Another link to the vid. I don't know - The developer has Urban Visions written all over his face. I'd peg him for a snowboard dealer.
Portland to eclipse Seattle with height?
Seattle to be eclipsed by Portland?
I only offer this in the Seattle thread because the Portland thread has less than 1% participation of the Seattle thread.
But an interesting story has come into play. A proposal to build a twin tall complex that would eclipse Columbia Center, and equal SF's highest.
http://www.kgw.com/news/northwest-s-...and-/491661167
I doubt this will ever be built, and it seems to be somewhat a come-on to try and fight for Amazon HQ2, which has a slim chance to go to Portland.
Building height restrictions would have to be majorly changed. Some are speculating this proposal is just a way to get Portland to accept a much smaller building at the old Post Office location in the Pearl District.
I only offer this in the Seattle thread because the Portland thread has less than 1% participation of the Seattle thread.
But an interesting story has come into play. A proposal to build a twin tall complex that would eclipse Columbia Center, and equal SF's highest.
http://www.kgw.com/news/northwest-s-...and-/491661167
I doubt this will ever be built, and it seems to be somewhat a come-on to try and fight for Amazon HQ2, which has a slim chance to go to Portland.
Building height restrictions would have to be majorly changed. Some are speculating this proposal is just a way to get Portland to accept a much smaller building at the old Post Office location in the Pearl District.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
What developer are you referring to? So far there's a small architecture firm showing interest in a public property.
duplicate post
And those early renderings look VERY ugly. But it probably will not matter as Portland residents will never agree to increasing building heights to that extent either via vote or city council vote at their peril.
BTW, already 4X more posts in the Seattle thread than the Portland thread, where one of them is mine. Granted, a little harder to find Portland thread...go to West Coast, then sub-forums.
BTW, already 4X more posts in the Seattle thread than the Portland thread, where one of them is mine. Granted, a little harder to find Portland thread...go to West Coast, then sub-forums.
The Portland forum is very underused though. They divided things in separate forums and most topics simply get lost forever.
Same with SSP. I hate the format.
Its hard to imagine Portlanders accepting it, but hey its gorgeous. Seattle take note.
Will say, growing up and studying Architecture in Portland, this building/s will never happen. Ever since the 546' First National Bank tower went up in 1972, the city has had very strict building heights. This was to preserve the views of Mt. Hood from the close in west hills (where the wealthy old school money will always reside and want to block anything above 500').Its hard to imagine Portlanders accepting it, but hey its gorgeous. Seattle take note.
Not only that, but those buildings would look incredibly out of scale with the rest of downtown to the south. To give a comparison to Seattle, this would be like just after the Columbia Center went in, a 900+' building around a few 500 footers.
At least with mid-80's Seattle, CC was close to those other buildings. In Portland's case here, these buildings would be north in the Pearl District, surrounded by lower height buildings. Urban Design wise, it would totally out of scale with the surrounding buildings...Let alone the backlash from the Portland community!
At the least it's good to see Portland looking to go bigger to improve the skyline....IMO, it would be much better to see Ptd get at least one 600-700 footer near the mid blocks of downtown.
That's what I was referring to. It's a royal pain in the ass.Same with SSP. I hate the format.
Seattle went that way briefly on SSP too...that's when SSC became the Seattle go-to.
I don't mean to be a wet blanket here but both the narrator of the video and the Kavin fellow are wrong about the height of The Salesforce Tower in San Francisco. It's 1070 ft. tall, not 970, so this proposal for Portland would not be the tallest on the west coast of the United States. In fact, both the Wilshire Grand and the U.S. Bank Tower in LA measure in at well over 300m (984 ft.).Another link to the vid. I don't know - The developer has Urban Visions written all over his face. I'd peg him for a snowboard dealer.
That said, this proposal looks like a great boost for Portland's skyline.
I caught that too, but hes right when you are talking about highest usable floor or roof height. It is 970', the fancy crown puts it at 1070'. Also thats why US Bank is still taller then Wilshire and it would be at 968'. So they could make it taller in both cases. Its a debated issue of whether extensions should be counted as total height.I don't mean to be a wet blanket here but both the narrator of the video and the Kavin fellow are wrong about the height of The Salesforce Tower in San Francisco. It's 1070 ft. tall, not 970, so this proposal for Portland would not be the tallest on the west coast of the United States. In fact, both the Wilshire Grand and the U.S. Bank Tower in LA measure in at well over 300m (984 ft.).
That said, this proposal looks like a great boost for Portland's skyline.
And every once in a while some dope who never posts in our sub-forum will come in and demand we change to that format.That's what I was referring to. It's a royal pain in the ass.
Seattle went that way briefly on SSP too...that's when SSC became the Seattle go-to.
I'd be open to one sub-forum to serve as an archive for completed projects, but other than that, no thanks!
Anyway, I highly doubt this Portland project will ever get built.
To your point, the Wilshire Grand in LA is only taller than the U.S. Bank Tower because of the stick (I know, i know, it's technically a spire) attached to the roof.I caught that too, but hes right when you are talking about highest usable floor or roof height. It is 970', the fancy crown puts it at 1070'. Also thats why US Bank is still taller then Wilshire and it would be at 968'. So they could make it taller in both cases. Its a debated issue of whether extensions should be counted as total height.
I like the proposal and the rendering looks great, its time for Portland to shine.
I don't buy the argument of the height restriction is the main issue to create a denser downtown, when you look at Vancouver for example, a city with very strict height rule has a massive 30 plus stories highrise jungle in its city center, when there is a demand of condos the developers can build the concrete towers anywhere in the city.
I don't buy the argument of the height restriction is the main issue to create a denser downtown, when you look at Vancouver for example, a city with very strict height rule has a massive 30 plus stories highrise jungle in its city center, when there is a demand of condos the developers can build the concrete towers anywhere in the city.
Are you talking about SSP? SSC doesn't have a dedicated Portland area does it?The Portland forum is very underused though. They divided things in separate forums and most topics simply get lost forever.
I see this thread hasn't had much recent activity.
A few thoughts.
First, Portland should be congratulated for thinking big. Second, it likely won't happen, as others have said. There is too much opposition to supertalls in Portland by a very anti-growth (atleast when it comes to building heights) sentiment. I don't expect this to change anytime soon.
I love Portland, though I choose not to live there for various reasons. I like the general attitude of the city, but it is so different from Seattle when it comes to growth, it isn't even funny.
I recently did a survey of tall buildings in both cities (using built and under construction stats). This is kind of eye-opening...
Buildings over 800 feet: SEA 2, PDX 0
Buildings over 500 feet: SEA 19, PDX 4
Buildings over 400 feet: SEA 28, PDX 1
So, in essence, with buildings over 500 feet, Seattle has more than 4X the buildings in this category. In buildings over 400 feet, Seattle has 28X more than PDX. This is just weird to me, as the metro population of both cities is not that far apart. Further, this does not include Bellevue, which has an additional 5 buildings over 400 feet.
Disclaimer: Tall buildings do not make or break a city, but this uneven count is startling.
A few thoughts.
First, Portland should be congratulated for thinking big. Second, it likely won't happen, as others have said. There is too much opposition to supertalls in Portland by a very anti-growth (atleast when it comes to building heights) sentiment. I don't expect this to change anytime soon.
I love Portland, though I choose not to live there for various reasons. I like the general attitude of the city, but it is so different from Seattle when it comes to growth, it isn't even funny.
I recently did a survey of tall buildings in both cities (using built and under construction stats). This is kind of eye-opening...
Buildings over 800 feet: SEA 2, PDX 0
Buildings over 500 feet: SEA 19, PDX 4
Buildings over 400 feet: SEA 28, PDX 1
So, in essence, with buildings over 500 feet, Seattle has more than 4X the buildings in this category. In buildings over 400 feet, Seattle has 28X more than PDX. This is just weird to me, as the metro population of both cities is not that far apart. Further, this does not include Bellevue, which has an additional 5 buildings over 400 feet.
Disclaimer: Tall buildings do not make or break a city, but this uneven count is startling.
I see this thread hasn't had much recent activity.
A few thoughts.
First, Portland should be congratulated for thinking big. Second, it likely won't happen, as others have said. There is too much opposition to supertalls in Portland by a very anti-growth (atleast when it comes to building heights) sentiment. I don't expect this to change anytime soon.
I love Portland, though I choose not to live there for various reasons. I like the general attitude of the city, but it is so different from Seattle when it comes to growth, it isn't even funny.
I recently did a survey of tall buildings in both cities (using built and under construction stats). This is kind of eye-opening...
Buildings over 800 feet: SEA 2, PDX 0
Buildings over 500 feet: SEA 19, PDX 4
Buildings over 400 feet: SEA 28, PDX 1
So, in essence, with buildings over 500 feet, Seattle has more than 4X the buildings in this category. In buildings over 400 feet, Seattle has 28X more than PDX. This is just weird to me, as the metro population of both cities is not that far apart. Further, this does not include Bellevue, which has an additional 5 buildings over 400 feet.
Disclaimer: Tall buildings do not make or break a city, but this uneven count is startling.
The metro populations are far apart.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
SkyscraperCity Forum
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Katarzyna DJ
7540 Replies
calatravavx
2630 Replies
Srdjan Adamovic
1861 Replies
Recommended Communities
Join now to ask and comment!
