« The "Other" Wells Fargo Building at 100 | Main | Can G-E and GBD Make M&F another WK? »


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


"..the city is oriented to the pedestrian!" Brian,you win the double entendre prize of the year!

el dorado architects

if anyone attended last night's event, it would be greatly appreciated if they would post the winners.

thanks so much.


I second Nikos . . . the competition website says only "Competition winners will be posted in late November."


Er, I second "el dorado architects". It's early in the morning. ;-)

el dorado architects

i know, i know. we're on central time, so we've been up awhile.


winners for inner site

1st- 112
2nd- 175
3rd- 98
4th- 48

can someone explain to me how driveways and/or parking lots would ever be considered desirable play areas or "courtyards" for children? i have been in these hard-scaped spaces and find them as harsh and cold as their surfaces. now lets add the potentional for vehicular circulation as well as "temporary parking" for the families second car and what i imagine you will find over time is basically and alley. the winners were nicely rendered and well planned but the competition itself and it's requirement to park a car per unit is quite un-portland in my opinion.


Hi bzar,
How do you know this?
What about eastern site?

el dorado architects

thanks for the info. are there names with the numbers yet?


You can check out all the entries with their numbers in the competition website, www.courtyardhousing.org > Entries and Winners > See the entries.


Check out this site for actual winner names...

Alison Ryan

The eastern site first place is number 012, the second place is 043, the third place is 004 and the HM is 003.

I had to do some serious (highly unscientific) photo matching to figure that out, too.

el dorado architects

thanks to all of you for your assistance. don't forget to vote for your favorites at www.courtyardhousing.org
my personal favorite for the inner site is 165. shamelessly politicking.


I'm sorry but these designs are terrible.

The winning inner site is a cul-de-sac. Its as if a suburban subdivision was plunked down on a tiny inner city lot. The cul-de-sac is lined with garage doors and as bzar rightly mentioned above how is this hard top street a desirable play area for children? The kids will have to get out of the way as residents drive into their garage. Very few of these designs are Courtyard Housing. Courtyard Housing is a shared central garden lined with residental units.

This ended up a complete waste of money and time for the Planning Bureau.


i agree with john, the first place for the inner site became more about the CAR access than the people. The selected winners lack innovation or historic idea of what courtyard housing is all about..car is secondary to how we accomodate the act of communing while maintaining a sense of privacy


Some of the winning designs are so traditional that one has to wonder if this can be the architectural response to 21st century challenges. Competitions should be about exploration and innovation. Why hold a competition in the first place if pushing the envelope is not encouraged?


you guys should have seen this coming after the skinny house debacle.


Big deal a lot of the designs aren't "innovative." What should be most important is how well the designs solve the programmatic requirements of the competition. If in order to accomplish this, a solution is a new "innovative" design then great, if not, thats fine in my book also. There's a lot of solutions to this problem that can utilize existing proven models which can probably be even more successful.
I don't understand this preoccupation architects have for aesthetic "innovation" being the only important thing in a design.


I agree that proven models can be used but do the buildings need to look as if they were built a hundred years ago (with cheaper details of course)?
I am sure a lot of people may like the idea of a "historic" look, but for that kind of result there is no need for a competition. Competitions have always been a tool to reflect contemporary advancement and thought, otherwise a regular RFP will do.


I'm not talking about the aesthetic "look" but the function and layout, particularly how it deals with handling the automobile and addressing the street.


Thank you JOHN.

I was impressed on how many people entered the competition and excited to see the end results, that is until they actually came out. Most of the ideas were text book and simple with flashy facade changes. Very few actually took the concept of the "courtyard" into consideration.

"Big deal a lot of the designs aren't "innovative.""

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This kind of comment is what is killing the profession of architects and designers. Let's get a concept, a big idea, and then work with the two hand in hand rather than settle for "its all been done before".

This competition seemed as if was being judged by developers with with dump trucks ready to go, rather than a open minded design professionals.

But what do I know, I sell shoes.


i am iranian architecture


I am a filipino architecture student.. hi there!!!

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