Welcome! This forum presents an alternate perspective on the current challenges facing the city of Portland, Oregon. What effective solutions are available? What is the actual evidence that they will work, or not? How can these lessons be applied in Portland? We will pass along regular entries on timely issues from other parts of the world, comparing notes on our challenges here. We will also offer our own commentaries and those of Portland-area colleagues.
Portland is rightly regarded as an important global model of urbanism and of urban successes. Portland started with the advantage of small blocks, facilitating walkability; the Urban Growth Boundary was created in the 1970s, about the same time a freeway along the waterfront was replaced with Tom McCall Waterfront Park; Portlanders’ love of their natural setting ensured tree-lined streets and efforts to protect views of snow-capped Mt. Hood; a proposed multi-story garage in the city center became Pioneer Courthouse Square in 1984, thanks to community effort, and many other squares and parks have followed; a streetcar system and light rail were started, which gradually helped to generate suburban neighborhood centers, improving walkability; a compact mixed-use neighborhood began to replace the old industrial area of the Pearl District, initially at a good human scale; and early development of bike lanes positioned Portland as a leading US city for bicycle planning.
But we must be honest: Portland is also, and increasingly of late, a model of what can go wrong. But that too is an invaluable contribution to share with other cities, as they share their lessons with us. In that process, we may all learn from our mistakes as well as our successes, and find a path to becoming better cities. We may thereby reverse the downward spiral of so many cities today, including Portland – losing their affordability, losing their diversity, losing their architectural heritage, and becoming places of isolation, homelessness, traffic congestion and – for too many – economic stagnation, and declining quality of life.
This blog is hosted by the Sustasis Foundation, an Oregon public benefit corporation dedicated to finding and disseminating “neighborhood-scale tools for the complex challenges of the future” (www.sustasis.net). Our chief bloggers are Suzanne Lennard and Michael Mehaffy, both with Ph.D. degrees in architecture (at UC Berkeley and Delft University of Technology, respectively) but also with wide interests in sociology, public health, anthropology, psychology, economics, public affairs, and above all, the ingredients of livable, sustainable cities, and how we can get and keep them. This perspective is informed by seminal scholars in urban issues including Jane Jacobs, Jan Gehl, William H. Whyte, Christopher Alexander, Lewis Mumford and others, and also by cutting-edge new research. We hope you'll find it thought-provoking at least, and perhaps even inspiring at times...
Can we love the Portland Building?
The biggest complaint about the Portland Building was the too small energy efficient windows. So why are these small windows remaining the same? Yes curtain walls are adding clear glass but that is not where all the offices are. Secondly, the original design showed a loggia on the west side only. Why not make the loggias on the north and south interior porches? For both these issues we know in Portland there is a lot of rain and like to bask in the sun when we can. Third, it is questionable if the exterior panels look as originally intended? Fourth, of course, deliveries should be on the north as do many Portland downtown buildings. Leading to th e fifth inquiryy and most important public gesture, is that a entry on a park blocks to on the east go through to the present entry on the west. Many Portland buildings follow this pattern. In conclusion, Portlandia really belongs on the park blocks, so there is a need for new sculptures on the park blocks to engage and welcome all to her doors. Let us do Portland Proud.
Mary Frances Czarnecki
NEW Traditional Architecture
Hi Mary – I admit I know less about the experience for staff inside the building – although on visits I’ve noticed that the windows look bigger from the inside than they do from the outside, where they look tiny. Yes, I’m sure that bigger windows would be more appropriate, but don’t know how feasible that would be given cost etc. More important to me are the edges of the public space, which were so horrible before – as you say, for such an important civic space. And let me add, curtain walls are getting passé and fast – just ask Ken Shuttleworth, architect of the Gherkin. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/shuttleworth-calls-again-for-end-to-glass-binge/8603515.article. It’s increasingly looking like a conceit of the “oil interval” – see also Peter Buchanan: http://www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/26/the-tower-an-anachronism-awaiting-rebirth So why do we neurotically keep trying to resuscitate a dying architecture, imagining that it’s “modern?” Why the unnoticed but rich irony of a ‘post-modernist” building that’s described as “historic,” while an unimaginative retro-mod design is seen as “modern”? Professional cognitive delusions and fashionable herd mentality, fueled further by Dwell and Mad Men. http://www.shareable.net/blog/architectural-myopia-designing-for-industry-not-people Cheers, m