Mt. Tabor: Architectural design concepts

Dozens of citizens attended Opsis presentation of the concepts, 8/2/08.

Dozens of citizens attended Opsis' presentation of the concepts, 8/2/08.

The Mt. Tabor Central Yard & Nursery Planning Group’s architect, Opsis, recently presented six draft “concepts” for our proposed redesign of the Mt. Tabor Central Yard and Nursery. These concepts are intended as resources as we work toward a final proposal.

Here, I have rendered the concepts using mapping software. This allows you to click on things to view notes, zoom in, etc. Hope this is a useful tool for evaluating and refining the concepts.

These are not yet complete; please let me know about any additions, corrections, or clarifications needed.

The percentages refer to the amount of program needs that are met by each approach; 6% is equivalent to 1 acre.

Concept A1

Concepts A1 and A2 look at what fits into 7 acres within a fence, with greenhouse/head house & container garden on upper nursery. They also consider the addition of a community garden in the Long Block, and improvements to open spaces. 84% of program needs met in A1.

[googlemapshttp://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&t=h&source=embed&s=AARTsJrJMjS6SxsrV3zP2rNgn3O6b26aaA&msa=0&msid=104579683373226522358.0004538029c78919762f4&z=17]

Concept A2

A2 is a variant which considers removal of the administration building (one of three “contributing structures” to the park’s historic designation). 89% of program needs met.

Concept B1

Concepts B1 and B2 look at building the parking structure or shop/storage space into the hillside, with landscaping pulled over the top. Area above could have greenhouse and container garden. 92% of program needs met.

Concept B2

B2 considers removal of administration building. 100% of program needs met.

Concept C1

Concepts C1 and C2 look at moving the greenhouse & container garden to different locations on the long block. Space on top of hillside could be community garden or open space. 96% of program needs met.

Concept C2

96% of program needs met.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Mt. Tabor: Architectural design concepts”

  1. 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.

  2. 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….)

  3. 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.

  4. […] 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.” […]

  5. Anna Richter Says:

    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!

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

  7. 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!

  8. Chris Beck Says:

    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.

  9. 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.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: