Rapaport High on The Clinton

Ever since the Belmont Lofts opened a couple years ago to almost universal acclaim, architecture enthusiasts have been waiting to see how the next partnership between developer Randy Rapaport and Holst Architecture would manifest itself. They built the best building since Allied Works' 2281 Glisan building. Will their follow-up be a hit too?

Recently I met with Rapaport, a uniquely energetic and idiosynchratic 46 year old former child psychologist who's as passionate about skateboarding, avant garde cinema and indie rock as he is architecture. (Despite the colorful description, don't be fooled into thinking he isn't a real pro at real estate developing.) Randy gave me the scoop on The Clinton, which will break ground soon at Southeast 26th and Division. It looks somewhat similar to the Belmont Lofts, with its incorporation of wood and glass. But The Clinton stands as its own work as well. It might even be a step up.

“We wanted to do something beautiful,” Rapaport told me. “I gave John [Holmes of Holst] keywords like randomness, glass, matching materials at vertical and horizontal plances. A piece of art: that’s what I wanted. The biggest intention for all the work I do is to support creativity, whether it’s in music, architecture or anything else. The ability to be creative is richest when you have a sense of presence.”

How many developers do you know who talk like that?

Rapaport says despite its being a mixed-use condo (with retail on the ground floor) priced for the high-end market, this is a civic building. “The civic quality comes from the transluscent floor-to-ceiling green glass panels, that are randomly placed,” he says. “Behind each panel there’s the ability to backlight it separately. So the building generates a randomly lit, Mondrian-inspired painting that constantly changes.”

The Clinton has not been without its controversy. Neighbors have fought the moving of an historic home  on the site, and they seem to have the common high-density fears of traffic and tall buildings. But if they can’t get on board with Randy Rapaport and the extra passion he shows for high-caliber design, no one is going to make them happy.

As always, only the completed building will really bring the chance for a final verdict. But based on the track records of those involved, The Clinton seems very promising indeed. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow, Randy.

Comments

[mike conroy]

what other materials are involved? the general shape seems rather boxy.

[andrew]

loads of potential.

randy, any chance that we'll see you and holst work together in northeast, maybe on mississippi or alberta?

[Frank Dufay]

Neighbors have fought the moving of an historic home on the site, and they seem to have the common high-density fears of traffic and tall buildings...

Not a fear of tall buildings, just where they're put. Towering over single-family residences does create a problem...for those folks who live next door.

The issue of the historic house is the opportunistic abuse of the zone change put in place precisely to keep the historic house on that site to put in this massive building on a corner of a busy street, where the applicant, Randy, begged off on providing even a code required loading zone, though plenty of parking for his high-end condos. All the while reaping reduced Transportation System Development Charges for being on a bus line. (Transit-Oriented Development, y'know?)

The neighborhood objection was to the destruction of an iconic and beautiful historic home, that reflected --now gone-- the last of these turn of the century (last century) homes in the neighborhood. Lost forever is a once special green space, and beautiful trees, in a neighborhood sorely park deficient.

A "piece of art" with "randomness" may have "a sense of presence" but what about having some context with the neigborhood in which this is placed, and the abutting buildings? This "Clinton" neither faces Clinton Street, nor Division St, to which it turns a blank wall of indifference, in place of the beautiful landmark that once proudly stood there and was considered the "gateway" to the neighborhood.

For the record, we offered to help Randy place this building elsewhere in the neighborhood, even across the street. His response was to destroy the site before our appeal was heard.

[ozon]

oversestimated understatement typical of PDX scene

[Brian]

While I do agree that this building is visually unpleasing at best, I have to disagree with Frank's comments. Looking at the site, any of the other three corners at the intersection are much more needing candidates of infill, however, the house on the site was saved, just moved offsite. As for the "beautiful trees", they were nothing more than big leaf maples nearing the end of their lifespan. Finally, there is a very nice little pocket park one block from this site. One element missing from the renderings is people. Perhaps it will be more architecturally successful than it appears to be in the renderings.

[shannon]

Dear Randy:

NE is ready! Alberta is ready!

We dream of beauty, utility and perhaps a moratorium on corrugated metal siding...

Sincerely,
sh

[Frank Dufay]

Looking at the site, any of the other three corners at the intersection are much more needing candidates of infill...

Exactly the point. Instead of tackling those corners, or the many, many places along Division Randy's project would have been welcomed, he took advantage of the spot zoning placed on that property ten years ago to save the historic structure, not put in retail and two dozen condos.

the house on the site was saved, just moved offsite.

Moving the house off Division robs it of its context. The carriage house that was with it was destroyed.

As for the "beautiful trees", they were nothing more than big leaf maples nearing the end of their lifespan.

Native big leaf maples can have a life span of 250-300 years if you don't cut them down. The largest maple was about 100 years old.

Design issues were less the concern of the neighborhood then the building's failure to orient itself to Division, a main street. Where we once had a 100 year old maple, and a beautiful old homestead, we'll have a wall to look at on Division. And, not to belabor the point, the small business community around Clinton did not want to see more retail put in with no discernable place for trucks to park. In addition, this is a busy street for children crossing to school.

None of which is to argue against creativity --or radicalism-- in architecture. But architecture isn't just pictures on paper, and attractive buildings, its also about community and utility, and respecting and working with the fabric of a neighborhood.

[Randy Rapaport]

Developing a new subdivision....think vertical, in a long-established neighborhood is bound to be difficult on some of its residents. There is no way that everyone will be pleased with the result.

Those who live close to a development site are most effected. That is part of the reason that I am really serious about the work. It is a difficult process for many.

I will not ever be able to convince those who believe that increasing density is inappropriate. It is easier to be critical than to step-up.

I know that Metro, the City of Portland, and many architects that I have contact with are in support of The Clinton Condominiums. We get so many phone calls for this 27 unit building that the we will llkely be sold-out by the time official condo docs are prepared, perhaps ten months befeore move-in.

I believe that we will raise the bencmark, again regarding design and quality. The effect of this on our city, which I love, is to raise expectations of everyone around real estate development. It may even inspire others to step-up and do good work. It can have a positive ripple effect...

Randy Rapaport

[Val]

No problem thinking vertically as The Clinton will amount to a vertical gated community from which those on the fourth floor can look down upon those less fortunate than themselves. Too bad for residents the large glass windows won't be rose colored.
In regards to the house being "saved," while yes moving the home saved it from the wrecking ball, the house has also subsequently been stripped of its architecturally significant porches and no longer contains any resemblence of its former context at 26th and Division. While saving the house is admirable for its reuse of materials, the moving of the home only amounts to recycling; in no way is it the preservation of a neighborhood historic resource.

To quote the previous message "It is easier to be critical than to step-up." This works both ways. I challenge developers and architects to think about ways in which our historic and natural resources can be preserved while also creating density. Someone needs to "step-up" and think beyond the easy way of making a buck and consider how we can truly create more density and save our neighborhoods from the complete loss of historic character.

Its frustrating when those who want to preserve neighborhood history are stereotyped as opposed to change. Mr Libby's comments and those that have been printed in the local media do nothing but promote that idea, which is not always the case. Many people I know - myself inlcuded - would like to see buildings with mixed use/residential be built, but they also need to consider/respect the extant community. When choosing a location, developers could stand to be more sensitive to the surroundings and look beyond their bottom line.

[Randy Rapaport]

I would like to encourage citizens of Portland to attend their local neighborhood land-use meetings. If more residents in general and some with education in Urban Planning, architecture, landscape architecture, and art history would particpate, a more balanced result and direction might emerge.

Based on the 4 or 5 negative experiences with the HAND neighborhood group meetings regarding the above project I have determined that my group would have been better off not attending any meetings. I will never again allow my architect/design partners to be subjected to such negativity.

Currently, I am working on a major mixed-use, and types of retail, housing, live/work project and partnering with an architect/design firm from the east coast that will become the center of the Mississippi district, to respond to requests above.

Our intention is to create a fresh urban model that will have national signifance and influence for other developmnents.

The community will contain local or regional retail tenants, many of which will own their own spaces of the following type: food service, grocery, music store with stage, florist, book store, printing press and gallery, art gallery, yoga/martial arts space, musician practice spaces, small venue for independent film and performance, coffee/tea house and a small bar/ dance club. It will also have a large, outdoor public space. Mor thatn 100 jobs will be created.

As much as I would like to see this happen, I am not really attached to any of it.

Randy Rapaport

[Val]

Can the creative preservation and reuse of existing landscapes and structures be deemed a "fresh urban model"? Every time older structures are demolished there is a huge impact on our dwindling resources. Historic preservationists are not just a narrow minded group of luddites but are looking at a broad picture of historic AND environmental awareness.

Absolutely it would be nice if more people would engage in our neighborhood organizations, if not they become stale and run the potential of becoming stereotypical NIMBY's. It is extremely difficult for these ALL volunteer groups to continually be put into a defensive posture when it comes to Land-use but what else can we do? We are often given little notice or time to react to land-use developments, which I think leads to our frustration and sometimes bitterness toward certain projects. That said, it would be nice if neighborhood feelings would be given more consideration than those of someone simply looking to make a buck by taking advantage of obviously weak land use regulations.

We're not just out looking for a fight, we just want to be a reasonable part of the equation.

[Maynard Krebs]

It's unfortunate that the Clinton building has to be built on a lot that contained an historic home. And it's absolutely true that even though the house is being preserved by moving, its architectural context will be totally ruptured.

BUT, we can't assume that Rapaport had his pick of all four lots at that intersection. It's not fair to suggest he should have chosen one of the others. Who says they were even for sale?

More importantly, though, I think neighbors have to understand that Division is one of the city's most prominent arterial streets, and that means it's an appropriate place for high-density housing. Will it take some getting used to for neighbors in adjacent single-family homes? Of course. But 26th and Division is an ENTIRELY appropriate place for a condo.

What's more, I know some readers don't like modern architecture, or that they find the Clinton monolithic for their neighborhood. But Randy Rapaport is one of the only developers in the city who really endeavors to commission exceptional contemporary design. His last project, the Belmont Lofts, won numerous awards and is quite critically acclaimed. The Clinton is designed by the same firm.

Certainly some neighbors' apprehension and even ire is understandable, but they're getting exceptional architecture on a lot that was destined sooner or later for a building much larger than the average single-family home.

One final note to Rapaport, though: Don't treat the neighborhood association as a dead-end road. The process was frustrating for you this time around, but it remains just that: a process. Even if you face some hostility, it's better to engage the people there than to sidestep them.

[Val]

I agree 26th and Division is an appropriate place for condo construction, as are many lots along SE Division. However, the specific lot chosen was a neighborhood landmark that just happened to have the only CM zoning in the area. The CM zoning was crucial to the plan for The Clinton but was only put in place - in 1995 - as a means to preserve the historic building and landscape (see BDS records). In other words, this project seems simply opportunistic and therefore this whole process has become enormously frustrating to neighbors, especially when the city says that the reasons for the zone change 10 years ago no longer mean anything. When this kind of attitude is coupled with the developer and the architect telling us we are going to like their project (and aren't given any alternatives) it becomes easy to understand how things get heated.
Additionally, the plans for The Clinton could have incorporated at least some of the original landscape or even one of the original structures, while still creating far greater density than had existed on that site previously. Imagine if the plan had been to move the Thomas House to face SE 26th, placing it closer to the other houses on that block. Then the entire front 2/3 of the lot - facing Division - would have become usable for a smaller but still viable mixed use development. This would have saved the house in nearly its original context while also creating density along a major transit street and (for the most part) would not place a very tall building directly adjacent to extant single family residences.

If this had been the proposal I think opposition would have been minmal, if at all.
Instead we were told these are our plans and you will like them or else you'll get a Weston-like apartment complex on the site. How are we supposed to remain positive when faced with such an attitude? A developer may win awards for design but that doesn't make them a nice or reasonable person.

[Frank Dufay]

More importantly, though, I think neighbors have to understand that Division is one of the city's most prominent arterial streets, and that means it's an appropriate place for high-density housing...

Look at the photo...the building is on 26th, not Division. The neighborhood would've supported this elsewhere on Division. Instead, Division gets a wall.

Would you point to where the delivery vans are to park for the retail on the first floor? Randy asked for --and got-- a variance so he doesn't have to provide the delivery parking required by code.
He squeezed the largest possible building he could get on this site...and then asked for even more with a request for a height variance.

Randy won't be providing bicycle parking for visitors and shoppers either. He bought his way out of the obligation. Forget about any obligation to the neighborhood to be a good neighbor!

[Chris McMullen]

This project is a classic example of how density is driving homeowners out of Portland proper and to the ever expanding suburbs.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-20-urbanflight_x.htm

Portlanders better start voting out "visionaries" like Rex Burkholder and Eric Sten if they want to try to stop these neighborhood-runining developments.

[Ben McCormick]

Yeah, and All the Way with LBJ! Tippecanoe and Tyler Too!

[Andy Silver]

If this project drives anyone to the suburbs, good riddance. A lot of people complain that Portland architecture sucks, and then what happens when great design comes along?

[Val]

I think the case of The Clinton goes way beyond the question of "good design." There are so many other issues that need to be considered when moving into an existing neighborhood, especially with such a large structure.

Quoting the previous post: "If this project drives anyone to the suburbs, good riddance."
This sort of attitude is exactly part of the problem today in Portland. The impression exists that many newcomers don't care that long-time residents hold our neighborhoods in high regard, not because of their investment potential but because of the sense of community that has been fostered over the last century. Are these people just supposed to step aside because their neighborhood has become trendy?

By the way, just who is it that says Portland architecture sucks?

[Frank Dufay]

If this project drives anyone to the suburbs, good riddance.

An interesting perspective. Since you don't seem to believe neighbors should have any say over what happens in their neighborhoods...why should the building owners? Why not, as has been suggested here already, let architects do all the visioning of our future while some of them eagerly bury and destroy our past? (And see how many commisions you get with that attitude.)

A lot of people complain that Portland architecture sucks, and then what happens when great design comes along?

What looks to me like a tricked-out dorm room --and which is, in fact, a decorated box-- out of scale with everything around it...where's the good design? Where's the visitor parking? Where's the loading zone? Where's the bicycle spaces? Where's the contribution or even connection to the surrounding neighborhood?

Like much of the current ethos of development, the architecture here steals from the public space, and gives back nothing. Every square inch of available private space, however, is a commodity, for sale to the highest bidder. That's hardly high art or superior design.

[Jamie Owens]

My comments are about the original posting by Brian Libby. Not anything about the lack of Portland Architecture, NIMBY or moving to the 'burbs.

I realize this is just a hot air, pat-on-the back puff piece, but is it really okay to just present one view of the reality??

I like indie music and skateboarding too, does that mean I am cool enough to tell anyone what is needed in their neighborhood? Am I cutting edge too?

Mr. Rapaport wanted to do something beautiful...well what happened, why didn’t you?

Did you even check what civic means??
Not even the garbage man will be able to enter the property without a key. Except for the retail, everything is behind a locked gate. How does this make The Clinton “of the people”. Civic my arse.

I call it: The Walmart. Consider the similarities: Large unwanted building out of character with the rest of the neighborhood, site made up entirely of just the building and the parking lot, added noise, light, heat, traffic, lots of safety issues, no one gains anything except the owner, lack of any neighborhood input, arrogant developer. Yup, The Walmart.

The building is going onto a block of single family turn-of-the- century, over 100 year-old, homes. It will dwarf everything around it. Even someone who has not been to architecture school can see that the perspective is all wrong, it is a giant box placed at the end of a street. And now I learn from you the building will have flashing green lights too, is there NO end to this?

I was told the building was placed so it wouldn’t block any light. Have you forgotten what state you live in?? Up here the sun, during the summer, is north of Portland. Yes, my light will be blocked. But hey I understand why you aren’t so upset by all of this, after all it won’t be the sun in your yard that is blocked.

You suggest there must be something wrong with us, the neighbors, if we don’t like Randy’s vision for our block.....do you really believe that?

Well, I did tell him what would make us happy. I asked him to make it smaller. Take off the top floor, that would let the sun come back for us, it would help the perspective of the building and it would solve his parking problem. Can you believe that as it drawn right now, he doesn’t have enough parking for all of his tenants! How silly is that; to have a “high-end” home and nary a place to put your car?

Why don’t you all come down and see for yourself before making a judgment that we should all get on board with Randy......you know ‘cause we are really cool people.

[Brian Libby]

Jamie et al.,

In retrospect it's clear I was insensitive to the neighbors in the Clinton area concerned about the project. I shouldn't have let my words indicate that Randy is somehow hipper than thou and therefore exempt from addressing in the design he's sponsoring a sound integration with the existing urban fabric. What I'd meant to say was simply that I think it's a potentially beautiful building by one of the best architects in Portland. I think the building is in scale with Division Street, and even if the address is technically on 26th I think of it as largely a Division Street building. As I said before, I see Portland's increasing density in the future being manifested by larger-scale buildings on major streets that are perhaps in some ways out of scale with the single-family residences nearby. And perhaps the Clinton building needs to do more to make that transition easier. But I still resolutely believe in the project, and I hope the two sides can work out their differences.

[Frank Dufay]

Brian,

I think the building is in scale with Division Street...

Not this segment of Division.

..and even if the address is technically on 26th I think of it as largely a Division Street building.

And Randy calls it "The Clinton" except its not on Clinton either. Let's just make stuff up...it doesn't matter anyway when buildings are placed in NO context whatsoever with the neighboring buildings or neighborhood.

But I still resolutely believe in the project...

It would be helpful if you explained why? And as for the two sides "coming together" sure, we'll try, but its hard when Randy has already bullied --and bulldozed-- his way through the neighborhood.

[Randy Rapaport]

When I looked at the contextual sense of place, what with the Plaid Pantry, the early 1960's car repair and Joe Weston's (i think) at least type of 1960's apartment complex it was decided that a bold statement was in order. My team agreed and we plan to begin construction very soon.

I am unwilling to "dumb-down" my projects because they would simply not be worth my energy otherwise. I plan to step-up even further on projects to come. The city of Portland and the many architects and designers that I have contact with are delighted! I love Portland and it deserves to awaken with regard to its architecture.

Randy Rapaport

[Jamie Owens]

You use the term “dumb down” which again shows that you would like to promote the idea that because the neighbors have dared to defy you, and that we don’t agree with you, we are just not good enough for your vision. We’re not smart enough to “get it”. Don’t you realize how you sound??

And you are already thinking of your next conquests, your next project, the next neighborhood to swoop down into and improve with ‘your sense of presence’. Good lord where does it all end? So you get to change the face of this place and you don’t even have a stake in this neighborhood, you don’t care about this land or our homes at all.

Please save us from your energy.

Of course your peers are delighted, they are not living in the shadow of your project.

This neighborhood’s architecture was just fine without your box, it was already hip without you, it was already awake with homes and families. You did not transform an empty lot, you took a historic home that was peaceful and beautiful, you cut down trees. You will build and then move on. How is that different from any other developer? There is absolutely nothing special about your work or how you do it. You are fooling yourself to think otherwise.

[John Hopkins]

Well, I live next door to the project and it is safe to say I see both perspectives very well. I don't think it is possible to make everyone happy in this endevour. I've owned my house next door for seven years and I will feel the ramifications of this building as much as anyone. However, not once have I been approached by anyone in the community in regards to this project. Randy is the only person who has contacted me since hearing of the sale from my previous neighbors. Good or bad I will get what I want because I have chosen to work with Randy and not against him. I knew they were selling long before others did and I can confirm they they were in the right to do so. Nobody has cared about this corner (or the Clay Rabbit) until this point. They're business was dead. They took the money and most of us would have as well. It is gone, we are moving forward, all we can hope for is a smooth transition and hope that sombody buys the Plaid Pantry...