The Burnside Blog
Brad Cloepfil on Portland's Waterfront
At the Portland Spaces Bright Lights discussion series last night, a standing-room only crowd turned out for a rare and intimate public appearance by Portland’s most celebrated architect, Brad Cloepfil of Allied Works Architecture. Cloepfil builds and speaks all over the globe, and is taking his place among the top tier of American architects. In Portland, his voice isn’t heard often enough.
Throughout the 90-minute Q and A with Portland Spaces Editor Randy Gragg, Cloepfil waxed on a variety of subjects related to the PDX built environment, but for me, one observation was most important. “We have this amazing river, and we don’t even use it,” says Cloepfil. “It’s time to engage the river.” How to engage it? “Build,” says Brad.
Brad’s words resonated with me. The removal of Harbor Drive in 1974 to create Tom McCall Waterfront Park ushered in a new era of Portland planning. In 1974, it was a resounding success, but is the Portland Waterfront relevant in 2008? In a nutshell, the Portland waterfront is nothing but a large patch of grass whose largest attractions are the the carnivals of Cinco De Mayo and the Rose Festival, two events from which locals completely avoid. Downtown residents may use the waterfront to jog or ride bikes, but there’s nothing happening along the banks of the Willamette that reflect Portland in 2008. Portland is a foodie capital, but where along the waterfront are the restaurants and food carts? Where are the cultural institutions? Where are the markets? Nowhere to be seen. Options are few.
I never really thought of the Portland waterfront as inadequate until I visited Bilbao, Spain during the summer of 2006. It’s a medium-sized river city, it’s quirky, it has cool streetcars, it’s green and surrounded by hills, it rains a lot, and it’s historically a port city and large industrial center. It also has great food, and is in many ways culturally different from the country that surrounds it. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?
If hum drum Pittsburgh weren’t already the American sister city of the largest city in Basque country, Portland and Bilbao would be a perfect match. There is however one huge difference. Bilbao, with its Norman Foster-designed subway stations and landmark Guggenheim, has anointed the Nervión River as the epicentre of its revitalization The Nervión, like the Willamette in Portland, dissects the city through its heart.
Recent renewal efforts in Bilbao relocated the port from the central city as the local government commissioned a number of new buildings, including Frank Gehry’s iconic Guggenheim Museum, Euskalduna Palace center, a tram line, and several iconic pedestrian bridges, including the Zubizuri Bridge by Santiago Calatrava, on the river. When Bilbao’s leaders decided to revitalize their city in the 1990s, they started with the river. In Portland, as Cloepfil asserts, we ingore it.
The changes not only anointed Bilbao, a city one-half the size of Portland, an international destination for arts and culture, they energized the former industrial waterfront for the residents. There are reasons to go there other than to jog, bike or play frisbee.
Cloepfil mentioned in passing that he’s talked with Sam Adams about the possibility of a permanent amphitheater on the river-fronted slope that’s already home to the waterfront Blues Festival. That would be a great start, but why stop there? Imagine a new performance hall, modern art museum, institution of green commerce or another civic amenity on Portland’s waterfront park. I’m sure if asked, Mr. Cloepfil would do a splendid job.
By Penny on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 01:41PM PDT
The McCall Waterfront, like many of Portland’s spaces, is a nice space in certain sections, but leaves the water itself, underappreciated. There are no restaurants along the waterfront, except for some less interesting stuff near the South side marina. I steer clear of the area and mud-pits during those festivals you mentioned. I’m interested in some of the music festivals, though, and agree that the area would thrive if there were a permanent amphitheater.
I would support some type of connection from the Waterfront to the North and South Park Blocks, so that tourists find some connection to the rest of the city, or find the waterfront in the first place. But right now, the West side of the waterfront deadends under the Hawthorne Bridge (for the most part) and the Steel Bridge and has no conneciton back to downtown. And at the Steel Bridge end, the environment is not at all tourist nor family friendly. It’s full of tweakers, and quite scary to pass through in the evening, unless your a fairly speedy cyclist.
By Lizzy.Caston on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 02:20PM PDT
As you mentioned there are several challenges to developing the waterfront, the biggest is vision and agreement for what the waterfront should be. I’ve sat in some lively meetings between those who would like to see active uses and those who would rather see it restored and preserved for riparian health. This was a huge issue when I worked on the North Macadam URA plan for the South Waterfront – the greenway width a battle that took a lot of compromise on all sides and pitted bureaus against bureaus and absolutely affected the cost of building in the district. In fact, what really made it difficult were the competing policy goals from the City itself for the river. The question should be from a planning and development perspective is, can we have both?
There are also some very real constraints with transit. Don’t even think about mentioning tearing down I-5 or the Morrison bridge ramps or other barriers to waterfront cohesiveness and expansion – I guarantee you the Freight Committee, Police Fire and Rescue and certain Central Eastside businesses will (and have had) a fit.
I also think its really important to point out that Bilbao has something Portland doesn’t; access to billions of dollars for development and investment from the E.U. who specifically targeted this region several decades ago for economic and infrastructure improvements. They have the funds, sadly, we don’t.
Finally, and this is where I absolutely agree with Mike and see opportunities for immediate improvement; restaurants. Of all kinds. There are what, only 3 or 4 waterfront restaurants in Portland at all? Kind of pathetic. And what’s going on with the little cafe building near Salmon Springs Fountain? That thing has been a wasted use of space for decades.
By ben on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 06:16PM PDT
I actually think we have a very successful waterfront. What we don’t have is a successful urban edge across the street. That seems to be where the most improvement should happen. It’s beginning around the Burnside bridge, but the rest needs a lot of help and is moving very slowly.
I also agree with Lizzy.Caston about the access to funds. Perhaps Mr. Cloepfil could convince some of his well heeled friends in other cities to invest in the Arts here, because clearly we can’t do it ourselves.
By Mike Thelin on Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 09:28AM PDT
Ben: I agree with your assessment of Naito Parkway. There needs to be some infill along Naito, but that’s doubtful to happen anytime soon. The surface level parking lots on Naito are usually quite full. I know the Goodmans are committed to redeveloping selected downtown parcels, but I have a feeling these will be the last. That’s really bad for Portland.
By Stephen on Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 12:13PM PDT
Lizzy is right on target regarding funding. Unfortunately, there is nothing available. The parks department developed a master plan for Waterfront Park several years ago. It can be found by going to their website. The idea is to enliven the park and divide it into several activity areas. The first is the Ankeny area combined with the move of Saturday Market. Naito has already been modified to allow for more on street parking and easier crosswalk access. It just takes money – and Americans don’t like to pay taxes.
What Cloepfil suggests probably wouldn’t occur along Waterfront Park, but there are still some amazing tracks on the eastside. The area infront of the Memorial Coliseum, owned by Paul Allen, would be a perfect opportunity site. Combine that with a refurbished Memorial Coliseum and something wonderful could materialize. Another area is south of OMSI combined with the empty parking lots bordering Water Avenue.
By mike thelin on Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 12:35PM PDT
First, the funding scenario could change dramatically after the November elections.
Second, I’d like to hear some good ideas for Memorial Coliseum. I totally agree that it’s worth saving, but what should and could it be?
By bx2pdx on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 11:49PM PDT
Memorial coliseum could be converted/redesigned into a great modern art museum or museum of archeology.
By Brett K. Laurila on Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 12:46PM PDT
How do we expect to develop the waterfront when we, as a community, cannot attract a developer or user to adapt, reuse and revitalize the iconic McCalls building within said waterfront? Current land holders along Naito are not farsighted enough to see the long term benefits and are hesitant to trade short term current earnings in these parking lots and commit to long term development.
This is a continuing problem in Oregon development in general. It usually takes a developer outside our community to commit funds and efforts. (ie: Former Equity Office / now Shorenstein Real Estate developing new office building at Hawthorne Bridge head.)
I not saying it shouldn’t be done, (of course I would love to see something like Bilbao, or Paris or Prague or London…) But we will need some deep pockets and someone with the foresight to see the long term benefits.
By stuart on Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 03:51PM PDT
Brett: I see your point, but your reasoning is incorrect with regard to McCall’s, I believe. Because Portland cannot attract a developer for a building that, in the opinion of many, is ill-suited to be a restaurant or another amenity, is hardly a reason to write-off a cultural amenity on the waterfront. Portland, lacks the ability to think big at this juncture. We’ve become safe. To rehab McCalls would do little. To add a cultural amenity like a modern art museum or a center for design or a sports apparel museum would be the amenity that would lure folks to the waterfront. This would, in turn, be an incentive for the parking lot people to develop and I’m sure someone would revamp McCalls.
We also don’t have deep pockets willing to give in Portland. There is some big money here, but most of those types (with the exception of notable benefactors like the Schnitzer family) do very little to invest in the Central City.
By Brett K. Laurila on Friday, May 16, 2008 at 12:02PM PDT
Stuart: We are saying the same thing, just in different ways. The McCalls analogy was merely to make a point about the lack of direction, backbone and funding. The McCalls RFP was an opportunity to express a far more reaching plan than just a simple adaptive reuse.
Maybe Mr. Cloepfil, with his connections, can get someone interested in a new museum for Contemporary Art. (I loved the “temporary Contemporary” that Gehry did in LA while I was in school there in the late ‘80’s.) Just north of the Hawthorne bridge would be a suggested location.
Anyway, I love the dialog and hope that it continues – possibly into a master plan of action sometime in the “not to distant” future.
By Brett K. Laurila on Friday, May 16, 2008 at 12:02PM PDT
Stuart: We are saying the same thing, just in different ways. The McCalls analogy was merely to make a point about the lack of direction, backbone and funding. The McCalls RFP was an opportunity to express a far more reaching plan than just a simple adaptive reuse.
Maybe Mr. Cloepfil, with his connections, can get someone interested in a new museum for Contemporary Art. (I loved the “temporary Contemporary” that Gehry did in LA while I was in school there in the late ‘80’s.) Just north of the Hawthorne bridge would be a suggested location.
Anyway, I love the dialog and hope that it continues – possibly into a master plan of action sometime in the “not to distant” future.
By eric cantona on Friday, May 16, 2008 at 01:12PM PDT
this is the (i believe) the last master plan done for waterfront (tom mccall) park (by edaw):
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=145079
haven’t read it in some time, but i recall my previous thoughts were that it was pretty dull. also note that the current plans for saturday market (tva & walker macy) don’t seem to follow the plan at all.
i’d echo some of the previous sentiments about the lack of deep pockets, and the publics overwhelming collective ability to water everything down. look at the south waterfront greenway for an even more pointed example of that:
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=175890
By rococo on Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 09:53PM PDT
Another often missed perspective on Waterfront Park is the lousy view across the river and the lousy access to the river. Who likes looking across at a freeway. No verdant green spaces or cool buildings like most river cities. Instead we get I 5 (as to moving it, I agree it is a long shot. Who ever sited it should forever be vilified in Oregon for destroying the river in downtown) Due to flood control, we have the seawall and when we’re mostly on the river in the summer is when the river is running almost at its lowest point of the year. Add in the monoculture of grass, the lack of amenities, mostly crappy events, and a a worn down vibe (when was the last time they painted the lights?) ad we get a grim environment.
Agree that we lack vision and creativity – a scarcity mentality abounds. And planning so that every interest group gets a piece is a sure fire way to get a whole lot of blandness. Think Millennium Park in Chicago could ever of happened?
Agree too that Naito should be animated and development focused along the street. City could of started with the rebuilding of Naito last year into a lovely parkway that help connect the Park to the buildings. Instead we got a stripped down repaving with sad street trees and already weed covered paving blocks. Where were the landscape architects to create a boulevard of Oregon perennials and annuals – a parkway for god’s sake and a sidewalk along the park to boot. We could of raised money, partnered with the horticulture industry, made a showcase of Oregon’s gardening prowess and helped slightly started to upgrade the park.
Next time a Park’s Bond or Metro Greenspace Bond gets floated, let’s demand the City include money for the Waterfront Park redevelopment (and maintenence $ too) and make it something that is worthy of our groovy little city – add a great kids play park, more fountains, a summer festival amphitheater, separated bike and pedestrian paths and public art (like vancouver BC – check out their public sculpture Biennale – very cool: http://www.vancouverbiennale.com/index.phpl) and cleaver ways to get on the water (would a Paris strategy work – a lower section and higher section – the lower section flooding out in winter). Coupled with a focused PDC strategy for development (including residential which will help with restaurants and shops), we may actually get the park moving in the right direction.
The key is public support, creative public-private financing, and some entrepreneurial activity (who is going to take on Portland’s version of Seattle’s Bumpershoot, SF’s Land’s End Festival, etc).
Now about that fu@#king freeway…
By bx2pdx on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 09:41AM PDT
“Now about that fu@#king freeway…”
“There are also some very real constraints with transit. Don’t even think about mentioning tearing down I-5 or the Morrison bridge ramps or other barriers to waterfront cohesiveness and expansion – I guarantee you the Freight Committee, Police Fire and Rescue and certain Central Eastside businesses will (and have had) a fit.”
I really don’t understand the reasoning behind opposing the tearing down of the i5 mess over the Central Eastside…Are there no plans to replace the route with a tunnel or some other less conspicuous remedy? Would planners be able to actually increase access to the CES with a combination rail freight, lightrail, and motor vehicle tunnel under the river and connecting to i5 north of 84?
By Eves on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 08:46AM PDT
I know that there are certain top people in the Planning Department that are very interested in seeing I-5 buried. Development of the Central Eastside is not too far away and it could be the catalyst for relocating the barrier to the river.
Rosie is already halfway up the Central Eastside boring the Big Pipe under E. Third Ave. Maybe we can get her to do a 180 and dig a parallel pipe for the car and rail traffic…All we need is another $100 million dollars.
By bx2pdx on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 09:05AM PDT
Even a “cut and cover” down SE 6th, 7th, or 8th might be cheaper and faster. Cut and cover tunnels are inexpensive compared to other tunnelling techniques.
By pFranzen on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 09:16AM PDT
Sorry, I hate to do this but:
“The Nervión, like the Willamette in Portland, dissects the city through its heart.”
I think you mean “bisects”.
By Lizzy Caston on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 11:48AM PDT
Let me clarify. I don’t think people are opposed to tearing down I-5, nor are they against a better integrated waterfront. The issues are simply about long range planning, long term transportation and infrastructure funding, and alternatives to current freeway/bridge access that still allows for important freight transport and easy to navigate safety corridors for fire and rescue. The groups previously mentioned, especially the freight committee, feel that Portland’s designated freight corridors are already close to capacity and are significantly impacting the economics of moving goods and services through Portland while Fire and Safety just want to be able to get from A-B quickly to save lives, etc. Any whiff of a bridge change (such as dismantling the Morrison Bridgehead ramps) without transportation alternatives in place or planned for concurrently, freaks these groups out and they are powerful groups.
While I agree that it would be wonderful to have better transportation alternatives and a better riverscape and view to the eastside, once again it will take massive amounts of dedicated funds to make this happen and in this day and era they just aren’t there. Perhaps when the bridges and freeways begin to collapse this City, County, State and the Feds will start to address these issues and think of more livable solutions. Hopefully sooner.
By Mike Thelin on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 11:55AM PDT
I’d love to see the Eastside freeway buried, but it seems there would be betters ways to spend a few billion in Portland than to bury a freeway for the sake of a few blocks. Properties along Interstate 405 have done fine in the Pearl District, despite their proximity to a raised freeway. I’d rather see new projects on the downtown side of the river, where people actually live.
By pFranzen on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 02:49PM PDT
One other point that never comes up with regards to the Eastside I-5 burial proposal is what would happen to the train tracks that run along there. The freight trains are a much bigger nuisance than the freeway (in my opinion) and I don’t think you could bury that as easily as the freeway.
By kathleen mazzocco on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 01:39PM PDT
Thanks for the beautiful perspective on Bilbao. I’ve never seen any photos of the city itself, just the side view of the Gehry. I had no idea there was more going on.