The Burnside Blog
Reaching for Heaven
Late last year, Portland Parks & Recreation released a “request for proposals” – or RFP – for the old Portland Visitors Information Center, aka McCall’s Restaurant. Who would have expected that one of the applicants would imagine the tallest, most radical addition to the city’s skyline in history: a 650-foot spire festooned with more than 250 wind turbines.
Don’t worry, at least yet. The commission to rehabilitate the old Visitor’s Center, completed in 1947, designed by one of the region’s great architects, John Yeon , and once one of the city’s two most important Modernist landmarks, was won by Bicycle Republic who is planning to transform the building into a bicycle waystation. But local developer Derek Hanna took the parks bureau’s call for sustainable money-making proposal seriously, working with MulvannyG2 Architects to propose a project that would generate enough power to light all of Waterfront Park, make the city around over $1 million/year, plus be a tourist magnet with an observation deck restaurant and an OMSI outpost devoted to sustainability. The catch? It would rise taller than Council Crest.
The so-called “SMART Tower” didn’t win the commission. (The Bike Republic’s proposal for a “bicycle waystation”: http://bikeportland.org/2008/08/13/its-official-waterfront-property-will-become-bike-republic/ did.) But the tower – and it’s developer, Derek Hanna – set tongues a waggin’: Could he really do that to the skyline? Would he?
Hanna has reached for the heavens before. Last year he proposed the tallest building to be ever built on the east side, a mechanical parking/storage garage, that would rise next to the Ross Island Bridge. Nothing in the city’s regulations prevented him from building it. But financing reduced it to 100 feet tall. It’s set to begin construction by the end of the year.
So how serious is he about the SMART Tower? How serious should we be? Here’s an interview with Hanna and MulvannyG2’s lead designer on the project, Eric Cugnart. Weigh in on what you think of the design so far and where it should or should not go.
Portland Spaces: So Why should Portlanders want a 650-foot tower in Waterfront Park?
Derek Hanna: People get stuck on the height. We could design it taller or shorter. The request for proposals (RFP) called for a sustainable tourist attraction for people all year around. We originally had a solar roof over park. We just didn’t see that it really met the criteria or, as a native Portlander, what met the needs of our central park, Waterfront Park. So we got together, had two or three brainstorm sessions: What could we do there that would really be an attraction and showcase the city’s sustainable efforts and make Portland proud? So we thought let’s be the first energy-producing attraction. When we really started looking at it, we realized, hey, it’s on the river. It’s not blocked or shaded by any other buildings, so we started looking at the positives of the location. That’s what created the SMART Tower.
PS: So it began with the RFP for the old Portland Visitors Information Center rather than looking for a place for a tower?
DH: It began by trying to satisfy the sustainability requirements of the RFP and an effort to really create an attraction. It was matching the positive attributes of Portland—and of that site.
PS: Wouldn’t it better to start with the idea: We want to create a tower that produces up to three megawatts of power and would be an icon for the city. Then ask the question: Where should we put it? Seems to me it could go anywhere: Centennial Mills, South Waterfront, Linnton, Council Crest…
DH: It needs to be in the city’s heart, by the river and on a transportation hub. This was a direct reflection of the RFP for Waterfront Park. But we believe that’s the best place. It fits in all the city plans: the Waterfront Park Master Plan, the “Central City 2020 Parks Vision,”: http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?c=40182/ the city’s comprehensive plan, the Portland Development Commission’s strategic plan. We looked at all of these plans to see the long term vision of the city. We’ve met with urban naturalist Mike Houck, planning director Gil Kelly, Commissioner Dan Saltzman, and the PDC. It also has to be close to the river to get the wind currents and can’t be shaded from the south for the 30,000-square-foot solar array. We could get the same effect somewhere else by going higher. But the real heart of the SMART Tower is the wind turbines. It really needs to be in an open corridor. With my other project, Portland City Storage, we brought this concept from The Netherlands—the Turby, the most advanced urban wind turbine. It can go on top of or on the side of buildings; it can take updrafts and sidedrafts and winds from all different directions. I’m part of the company that is the North American distributor.
PS: Are there any Turbys installed in the United States?
DH: The first two will be installed in Sacramento next month. They’ve been in [Research & Development] in The Netherlands for six years. It’s the most proven vertical axle turbine. Each one is rated for 3,000 kilowatts/year. The standard single-family house uses about 10 kilowatts. So three of these could take care of an entire house. The current concept features 230 [turbines]. Our goal is 300.
PS: Have you done any energy modeling?
DH: It’s still a concept. According to the manufacturer, in our design we have them placed at the optimal distance from one another. At the height we’re talking about, there’s an average 9 mph wind. The higher you go, the higher the wind speed. Our projection of 3,000 kilowatts per turbine is based on a 9 mph wind 60 percent of the time at 150 feet high.
PS: Your scheme features 600 units of parking. What proportion of the income model comes from storing cars?
DK: Fifteen percent of the gross. We looked at $13.6 million total yearly revenue. That’s from parking, the solar array, the turbines, the visitors’ center restaurant, and recreation equipment rental—everything from bikes to lawn chairs—to service the park.
PS: Is there any internal contradiction in a SMART Tower, a net-zero energy facility with 600 units of parking?
DH: This would be the cleanest way to handle cars. It’s a mechanical parking system from Germany called Palace. It would be one of the cleanest in the nation. One of the biggest problems with Waterfront Park is the lack of parking.
EC: Cars won’t disappear. So you want to ask: What is the best way to deal with them for the next 50 years? We think it’s automated parking.
DH: As more electric cars come on line, the electrical utilities can draw on their power at peak periods. The carbon savings of the automated parking is TK.
PS: So Bicycle Republic beat you out for the site with a proposal for a big bike station.
DH: We’re the last of three finalists. But we’re supposed to wait on the side. And if they can’t work something out, they’ll come back to us.
PS: It’s hard to imagine there wouldn’t be some objections to the tower. What’s your best argument for the public to accept such a huge change to a place frequently referred to as the city’s front yard?
DH: It’s really easy to jump on the height, but the structure’s whole diameter is only 90 feet wide. We designed it to be a see-through tower. The turbines are constantly moving. We designed it as an ellipse so it is at its narrowest from west to east. So everyone in the West Hills sees it at its narrowest: 50 feet, up to 550 feet. The restaurant and viewing tower are above the West Hills.
PS: Does it stand within any of the city’s established view corridor?
DH: The closest is Vista Bridge, but we moved it further away and also away from Salmon Springs Fountain. We’ve tucked it near the Hawthorne Bridge.
Eric Cugnart: So the question really is, what are we giving back? We are providing 30,000 square feet of covered public area.
DH: In the winter, there’s no covered area in Waterfront Park. This would be a public space covered with photovoltaic panels. Plus we’re going to put in 10 public restrooms that we’ll maintain. And we’re going to light the park for the city. So we would be the first park to have its power produced on site. We could power all the lights: They only use one megawatt/year. We’ll produce three megawatts. The rest would go to the city’s 2020 plan to achieve 20 percent sustainable energy by 2020. The reason to have it in the heart of the city is that you don’t give up the 20 to 40 percent of the power transmission lost from remote generation. We want a two-year outreach effort. We want to talk to all elected officials and all neighbors before we even design it. It has to be a transparent process. This would be truly net zero, generating all its power, harvesting all its water, dealing with all its waste on site. If we meet the criteria and do our outreach, people will get behind it, because it would be the vision of what Portland is.
PS: What was the inspiration for the shape of the SMART Tower?
EC: It begins with the circular shape of the parking system. So a solid piece at the bottom and a solid piece at the top with nothing in between. But a circle is so static. We wanted it to relate to the power produced. So we began playing with the minimum square footage we needed for the parking and the restaurant—90 feet in diameter. So then there’s the minimum you can rotate the verticals without it collapsing. How much can we twist it? Then it relates to the wind, like a propeller. So the shape is somewhere between a propeller turning and the shape of a propeller itself. The concrete core takes the vertical load; the exoskeleton takes the lateral [load].
PS: What would the skeleton be made of?
EC: Painted steel.
PS: Sounds like a maintenance disaster! Just look at the paint peeling off the steel structures around town.
EC: Come on. The Eiffel Tower is painted steel. It’s still there.
PS: Why “SMART Tower”?
DH: It stands for “Sustainable Modern Art Tower.” The criteria was to make it look different to all different parts of the city. The elevators would be glass, so as you rise you pass the wind turbines. It would give you a view of Portland you’ve never seen before.
PS: It reminds me of Vladimir Tatlin’s “Monument to the Third International.”
EC: That was one of the inspirations.
PS: So the SMART Tower is part of a much larger agenda, no?
DH: The Turby will change the way energy is produced in urban areas. It’s the first truly proven device. We’re partners with Turby in the Netherlands. In the heart of the city we can start taking that load. The SMART Tower would be the first major power-generating plant in the heart of any city that is an attraction. It will be so successful that we’ll joint venture with a major developer to put this throughout the country to produce power in cities. We’re working with the government and the utilities to put the Turby atop electrical transmission towers. The Turby’s design doesn’t put any lateral stress on a structure, so you don’t need to beef it up.
PS: Couldn’t the SMART Tower just be viewed as a big billboard for Turby wind turbines?
DH: It’s a big billboard for sustainability. It’s wind, solar. It’s dealing with our waste, harvesting water, even the cleanest way to park cars and harvest their energy when those cars are electric. OMSI and Ecotrust understand what we’re trying to do. They suggested it could be a testing ground for turbines and a certification facility.
PS: You’ve studied the engineering?
DH: There’s newer transmission and older towers. It might require guy wires. It would be the first generation device that could use existing towers and lines. This isn’t T-Bone Pickens proposing a huge new energy infrastructure. The two biggest hurdles are structure and the fact that all the lines are high voltage. So we would have to run a low-voltage line to each tower with a transformer. It’s a long-range plan, but it’s the only one that makes sense. We can put up windfarms out in the gorge or on the ocean. Or we can utilize existing infrastructure, land and lines—things the government and utility companies already have.
PS: Are you looking for R&D money from the city?
DH: No, it’s on our dime. The business plan makes sense. It doesn’t need subsidy.
PS: So if you build it, what will the city get in rent?
DH: Five percent of our gross: $500,000 to $1.5 million per year. That would be the most revenue the city gets from any property. Plus we’ll light the park, put in 10 restrooms, and provide a beautiful 30,000-square-foot canopy in Waterfront Park!
By Josh B. on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 07:04AM PDT
Uh, that’s “T. Boone Pickens” not “T-Bone Pickens” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Boone_Pickens)
By Ethan Seltzer on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 08:25AM PDT
There are a bunch of questions here, and they are separate. Should we have alternative sources of energy generated in and for the city? Yes, but where would the best place be? How much would we get? What technology would make the most sense? Should we just jump at any wind/solar/biomass/etc. project not matter where it’s proposed? Second, should we be creating an icon for the city that represents a dubious use of resources? What makes this a statement for sustainability? For decreasing our use of energy and materials? How does this lead the world? Third, should we have a 650 foot addition to our skyline anywhere? On the waterfront? Fundamentally, this seems like a fun but bad idea. It challenges our thinking, and its possibility makes us take it seriously. However, it’s hard to determine whether it’s a good source of energy, a good use of materials, or even a good idea for ensuring that the riverfront is really for people. Sure, lots of cities have gigando TV towers in the center of town, and to some extent this is no different. But who does it speak to? What does it say about us? Does a big statement make this a more authentic place? Still, what a throwback! Hey, gang, what would a throwforward look like? Thanks for the proposal, but this isn’t it.
By new Portland on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 09:11AM PDT
Ethan: You make good comments, but unfortunately your way of thinking is part of the problem facing Portland right now. Portland has done an incredible job building a nice city, but our city lacks the gumption to do anything really exciting. And while folks like Randy and yourself have been strong advocates for Portland, I think you guys should consider the aspirations of the up-and-coming generation of Portland designers. People want a bold project. Residents want good design. Portland is nice, but its powers that be tend to believe its own hype.
What I imagine will happen to this project is that it will get watered down by critics, bureaucrats, and most certainly, the landmarks commission, which is Art DeMuro’s way of controlling his own competition, and Jeff Joslin’s way of fashioning what could be a great city in his own boring and troll-like image.
If we ever want to be great, we need to be bold.
By Randy Gragg on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 09:12AM PDT
So, Ethan, what metrics would you use to measure any of these things? Carbon footprint and payback is an easy one on the energy/materials side. But what of these other issues?
And why not the waterfront—at, say, Centennial Mill?
By Ethan on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 06:27PM PDT
Randy, I’m surprised that you can’t come up with metrics of your own! Sure, carbon footprint would be good, but what about the energy needed to build and maintain it? How much will this baby generate and what will the net be? New Portland, how about giving us a name instead of lurking anonymously? As to your desire for a strong, stiff tower as a bold statement, try checking out the Yes Men for a commentary on the retro thinking associated with old icons, and the lack of progress that results. What would be new here? Why does Portland have to be bold like other places? Would we be a better place with a space needle? A rock and roll museum? A pro football team? What are you seeking, Mr. New? More PBR on a roof terrace? Randy, back to you… I have no problem with a waterfront site, but we’re talking about McCall’s, last I checked. Besides, you’ve been asking for bold for years, yes? So help me out here: does this define it for you? Or, as Jeff points out, is anything that is really unlikely what we now mean by bold? Just a question…
By DC Rahe on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 09:24AM PDT
Build it and the tourists will come. The SMART tower would be an excellent tourist attraction. It will make the Space Needle jealous. Because it is an attraction there should be an admission price of about $15 per person to ride the elevator. Perhaps the tourism industry can help pay to build it. Waterfront Park is the perfect spot. To get above the clouds how about on top of Council Crest, however, the homeowners would be against it. Another great location is next door to OMSI.
By Su on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 09:49AM PDT
I am very intrigued and excited about the idea and the design. My hesitation is a gut-level one – I’ve always related to Waterfront Park as an intimate, pedestrian-scale place. A huge construction going up in the middle of it appears to threaten that scale. From a distance, the structure looks beautiful and ethereal, but how will it feel in daylight for people using and moving through the park? Will it loom over us? I would not like that… not in that specific area.
So in summary, I love the concept, but am hesitant about the location.
By David McCarthy on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 10:26AM PDT
It’s a mega cell tower! Seriously, someplace like the “new” intersection of East Burnside and Sandy would be much more interesting. As the nighttime rendering shows, the tower really gets lost in the backdrop of downtown. As a counterpoint to Big Pink, straddling the Burnside Bridge, it would start to generate a dialog between East and West, old and new.
By Scott on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 02:06PM PDT
I love the idea…but the design just doesn’t seem finished…the top seems like it needs a spire of some sort…to have it just end with the platform seems really anti-climactic…especially for something that would be an iconic landmark….kinda just looks like a bowling pin at the moment
By Robert on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 04:31PM PDT
I agree w/ Su, I think the waterfront would be overwhelmed by the tower. The waterfront’s best features are its bridges—why upstage them like that?
By Robert on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 04:31PM PDT
I agree w/ Su, I think the waterfront would be overwhelmed by the tower. The waterfront’s best features are its bridges—why upstage them like that?
By stephen on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 06:34PM PDT
I think it is an intriguing concept, however agree with Su about the proposed location. I also wonder about the technology. Will it be outdated as soon as it’s built? Is there a possibility to modernize the structure as more advanced wind technology becomes available? Are there suitable locations on the inner eastside – OMSI, Burnside Bridgehead, the Rose Quarter or as Randy suggested, the Centennial Mill area. Are there alternative uses for the base other than parking?
By BILLB on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 10:55AM PDT
That covered area will be an stunning homeless crash space , lets go for it and actually provide a decent place for those less fortunate. TRAM II , here we come ! , or is that PGE PARK II ?
By D. Frazier on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 12:14PM PDT
I think the tower looks great and am all for it.
Randy, the name of your article, “Reaching for Heaven”, struck me as funny. Here’s why: For the past several weeks I’ve been plowing through this 800-page novel called “The Wizard of the Crow”, by a Kenyan author named Ngugi wa Thiongo. It’s a broad satire - bear with me - about a fictional African nation and its corrupt, despotic government.
The central symbol of the dictator’s hubris and ill-consideration is, yes, an enormous tower, which he tries vainly and pathetically to build through various appeals to a “Global Bank”. The name of the tower? “Marching to Heaven”.
Broadly speaking, Portland is not like the fictional African nation of Aburiria so the comparison is intended only as a general aside. But, judging from some of the comments already, it does seem the notion of a tower, somehow, contains the best symbolic case against itself. So the practical and economic cases for it, I guess, have to be clearly articulated.
I like the look of it (I think the kids call that “steam-punk”), but also wonder about maintenance and potential for rapid technological obsolescence.
By D. Frazier on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 12:24PM PDT
Also, your website turns em-dashes into strikethroughs. : )
By David Soderstrom on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 01:55PM PDT
This proposal represents the best and the worst in our community: the best of intentions for a creative, sustainable icon, and the worst of boring neglect by Portland Parks reviewers in not taking it seriously. Whether you can believe in the longevity and function of the technology being proposed, or be in doubt regarding “maintenance” of the structure, the Smart Tower and it’s very creative developer should be applauded for raising the bar and making us aware that there are architectural options to consider beyond the current ZGF lumps in our Cities’ core. Perhaps it’s time for us to take some inspiration from such a courageous stab in the sky?
By Jeff Joslin on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 04:52PM PDT
It’s great to hear from David, Portland’s first Design Commission Chair, as well as other profound voices (and some less profound) in response to this genuinely iconoclastic (emphasis on “icon”) act of pure patronage.
I think it unfair to turn this into an assault on Parks – that they didn’t choose it does not mean they didn’t pay attention. One can hardly blame them for not wanting to burn up the entirety of their ever-tenuous political capital on a single, 550’ tall functional sculpture dependent on some remarkable process that would allow it in a 35’ maximum height area on this most sensitive of sites (nor do I suspect the proposers were that surprised that it wasn’t selected, for all those reasons). Let’s give Parks credit for establishing criteria and a process that brought us this opportunity for consideration and dialogue, and the proposers for taking this magnificent leap.
What it begs is the bigger question of how this otherwise risk-averse environment uses this prompt as a springboard? Is this right iconic locus? If not this form, then what? If not here, then where? If not 550 feet, then is 300 better, or a thousand? What does it have to offer in terms of what it tells future generations about us, about this moment?
If this is as viable as the patrons purport, it cannot be ignored. It begs of leadership, the citizenry, and the planning establish to: explore it, and ourselves, and our aspirations, further.
Bravo to the bold protagonists.
By Randy Gragg on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 05:30PM PDT
Thanks Jeff for weighing in, despite “new Portland’s” diplomatically-challenged portrayal of you. Droll, yes; troll, no.
Everybody’s raised some good points: Is this the technology, the form, the spot we want to hang (or launch) our global image on? If not, is our reticence due to our deep self-insight or self-doubt? I kinda think we’re a more “distributed” kind of place—both for leadership and a more effective energy strategy. Here’s to Turbys on every power pole and rooftop where they’re quickly removable when the next better thing comes along.
By Gill Williams on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 06:09PM PDT
If we are to truly promote Portland’s burgeoning sustainable reputation it will serve us well to consider sustainability in multiple forms. Social, financial as well as environmental aspects of sustainability are interdependent and none succeed without the others, just ask Bono.
That said I propose that we locate this bad boy at Gateway Green
http://www.deainc.com/docs/Vision%20Document%20FINALCOMPL_51508.pdf
A long underserved part of our city in need of “the right iconic locus”. A gateway experienced via multiple modes of transport and a bookend for the Banfield corridor.
By Randy Gragg on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 09:58PM PDT
Gill,
That’s a pretty interesting idea. The wind conditions in the convergence of freeways might just match the Willamette River!
A stadium in Lents. . . The city’s tallest tower in Gateway. . .
By Lance Lindahl on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 09:45AM PDT
A couple of years ago I took a tour of the Gateway Greens sight with a group of supporters for the project. Despite, and becuase of, being sandwiched between two freeways, access into this site is very limited.
Our group met at the Gateway Transit Center and hiked into the site. It was a sunny spring day and the wind was howling up on the hill. However, there was almost no wind at all once we were on the actual Gateway Greens site.
The nearby presence of Rock Butte shelters Gateway Green from a great deal of the wind and the sunlight during much of the day. I like the idea of doing some sort of green space project here, but it is far from being an ideal wind and solar site.
By Linda on Saturday, October 04, 2008 at 12:47AM PDT
In response to Lance Lindahl ’s comments about a lack of wind & solar access at the Gateway Green site:
The turbines wouldn’t be in the low spot that is sheltered from the wind. They would be higher in the tower—at the same level as the hill (or higher). I live near there and can assure you there is plenty of wind! Also, while Rocky Butte shades part of the site in the afternoon, there is plenty of solar access at the northern end.
The bigger issue with locating the tower at Gateway Green is that there would have to be something other than a parking garage at the ground level, because only emergency & maintenance vehicles will have access to the area. Gateway Green will be a pedestrian and bicycle-oriented site.
What about locating it at the Gateway Transit Center (next to Gateway Green)—the nexus point for the east-west and north-south MAX lines? Gateway has been designated to become a Regional Center. It would benefit from the addition of a significant icon to give it a unique identity.
By Linda on Saturday, October 04, 2008 at 12:47AM PDT
In response to Lance Lindahl ’s comments about a lack of wind & solar access at the Gateway Green site:
The turbines wouldn’t be in the low spot that is sheltered from the wind. They would be higher in the tower—at the same level as the hill (or higher). I live near there and can assure you there is plenty of wind! Also, while Rocky Butte shades part of the site in the afternoon, there is plenty of solar access at the northern end.
The bigger issue with locating the tower at Gateway Green is that there would have to be something other than a parking garage at the ground level, because only emergency & maintenance vehicles will have access to the area. Gateway Green will be a pedestrian and bicycle-oriented site.
What about locating it at the Gateway Transit Center (next to Gateway Green)—the nexus point for the east-west and north-south MAX lines? Gateway has been designated to become a Regional Center. It would benefit from the addition of a significant icon to give it a unique identity.
By Linda on Saturday, October 04, 2008 at 12:47AM PDT
In response to Lance Lindahl ’s comments about a lack of wind & solar access at the Gateway Green site:
The turbines wouldn’t be in the low spot that is sheltered from the wind. They would be higher in the tower—at the same level as the hill (or higher). I live near there and can assure you there is plenty of wind! Also, while Rocky Butte shades part of the site in the afternoon, there is plenty of solar access at the northern end.
The bigger issue with locating the tower at Gateway Green is that there would have to be something other than a parking garage at the ground level, because only emergency & maintenance vehicles will have access to the area. Gateway Green will be a pedestrian and bicycle-oriented site.
What about locating it at the Gateway Transit Center (next to Gateway Green)—the nexus point for the east-west and north-south MAX lines? Gateway has been designated to become a Regional Center. It would benefit from the addition of a significant icon to give it a unique identity.
By new Portland on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 03:27PM PDT
Mr Joslin: Thanks for weighing in, and I apologize for insulting you. I assumed you hated all things modern. Guess I was wrong…
By Tim on Friday, September 19, 2008 at 06:07PM PDT
I love the design, particularly the message it would send every day to Portlanders that it is possible to build beautiful structures and live in a modern world in a sustainable way! This structure is a metaphor for why my wife and I recently moved to Portland. We view this city as a dynamic melting pot comprised of confident people who are not afraid to make a statement.
Many may be aware of the fact that the Eiffel Tower was nearly never built. Take a moment and review the quick synopsis at the following website: http://jssgallery.org/Essay/Worlds_Fairs/Paris_Exposition_1889/Eiffel_Tower.htm Consider the resistance it faced then and the parallels to the “SMART” tower (really bad name).
Given there is no taxpayer money being spent and the small footprint, I would urge everyone to keep an open mind. Btw, It helps to view the location in Google Earth using the 3-D Buildings feature in order to view the scale.
By Tim on Friday, September 19, 2008 at 06:07PM PDT
I love the design, particularly the message it would send every day to Portlanders that it is possible to build beautiful structures and live in a modern world in a sustainable way! This structure is a metaphor for why my wife and I recently moved to Portland. We view this city as a dynamic melting pot comprised of confident people who are not afraid to make a statement.
Many may be aware of the fact that the Eiffel Tower was nearly never built. Take a moment and review the quick synopsis at the following website: http://jssgallery.org/Essay/Worlds_Fairs/Paris_Exposition_1889/Eiffel_Tower.htm Consider the resistance it faced then and the parallels to the “SMART” tower (really bad name).
Given there is no taxpayer money being spent and the small footprint, I would urge everyone to keep an open mind. Btw, It helps to view the location in Google Earth using the 3-D Buildings feature in order to view the scale.
By Trever Cartwright on Sunday, September 21, 2008 at 06:12PM PDT
What a bold statement this would be. The tower would signal to the world that Portland is serious about sustainability and that our city is the center of it all. I see this as a pivotal opportunity for Portland and for Oregon to step to the front of the line. Build it! It’s exciting. It makes sense. It’s time.
By Foster Smith on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 01:51PM PDT
Portland will make a huge strategic erroe if it does not get behind this idea. The taller , the better. It should be an international attraction, not one that sort of fits in with the other downtown buildings; obviously. the design accomodates the town’s sensibilities about the waterfront and its desire for Green advancement. Don’t downsize it, don’t move it to where it’s not part of the skyline. Somebody with $120 million is prepared to put Portland on the map and increase tourism while demonstrating the advantages of sustainable construction. DUH!!
By Earl on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 03:39PM PDT
A 650 foot tower to support windmills in a major bird migration flyway (birds follow rivers), when a large river is rushing just feet away seems like a monument to bad planning. To be most successful, green power should be sited in a way to minimize cost per watt while minimizing the impact on the environment, this proposal does neither.
A better demonstration of practical and sustainable green power would be small-scale projects like fish friendly waterwheels at Waterfront Park and if proven bird safe, windmills on our existing structures or hills.
Don’t make an inefficient greenwashed folly the symbol of Portland.
By Randy Gragg on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 06:05PM PDT
Earl,
I’m not sure how the Turby design does with birds, but the location for power generation seems ideal – within yards of the power grid’s largest crossroads of downtown Portland. It would have none of the usual loss of transmission over power lines, no?
By Santiago Calatrava on Friday, September 26, 2008 at 09:37AM PDT
I love it.
By 1thing on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 09:56PM PDT
How soon could the construction possibly get underway? What do you think is the percentage of probability that this structure will get created? I think it’s an exciting idea and a gamechanger for Portland.
By Christian Beck on Monday, October 20, 2008 at 12:58AM PDT
A meaningful, elegant, necessary and sustainable urban component…to see soon in the Portland skyline, Hopefully!
By Alex Cousins on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 02:27PM PDT
Build it.
By Jason on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 02:29PM PST
Running calcs on this – the energy side just doesn’t work out. These turbines don’t even start producing energy until close to 9 mph, and they produce 3,000 watts with constant winds of almost 30mph, which thankfully we do not have on the waterfront. This would be great as an interpretive project, but if it is important that the energy numbers work.. there is a lot of work to be done.
By Joshua Henry on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 01:17AM PDT
I simply love it! This would benefit our city in myriad ways! This tower represents the epitome of Portland’s intrinsic values. I’m a resident of Portland, and I call it an enthusiastic thumbs up!! I liken this to the Eifel tower in Paris..except much more comfortable and representative of it’s area. Build it!