The Burnside Blog
By Mike Thelin on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 08:31AM PDT
I get the same feeling about Stanford when I read op-eds like this. However, if you’re looking for a great read on the dark history of Portland, check out Stanford’s book Portland Confidential. But again, it’s a book about the past.
By islander on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 04:08PM PDT
What Stanford really ignores in this piece is the contextual value of preserving the Sauvie span in this particular manner. While I’m not sure about the logistics or the fit of the span in the proposed spot, as a lifelong resident of Sauvie Island I can’t think of a better use of the span, providing the object (bridge) matches the subject (urban context) – the idea of transplanting an emblem of the island’s bike culture into the city is pretty poetic. And while it may be true that the project would help further bolster real estate prices in the Pearl, it’s only because it’s an attractive project, and on top of that it really has the potential to benefit a wider audience, so that point seems somewhat superfluous. I have to say though, his argument challenging the legitimacy of describing the project as “recycled” and “sustainable” is completely backward; being able to reuse things is generally preferable to having to “smash them and melt them down in a furnace somewhere” in terms of minimizing overall impact, no?
By islander on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 04:08PM PDT
What Stanford really ignores in this piece is the contextual value of preserving the Sauvie span in this particular manner. While I’m not sure about the logistics or the fit of the span in the proposed spot, as a lifelong resident of Sauvie Island I can’t think of a better use of the span, providing the object (bridge) matches the subject (urban context) – the idea of transplanting an emblem of the island’s bike culture into the city is pretty poetic. And while it may be true that the project would help further bolster real estate prices in the Pearl, it’s only because it’s an attractive project, and on top of that it really has the potential to benefit a wider audience, so that point seems somewhat superfluous. I have to say though, his argument challenging the legitimacy of describing the project as “recycled” and “sustainable” is completely backward; being able to reuse things is generally preferable to having to “smash them and melt them down in a furnace somewhere” in terms of minimizing overall impact, no?
By on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 08:27AM PDT
Stanford is basically against “Change” he misses 1970’s Portland. Basically he’s that old dude behind the picket fence that rails against the kids playing ball out front. Amazing that this kind of guy has a mouth piece in an actual city. He’s made for Camby or Molalla. I wish he and Jack bog would finally get the fact that the city has past them by and they would be better served moving to Mayberry.