Portland Architecture

Design Calendar: June 16-30

Multnomah County Courthouse (image courtesy Architectural Heritage Center)

BY LUKE AREHART

South Downtown Portland Walking Tour –  Modernism and Beyond: The Architecture of Downtown Portland (South) Downtown
Portland contains an abundance of post World War II architecture by Pietro Belluschi, Michael Graves, and the world renowned firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. This Architectural Heritage Center tour explores the southern portion of the central business district. You’ll learn about the controversial and the award winners, the architects and firms that designed them, and the issues of the times that led to such dramatic changes to our built environment and skyline. 6:00pm Thursday, June 20, 2013 and 1:00pm Sunday, June 23, 2013. Allow two hours for the tour, pre-registration is required. $15 ($10 for AHC members).

South Park Blocks Walking Tour – The South Park Blocks: A Cultural Mandate
This 11-block downtown area was first platted and donated to the City in 1852, transforming a fire break parcel into the most desirable residential area of its day –complete with schools, playgrounds, stately homes and places of worship. The South Park Blocks stand alone as a place of revitalization, refreshment and cultural allure. Offered by the Architectural Heritage Center. 2:00pm Sunday, June 30, 2013. Allow two hours for the tour, pre-registration is required. $15 ($10 for AHC members). (Thursday, June 27th's tour is sold out.)

Art for the Millions Bike Ride: The Enduring Legacy of the WPA
During the height of the Great Depression, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) provided economic relief to millions of idle workers by employing them in the creation of public works projects and arts education programs. Although highly controversial in its time for its leftist political leanings, the WPA is cited as a major factor for the re-stabilization of the American economy leading up to WWII. Join Know Your City for a repeat of our first-ever tour, as we take a leisurely bicycle field trip/ tour of WPA-sponsored projects in Portland and hear from leading authorities on the subject. 10:00am – 1:00pm Saturday, June 15 and 10:00am – 1:00pm Saturday, June 22. Ride Departs from Portland Art Museum.

Discussing Oregon planning's past and future with PSU's Ethan Seltzer (part 2)

Google Maps satellite view of downtown Portland

BY BRIAN LIBBY

Portland Architecture: You worked for the city of Portland for commissioner Mike Lindberg in the 80s, for Metro in the 80s and 90s on the 2040 Plan, and were on the Planning Commission in the 2000s. How would you rate some of the changes that have happened in various city and regional bureaus, such as the PDC transitioning from urban renewal to an economic development role?

Ethan Seltzer: I wouldn’t count on that. Actually, some of the things the mayor has said suggest that PDC is not going to be heading off into an undefined economic development role, but will actually be herded back towards the reason it was created in the first place, which is a place-making role.

PDC was created back in 1958 to do business in the city’s interest. The idea was it was really useful to have an arm’s length entity that was out there, able to do business in the city’s interest, without being caught up in the day to day politics of the city, that could work at the same speed, at the same magnitude and in the same way, with people who were basically making decisions about land and development. Put it this way: the city of Portland is about 30-35 percent right of way. It’s about 14 percent parks. Throw in airports, public institutions like schools, port properties, and pretty soon you’re at about 50 percent of the city in public ownership. The city has direct control over that.

They created PDC in essence for those occasions when it would become a partner in the development of the other 50 percent. But the only way it can work is if the city essentially establishes policy and PDC carries it out. Those relationships have gotten incredibly muddied in recent years.

Not only that, but for many years now Portland has funded all of its economic development activity through urban renewal funds. Which is ridiculous, because you can only spend those funds within urban renewal areas. And really economic development is a much more multi-faceted kind of enterprise than just what happens with land development in urban renewal areas.

So fundamentally, economic development ought to be funded by the general fund, because it really affects the entire city and the city’s relationships with all the jurisdictions around it. For PDC to say it’s an economic development agency leads you to wonder how that’s going to work, and where exactly they’re going to get the funding to behave in that way.

I really do think what Charlie Hales has done is reminded PDC that the reason it exists is to carry out these plans that enable the city to be a partner, so to speak, in what happens with that other 50 percent. What we use urban renewal for needs some careful discussion by the city so that PDC can be better instructed in what it is the city’s trying to achieve. Part of the problem is that the city has not been real articulate. I don’t think the Commission has been real articulate. There’s a real opportunity here with the new mayor to ask the City to be a lot clearer about what it’s trying to accomplish with urban renewal. And frankly if the city doesn’t want to do urban renewal, I think it ought to question whether it should have a PDC.

What are you working on now? Can you talk about the journey that the Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning within the College of Urban and Public Affairs has been on?

This is one of the oldest graduate programs at Portland State. In the Toulan School we essentially have two kinds of graduate degrees: one is a professional planning degree, the master of urban and regional planning, and the other is a more traditional scholarly degree: master of urban studies and a Ph.D. in urban studies.  The master of urban and regional planning program has become very selective. People want to come here and study. We get about 200 applications for about 35 positions. We’ve tried to develop, and I think successfully, a program that focuses heavily on practice. Our goal is to train people who envision themselves as practitioners and who will see themselves as not just getting a job but over the course of their career helping to lead the field. And our students win national awards. That’s a great record.

We’re also conscious of the fact that we’re here to both provide access to training and education but we’re also here to meet the needs of the community and the state beyond. What that means in part is that we could make this a bigger program but we’re careful not to make it too big. Frankly it doesn’t do us a lot of good or the community a lot of good if it’s filled with a lot of people who are unemployed and have little prospect of getting employed. We try to stay in touch with the practicing community to understand how our students are doing, how they’re getting absorbed, and whether we’re doing a good job of meeting the needs that public agencies, private consultants and nonprofit organizations have.

How has the profession changed given the booming and busting economy?

It’s getting better. For example, we require 400 hours of internship to graduate. We don’t give them credit for that. Up until 2008, I’d say almost all of those internships were paid. Not only that, they were in all different sectors. The recession and crash of 2008 basically brought that to a screaming halt: not just in paid internships but I’d say a halt in hiring, for graduates in 2010 in particular. I think since then it’s been recovering. We’re seeing the return of the paid internship. We’re seeing students getting jobs before they graduate. We’re seeing ups and downs in hiring; public agencies are not doing so well right now but private firms are doing much better. So it kind of goes up and down. I think if you look long-term, there will continue to be jobs there. I really do believe the Baby Boom is going to retire at some point and get out of the way, and you’ll begin to see positions open up like we haven’t seen for some time.

On the other hand, people really like to come to Portland. We have a lot of people coming here from all over the place without jobs. Which is kind of interesting. It’s counter to the logic of economists, who say if you’re not getting paid you’re not showing up. But you know, Oregon has never been a great place to get rich. It’s been a great place to live well. People tend to be able to kind of get enough, but if you want to get wealthy, go to LA or New York or Chicago or Houston. Seattle’s probably even an easier place to get rich. But fundamentally, people choose to live in Portland. And they tend to stick around when things get tough, because they want to be here.

I recently spent a few days in La Jolla, California and was reminded how special Portland is. La Jolla was the first place outside of Las Vegas where I encountered street corners where one couldn’t cross the street; instead pedestrians were directed to bridges over the street. And for all the beautiful beaches it was hard to find many that weren’t private.

There’s an industry in every city that wants to make you as a visitor really happy. As a consequence, it’s great visiting cities. Everywhere, there are people who want you to experience whatever they’ve got to offer at its peak. But unfortunately, most of us can’t live as visitors all the time. What’s it like to live in these places? If you choose to walk, if you choose to ride a bike, you’re being given the message that it’s either not necessary or not welcome. You’re being given some insights into what daily like is like. 

It would be really interesting to use multiple listing service listings for a metro region, or sales reports, to find the zip codes where you have the most real estate activity around buying and selling the median priced home. Look for the median priced home, and look for the zip code with the most activity. And then go and live there for two weeks. Call it the median house tour of America. Compare cities based on that, not on the "36 Hours in Istanbul” in the New York Times travel section.

If you’re a recent college grad and you’re looking for a place to live in NYC, you can’t afford Brooklyn. So you’re going to Queens. What if you want to go from Queens to, say, MoMA on a free day? Well, it takes like an hour and a half to get there. And what if you had to do that every day? Then you realize we have nothing to complain about.

 

Advertisements

Discussing Oregon planning's past and future with PSU's Ethan Seltzer (part 1)

Ethan Seltzer (image courtesy Portland State University)

BY BRIAN LIBBY

May 29 of this year marked the 40th anniversary of the passage of Senate Bill 100 in the Oregon Legislature, which for the first time required cities and towns to plan for growth. I'd already planned to interview Portland State University urban studies and planning professor Ethan Seltzer, Ph.D. about the anniversary and the state of statewide planning today, but Seltzer instead reached out to me - with a correction. In a recent post about visiting three European cities, I'd casually noted that the Portland metro area's urban growth boundary, while more than worth having, did raise property values. Seltzer quickly emailed to explain that this is not true - at least not necessarily and not directly. The following is a transcript of our conversation, the length of which means it will be broken down into this post and a second post to follow in the days ahead.

Portland Architecture: So the urban growth boundary doesn't increase land prices?

A lot of people use a really primitive economics 101 conception of the urban growth boundary being kind of like a balloon, the idea being, ‘Well, if demand increases but the balloon doesn’t increase…” But the reality is it’s much more complicated. Reason number one: urban growth boundaries aren’t Great Walls of China. They’re required by state law to contain about enough land needed to meet a 20-year demand for projected land supply. At any time within the urban growth boundary, there is land available for other uses, including housing or industrial or whatever. But fundamentally the idea that the UGB contains this place that is completely urbanized and built up and will never change is misguided. Depending on taste, markets and a lot of things, there may be a lot of land or a little land.

For example, when the UGB was adopted in 1980, along with the comprehensive plans done by the jurisdictions within it, the capacity for new residential development went from 160,000 units to 310,000 units. By taking a closer look at the land supply and what it was capable of—and realizing this is all within the context of local tastes and values and desires—it was found there was essentially twice as much capacity for residential development as people thought there was. This idea that there’s this absolutely rigid relationship between the UGB and what happens with land supply and price is very difficult to sustain. 

The other part of it is that people’s tastes have really changed significantly over time. When the 2000 census came along, there was one child in the Pearl District. By the time the 2010 census came along, there was enough that there was an elementary school in the Pearl. The conventional wisdom was that people with kids wouldn’t want to live in the Pearl. That was shattered in 10 years because people wanted to live there badly enough that they figured out a way to make it work. Things which seemed intractable and never changeable actually are quite flexible. Because of that, attributing housing costs solely to the UGB is really wrong and misguided.

It’s also inaccurate to say that the UGB has no impact on price, by the way. But when you look at the peer-reviewed literature, essentially what they find is they can’t make a determination—it’s not significant enough—or alternatively that there are other factors which have a bigger impact on the median house price than the growth boundary, or regulation.

A study was done 20 years ago to nail this down when median housing prices were rising rapidly. The conclusion was there were a number of factors, and one of the most significant was that the structure of the home building industry in this region is comprised of many small builders. By being unable to capture economies of scale, that alone was probably having a bigger impact than the presence of the UGB itself.

Even so, land inside the UGB is a lot more valuable from a market point of view than land outside the UGB, right?

That’s been demonstrated and shown. But that’s kind of as it should be. The whole notion is that when we started down this road with Senate Bill 100 that we would take the pressure off of rural land to provide a place for urban development. That taking the pressure off takes a couple of different forms, but one of them clearly is to try to ensure that the market doesn’t begin to inappropriately speculate on rural land for urban purposes. In essence, what that research has shown is that’s true: the land-use planning program in Oregon actually has done a pretty good job of taking the speculative pressure off of farmland.

And the amount of overall farmland has only marginally decreased, right?

Compared to other places, yeah.

But nonetheless, is there rural land speculation? Of course there is. Is that something we should be concerned about? Yeah. Because fundamentally at the end of the day, if there isn’t a viable rural economy, if farming isn’t economically viable—if there aren’t processors and suppliers, if there isn’t a whole infrastructure to support the production and processing and marketing of crops—we aren’t going to be able to sustain growth boundaries for very long. And I think that’s largely for political reasons. I think we actually as urban residents have a huge stake in seeing that there is a viable economy associated with the working landscape, because that’s the only way we’ll be able to maintain this notion of an urban growth boundary. I think we have a number of things to be concerned about moving forward. One is not just, ‘What form do our cities take?’ It’s also, ‘What shape is our rural economy in?’ And how do we ensure that what Oregon is really good at in a lot of ways, which is the incredible abundance of the natural landscape, maintains itself as an important economic element in the nature of the state?

The big issue for us, I think in a lot of ways, is to not get too focused on things that are too subject to the inevitable change that’s going to occur. What are the things that we know about this place? Well, it’s incredibly beautiful. The landscape is incredibly abundant. This has been a great place for people to live for 14,000 years, one of the oldest continually inhabited places in North America. It’s the northern temperate rainforest; it’s a high degree of biodiversity. We have a fly-by-wire relationship with the mountains to the east and the ocean to the west. It helps to kind of shape our kind of sense of the landscape. There’s a strong sense of place. And in a lot of ways, I think that’s kind of where we need to have our focus: not get too uptight about what things look like, maybe, or trying to feed particular choices about industry or commercial activity or even residential development, but actually to pay much more attention to these larger framing issues and make sure we protect them. 

Can beauty be quantified, and how much does policy try to address that?

If you take a look at the statewide planning goals and do a word search, the word ‘beauty’ doesn’t appear. That’s kind of an interesting issue. If you talk to lots of people in this state—urban and rural, progressive and conservative—there’s a kind of consensus that beauty is part of Oregon. And not only that, but we can agree on what some of that beauty is about. How do we bring that into the way in which communities, through government, affect the way things happen? And not only that, but how do we apply that to public agencies and public works? I’m interested in the inattention we pay to the way we build infrastructure and the way it looks and the kind of relationships that it creates that last for a very long time.

Of course on the other hand, people will say, ‘We’ve got $11 billion worth of transportation projects in the metro region and $3 billion to pay for them.’ All I can say is thank goodness we don’t have more than $3 billion, because think of what we would have built if we had all that money. The answer is a lot of stuff that not only may we no longer need but which would have profoundly affected the development of the region in ways that may not have been all that beneficial. There’s nothing magic about infrastructure. When people begin to suggest that there’s a kind of scientific and economic and sociological imperative behind the construction of roads and other major infrastructure projects, I think you really need to question why they are saying that. What are they trying to accomplish? How does that have to do the interests that they represent? Because the fact of the matter is there’s no magic there.

This May brought the 40^th anniversary of the passing of Senate Bill 100, which required a lot of public outreach to get passed. How do we accomplish planning goals and managing growth today in such a divisive political climate?

Two things are absolutely certain. One is that in America we have provided tremendous support for private property and local control. When the Supreme Court decided Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company back in the ‘20s, what they fundamentally decided was that each individual unit of government could have its own zoning. We’ve been on that path ever since. What that means is no matter what we want to do, no matter what we set out to do, it will always be framed by those two facts. There will always be tension about the articulation of a community view of what ought to happen to private property. And there will certainly always be tension about a state or regional view about what ought to happen in local jurisdictions. The stage is set for tension and controversy. For the rest of our lives and forever after, I suspect that will be the case and we’d be crazy to think otherwise.

That’s kind of where we start from. What did Senate Bill 100 do and what did its supporters do after its passage that really helped? They did do a tremendous amount of public outreach: barnstorming the state, on the road, just really out there. But I think more than anything else, it made what the goals were about really authentic. It was about what people actually said. It wasn’t about what architectural or design or planning pundits said it should be. It wasn’t about what paragons of the market said it should be. It wasn’t about what faux policy institutes said it should be all about. It was about what the people of Oregon said it should be about. That kind of participation was everywhere, and it involved a tremendous number of people, at a time when the population of the state of Oregon was less than half of what it is today. It was a tremendously authentic statement about what Oregon was going to try to accomplish with this new planning system.

The other thing to remember is Senate Bill 100 didn’t appear overnight. It was preceded four years before by Senate Bill 10. It was preceded by 25 years of county planning, by 50 years of city planning, by a number of different efforts to address the way the state was growing and which were not succeeding. There was a long run-up to Senate Bill 100, and it was also occurring in an environment where the nation and the world were becoming aware of the impact of human activity on the environment, and where the idea that we would do some things—some extraordinary things—to protect environmental quality and address the damage that had been done to environmental quality in the past would take place, and it’s an unbelievable time. You put these pieces together and you have to say, wow: there was this amazing confluence of things, and they had the wisdom to proceed in a manner that enabled the response to be as authentic and close to the ground as it possibly could. Huge issues, authentic and very personal response.

Today, we’re confronted with similarly huge issues, massive issues: climate change, the coming growth in population in Oregon and the pacific northwest, the pressure on resources—that continual need to respond to the changes that have affected everything form salmon and insect populations to human health—the changes are no less dramatic. But the environment is quite different. The fact that Oregon did what it did has drawn the attention of those who don’t believe that any community should have the kind of say over what happens to it that Oregon communities do. We’re a battleground for even bigger issues than were confronted back in the day when Senate Bill 100 was rolled out. Which is to say that you can’t just repeat history. You can’t just do it the same way. You can’t hit the road with a barnstorming show and expect that same result. But I think one thing we are absolutely sure of is that fundamental notion of engagement, to create an authentic and recognizable response, is crucial. I’d say if there was an area for innovation and for a recommitment and for new passion on the part of everybody who cares about these issues, it’s engagement. How are we going to do it? What’s it going to be like? Frankly, I’m not really optimistic that Facebook is the citizen involvement of the future. I am over and over impressed by the power of people encountering and engaging each other face to face. How do you do that in a world that’s increasingly becoming less face to face, more distant, more mediated via smart phone technology? We encounter that with our students. It’s really interesting. Today some people don’t use email. They only use texting. Some people only use Facebook. Some people only talk on the phone. Everybody is communicating using different modes. It’s inconsistent. So expand that now to the question of something like, “What’s the future going to be for our community?’ How does that communication take place? How do people get brought together so that face to face they can understand each other as people and then understand their community as something that is common to them all? Id’ say if there was a place for innovation, the design of engagement would be a wonderful place to start.

 

Advertisements

Congregation and convergence at Alberta Abbey

Village Building Convergence stage at Alberta Abbey (photo by Matthew Henderson)

BY MATTHEW HENDERSON

Continuing our series on adaptive reuse among Portland's abundant stock of repurposed churches, a noble experiment, if precarious business venture, has been undertaken recently at an historic church at the corner of Northeast Alberta and Mallory Street.

Formerly Mallory Baptist Church, the striking brick building with its pointed spire, green from oxidation, resembles an old middle school. Inside its heavy-set doors, a wide, curved stairwell displays paintings by local artists, while striking a note of nostalgia that defies obvious definition. It's somewhere in-between arriving at school after the bell, visiting the dentist, or indeed, perhaps most plainly, arriving at a church.

This slight ambiguity seems to have served building owners Dennis Adams and Justin C. Hunt, who began a frenetic adventure of architectural (and social) retrofitting since purchasing the building last June.

 

Alberta Abbey sanctuary (photo by Matthew Henderson)

Involved in this re-envisioning were many sweat-infused renovations, countless consultations with technicians, tenants, and other interested parties, all manner of surprises associated with old building upkeep including roof leaks and boiler room mishaps, and a fire sale purging of many of the building's transfixing contents. It’s a testament to the church’s multiple past lives and the triumphs and failings of the building as a community hub.

What has emerged of late is Alberta Abbey, a mixed-use facility that embodies the diversity of the neighborhood that has helped to define it. The organization behind the project, Alberta Abbey Fellowship, consists, again, of the duo of Dennis and Justin, long-time friends who formed AAF in 2012 with a vision to revitalize the failing building in a way that could be replicated elsewhere. "The hope is to maximize this community asset by incorporating a diversity of uses," says Justin.

Beginning with just one primary tenant, a congregation called TGW which uses the sanctuary on Sundays and maintains offices there, Alberta Abbey has since become home to a political action non-profit, a seamstress, a mortician, two architects, an art therapist, a live-in caretaker, and a record label/recording studio/creative collaborative.

Alberta Abbey exterior (photo by Matthew Henderson)

Additionally, AAF has partnered with Kitchen Commons to begin promoting the use of their underutilized commercial kitchen for communal use and rental purposes. AAF's approach has been one of embracing diversity, pragmatism, and openness. It has prioritized long-term leases and promoted among its tenants the building's communal ethic and philosophy of utility.

The sanctuary, for example, is laid claim to every Sunday for the congregation and their church service. But other times throughout the week, the sanctuary, which seats upwards of 400, has been used for family movie nights, hip-hop concerts, photo shoots, and an ambient music series called M.A.S.S.

Barring any uses deemed inappropriate or offensive, the sanctuary is available for rent, along with the kitchen and former gymnasium, which are both situated in the sub-level of this deceptively large and cavernous building.

Village Building Convergence attendees at Alberta Abbey (photo by Matthew Henderson)

Upon visiting the building recently, I encountered a frenzied scene of slightly uncanny construction happening in the basement gymnasium. Stick-strewn, earthy amalgams employing natural building techniques were being assembled atop the sheen of the Abbey's newly refinished wood floors. The forms were beginning to resemble a stage, a treehouse-like loft, and various kiosks. It was all in preparation for the annual Village Building Convergence.

Village Building Convergence is a ten-day affair promoting "placemaking," an idea sprouted by architect-activist Mark Lakeman, who has become well known for fostering transformations of public spaces through ecologically-oriented community projects. With any luck, the communal spirit of the VBC will linger and combine with the groundwork laid by Adams and Hunt, and the Abbey flock can continue to thrive.

 

Advertisements

The Architect's Questionnaire: Brian Cavanaugh

Brian Cavanaugh (photo courtesy Architecture Building Culture)

BY LUKE AREHART

The latest installment in our ongoing series on local architects, their careers and favorites brings us to the founding principal of Portland's Architecture Building Culture, Brian Cavanaugh. Born in 1969, Cavanaugh is Oregon-raised and educated but who has also had the chance to see the world while studying at some of the world's top schools such as the Harvard Graduate School of Design.

Prior to establishing his own practice with Mark Ritchie, the architect worked in New York and Los Angeles on a number of art museums  and institutions as well as housing. While he was a senior associate with Michael Maltzan Architecture in NYC, Cavanaugh served as project director for the Rainbow Apartments, which was nominated for a prestigious Cooper-Hewitt People's Design Award. His work has been featured in publications like Architectural Record, Lotus, The Seattle Times and LA Architect. Architecture Building Culture's awards include a Citation Award at last year's AIA/Portland Design Awards. 

Portland Architecture: When did you first become interested in architecture as a possible career?

Brian Cavanaugh: I always wanted to be an architect as far back as I could remember. In fact, in fourth grade, my elementary school, here in Portland, started an after-school program where they offered a variety of activities. Usually it had something to do with what the teachers might be able to offer or were interested in. My fourth grade teacher’s husband was an architect, and she had an interest in architecture as well, so she offered an architecture appreciation class. One of the things we did was take field trips downtown. We sketched buildings, visited architecture firms; it was a very memorable experience.

Where did you study architecture and how would you rate the experience?

I earned my bachelor of architecture degree from the University of Oregon and my master of architecture degree from Harvard's Graduate School of Design. Both experiences were very influential, and very different. I graduated from Oregon in 1995, which was a great time to be at the school. There was a really talented group of students and faculty, which elevated the quality of the work. I feel very fortunate to have been there at that time as it gave me a strong foundation from which to build upon as a young architect.

While at Oregon I spent my fourth year at the Mackintosh School of Architecture in Glasgow, which had a lot to do with my overall experience as an undergrad. Every architecture student should go abroad for a year no matter where they are going to school. In every architecture program there is a dialogue established and there is a way the school operates; students can get too comfortable in that environment. You need to get outside of that comfort zone. The work I did after my year abroad was the best I did at Oregon. The experience changed everything.

I graduated from Harvard in 2000. It was a completely different experience from the U of O, and a real turning point for me. As a student there, you are exposed to amazing faculty, both full-time and visiting, academic and technical resources and your fellow students are incredibly talented. In many ways, my time at Harvard has been one of the biggest influences on my career.

Stubbs Residence (photo by Benjamin Benschneider, Seattle Times)

What is your favorite building project that you’ve worked on?

Generally speaking, any project that we are currently working on is the one that I am most interesting in. The work is an ongoing exploration. Each project building on the overall trajectory of the office. But I would say that the Stubbs Residence in Seattle, WA and the Lubavitch Center of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC will always be important to me. They were some of the first projects of the office and allowed us to set the tone for our subsequent work.

Looking back in terms of projects that were influential to my career, MoMA QNS when I was at Michael Maltzan’s office was a very important project for me. The stakes were very high for the project and the office. Being able to oversee that process from beginning to end, at that time in New York, with that client and with Michael, was an incredibly unique and rewarding experience. Actually much of the work, especially the cultural institution projects, I was involved in at MMA have been very important in terms of informing how I want to approach design and practice.

Who has been an important mentor among your colleagues?

Michael Maltzan. I feel fortunate that I was able to work with a number of renowned people over the years, but Michael has had the biggest influence on my career and continues to be someone I look to for advice when I can. My time with Machado & Silvetti Associates in Boston, which was not as long as with Michael, was also very influential. Both Jorge and Rodolfo were incredibly generous and amazing to work for. Their office is a great model for how to build a practice.

MoMA QNS (photo by Christian Richters)

What part of the job do you like best, and as an architect what do you think you most excel at?

I love all aspects of being an architect. True, some things can be tedious and frustrating at times; some things I am better at than others. But I love it all. Not a day goes by that I don't feel incredibly fortunate to being doing what I love to do.

That said, I have found that I really enjoy the early stages of the project. I have had a great deal of experience working on complex projects from early visioning all the way through construction and I find the initial visioning/concept stage to be quite exciting, especially in terms of working with the clients to build a context for collaboration throughout the project. That initial collaboration and relationship building is essential, and is central to our firm's design process.

What are some Portland buildings (either new or historic) that you most admire?

Memorial Coliseum is a building that I always point to - for a couple of reasons. One, because I have a lot of memories of it from my childhood. I went to countless Winterhawks games, and I went to my first concert there...KISS, 1976. But more importantly, it’s an incredible work of modern architecture, one that probably in any other city would have been torn down by now. Hopefully it will continue to have a place in our city because it’s a remarkable building.

The Commonwealth building, although it has seen better days, and The Union Bank of California tower, also come to mind. The Portland Art Museum has a great scale for the city. Similar to the Coliseum, I have fond memories of Union Station and I love its place in the city. And, finally Allied Works' Wieden + Kennedy building is a masterwork.

Two more recent projects that point to the depth and sophistication of Portland's current architectural talent would be B-Side 6 by Works Partnership, and Ben Waechter's Z-Haus.

The other thing that Portland does really well, better than most US cities, is its public spaces. Everything from the Ira Keller Fountain to Jamison Square, there is an amazing constellation of public spaces in the city that are a testament to the quality of the urban environment here.

Casa Malaparte, from Jean-Luc Godard's Contempt

What is your favorite building outside of Portland and besides any you’ve worked on?

That is a long list, and it would probably change from day to day based on what I'm working on or thinking about, but Casa Malaparte (on the Italian island of Capri) is probably my all-time favorite building. It has been described by some as the most beautiful house in the world and I would probably agree with that.

The Seattle Public Library continues to be a building that resonates with me. I think it is one of the most important buildings of the last 50 years in this country.

A building I have not visited but I have admired from afar is the Ibere Camargo Foundation in Brazil by Alvaro Siza. It is an amazing building. If I could only see one more building before I die, that would be the one. Actually, Siza's entire body of work is uniquely inspiring to me.

Ibere Camargo Foundation (photo by Fábio del Re)

The Yale Center for British Art by Louis Kahn is another building that has been incredibly influential to me. We studied a lot of Kahn at the University of Oregon, as you should. The Yale Center was one of his buildings that I did not quite get from an academic standpoint. However, visiting it in person is something I will always remember. It was a revelation to me. In fact, every Kahn building I've visited has been remarkable.

Is there a local architect or firm you think is unheralded or deserves more credit?

Portland has a group of young emerging practices that do incredible work. Ben Waechter is doing great work. And while they are not necessarily unheralded, Works Partnership is doing great work. It would be in Portland’s best interest, especially in terms of the public sector, to really see that there is some remarkable 'young' talent that could produce great work.

What would you like to see change about Portland’s built environment in the long term?

The central city's relationship to the river needs serious attention. There has to be a strong position taken to try to increase the ability to engage the river in a variety of ways. Related to that is the future of the Central Eastside - how it is going to develop, what direction that is going to take, etc.? These go hand-in-hand. How can the Central Eastside help reconnect the city back to the river? There is obviously a large barrier there to contend with in I-5, but there has to be some progressive thinking on that front.

Lubavitch Center, Vancouver, BC (rendering courtesy Architecture Building Culture)

How would you rate the performance of local government like the Portland Development Commission, or the development and planning bureaus?

Portland is a much different place than it was when I was growing up, a better place. It is consistently evolving and improving, and has become one of the benchmark cities in this country and gets recognized as such. There are challenges that we still need to deal with, but the city has to be doing something right, and our city and regional agencies such as the PDC, Metro, etc. have obviously played a major part in that success.

Would you rather live in a South Waterfront condo, a craftsman bungalow in Laurelhurst, a warehouse loft in the North Mississippi district or a mid-century ranch in the West Hills?

One of the great things about Portland is the diversity of neighborhoods/urban environments in such a close proximity. They all have good points and bad points, South Waterfront maybe having more bad than good, but they all add to the richness of the city. We just moved downtown, so right now that's where I want to live.

Who is a famous architect you’d like to see design a building in Portland?

There are a number of people that would be interesting. I would like to see Michael Maltzan do a project here. It would be great to have a Herzog & de Meuron, Peter Zumthor, and the like. Portland is a great city that deserves to have that level of criticality and expression. I would also like to see Allied Works be able to do a significant public building here.

Which would you rather be responsible for: an ugly LEED platinum building or a beautiful modernist energy hog?

I think that's an outmoded question, a false choice really. I want to be responsible for great architecture, which as a given would be sustainable and beautiful.

Name something besides architecture (sneakers, furniture, umbrellas) you love the design of.

I have an affinity for well-designed books, which tend toward architecture, art, and design in general. My library is one of my prized possessions and a key resource in the office. Two books in particular are particularly cherished - first editions of "Delirious New York" and "Learning From Las Vegas". The original "Learning From Las Vegas" in particular is a beautifully designed book.

I also love the design of everyday objects. Objects whose design is exactly what it needs to be. And in that clarity, there is beauty. Reminds me of that Buckminster Fuller quote, "When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I am finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."

What are three of your all-time favorite movies?

It would be impossible to narrow down my favorites to three. I'd start with everything Terrence Malick has ever done and probably will do.

Three movies that come to mind in the context of this interview: Woody Allen’s Manhattan, Godard’s Contempt, and Hitchcock’s Rear Window. All three feature architecture and the city in compelling and beautiful ways.

Much of Contempt takes place at Casa Malaparte.  Brigitte Bardot, Casa Malaparte: it doesn't get much better. Rear Window is a great film in terms of representing the private life and space of the city. In Manhattan, there is this one moment in the film where there is this beautiful interior shot of a Manhattan apartment that is just exquisite. It is just a beautifully shot scene. 

 

 Advertisement

Design Calendar: June 1-15

A home from the Portland Heights Walking Tour (image courtesy AHC)

BY LUKE AREHART

Portland Heights Walking Tour
What was once a very difficult area to build or even get to became a popular residential district, as transportation options increased in Portland during the late 19th century. Today the mixture of homes, ranging in style from Colonial Revival to Art Deco, is a veritable “who’s who” of Portland architects and their masterworks. Be advised that this is fairly strenuous walk. 1:30pm Sunday, June 2, 2013 Allow two hours for the tour, pre-registration is required (limited to 30 people). Members: $10 General Public: $15

Lair Hill Neighborhood Walking Tour
One of Portland’s oldest residential neighborhoods, Lair Hill contains a fascinating mix of historic homes, along with notable buildings significant for their connections to the city’s immigrant populations. It’s also a neighborhood that was impacted by urban renewal. Come along and you’ll also learn that the neighborhood’s namesake might not be what you think it is! 6:00pm Thursday, June 6, 2013 Allow two hours for the tour, pre-registration is required (limited to 30 people). Members: $10 General Public: $15

Sunnyside - Belmont Neighborhood Walking Tour
Explore the neighborhood where our founders, Jerry Bosco and Ben Milligan, previously lived. The Sunnyside neighborhood along southeast Belmont contains a wonderful mix of late 19th and early 20th century homes, along with fantastic streetcar-era commercial buildings. 6:00pm Thursday, June 13, 2013 Allow two hours for the tour, Pre-registration is REQUIRED Limited to 30 people. Members: $10 General Public: $15 

Railroad Architecture and the Northwest: Economics, Ethos, and Culture
Railroads were one of the driving forces in the settlement and urbanization of the United States. Through their station buildings, they left a profound architectural legacy on the country. From humble wooden depots that pioneered the concept of franchise architecture to the grand urban depots displaying the power of the country’s new “millionaire society,” these structures embody the story of America’s Gilded Age. Portland and the Pacific Northwest include a number of fine examples of these structures that collectively contribute to the understanding of our region’s past. 10:00-11:30am Saturday, June 1, 2013, Architectural Heritage Center, 701 SE Grand Avenue Members: $10 General Public: $18 Pre-registration is strongly suggested.

PSU School of Architecture Presents "Made It"
The School of Architecture at Portland State University celebrates the accreditation of its Master of Architecture program and its transformation from a Department to a School with its annual end-of-year design show. Hosted by the American Institute of Architects, Portland chapter, the show will highlight the creative achievements of students throughout the graduate and undergraduate programs during the 2012-2013 academic year. 5:30-8:30pm Thursday, June 6, 2013 AIA Portland Center for Architecture, 403 NW 11th Avenue. Free and open to the public (Exhibition runs June 6 through July 15).

University of Oregon in Portland School of Architecture and Allied Arts OPEN HOUSE
Architecture | POINTPDX | Floor 5
Digital Arts | BFA exhibition, You're Welcome in the White Box | Floor 1
Product Design | Studio Projects in the Event Room | Floor 1
Exhibits of Student Work | Commons and Light Court | Floor 1
A Public Reception in the Commons | Floor 1
Welcome and remarks, 6:30 p.m. in the Commons
6:00-9:00pm Thursday, June 6, 2013 Two entrances in Old Town Chinatown: 70 NW Couch St. & 24 NW First Ave. University of Oregon in Portland at the White Stag Block. Free.

"The Human Scale"
An award-winning documentary inspired by the work of Jan Gehl and Gehl Architects. As the world's population continues to migrate to cities, how the expansion of the future cities is managed and planned has lasting impact on our everyday lives. How do we build cities that invite human interaction, inclusion and intimacy so vibrant city lives can be sustained environmentally, economically and socially?  7pm Wednesday, June 12. Northwest Film Center at the Portland Art Museum's Whitsell Auditorium, 1219 SW Park Avenue). $9.

PSU's Sergio Palleroni on creating the nation's first Center for Public Interest Design

Sergio Palleroni and students in Ladakh, India (image courtesy PSU)

BY BRIAN LIBBY

Earlier this month, Portland State University’s School of Architecture announced the launch of its new Center for Public Interest Design, a research center investigating the power of design to make social, economic and environmental change in disadvantaged communities worldwide. The Center is the first of its kind in the nation and is headed by Professor Sergio Palleroni, a recipient of the American Institute of Architects’ prestigious Latrobe Prize for Public Interest Practice in Architecture in 2011.

Recently I spoke with Palleroni about the Center's creation, how it reflects a changing profession, and how Portland figures in as its base of operations.

Portland Architecture: How did you get involved in this field?

Palleroni: I kind of grown into my role. I grew up in Latin America. When in came to the US I thought, 'Here’s a country with extraordinary resources.' I’d seen the other side of poverty and I thought here the research could be transformative. When I went into practice I was driven by those people in need. There were lots of people in need of our services but people weren’t aware of that. It was my journey to take them to the other side of the railroad tracks, people we didn’t see in architecture magazines. I could have spent the rest of my life designing one school or clinic after the other. But there was something missing. If we were going to make change it needed to be more systemic.

The CPDI is the first of its kind in the nation.  Is this emblematic of an emerging field? 

When I got the Latrobe prize I set out to look at public interest practice occurring: projects that were noteworthy and models of practice that make it possible to address problems we don’t traditionally address, or not for clients we don’t. What we’re doing is literally opening the door for people to begin to understand how these practices operate and to dig deeper.

We found these practices are incredibly synergetic. They survived better in the recession. It also made us aware that the set of skills these architects have. They have planning skills, skills writing grants coming forth and maneuvering a project through public process. Take a local designer like Kevin Cavenaugh, whom we interviewed. He decided the only way to do it is to become your own developer. That’s a new set of skills that you add and can address this need.

What kind of reach do you hope to have?

We are based here at PSU but our audience we hope to influence American education of students so people can teach this in studios or in outreach projects or in professional practice. We also hope to address the profession. How do we do this in learning units and educate professionals about needs they’ve seen but don’t’ know how to do it? Then there’s the research part, taking on strategic projects like the sage classroom, taking a modular building and breaking the nut of affordability. But it’s not just design or practice research but also the markets and communities, the contexts in which they exist. We’re going to continue to grow a database of practices about also adding new research into products like the sage. How do you operate in a constricted environment like that like modular construction? What is that role and how?

What we teach and research in schools needs to lead to greater opportunities to address growing public need. In 20 years a third of the world will be poor and 70 percent in cities. You think, 'How do I work in that environment?' We’re trying to provide some insights into how you might be doing that.

Do you sense a groundswell in the profession for public interest design?

I was in Berlin for a huge conference in December, Structures for Inclusion, that brought people from everywhere. What was interesting was we were all facing the same problem. The support for schools and situations is diminishing because we are strapped. But the need schools can provide is growing. As we talked, we realized we need to be more applied. The knowledge we teach in schools needs to lead to actual applications.

The late great Sam Mockbee spoke on it 13 years ago, but a lot of people were just starting in the field. It was the first time we all became aware we weren’t alone in this. We began to exchange stories. But we wanted to now: could we connect the dots and create a kind of transformative change in the system? Since then it’s been like going from BC to AD. After we started meeting, we got more systemic about it and started to learn from each other’s experience and a lot of us moving into teaching, because that’s one of the most affective ways to make change. We’ve gotten better in that way. We’ve continued to be practitioners but we’ve taken on tools we didn’t have.

The highest levels of the profession are saying, ‘Change is here: tell us what it’s all about.’ There’s a growing awareness. If you asked me 28 years ago if I imagined doing this, no. I imagined being in Guatemala building someone a school. I didn’t imagine myself actually analyzing what I do and teaching people how to do it, or how I could put more of the needs of the community within the structure of the exchange.

Why be based in Portland? How do you see the city given what you do?

In a way you might think I should have just gone to Mumbai, not in Portland where it’s like preaching to the converted. But it’s interesting. At some point you realize you have to be the most effective you can be. You have to go to places where people are trying to connect the dots. Because it advances things much further. Some of the best conversations are happening here in Portland about re-imagining what a city might be like, ideas of social equity and how we can feed ourselves from within a city.

When I’m in the middle of Africa or Mexico, an issue I’ve encountered has almost always happened here in Portland. I can sit there with a thousand other people discussing eco districts or urban farming and it can advance my thinking when I’m out there.

In every place in history there are places like this, which are trying to advance human thinking. People are really actually questioning some of the fundamental things we do. Some things Portland doesn’t do well. But I always find myself learning from the things that I’m seeing. Enough people come here and bring ideas that I’m always learning. Then the other thing is, you’ve got to find a place to live that is safe and where you can recharge your batteries and have a civil discussion about what you’ve experience and get feedback from people who understand. Portland is magic in that way and I’m thankful.

It’s like The Odyssey. Eventually you come home.

SAGE Classroom (image courtesy PSU)

Can you talk about some of the projects the Center is involved with, such as the SAGE classroom, and an orphanage and technical school in Titanyen, Haiti?

There are three scales working really well as we launch the Center.

At one level we have the Haiti project, which we took on because of this development grant we got from France and allowed us to have this great partnership with the Ecole Speciale d’Architecture. We’re creating the orphanage in Haiti with a radical mission to make street orphans the environmental stewards of Haiti’s future. We’ve completed all the dorms and classrooms and are about to build a bakery. It has a couple hundred kids who are moving very fast. We’re hoping the rest of the landscape will be a model, a case study, of how to rebuild.

The Sage classroom is based on a national problem: that we’re building modulars for our school needs. We were one of the showcase buildings at Greenbuild. It’s had a huge success. We’ve got to the process of copywriting the design, creating an open source copyright were profits go into future research. We’ve sold it to all the major distributors in Canada. This summer we’re launching projects in several states where they’ll be implemented. I’ve learned a lot about legal mechanisms and schools and how you make change in something that’s industrial and systemic. It’s taken a long time to rethink the system. I’m just going into a meeting with the business school about how it can be marketed.

And we are working with the Rosewood community in Portland, helping them come up with a series of design guidelines that will guide economic development.

How do these projects track three different aspects of where you're headed?

We’ll develop them, and synthesize what they tell us about the possibilities for new forms of practice. It’s everything from planning to landscape design to financial planning to planning and industrial processes. They’re inextricable, a ball of string where it all goes back to the same source. That’s the cool thing about doing practice now. We no longer assume one central paradigm defines practice. We’re starting to assume the practice is messy and complex and can engage more issues than we’ve given it or thought possible to work with. Design is all of a sudden this hot commodity. We’re collaborating with the Stanford business school. Design thinking is the kind of complex thinking that’s needed to get to the future.

We need to go back to asking ourselves the fundamental questions, and understanding the world’s complex, and the ideas we’ll need to engage it are too. It’ll take us into realms that are not strictly designed, but maybe how a building gets financed, or how we implement something. Designers are beginning to realize essential parts of practicing in the modern world: how we might to that constructively. How do we even know the questions we can ask of other professionals and how we engage them?

The cool thing is if you think about it, it makes it easier to lead in my mind a productive and peaceful life, a life where you feel realized. Rather than architecture being your day job, the things that you’ve read in the newspaper can come into your designs. Why can’t the feelings we have about the world be part of design?

Housing for the homeless in Haiti (image courtesy PSU)

How challenging is it to find funding for these different endeavors?

One of the problems is we keep thinking that this is necessarily not a way to make money. One of the most fundamental conversations I have with local organizations like Outside In and Central City Concern is that Oregon has really become a pilot case for Obamacare: people are considering that housing for people who can’t afford it actually saves the state money over that person winding up in the emergency room and receiving treatment. It’s cheaper to help that person with housing than to turn you back on them. So how can we change the logic of this?

We’ve painted ourselves into a corner of how things work. We need to rethink things from the ground up. Say, is that true? Is it verifiable? Is housing the poor a net loss, or does it make us richer as a community? That’s one of the most exciting conversations I’m involved with. If that is true, there are literally hundreds of jobs for Oregon architects to be involved with. It’s actually preventative healthcare.

Should the health care money actually fund housing? That might be the best health care investment.

After a while we stop questioning. We know that the system has fundamental problems. Business as usual is not going to solve them. We need to go back and ask is the logic of things working? That’s what the center is about. Where do opportunities come from?

 

Advertisements