Portland Infill | North Portland

[eeldip]

Originally Posted by crow

sets a bad precedent for being able to do anything in a neighborhood with a strong association. It looks like a fortress, and the roof elements are heavy and the upper stories have really poor proportions - too bad.

first floor is truly bad, but the general brutal rectangular feel from the house is very much the standard fare on that side of the street (blocks between williams and vancouver). those houses are some of the last few standing, the neighborhood is mixed industrial/commercial/residential.

i think blocks like that are exactly the sorts of places where people should be able to take some chances.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by tworivers

Anyways, I find the Holst house to be fairly compelling, though I'd be much more into it if the bottom level corner facing the street was more opened up. Those narrow slit windows are distinctly uninviting and creepy. The Kaven development I was expecting to like more -- but that first-floor wall facing the street, with the "gun turret" window, is unforgivable. Exactly the kind of thing that is going to turn neighborhoods against modern design.

I would *hate* living in a single-family home that “opened up to the street.” If I were to design a house for myself, a front porch and big front windows would not be anywhere on my list.

One of the side effects of not building cookie-cutter houses is that people will build houses that are designed for how they would like to live. You’re going to get some designs that other people won’t like.

[tworivers]

I would *hate* living in a single-family home that “opened up to the street.” If I were to design a house for myself, a front porch and big front windows would not be anywhere on my list.

Hmmm, that's interesting. What would be on the list, just out of curiosity? What do you think of the way the Kaven house meets the street? What, if any, responsibility, do you think builders in urban/neighborhood settings have to the social fabric and streetscape?

One of the side effects of not building cookie-cutter houses...

Most of the houses I was referring to -- specifically the "traditional"-style ones -- are cookie-cutter in the extreme and appear to be spec houses. Built by a residential developer and then immediately put up for sale. I'd have more patience with a design if I knew that the buyer was involved and it wasn't just laziness or cheapness on the part of architects and/or developers. I don't think that was the case at all with the Kaven triplex, though.

One thing I am curious about is how much the design was watered down or altered as it went through the city permitting process. I know the neighbors fought hard to stop it... not sure if it triggered design review or something? Anybody know/remember?

[crow]

Originally Posted by Leo

I would *hate* living in a single-family home that “opened up to the street.” If I were to design a house for myself, a front porch and big front windows would not be anywhere on my list.

One of the side effects of not building cookie-cutter houses is that people will build houses that are designed for how they would like to live. You’re going to get some designs that other people won’t like.

Well I am hoping you never design a neighborhood or city in my lifetime.

if you like houses that don't open to the street, then suburbia awaits you. what happens when you have a neighborhood where everyone looks at their backyard? Crime usually. Statistically it is being found that in these suburbs or snub house developments as one journalist called them, that the crime is increasing at a higher rate than the urban streets - whether you chose to look out onto the street or not, it does create a sense of security. Certainly a demographic in suburbs may be involved, but it is ignorant to think architecture and poor planning are not critical to the social impact to our neighborhoods. A front porch serves as a threshold for neighbors to actually communicate. Do we all have to be extroverts, or do we all have to be introverts? no, but the idea of the extreme in both creates ill consequences.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by tworivers

Seriously, this picture is worth a thousand words.

I'd be embarrassed to live in that place.. Why even choose to live in Portland if the house is this distant to it's neighborhood.. it really contradicts everything that makes Portland neighborhoods so great.

[RED_PDXer]

I should add that several townhomes have been developed in my neighborhood recently on what was once a single-family lot. I have no opposition to infill development and very much support higher density and modern design. While I liked the materials and sleekness of the buildings at first, I've come to find them completely vacant in their contribution to the vitality of the neighborhood because of their lack of ground floor active space/windows. The entire first floor is nothing but garage doors and narrow porch stoops and frosted glass doors. I sometimes walk out of my way in order to avoid this place and I'm probably the biggest proponent of infill development in my hood.. The neighborhood is hoping a design overlay district can mitigate some of these deficiencies.

[eeldip]

http://portlandmaps.com/detail.cfm?x...7&y=695119.221

y'all should check out the neighborhood before you judge.

its located in a residential oasis surrounded by exd. if there is a place to stick a 3 unit in the boise area, thats a darn good site.

[scottyboi]

not to be mean...but it seems that most architects working today seem to resent any "historic" type of architecture, save one particular period...hence why so much current construction resembles nothing more than mid-century mediocre rehash.

[New Madrid]

Originally Posted by scottyboi

not to be mean...but it seems that most architects working today seem to resent any "historic" type of architecture, save one particular period...hence why so much current construction resembles nothing more than mid-century mediocre rehash.

not to be mean... but could you please show me a recently constructed "historic" type building which is pleasing to you?

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by New Madrid

not to be mean... but could you please show me a recently constructed "historic" type building which is pleasing to you?

I'm thinking that he means the style of the modern builders is a rehash of Mid-Century Modern, that being the one "historic" style they like. Don't mean to speak for him but that's how I interpreted that.

[New Madrid]

That's how I read it also. However I would add that prefacing it with "not to be mean" implies derision of architects who lack of interest in "historic" building styles. If that's they case than I assume Scottyboi is advocating that more architects be interested in building in such a way. In that case, I'd like an example... if not, then apologies.

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

I'm thinking that he means the style of the modern builders is a rehash of Mid-Century Modern, that being the one "historic" style they like. Don't mean to speak for him but that's how I interpreted that.

[Delaney]

The point is valid - building to truly match historic appearance and details today is very expensive and cost prohibitive. For economical development the choices are either cheap imitation, or try to invent something new. The inventing something new is what usually gets compared to mid century modernism, mostly because the mid century modernists were dealing with many of the same economic constraints and changes in building technologies that we are still up against.

However context, scale, and proportion still have to play into aesthetic decisions - and with this in mind I think the Kaven project is not very successful.

[urbanlife]

The issue here is not should architects be designing with "historical" qualities and styles in mind, which to some degree, there is a fascination with midcentury architecture with architects here in Portland lately...which I have always found a bit odd, but if you think of it, the ones that are practicing now are the ones that went to architecture school during the time midcentury architecture was being practiced and taught.

With that in mind, architecture will eventually change to what it should be about, how we use space and handle materials, as well as how the building itself uses its resources, which is what is starting to be taught in the schools.

But in regards to this one project, it is a shame that the architect did not go into a stronger connection to the interior and the exterior of the building. There is no garage on the front of this, so that limitation does not exist which is usually the case for a cold modern design...gotta love the damages the car has done to neighborhoods.

Looking at the design itself, it comes off as an idea to separate the private from the public to give the interior a tranquil space, and there is nothing wrong with that idea in the right context, but in a neighborhood, it is more important to talk about the connectivity of the home to the sidewalk and to its surroundings, and in that regard, this is a failed attempt at modern architecture.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by tworivers

Seriously, this picture is worth a thousand words.

Most of those words are bad.

Honest to god, I'd love to know what they were thinking. In the photo, ones eyes are immediately drawn to the second floor and above. And if one were to judge this building as an object to be photographed, then that is fine. Drop it on a sea of gray and the bottom disappears, creating a really cool effect, as if the building is floating.

But we're not talking about a photo. We're talking about a home that was built in a neighborhood, and I agree that this particular home is embarrassing.

How much more unfriendly could the ground story be to people walking by on the sidewalk? Is that a window on ground floor, or is it a place for gun barrels to poke out?

It looks to me as if the architect who designed this has never spent a day in a neighborhood. In fact, I'd guess that the architect hates people.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by tworivers

Hmmm, that's interesting. What would be on the list, just out of curiosity? What do you think of the way the Kaven house meets the street? What, if any, responsibility, do you think builders in urban/neighborhood settings have to the social fabric and streetscape?

Personally, I would uncomfortable living in a space where people walking by could look in and see me. So, the short list would be “no windows at street eye level.”

I don’t actually like the Kaven house. I agree that the window looks like a gun turret. Plus, because the window is at middle height of the first floor, which is raised above the sidewalk, people on the sidewalk could probably still look in. So it is both sinister-looking *and* it fails to provide privacy.

[Okstate]

If they were to build a front porch...would it become neighborhood friendly? I don't like the base either but it looks like it's still under construction.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by Leo

Personally, I would uncomfortable living in a space where people walking by could look in and see me. So, the short list would be “no windows at street eye level.”

I don't think that's what was implied. Everyone should have privacy when they want it. I think they are typically called curtains, but sometimes "blinds". This project never allows a connection with the street without modifying the building - all privacy/isolation and no flexibility. Basically, it's a bad design.

[New Madrid]

just fyi- maybe my photo was deceptive, but you definitely can't look in from the street level. That horizontal window on the first floor is well above eye level, for better or worse.

also, although I still am not defending the Kaven project in particular, I would echo whomever noted that the project is still under construction. And though it will be certainly hard to counteract the perceived damage done by that first floor, some kind of active, open, neighborly patio space out front may at least partially ameliorate some of the issues people are voicing.

but hey, maybe they'll put up a 6 foot fence out front instead...

Originally Posted by Leo

Personally, I would uncomfortable living in a space where people walking by could look in and see me. So, the short list would be “no windows at street eye level.”

I don’t actually like the Kaven house. I agree that the window looks like a gun turret. Plus, because the window is at middle height of the first floor, which is raised above the sidewalk, people on the sidewalk could probably still look in. So it is both sinister-looking *and* it fails to provide privacy.

[crow]

Originally Posted by Okstate

If they were to build a front porch...would it become neighborhood friendly? I don't like the base either but it looks like it's still under construction.

probably not. the porch would look tacked on, and the language would seem out of place with the attempt at a cool box, but it certainly could be coming since it is still under construction. i think a 7 foot high stone fence with shards of glass on top would be a very warm and friendly solution, and then it could let this box live in isolation.

Whatever style you like or don't like, whether you are sensitive to being exposed by people peering in, and have spent a lifetime dealing with this, this house appears to have missed architecture 101 class. The scale, the proportion of the massing, the solid to void relationship at the ground level all make a poor design. By the way it is lifted up off the street already, so in that regard it has separated itself from the public realm - the wood box on the battleship base is not compelling. I think it is a big middle finger to the pedestrian - don't look at me, keep moving !

[mmeade]

I try not to comment on the design of things that are under construction, as the best parts of the design tend to be added last. Seeing how much negative conversation this house has generated though, I thought that I would weigh in. There is a lot that this house does very well!



In the picture taken above, it is clear that the house is of a similar scale to the neighborhood. Care was taken to match ground level, intermediate levels, and even the roof level to the adjacent houses. They are closely matched enough that I would imagine that this is not an accident. Even thr front plane of the house appears to match up with the fronts of the adjacent porches.

True the house is not historic, but it does fit the character and scale of the neighborhood well. Who says that all houses need to match their surroundings exactly? I love that there are flat roofs and horizontal lines all over this, but that it doesn't really destroy the pedestrian scale.

I eagerly anticipate what this building could look like once the finishing touches are installed.