Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21f88daacf74af4

Jump to content

Talk:Portland Building

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by 75.164.179.189 in topic Goldberger's remark WAS negative

Expansion source

[edit]

The Oregonian. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://wweek.com/html/25-what.html -Pete (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Controversy

[edit]

The building remains controversial among Portlanders

There is/was a bus operator who referred to a stop for it as "..., Portlandia, the great ugly building it sits on" --Jason McHuff (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Only one name

[edit]

I have removed from the article the claim that "Portland Municipal Services Building" is an alternate name for the building, as was already done earlier for "Portland Public Services Building" (also claimed to be an alternative name for the Portland Building), due to lack of evidence. The Emporis listing is the article's only reference for this claim, and I do not believe that one reference is sufficient on its own to support including this statement in the article. Personally, Wikipedia is the only place I've ever seen this claim, but if someone else has reliable sources to support it, then feel free to re-add the statement, with citations. SJ Morg (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

i should think that the emporis reference is more reliable than one editor that doesn't concur. either way, there are google references found under the other name, and that is sufficient for a mention in the article, even if it's just for a cross-reference. --emerson7 02:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sources

[edit]

Goldberger's remark WAS negative

[edit]

"Not all commentary has been negative." begins the 4th paragraph under "Reception." But that quote by Goldberger is definitely negative. He said that our building's look drove other American architects back to classic architecture. So if you ever rewrite this section...  Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.179.189 (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply