July 08, 2003
Concerns Raised Over South Waterfront Obscuring Or Obliterating Views
Conception Of South Waterfront (Courtesy PDC)
Today's Oregonian examines the sheer scale of the proposed South Waterfront development project:
It also would obliterate sweeping views from the Corbett/Terwilliger/Lair Hill neighborhood, eliminate all but Mount Hood from panoramic viewpoints along Terwilliger Boulevard and add thousands of cars to already overtaxed intersections.
Neighborhood leaders say the city has brushed aside those negatives in its rush to kick-start development in South Waterfront's 31-acre central district south of the Ross Island Bridge.
Portland isn't New York City, said neighborhood activist Marty Slapikas. The tall buildings clustered together will stick out like a sore thumb, given Portland's smaller-scale geography.
"If this is what the people of this city want their city to look like, OK," Slapikas said. "But let's have a public discussion. I don't think this fits. I think they're trying to change the city of Portland into the other types of cities that many of us have left."
Various represenatives of the local weblog contingent are discussing this over at About It All (I swiped the above PDC graphic from there), and Alexander B. Craghead mentions that today's edition of the Portland Tribune has a profile of one of the local architects involved in South Waterfront:
"I took North Macadam as a blank canvas and designed a city on it," Emmons says of the 10-street block of parks and buildings.
Which sort of helps undersocre one of my aesthetic concerns with South Waterfront, which is that there is something very awkward and disjointed about having a "second downtown" jutting into the sky slightly up the river from the downtown proper.
Parenthetically, that Tribune profile also mentions criticisms of this architect's design of Fire Station No. 9 on SE 39th Avenue for being too modernist rather than fitting in with the neighborhood. For what it's worth, I actually happen to enjoy the design of that firehouse. His conception for South Waterfront, on the other hand, is still an open question as far as I'm concerned.
And that's just from the standpoint of aesthetics, leaving aside for the moment the matter of whether South Waterfront should be pursued at all.
Comments (5)
The One True b!X on 08 Jul 2003
Actually, taking this area as a "blank canvas" is essentially architectural arrogance. What it says is that the architect doesn't care a whit about respecting the context for which he is designing.
Pretending the rest of Portland doesn't exist in order to design on a blank canvas is a nice intellectual exercise, but in practice -- surprise! -- we actually live in the real world, where design must operate within what's already here.
That doesn't mean architecture cannot be inspired or can't challenge the norms. But it does need to accept that the world world is not, in fact, a blank slate at all.
MikeD on 08 Jul 2003
Actually after the next big earthquake they'll get to build it all over again...isn't that all just sand they're building on?
Alexander Craghead on 08 Jul 2003
I've not seen the firehouse in question, but I'll say that I do enjoy contemporary and modern styles as well as vintage ones. My objection to the Firehouse 9 flap is more that the architect had a bit of an attitude issue.
Real world? What's that?
e. lake on 16 Jul 2003
I am curious as the history of the architects involved. Aren't they from Vancouver BC? I was just there. What a mess! Don't let this be the model for the future of Portland!
tovee on 24 Jul 2003
hi~!