Hanna & Mulvanny G2 unveil SMART Tower proposal (updated)

Developer Derek Hanna and Portland's Mulvanny G2 Architecture have now released preliminary designs for the proposed waterfront observation tower. 

When I spoke briefly with Hanna today by phone, he emphasized that these are not intended to be the final design, and that they welcome public input on not only where the tower might end up, but how it should look. But still, as you can now see, it's a bold proposal for Portland.

 

As previously mentioned, the tower has a twisting shape with functions at the base and top, and wind turbines comprising about the middle two-thirds. The idea is that this is a "SMART Tower", as Hanna told Randy Gragg of Portland Spaces in an interview published online today on The Burnside Blog (which until recently was written by Mike Thelin).

"What could we do there that would really be an attraction and showcase the city's sustainable efforts and make Portland proud? So we thought let's be the first energy-producing attraction," Hanna said. "When we really started looking at it, we realized, hey, it's on the river. It's not blocked or shaded by any other buildings, so we started looking at the positives of the location. That's what created the SMART Tower."

The tower relies on an innovative turbine developed in Holland called the Turby that Hanna describes to Gragg as " the most advanced urban wind turbine. It can go on top of or on the side of buildings; it can take updrafts and sidedrafts and winds from all different directions."

Hanna also told Gragg that he thinks people have been too caught up in the proposed 600-foot height. He says it can be bigger or smaller. But it has to be along the river to generate optimum windpower, he says, and Hanna strongly favors having it in or around Waterfront Park, or at least the close-in central city. 

"It's really easy to jump on the height," he told Gragg, "but the structure's whole diameter is only 90 feet wide. We designed it to be a see-through tower. The turbines are constantly moving. We designed it as an ellipse so it is at its narrowest from west to east. So everyone in the West Hills sees it at its narrowest: 50 feet, up to 550 feet.

In the interview, Randy Gragg suggested the Centennial Mills site, which I agree might work. How about moving the police department's horse paddock next door and putting the tower there? Perhaps you could also place the tower at the base of the Fremont Bridge in the Northern Pearl. The tower could also go at the Burnside Bridgehead on the east side, stamping that already planned development with a real destination. Or perhaps it could go in South Waterfront amongst the condo towers as a one-two attraction with the aerial tram. Why not put it on the river next to Oak's Park?

Other than its potential height, the other feature some may find a drawback is the parking proposed for the bottom of the tower. Hanna said in the Spaces/Burnside Blog interview it would account for about 15 percent of the tower's estimate $13.6 million revenue. This will surely depend a lot on the location. If it is built at Waterfront Park, the parking is needed there, but before talk of the tower, no one was even proposing trying to store cars at the river amongst the greenspace. Is it possible the tower could be still built without the parking? If it is such a power generator, that and observation-deck admissions ought to provide some revenue without it.

As I said in my previous post, I'm inclined favorably towards the design of the tower and its faintly Calatrava-esque turning torso of a form. I like its transparency and the mission of generating alternative power. I like the message it sends that Portland is a sustainable Mecca. But what of the skyline? I've often yearned for more tall, skinny buildings in the downtown core, but would this tower dominate too much as a visual? Change is always hard to swallow, though. Has this idea's time come, or are others more dubious? One wants this to be more than just our Space Needle. And it really has to look great. I mean, great. I don't care how much power it generates if it's not beautiful. Is this tower the top?

Update 9/22/08: AIA/Portland (a sponsor of this site) will be hosting a presentation and public discussion of the SMART Tower design with by Mulvanny G2 Architects on Friday, October 10 at the Center For Architecture, at a to-be-determined time in the late afternoon.

Comments

[Ek]

Hey (first reaction, haven't even read yet) that looks kinda cool! In Jules Verne-y kinda way.

[Poncho]

The wind turbines will contribute how much power to the tower's own energy needs? I have a feeling it will be minimal at best and merely something to allow the architect/developer to label the entire tower "green" and "sustainable." Also the parking (particularly in an urban location) makes the "green" bragging label a joke.

Waterfront Park is the place for this. I have no problem with the height or the idea of an observation tower. I am not so sure about the design looks like a giant tornado. It even has the spiraling motion and deformed shape in the design.

[Ray Whitford]

I like it! Maybe modify the top to allow a rotating restaurant level though. I believe the best location is still the Rose Quarter for all the reasons I have listed. It's at the river bend and is away for the main business district for spacing and sealing the connections over the river. There will be two rail lines (MAX and a new streetcar line) near by. New office towers are being planned near the OCC and the new OCC HQ Hotel could use this new attraction being close by.

Having more parking near the Rose Quarter is a positive (one of the arguments against a MLB stadium at the Blanchard Site was the lack of packing). You could create a nice park for this Tower at the East End of the Steel or Broadway Bridge I think.

And again, the view coming into PDX from Washington on I5 or from the East on I84 would be outstanding with this Tower close to the I5/I84 Interchange. Rose Quarter is the spot for me more then the Burnside Bridgehead.

This Tower could really connect the Lloyd District to the Westside.
At some point, my hope is that I5 will be tunneled under the Lloyd District to increase capacity and to open up more land near the river.

We should plan our buildings and tourism assets toward a agreed future city view.

Ray

[goose]

yay! portland's very own giant phallus! we really do need more of this macho kind of architecture in town, except it looks like its wearing a dress. really, what is the point? the only reason this is remotely palatable for me is that it actually creates energy. but still, these things always seem like a gimmick for me, something to take your out of town guests to, because most residents will go only once on their own, if at all.

[Peter S.]

In the larger scheme of things, it may serve as a datum for future tall buildings. They're likely to happen, but perhaps the city can use this project as an initial scale?

I'm just thinking out loud here. Don't mind me.

[Andrew]

Can any ecologists tell us how birds might feel about those wind turbines? My untrained eye thinks the lattice structure looks like good perching.
That said, I really like this concept and think it's high time Portland made a statement like this. It would be best placed away from the central core, rather than being surrounded by other tall structures, to give the viewer something to look towards. Is that the Rose Quarter then? Maybe.

[Mike Thelin]

I love it. I agree with Andrew that it's time our city made a statement, and there's no better way than a monument to sustainability. I hope this project doesn't get whittled away to mediocrity.

[Mike Thelin]

And PS: I'll still be contributing the the Burnside Blog once in a while.

[JG]

Come on! A tower like this belongs in Dubai, NOT PORTLAND. Is this really what Portland needs? Instead of focusing on "iconic" mega-structures, Portland should continue to focus on human-scale cutting edge designs.

As a counter to this proposal; I would like to propose that 20 small scale observation decks (say 20' to 80' in height) get built around the entire city. We could then spread the love amongst many different design firms (and neighborhoods) instead of having a single firm (one that specializes in designing Costcos) contribute in such a heavy handed fashion to our cities skyline.

[JustinM]

You guys are no fun. We're human beings, not an ant colony; we make art and do stuff just because it is TOTALLY RAD. If we don't go all the way on this, though, please don't bother. You know how when you visit Seattle, and you want to see the space needle soaring out of the city, but actually it is tiny, and off to the side in a chintzy mini-theme park? If this Portland spire is even approximately as tall as office buildings from the 80s (big pink), or if it goes east of the river, diffusing the cityscape rather than being the torch raised above, it's not worth it.

Good luck dreamers: Go the distance.

[billb]

JG , right on ! 20 mini-decks all over the city , we could have bike rally action , 'Tower Circuit'
Twenty Designers from all over the world , a legendary design competition ,
yee haaa

[ws]

Hmm-m-m-m... . Maybe there is a bit of Northwest influence in that design. I christen this stunning work: 'Slug with Bustier'

Put it over by Omsi, and it could be 'The Visible Stand-up Slug'. Not quite as good as 'The Visible Woman', but this would generate power. That would be fun.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure there will be lots of people that will love this tower.

[Nikos]

I propose 1000 observation decks 1 foot high, more accessible and so many more decks to design! (You do the " aesthetic math", since one 600 foot tower=twenty 80 foot towers etc etc)

I am all for a tall structure to be added to the skyline, so add my vote FOR the proposed tower(or office building, or condo building or whimsy stucture, anything to announce we are HERE!)

Although I would rather see that money spent on a Concert Hall or some performing Arts facility instead (but then, this is private money, so ...)

[Lance Lindahl]

I don't think that next to Oak's Park is a viable option. This area sits low on the flood plain. The modern design, which I do like a lot, would not fit the character of this historic area. The scale just doesn't work at all in a quiet, residential neighborhood.

If built, it should be in the heart of the central city. Would this project work at the Burnside Brigehead site? This spot will have streetcar service, is close to MAX, is close to downtown, close to the river, close to the freeway, close to the Rose Quarter, and would be easy for tourists to find. The land is certainly available and now mostly clear of buildings.

The old Thunderbird Hotel site in the Rose Quarter might be another option worth considering.

Or how about on the Central Eastside near the soon to be built rail transit hub near OMSI?

[DE]

Nikos, some of us do not need any "announcement" to know we're here. That seems so insecure. Isn't 1000 articles in the NYT and a floating tram-orb enough to show that we've arrived?

Oh, and a massive mountain?

[DE]

Having said that, if it has to happen, please don't put this homage to here-ness in our world-renowned park (which, for many, provides a great deal of civic pride without a tower). Placing it at a distance from the central core allows views between the two, as well as the oppportunity to charge a new district. I agree that Rose Quarter or OMSI would be ideal. They're already semi-established, but have much potential growth to come. Finally, let's not upstage our existing landmarks (ie. Fremont Bridge, west hills, tram) by plopping this too close to one of them.

[Nikos]

Obviously Mt Hood is in itself a world class sight from the city, but I am pleasantly surprised at how many (in humble, self satisfied,nostalgie de la boue Portland) came out in favor of the tower in this blog!

[thomas]

This is great. The Space Needle is a symbol of technology and now Portland's tower will be a symbol of the environment. I think the building should be located on the east side of the river by OSMI where an emerging green technologies district is begining to take off.

[chris]

I like the idea of a tower that creates a visible anchor for the waterfront.

The turbine function is an interesting idea. I have views of the Fremont bridge flags and I can confirm that the North/South winds are fairly consistent.

[Mike Thelin]

This think should go on the waterfront somewhere in the Central City. The problem with the waterfront park is that it has no amenities. This is changing with Bike Republic's good proposal plus the relocation of Saturday Market. However, there still needs to be more. We congratulate ourselves on remaking our waterfront in the 1970s, but it's essentially a large jogging path and temporary space for chintzy carnivals. Amenities like these lure people to the waterfront to interact with the river.

[billb]

Could we stop calling this thingee
'Green' and 'Sustainable' please.
It is a showboat sign of reckless excess. Trees are 'Green' , maybe plant some more , the City could use a lot more to lower the heat-island effect! Oh , and if you need a view try 'ol big pink' , using what is already built is Sustainable.

[peteetchou]

Personally I think it's ugly and out of place in this city. KATU.com says they are gonna charge 10 bucks to ride the elevator up.

[chris]

@peteetchou: This idea isn't even off the drawing board yet, so I don't know how they could determine a $10 admission fee. However, for comparison, the Seattle space needle is currently $16.

@billb: Why not call it green? Maybe it will have vertical farming along with power generation. I don't buy into the "if it ain't a tree, then it ain't green" mantra.

[Hart]

Are the wind turbines gonna chop up birds? I bet Portlanders will love that.

[peteetchou]

Here's the story Chris...
http://www.katu.com/news/28483524.html

He said he would charge guests $10 a piece to ride to the top, and a coating of photovoltaic cells would power the structure. It would also only be 90 feet wide - meaning it would not block views like an office building.