HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Downtown & City of Portland


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2016, 4:58 AM
58rhodes 58rhodes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMH View Post
I am not confident that your density figures are correct. In the following Huffington Post piece about density using 2010 Census Data, Portland had a density of 3528 ppsm, and Seattle had a density of 3028 ppsm. Yes. Seattle was less dense.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5888424

Could there have been that much greater population growth in Seattle during the past 6 years?

Seems doubtful.
Seattle has 30,000 more people living in aprox 40 sq miles less -it is what it is--Im sure those might have been for metro figures anyways
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2016, 6:29 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
If people want more density, there is nothing stopping anyone from heading up to Seattle where there is plenty of that to enjoy. So what if Portland isn't at 8000 people per sq mile, we are are 4500 and that is pretty dense in itself. I imagine we are on our way to hitting 5000, if not 6000 overall in the city.

Yes, Seattle has taller buildings in its downtown as well, again, who cares, if that is something people want, then move to Seattle and enjoy the really tall towers downtown. It is that simple. Not every city needs to look like Seattle or be as big as Seattle.

So can we stop this nonsense of comparing Portland to Seattle, they are completely different cities in the Northwest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2016, 2:34 PM
innovativethinking innovativethinking is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
If people want more density, there is nothing stopping anyone from heading up to Seattle where there is plenty of that to enjoy. So what if Portland isn't at 8000 people per sq mile, we are are 4500 and that is pretty dense in itself. I imagine we are on our way to hitting 5000, if not 6000 overall in the city.

Yes, Seattle has taller buildings in its downtown as well, again, who cares, if that is something people want, then move to Seattle and enjoy the really tall towers downtown. It is that simple. Not every city needs to look like Seattle or be as big as Seattle.

So can we stop this nonsense of comparing Portland to Seattle, they are completely different cities in the Northwest.

We're just wondering why this city is scared of tall buildings. I mean don't we get happy when anything over 30 story's get proposed? I'm sure there's a reason why we do
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2016, 2:58 PM
RainDog's Avatar
RainDog RainDog is offline
Semi-Lurker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: PDX
Posts: 277
Those Huffington post numbers are laughable. There is no way in hell that San Jose is more dense than New York city or that Sacramento is more dense than Chicago.

I know its not a definitive source by any means, but wikipedia lists Seattle's density as 8,161/sq mi and Portland's at 4,375.1/sq mi. That seems much closer to reality than what is listed in the Huffington Post article.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2016, 3:12 PM
pdxtraveler pdxtraveler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 731
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMH View Post
I am not confident that your density figures are correct. In the following Huffington Post piece about density using 2010 Census Data, Portland had a density of 3528 ppsm, and Seattle had a density of 3028 ppsm. Yes. Seattle was less dense.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5888424

Could there have been that much greater population growth in Seattle during the past 6 years?

Seems doubtful.
These figures are all really low as they are urban areas, not city limits. Portland's density at the last census was over 4000. All the figures I am sure are correct, but what chart are you looking at? City limits, urban, metropolitan they are all very different.
__________________
My development/transportation/travel industry/misc interest Twitter @geraldpdx
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2016, 5:28 AM
58rhodes 58rhodes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 430
wow this this came off track--

rule of thumb, denser cities usually build taller

I suppose Portland will have its day
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2016, 5:53 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by innovativethinking View Post
We're just wondering why this city is scared of tall buildings. I mean don't we get happy when anything over 30 story's get proposed? I'm sure there's a reason why we do
I don't know if it has anything to do with being "scared." First you need someone with the money willing to take a risk on building really tall buildings. Plus, Portland is full of small blocks, it doesn't make sense building taller when building functions begin to eat up too much of your leaseable space. If anything, you could simply blame those that felt like 200ftx200ft blocks were such a good idea....but at the same sense, most people experience the city from the streetscape, so it makes sense that Portland is attractive for being such a walkable city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2016, 8:27 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58rhodes View Post
wow this this came off track--

rule of thumb, denser cities usually build taller

I suppose Portland will have its day
How did this come off track? As mentioned in the Business Tribune article posted by Mac, the plans are currently "fluid". To get off track, you must be on a track first.

You're rule of thumb is wrong too, some dense cities have tall buildings, not all.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2016, 12:00 AM
58rhodes 58rhodes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
How did this come off track? As mentioned in the Business Tribune article posted by Mac, the plans are currently "fluid". To get off track, you must be on a track first.

You're rule of thumb is wrong too, some dense cities have tall buildings, not all.
I said USUALLY-also I was not referring to anything MAC or the BT said-- It was another poster--sorry for the confusion
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2016, 8:15 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58rhodes View Post
I said USUALLY-also I was not referring to anything MAC or the BT said-- It was another poster--sorry for the confusion
USUALLY is still incorrect. Height often doesn't has anything to do with density. Would you believe that the 325' John Ross Tower in South Waterfront has a greater density that the 432 Park Avenue in NYC, which is almost 1,400 feet tall? It does. John Ross is packing in 300+ units to 104 units for 432. One of the largest apartment building in the world doesn't even hit 500'. Edifício Copan in São Paulo, Brazil packs in 1,160 units on 38 floors.

Portland can be vibrant and dense without supertalls, or even another 500' tower.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2016, 8:29 PM
innovativethinking innovativethinking is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
USUALLY is still incorrect. Height often doesn't has anything to do with density. Would you believe that the 325' John Ross Tower in South Waterfront has a greater density that the 432 Park Avenue in NYC, which is almost 1,400 feet tall? It does. John Ross is packing in 300+ units to 104 units for 432. One of the largest apartment building in the world doesn't even hit 500'. Edifício Copan in São Paulo, Brazil packs in 1,160 units on 38 floors.

Portland can be vibrant and dense without supertalls, or even another 500' tower.

All we're saying is it would be nice to have some super talls and couple more 500 footers. We get everything else you want why can't we balance it some?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2016, 9:00 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by innovativethinking View Post
All we're saying is it would be nice to have some super talls and couple more 500 footers. We get everything else you want why can't we balance it some?
That's actually not was 58rhodes said, that poster said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 58rhodes
rule of thumb, denser cities usually build taller
Quote:
Originally Posted by innovativethinking
We get everything else you want why can't we balance it some?
This doesn't have anything to do with what I want. I don't even know what that means. This has to do with the reality in Portland. There could be a 500' or so (if you include the spire-PAW) but we aren't likely to see much more than 460' until the next comprehensive plan commences around, say 2035.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2016, 12:49 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
That's actually not was 58rhodes said, that poster said:





This doesn't have anything to do with what I want. I don't even know what that means. This has to do with the reality in Portland. There could be a 500' or so (if you include the spire-PAW) but we aren't likely to see much more than 460' until the next comprehensive plan commences around, say 2035.
Exactly, Portland will see a number of 300-450ft towers over the next decade or two, but people should stop expecting there to be a 750ft building ever happening. Portland isn't Seattle, so people need to give up on expecting it to look more like Seattle. Portland is the type of city that is going to see density increase through 4-10 story buildings throughout the city, and with midsize buildings throughout downtown, much like what we have seen in the Pearl. That is just the reality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2016, 1:19 AM
innovativethinking innovativethinking is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
Exactly, Portland will see a number of 300-450ft towers over the next decade or two, but people should stop expecting there to be a 750ft building ever happening. Portland isn't Seattle, so people need to give up on expecting it to look more like Seattle. Portland is the type of city that is going to see density increase through 4-10 story buildings throughout the city, and with midsize buildings throughout downtown, much like what we have seen in the Pearl. That is just the reality.
Oh I doubt it'll be a number of buildings. This is Portland after all
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2016, 7:28 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by innovativethinking View Post
Oh I doubt it'll be a number of buildings. This is Portland after all
You seem to forget how fast areas in Portland have developed. We watched towers rise in SoWa in a matter of a few years, the entire Pearl District was built within 15 years. So it is reasonable to think that Portland will see a number of new buildings built within its downtown over the next 10-20 years that is within in the 300-450ft range. We are already beginning to see a number of those buildings coming along now, either currently under construction or in the planning stages. So there is nothing to doubt about my statement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2016, 5:42 PM
AcmeGreg AcmeGreg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
If anything, you could simply blame those that felt like 200ftx200ft blocks were such a good idea....but at the same sense, most people experience the city from the streetscape, so it makes sense that Portland is attractive for being such a walkable city.
Agree 100%. One of the unique characteristics of Portland is its small block size which creates a very intimate and accessible street scene that distinguishes it from every other major city, at least in this country. It's a boutique town in every way... embrace it! Supertalls would be completely out of character here, even in the Lloyd District.

I do question the type of development occurring in SOWA right now re all of these low-rise apartment buildings. Assume this is purely a matter of economics, though given the current market conditions it seems you would benefit greatly by offering more view units to prospective buyers/renters than these lo-rise buildings can provide. ?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2016, 1:14 AM
58rhodes 58rhodes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by 58rhodes
rule of thumb, denser cities usually build taller

I disagree after visiting almost every major city in this nation.

And I really dont care how tall or not Portland builds-I would just like to see a more varied skyline--San Diego comes to mind.--300 footers in the right place that dont look like boxes would be nice.I am also NOT a proponent of density over 5000 per sq mile.However, I would like a building say 350ft roughly to the south of the Wells Fargo tower so that it(Wells Fargo) looks more in scale--it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Last edited by 58rhodes; Sep 17, 2016 at 1:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2016, 2:15 AM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58rhodes View Post
I disagree after visiting almost every major city in this nation.
To be fair, excluding Portland, American cities are almost always poor examples of urban planning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 58rhodes View Post
And I really dont care how tall or not Portland builds-I would just like to see a more varied skyline--San Diego comes to mind.
I like postcard-prettiness as much as the next person, but what I care about is life at street level. As long as what goes up isn't too ugly, I don't care about height - I mean, yeah, I LOVE HEIGHT!!! ...but what I really care about is street level neighborhood vibrancy.

Assuming they build something even remotely in the ballpark of what they've envisioned for this site, it'll be fantastic for the neighborhood. My cup of enthusiasm for this one runneth over! I'll be especially curious to see what direction they face the tower and how they plan around sound, because the Timbers' stadium definitely generates a lot of sound. A tower will block it, but also potentially reflect it. Like I said, it'll be interesting to see if and how they deal with that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2016, 3:29 AM
58rhodes 58rhodes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
To be fair, excluding Portland, American cities are almost always poor examples of urban planning.



I like postcard-prettiness as much as the next person, but what I care about is life at street level. As long as what goes up isn't too ugly, I don't care about height - I mean, yeah, I LOVE HEIGHT!!! ...but what I really care about is street level neighborhood vibrancy.

Assuming they build something even remotely in the ballpark of what they've envisioned for this site, it'll be fantastic for the neighborhood. My cup of enthusiasm for this one runneth over! I'll be especially curious to see what direction they face the tower and how they plan around sound, because the Timbers' stadium definitely generates a lot of sound. A tower will block it, but also potentially reflect it. Like I said, it'll be interesting to see if and how they deal with that.
well Portland is Portland
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2016, 10:56 PM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,389
Memo to the Design Commission for DAR #2. No drawings online yet.
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

www.twitter.com/maccoinnich
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 > Downtown & City of Portland
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:40 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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