Portland Architecture

Memorial Coliseum update: National Register and more baseball pressure

2009-07-14T10:19:26-07:00

Last week the Memorial Coliseum received a huge lift to its preservation effort. As Oregon Public Broadcasting first reported, the building received unanimous approval from the state historic preservation office in its nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

The nomination was forwarded by local architect Peter Meijer, one of the Friends of Memorial Coliseum. And part of its unanimous approval comes from support for the building's preservation from organizations like the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the US Green Building Council, and the American Institute of Architects.

Although Memorial Coliseum still must be approved at the national level for final listing on the National Register, the national level rarely, if ever, rejects the recommendations at the state or local level. In all likelihood the Coliseum will be listed officially this fall. That will make it much more difficult, although still not impossible, for it to be demolished. And the National Register can not be swayed by mere political will or fancy - only the good of architecture.

Which is a good thing, because two pieces in today's Oregonian raise the ugly specter of demolishing the building once again.

I want to be careful about addressing Steve Duin's column, because Steve is my favorite Oregonian writer and someone I have a lot of respect and admiration for.

But reading his column, "Coliseum still the future of baseball", I was gravely disappointed. It seemed like Commissioner Randy Leonard had a conversation with Steve and Steve was taking notes. There are ample quotes from Leonard, who makes sport once again of crass, ignorant name calling of this historic building, such as "a really good looking Costco." The only other quote in the story is from urban naturalist Mike Houck, who expresses surprise that the Coliseum was taken off the table in favor of Lents Park, the greenspace he seeks to defend.

So in other words, Duin did not speak to anyone on the opposing side. In fact, he never has. Duin apparently is not a fan of, or does not appreciate, modern architecture. That's fair enough. I am not a fan of, and do not appreciate, country music. But as a journalist, I'd argue that he has a responsibility to at least hear out the other side. Out of all the Coliseum supporters I've talked to, none of them have ever spoken with Steve Duin. Of course he writes a column, not news reports, so perhaps he's not beholden to the notion that you have to get both sides of the story. Still, for someone who has been a terrific columnist for so long, I expect more than merely resorting to name calling and closing one's ears to the complete argument.

Duin also implies that Mayor Sam Adams is the only one holding up the Coliseum from being razed so a baseball stadium can be built there. And he outright accuses the supporters of only being "a plucky bunch of architects". It's a nice rhetorical device: he's trying to isolate Coliseum supporters and make us look smaller than we are. But it's not the truth. It isn't merely a bunch of architects working to save the Coliseum. Our effort has included neighborhood leaders, people from the arts community, and people who don't fit any particular categorization but just want to see the building saved.

By the way, if you are one of the non-architect supporters of the Coliseum reading this, please consider writing Steve Duin, at steveduin@news.oregonian.com, to let him know you are out there and his lazy stereotype of only architects working to save the building is untrue.

The Oregonian's editorial board also weighed in on the Coliseum, and they too are not exactly model preservationists. But the board actually had more of a measured tone. They argue that the Coliseum needs a purpose, and that it shouldn't sit in disrepair. Absolutely right! Even Coliseum preservationists and the Friends of Memorial Coliseum don't want the building to remain status-quo. It needs a renovation and a clearer purpose, no question. That's what will come out of the citizens advisory committee and the public process for Memorial Coliseum happening this fall.

What we already know is this: shoehorning a baseball stadium into the Rose Quarter site does very little to resolve the issues this site has faced since its inception. This is a suburban solution in one of our most important urban settings.

I've written a lot of angry rhetoric in the last couple months about Memorial Coliseum, and feel no desire to go on the warpath today. No accusing Steve Duin of being Marcus Brutus, no calling Leonard an Ernest clone, and no characterizing the editorial board as philistines. Even so, it saddens me greatly that these clearly informed, intelligent, veteran journalists don't understand the value of landmark contemporary architecture, a building that is treasured by the community and has international recognition and renown. Of course, this is the same struggle that all of Portland's most treasured historic buildings and places once faced: the Pittock Mansion, the Ladd Carriage House, the Skidmore Historic District. Hopefully the Coliseum can ultimately outlive the jaws of the present to continue its history.

For those interested in joining and supporting the Friends of Memorial Coliseum, we will have a website up and running soon, and will have a lot more to say and to show this community about the majority that supports the Coliseum's preservation.

Upcoming talks: Oregon Sustainability Center (at Bright Lights tonight), Cavenaugh & 14 Parcels (Designs on Portland this Thursday)

2009-07-13T11:55:20-07:00

Wow, that was such a long title to the post I practically don't even need to write anything here. But here goes:

Tonight at Jimmy Mak's jazz club, Portland Monthly and Portland Spaces editor Randy Gragg will be talking with Dennis Wilde of Gerding Edlen Development and Ralph DiNola of Green Building Services about the Oregon Sustainability Center.

If Mark Edlen is the leader of Gerding Edlen, Wilde may be its spiritual heart. He's the green building guru at a development company that has made its name on sustainable developments like the Brewery Blocks and various South Waterfront towers.

DiNola, meanwhile, has long been one of the city's foremost green building specialists. He's not the architect who designs LEED-rated projects like EcoTrust, but DiNola's Green Building Services team has provided the expertise to make them a reality, with over 100 LEED-rated projects and counting.

The Oregon Sustainability Center seeks to become the first highrise 'living building' in the world, a 200,000-square-foot urban office structure with a zero carbon footprint, generating all of its own power and processing all of its own waste on-site. But, as the Bright Lights email teaser says, "Already the project is meeting major challenges, from economics (the first-draft design's curving form is being squared off to be built more cheaply) to aesthetics (local design aficionados have attacked it on the blogs)." To give you an idea of the research going into this project, here is a diagram of the thinking that went into the windows alone:

The Bright Lights talk begins at 6PM at Jimmy Mak's, 221 NW 10th Avenue. If you can't make it for the OSC talk, consider trying venerable jazz drummer Mel Brown later in the week.

Meanwhile, this Thursday brings the latest in the Designs On Portland discussion series: a talk with designer-developer Kevin Cavenaugh about the innovative 14 Parcels development he's been putting together just south of downtown. On a hilly site just a few hundred feet from the Interstate 5 overpass, Cavenaugh is coordinating a development of what is now 17 different residences by 14 different designers. And the roster is a real who's who of talented Portland architects as well as an intriguing mix of out-of-towners.

Among those signed on to design units in the 14 Parcels development are local firms/architects such as Skylab, Works Partnership, Architecture W, Mark Holmquist (his project is pictured at the top of the post), and Paul McKean, as well as Cavenaugh himself. Also included are award-winning Los Angeles architect Larry Scarpa, Phoenix architect Will Bruder, Vienna-based firm ID Design, Boston firm Single Speed Design, Sao Paulo firm SPBR, and even a pair of husband-wife architects from Managua, Nicaragua: Joachin and Linda Mendoza. Here is a rendering of one of the projects, ID Design's "Two Kings and a Golf Ball" project at 14 Parcels:

What's more, in the worst economic climate since the Great Depression, 14 Parcels is poised to go forward when most larger condo and apartment projects have been shelved. This is a great example of wonderful design ingenuity happening at a grassroots level in Portland - literally.

Although Kevin Cavenaugh wants to have this talk be mostly devoted to 14 Parcels and the other designers involved, I also love hearing about what Kevin himself is up to. Although not technically a registered architect, he is the ultimate manifestation of architecture and development coming together in one Portlander, having put together past projects like the Box + One Lofts on SE 28th and Ankeny, The Rocket at SE 11th and Burnside, and the AIA Award-winning Ode To Rose's building on NE Fremont. I also wrote about Kevin for a Metropolis magazine 2004 cover story entitled "Architects: How to find the perfect developer - Hire yourself!" Here's a brief exerpt:

Three years ago, 25-year-old Portland architectural intern Kevin Cavenaugh was getting discouraged trying to work his way up the ladder of a large firm. "I realized that even if an ideal client arrived to hire us, I wouldn't be the shoulder that got tapped to work on the project," he recalls. Then, Cavenaugh got an influential pep talk from his wife. "She said to me, 'How much harder is it for you to do what your clients do? You should just hire yourself.'"
Cavenaugh soon began sending lunch invites to some of the developers he'd sat across the conference table from at work. "I'd say, 'What's a pro forma? What does cap rate mean?' I think they thought it was kind of cute."
Before long, Cavenaugh had taken out a loan, procured a site, and begun construction on a three-story mixed-use building with retail below and housing above. At just $107 a square foot, the palette was rough: concrete floors, sheetrock, and garage-like rollup glass doors. But Cavenaugh used this to his advantage, designing with a poetic simplicity that earned critical praise and attracted what would become the city's hottest wine bar.
When the contractor's budget came in too high, Cavenaugh spotted an $8,000 line item for hauling off debris as a way to cut costs. I said, 'I'll do that,'" he laughs. "At first the contractor said, 'No, you can't.' And I said, 'This is almost not going to be a project. If you want it to be a project, I'm going to do that.' So I had an old beat up Chevy truck, and every Friday I'd cruise over and fill it up with all the debris."

Thursday's Designs On Portland talk begins at 6PM at Design Within Reach, at 1200 NW Everett on the ground floor of the Wieden + Kennedy building in the Pearl District.

Elvis, Pele and Willie Stargell: a short history of PGE Park

2009-07-11T12:45:59-07:00

Aaron Fentress has a fun piece in the Sports section of today's Oregonian (the section I always read first): a timeline of major events, both sports and non-sports related, held at PGE Park.

Events were first held on the grounds here in 1893, but it was more officially christened as a stadium, Multnomah Stadium, in 1926, from a design by renowned Portland architect A.E. Doyle. In the 1930s, it was a popular spot for greyhound racing. In the 1950s, the Portland Beavers moved there from their stadium on Vaughn Street. And that's just the start, my friends.

Here is Fentress's timeline for the stadium, with a few parenthetical notes of my own:

1908: Oregon and Oregon Agricultural College (later Oregon State) meet in a football game on the field for the first time. (Brian's note: OAC was unofficially known as "Moo U.")
1909: Steel grandstands are built and President William H. Taft visits with 20,000 school children. (Brian's note: Taft, history's fattest US president, reportedly takes up an entire row of seats.)
1923: Years after more seating is added, President Warren G. Harding appears for a speech. (Brian's note: this was on the heels of Harding's "Teapot Dome" scandal. The Sam Adams of his time?)
1930: The University of Oregon football team beats Washington 7-0 before a record crowd of 35,266. (Brian's note: Go Ducks! And as my dad often says, Huck the Fuskies!)
1931: Former heavyweight boxing champion Jack Dempsey spars with four opponents in a series of two-round exhibitions. (Brian's note: Randy Leonard was not involved.)
1935: First NFL exhibition game is played at the stadium between the New York Giants and the Chicago Cardinals. (Brian's note: It's a little known fact the Cardinals have been based in 34 different cities.)
1948: A crowd of 8,000 turns out for a show featuring Bing Crosby and Bob Hope. (Brian's note: The show undoubtedly must have been called "The Road to Portland" - and sponsored by Texaco.)

1955: During an exhibition, the Los Angeles Rams defeat the New York Giants 23-17 in first NFL overtime game. (Brian's note: the Rams were led by former Oregon Ducks quarterback and future Hall of Famer Norm Van Brocklin.)
1957: Elvis Presley performs a concert in the infield before 14,600. (Brian's note: It's somehow fitting, although in a way I can't pinpoint, that The Beatles played Memorial Coliseum and Elvis played the stadium.)
1958: Willie Mays leads the San Francisco Giants against the Beavers in an exhibition game. (Brian's note: Say hey!)
1974: The Portland Storm in the first year, the Portland Thunder the next, bring the World Football League to the stadium. (Brian's note: where can I get a Portland Thunder t-shirt?)
1977: In soccer star Pele's last professional game, the New York Cosmos beat the Seattle Sounders 2-1 in front of 35,548 in the North American Soccer League's championship game. (Brian's note: the annoying tradition of single-named Brazilian soccer players began soon after.) The photo below was provided by reader Stephen Himes, whose father snapped the picture of Pele playing at the actual Civic Stadium game.

1980: The 1979 World Series champion Pittsburgh Pirates play an exhibition game against the Beavers, drawing 26,912, a year after Pirates slugger Willie Stargell slammed a ball onto the balcony of the Multnomah Athletic Club during a home run contest before an exhibition game. (Brian's note: Aaron - why not just note the 1979 Stargell homer game instead of the 1980 game?)

1985: Another short-lived professional football league, the United States Football League with the Portland Breakers, calls the stadium home and draws crowds approaching 20,000. But, alas, the league lasts only one season. (Brian's note: Go Marcus Dupree! The only Oklahoma Sooner I ever liked. And the Breakers' best jhery curl.)
1992: Evangelist Billy Graham holds a five-day event that draws nearly a quarter-million people.
1997: In the first of a series of matches related to the World Cup, the U.S. men's soccer team defeats Costa Rica 1-0 in front of 27,396.
1999: The U.S. women's soccer team beats Canada 4-2 in front of 23,325 in its final game before the World Cup.
2002: San Diego Padres and Seattle Mariners play an exhibition game in front of 19,778. (Brian's note: fans expecting to see future Hall of Famers Ken Griffey Jr., Alex Rodriguez and Randy Johnson are disappointed. But at least it's the major leagues.)
2003: Three doubleheaders are held during the 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup.

I also remember attending another somewhat historic baseball game Fentress didn't mention. In 1983, fresh off winning the World Series against Baltimore, the Philadelphia Phillies played an exhibition against the Beavers. I remember excitedly watching the team's two Hall of Fame stars, Mike Schmidt and Pete Rose, competing for the Phillies. (Yes, I know Rose is not technically in the Hall, but obviously if not for the gambling he'd have been in Cooperstown on the first ballot.) But my greatest excitement was reserved for relief pitcher Tug McGraw, he of the sparkle-covered cleats. However, if I'd known he'd be responsible for country music star Tim McGraw, my allegiances might have been different.

In the controversy over MLS coming to Portland and necessitating a Beavers move to another stadium, with Memorial Coliseum becoming threatened along the way, we may have lost sight of the architecture of PGE Park and how it will change. Although the stadium has lots of history, it's never been an esteemed work of architecture. Portland Timbers and Beavers owner Merritt Paulson has the chance to bring the stadium a great design. And while I think that will be achieved when it comes to fan amenities and experiences -- seats close to the field, more luxurious concourses -- I'm not sure if there's anything about the design itself that will excite people. (Initial plans have been drawn up by Kansas City-based Ellerbe Becket, one of the nation's largest and most prolific stadium designers. They also did the Autzen Stadium expansion.) But there's still time for that to change.

A rant against clearcutting

2009-07-10T12:15:49-07:00

A few weeks ago I spent a weekend at the Oregon Coast. While driving west on highway 26 through the Coast Range toward Cannon Beach and Seaside, I was appalled at the amount of forest that had been clearcut. From the road one could see thousands of acres of rolling hills in the Tillamook and Clatsop forests where there had recently been healthy ecosystems, now decimated to be as bare as Samson's scalp. I wondered if it was my imagination that more clearcutting seemed to be apparent than in the recent past.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying state forests can't be logged. After all, I'm writing this from a wood-framed building stocked with lots of wood furniture. If I could, I'd replace my vinyl linoleum floors with a nice wood parquet for that Boston Garden effect. I'd replace my ratty recliner with a wood-backed Eames chair.

But it turns out I was on to something when it comes to the Tillamook and Clatsop forests and the debate over just what their purpose is: an industrial tree farm or a natural wonder.

Earlier this year, the Oregon Board of Forestry moved toward a new policy on the Tillamook and Clatsop forests, voting to boost the cut on state forests. Apparently this came after demands from the Legislature and from Tillamook and Clatsop counties for more logging and timber revenues.

Increasing logging was just the start, though. The Board of Forestry also launched an effort to rewrite its definition of the "greatest permanent value" of the state forests as being timber production. This contradicts the existing definition: " healthy, productive and sustainable forest ecosystems that over time and across the landscape provide a full range of social, economic and environmental benefits to the people of Oregon."

What is this, the Dark Ages? Or, as a recent Oregonian editorial said, "Oregon's state forests are not tree farms."

Granted the people of rural Oregon have been hit hard in the last 20 years by declining timber production and revenue. It's understandable to want to bring more jobs back to logging towns like Vernonia, Mill City, and Willamina. Even so, cutting down every tree in sight is a matter of cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Oregon's forests are bountiful enough to provide plenty of timber that is logged sustainably. We don't need scorched-earth tactics in order to get this job done. And while this should not be an either-or choice of ecosystems and beauty versus economics and jobs, it's not merely empty romanticism to look at the forests from a speeding car and lament the devastation. It's not just loggers and logging companies that have a stake in Oregon's forest, but every Oregonian. And I'm quite confident that if you polled every resident of this state, the case for massive clearcutting would be sawed and felled in no time.

An architectural tragedy: Riverdale has been destroyed [updated]

2009-07-09T11:21:42-07:00

It is a sad day for architecture and history in Portland. Riverdale Grade School, which carries the pedigree of having beee designed by the two most acclaimed architects in the city's history (A.E. Doyle and Pietro Belluschi), and a school that generations of Portlanders have attended, is no more. In a blaze of bulldozing, Riverdale was leveled like Dresden in World War II. Today all that stands at the corner of Military Road and Breyman Avenue is a pile of rubble. (The pictures used here were provided by architectural historian Libby Farr, Ph.D.)

The board at Riverdale that pushed through the demolition, in order to build a gargantuan new school (the style of which is a trite caricature - faux Riverdale on steroids), are not bad people. They think they're doing the right thing for the community and the students. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to live forever with their irreversible folly.

Historic preservation is never the easy route. Preserving and expanding the original Riverdale building might have been more expensive. It might have required more innovative thinking on the part of architect and client. But it didn't have to come to this. Riverdale could have been a model for historic preservation, which is also a key principle of sustainability. Instead, the stench of this deed is reeking all the way from the district's tony Dunthorpe locale up the Willamette and throughout the city.

"It's a shame the children of Riverdale have been denied the opportunity to learn that preservation and building a sustainable future go hand-in-hand," wrote Steve Jewell of the Preserve Riverdale campaign in an email today. "Riverdale has become a 'throwaway' community, in stark contrast to our traditions and community values. Regrettably, the 'bigger and newer is better' crowd holds the upper hand and has now destroyed the iconic symbol of our community's values and traditions."

Jewell and friends are at least up to one last bit of protest. Back in 1988, many Riverdale community members purchased individually inscribed bricks to help raise funds for a restoration campaign. The school has pledged to use those bricks in the new school building subsequently being constructed, in order to honor the memory of the previous building. But preservation supporters have arranged with Riverdale to allow individuals who bought a brick back in 1988 to have the brick returned to them upon request, instead of having it used in the new school.

I wish more could have been done to save this poor wonderful schoolhouse. Not to go all Oskar Schindler on you, but certainly I could have done more. The City could have done more. The architecture and historic preservation communities could have done more. But in the end, if you can't convince the building owner of the value of his or her historic property, it is a very difficult uphill battle.

Even so, what can we do to at least make Riverdale a wakeup call for Portland? How can we strengthen lax preservation laws that allowed this to happen, or galvanize the community of sane people who opposed such destruction?

For starters, Portland has not updated its historic buildings inventory in more than 20 years. City Council could be committing funds to creating an updated list of buildings in this city worth protecting, and then put some teeth into their protection. We also need to look at the freedom this district had to self-immolate without much of any buy-in needing to be secured from the rest of the city. Shouldn't destroying a historic Portland school be a little harder? And we need, apparently, to educate both children and (especially) their parents about the value of historic buildings and our collective responsibility to preserve and protect them.

Meanwhile, no amount of good wishes will bring back Riverdale from the dead. The city will recover from this wound, just like we did when past historic treasures were leveled. But hopefully those at Riverdale will never forget the sobering destruction they have perpetrated.

UPDATE: Many have noted from the photos here that the building was not torn down in a way that allowed for proper salvaging of the building materials. Although some supporting Riverdale's efforts have written in promising that salvaging will happen, I wanted to highlight this comment from Nigel Barnes, who runs the architectural salvage department at Rejuvenation ~~The Rebuilding Center~~:

"I can tell anyone who doubts it that this demolition was obviously done in a blitzkrieg style, with little, if any, consideration for materials re-use. They may perhaps have saved a few "prestige" pieces, like the lanterns, fancier windows, and cornerstones, but clearly the majority was simply smashed and will be completely wasted."

Contrary to that comment is one from an anonymous commenter called Enough Already, who seems to be writing with the inside knowledge of the Riverdale board. This commenter's most recent entry, defending the demolition, ended by simply saying, "This was about doing what was right for the kids." Enough Already went on to accuse preservationists of choosing a building as more important than the students attending. As I write this, I suddenly feel unable and unmotivated to come up with a witty or even angry retort. All I can say is the mindset here is as sad as the blitzkreig we see in these photos.

TriMet's Willamette bridge: have to admit it's getting better?

2009-07-07T16:30:53-07:00

The Beatles once sang on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, "I have to admit it's getting better/a little better, all the time/can't get no worse!" And now Jeff Jahn of the PORT blog (and many other local visual art curatorial and artistic endeavors), after attending the recent July 2 meeting of the Willamette River Bridge Advisory Committee, reports that a likable new design may be emerging from a process that once seemed like it could be doomed to deliver mediocrity.

The last time the WRBAC had met, I attended the meeting and, because it followed the selection of Donald MacDonald over Miguel Rosales (designer of the then best bridge prototype in the process, the "hybrid"), was concerned that TriMet, the client, was going the route of mediocre design in order to meet budget concerns and project timelines. The Rosales hybrid prototype seemed much more original and elegant than the Arthur Ravenel cable stay bridge that McDonald had done in South Carolina, for example.

But at last week's WRBAC meeting, MacDonald's team unveiled a new prototype that may give us reason for greater optimism. "I think I saw the light at the end of the tunnel," Jahn wrote after seeing the new "A" prototype (pictured above). It has inwardly canted towers, but slightly so - not the V shape that had served as an earlier prototype. The bridge also has wide bike and pedestrian paths around the tower, cantilevered over the water dramatically.

The "A" prototype also includes, somewhat strangely, a waterfall feature in the middle of the span part of a protective enclosure. I like the enclosure idea - a place to catch your breath and enjoy the view even in the rain. The water feature could either be wonderfully iconic or it could be absurd and trite, depending on the execution.

"Of course everything you see here is very preliminary but what we do know for sure is that this new multi-use bridge (transit, pedestrian, cycling) will be a refinement of the modern cable stay design," Jahn adds. "Also, with bike and pedestrian lanes on both the north and south sides it has a shot at being the best (and only) bike, pedestrian and mass transit span in US."

The "V" tower, pictured below, is still an option (and there are multiple versions within that option), but it seemed to find less favor at the WRBAC meeting. There is also option "E" with its steel towers, but it brings extra cost and risk that TriMet is unlikely to favor. Option A, meanwhile, was given go ahead for additional design development.

"My take is that Rosales hybrid and wave frame were partly an appeal to Portlanders' sense of humility," Jahn told me by email. "Which is fine but this is a nation leading project and why not take credit for once? The A design, especially with the four observation areas, will tend to provide greater interaction with the water and less cables so it is cleaner visually than the hybrid. MacDonald also appears to be at the forefront of bicycle and pedestrian accommodations." Here is another shot of the "A" prototype:

"Until the Esplanade the city has somewhat turned its back on the Willamette and that needs to change," Jahn added. "This bridge should address that. Both the Hybrid and the A are muscular enough to stand up to the Marquam (may it be torn down in my lifetime) but I think the A puts a greater emphasis on a lighter above deck superstructure. I also think the inwardly canted towers will improve the cycle/pedestrian experience and make the A design less stumpy than the hybrid. Mass transit is an aspirational thing for most cities so implying a vertical point somewhere above the bridge is a nice iconic idea. It's going to be an image a lot of other cities will aspire to."

Now if you'll excuse me, that Sgt. Pepper reference has given me an insatiable urge to go listen to the record.

Portland Monthly story celebrates new architects generation

2009-07-06T11:26:54-07:00

The new issue of Portland Monthly includes a feature by Amara Holstein arguing that "a new generation of young architects is reaching beyond the expected to blend high density, sustainability, and thrift into a bolder breed of Portland building. At last."

Holstein begins with a look at the new Ziba Design headquarters in the Pearl District (rendered above), designed by Holst Architecture and set to complete construction this summer. (Rick Potestio and Mahlum Architects were the initial designers.) "This plum commision is the payoff of seventeen years of architetural ladder-climbing, rung by rung, from restaurant remodels and office renovations to townhouses and condos," adds Holstein, a former Dwell magazine editor.

"But well beyond being a measure of any one firm's success, the new Ziba headquarters is merely the most prominent in a collection of fresh, dynamic buildings rising across the city in environs as diverse as gritty lower East Burnside Street and the bungalow-villes of North Portland. The architects--mostly younger firms like Works Partnership, Atelier Waechter, William Kaven Architeture, Path Architecture, and Seed Architecture Studio--share Holst's goals of honing Portland's longstanding traditions of eco-consciousness, lively urbanism, and thrifty building into sharper forms of architecture."

A key project Holstein notes besides Holst's work is the new Bside6 building on East Burnside (seen below in a shot by Jon Clark for Portland Monthly). "With ribbons of dark-gray metal playing hide-and-seek with sleek glass, the structure mixes sexy and stern like no other building in the city." But it's also, she notes, built on a very small budget. And that's a central aspect of the generation Holstein writes about. Given today's economy, it's a no-brainer to build affordably. But these architects were doing so when the housing boom was still in full-swing.

I also wrote an article about this new generation of Portland designers and builders for Dwell magazine a few months ago on the occasion of the 11xDesign homes tour. But my story focused on the residential side of this equation. Holstein is correct in expanding the scope to include non-residential works like Ziba and Bside6, as well as to put Holst and Works Partnership at the forefront.

Another defining characteristic of this new urban architecture, Holstein writes, is that it's sustainable without wearing such features on its proverbial shirt sleeve. Of course you'd build green. How could anyone not in this day and age? But to build a sustainable building, even if it has been hailed with a Platinum LEED rating, does not guarantee beauty or great design in totality.

The other distinction to be made here is that these firms are working almost exclusively in existing neighborhoods. Rather than being constructed in new areas like South Waterfront or the northern Pearl District, these buildings face tough tests of fitting in with the existing fabric. Not everyone thinks they do. Holst's Clinton Condominiums, for example, was controversial for replacing an existing historic house on Division Street. But for the most part, these modern works can be appreciated both for how they fit in and how they articulate a very contemporary identity within that.

PDC elects new officers: is design missing?

2009-06-30T15:10:43-07:00

The Portland Development Commission (PDC) held its annual election of officers at its June 24 board meeting and chose Scott Andrews, president of Melvin Mark Properties, as the new board chair.

The agency has even prepared this video report on the election, posted to YouTube:

Although Andrews only joined the PDC board in August of 2008, he has a history of civic involvement. He previously served as chair of the Portland Business Alliance and is currently chairman of the Regional Business Plan Steering Committee. For Melvin Mark Companies, one of Oregon’s leading commercial real estate businesses, Andrews supervises all leasing activity.

While Andrews and the other board members may be solid citizens, and deserve kudos for their public service, I've long found it disappointing that the PDC board does not include more members of the design and architecture communities on its board.

Take a look at the rest of the new and outgoing officers and board members. Andrews, the new chair, replaces Charles Wilhoite, who is managing director of Willamette Management Associates, a financial consulting firm. John Mohlis was also elected secretary of the board and Bertha Ferran was elected acting secretary. Mohlis is the secretary/treasurer for the Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council and Ferran is a senior mortgage consultant at Windermere Mortgage Services. Also on the board is Steven Straus, president of Glumac.

So out of that group, you have members of the real estate industry, finance, a labor union, and engineering. Indeed, most all of those fields have something to do with buildings, either their sale, construction or, in the case of engineering, even a bit of design. But no architects.

The nature of an agency like PDC is that it must juggle the competing interests and expertise of many different people. The agency is part developer, part planner; part public, part private. It's rife with politics and has a history of both wonderful successes and second-guessing. Obviously there is no sinister campaign to keep architects out of the board, but might there be some missing contribution to the PDC board that could come from people with design expertise?

Courtyard housing competition brings zoning code amendments

2009-06-30T10:33:20-07:00

In 2007, the City of Portland invited architects from around the world to share ideas on the design possibilities for housing oriented around shared courtyards. The Courtyard Housing Competition that followed illustrated the range of possible designs for family-oriented housing built around courtyards.

Following the competition, the winning designs were analyzed against zoning regulations. This resulted in a list of changes that would allow these designs to be built.

Now, to promote the development of more courtyard housing within Portland’s neighborhoods, the city is preparing to amend its zoning code to remove provisions that would pose barriers to the design and build of this type of housing. Without the code amendments, many of the design concepts put forth in the competition could not be built as proposed.

(The images included here are from the winning entry in the courtyard competition, from Keith Rivera and Kristin Anderson of Santa Barbara.)

“Courtyard housing in Portland has deep roots,” said Nick Fish, the City’s Housing Commissioner, in a press release issued by the city. “We are rediscovering it because it satisfies so many of our sustainable development objectives. It is family-friendly, energy-efficient, and fits beautifully in our established neighborhoods. I hope these changes will pave the way for a new generation of homeowners.”

A formal “discussion draft” of proposed zoning code amendments is now available for review, and a Planning Commission hearing on the discussion draft is scheduled for August 25, 2009.

I decided to look at the discussion draft before writing this post, but it's 225 pages long. This is why I never became a planner. All these millions of details! Thank goodness people at the Planning & Sustainable Development Bureau are on the case like Eric Engstrom, Rodney Jennings and Phil Nameny, who put the report together. Here are a couple of the items in the report, just by way of example of the extensiveness something like this takes:

Item 36 – Greenway Water Quality Zone and Greenway Goal Exceptions
Problem Statement: The Greenway River Water Quality or “q” overlay was applied to all land adjacent to the Willamette River (with some exceptions) in 2002, to bring Portland into compliance with Title 3 of Metro’s Functional Plan. The q overlay is applied to land that already includes other overlay zones including greenway overlay zones. The greenway overlay zones are intended to implement State Goal 15, Willamette Greenway. However, the q-overlay requires a larger setback from the top of bank than the other greenway zones. In general, greenway setbacks limit development and the types of uses in accordance with State Goal 15. Development that is not river dependent often needs a greenway goal exception. However, since the q-overlay is not part of the state goal requirements, a goal exception should not be required if development that is not river dependent is proposed in the larger q-overlay setback area, but outside of the other greenway setback. The code needs clarification to ensure that a goal exception is not required in those situations.
Analysis: Although the amendment to correct this issue is a fairly simple code fix, the issue has already been included in discussions for the River Plan North Reach. Since this project is taking a more holistic approach to reviewing the regulations along the Willamette River, it makes sense to include this issue within the River Plan amendment rather than review it separately through Regulatory Improvement.
Item 25 – Alternative Driveway Paving Problem Statement
Problem Statement: The parking and loading chapter of the zoning code requires that driveways and parking areas be paved. It is not clear that alternatives to traditional paving materials, such as grasscrete, porous pavers, and pervious asphalt are allowed by the code.
Analysis: The zoning code requires that driveways and parking areas be paved. The actual construction of driveways and parking areas is governed by Title 24, the City’s Building Regulations Title. Title 24 allows alternatives like grasscrete and porous pavers to be used as alternatives to traditional asphalt and concrete paving.

Meanwhile, I look forward to seeing more courtyard housing in Portland. It's a way to encourage more design creativity while allowing more of a sense of community that will serve families and singles alike, while maintaining a scale that fits in with a surrounding fabric of single-family homes.

Another look at PGE Park, and rebuttal to latest Coliseum demo talk

2009-06-29T10:00:19-07:00

The situation involving Timbers MLS soccer in PGE Park, Beavers baseball...somewhere, and the future of Memorial Coliseum is in a kind of limbo right now.

City Council has de-coupled the PGE Park soccer renovation plan from the fate of the Beavers, meaning the plan to upgrade PGE as a soccer-only facility can go forward to meet its stipulated September timeline without being threatened by the Beavers' open-ended search for a new home.

That's particularly important given that Lents is now officially out as a potential location for Beavers baseball. In the weeks ahead, the City will be making a final search for a ballpark site that keeps the Beavers in Portland or, at the very least, in the metro area.

Suburban sites like Hillsboro or Clark County have been suggested for a Beavers park, and here in Portland proper there have been numerous inner-city sites proposed: Delta Park, the Terminal 1 former shipyard facility, the Oregonian's vacant property in Northwest Portland, South Waterfront, the Lloyd Cinemas parking lot, among others.

Personally, I feel that PGE Park has never been completely or properly examined as a home for both the Timbers and Beavers.

Clearly Major League Soccer is opposed to having both soccer and baseball played in any of its venues. That's because the league, quite justifiably, believes strongly in having a quality fan experience that also translates well for television: namely, having all four sides of the soccer field lined with seating. So in the upcoming soccer-only renovation, you'll see seats moved much closer to the field. And that's a good thing for fans.

Baseball and football fans can also remember the days in the 1970s and '80s when a slough of multipurpose stadiums brought a compromised experience to both sports. Whether it was Veterans' Stadium in Philadelphia, Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati, or Jack Murphy Stadium in San Diego, these were bland circular concrete cookie-cutter stadiums who nobody was that sorry to see go.

Even so, I think Portland's culture of strong design and innovation could chart the course for a new kind of multi-purpose stadium, one where the experience is as good as single-use stadiums but the wastefulness of building entire buildings for individual sports is abandoned for its unsustainability.

PGE Park is basically in need of a design solution. We need the Timbers to be able to play with the field surrounded by fans. And then we need the Beavers to be able to play on that same field with some of that seating removed to make way for the extended outfield. But that is absolutely doable with today's seating technologies.

Whether it's Audience Systems from the United Kingdom, Australian Seating Systems in Australia, or Spanish and US-based Figueras International Seating, there are numerous companies around the world that could create retractible seating for PGE Park that would help the Timbers and Beavers co-locate there while keeping both soccer and baseball fans happy.

In conversations recently with seating experts, I was told that it would be preferable at PGE Park if there could be retractible seating that is simply moved rather than temporary seating that must be disassembled. And that would be a more expensive proposition. But as it happens, Portland Beavers and Timbers owner Merritt Paulson is planning to spend many millions upgrading PGE Park.

Having an innovative solution at PGE Park that houses both the Beavers and Timbers but does so in a way that delivers optimal fan viewing would be a major design innovation that the rest of the world would take notice of. We've been in an era over the last ten to twenty years where teams build single-use stadiums. But that has happened in an unprecedented economic boom time. Returning to multi-use stadiums but doing so in a new, innovative way is precisely the kind of sustainable innovation Portland ought to aspire to. It would also solve a political soap opera that has been going on too long.

Meanwhile, although it's probably better not to even dignify it with a response, a reader named Samuel Baron of Fairview in Portland's outer outer suburbs chimed in today with an op-ed in The Oregonian arguing that Memorial Coliseum be torn down for a Beavers ballpark at the Rose Quarter. Luckily Mayor Adams and the Portland Trail Blazers have both adamantly said this will not happen. But just in case anyone reads that op-ed and is swayed, keep in mind this rebuttal.

Baron is admittedly new to the Portland area, having relocated from Baltimore. He thinks that city's now-gone Memorial Stadium is the same situation as Memorial Coliseum. Memorial Stadium in Baltimore had "outlived its usefulness" and was demolished. By that rationale, Baron says, our Coliseum should too. He even recounts how the cramped Baltimore neighborhood where Memorial Stadium was razed was relieved to have it gone.

But Memorial Stadium was not the unique work of architecture that Memorial Coliseum is. And Baltimore is not Portland. Is this what passes for informed commentary in the city's daily newspaper? Some guy from Baltimore piping up that we should get with the demolition program like his east coast hometown? Please. Couldn't we at least have a longtime Portlander making this wrong argument?

Hopefully the City Council knows better. (Luckily the Blazers already do.) These trite, tired arguments for razing the Coliseum have all been aired in the past months, and the community rose up in opposition. Sometimes buildings' value does not come only from their purpose, but from the relationship architecture has with the people of its community. Face it, Samuel Baron, Portlanders cherish Memorial Coliseum and are not going to follow the lemmings' path of destroying are most cherished buildings.

Highlights from the Oregon Sustainability Center feasibility study [updated]

2009-06-26T11:59:35-07:00

Yesterday the consortium of public and private entities working on the proposed Oregon Sustainability Center released a draft executive summary and feasibility study.

What does that mean? Best I can tell, it's an extensive research and design process for the building, but does not guarantee that the building will be built. That's to be determined in Phase 2. This feasibility study is Phase 1.

The building was designed by GBD Architects and SERA Architects, with development from Gerding Edlen. Additional team members have included Interface Engineering, Glumac, PAE Consulting Engineers, and Hoffman Construction, with advisors from all three major universities (UO, OSU, PSU), Earth Advantage, the Energy Trust of Oregon, and Guy Battle of London-Based Mattle McCarthy Engineers.

Pictured above is a rendering of the Sustainability Center as it might look once constructed. It would be unfair to judge a building so innovative and so green on its exterior aesthetics. At the same time, it is written in the summary, "The Living Building Challenge is unique, among programs that encourage and evaluate accomplishments in sustainable design, in that it mandates beauty as well as aggressive goals for energy, water and waste systems." It certainly seems like the team has met the aggressive goals. Have they met the beauty mandate? That's a harder goal because it's of course in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I am not crazy about the look of the roof. But of course the design could continue to evolve.

Here is a portion of the text from the 14-page Sustainability Center draft executive summary that explains the process:

The project’s mission is to create a world-class center of excellence in sustainability that celebrates and nurtures the values and strengths of Oregon’s leadership in climate change, land use planning, smart growth, green building, environmental stewardship, civic engagement and social justice.
Predominantly an office building, the Center’s top floors will house a variety of non-profit, government, academic and business tenants who are working to promote sustainability. The public spaces on the first and second floor will serve as exhibit space, including interactive displays and signage that tell the story of the region’s innovations in sustainable technologies, policies and practices. A resource dashboard will let onlookers review the building’s energy and water use in real time. The lecture halls, classrooms and conference rooms on the second floor will support higher education, as well as networking for public, private and academic purposes. This area will also include a visualization lab, which will bring together researchers and community groups to solve regional issues in an experiential way. An active retail environment will anchor the first floor of the building.
The current headcount for the building includes approximately 725 weekday office users and an estimated 1,400 students and faculty, who will utilize the classrooms and conference center each day. Visitors attending events and touring the facility could range from the dozens to the hundreds, depending on the building’s daily schedule.
At the core of the project is a 220,000+ square foot urban, mixed-use high-rise located on the eastern edge of the Portland State University campus, between SW 4th and 5th Avenues and between Harrison and Montgomery Streets. The Center is also the proposed anchor for Portland’s first Eco-District, a neighborhood development strategy that combines high performance buildings with city infrastructure, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and water use.
The building’s size is strongly influenced by the site’s capacity to generate renewable energy. The 13-story structure is predominately concrete and glass and includes one level below grade. The second floor classroom and conference center is accessible from inside the tower, as well as from a monumental exterior stair, which connects this floor to the ground floor plaza. The tower is crowned with a large structure that supports its primary solar array. Artfully shaped and strategically oriented, this distinctive structure will establish a strong presence on Portland’s skyline.
The 33,500 square foot site (currently a surface parking lot) is located on the south end of downtown Portland, on the eastern edge of the PSU campus. It is a nexus for public transit with bus, streetcar and light rail systems all immediately accessible either on-site or on surrounding streets. The design anticipates a permanent streetcar alignment that will diagonally bisect the site.
The front door to the Center will be SW Montgomery Street. Efforts are underway to transform eight blocks of Montgomery into a green street, which will celebrate creative stormwater reuse. Coupled with its display of sustainable site features, the Center’s urban design and integration with the district’s green street will create a unique and extraordinary place for individual reflection, social interaction and public events.
The current site is zoned RX (a classification for residential uses) that allows only limited commercial uses. The site also has a height restriction that limits new buildings to a maximum of 125 feet. As a result, a legislative zone change will be required, as part of the entitlement process, in order to allow the development to proceed as currently conceived. A strategy for enacting the zone change has been developed with guidance from the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.
The Living Building Challenge is unique, among programs that encourage and evaluate accomplishments in sustainable design, in that it mandates beauty as well as aggressive goals for energy, water and waste systems. The Center has been designed in this spirit, integrating and often expressing the technical features that enable the building to perform to the highest green building standards.

UPDATE, 6/27: I'd like to respond to those who have said it was a "copout" of me to not criticize the building's look.

What I meant was that I wanted to judge the building fairly and holistically. It's very very innovative when it comes to performance and sustainability. That is worth our praise.

At the same time, I do agree with the more negative commenters that the rendering makes this look like an ugly work of corporate architecture. I'd also heard these same whisperings of concern from the city in recent weeks, that the project was turning into an Edsel.

We should also keep in mind, however, that the rendering above is just that. It's one rendering. This is not the final design, nor is it a complete look at the building.

The team putting this building together is absolutely first rate when it comes to green credentials and track record. That should not be underestimated. These people are world leaders in their field. That's why they were selected.

At the same time, I'm not sure beautiful buildings are the strong suit of GBD, SERA and Gerding Edlen. They all design handsome enough architecture, I suppose. But it's not the focus. The Oregon Sustainability Center figures to have that same set of strengths and weaknesses.

Green building is unquestionably the dominant movement in contemporary architecture today. But unlike modernism or postmodernism, it's not an aesthetic movement. It's not to say there can't be beautiful green buildings, but the guts are more the focus than they used to be. That's not a bad thing at all. Architecture absolutely has to transform in order to meet the future's energy needs. Being great green architects and being the conjurers of aesthetic beauty do not always go hand in hand.

But, having said that, it would not have been impossible to create a net-zero energy building with more than net-zero looks.

A renovated Elks lodge

2009-06-25T10:34:00-07:00

Mike Francis had a nice piece in The Oregonian yesterday about the renovation of a historic YWCA building turned-Elks Lodge at North Williams Avenue and Tillamook Street in the Eliot neighborhood.

"A few years ago, it was a dilapidated building with holes in the roof and dry rot in the floors," Francis writes. "Yet it was one of the last reminders of a time when the close-in north and northeast Portland neighborhood was a lively cultural center for African-American Portlanders and immigrant communities. Now the building is a crisply refurbished meeting hall and event center, following a community-wide effort to save and restore it to its prewar elegance."

The YWCA was constructed in 1926, largely for African-American women, who were excluded from the downtown Portland YWCA. $12,000 in funding (no small amount at the time) came from Portlander named Mary Laffey Collins, who would go on to establish one of America's most prominent foundations, the Collins Foundation. There is a plaque at the lodge from 1939 honoring Collins on behalf of "the Negro citizens of Portland."

During World War II, the building became a USO for African American soldiers, and after the Vanport flood of 1948, it was used as a shelter for families who lost their homes. The Elks, a chapter of the national Elks organization for minorities, purchased the biulding in 1959, which it remained for decades. Below is a 'before' shot of the building prior to its renovation this year. (This and the photo at the top of the post were provided to The Oregonian by Faye Burch.)

The push to renovate the building came from a volunteer coalition let by people like Wanda Broadous-Mills, Faye Burch, and James Posey, the latter of whom is the outgoing president of the National Association of Minority Contractors of Oregon. Today the building is a meeting hall and events center available for rental.

Congratulations to everyone who helped save and refurbish this humble but beloved community building.

A man struggling: Guy Battle comes to Portland

2009-06-22T11:44:10-07:00

Britain's Guy Battle, director of the multi-disciplinary Battle McCarthy Consulting Engineers, has become one of the leading environmental building engineers in the world. And this Wednesday, he'll be in Portland to deliver the latest talk in the Cascadia Green Building Council's Transformational Lecture Series.

Guy Battle is not really "a man struggling," as I called him in the title of this post; more like a man succeeding with flying colors. But I had to have some fun with his name, which sounds like a description of some gladiatorial bout.

Guy Battle? Nice to meet you. I'm Fella Conflict. Have you met Dude War? The image at left was one of the first that came up when I did a Google image search on Mr. Battle's name.

Battle’s lecture is titled, “Low Energy Buildings and Sustainable Communities: Designing for the Zero Carbon Economy,” and will take place at the White Stag Block (at SW Naito and Couch) at 5:30pm with a short reception to follow.

As the press release says, "Battle has been responsible for developing a unique approach to sustainable development while still keeping an optimum balance between the environmental impact, social benefit and financial return both for his clients and the community. Battle has worked on a wide range of international projects and with many world-renowned architects including Foster and Partners, Will Aslop and Sir Richard Rogers. During the past 15 years, Battle is credited with developing an innovative approach to sustainable environmental master planning including Greenwich Peninsula and ParcBIT Sustainable Masterplan, Mallorca."

I saw a presentation at the Greenbuild conference in Chicago two years ago for the Mallorca masterplan, and it was incredible: practically an entire island running on net-zero energy usage.

Also, a few years ago Battle spoke in Portland during the 2005 Greenbuild conference and I did a Q&A with him afterward. Here is a portion of that discussion:

How did you become interested in green building?

I went to the University of Bath in England, and I was educated in architecture as much as engineering. As a result, I learned to speak architecture, to understand its language, which is very important. During that period, I also had a number of tutors who professed interest in the environment. I picked up on that, and my thesis was on intelligent buildings skins which reacted to their environment. From there, I got interested in architecture that responds to climactic conditions.

Would you advocate that there be more integration in the educational process between architecture and engineering?

There’s not nearly enough. In this country [USA] it’s amazing to me that so few architects are able to speak to engineers and vise-versa. Half the problem is the architects don’t invite engineers to the table early enough. And if they do, the engineers feel somehow restricted, unable to take up the conversation. I think that’s due again to the education of engineers. They’re not taught to be creative.

How does this compare to Europe?

There’s a big difference. There’s a wealth of European engineers who are amazingly creative, and at the moment taking over the States. You’ve got Buro Happold, you’ve got Whitby Bird, you’ve got Arup, you’ve got Tim MacFarlane, you’ve got ourselves. These are environmental structural engineers who know how to be creative with their designs.

And of course green building requires greater collaboration between architects, engineers, and the rest of the building team.

Sustainable design means a greater level of integration. As an architect you have to conduct more people into the process: the engineer, the acoustician, the landscape architect. That’s why at our practice we have structural engineers, M/E/P engineers, and landscape architects, because we believe we have to produce an integrated package that will support the architects.

And then there have also been studies linking green buildings, or specifically daylit buildings, to improved human performance.

How far along do you think we are to taking green building mainstream?

If you look at the bulk of building in the States, 75% or 80% is people who are ignoring the issues. But I think there is a trickle-down effect. Obviously, though, the most basic means of change is the code. The bottom line is that if you don’t obey the code, the building is illegal, so it’s always the barest minimum. That has to be the starting point. And then you have things like incentives, which organizations like BetterBricks are a part of. It helps architects and engineers to do analysis work. And then you’ve got the straightforward incentives to do with photovoltaics or wind turbines or whatever it might be. So I think carrots alone will not make changes. You need sticks and carrots.

You believe that within five or ten years the US will be more advanced than Europe in green building.

Yes, I passionately believe that actually. Coming here to Portland, you’ve got some architects doing amazing stuff, and engineers supporting them. I really believe that once you guys create a bit of momentum, there will be no holding back, because ultimately green building is driven by money. Once the US realizes that, it will be developing the best products and processes. And that’s why our firm is working here in this country. I’ve seen a massive sea change in attitude just in the last twelve months. It really is very exciting.

In your lecture here, you talked about a Battle McCarthy project, the Peckham Library in England, and how its architects, Alsop and Stormer, believe green building need not operate according to any particular stylistic principles. Do you agree?

There is a big debate about whether green buildings should look green, or whether they should just look like a piece of great architecture. And I think both are valid, but one thing that’s definitely true is that a green building does not have to wear its credentials on its sleeve. Alsop’s work is all about following a green agenda but very much interpreting it in a very artistic fashion. I think that’s actually very important.

Relatedly, it seems unfortunate that even though we live in an age of celebrity architects, few of them seem to have incorporated green principles into their design. There is a bit of a disconnect. I might go so far as to say there’s a new movement in architecture that’s environmentally driven, but it’s found outside the celebrity environment, although [Norman] Foster is doing some interesting stuff. If you go back to architects like Louis Kahn, Walter Gropius and even Le Corbusier, however, before air conditioning was invented much of their work took an environmental form. They were really interested in climate.

What aspect of your career gets you the most excited about getting up and going to work every day?

I enjoy the challenge of forging design with good architects. You cannot do better than to sit down with an architect and sketch for three or four hours together. You just can’t beat that feeling, because it’s the whole essence of giving birth to a design. Working with SOM, KPF, Gensler, Grimshaw, Farrel, or Foster, these are all architects who, given a set of criteria, will all do something different, and that is very interesting and challenging for an engineer, to allow that creativity to occur and enhance it. But looking at the bigger picture, sustainability is also what drives me and my practice. The ideas are rote sometimes, but they’re not easy to come by. To be able to deliver them is another sort of layer that is also very important to us.

Do engineers deserve more credit?

Yes, I think so. Engineering is the hidden hand. They have an enormous amount to contribute to architecture, but too often their contribution is gently put to one side. I think it’s something that should be celebrated. You look at someone like Peter Rice or Neil Thomas, Chris Wise, Guy Nordenson, and a host of other fantastic engineers, and they don’t really get the recognition they deserve.

A diamond in the Pearl: visiting the 937 Condominiums

2009-06-19T13:40:21-07:00

Last fall the 937 Condominiums arrived just as the housing boom that made the project possible was coming to a crashing end. The building, designed by Holst Architecture and Ankrom Moisan, opened its doors in October, a time when most other condo projects coming on line were frantically switching to rental apartments.

While I can't tell you how sales have fared, the building itself represents one of the best highrise condo designs of this era. In fact, with apologies to other successful recent condos like BOORA Architects' The Metropolitan, THA Architecture's Atwater Place and GBD Architects' The Casey, I think 937 may be the very best.

On the outside, the building has a random window pattern resembling natural fractal patterns set against cream-colored brick. The building was designed from the outside in to maintain the integrity and bold look of the facade, so each unit has a slightly different window configuration. The randomness of the exterior glass pattern is offset by subtle symmetry, with each window spaced both vertically and horizontally from each other in the same dimensions. The brick is an attractive touch, recalling the early 20th Century architecture of downtown Portland such as the Meier & Frank building or the Jackson Tower, while the crisp clean look of the exterior and its tall, slim form is faintly comparable to modernist classics like Mies van der Rohe's Lake Shore Drive apartments in Chicago.

If we're talking about windows and 937, though, the real story may be inside. Stepping into model units of various sizes and prices throughout the building, I was struck by just how much natural light permeates each space. I've been in numerous LEED Gold and Platinum-rated buildings, including condos (The Casey was America's first Platinum condo), and I'm quite sure I've never experienced so much natural daylight as in 937. Usually to meet energy code strictures, buildings with lots of glass have to apply coatings to filter out excess sunlight that can make the glass seem dark, inside and out. Not so here. It seems clear as can be.

The bountiful daylight at 937 comes not just from windows and lots of them, but also from the form itself. This is a thinner, taller building than most all of the squatty condos in the Pearl. Looking from 937 across Glisan Street at the Elizabeth Condos, for example, one sees asquatty, dark building where units offer light on only one side, or two at best. The units I visited in 937 all had glass on at least two sides of each unit, and often times three.

This is the second design-development collaboration between Holst Architecture and developers Patrick Kessi and Geoff Wenker, who previously worked together on the Thurman Street Lofts. It's also a partnership between Holst and Ankrom Moisan. You could perhaps say Holst did the outside and Anrom the inside, but there seems to have been more overlap than that. Considering that the inside units and outside facade work in such wonderful harmony, it's got to be a testament to how these teams worked together.

Hopefully the success of this collaboration will spur more condo developers in the future (if there are any) to employ such partnerships between studio-sized firms with the most acute design acumen and larger service firms with the ability to deliver the less sexy but very necessary aspects of a major building project.

At the same time, such success is never a given. On the Eliot Condominiums downtown, for example, an Ankrom Moisan/Zimmer Gunsul Frasca collaboration yielded a very attractive outside and some less successful interiors, with cheesy Caesar's Palace-esque chipped marble decorations yucking up an otherwise attractive contemporary look. At 937, though, everything is in harmony. There aren't crass marble countertops trying too hard too look fancy, just refined dignified interior design with a simple natural wood palette.

And while the age of luxury and booming economics may be over, some lucky affluent tenant who buys the 16th Floor penthouse at 937 will have perhaps the only condominium with its own outdoor hot tub. In this unit, a triple-wide glass door slides open to give the penthouse an opening out onto its balcony more width than a garage door. Even in a hot day such as when I visited, the cool air just pours through the space.

Although 937 doesn't wear its green credentials on its sleeve like some projects, the building is slated to earn a Platinum LEED designation.

While this is a joint design by Holst and Ankrom Moisan, 937 really ought to help elevate Holst in that it represents probably the biggest-scale work the firm has ever done. When you combine 937 with the Ziba Design headquarters finishing construction a few blocks away in the Pearl, suddenly Holst Architecture has reached a new size and scope of architecture projects in Portland. Although the firm has still designed little to nothing outside of Portland, 937 and Ziba ought to represent a kind of new beginning for John Holmes and Jeff Stuhr's firm. Could Holst become the next Brad Cloepfil, the next architects from Portland to gain a national or international following?

Two units from 937 (including the jacuzzi-stocked penthouse) will be included in the Street of Dreams home tour this August, along with The Encore (by BOORA), the Waterfront Pearl (by Vancouver's Soren Rassmussen and Portland's MCA Architects) and the Pearl Condominiums at Block 90 (by Vallaster & Corl). So you are encouraged to take a look in a few weeks when the opportunity comes. I haven't been on the Street of Dreams tour since I was a kid dragged by mom, but with the tour coming to the Pearl District, this annual symbol of all that's wrong with home building just mined, in 937, everything that is right.

Two tales of bridges

2009-06-17T11:17:37-07:00

In Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Duke University civil engineering professor (and author of popular books like Remaking the World and The Evolution of Useful Things) Henry Petroski has an article called "Bridging the Gap." The article cites a series of bridges along the Oregon Coast as an example for the nation:

"Our roads and bridges are crumbling, yes, but most are also mediocre, reflecting neither engineering sense nor architectural sensibility."
"It need not be this way. In the midst of the Great Depression, Conde McCullough, the state bridge engineer in Oregon, oversaw the design and construction of a series of graceful concrete and steel bridges along the state's Pacific Coast Highway. They stand today as delights to see and use, and they demonstrate that essential structures need not be inferior."

I was actually staying on the Oregon Coast as I read the article, and the bridges Petroski writes of came viscerally to mind (such as Newport's wonderful Yaquina Bay Bridge pictured at the top of this post). Oregon has a wonderful coastal bridge legacy that extends from Astoria (pictured below) to Brookings.

Striking nearly the exact opposite tone, however, Dylan Rivera's article on the front page of The Oregonian today is called "THE PRICE OF ORIGINALITY". (Their all-caps font, not mine.) The article also recalls a previous Rivera story about the Columbia crossing that asked, "Can we afford pretty?" Notice in both stories, even the headlines themselves seem to characterize first-rate design as something indulgent. I wonder why that didn't seem so to Oregon's leaders during the Great Depression.

Looking at the Willamette bridge design and construction process being overseen by TriMet, Rivera frames the discussion in this manner:

"It comes down to this: Is it enough for the bridge to offer a design that's new to the Portland area and comes in on budget - but isn't unique, with similar structures in Eugene and Kennewick, Washington? Or should the region aspire to a design that would put something original on the city's skyline, even if it could cost significantly more than the $134.6 million budget?"

But I'm not sure it "comes down to this," as Rivera writes. The unequivocal higher cost for the hybrid bridge being proposed is based on highly debatable numbers, as I wrote about in a previous post following TriMet's Willamette River Bridge Advisory Committee meeting on May 28.

Many of the extra costs piled onto the hybrid in estimates are called things like "requirements risk" and "design development risk". The construction costs for the hybrid were also listed at $75 million compared to about $62 million for the cable-stay, even though the materials would be about the same. Hybrid designer Miguel Rosales and Stuttgart, Germany-based Schlaich Bergermann und Partner believe the books were more or less cooked to make their design seem more expensive and risky.

Even so, the Willamette River bridge debate is all but over. TriMet's WRBAC committee, made up of a couple people from the design committee and lots of other stakeholders from the Portland area, recommended the off-the-shelf cable stay design option, and there seems almost no chance at all the steering committee will go against that. If the cable stay gets built, it won't be a bad bridge. Just not something to be really proud of.

Oregonian columnist Barry Johnson also had this to say in a piece called "Godzilla on the Willamette":

"A cable-stayed bridge is absolutely wrong for the relatively narrow space between the Ross Island Bridge and the Marquam Bridge, I would argue. Its towers will rise above the Marquam, and its bristling rows of cables will thumb their collective noses at the far gentler Ross Island Bridge. Worse, the bridge is inappropriate to its use -- as a light-rail, bus, pedestrian bridge.
If ever you wanted a low-impact bridge that says we know how to live in a "light" way, this is it. Light rail is an ongoing piece of our somewhat humble efforts to develop sustainably, which is a buzz word that simply means we understand that we live in a time when resources are getting scarcer and dearer."

The hybrid issue did indeed seem to push TriMet to at least build a more refined cable-stay bridge than might have otherwise happened. But if you love the best bridges in Portland, such as the graceful St. John's bridge (pictured above), don't expect our generation to rise to that level of grace and beauty.

Luckily, when we drive to the Oregon Coast, or over spans here like the St. Johns, we can at least take pride in the efforts of Portlanders past.