Portland's Suburban Development

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by urbanpdx

I don't see how assuming as a young single guy you don't spend much time in gated communities in the burbs is a personal attack and I since you obviously misinterpreted my intent, I appologized. I do think your posts resemble one though and are very inappropriate and not appreciated.

yes, less we forget, you are the victim here of intollerant city planners, people that love to spend taxes at other expenses, smart growth liberal advocates, those damned sustainable granolas...etc...etc...

I'm done arguing with you here and will rejoin the discussion, I encourage you to do the same.

[Wheelingman04]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

very interesting to see this side of Portland.. we rarely see these types of areas on SSP... and while some of the design issues and functionality have improved over recent decades... I can't help but find the architecture in every one of these pics to be hideous... cartoonish... it's almost as if all these developments hired the same architect

I agree. The developments are pretty monotonous and lack character. Of course that is the case with most newer suburbs.

[CGII]

Thanks for the tour. It's how suburbs should be. They're too clean for my tastes right now, I'll let time wear them down, though. That should address any concerns about monotony. Imagine how monotonous Brooklyn Heights was when all the rowhouses went up. Or Beacon Street. These should age quite nicely.

[westsider]

Originally Posted by MitchE

So do you live near PeterKort?

No, I just drive alot for work. I probably hit every city in the metro area a couple times each week. I live in the bethany area but I'm looking at moving to NoPo.

[Urbanpdx]

How would you describe the Bethany area to the national audience here Westsider? I am curious because to me it is very similar to suburban areas in most of the rest of the country and not too much like those photos.

[westsider]

I would generally agree that it's not too distinctive from most newer suburbs. Around Bethany Village there are some run of the mill GSL 3 story apartments, some pretty dense town homes and tightly spaced houses, and those 4 story condos just to the east that are falling apart ( The developer had to pay a huge judgement for structural repairs, I bid on some door and window replacements because the massive settaling racked them badly enough to break some. ) . Other than that there are lots of 20 year old ranch homes and pretty average density with most of the newer homes. I was in suburban Rhode Island last summer and it seemed like a mirror image of Washington county with less evergreens.

[Drew-Ski]

I think this is absolutely wonderful planning. I hope this emulated in other cities. "New-urbanization"..Portland Style!

[DC83]

Wow. Suburbs that makes sense! Absolutely amazing!!!

[Jularc]

Wow I love these developments. So different than what I see going on in the East Coast and even in Southern California.

[dcmcgov]

Wow. Suburbs done right. Rub it in our faces why dont you! Seriously, those look so refreshing compared to everything down here. Love the density and ped-oriented designs.

OMG, did I just see a sign that said "Condos Starting in the High 140's"?!!?!?!? Wow! Switch the 1 and the 4 around and that sign would fit in socal 5 years ago.

[shovel_ready]

The style is not the most exciting and can get monotonous but I really don't mind it. It's honest, unpretentious and represents the aspirations of this kind of development. The design is simple, takes cues from region's architectural past and doesn't need labels like "New Urbanism" to sell itself.

IMHO, this stuff is way better than the contrived themey, faux-historic crap architects like Andres Duany design in their "New Urbanist" subdivisons.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by crisp444

This isn't just good, this is FANTASTIC!! Ten times better than most of the hideous new suburbs built in the United States. I am FLOORED by the brownstone style rowhomes in the middle of the picture set. They are gorgeous and I want one!!

I totally agree. Orenco Station looks spectacular! I like some of stuff with wood exteriors and peaked roofs too, particularly the stuff that isn't beige.

I sure hope there's not too much modernism, as others are calling for. There's a reason it's not popular: if you're not an architect, you probably think it's ugly, or you're ambivalent at best. (I'm overgeneralizing of course, and I even like some modern stuff.)

People have mentioned Seattle. I'm not aware of many large expanses of townhouses in our suburbs. But we do have dozens of quickly-densifying little old downtowns (Renton, Kent, Mercer Island, Edmonds, Kirkland, Puyallup, Redmond, Bremerton, etc.), one suburban downtown that's now a regional center (Bellevue), and other new little downtowns emerging where none existed (like Burien, Juanita). Further, much of our future growth is being channelled into these areas.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by fangorangutang

^the Portland area has plenty of those too (although you'll rarely find lots as big as those in the midwest, south, etc. as seen in the Sprawl Festival threads). These dense, mixed-use developments are still far from the norm, although more and more are popping up all over the place. It's misleading to suggest that the developments here exemplify suburban Portland, just look at Google maps and you'll see it's pretty similar to suburbia anywhere else...these developments, while they are mostly good, solid, well-conceived designs in and of themselves, do not necessarily create a more walkable and transit-friendly built environment (at least not YET) because they are spread all over the place and disconnected from one-another contrary to what some have said, just take a look at Google maps again or drive around. The exceptions are the TODs along the MAX line. I don't mean to bash on P-town or anything. I realize we're making great strides here, but I don't want anybody to get the impression that our city and metropolitan area should be treated as a model for how to build North American cities just because we have probably the most progressive policy framework within which to do so.

Great shots though. I do really like those brick townhomes.

Thanks for the perspective.

Portland's growth boundaries keep the sprawl limited to certain areas, even if they don't stop sprawl. So it's still very worthwhile. I wish Seattle's nearby rural areas were as rural.

I wonder how damaging Oregon's recent property rights measure will be. Thankfully our Washington state version got trounced. Will the result be a significant amount of development outside the line, which would probably drop land prices within the line and take away some of the reason for higher densities?

[MarkDaMan]

^nope. While M37 is damaging, it hasn't produced mega-divisions, yet. The restrictions and possibly further restriction to be added this year by the legislature limit who can file a claim (you must have owned the land at the time of the added restrictions) and than that person must develop it too. If there was a transfer of rights upon selling, it would be more damaging. My gut tells me it wont be around much longer anyway. The public opinion polls have changed greatly against M37 recently. That might have to do with lumber companies filing a claim for a 15,000 home development on the coast, and a property owner proposing a strip mine in a donut hole in a national monument, to name just two (not yet approved) examples.

[holladay]

Originally Posted by mhays

I sure hope there's not too much modernism, as others are calling for. There's a reason it's not popular: if you're not an architect, you probably think it's ugly, or you're ambivalent at best. (I'm overgeneralizing of course, and I even like some modern stuff.)

Why is it that you denounce any form of modernism whatsoever? Are you against all modern architecture, or only modernism when it is applied to buildings that are glassy skyscrapers? You say you like some modern architecture but every post I've ever read by you pertaining to the subject tends toward the negative.

As someone of the complete opposite opinion I just want to hear directly from you what it is about these inherently fake neo-"historicist" buildings that you find so desirable. I love old buildings, frequently more than the new ones, but today it is just - dare I say - impossible to replicate the kind of detailing from the days before WWII. Even if we could, do we really want to pretend we live in 1920? Of course not, and no one would argue that, but yet we want our NEW buildings to pretend they are old?? Also, no one would say yes (I hope) but yet we think that mimicry of the past is the only way to achieve intimate scale in architecture?

No other industry - fashion, advertising, design - imitates the past. Sure they frequently borrow things, but they are all aware we live in 2007. I don't get the ceaseless resistance to modernism in , mainly, residential architecture. Nonetheless, all questions of 'living in the modern age' aside, the fact that the materials we have on the market today are piss-poor is reason enough to advocate the advancement of modern construction.

And furthermore, most architects are trained as MODERNISTS. There are very few architecture schools that teach students how to design the details of the past. So when people scratch their heads at why these new buildings look like crap, it's because the architects don't even know what they're doing anymore. If the public would embrace modernism the quality of the midrise and condo buildings done in the modern style would improve, undoubtedly. This is evident in Europe (Spain, Scandinavia, Switzerland and many other areas). The reason? Because Euro-trained architects are that much more skilled than their American counterparts? Hardly. It's because in Europe architects don't have to compromise their best designs to suit a nostalgic buying populace. In America, as evidenced in the projects in this thread, even the most 'Modern' of the designs is not daring enough, essentially because banks won't lend for it or developers fear it won't be marketable.

The problem of architecture in this country is equally shared by the building community and the homebuyers. But if the public will continue to buy crap then how do you expect the builders to raise their standards?

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by realm

is equally shared by the building community and the homebuyers

that's just it, the market has to demand the type of housing. Because of affordability, the sustainable movement, and the addition of main streets in dense developments, 90% of new housing in Portland is built tight, but with decades old style. Give the market a few more years to mature and I think you will start seeing a more modern design elements to the new infill and dense housing being built. In fact, in Portland proper the infill in the last 4 years has gone from disney-esque to some real interesting designs. Just like dense housing in the city spread to the burbs, so will the design.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by realm0854

Why is it that you denounce any form of modernism whatsoever? Are you against all modern architecture, or only modernism when it is applied to buildings that are glassy skyscrapers? You say you like some modern architecture but every post I've ever read by you pertaining to the subject tends toward the negative.

As someone of the complete opposite opinion I just want to hear directly from you what it is about these inherently fake neo-"historicist" buildings that you find so desirable. I love old buildings, frequently more than the new ones, but today it is just - dare I say - impossible to replicate the kind of detailing from the days before WWII. Even if we could, do we really want to pretend we live in 1920? Of course not, and no one would argue that, but yet we want our NEW buildings to pretend they are old?? Also, no one would say yes (I hope) but yet we think that mimicry of the past is the only way to achieve intimate scale in architecture?

No other industry - fashion, advertising, design - imitates the past. Sure they frequently borrow things, but they are all aware we live in 2007. I don't get the ceaseless resistance to modernism in , mainly, residential architecture. Nonetheless, all questions of 'living in the modern age' aside, the fact that the materials we have on the market today are piss-poor is reason enough to advocate the advancement of modern construction.

And furthermore, most architects are trained as MODERNISTS. There are very few architecture schools that teach students how to design the details of the past. So when people scratch their heads at why these new buildings look like crap, it's because the architects don't even know what they're doing anymore. If the public would embrace modernism the quality of the midrise and condo buildings done in the modern style would improve, undoubtedly. This is evident in Europe (Spain, Scandinavia, Switzerland and many other areas). The reason? Because Euro-trained architects are that much more skilled than their American counterparts? Hardly. It's because in Europe architects don't have to compromise their best designs to suit a nostalgic buying populace. In America, as evidenced in the projects in this thread, even the most 'Modern' of the designs is not daring enough, essentially because banks won't lend for it or developers fear it won't be marketable.

The problem of architecture in this country is equally shared by the building community and the homebuyers. But if the public will continue to buy crap then how do you expect the builders to raise their standards?

Read my post again: I like some modern stuff. That includes some houses, a great many towers, some public buildings, etc.

Why do I like stuff like Orenco Station and much of the other woodframes? Because they look nice. Why don't I like some of the new stuff across the river in Portland? Because it doesn't look nice. Sure, that not specific. But I also can't explain why a Van Gogh looks better than a child's painting, or why I like one meal more than another. It just tastes better.

Supporters of modern architecture don't seem to respect any explanation that doesn't use architectural terminology and theory. But that doesn't make the public's opinion any less valid. Maybe we just like brick, cornices, peaked roofs, bay windows, and thick trim because they "taste" better.

Usually these discussions include something like "the public likes McDonald's, and that's obviously not quality." But that ignores the fact that EVERYTHING that's mass-produced for the cost-focused middle classes will be commoditized and built cheaply with poor materials, even modern designs, if the general public ever warms to them.

Back to towers: I generally like Vancouver-type condo towers, Atlanta-type semi-reproductions, sculptural sheer-sided glassy towers, some towers that mix styles, and even, for reasons I don't understand, the occasional gray concrete box like Continental Place in Seattle. Some of my other favorites around here include Two Union, old WaMu, City Centre, 1521, Escala, and Olivian. But I'd take Woolworth or Chrysler over any of them, and I suspect I'd take New York Life too though I haven't seen it up close.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by mhays

Why do I like stuff like Orenco Station and much of the other woodframes? Because they look nice. Why don't I like some of the new stuff across the river in Portland? Because it doesn't look nice. Sure, that not specific. But I also can't explain why a Van Gogh looks better than a child's painting, or why I like one meal more than another. It just tastes better.

that doesn't make any sense at all actually. Across the river is Vancouver, Wa. Portland and Hillsboro are on the same side. When you say you don't like what's going up in Portland what are you talking about, the infill, the towers, kinda be more specific because there is a wide range of buildings going up in every style imaginable including older designs and modern styles.

[mhays]

By "Vancouver-style towers" I'm referring to BC. Many are of the same genre -- curvy, often white, lots of window area, balconies, etc.

For the "other side of the river" stuff in Portland, I'm referring to the boxy modernist stuff that's been posted on this board by you and others, which I somehow think is concentrated in the industrial area south of the Lloyd District (is this true?). I think some of those projects are ok, or even pretty good, but I think the majority are unattractive, offset a little because they're in industrial areas.

[MarkDaMan]

hmmm...everything on the eastside of the Willamette is pretty decent I think. The city is transforming an industrial area to a residential area, while still maintaining the industrial elements. Currently there are no examples of this done successfully so we'll se how it turns out, but I think the buildings are appropriate for the district.

In any case, Weston has proposed a new 'tallest' at least for the Lloyd District with an 8000 sq ft floorplate. Most of the stuff coming in on lower Burnside is infill but, well, here are a couple, you decide:

Bside6


Burnside Rocket


Burnside Bridgehead