Here are some shots of the proposal, from the architect's website. ≡ Click to see image ≡

≡ Click to see image ≡

I *really* hate the whole "must blend in with historic architecture" argument. It's a requirement to do fake-old. I can understand not wanting ugly generic buildings coming in, but I don't think that mandating pretty-generic buildings is really the best way to combat that. It just seems to scream, "We're scared of new things! New things are weird!"

"We're scared of new things! New things are weird!"

...and this is a town where people drive around with bumper stickers that say "Keep Portland Weird" right next to their tattered "Kucinich '04" stickers. lol

I don't think that everything new should blend in with everything old, so I disagree with the city on this. However, I think that new building is butt-ugly and shouldn't be built anywhere.

Actually, history is being destroyed with that project. I almost rented the house that's next door to the future condo site, and the developers will demolish an awesome garage/guesthouse that's in the backyard there, because it's a foot or something over the property line.

Besides, Portland has enough housing options for rich people who enjoy buying plots of air. No need to build an eyesore like those condos there.

Oh, wait, I didn't read carefully. I almost rented the house that's next door to the future Skidmore/Mississippi condo development, not the Shaver/Mississippi condos. Doo doo doo I'm just gonna go drink a beer, I think, goodness.

Portland has enough housing options for rich people
Like continually expanding our urban growth boundary, so they can live in mcmansions and pay taxes in suburban jurisdictions, where it doesn't benefit our infrastructure or schools?

Denver's new building is here . At least it isn't boring...

Like continually expanding our urban growth boundary

No, like all those ugly condos in the Pearl and the ones that are being built on the south waterfront. Keep those things on the westside where they belong.

That's a rather personal and subjective opinion. I find many of the buildings in the pearl, as well as the one proposed for Missisippi to be quite beautiful. but hey, de gustibus non disputatem est.

Also, with regard to the South Waterfront, I think the John Ross Tower is probably one of the more beautiful and elegant structures built around here in ages.

Well, most of my problems with the condos have nothing to do with aesthetics. I agree that trying to mimic historic buildings is silly.

Well, I used to be in Historic Preservation, and I used to work for Design Review Boards, and so I am pretty well in favor of protecting the character of historic neighborhoods.

Design standards are NOT a requirement to do fake-old, in fact most standards require that new construction be clearly different from the existing architecture to prevent a false sense of history. What is important is that the developers and architects be willing to work with preservationists and community groups to ensure that the new building complements and respects its surroundings. There are plenty of places in this country with no historic character (and sadly, there are more and more every day) where you can build all the avant-garde, experimental, modern architecture you like, but when you decide to move into an area with character and significance you should respect yor neighbors.

(That said, some DRBs are fascists who don't even understand the standards they are supposed to be enforcing, but that's another story)

lol, disneyland. Meanwhile, who's seen Orenco Station? It's a wonderful idea, transit oriented development, mixed use, walkable neighborhood with shops etc. In fact I wish all new development outside the old city was done this way. Rather I think that long term this is how it MUST be done. However, I have a funny anecdote re the architecture there. The buildings on the main street were deliberately designed to look like SanFrancisco. This is because the site is directly adjacent to the Intel campus, and the developers, Costa Pacific, wanted to make SF dotcommers feel comfortable.

On preview, Rock, why should I be deprived of creative and beautiful new buildings in my neighborhood, just because it was platted in the 1860's? If you've got a vacant piece of land, I say have at it! Would you have nixed the Bilbao Guggenheim? Or for that matter, the NYC Guggenheim?

I gotta wonder about the kind of men that like that sort of building or find it beautiful. It's so pared down it doesn't look like a building anymore. sorry jonmc, buddy, it's just way too easy

RockSteady, I love historic architecture, too. But limiting creativity or artistic expression in an effort to keep things "pretty" seems to kind of sap the soul of cities. Like I said, I don't think they should let in any old building, but a lot of these restrictions are used to prevent the kind of dynamic change or energy that keeps areas vital (which is not to say that's why the restrictions were put in place, just that it seems to be the effect).

Well, if your neighborhood was built in the 1860's (or the 1950's for that matter) but has been so altered over the intervening years that it does not retain the historic character it may have once had, build whatever you want. If it remains largely unchanged and still provides residents and visitors a sense of the architecture and character that it had back then, well, you've got a real treasure on your hands.

I think the Bilbao is located on a river, kind of set apart from the city, if i'm not mistaken (I would have nixed it anyway, but that's me), and the Goog in NYC occupies the end of a non-descript block facing the Park, so the fitting into the neighborhood is not so much of an issue in those cases. But, yes, I do think it is worth it to place restrictions on new cnstruction to protect our historic neighborhoods in addition to (if not moreso than) individual historic buildings.

I should also say that I think much of my opinion depends on what type of area we're talking about, and that most recently I've been reading complaints about downtown San Francisco, which is different from a heavily residential district, where I could see heavier restrictions making more sense.

occhiblu, I respectfully disagree. First, it's not about pretty, it's about imparting a sense of history and a sense of place, something far too few places in this country do. Second, here are some of the communities with the most stringent design control in the country:

- Boston, MA
- Nantucket, MA (first in the nation, BTW)
- Burlington, VT
- NYC
- Charleston, SC
- Savannah, GA
- Miami Beach, FL
- Galveston, TX
- San Fran, CA

Not exactly sleepy burgs, and in the cases I am familiar with, it is the historic, well-protected neighborhoods within those communities that are among the liveliest.

If you haven't read "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs, I really recommend it for a look at how protecting traditional design/architecure benefits a city. It is 40 years old now, but urban planners are still learning its lessons.

OOps, did't see you on preview, there. Why does the type of area matter? Residential or industrial, they each have their own character and history.

Rock, I understand. In the case of my neighborhood, we seem to have an age stratification based on proximity to commercial streets. The properties fronting the main streets have been built and re-built more times than I can count, but the deeper you go into the residential streets, the less new constrution you'll see. My vision for urban growth is reflected in the Vancouver BC model, where all the commercial corridors are lined with mid-rise mixed use buildings. They create vibrant pedestrian corridors where there's always some activity, and something to do. Also, it has allowed the city to grow horizontally at a much slower rate than the typical American city which gobbles up land like it was going out of style.

Also, regarding the desire to see buildings like those from 1910 or so, I have this to say: Those buildings were built by developers who were responding to the market conditions of 1910. Those conditions are the cost of construction, the cost of land and the relative ammount of money potential tennants/buyers were willing to pay for certain kinds of space. THe market conditions of 1910 no longer exist. Prices are different and those potential tennants have very different needs and pricepoints. Theoretically, an 'old' building could be constructed, but the developer would have a harder time making it pencil and getting tennants, because he's competing with more modern 'products' that reflect the demands of the marketplace. He'd likely get foreclosed on by whatever bank financed the project.

On preview, I have read "Death and Life", and quote it at work.

Well, I'm thinking more commercial hearts of cities, areas where the pedestrians really interact with the architecture, where the energy comes from meeting new people and encountering new things and getting new ideas. If you restrict areas to only "well, it's worked before, this is how it's always looked" - type expression, then you don't get that same energy, and I think that's a major loss. You may as well be in the suburbs.

And that traditional suburban stability also has its place, I just don't think that place is in the heart of cities.

I respect the past. However I cannot agree with logic that says we must privelege the past at the expense of the present and future. Old is not inherently good. Afterall, old building seem to be better quality because of a Darwinian phenomenon; lots of crap got built back in the day, however, it's only the good stuff that's still around. All the crap was demolished not too long after it was built in the first place. Thankfully, this means that a lot of worthless post-war shit will go away in my lifetime. Hopefully we can replace it with something better.

Pie,
The properties fronting the main streets have been built and re-built more times than I can count,

Then I don't think most preservationists would suggest design control there. If there is not historic context, there is nothing to base standards on.

Also, regarding the desire to see buildings like those from 1910 or so, I have this to say: Those buildings were built by developers who were responding to the market conditions of 1910.

It's not about wanting to see buildings from 1910. It is wanting to see buildings from 2006 that fit in with and respect the context of the 1910 neighborhood that they are in.

It is not for us to decide good or bad. In the 1930's, Victorian architecture was called "The Brown Decades" and was torn down as quickly as possible. Today it is valued. The "post-war shit" will be loved and admired by your grandkids, who lament that there is not more of it left. The point of preservation is to protect (without enclosing under glass) historic places and areas. I will look later for some excellent examples of new construction in historic districts that are vital and new, while still fitting into their context, and while meeting current market needs. It will take me a bit though.

And that's ideal when it happens. But like I said, what I'm objecting to is that often these restrictions often seem to be used as a club to shoot down all new buildings that won't satisfy common-denominator aesthetics.

Something funky's going on with comments, I just now saw your city list.

I live in SF, used to live in Boston. They are, in fact, both kinda sleepy burgs. :)

I'm a member of the architectual heritage foundation here. Yes, like I said, architectural history is important to preserve. But it doesn't make sense to hamstring areas like Union Square by requiring that new buildings look just as boring as the old buildings.

The "post-war shit" will be loved and admired by your grandkids.

My grandkids will probably only see the cream of the crop, and judge the entire era by what's survived into their times. Ramix's house for example, that's some great mid-century modern.

And that's ideal when it happens. But like I said, what I'm objecting to is that often these restrictions often seem to be used as a club to shoot down all new buildings that won't satisfy common-denominator aesthetics.

Precisely occhi! It's just another form of bourgoies stodgieness. That's what makes the bit about the anarchists so funny.

Oh, fine, quote me and don't even do me the courtesy of deleting the extra "often" or fixing the mixed metaphor. :)

It was more of a collage, or perhaps a dadaist bricolage

I just assumed it was a gun-club.

Let me admit that it is certainly true that NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) assholes often pick up the Historic Preservation flag when there is a new development coming to their town that they are not happy with for whatever reason, and it is absolutely infuriating to preservationists when it happens. I think, for example, that in Boston's Back Bay, the struggles that Apple is having with its planned store there are just awful. They planning to tear down a non-contributing building, and their all-glass facade will clearly blend in (see what I did there), with a little attention to cornice heights, setbacks, and other details.

Funny you should mention Apple. The exact same thing happened here last week. I'm begining to think the ultimate concequence of Portland's neighborhood involvement system is mob rule.

Yeah, I dont know what it is about Apple's glass cube that people hate so much, but they have had problems in several cities.

I'm still working on examples of good new construction (preservation resources on the web are SO awful), but I have homework, so I may not get to it tonight.

Let me just say that often the problem is the architect, who will not swerve from his/her standard cookie-cutter design to even remotely fit in. Sure, designing new construction in a historic district is harder, but it is not impossible. One example I could find pictures online for is William Rawn Associates' Navy Yard Rowhouses, but if you don't know the Charlestown Navy Yard, it won't mean much.

I actually accosted one of the architects in the office and asked her "explain to me how this building is different from one that you'd propose for a greenfield site?" She looked uncomfortable and said "we really don't look at off site issues when we design things." To be fair though, what often happens is a client shows up and says "that building, we like that one, give us one of those."

I could find pictures online for is William Rawn Associates' Navy Yard Rowhouses
Not that it's not a nice building, but the facade says "bacon" to me.

the facade says "bacon" to me.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Calgary has a set of regulations for the "established communities" that was designed to maintain neighbourhood character but instead results in every single redevelopment in single family areas looking exactly the same.

This is because of rules like: "A portion of the front facade shall project forward, or be recessed, a minimum of 0.6 metres in depth and a minimum of 2 metres in length."

However when you split a 15m lot into two 7.5m lots and then remove the required side yard allowance the above rule doesn't allow for much flexibility in design from house to house.

There are also regulations for minimum and maximum lot coverage, setbacks, stories, height, floor area and number of trees (front and back).

So old untouched neighbourhoods are a mix of housing styles from 1900-1960 and almost everything redeveloped since looks exactly the same because buyers want to max out the square footage allowed under the regulations.

Mitheral, LOL, I've never seen a case around here of people trying max out the FAR on a single family residential site. That just sounds absurd to me. I guess we just don't see that much infill of single family residential development on vacant sites. Usually, it's people upping the capacity with a different housing type like multifamily or mixed use. This is probably also related to the fact that there aren't and never have been many vacant single family lots in the central city.