by Works Partnership Architecture. The Portland-based firm earned a merit award for the Bowstring Truss House and citations for the 33rd & Division Apartments and Overton 19 multifamily projects, all in Portland.

The judges said they were particularly blown away by the Bowstring Truss House after touring it. A former industrial building in Northwest Portland was renovated into a living space.

“A lot of the details that we were impressed with in photographs came through when we walked the space,” Hawthorne said. “It was one of the strongest projects we looked at.”

THA Architecture received a merit award for Discovery Hall – a science and academic building at the University of Washington’s Bothell campus. The judges said that consideration given to surroundings came through in the design.

“There’s not really a front side or a back side,” Young said. “All sides are well thought through.”

ZGF Architects received a citation award for Pearl Izumi’s North American headquarters in Louisville, Colo. Young said she appreciated the unified approach.

“The interior and exterior are by the same firm so they really feel like the same hand,” she said.

The panel awarded two citation awards specifically for interiors-focused projects. The first went to Architecture Building Culture for the Lubavitch Center of British Columbia in Vancouver, B.C. They praised the understated design of the center for a Jewish organization.

“I’d like to commend the clarity of what it’s doing for the space,” Dreyfous said. “It’s very simple.”

Hennebery Eddy Architects took home the same honor for a renovation of the Shute Park library branch in Hillsboro.

“Rather than tearing down the building, it uncovered the strength of the building,” Dreyfous said.

Also at Friday’s event, Portland Mayor Charlie Hales praised the work of the city’s architecture community.

“It’s a great privilege to be mayor of a city where people appreciate excellence in urban design and architecture,” he said.

Hales then revealed the winner of the Mayor’s Award for Design Excellence: the Stephens Creek Crossing affordable housing complex in Southwest Portland, designed by MWA Architects.

“It is inviting to the people that live there and the people that will visit,” he said. “More importantly, they created a neighborhood there. This, to me, is one of the best examples of how you can create community in new projects.”

Honorable mentions for the Mayor’s Award went to SERA Architects’ Marriott Residence Inn, the Reed College Performing Arts Building designed by Opsis Architecture, The Emory apartments designed by ZGF Architects and the A Dialogue Street Seat by Scott | Edwards Architecture.

This year’s AIA Portland Citizens’ Medal for Design Excellence, selected through a public vote, went to Architecture Building Culture for the Roberts Creek Cabin single-family residence in Roberts Creek, British Columbia.

Also announced Friday were the recipients of AIA Portland’s 2030 Challenge Design Awards. They recognize sustainable design and honor a challenge from nonprofit organization Architecture 2030 for all new buildings and major renovations to be carbon neutral by 2030.

Hennebery Eddy Architects’ Ash + Ash won in the single-family category. The Kiln Apartments, designed by GBD Architects to meet passive house standards, earned the honor in the multifamily category. The Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt building renovation won the office category and the Central Oregon Community College Health Careers Center, designed by Yost Grube Hall Architecture, earned the institutional honor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2014, 8:09 AM
Sioux612's Avatar
Sioux612 Sioux612 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 539
Has anyone ever gone to a city and see a project that makes you very envious?

I'm in Minneapolis and I heard about this for their Nicollette site - A 900-footer:

http://bringmethenews.files.wordpres...achment-1.jpeg

Sigh.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2014, 4:07 AM
Sioux612's Avatar
Sioux612 Sioux612 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 539
Strolling SoWa I think the South-SoWa should have a no height limit like North Pearl. The superblock could have a PAW-like development.

Btw, the Matisse looks AWFUL up close . Holy hell is it an eyesore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2014, 6:47 AM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,788
That building looks awful from anywhere. It's a wonder it got approved like that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2015, 1:57 AM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,513
Portland mayor proposes $25K fee for tearing down homes
Sara Roth, KGW News 5:44 p.m. PDT September 15, 2015

http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/...omes/72344096/

Quote:
PORTLAND, Ore. – Portland Mayor Charlie Hales has proposed a $25,000 fee on developers who tear down perfectly good single family homes.

According to Dana Haynes, spokesman for the mayor’s office, Hales proposed the tax so that developers would reconsider demolishing livable homes and changing the look and feel of Portland’s historic neighborhoods.

The mayor’s office also found that home demolitions are driving up the comparable home values, sometimes by hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if they weren’t increasing how many homes were in the neighborhood.

The developers would also be charged $25 for each year the house has existed. So for a 100-year-old house, a developer would be charged a total one-time fee of $27,500.

The fee would be put into the city’s Housing Investment Fund, which helps homeowners stay in their current homes.

If a home is unlivable or hazardous, the fee would not apply.

The city will discuss the fee during a hearing on Oct. 14.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2015, 2:36 AM
cityscapes's Avatar
cityscapes cityscapes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
Portland mayor proposes $25K fee for tearing down homes
Sara Roth, KGW News 5:44 p.m. PDT September 15, 2015

http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/...omes/72344096/
Livable is kind of subjective. What if the renovations in a perfectly good home would cost more than tearing it down and building new? Does this apply to individuals who want to tear down a house and build exactly what they want on a property or just developers?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2015, 2:40 AM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,389
The KGW article doesn't mention this, but according to the Willamette Week it "won't apply to homes in areas zoned for multi-family housing". I don't care all that much either way when it comes to one to one demos in R5-R20 areas, but do care a lot about ensuring we don't put barriers to redevelopment in areas zoned for higher density.
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

www.twitter.com/maccoinnich
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2015, 3:48 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
Portland mayor proposes $25K fee for tearing down homes
Sara Roth, KGW News 5:44 p.m. PDT September 15, 2015

http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/...omes/72344096/
This is a dumb idea for a few reasons, for a wealthy developer, this is nothing but a drop in the bucket for them. For a small time developer, it could make it harder for them to pencil out a small multi-unit building. Also, not every house is worth saving just because it is old. Some homes just need to be torn down for various reasons. Also, this goes against the whole idea that if it is your property, you are free to do with it that you want. If a group wants to save a house, then they should drum up the money needed to buy the home to save it from being demolished.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2015, 3:11 AM
Sioux612's Avatar
Sioux612 Sioux612 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 539
Materials make all the difference.

Walking around the Pearl the buildings built within the last decade one thing stood out: brick buildings have aged very well. Pearl West is going to look great ...20 years from now.

The projects at SoWa have not aged well at all. The Matisse (looks like stucco and vinyl), along with every non-tower in that district, looks cheap and totally out of place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2015, 6:53 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sioux612 View Post
Materials make all the difference.

Walking around the Pearl the buildings built within the last decade one thing stood out: brick buildings have aged very well. Pearl West is going to look great ...20 years from now.

The projects at SoWa have not aged well at all. The Matisse (looks like stucco and vinyl), along with every non-tower in that district, looks cheap and totally out of place.
This reminds me that I really need to hop off at the SoWa stop on the train and wander down to SoWa to see how that area is turning out....it has literally been years since I have walked around down there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2015, 3:04 PM
58rhodes 58rhodes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sioux612 View Post
Materials make all the difference.

Walking around the Pearl the buildings built within the last decade one thing stood out: brick buildings have aged very well. Pearl West is going to look great ...20 years from now.

The projects at SoWa have not aged well at all. The Matisse (looks like stucco and vinyl), along with every non-tower in that district, looks cheap and totally out of place.
I totally agree
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2015, 6:10 PM
innovativethinking innovativethinking is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sioux612 View Post
Materials make all the difference.

Walking around the Pearl the buildings built within the last decade one thing stood out: brick buildings have aged very well. Pearl West is going to look great ...20 years from now.

The projects at SoWa have not aged well at all. The Matisse (looks like stucco and vinyl), along with every non-tower in that district, looks cheap and totally out of place.

Yea SoWa hasn't been turning out that great. That's pretty evident, your totally right about those descriptions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2015, 1:55 AM
Sioux612's Avatar
Sioux612 Sioux612 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 539
The original plans weren't bad. It went from tolerable to an eyesore:

Concept:


Reality:


In short: go brick or glass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2015, 8:35 PM
Abide's Avatar
Abide Abide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 388
I really like South Waterfront. It is turning into a nice, cozy neighborhood. I'd be happy to live there if I could afford it. I get tired of the negativity around it. I enjoy the verticality. I enjoy the greenery built into the urban environment. Lots of businesses have opened in the last year... As for the Matisse, it's not that it hasn't aged well. It was ugly from day 1.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2015, 5:25 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sioux612 View Post
The projects at SoWa have not aged well at all. The Matisse (looks like stucco and vinyl), along with every non-tower in that district, looks cheap and totally out of place.
I think The Emery is fantastic! The sidecar building at the CLSB is a great building too.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2015, 4:14 AM
Sioux612's Avatar
Sioux612 Sioux612 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 539
Old concepts interest me and how different just a few years makes:


2012^

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2015, 2:45 PM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,990
experiment



Pardon me, but I am trying an experiment in this city. This is a proposed highrise in another city in the U.S., that is being praised for its designs by most of the forumers. I disagreed with their opinions and argued that this design would not fair well in other cities. So, please comment if you like or dislike and why. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2015, 4:04 PM
eric cantona's Avatar
eric cantona eric cantona is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post
Pardon me, but I am trying an experiment in this city. This is a proposed highrise in another city in the U.S., that is being praised for its designs by most of the forumers. I disagreed with their opinions and argued that this design would not fair well in other cities. So, please comment if you like or dislike and why. Thanks.
you pose an interesting question, but I'm not so sure "good architecture" differs from city to city. maybe it's the quality of the critique.

Portland has a local writer, Brian Libby, who also has a blog devoted to architecture. he recently interviewed a local architect, Bill Tripp, who's been practicing locally for quite a while. there was one piece of that interview that really resonated with me, and has been stuck in my head since then. it is this:
One of the things that I discovered is that really good architecture is an accumulation of layers of meaning. Each layer might be really simple: the circulation, for example, the spatial hierarchy, the proportion of the façade, elements of the program positioned within the building and in relation to external conditions and so on. And these layers are connected, integrated, and this connection is what gives a building its meaning.
full interview here: http://chatterbox.typepad.com/portla...ill-tripp.html

he relates this to Kahn and Aalto, in particular. I can't emphasize how much I agree with these sentiments. good/great architecture is always rooted in the basics.

so, when I look at a project like this I find it hard to see a strong and conscious relationship between the layers Mr. Tripp speaks of (granted, it is just one image of it). now, I am not a professional architecture critic nor am I an architect myself, so it could be there and be beyond my understanding. but I am in a related practice and I do spend a lot of time looking at and thinking about architecture and I'm pretty sure that this building is a whole lot more about flash than substance. if someone else can give me a reason why my initial reaction is faulty I am all ears.

I would also relate this quote back to other projects currently in design or under construction in PDX. the dumbell project and anything by SolTerra jump immediately to the forefront of my mind.

curious what others think...
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 4:41 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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