Pearl District News

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by tworivers

Downtown is pitifully ugly and dwarfish

What a very odd statement

[twofiftyfive]

Originally Posted by rsbear

What a very odd statement

My sentiments exactly.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by tworivers

I fail to see why a cluster of high-rise point towers would be the right fit for this part of town. Portland can barely support *any* high rise construction at all, anywhere in the city.

We already shot our wad for several-years-worth of high rise development in the wrong part of town: South Waterfront, by most accounts an architecturally-homogenous, not-vibrant "neighborhood" of monolithic towers on pedestals.

Downtown is pitifully ugly and dwarfish (not to mention desolate at night), particularly along the waterfront -- I'd rather see a concerted effort at concentrating new high-rise construction downtown (downtown URA; make parking lots unaffordable; whatever other incentives and disincentives the city can come up with) and I think a better fit for the post office site would be a more human scale mid-rise development, preferably with multiple developers and designers involved so that it fits into the fabric of its surroundings, has some diversity, and doesn't end up being some weird island. I think a mix of uses would be good, too. I'll believe the "corporate headquarters" concept with its laughable 10K jobs when I see it.

One of the nicest aspects of this happening in some form would be the extension of the park blocks. Lots of possibilities there.

I 90% agree with you. That being said, I think in the long term South Waterfront will be integrated well with the new OHSU campus. I would have liked to see the residential density downtown as well, and I see the work down in SoWa as reactionary to private developers and OHSU possibly building more of the crap we see down on Macadam. Kind of wish now they had settled on some sort of middle-ground.

I think in the long-term, however, it probably won't matter. If Portland maintains its growth rate, its central city population will be quite large and filled out... but will take decades.

I'd also like to see Portland's downtown parking rates increase, and a greater mix of commercial businesses located downtown, even if they are just run-of-the-mill paper pushers, finance types, and lawyers.

[tworivers]

I would just say that the historic fabric of downtown has been upended in a piecemeal and haphazard fashion over the last 60 or so years. In place of much of the old classical architecture... most, not all, of the new buildings have tended towards some combination of mediocre, downright ugly, and/or squat. When I asked a friend in Seville a few months ago what she thought of Portland's central city when she visited, the only word she could think of was "ugly". Granted, she does live in Seville. I think Portland's curse can probably be found in its economic heritage and the fact that the city became something of a backwater in the middle of the last century. Also, the fact that it is such a young city and didn't have the wisdom to hold on to its European-inspired urban fabric back in the 50's and 60's, when we went though what was probably the equivalent of the terrible two's.

Just looking at the skyline from the east side of the river, you see an amazing collection of shitty architecture: David Evans building and hotel, Riverplace, the Sheraton, Umpqua, One Main Place, the Justice Center, the World Trade Center, ODS, the one with the strip of green neon around the top. The KOIN tower, which I personally don't like, looks like a work of art next to those other buildings. In general, the number of parking lots, vacant lots, parking garages, and just plain mediocre buildings in downtown PDX = a lot of ugly.

I hope Zilfondel is right about in-migration continuing and that leading to more residential density --and, hopefully, decent architecture-- downtown. Only time will tell.

[MarkDaMan]

Sadly, it turned out just like the renderings.

[bvpcvm]

first of all, i think you're suffering from post-europe syndrome. we talk about how wonderful we are here in portland and then you go to europe and see how it's really done and realize portland has a hell of a long way to go. unfortunately, the only known cure for this is a week in omaha.

secondly, i have to agree about the ugliness of some of the architecture in downtown. we have a few that are pretty decent - 12w, for example - but your comment about the hotel at riverplace, well, i couldn't agree more. but didn't pretty much every city that built anything at all in the 90's get similar crappy knock-off post-modern garbage? i mean, show me a place that was immune to it. and if our economy was stronger, we'd probably have even more of that crap.

[crow]

ugh - pretty disappointing use of resources. Even cheap could be better.

[MarkDaMan]

Who was the architect? Looks Really Shitty (LRS)?

[crow]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

Who was the architect? Looks Really Shitty (LRS)?

i don't know, but it is a mess.

[Sioux612]

The style the architect went with was "neo-industrial". Going with the theme of Pearl's history, I guess.

At least it's out in no-man's land.

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

... the only known cure for this is a week in omaha.

Or at least 30 other major cities in North America...

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by tworivers

I would just say that the historic fabric of downtown has been upended in a piecemeal and haphazard fashion over the last 60 or so years. In place of much of the old classical architecture... most, not all, of the new buildings have tended towards some combination of mediocre, downright ugly, and/or squat. When I asked a friend in Seville a few months ago what she thought of Portland's central city when she visited, the only word she could think of was "ugly". Granted, she does live in Seville. I think Portland's curse can probably be found in its economic heritage and the fact that the city became something of a backwater in the middle of the last century. Also, the fact that it is such a young city and didn't have the wisdom to hold on to its European-inspired urban fabric back in the 50's and 60's, when we went though what was probably the equivalent of the terrible two's.

Just looking at the skyline from the east side of the river, you see an amazing collection of shitty architecture: David Evans building and hotel, Riverplace, the Sheraton, Umpqua, One Main Place, the Justice Center, the World Trade Center, ODS, the one with the strip of green neon around the top. The KOIN tower, which I personally don't like, looks like a work of art next to those other buildings. In general, the number of parking lots, vacant lots, parking garages, and just plain mediocre buildings in downtown PDX = a lot of ugly.

I hope Zilfondel is right about in-migration continuing and that leading to more residential density --and, hopefully, decent architecture-- downtown. Only time will tell.

Besides, I don't think anyone here has really bragged about Portland's skyline or majority of its towers in general...people love Portland for what happens at street level here. Personally I could care less that the city has a bunch of boring towers in it.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Besides, I don't think anyone here has really bragged about Portland's skyline or majority of its towers in general...people love Portland for what happens at street level here. Personally I could care less that the city has a bunch of boring towers in it.

So true.

Sure, I'd love to see some amazing architecture built in the Post Office site, but what matters most is what becomes of the neighborhood. Will it be a neighborhood? Will it add to the surrounding neighborhoods? Will people live there? Work there? Play there?

I'm sure we'll all be very excited to see the site redeveloped.

[tworivers]

urbanlife: Besides, I don't think anyone here has really bragged about Portland's skyline or majority of its towers in general...people love Portland for what happens at street level here. Personally I could care less that the city has a bunch of boring towers in it.

I don't think that there is any logical connection between whether anyone here has bragged about Portland's skyline and the opinion I have expressed. I agree with you about the fundamental importance of the street-level atmosphere -- I can't think, though, of any ways in which the buildings I mentioned contribute to the street. And what happens at street level in most of Portland's central city after dark? And really, you suddenly don't care about the predominant architectural form downtown?

[tworivers]

2oh1: Sure, I'd love to see some amazing architecture built in the Post Office site, but what matters most is what becomes of the neighborhood. Will it be a neighborhood? Will it add to the surrounding neighborhoods? Will people live there? Work there? Play there?

Which was exactly my point when I wrote

and I think a better fit for the post office site would be a more human scale mid-rise development, preferably with multiple developers and designers involved so that it fits into the fabric of its surroundings, has some diversity, and doesn't end up being some weird island. I think a mix of uses would be good, too.

[zilfondel]

Does anyone know the existing zoning for the post office site - specifically, max height? Or is it one of those view corridors?

One thing I don't think people take into account is the site's proximity to the Amtrak station. Many areas surrounding train stations in Europe and Asia have high density offices around train stations, and could serve as satellite offices for Seattle firms.

thoughts?

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by crow

i don't know, but it is a mess.

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it probably lowers the bar. Surprising, considering the GSA is spending a lot of money for the federal building renovation downtown.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by tworivers

I don't think that there is any logical connection between whether anyone here has bragged about Portland's skyline and the opinion I have expressed. I agree with you about the fundamental importance of the street-level atmosphere -- I can't think, though, of any ways in which the buildings I mentioned contribute to the street. And what happens at street level in most of Portland's central city after dark? And really, you suddenly don't care about the predominant architectural form downtown?

You can replace any city with that statement and it is going to be the same, any city that has a collection of office towers downtown is going to be dead during non business hours, the key is intergrating activities that keep it active, when you look at downtown Portland as a whole is clearly does that...is it active in all of downtown, no, but it is active in enough of downtown. So having a bland skyline and a handful of buildings that do not add to any street level activity really doesn't bother me, especially when those buildings are high end office and government related, I kind of expect those areas to be dead after hours.

[crow]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it probably lowers the bar. Surprising, considering the GSA is spending a lot of money for the federal building renovation downtown.

really? how about this, not very well thought out.

[Delaney]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

Who was the architect? Looks Really Shitty (LRS)?

worse: http://www.foslerarchitecture.com/