« Hacker Wins Fire Station 1 Competition | Main | Village Building Convergence »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mike Thelin

When will the Clinton be available?

Randy Rapaport

The Clinton is expected to be completed in the firt quarter of 2007.

terri edwards

Where can I see the rendering of The Clinton?

Randy Rapaport

A presentation of The Clinton will be given by the architect and developer for The HAND neighborhood group on Tuesday, August 2nd at 7 in the evening.

Radcliffe Dacanay

Will the meeting still be St. Philip Neri? Or will it be held elsewhere?

Radcliffe Dacanay

Will the meeting still be St. Philip Neri? Or will it be held elsewhere?

Fran Drake

I read the artice in the Oregonian and I hate what is being done to Portland with the modern condos. If you must build, then please make the buildings FIT IN with the Portland style....no Portlander likes the modern style....just maybe Californicators.....
I'm trying to buy a condo now, but will look for something that doesn't destroy Portland.

Brian

Fran, I have to thoroughly disagree. First of all, I don't think it's fair or accurate to lump all Portlanders together. Pretty much any legitimate architect or architectural enthusiast in the city I know agrees that the best buildings are of their time, not a caricature of old styles. Modern buildings actually honor older architecture BETTER than faux-historic buildings that mock "traditional" style. If you don't like contemporary, late-20th/early 21st century architecture, that's your right. But with all due respect, don't make sweeping generalizations that most of us don't support.

Doug

Modern buildings, by and large, do not honor the classical system of architecture built up over 200 years. There was a language of architecture, which wasn't just about details, but about proportion, about easily "readable" architecture (you could always tell where the front door was by the entablature surrounding it, the porches or porticoes, etc.) Moldings around windows, whether stone or wood, gave depth and solidity to the building. Yes, a floating glass box may be a novel thing to look at, but it is not a building that makes people feel good, or comfortable, or secure. Floor to ceiling glass in upper story rooms is scary. People who work in such spaces often cover the lower part, to relieve the feeling that they'll fall through the glass.

There are many examples of the impracticality, the arrogance, the faddishness of "modern" architecture. And I haven't even mentioned flat roofs!

Of course, the readers of this site are mostly self-selected fans of contemporary architecture, so generalizations about this group may not work, but the public at large does not seem to really prefer contemporary architecture, otherwise the "traditional" homes wouldn't sell so well. (Admittedly most are not done well. That doesn't mean all "classical" style architecture is bad. It's just that most don't have the training to do it right. And architects are not trained in classical architecture, either. They have to seek it out and learn from the old books and old buildings.

Justin

Umm... how does architecture of residential housing in portland reflect a connection to Oregon?

Back in the 1800's, if I'm not mistaken, most settlers just brought over from the East Coast the general building styles available at the time (or bought Sears kit homes straight from the factory!). There may have been some modification to make them more 'native' to Oregon, but they are a far cry from vernacular architecture in places like Greece, where the construction types & materials used are the result of centures of incremental development and actually respond to the environment.

The real vernacular architecture of Oregon - longhouses, for instance, of the Native Americans - was pretty much wiped out when we committed genocide against those people.

True, there is a lot of crappy architecture. But please, much of it is because lame developers buy pre-designed plans from a book that has no context whatsoever to the locality of where it ends up being built. What makes it worse is when people opt for 'architectural details' - like crown mouldings, trim, etc - without having a damn clue as to what it's for.

Why, for example, do townhouses need fake little columns on their porch?! Do you have any bloody idea why the ancient greeks pioneered the idea of the column? Didn't think so.

Randy Rapaport

I have no interest in historic design in architecture. We can no longer look to the past for answers.

Fresh, innovative design is much more interesting. My projects have large floor-to-ceiling windows to let in more light. Radiant floor heat because it is far superior to conventional HV/AC. I fight for high ceiling heights because most humans appreciate the spacousness.

We have an opportunity, here and now in Portland to do better work with regard to design and quality. And I am going all-out to express this intention on projects to come.

Casey Hughes

I agree with Randy 110% here. There is no value in copying styles of the past. We can learn from certain vernacular values, yet move on and improve on them. It is ridiculous to impose 'tradition' for the sake of making a bland box that keeps everyone happy. While Doug may think modernism is an arrogant fad- the fact that it has been around for 80+ years tells me that it is here to stay. Design and quality are not limited to any style, and since we are not in the 1800s any more, we should use the technologies available, and push forward to develop new ones.
That includes the flat roof- there's no reason it shouldn't be fully utilized. If it can work in Lake Tahoe, it works anywhere.

Gabriel Bocanegra

To the individual who wrote that modern architecture is destroying Portland, think again. If you consider the mindless and ghastly sprawl of Hillsboro or Beaverton then, yes, what is happening there is arguably destructive, from an aesthetic, civic, and environmental standpoint. Moreover (and speaking of Portland "proper"), if you consider the equally mindless architecture of developers seeking to please everyone with their faux craftsman bungalows, you are right once more. Why? This city has an incredible opportunity to be a mecca for architecture that is daring, innovative, sustainable, and yes, livable on a human scale. Its decaying housing infrastructure calls for no less. Please remember that us younger ones are stuck paying the steep price (emotional, environmental and financial) of having to inherit these tired, old, and (what's worse) shabby structures. If living like your grandmother is what you seek, so be it. But please do not criticize those of us who demand to define or redefine fresh environments/experiences for ourselves and the future (just as, in my opinion, our elders ill-defined them for us). It is high time for architectural reinvention in Portland.

Gabriel Bocanegra

"This city has an incredible opportunity to be a mecca for architecture that is daring, innovative, sustainable, and yes, livable on a human scale."

Beautiful and anti-nostalgic too.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Lead Sponsors



Sponsors











Portland Architecture on Facebook

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

Paperblogs Network

Google Analytics

  • Google Analytics

Awards & Honors