« Portland central city plans: past, present, future | Main | John's Landing to parachute landings: John Gray is Architecture Foundation of Oregon's latest honoree »


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


I've been there and I, too was interested in airplanes when I was a kid. My Grandfather worked for Lockheed as an engineer ON the SR-71 (as well as the space shuttle), so I too found it very interesting.

As for the architecture? I grew up near Salem, and last summer was the first time I saw the museum... its large. Gigantic, really. I didnt like the materials, however.


I've only been in the main building holding the Goose. I remember when Gragg wrote about the proposed designs for the museum. As I remember, they were to be more graceful, with more elaborate facades. Funding required that they be simplified. I agree that they're not so beautiful, but that's o.k. with me. The roof-line fascia is a little bold, but it's forgivable. Good color too...green. The building's are reasonably unobtrusive in relation to the fields surrounding them. For me, the fields surrounding the complex are a very important part of the overall experience of being in a military airfield environment.

There's just too much there to take in. On a certain level, I love all those aircraft. There's something breathtakingly beautiful in such things. Somehow though, I may have been most excited to see the replica of the lunar lander. Never had seen one of those before.


As an ex-airplane geek turned archi-nerd I must make one clarification: The twin-engne P-38 was known as the 'Lightning', whilst the single engine P-51 was called the 'Mustang'....I knew all those hours watching the Military Channel would come in handy!!

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