Reuse or Recylce the Tower of Power
The Office
Should we save this 190 foot tower? It's a soon-to-be former transmission tower on Ross Island, which we're thinking could be fitted with stained glass and reused as a monument. Look at upclose photos here. What do you think?
Posted by The Office on May 30, 2006
(17) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Arts & Culture, Livability & Environment
Comments by site visitors
Maybe there's a functional use for the tower at some sort of bird sanctuary or wildlife refuge. Why not get a functional use out of this well built structure, instead of enclosing it?
Posted by: mary | May 30, 2006 9:27:28 PM
For some there will always be something more inportant to spend mney on than art and culture. This is a cool structure from what I could tell on my bus ride home over the Ross Island bridge. Save it iff you can... Thanks for asking.
Posted by: Jannie Belton | May 30, 2006 10:25:56 PM
Has the city investigated generating income from this tower by leasing space on it to cellular & wireless network providers? There seems to be continuing demand for space on towers.
Is there a nearby resident or facility who would like to mount a wind generator on it? The actual cost of the turbine and power conversion equipment is pretty small compared to what it'd cost to set up a tower there ... and i suspect there's a decent breeze off the Willamette.
Once that income stream and power source is there, you could install a cool-looking lighted beacon in the upper section of it, visible from shore and the Ross Island Bridge. (Or maybe not -- where is this tower, exactly? If it becomes a monument, where will we see it from? Could you give us some google map coordinates?)
It's sure a gorgeous piece of architecture. The photoset describes it as "decaying" ... has the thing got hidden maintenance costs? Steel towers can last forever if they get regular paint.
Fitting it with stained glass sounds like a big, costly art project -- possibly very cool, though. But really, if the desire is to make it a piece of public art, you should have a call for proposals with a strictly limited budget. I can imagine cheaper solutions.
Also, there's a some engineering questions with stained glass -- it's going to add to the weight and wind drag of the tower, which the tower might or might not be built to withstand -- you need a structural engineer's signoff for any added weight greater than the weight that's coming off. And once you get the glass up there, you've got to maintain it against damage from hail, birds, bullets, etc. The more glass, the higher the maintenance. Glass may also make the structure harder to paint.
Blah blah blah, I talk too much. To summarize: beautiful tower, ought to be saved, probably still useful in many ways, and stained glass doesn't seem like the right solution to me but i'm sure there is one. And if there truly is no other solution, let me go deconstruct it -- i always wanted a 190-foot tower.
Posted by: mykle | May 30, 2006 10:43:03 PM
Beauty is really in the eye of the beholder and I think it's really ugly. I don't see any reason to save it, unless it's cheaper to do something with it. Do something better with that money. I say scrap metal.
Posted by: Isaac | May 31, 2006 2:02:53 AM
Mounument to what? I don't get this idea at all. It's highest and best use seems to be as scrap metal.
Posted by: David DeMarkey | May 31, 2006 2:42:27 PM
"Has the city investigated generating income from this tower by leasing space on it to cellular & wireless network providers?"
Second the inquiry question, if we can generate enough "rental fee" to pay the up-keep, liability go for it. Would be nice if the rental would cover the cost of the adding a "Portland Beacon" to the tower to compete with the White Stag. Heck, maybe we can power the beacon with solar panels.
Posted by: Bryan H. Ackler | May 31, 2006 3:52:54 PM
How about using it as the upper station for the tram?? (Sorry, I couldn't resist that)
Seriously though, scrap the steel. It's just a freakin' powerline tower for Pete's sake. It's not going to be worth the money, liability, and maintenance requirements to keep this.
Posted by: Larry | Jun 1, 2006 8:46:45 AM
Stained glass? Is this an idea from a stained glass salesman? Or an idea from stained glass artist looking for a commission? The tower is ugly...it's old ugly steel...sell it for scrap.
Posted by: Tracy | Jun 1, 2006 11:25:26 AM
If the tower is too fragile for wind generation, can it be used safely for anything else? A training/climbing tower for rescue teams?
Posted by: Mary Davis | Jun 1, 2006 3:15:05 PM
Is this tower located on Ross Island Sand & Gravel or City property? If it was included within the land grant that RIS&G returned to Portland, could they not be partly liable for demo/refurb costs?
Posted by: Kip Larson | Jun 5, 2006 8:40:33 PM
Sam?
Did you smoke a lot of pot as a child?
Come on dude, get on the train, this idea reeks of bad reefer.
Posted by: Adron | Jun 6, 2006 9:39:41 PM
City Owned bungee jumping!
If we are able to assume skate park liability, why not a city owned bungee jumping tower?
Or, we could auction if off on Ebay, zoned for advertising (no human occupancy allowed).
The stained glass idea was a joke, right?
Posted by: Gecko | Jun 6, 2006 10:19:08 PM
it would be cool if an artist wants to do it for free with donated materials. but i don't think city resources should go into it.
Posted by: jami | Jun 7, 2006 3:53:34 PM
My vote is for saving the tower - though I agree that the stained glass idea may not be the best option.
In a city with limited history (we are only 150 years old after all) I believe its important to keep the history we actually have.
The wind turbine or solar panel ideas would be great...although I'd rather stay away from advertising. I say make it functional and beautiful!
Btw, Adron, I don't get the connection between cannabis and Sams idea. Care to explain that one?
Posted by: nathan | Jun 8, 2006 5:01:51 AM
My vote is for saving the tower - though I agree that the stained glass idea may not be the best option.
In a city with limited history (we are only 150 years old after all) I believe its important to keep the history we actually have.
The wind turbine or solar panel ideas would be great...although I'd rather stay away from advertising. I say make it functional and beautiful!
Btw, Adron, I don't get the connection between cannabis and Sams idea. Care to explain that one?
Posted by: nathan | Jun 8, 2006 5:04:03 AM
I think it's a great idea to give the tower a second life. Too often in our society, we hastily discard objects that have served their purpose only to have future generations mourn their loss. How would Portlanders feel if past leaders had decided to replace the Hawthorne Bridge? The tower may not be on the same level of historical heritage as a our bridges, but we need to remember that what one person considers "ugly", another finds beautiful.
Posted by: Leland | Jun 8, 2006 10:40:46 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
If you really want to raise money for something, I can think of many more lasting and important things this city and its citizens need. I don't get this. Not at all.
Posted by: A | May 30, 2006 9:01:57 PM