Comments on: Mt. Tabor: Architectural design concepts

By: Pete Forsyth

Pete Forsyth — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:19:23 +0000

Okay, what the heck? These maps used to work so well, but now they are all borked. Needs some fixing. (Not that this is in any way relevant anymore, now that we approved a $90 billion plan that will never fly anyway.)

By: Chris Beck

Chris Beck — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:08:15 +0000

Every public agency making land use decisions ought to use this google map tool to help the public and decision makers in processing proposals. We have the technology. We ought to use it. Maybe this can be a model for future park planning, land use decisions, etc.

By: Pete Forsyth

Pete Forsyth — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:52:36 +0000

Thanks guys -- this is definitely a work in progress, still to make sure it's all an accurate reflection of what Opsis presented. Very gratified to hear you find the format helpful. Hope to see you both/all at WikiWednesday tomorrow night!

By: Bram Pitoyo

Bram Pitoyo — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:46:52 +0000

To me, these GMaps overlays are clearer than maps that were put up on the board, offline (ie. http://twurl.cc/3go) – thank you!

By: Anna Richter

Anna Richter — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:24:12 +0000

didn’t know you were working in my neighborhood! nice work – i’ll have to look closer at the projects. always running by the current nursery. cool to see you a part of this project!

By: Maps: what we need for conversations? at Amy Sample Ward’s Version of NPTech

Maps: what we need for conversations? at Amy Sample Ward’s Version of NPTech — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:00:01 +0000

[...] Pete Forsyth, a good friend of mine, has been working in his neighborhood of Portland, OR, on a year-long planning process for a redesign of Portland Parks & Recreation’s central maintenance facility and nursery. The architect involved recently presented six concept plans as reference points during the proposal development. Pete took these concept plans and mapped them out using Google Maps, and posted them for the community’s use as conversations and decision-making takes place building the proposal. As Pete explains, “These concepts make it possible for the public to see the current status of our work, and some of the directions we’re moving in. The Google Map format gives them a friendly presentation, that allows the viewer to click on an object to see notes relevant to it, etc.” [...]

By: Pete Forsyth

Pete Forsyth — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:44:32 +0000

Good questions, Mom. As far as I know, we have not yet looked at the respective costs; I suspect you’re right about C1, but don’t know for a fact.

One big issue, which applies to all the concepts but especially C, is how much open green space is preserved. By moving the container garden, greenhouse, and hort. services building up to the Long Block, both of the C options impact existing open space more strongly than the other plans. There is a strong desire to keep program use within the existing footprint, which is not entirely accomplished by any of these designs.

The significance of the Administration building is as a contributing structure to the park’s historic designation. The activities currently housed within it will have homes — expanded homes — under any of these designs; the question is simply how much of a priority it is to preserve this (somewhat) historic structure in its entirety.

By: Martha

Martha — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:30:00 +0000

I can’t pretend to evaluate the respective merits of each of these, but I’ll bet that C1 (which meets 100% of need) has some glaring drawback….either it’s way wicked expensive, or – what happens in the Administration building, that would be left homeless if the building is torn down?

(The maps themselves are way cool! I think I need to know how to do this. ‘Xcept that, for me, it’s probably a needless time-sink….)

By: Pete Forsyth

Pete Forsyth — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:03:53 +0000

P.S. The source material for these Google Maps consisted of the large boards Opsis provided (like this one, and the minutes from our last Planning Group meeting.