« The Fate of Centennial Mill | Main | Young Architects: How Does Portland Compare? »


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



Emmons site is nice. The sketch book is interesting.

Mike Thelin

I like gbdarchitects.com The site works well, but they could do a better job keeping it updated. Ankrom Moisan has by far the worst web site not only in Portland, but perhaps in the history of architecture. They do more work than any firm in town, and they haven't made an update to their site in two years. Plus, their portfolio renderings link to pdf files so large your computer will often crash. amaa.com

I don't care for the Allied Works site. It's visually appealing, but far too difficult to navigate and not user friendly. Much like Allied's firestation design-- the web site is more about form than function. alliedworks.com


I like the allied works site. Although it did take a while to figure out how to navigate the site the depth of which you can explore each project beats almost any other site. although they don't have much content other than those five or so projects.

Michel Weenick

C'mon Brian,
Websites are our only chance to be trite since we don't have to look anyone in the eyes when we write the stuff or risk breaking out into uncontrolable laughter in front of potential clients.

Seriously though - its hard to find a mission statement, corporate or otherwise, that isn't a bit trite - don't just single out us architects!


Damien Newman

I'm not an architect, but as a designer (with a strong interest in Architecture) I spend a considerable amount of time looking at/for well designed websites. Here are some I've found interesting for different reasons.

SO-AD [www.so-ad.com]: As strong flash designers, they've developed a well built site, and keep the front page updated with large images from new projects. Their work for Aurburn University was interesting.

Lightroom [www.lightroom.tv]: Like SO-AD, Lightroom balances a mixture of work in interaction design and architecture, so you get a well presented online image that isn't constrained by an inability to design for the medium.

BKD [www.benkellydesign.com]: I enjoy the stark difference in design compared to almost all of the flash-driven firm web sites.

AWA : (inspite of Mike's opinion) I felt this was an interesting flash-driven site, which was a departure from the fixed sized (usually sort of letterbox centered in the page) tiny web sites you find.

ALSOP [www.alsoparchitects.com]: Although this fits the aforementioned tiny letterboxed approach, I like the personality and felt it was simple and informative.

Jerde [www.jerde.com]: Flash, but interesting navigation and enjoyed the use of the browser window.

David Baker [www.dbarchitect.com]: I used to liked this site because of the personality that came through the design and the style and design - but in the last five years have wondered why they haven't improved it at all.

Make [www.makearchitects.com]: I was at first interested to see how Make would develop their online presence, but find their site uncomfortably restricted in it's visual design and somewhat unrefined/poor in usability.

I think overall, architects tend to have the poorest online presence for one reason or another.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Lead Sponsors


Portland Architecture on Facebook

More writing from Brian Libby


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

Paperblogs Network

Google Analytics

  • Google Analytics

Awards & Honors