Burnside Bridgehead: It's The Buildings, Stupid!

So today is the day when the Portland Dvelopment Commission will decide on a development plan for the Burnside Bridgehead. And while there has been a whole lot of talk about the merits of Opus, Beam and Gerding-Edlen and their plans, so much of it has been about issues other than the architecture.

In the business section of today's Oregonian, for example, an article by Ryan Frank discusses how Beam proposes much more office space than Opus. (Gerding-Edlen is apparently all but out of the running at this point.) Portland is currently experiencing a multi-year glut in office space, but the kind Beam proposes is focused on the quickly growing market for smaller, more rough-around-the-edges startup spaces.

But I think we need to stop talking about the ratio of offices to condos and all the other questions surrounding how the project will do in its first few years or even its first decade.

Buildings last a lot longer. Designed and built well, they could very well remain standing more than a century from now. So why in the world is the architecture so often playing second fiddle in this debate?

If you look at the design itself, I have to say the winner here is Beam. It's not all spectacular by any stretch. But the Beam plan is, in my opinion at least, the one offering overall the most compelling design. And that matters a lot more in the long run than the office or condo market for 2005, 2006 or even 2012.

Our grandchildren could live or work in these buildings long after today's economic realities are forgotten. We have to think about what kind of buildings we will leave to future Portlanders.

I urge--no, I plead--with the Portland Development Commission to consider more than just the resumés of the developers, or statistics about units and dollars. Think about the glass and steel and concrete. Think about the inspiration that good design brings, and how our buildings represent who we are -- not just today or tomorrow but for generations.

Who the hell remembers the economic viability of the best Portland buildings when they were built? I defy anyone to provide me the Jackson Tower's occupancy rates dating from 1912, or Pietro Belluschi's Equitable Building from 1948. They're great buildings--period. And that's what matters the most.

Take a look at Burnside Bridgehead not from the perspective of 2005, but 2055 or 2105. Economics ebb and flow over weeks, months and a handful of years. Architecture lasts for centuries.

Comments

[The One True b!X]

So why in the world is the architecture so often playing second fiddle in this debate?

because this stage of the project isn't about the architecture, it's about developer capacity and conceptual approach. Design only comes after the developer is selected.

[Brian]

But the developers have already made their selection of architects, who have in turn produced at least preliminary designs for the project. If you choose Gerding-Edlen, you're choosing GBD Architects too, or Mulvanny G2 for Opus, or Colab and Ankram Moisam for Beam. I think the architecture still ought to be a major criterion even if the decision is officially about the developer.

[The One True b!X]

But there was no architecture to consider, only conceptual and cultural direction.

[Lissa]

At the PDC meeting last week that discussed the Bridgehead development, the presenters of the handy rotating model acknowledged that as designed, the (rather blocky) project would not fit within the site. Regardless, these new buildings will be out of place in the currently parking-lot filled site near the bridge, a skatepark and thoroughly traveled streets like MLK and Burnside. The Beam Corporation (the only considered developer to propse local retail in the mixed use buildings), rather than building essentially an extension of the west-side (seemingly almost inspired by the Pearl), as was proposed by the original west-east straddling plan, should build instead a combined retail-housing-affordable housing-office space development that spans more blocks (for such high density cannot be supported by current infrastructure or demand--who wants a boardwalk so close to the freeways and Burnside?? ) with the OPTION to desify as the Metro area grows in the next few decades. Better yet, keep some flavor of the eastside in the project and keep Portland diverse.