P
Patrick
Guest
To tell you the truth, I don't know when this was done. I assume it was in the 1980s or early 1990s, but again, I can't be sure. What is PoMo? Post Modernism? Not familiar with the shorthand yet.
I hotlinked from an attachment in my e-mail from the artist. That must have only been a temporary online host, so let me try again real quick...
[/url]
Wow, very neat. Looks like there should be flying cars and such.
P
Patrick
Guest
Yeah it is wicked neat, and again, I just want to be clear, that I'm not the artist for this one. It is Portland artist C. Michael Lewis's work (just so there is no confusion, not sure if I already mentioned that as I tried several times before successfully posting this image).
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 6
Yes, PoMo = postmodern. New York's AT&T building, inserted in that drawing, is a good example; it's the one that looks like a Chippendale cabinet.
P
Patrick
Guest
The veterans bridge rebuild is about one year away from the completion of construction.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,002
- Reaction score
- 1,744
Those "fans" are pretty lame.
I agree, but I do see anything as an improvement over the rotting infrastructure in place now. The proximity to the runways also eliminates any sort of height too which means they're pretty limited in terms of options.
Still, I don't even know why they'd bother with them. I think the obvious answer is because the bridge is so plain otherwise, but I think it's a shoddy addition. It would be better off without them.
P
Patrick
Guest
agreed. there was an intensive design review process for this, with which I was somewhat involved. any cable stayed bridge was out of the question due to FAA. I think the fans were an afterthought slapped on to please (appease, really) the design community. Something should have gone there, but not fans.
Portlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2010
- Messages
- 2,590
- Reaction score
- 5,624
I actually like the fans and the single girl sitting by herself on the bench. I might have to take a walk out to the bridge when it opens!
P
Patrick
Guest
really depends on who is elected. But I think overall people in Portland are smart as concerns the evolution of the city and will make the right choice. In which case it is great. But it could be better (more power). this is a step in the right direction, though. I'd consider running myself someday.
There used to be a Todd on here that spent some time in Portland and DC. Same Todd?
There used to be a Todd on here that spent some time in Portland and DC. Same Todd?
P
Patrick
Guest
I hope so!
I think the charter commission did a good job and I look forward to seeing their recommendations, such as having an elected mayor, implemented. As Patrick said, it may come down to who the mayor is, but it sounds great in theory to me. I also look forward to the instant-runoff voting.
P
Patrick
Guest
Although I like most new compact urban residential development, this one included, who would want to walk by this structure? There are so many units but so little street interaction.
FrankLloydMike
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 514
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm never a fan of these cartoonish SketchUp renderings--they're always harder to interpret than other presentations, and combine the worst aspects of both photorealistic renderings (the tendency to assume the rendering is of a final product) and line rendering (more conceptual and lacking life). So I hesitate to pass judgement too quickly on anything like this, especially when the elevations look pretty interesting as here.
That being said, you're dead on about the street level. It reminds me a bit of San Francisco, which despite its density lacks much interest to walkers on most streets due to the prevalence of ground-level garages (which also makes every sidewalk also a driveway). Admittedly, my knowledge of this area is pretty limited, but looking at a map my assumption is that Pearl and Lancaster will always be largely residential side streets. Aside from maybe a convenience store or other shop catering specifically to the neighborhood, I doubt that the ground level would be appealing to most retail owners. I also think that when housing directly abuts a sidewalk, even on a side street, it makes sense to raise the first floor above the street. This was done historically with a few steps so that the windows were above eye-level of passersby, and too often new development forgets this and the result is perpetually closed shades. So the attempt here seems to be ground-level parking with some planting along the sidewalk. Not terrible, but not very interesting.
It's more expensive to the developer, requires more means of egress, more elevators, etc, but I think a better option here would be more walk-ups. In most Northeast cities, the walk-up is prevalent, so there's a historic precedent here, too. Rather than one, central entrance likely leading to stacked double-loaded corridor here, the developer could probably build multiple entrances leading to fewer apartments in each, but with the same total number. Just by adding more doors and more steps to the sidewalk, the building would have more interest to passersby. It would almost certainly also result in a more natural rhythm and break down the massing in a more meaningful way than what is currently presented.
All that being said, if this is built as drawn, I don't think it will be bad. Not every street or corner is going to be interesting in the city, and the massing overall seems good. The bigger issue is the precedent--if this is built and a building across the street is built that deals with the sidewalk in a similar way, it will become an issue. The occasional blank wall won't kill the city, but a bunch of these will ensure that people get in their cars on the ground floor and never walk through a boring landscape no matter what the density.
That being said, you're dead on about the street level. It reminds me a bit of San Francisco, which despite its density lacks much interest to walkers on most streets due to the prevalence of ground-level garages (which also makes every sidewalk also a driveway). Admittedly, my knowledge of this area is pretty limited, but looking at a map my assumption is that Pearl and Lancaster will always be largely residential side streets. Aside from maybe a convenience store or other shop catering specifically to the neighborhood, I doubt that the ground level would be appealing to most retail owners. I also think that when housing directly abuts a sidewalk, even on a side street, it makes sense to raise the first floor above the street. This was done historically with a few steps so that the windows were above eye-level of passersby, and too often new development forgets this and the result is perpetually closed shades. So the attempt here seems to be ground-level parking with some planting along the sidewalk. Not terrible, but not very interesting.
It's more expensive to the developer, requires more means of egress, more elevators, etc, but I think a better option here would be more walk-ups. In most Northeast cities, the walk-up is prevalent, so there's a historic precedent here, too. Rather than one, central entrance likely leading to stacked double-loaded corridor here, the developer could probably build multiple entrances leading to fewer apartments in each, but with the same total number. Just by adding more doors and more steps to the sidewalk, the building would have more interest to passersby. It would almost certainly also result in a more natural rhythm and break down the massing in a more meaningful way than what is currently presented.
All that being said, if this is built as drawn, I don't think it will be bad. Not every street or corner is going to be interesting in the city, and the massing overall seems good. The bigger issue is the precedent--if this is built and a building across the street is built that deals with the sidewalk in a similar way, it will become an issue. The occasional blank wall won't kill the city, but a bunch of these will ensure that people get in their cars on the ground floor and never walk through a boring landscape no matter what the density.
MonopolyBag
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 449
- Reaction score
- 0
P
Patrick
Guest
I totally agree. One main entrance makes it more of a campus, not a neighborhood. It is an insular development that closes its eyes to its surroundings otherwise.
There is, unfortunately, already a precedent for developments like this. In fact, almost all of the new large scale residential in Portland has one main entrance for dozens of units. More entrances, or at least porches overlooking the street, would be nice.
Thanks for sharing the renderings, Patrick. Some excellent points made above. The lack of interaction on the street level is certainly of concern. In addition to more entrances, I think part of the beauty and practicalness of older developments is just the smaller footprint overall. In regards to this development, it isn't a beauty but I guess it serves the practical function of providing housing. I have the same concern about ground-floor parking and street interaction with the townhouses that may be built next to the Hampton Inn.
P
Patrick
Guest
Right--and I've heard that same point raised several times before, by many people--but I think the Hampton is somewhat of a different story, given the surroundings. There will be a large hotel next door, nearby retail (in the structure itself as well as the other buildings) and the place is overall a more vibrant neighborhood. This bayside location, by contrast, abuts a large junkyard and empty lots, as well as another parking garage right next door. To me, that means it is particularly important to pay attention to the street level atmosphere in Bayside, whereas some concessions might be made in the eastern waterfront for development's sake.