Old Town/Chinatown News

[mmeade]

Originally Posted by cab

So they overlook the river and park and that is the window treatment they come up with? So Bizarre. Maximize views should be 101. Terrible.

It's not always just about the view. In this case there is clearly a base, middle, top to tie it into the surrounding historic neighborhood. It also has windows of a similar scale to adjacent buildings. Honestly, this is a good improvment to the neighborhood. Hopefully a few more buildings will tip the scale and make old town/china town a bit more energetic place!

[maccoinnich]

Isn't that the same lot that Works Partnership had a pre-app conference for? (mentioned up-thread.)

[downtownpdx]

Not a real exciting building, but very cool to see them moving a HQ to Old Town!. Might we see a (small) crane on NW 1st Ave?? There's still hope that this part of town can develop into someplace more attractive... if the city could take care of R2D2 and other issues a little better.

[2oh1]

It's really quite a statement that they're designing a meh building for their own HQ. I realize the building will serve other uses too, but still... wow. It'd be like serving the CEO of McDonalds chicken McNuggets for his own birthday celebration. OK, maybe that's a bit harsh, but still...

I don't think this building is bad, but I also don't think not being bad is the benchmark for good.

[Delaney]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Isn't that the same lot that Works Partnership had a pre-app conference for? (mentioned up-thread.)

yes

[cab]

The larger question is whether they think its a Meh building. The problem I'm having is I kind of suspect that many firms have been doing the bidding of cheap developers so long, they don't even know what good design is anymore.

[PDX City-State]

I actually think that's a pretty good building for Ankrom!

This is a good start--the first mixed--use new construction in decades along Naito. It may not be a work of art, but it's worlds better than most of the crap going up on Division or Williams right now.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by cab

The larger question is whether they think its a Meh building. The problem I'm having is I kind of suspect that many firms have been doing the bidding of cheap developers so long, they don't even know what good design is anymore.

Cab, do you like anything?

[cab]

Actually a lot. What got me was the excuse I hear a lot. "Its the developers fault." Funny thing was watching a PDX firm get a contract in China a few years ago. The land of architecture experimentation (but a lot of if crap). Guess what they built? Surrounded by towers and odd shapes, they built a boxy PDX style slab tower. And that is my problem with many firms, they have a box set they pull out and dont deviate from that very much. Now they do do this pretty well, nothing built lately is too bad and from the street level its always good, its just getting old. This building is just ok. Could simply be anywhere. So I guess my complaint is why with a unique location overlooking a one of a kind park and river with the it being a HQ building for an architecture firm do we get paint by numbers PDX building? And maccoinnich I do love whats starting to go up at the burnside bridgehead. Some actual unique structures.

[phillip_pdx]

Originally Posted by cab

Actually a lot. What got me was the excuse I hear a lot. "Its the developers fault." Funny thing was watching a PDX firm get a contract in China a few years ago. The land of architecture experimentation (but a lot of if crap). Guess what they built? Surrounded by towers and odd shapes, they built a boxy PDX style slab tower. And that is my problem with many firms, they have a box set they pull out and dont deviate from that very much. Now they do do this pretty well, nothing built lately is too bad and from the street level its always good, its just getting old. This building is just ok. Could simply be anywhere. So I guess my complaint is why with a unique location overlooking a one of a kind park and river with the it being a HQ building for an architecture firm do we get paint by numbers PDX building? And maccoinnich I do love whats starting to go up at the burnside bridgehead. Some actual unique structures.

Simple fabric buildings are what has made Portland a design leader. Plenty of cities overflow with adventurous forms, but that's not what makes a good urban environment. Portland architects are experts in building a strong city block by block rather than grabbing attention for individual buildings.

For some buildings, like a courthouse or a church, it makes sense to really stand out, but an office building is an office building and should blend into the larger whole.

[Rob Nob]

Originally Posted by mmeade

It's not always just about the view. In this case there is clearly a base, middle, top to tie it into the surrounding historic neighborhood. It also has windows of a similar scale to adjacent buildings. Honestly, this is a good improvment to the neighborhood. Hopefully a few more buildings will tip the scale and make old town/china town a bit more energetic place!

Sounds like you have some experience with the landmarks commission. They want everything to look like an historic building in this district. The proportions, height, scale, opening sizes and rhythms they want to see are all based on historic buildings in the district. The irony is that will hold this district back; there needs to be more height to make most new buildings pencil and they aren't going to allow anything taller than what is there already.

[Rob Nob]

And even though this site is a 3/4 block of surface parking and dead grass!

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by Rob Nob

Sounds like you have some experience with the landmarks commission. They want everything to look like an historic building in this district. The proportions, height, scale, opening sizes and rhythms are all based on historic buildings in the district. The irony is that will hold this district back; there needs to be more height to make most new buildings pencil and they aren't going to allow anything taller than what is there already.

I disagree with the statement that for a district to stand out, it has to have large, tall iconic buildings. That is not necessarily the goal - the goal for a city should be to have a cohesive fabric that serves the population of the city well, with clean and efficient structures.

If you have ever visited, say Amsterdam or Berlin, those cities have undergone massive urban redevelopment schemes, with many midrise buildings that can redefine and reinvigorate urban spaces through cutting-edge design.

Potsdamer Platz is a sort of good example in Berlin, although it has a couple of taller buildings. In Amsterdam, the waterfront redevelopment has resulted in a large number of cutting edge, yet midrise structures. Javakade (Java island) is comprised mostly of 4-6 story residential structures.

That being said, this building does look like a fabric building; but for a firm that specializes in that type of design... why would they deviate from what they know? Unless a designer or design firm is looking to rebrand, the projects they design will of course be similar to each other, as there are limitations to design development. In other words, institutional inertia due to budge constraints. There are, of course, firms that specialize in pushing the boundaries, but I don't think Portland's permitting process and fiscally conservative developers supports that kind of environment.

[Rob Nob]

I know this is a skyscraper themed forum, but i never said it needed large tall iconic buildings; by more height I only meant 6 to 7 stories tall. Landmarks commission isn't allowing anything over about 70', basically the parapet of the adjacent U of O block. With the height needed for ground floor retail and office, this is pushing the upper limit for the district and the lower limit to make it pencil. If landmarks would accept a story or two more of height, as allowed by zoning, you would see more parking lots start to get filled in buildings in this neighborhood.

[mmeade]

Originally Posted by Rob Nob

Sounds like you have some experience with the landmarks commission. They want everything to look like an historic building in this district. The proportions, height, scale, opening sizes and rhythms they want to see are all based on historic buildings in the district. The irony is that will hold this district back; there needs to be more height to make most new buildings pencil and they aren't going to allow anything taller than what is there already.

I do. I was involved with the construction of Mercy Corps.

I disagree with your comment that this will hold the district back. It may delay some development, but as rents continue to rise and available land around downtown continues to be built up, this area will receive more development. My opinion is that there is great value to having areas of the city that maintain a historic scale. Pushing taller development elsewhere may not get this area developed right away, but hopefully it will end up with more charm as it is completed.

[tworivers]

I do. I was involved with the construction of Mercy Corps.

I disagree with your comment that this will hold the district back. It may delay some development, but as rents continue to rise and available land around downtown continues to be built up, this area will receive more development. My opinion is that there is great value to having areas of the city that maintain a historic scale. Pushing taller development elsewhere may not get this area developed right away, but hopefully it will end up with more charm as it is completed.

I agree about the importance of maintaining existing scale in historic districts but I think the architecture should be allowed, even encouraged, to be unapologetically contemporary. To my understanding, and maybe you can clarify, the HLC was very upset about the Mercy Corps design and managed to water it down somewhat.

[Rob Nob]

The current board has said that they would not have allowed the Mercy Corp project as designed if it came before them today.

[PacificNW]

Seriously? They can actually veto a project? I don't think I can support such "power" coming from a board....

[Derek]

Originally Posted by PacificNW

Seriously? They can actually veto a project? I don't think I can support such "power" coming from a board....

I was thinking the same exact thing.

[Rob Nob]

You need to get a majority of the Commissioners vote. 4 out of the 7 Commissioners would get you through Landmarks Review, and there is no design review.

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/168808