The Burnside Blog
Conway: The Renderings
At the risk of sounding cliche, a picture really is worth a thousand words, and in the case of Conway, the company that plans to develop acres of parking lots in Northwest Portland, there simply haven’t been enough pictures to tell the story.
Sure, we’ve read descriptions of tall towers of mixed-used neighborhoods dissected by streetcar lines and waterways, but there’s been nothing look at. In the design realm, using words only to sell the future aesthetics of a city where everyone in town has an opinion and loads of free time can be dangerous.
Luckily, Portland is not without vision. Remembering that, here are two renderings. You’ll find the official rendering, which is the only Conway-provided image I’ve ever seen, up top. Pretty sharp, eh?
The following image is what’s proposed by local artist Bill Badrick. In Mr. Badrick’s words “The premise is to create a platform over the site which makes a large area under for Conway parking/warehouses, and a vast public park on top. Living units would be in courtyard mid-rises w/internal and external vegetable gardens.” Both are quite interesting. Which do you prefer?
By Gendy on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 01:17PM PDT
Image 1: Could be anywhere. There is nothing that places this image on the Con-way site much less in Portland – not even a token glimpse of Mt. Hood in the background.
Image 2: Won’t be anywhere. I won’t even go into the technical and economical aspects of why Utopian fantasies such as this are no more than a pipe dream.
Both break some pretty fundamental Urban Design & Planning rules. In image 2, the elevated platform may create usable space underneath, but it also moves people off of street level areas which is critical to crime prevention. And canals, are you serious? These waterways are only effective as a means of transportation and those in the rendering look more like really wide gutters which a barrier to the other side of the street.
Back to the drawing boards!
By GLV on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 02:16PM PDT
The second one looks like a birthday cake. A horrible, horrible birthday cake.
By stuart on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 04:48PM PDT
Good Lord. The first looks like Bridgeport Village and the second resembles Mormon heaven. I”m not sure which is worse.
By Stephen on Thursday, May 08, 2008 at 09:26PM PDT
Um, so what’s up with the second one. Be honest, what grade is he in? I do like all those stairs! They’re really big, I mean super human big and the parking garage has pretty windows. The second one is pretty, the canals are kinda gimmicky like the Venetian in Vegas.
What I think they should do is focus on alternative energy production. Integrating wind turbines, solar panels, green roofs and bioswales throughout the project. If they are going to go for height and density, employ elements that will benefit the region and serve as a model.
By billb on Friday, May 09, 2008 at 12:01PM PDT
S , as to what grade I am in , I have been in the biz 21 years , designing buildings across the country. I look forward to your ideas and drawings for this site. The more design concepts we create the better the city will be. BillB
By GLV on Friday, May 09, 2008 at 01:46PM PDT
Boo to silencing critics.
By Stephen on Friday, May 09, 2008 at 03:32PM PDT
B, I’m not designing them, but my suggestions for employing energy generation in whatever concept is developed is plausible and extremely important. I think that the designers could probably achieve more success with both density and building height, if this was the an essential part of the development. It is harder to dispute a project that is actually improving life quality in addition to adding density. There is some great work being done in Europe and even in such terrifying places as Dubai, incorporating solar and wind.
To be honest, I thought it might be a young student’s work. It’s obviously fantastical and when compared to the other rendering, seems odd. I’ve seen your other work on the bridge crossing. I appreciate the creativity, but it doesn’t seem serious.
By BILLB on Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 12:10PM PDT
S , thanks for your thoughts. On-site energy generation is still in it’s infancy , and would be only an expensive symbol. The critical thing we can do at this time is to build humane dense live/work environments. To inspire people to leave the suburbs and wasteful auto-centered lifestyle is the achievable design issue of our time. The savings from efficiency will far exceed energy system changes for the decade we are in. There is more than enough capacity for large scale solar in the largely empty rural western states to power our cities , but not gas up our SUV’s. B
By Renter by Circumstances on Monday, May 12, 2008 at 08:23AM PDT
Unless and until any of this new living space starts being “affordable” and not “market rate” the low-income to middle-income singles and families who can’t afford to buy a house will continue to flee to the suburbs. Most of them don’t want to . . . especially if they work in the central city area and use public transportation . . . but I would be willing to bet that any “affordable” living options in this development will not be truly affordable to anybody who makes less than $50,000 a year. Unless some of it is subsidized by the city or the feds.
By Patrick on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 02:09PM PDT
The whole plan sounds like a great way to improve Nob Hill’s image. It’s been the target of taggers (spay paintings) and homeless. Similar to what the Pearl was 12 years ago. In fact, the Pearl was transformed from doom to gloom with a little help from local government and investors. The Conway Canal will be a strong positive move for NW Portland. Plans have been silent for a while – has anyone heard of its progress?
By SE Resident on Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 08:55PM PDT
Welcome to Utopiaville, population many. Smoke carefully.