Talk:Orenco, Oregon

Buildings still standing?

The article states that a schoolhouse, general store etc are still standing. I drive through Orenco almost every day, and I have never seen such buildings. The oldest building in the area, as far as I can tell, was a farmhouse by the MAX line crossing, and it has since been torn down. Most of the old houses and rural land have been bought up by developers already, and the razing of older homes to make way for new condos continues today.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarevna (talk • contribs) 11:56, July 18, 2007

Update: I have found the general store, drug store, and old church. Recently some trees have been cut near the MAX line, revealing the fascade of the general store if you drive south on 231st. The old drug store is a house now, lived in, with a historic article in the window for pedestrians to read. The general store is closed, but also has an article in the window. These buildings reside on NW Alder. The church is on 228th. Tsarevna 12:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Old Orenco

Just to clarify, I live in the Orenco area where very few old buildings still remain alive. The very same area, is not within the geographical location of Orenco Station, actually the writer of the Article I believe is not aware of the old Orenco Area, as I believe this area is not recognized by its cultural and historical significance for the State of Oregon. But all understanding the lack of promotion of Old Orenco.

If you travel south to the light rail, Orenco is located at the east side of the light rail (MAX Station) coming from Orenco Station. The area still has centenary trees that we are working towards the protection. It is a very small community, the eight historic significant buildings are within 9 blocks, the 98 Centenary Elm Trees are as well located within the 9 blocks. If you have sometime drive around here.

Orenco Station was built in the farmer land of Orenco, not within its Old Town, the history still remains alive, but, the old school, the fire station and many other significant structures are gone, only the store The Mercantile is still alive (commercial building), the church as well, and few other houses that still remains with the signicant architectural styles. I hope one day you and your family will be able to witness what still remains of the history of Orenco. We are working hard to save the 9 blocks and working towards the best as possible promotion of the area, with the history facts that are real, based on factual information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermdee (talk • contribs) 14:00, August 12, 2007

There are many writers of this article, no one owns the article. But as a contributor to the article I will say that I used to live on the corner of Chestnut & 228th in a turn of the century home my parents re-modeled (I think we had 3 elms on the corner lot), that my dad as a kid attended the old Orenco school, my now former uncle was a fire fighter at the Hillsboro fire station on Dogwood, and as a kid I attended Sunday school a few times at the Prysbeterian Church when it was on Birch & 228th. All of this was before Orenco Station. Now, it is true that what was incorporated as Orenco was only a small section south of Cornell, mainly in the ABC streets, nd many consider "Orenco" to be that small section of square blocks. But the Oregon Nursery Company Land (whose history is intertwined) stretched as far north as what is now Evergreen Road, as far east as Cornelius Pass (minus the Imbrie Farm, as far south as Baseline with part of the property on the far side of the road, and as far west as what looks like 8 blocks beyond Shute Road. This is according to several maps in the Orenco Heritage Series, book 1. This area does include the new Orenco Station developments, including a small part of the Arbor Homes development. The incorporated section was a 640 acre square with Cornelius Pass as the eastern boundary, the old alignment of Cornell as the northern boundary (i.e what is now Walbridge), baseline as the southern boundary if Basline didn't dip south at 231st, and what would probably be about 237th on the west if that street existed. So the description in the article goes for the larger general area. But feel free to add sourced info that is properly cited as to what the incoporated city was as well as other encyclopedic info in a neutral point of view. Aboutmovies 16:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A couple things to keep in mind after looking at your posts elsewhere. First, Orenco is not just the Old Town. It is a former town and a current neighborhood. In fact it has been a former town far longer than it was a town, and over time it will be a neighborhood longer that that. So all three aspects need to be in the article, not just the 30 years it was a town. The second item, is that Wikipedia is not a place to "promote" the history. Wikipedia is not for promoting. It is for covering topics in an encyclopedic manner, but not for promoting the history of a town in hopes of preserving the town, which is how your posts are coming across to me. Hillsboro has a historical society and the city now has a Hillsboro Arts & Cultural Council. Those are the places to go to promote and advocate for preservation. As well as the NRHP. Which by the way any building on the national register can have an article. Try to cover the history of the area, not promote it. Aboutmovies 17:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked over the page that you linked, and it doesn't say that Wiki is not for promoting, only self-promoting is restricted. People contribute to Wiki articles because they like to discuss, and inform people about, whatever the subject matter is. That's promotion. The purpose of an encyclopedia is the promotion of facts. The preservation effort is an ongoing effort by the local community, and that's a fact. Not mentioning this or the reasons behind such a movement would be leaving an artificial void. Having an article about a bed and breakfast inn, where George Washington slept, and mentioning this, is a promotion, and also the statement of a fact. You can't separate the two; to not mention it because it's a promotion is just silly. As a solution, mention the "developement effort," and the purported benefits of bulldozing everything and making it all modern and shiny, and highlight the "preservation effort," and it's benefits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarevna (talk • contribs) 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Old Orenco

I am sorry I was not able to be following up the discussion about Orenco for the past two months, it happened for reasons beyond my control, but now, I am returning to the discussion to clarify some points. I believe if you give information as an encyclopedia, first of all you have the base the information on true facts, documentation, reliable resources of information, so, when I mentioned "promotion" I meant the following, if I am researching as I have been doing for the past three years, the resources will give me the basis for my research besides that the "promotion of history" is done through the encyclopedia, books and other documents.

To talk about Orenco is not simply talk about the small town, I believe first of all that Orenco is all about Oregon Nursery Company, here it is where the heritage history is factual. The history of Orenco starts in Salem, it does not start here in Washington County/Hillsboro (today's location). Orenco is not completely within Hillsboro jurisdiction, Orenco still has the unincorporated areas within Washington County jurisdiction, please refer to Washington County Maps for further information.

Oregon Nursery Company has a rich heritage and the problem I see is how the heritage has been divided as if each part of the area was a different history or the history of an specific area, the real town site became the history of new developments within the boundaries of the nursery. Believe that the heritage still alive should be respected is my concern, once, people that live around the old town site has no idea that such area is still here, as it's stated on the first topic on this discussion.

Washington County Historical Society has a lot of factual information on the Oregon Nursery Company history, the Book by Lou Hanberg has a complete coverage of the area since the begining in the early 1900's, Washington County Tax Assessment has maps, deeds and other revelant information about the area. An inventory of significant historic resources was prepared by Washington County around 1980's with the supervision of National Register of Historic Places - SHPO - Oregon.

The only concern I have is make sure that the name Orenco not only promote the Orenco Station area, as it has been done, but tells the history of Oregon Nursery Company, the development of the nursery, its importance to Oregon History and Heritage and yes, make sure the people who will come to research at Wikipedia will have accurate information based on historic facts, on factual documentation. This is the main concern I have at this point.

For your information, Hillsboro Historical Society does not have a complete inventory on Orenco's cultural resources, only the very few significant cultura resources that were annexed to the City of Hillsboro are part of the Hillsboro Historical Society, to know the complete significant cultural inventory, the interested parties shall be looking for Washington County Historical Society and Museum that makes available the entire documents for the works done circa 1980's. Besides Washington County Historical Society and Museum, Oregon Historical Society has a lot of information, Mr. Lou Hanberg has an enormous historic information, actually, he owes the original Orenco's Post Office Building. With this in mind is where I would like to help and have help to make sure we will make Oregon Nursery Company's history to be part of Oregon's heritage, respected and protected.

Hopefully this time I was able to make myself better understood. Ermdee 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I gently suggest that rather than try to convince us of the importance of the area's history on talk pages, you just go ahead and add your cited historical information to the article and Aboutmovies and I and any other experienced editors can make sure it conforms to our form and style guidelines? I think what Aboutmovies was getting at is to caution you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that any additions you make should deal with the factual history of Orenco and be worded neutrally. In other words, any controversy about preservation should be factually stated. I understand the importance of historic preservation (if I didn't, I wouldn't spend so much time on Wikipedia), and I think that simply adding a detailed and well-researched account of the area's history will go a long way to that end. In a nutshell: {{sofixit}}. See also Aboutmovies' suggestions here and my suggestions here. I hope that helps. P.S. If you like, we could set up a temporary sub page for you to work on your additions to the article. Katr67 16:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I see Katr beet me to WP:SOAP. But let me re-emphazie that. Since preservation is a poin of view, just be careful to not preach about it. Ditto with historic preservation for me. I support it, but that's my opinion. That's mainly because I have a degree in history. Those factors are why I'm one of the top contributors to Oregon history related articles along with Katr. I'm all for it, but remember this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and not a battle ground over preserving Orenco and not a place to try to keep the bulldozers away from the golf course. Katr and I are more than willing to help, but we are far more familiar with the ways Wikipedia work (even how to manipulate the system when needed) and all the guidelines and rules. So we can help you understand how to present your information so it doesn't get deleted or tagged with various templates. Lastly, just a note with all the research, be careful with original research too, say where you got it. And for the second time, I grew up in Orenco and nearby it, have the same Orenco Heritage book, went to Sunday school a few times at the Presbyterian before it moved, so I am very aware of the history. And though all of Orenco is not in Hillsboro, people would be fooling themselves if they don't think all of it will be within 10-15 years. As it is now, most of it is in the city, especially where the majority of people live (i.e. all the new packed in houseing compared to the generally larger lots in the ABC streets section). That's why they are building a second school. Aboutmovies 17:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Katr and Aboutmovies, if you can set up a temporary sub page it would help out for both of you to be taking a look and reviewing contents, adding more information, etc. The goal is not preach preservation but have more information on history, I do not think preaching preservation will help, it did not help up to this point, many others tried in vain. I just would like to see much more about Orenco available through an encyclopedia. I am particularly not against developments or developers, but I believe that history should be told to many generations even if the history will be gone with time. Thanks you both for the cooperation and the beautiful work you have been doing in Wikipedia. I will be taking a look on the page available, print and try to start doing some work within next couple days. Ermdee 15:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You can work on the article here: Orenco, Oregon/Temp. I'll put it on my watchlist. You can use Talk:Orenco, Oregon/Temp to ask us questions. Happy editing! Katr67 15:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken and understood thoroughly now. I shall strike-through my old comments as I wasn't completely clear on the preservation-soap-box/Orenco Station promotion controversy when I made them.Tsarevna (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations for expansion

• Nature park could grow from Orenco meadow, Hillsboro Argus, Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Here's one source for some additional info. Poking around the Internet, I can see that the preservation effort is a bit contentious, so there should be plenty more sources for expanding the article. Katr67 15:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)