HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2016, 6:05 AM
cailes cailes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Seattle
Posts: 314
Comic sans....

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2016, 10:06 AM
tworivers's Avatar
tworivers tworivers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland/Cascadia
Posts: 2,603
Quote:
Maccoinnich: BPS has published the rest of the proposed Central City 2035 plan. Much of it is in Comic Sans.
Dear god-I-don't-even-believe-in . All those highly paid consultants and they're using Comic Sans in what looks like a final version of the Comp Plan? My eyes are bleeding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2016, 11:29 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by cailes View Post
Comic sans....

Well we now know who within the city that needs to be fired....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2016, 7:15 PM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 8,109
I was reading through some old posts last night and came across this article Mark posted in 2007. Added emphasis below mine. Best laid plans of mice and men....

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
It's downtown Portland planning time
Portland Business Journal - April 20, 2007
by Andy Giegerich

And as Portland's planning department embarks on its ambitious new Central Portland Plan, many can't wait to see if it will contain ideas as visionary as those floated in 1988's Central City Plan. All told, the 1988 manifesto recommended 464 actions, compared with just 17 recommended by 1972's Downtown Plan.

Karen Bean, Portland's central city senior project manager, said it's unlikely that the current efforts, set for completion in 2010, will contain as many ideas as the 1988 plan. That version spelled out such bold notions as development within the gritty North Macadam and Northwest Triangle districts.

Today, those areas are called, respectively, the South Waterfront and Pearl districts.

But the Central Portland Plan, which will analyze overall central city conditions and determine how to best update the 1988 efforts, could still shape Portland for decades.

"The 1988 plan is the reason our central city looks and feels the way it does today," said Veronica Valenzuela, Mayor Tom Potter's liaison to the planning bureau. "And these new efforts could dictate what we look like 30 years from now."

Potter's proposed budget, released this week, suggests that the city apply $851,068 toward the Central Portland Plan.

Among other things, the study will explore development regulations, including buildings' allowable heights and constraints on transportation and parking, and the pending expiration of the area's urban renewal districts. Bean said it will also analyze housing, arts and culture.

But much of the plan remains in the development phase. As part of that, the planning department is trading notes with purveyors of other such studies, including the Portland Business Alliance, which recently unveiled its proposals to enhance the central business district, and the Portland Development Commission, which is studying downtown's west-end trends.

Planners from the Portland Department of Transportation will develop their own Central City Transportation Management Plan in tandem with the planning department's proposals.

"With fundamental issues of which parking regulations work and what adjustments we need to make, a lot relates back to the central city process in terms of economic and housing goals," said Steve Iwata, the city's transportation planning supervisor.

Beyond that, Bean's department's work is so preliminary that it's still evaluating exactly which areas to study.

The 1988 plan examined eight districts it considered part of the central city: downtown, Goose Hollow, the area that became Old Town/Chinatown, the Northwest Triangle/Pearl District, Lower Albina, Lloyd Center/Coliseum, Central Eastside and North Macadam/South Waterfront.

The efforts could attract a cadre of urban design enthusiasts. Scores of citizens participated in the 1988 effort; Bean said planners could draw on interest generated by Potter's VisionPDX project, which enticed many urban landscape critics to offer suggestions.

"We've know that there are stakeholders looking for big-picture ideas and specific fixes," Bean said. "Hopefully, we'll be able to take care of both."

The city will increasingly tout the study through the media and other sources in hopes of attracting more citizen involvement.

Many in the urban design community already know that Central Portland Plan work has begun. Tad Savinar, who is advising city and regional leaders on light-rail-area retail planning, said a growing number of Portlanders are interested in how downtown evolves.

"Just as we've seen a shift in cultural and societal behavior with the electronic age, we're seeing the same in terms of how people maneuver through and what services people expect from a city," Savinar said. "This type of planning is coming at a very opportune time."

And while it might seem like there are too many downtown plans on the table, Ethan Seltzer, director of Portland State University's School of Urban Studies and Planning, noted that good cities constantly reconfigure their layouts.

"A lot of planning went into what we're enjoying today, and the rate at which things change is fairly astounding," he said. "It ought to be a constant."

Indeed a planner's job is never done. Not only are there always things to be added, there's a steady flow of emerging services that weren't available, say, 10 years ago, said Seltzer. That said, there could be more coordination among the various planners creating their city visions.

"The onus is on the Planning Commission and the City Council to see the interconnectivity there," he said.

While the Central Portland Plan could take three years, it will arrive more quickly than the 1988 effort, which took four years.

"We're trying to do it in a manageable time frame given the scope of the project," said Bean.

[email protected] | 503-219-3419

http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2007/04/23/story9.html?t=printable
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

https://bsky.app/profile/maccoinnich.bsky.social
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 4:26 AM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 8,109
Today in "things maccoinnich isn't surprised by" the Proposed Draft of the Central City 2035 Plan is delayed:

Quote:
Central City 2035 Proposed Draft to be released on June 20 for public review

Originally scheduled to be released on May 10, the Central City 2035 (CC2035) Proposed Draft will now be released on June 20, 2016. Project staff will use the extra time to consider feedback on the Discussion Draft in order to shape the Proposed Draft.

On June 28, staff will present the Proposed Draft to the Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC) at a briefing. Commissioners will then hear public testimony at two hearings: one on July 26 and the other on August 9.

Portlanders are invited to submit testimony on the Proposed Draft to the PSC in person or in writing, prior to or at the hearings.
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

https://bsky.app/profile/maccoinnich.bsky.social
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 4:51 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccoinnich View Post
Today in "things maccoinnich isn't surprised by" the Proposed Draft of the Central City 2035 Plan is delayed:
I blame Charlie Hales.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted May 6, 2016, 3:37 PM
eric cantona's Avatar
eric cantona eric cantona is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 704
this thread seems like a decent spot for this wrap-up of a discussion that happened during architecture week:

Quote:
Last night, as part of design week, Carrie Strickland and Bill Neburka of Project Cityscope and Works Partnership put together a panel of some of the city’s most influential architects to discuss the so-called ‘Myth of Portland.’ Portland’s most renowned architectural critic Randy Gragg co-moderated the event, and was flanked by Thomas Hacker of Hacker and Brad Cloepfil of Allied Works on one side with Bill and Carrie from Works on the other. The objective of the night was to create a somewhat casual dialogue of the state of architectural design in Portland, but quickly became focused on what makes Portland architecture so unique. The materially-rich atmosphere of the recently completed Framework building, where the event took place, created the perfect backdrop for the convivial conversation, and at one point became the epitomized topic at hand.
the rest is here: https://placesovertime.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/designing-portland/

wished I could have attended this talk. my favotrite little nugget from their discussion that several posters here could learn from:
Quote:
while many critics lament the lack of any significant monuments in the city’s skyline, the city is probably better off by not having them. The real icons of Portland are the lesser celebrated ones, locally designed ones, like Pietro Belluschi’s Commonwealth Building and John Yeon’s Watzek House, buildings that are based on an ‘integrity of thought,’ as Neburka put it, and highlight the ‘unbelievably complex regionalism’ that exists according to Hacker.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted May 7, 2016, 12:30 AM
Tykendo Tykendo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 373
That sounds like classic Portland Architect ideology. StumpCity Blues if you ask me. A reluctance to reach for the stars and settle for mediocrity. Man! I'm sick of that kind of talk. Birkenstock Architecture. Or birth control if you will. Portland could use some 🞵🞵🞵🞵 in it's skyline. Nothing wrong with reaching for the sky. Show the world that you're ready for the future, not stuck in the bland past.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted May 7, 2016, 12:34 AM
58rhodes 58rhodes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tykendo View Post
That sounds like classic Portland Architect ideology. StumpCity Blues if you ask me. A reluctance to reach for the stars and settle for mediocrity. Man! I'm sick of that kind of talk. Birkenstock Architecture. Or birth control if you will. Portland could use some 🞵🞵🞵🞵 in it's skyline. Nothing wrong with reaching for the sky. Show the world that you're ready for the future, not stuck in the bland past.
well spoken!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted May 7, 2016, 4:51 PM
innovativethinking innovativethinking is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 591
Truly stump city blues
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted May 7, 2016, 11:13 PM
tworivers's Avatar
tworivers tworivers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland/Cascadia
Posts: 2,603
I'm glad Portland isn't (mostly for economic reasons) "reaching for the stars". The mega-tower craze around the world is the literal expression of global capital, the same system that has reduced most of the world's population to penury.

The future is over, anyways. It's increasingly unlikely that we're going to creatively wiggle out of some sort of species-level re-adjustment in the next few centuries. I'd rather work locally to create a dense, vibrant, human-scale urban fabric that will be habitable in the uncertain and likely-fractured days that are coming.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted May 8, 2016, 12:15 AM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by tworivers View Post
I'm glad Portland isn't (mostly for economic reasons) "reaching for the stars". The mega-tower craze around the world is the literal expression of global capital, the same system that has reduced most of the world's population to penury.

The future is over, anyways. It's increasingly unlikely that we're going to creatively wiggle out of some sort of species-level re-adjustment in the next few centuries. I'd rather work locally to create a dense, vibrant, human-scale urban fabric that will be habitable in the uncertain and likely-fractured days that are coming.
I'm more optimistic about the future, but I do agree very strongly with you about scale. I love skyscrapers, but I'm glad Portland is mostly keeping a more human scale. I'd be more excited to see several under utilized blocks fill in rather than seeing a new 600+ footer. It's not as if we have a lack of vacant lots, surface parking lots or under utilized buildings.

Portland may never be a world class architectural postcard city, but I'm ok with that.

My fear for the future of Portland is all about affordability. Will I still be able to afford to live here, or will I get priced out? Will local shops be able to afford to stay here, or will they get priced out? I've lived in cities that saw extreme growth - Dallas and Houston back in the 90s - but they stayed affordable by sprawling out almost indefinitely. Dallas stretched halfway to the Oklahoma border the last time I was there. Such wild growth. I've been amazed by the growth here too over the past 18 years, especially the past ten. We're growing inward and upward, though it's less about going super tall and more about filling in. And that's fantastic. But, oh, the rent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted May 8, 2016, 4:23 AM
65MAX's Avatar
65MAX 65MAX is offline
Karma Police
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: People's Republic of Portland
Posts: 2,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
I'm more optimistic about the future, but I do agree very strongly with you about scale. I love skyscrapers, but I'm glad Portland is mostly keeping a more human scale. I'd be more excited to see several under utilized blocks fill in rather than seeing a new 600+ footer. It's not as if we have a lack of vacant lots, surface parking lots or under utilized buildings.

Portland may never be a world class architectural postcard city, but I'm ok with that.
Now this, I completely agree with you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted May 8, 2016, 5:09 AM
Tykendo Tykendo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by tworivers View Post
I'm glad Portland isn't (mostly for economic reasons) "reaching for the stars". The mega-tower craze around the world is the literal expression of global capital, the same system that has reduced most of the world's population to penury.

The future is over, anyways. It's increasingly unlikely that we're going to creatively wiggle out of some sort of species-level re-adjustment in the next few centuries. I'd rather work locally to create a dense, vibrant, human-scale urban fabric that will be habitable in the uncertain and likely-fractured days that are coming.
Gloom and Doom. Affordability in cities like Portland and Denver is probably forever gone. The rich are moving to beautiful places, and will pay whatever is asked for. But i'm still optimistic about Portland growing with opportunity, and a fantastic tower for a new fortune 500 company wouldn't be a bad thing. The stumpy towers are just as ominous and totally utilitarian. A nice shiny thin shard to the heaven's maybe points to a brighter outcome. Hopefully, Geeez.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted May 8, 2016, 7:53 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,978
I would be happy to see some 300ft high end residential towers going up in front of Big Pink, that part of the city could use some diversity with the people living there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted May 8, 2016, 7:46 PM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
I would be happy to see some 300ft high end residential towers going up in front of Big Pink, that part of the city could use some diversity with the people living there.
My thoughts exactly. In particular, I have high hopes for the Goodman properties, though who knows what the timeline for any of that will actually be. It's all conceptual at this point I suppose.

Consider the new Hi-Lo hotel conversion of the building Huber's is in (here's a link to the post about it in the forum yesterday). It's wonderful to see that building getting new life - but imagine how much better it would be to also see a residential tower go up in the parking lot across the street. That part of downtown has so much untapped potential, and it's going to happen in some form at some point. It's just a matter of time. I think the potential is quite exciting. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later, especially since some of those parking lots have been around for the better part of a century.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted May 17, 2016, 5:25 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tykendo View Post
That sounds like classic Portland Architect ideology. StumpCity Blues if you ask me. A reluctance to reach for the stars and settle for mediocrity. Man! I'm sick of that kind of talk. Birkenstock Architecture. Or birth control if you will. Portland could use some 🞵🞵🞵🞵 in it's skyline. Nothing wrong with reaching for the sky. Show the world that you're ready for the future, not stuck in the bland past.
Our "🞵🞵🞵🞵" architecture firms haven't exactly delivered on the taller front. *Cough* Yard *cough cough* Skylab. Ah well!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted May 26, 2016, 7:13 PM
Nunya Nunya is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 83
Not really sure what thread to drop this in so feel free to move it to a better one if there is one. Having a thread dedicated to historic preservation is probably warranted as it's going to become a bigger fight I suspect in the near future due to this map:

http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/576551

It's a pretty nice map from the City of Portland showing all the URM (Unreinforced Masonry Buildings) in the City and which ones have been upgraded and if so when and to what standard. The map isn't necessarily accurate as it has a lot of buildings that are suspected of being URM that may or may not be as they have probably never been evaluated, and it probably misses some as well. But it is probably fairly accurate.

The reason this map is going to become important is this other effort by the City of Portland: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/pbem/66306 which is going to likely result in mandatory upgrades of most if not all of these buildings sometime in the future. This is going to cause a lot of Owner's to want to tear them down as retrofits aren't going to pencil out in a lot of cases economically.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2016, 7:06 PM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 8,109
Quote:
City Officials Consider Reducing Apartment Construction in East Portland

Despite a housing shortage, city officials consider reducing residential development options on the eastside.



Jim Wallace is confused. All he hears about is Portland’s biggest issue: the city’s housing shortage.

Yet city officials are now considering a plan that would strip Wallace of his current ability to develop multifamily housing on his East Portland property.

“You can’t tell me you want more housing and rezone the property,” says Wallace, a property investor. “What’s the sense of this?”

For decades, Portland has pursued a strategy of combining public transit with dense, urban development in the center of the city and along major streets. But now, just as the housing crunch is reaching crisis proportions, city officials are considering a zoning change that would mandate less density in one of the most affordable parts of the city.
...continues at the Willamette Week.
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

https://bsky.app/profile/maccoinnich.bsky.social
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2016, 12:31 AM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 8,109
And only 8.5 years after DLCD told Portland to write a new Comp Plan.

Quote:
Portland approves major 20-year growth plan, looking to 2035



Portland leaders project that the city's population will grow by nearly 42 percent — reflecting about 260,000 new residents — over the next 20 years. Approximately 140,000 new employees will work in the city, a 38 percent spike.

So how to accommodate all that growth?

The Portland City Council on Wednesday marked years of work trying to answer that question, unanimously passing a new road map for growth — officially dubbed the Comprehensive Plan — that sets the city's course through the year 2035. Imagine taller towers downtown, more apartments in single-family neighborhoods and perhaps even a new streetcar line.

"This is indeed a milestone for all of us," said Commissioner Amanda Fritz, calling the vote a "once-in-a-career opportunity."
...continues at the Oregonian.
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

https://bsky.app/profile/maccoinnich.bsky.social
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:53 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.