« Opportunity collapsing: can the CRC's design be saved? | Main | "Made in Oregon" sign will remain with "Portland Oregon" script »


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


Nicer temporary classrooms would be good, but a school is a lot more than a group of classrooms. A proper school also has a library, cafeteria, gym / theater, bathrooms, offices, playground and sometimes specialized art or science rooms, how would the rest of the school be “scalable, sustainable, and affordable?"

Architects charretteing in a beautiful historic ex-public school like Shattuck School discussing how much better off students would be in modular temporary classrooms is ironic.

Would the PSU architecture department be better off in higher-quality modular temporary classrooms?

It is hard to imagine how a series of modules could be more sustainable or efficient to heat and cool then a real bricks and mortar school with an up-to-date HVAC system. Would these modules create the same neighborhood pride and warm confidence building character of a school like Portland’s historic Brooklyn Schools or Kenton School?


I cannot help but think this charrette is happening because Portland is spending millions of dollars on these “awful trailers,” since we closed too many elementary schools a few years back (based on PSU demographic data). If we reopen these closed schools and return to their historic boundaries, we will not have to buy all these awful trailers.

One or two portables may not overtax a school, but in Portland, we don’t need so many of them, we already have great schools that just need a little love and possibly a new HVAC system.


I still don't quite understand what an activist architect is : /

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