William Kaven Architecture have just released additional renderings of the firm's redevelopment proposal for Portland's Broadway Corridor, giving a more complete picture of their broader scheme.
In addition to the initial release of Portland's tallest towers last November, the firm has now fleshed out what the rest of the 5 million square foot development will entail.
Their concept of reconnecting Union Station to the Pearl District involves removing the Broadway ramp and creating a pedestrian-centric district organized around an extension of the North Park Blocks.
The firm also plans major shifts to public transportation, integrating a central hub for a high-speed rail and underground mass public transit next to Amtrack's Union Station.
This pedestrian friendly plan continues with additional buildings situated along a central park, which offer a range of typologies from affordable to market-rate residential with ground-floor retail and office space.
Other elements of the plan include four residential towers, an indoor market fronting the north end of the park blocks, a museum and a block-long reflecting pool.
A glass-covered park with play structures and food carts that could be enjoyed in all seasons would occupy the block between Union Station and the new district.
“This is a historic opportunity to revitalize a core area of our city,” William / Kaven partner and Kaven + Co. founder Daniel Kaven says of the studio’s plans. “Our vision is to develop an urban district capable of accommodating Portland’s rapid growth and provide the building blocks of future transportation resources."
At the very least, Kaven and his project have received attention. I wonder if building big is the best—maybe only—way to do that in such proposals. In which case, what does that say about us and architecture? Or maybe not us as a whole, but the major players in the game. Is big the only way a building can get attention and approval—and funding and actual construction? There are other options, but they’re less sexy.
Brian Libby at Portland Architecture is worth reading. He speaks of the value of virtual proposals:
Whether it's the Kaven-designed proposal for the USPS site or the Kuma-designed proposal at RiverPlace, I don't blame those media outlets for running with those stories. In each case, it's a combined conversation about height—always a rather volatile topic in Portland—as well as about affordable housing, and about design. It's encouraging that compelling architecture, even just in renderings (or maybe especially then), has the power to seduce us. A compelling rendering gives potentially powerful visual impact to the rhetorical question: "What if?" It allows us to imagine at no cost, and to think differently about how we've approached the process.
And promoting height is Kaven’s mission:
As for accusations of self-promotion, Kaven told me if this was only about getting a big commission they would have gone about it differently. "We could have put out a rendering of a 400-foot building," he explained. "But we’re serious about the density and the discussion about why we wouldn’t have a bigger building on that site. It would be more sensible for us to say, ‘Here’s our plan that falls under the standards and the Comp Plan.’ We spent a bunch of extra time doing this because we profoundly believe there needs to be more focus on what this can be."
Kaven defends his proposal in an op-ed piece at DJC Oregon, also worth a read. There is a need for more density, but do we have good reason to think Portland will sustain it’s recent growth? Or is he simply projecting that into a future in which his ego and building can fit? Is he trying to make the growth happen by giving it a home? Is it inevitable? Desirable?
And there is something dystopian about his thinking:
In our lifetime it is likely that Portland will continue to see not just choice-based population growth, but immense in-migration due to climate change. When asked recently by Jennifer A. Kingson of The New York Times where global warming might direct migrants, Ben Strauss, vice president for climate impacts at the research collaboration Climate Central, explained, “The answer is the Pacific Northwest … You see a lot less extreme heat; it’s the one place in the West where there’s no real expectation of major water stress.” And research conducted by Portland State University’s Population Research Center last year suggests that the expected in-migration of climate refugees in the next few decades will place additional burdens on existing social structures and public services. It is critical to this growth trajectory that we plan dense housing, workspace and transportation infrastructure.
This is insular thinking. His goal is not to confront global warming but capitalize on it, in this case in Portland. A visionary would look at global solutions to the problem.
He’s not alone, of course.
RFQ here, if anyone’s interested. Two of the project goals:
Improve safe, reliable, and affordable access for low-income communities including connecting affordable housing with employment providing adequate wages.
Provide adequate and affordable housing serving households earning 0 – 60% median family income (MFI) with a portion targeted to serving households earning 0 – 30% MFI.
These are pressing concerns in Portland (and everywhere), which Portland takes seriously. A lot of us aren’t that rich here. I’m skeptical the Kaven proposal, or other similar, will meet these. If the trend continues, these people get pushed out to the suburbs, or worse, breaking the bonds that hold them together.
Portland may be unique in its common character, in its strong neighborhoods and local communities, each with its own identity. Lower density helps preserve this, and there is still space for medium density construction, which in fact is going on. Now may well not be the time to look into the future, but to find ways to preserve what it has now, before the buildings go up and it is too late.
Libby also talks about the Kuma housing proposal, which offers parallel discussion.
All 11 Comments
We talked about this original proposal on Sessions, here: https://archinect.com/news/art...
...but I feel like I didn't do a good job posing my question clearly.
This proposal is basically a response to nothing. It's not a serious RFP response; it's an architect making renderings of a project that only exists in potential and rumor. But my question is: should architects do more of this? Should we go ahead and propose ideas for sites that don't yet exist as real estate commodities or as infrastructure improvements? Should we envision ideas for our cities *even though we're not being paid for it* in the hopes that those ideas might spark interest from either governmental bodies or private developers?
I think yes, and in the podcast I reference a proposal BIG did to build housing ringing a big soccer field in Copenhagen: a project that ultimately was pursued but NOT including BIG. They essentially gave away work for free.
Should architects do this?
I don't see why not. I don't care for the project illustrated, but if that architect honestly thinks they are doing something to advance the common good (while getting some free publicity) then by all means. I've done similar things in DC and Silver Spring, a suburb north of DC. It the very least, it might stimulate some residents to take the development of their neighborhoods and cities more seriously. Our build environment affects us all.
Good God, that is perhaps the worst project I've seen recently. Beyond awful.
The proposal is eerily reminiscent of the former World Trade Center in appearance, twin towers; location, isolated, away from the main business center, by the water; its bland esthetic character; and, most of all, its blind ambition—let's build it and see what happens. But by all means make it big to attract attention and gain status, and one tower would be the tallest in the Pacific Northwest. Just putting up two towers now leads to doubts and questions of reference, an awkward, possibly distasteful, and just plain dumb move, counterproductive in the associations that will come. Think about it: they would be known as the Twin Towers of Portland. I won't reflect on its possible future.
William Kaven are not just promoting themselves but a vision of the future, a future ignorant of the past and present, of the place and life around it, that will displace all of these. But they hit the "right" notes: future tech, a hub for high-speed rail or a Hyperloop; greenery, a park and that botanical bridge—who on earth would see it? I love the picture of the handful of cars by the park. I'm tremendously skeptical Portland could handle the mass transit logistics. Yet it might attract a Fortune 100, or at least can be promoted as such regardless and thus win approval. What else matters?
And it is a vision that is bankrupt. I think the real question here is what it takes to get attention now, at what price, what this represents, and, since money put in one vision drains money for another, all that it excludes.
Do listen to Donna's talk on Sessions. It's first up.
Compare picture #2 with:
I loved the old twin towers. As inhumane as they where at ground level, they where beautiful markers of the head of the island. Turning into gold bars at sun set, they defined NY for miles around.
Quoting what I posted elsewhere online:
This will not get built. I guarantee it.
Architects don't build these things. Developers do. They're not "moving ahead" with anything, they just submitted a proposal that's going to go into a pile with a bunch of other proposals that have no reality attached to them. There are a handful of proposals that are teamed development money and are being taken seriously and one of those will be built.
This is just William Kaven having a grand old time with savvy press releases.
That said, I applaud them for pushing the boundary and getting people talking about the potential for this site. But if anyone thinks this is ever going to happen, I've got some disappointing news for you. I don't even believe WK thinks this will get built.
tduds I agree - response below.
So tduds do you think this method of sparking conversation about a particular site in a city is a good one? Should architects be marketing ourselves more by doing totally speculative work?
A related question: if architects show something really good on a site, then the developer brings something that isn't as cool, does that give the public ammunition to demand more of the developer - especially on a city-owned site?
This is happening in Indy right now, as the state is proposing to widen the freeway through the middle of downtown from 3 to 6 lanes and build high concrete retaining walls. A couple of local landscape design firms - Rundell Ernstberger and Storrow Kinsella, cheers to them both for taking this bold risk - have stepped up with renderings showing the reality of the widening impact on the historic neighborhoods through which the freeway goes AND proposed renderings for depressing the freeway through the core and building develop-able land over it. The neighborhoods are starting to pay attention...
At the very least, Kaven and his project have received attention. I wonder if building big is the best—maybe only—way to do that in such proposals. In which case, what does that say about us and architecture? Or maybe not us as a whole, but the major players in the game. Is big the only way a building can get attention and approval—and funding and actual construction? There are other options, but they’re less sexy.
Brian Libby at Portland Architecture is worth reading. He speaks of the value of virtual proposals:
Whether it's the Kaven-designed proposal for the USPS site or the Kuma-designed proposal at RiverPlace, I don't blame those media outlets for running with those stories. In each case, it's a combined conversation about height—always a rather volatile topic in Portland—as well as about affordable housing, and about design. It's encouraging that compelling architecture, even just in renderings (or maybe especially then), has the power to seduce us. A compelling rendering gives potentially powerful visual impact to the rhetorical question: "What if?" It allows us to imagine at no cost, and to think differently about how we've approached the process.
And promoting height is Kaven’s mission:
As for accusations of self-promotion, Kaven told me if this was only about getting a big commission they would have gone about it differently. "We could have put out a rendering of a 400-foot building," he explained. "But we’re serious about the density and the discussion about why we wouldn’t have a bigger building on that site. It would be more sensible for us to say, ‘Here’s our plan that falls under the standards and the Comp Plan.’ We spent a bunch of extra time doing this because we profoundly believe there needs to be more focus on what this can be."
Kaven defends his proposal in an op-ed piece at DJC Oregon, also worth a read. There is a need for more density, but do we have good reason to think Portland will sustain it’s recent growth? Or is he simply projecting that into a future in which his ego and building can fit? Is he trying to make the growth happen by giving it a home? Is it inevitable? Desirable?
And there is something dystopian about his thinking:
In our lifetime it is likely that Portland will continue to see not just choice-based population growth, but immense in-migration due to climate change. When asked recently by Jennifer A. Kingson of The New York Times where global warming might direct migrants, Ben Strauss, vice president for climate impacts at the research collaboration Climate Central, explained, “The answer is the Pacific Northwest … You see a lot less extreme heat; it’s the one place in the West where there’s no real expectation of major water stress.” And research conducted by Portland State University’s Population Research Center last year suggests that the expected in-migration of climate refugees in the next few decades will place additional burdens on existing social structures and public services. It is critical to this growth trajectory that we plan dense housing, workspace and transportation infrastructure.
This is insular thinking. His goal is not to confront global warming but capitalize on it, in this case in Portland. A visionary would look at global solutions to the problem.
He’s not alone, of course.
RFQ here, if anyone’s interested. Two of the project goals:
Improve safe, reliable, and affordable access for low-income communities including connecting affordable housing with employment providing adequate wages.
Provide adequate and affordable housing serving households earning 0 – 60% median family income (MFI) with a portion targeted to serving households earning 0 – 30% MFI.
These are pressing concerns in Portland (and everywhere), which Portland takes seriously. A lot of us aren’t that rich here. I’m skeptical the Kaven proposal, or other similar, will meet these. If the trend continues, these people get pushed out to the suburbs, or worse, breaking the bonds that hold them together.
Portland may be unique in its common character, in its strong neighborhoods and local communities, each with its own identity. Lower density helps preserve this, and there is still space for medium density construction, which in fact is going on. Now may well not be the time to look into the future, but to find ways to preserve what it has now, before the buildings go up and it is too late.
Libby also talks about the Kuma housing proposal, which offers parallel discussion.
Called it.
http://www.wweek.com/news/city...
As the former Chief Urban Designer for Portland (2002-09), my view is that Portland has been pandering to development pressures for over a decade. For a city that has chronically lagged behind in its ability to attract business, feeling hungry for growth by any means is understandable.
All that history notwithstanding, the current environment of a pandemic without any clear end changes everything. As an example, the longer people work from home, the more likely when people do return to work, the basis for office floor area would have changed. The World Trade Center Towers were obsolete the day they opened. This is just one example of the many social and behavioral changes the pandemic will force us to confront.
From an urban design and architecture perspective, bigger, and bolder just for sake of identity is already banal. The location of these towers defies the sensible viewshed, pedestrian and sunlight biased height, FAR and density relationships formulated in the 1972 Downtown Plan (that was folded into the 1998 Central City Plan). Old and well grounded ideas are not boring, they are often legacies that define, Every city loses its head from time to time, and this is clearly such a period for Portland. We all know that density and livability do not depend on height so any arguments in that direction are bogus.
This well rendered idea will die, just because the virus and new economic realities will force it to. But it doesn't change the fact that cities need to be driven by the grounded needs of their inhabitants more than the unreal imaginings of big idea marketers. They are interesting to see and speculate over, but a consummate waste of brain power when we ought to be focusing on the urban and architectural responses to a global realignment of personal and public priorities. Let's get creative about the things that matter.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.