« 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


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

Paperblogs Network

Google Analytics

  • Google Analytics

Awards & Honors