Landmarks Commission Bites Apple -Should We Bite Back?

In April I wrote about how a proposed Apple Computer store on NW 23rd Avenue had seen its plans significantly altered by the Historic Landmarks Commission. A stainless steel facade had to be changed to stone. The logo had to go. And so on. The point of the previous post was to raise concern about how the Landmarks Commission may be over-stepping its bounds, judging a work of modern architecture that seems to have little to do with historic buildings. Moreover, I argued against the larger principle that modern buildings can't complement different older architecture. In fact, I think it's the juxtaposition of two different forms, each true to its era and aesthetics, that makes a neighborhood and a city all the richer.

Now an update: If you haven't already heard, the project is now dead. Even after Apple and its local architect, Holst, agreed to the Landmarks Commission's changes, the commission as I understand it, still told Apple that more significant changes were needed. So Apple pulled out of the deal.

Certainly there will be those who read this and feel compelled to defend either the Landmarks Commission specifically or the values behind their decision. That's fine. But I don't think I'm the only one that feels the commission is way off base here.

In an interview published in Friday's Daily Journal of Commerce, Belmont Lofts developer Randy Rapaport came down strongly against the commission:

"We have a real problem in Portland...The mayor should immediately do two things. First, appoint a committee through one of the commissioners to do an application process so that professors of urban studies, professors of architecture, the finest architects in the region, can put their resumes in to quickly reformulate the commission. Potter should set up a quick application process - members on the commission currently can reapply - and there should be a refreshment of that board immediately."

Just so we're clear, here's how the City of Portland's Office of Neighborhood Involvement defines the task of the Commisison on its website:

The Historical Landmarks Commission provides leadership and expertise on maintaining and enhancing Portland's historic and architectural heritage.  The Commission identifies and protects buildings and other properties that have historic or cultural significance or special architectural merit. The Commission provides advice on historic preservation matters, and coordinates historic preservation programs in the City.  The Commission is also actively involved in the development of design guidelines for historic design districts.

The Historic Landmarks Commission consists of eight members, none of whom may hold public elective office.  The Commission must include a member of the Planning Commission; a historian with knowledge of local history; anarchitectural historian; an architect; two members from the following: landscape architecture, real estate, construction, community development, urban planning, archeology, law, finance, cultural geography, cultural anthropology, or related disciplines; and two members at-large.  All members must have demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge of historic preservation.  No more than two members of the Commission may be in the business of buying, selling, leasing, or developing real estate for profit, or be officers of such a business.  The Planning Commission member is chosen by the Planning Commission chair.  The other members are appointed by theMayor and confirmed by the City Council.

I don't see anything there about delivering verdicts on new buildings. There is mention of weighing in on design guidelines for historic districts, and the Apple store would have been located in one. But guidelines are different from rendering verdicts on actual cases. Somebody want to enlighten us on how the commission came to be telling Apple how to build its store?

Comments

[upset]

its called architectural racism, if you dont look like us dont come to our community.
forget about the architecture for one moment, a community known for design and designers runs out Apple? beyond the backward sense of trying to bring businesses to a place, one thing to run out crack dealers but to run out a company like Apple who is know for quality design, - sad comment on the state of affairs for attracting not only quailty businesses, but maybe more importantly quality design.

[val]

My understanding is that the Portland Landmarks Commission reviews any development proposals that affect designated landmarks or are located within designated historic districts.

For the review guidelines for new construction within Portland designated historic districts
See Historic Resource Protection Overlay Zone, section 33.445.320

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=53352

As Brian pointed out, the Commission is to be made up of a variety of individuals so that no one special interest rules. Developers and property owners should be full aware when their properties lie within a historic district and should therefore be prepared to follow design guidelines accordingly.

The Landmarks Commission represents the only review for historic properties and districts - so it is a necessary body, especially given the amount of development in Portland these days.

It's no surprise that Randy Rapaport is critical of the Commission, he is also quoted in the same DJC article as saying we can "no longer look to the past for our answers." The interest seems to be that if a building was designed by one of the "great architects" of the past, then it should be preserved, otherwise its expendable.

Just as developers like Rapaport have an advocate for their causes at the city level in the form of the BDS, so do Portlanders in general have an advocate for preserving historic districts in the form of the Landmark's Commission.

My only wish is that they had more power, then buildings like the Rosefriend could maybe be saved.

[Brian]

Val, I agree and disagree with you.

I think it's great if the HLC can help preserve historic buildings. I agree the Rosefriend could use their help.

But I don't think the HLC should be weighing in on the aesthetics of a new building. I like historic architecture enough that I don't think it needs help standing on its own next to modern architecture.

[Chris]

I believe the intent of having the Landmarks Commision review new design in historic districs is try (often ineffectually) to prevent buildings that are poorly designed from degrading the character of a historic neighborhood. I think this is very important. It usually involves architectural monstrosities that are not thought through with respect to their context. That said, I'm not familiar with the particulars of the Apple project, but it sounds like the Commision may be straying from this intent. I think Commisioners need to understand that being "modern" can be compatible with historic contexts, if done well. Unfortunately this begins to tread on some very subjective ground, which 'design guidelines' could not begin to define. I hope that your complaints are at least brought to the attention of the Commission so that they can discover a more nuanced view of what is appropriate in hisortic districts.

[val]

I see your point Brian, but without some sort of design/esthetic guidelines in historic districts, the consequences could be devastating. I say its ok to have a mixture of modern and old architecture, just not within designated historic districts, where the goal is to maintain the historic integrity of the district as a whole.

[suki]

history is made everyday.
i think the goal of the commission should be to save and preserve good historic architecture where ever they are. why not make people who live in these historic districts wear clothing appropriate for the period or not allowing them to drive cars or use cell phones. (doesn't parking a new bmw in front of the 19c house also disturb the historic integrity of the district?) the city should evolve with the times. perhaps the commissioners don't understand what make good architecture and can only see architecture as styles. by not allowing good modern architecture (that is architecture that reflects the time in which we live) is to create disneyland.

[val]

"why not make people who live in these historic districts wear clothing appropriate for the period or not allowing them to drive cars or use cell phones." This is a rather absurd comment. A historic district is created with the intent of preserving otherwise endangered built aspects of our city's past. Buildings are often the only physical elements of a community that can be preserved. The intent is not to lock an area into the past but to maintain as much as possible the physical historic character of the buildings -after everything else has changed (culture, technologies, etc). Historic districts only create "Disneylands" when their design guidelines are poor or lack enforcement.

Besides, the bottom line here is what? Apple - which is rapidly creating a bunch of chain stores across the country - wouldn't in it's eyes - lower itself to meet historic district design guidelines. Do we really need more chain stores, I mean really, you can buy Apple products throughout the city already. Perhaps it means you are cooler though if you buy from the actual Apple store. Give me a F'in break!

[offset]

Some of the best cities in the world
contain a diverse mix of building styles within the same neighborhood. I agree that this is a example of " architectural racism" and HLC overstepping its role based on emotional reactions rather than concrete, logical, educated decisions.

[thedude]

Remember Planet Hollywood. All those Downtowns fought to put one of these stores with its distictly NEW look in the center of the city. They are a joke now. How do you re-use an apple store design in 50 years? I think anytime a building is designed to sell a specific products marketing campaign you end up with trouble. If the store was designed to maximise the use of the product from the street then we could have a winner. Apple stores are like Tiffany, the buildings they use sell an idea rather then function like a store.

[val]

"architectural racism"? I guess if we're going to start throwing out hyperbole then I can call the destruction of historic buildings Architectural Genocide. That seems to describe the aims of many in Portland these days.

[ryan]

right or wrong, left or right, up or down, the overwhelming fact of the matter is: no company in their right mind should be looking to put anything in northwest portland. the parking situation is completely out of control. you can drive around for hours and not find anything. putting a real store there will only piss off the neighbors and the natives, and confuse the insipid tourists.

[Raymond Brigleb]

This is a really disappointing development. Any suggestions on how we should take action on this, if we're unhappy with the Commission? Is Potter indeed the best person to take this to?

[Carlo]

This is just an aside, but wouldn't the Pearl be a better fit for Apple anyway? It's a bit more upscale, they'd get more buzz, there's lots of available retail space, and they wouldn't have to deal with any of the parking problems they'd encounter on NW 23rd (which, as Ryan says, is the Achilles heel of that neighborhood). As I recall, Apple has a high-profile store in a converted old SoHo post office in New York, and the Pearl could offer them something very similar.

[alan]

With the caveat of not knowing anything about this beyond what's been presented here, I can't shed too many tears for Apple.

I'd rather have a slightly over-zelous Historic Landmarks Commission than have Portland become just another corporate/condo town.

It also seems the end of this project was an inevitability. Right, wrong, or otherwise, the Historic Landmarks Commission is trying to maintain the character of the NW 23rd Neirborhood. Apple, right, wrong, or otherwise, always tries to raise its store branding above whatever neighborhood or mall it ends up in. These are mutally exclusive goals that destined this project for failure.

Finally, as others have mentioned, there's an Apple Store less than two miles away in Pioneer Place. Neither the fate of Portland or Apple rested on this store, so, like I said, few tears are being shed.

At the end of the day the only thing this means is one more warehouse demolished in the Pearl (-;

[Matt House]

Doesn't sound like there is a problem here to me.

Apple didn't want to change the store enough. The building commission didn't want to change the policy at all.

So Apple isn't putting a store there.
Everyone is happy, right?

Personally, I think its insane that a government entity gets to make those kinds decisions (unless its governmen-owned property). Unless someone could show that the store would have adversely affected property values, it shouldn't be an issue.

Apple stores are very well-designed. The "what can you do with an Apple store in 50 years?" comment is crazy. Apple stores are designed with an incredibly minimalistic visual aesthetic.

You could turn one into almost *anything* else.

But, again, looks like everyone got what they wanted here. Not sure what the issue is.

[matt o]

my only question is...what is the historic identity of NW 23rd. it definately has history, i would not attempt to argue that, but it seems to me that the history is made up of a wide variety of building styles and types that were built over a long period of time. if there is a single historic identity than i support holding onto that but it seems that the area is much more a palimpsest of multiple histories and this should continue to be added onto.

[robert]

its laughable - i dont understand this decission by the commission at all becasue an apple store would have been the best thing to happen to that interesction in a long time. How do they explain the plaid pantry convenience store, pizzacato restaurant, and a noahs bagels that adorn the other 3 corners of that intersection? None of these businesses contribute to the integrity of the neighborhood and very likely cheapen value of nearby property.

[Josh K]

What really made the deal go south was the Apple rep's refusal to stop saying "Ory-gone".

[Laurence Turner]

I think that it is not surprising that the HLC squahed the proposed Apple Store - historical commisions in the US tend to think that every neighborhood and every piece of junk is something worth preserving. It's part of what I see as a deep psychological need in some people to "give" America a sense of history that it does not (yet) possess. It's a form of Euro-envy, in my opinion. I've worked in Japan, where there really is some history to preserve - and the Japanese are very good at preserving places that truly deserve it - but they don't get all hung up about their history at the expense of building something good. I agree with the comment posted by Alan above - what business is it of a historical commision to evaluate a new building IF THAT NEW BUILDING ISN'T DESTROYING A POPULAR LANDMARK? Matt's comment above is even more to the point - the Plaid Pantry is OK, but not an Apple Store? Gimme a break!

I've dealt with historical commissions in New England where they take their preservation pretty seriously and I'm sorry to see that same attitude coming to the West Coast. It is a form of elitism that can absolutely stunt a community's growth.

I hope Apple takes the suggestion of Raymond above and seek land/space in the Pearl.

[Randy Rapaport]

I think that Apple wanted a free-standing store which was available on NW 23rd and which would allow a more powerful expression than being on a ground floor level of a tower.

Nothing historical was being removed or destroyed with this NW store site. It seems illogical to me that they would inhibit Apple's design expression in a progressive city like Portland.

They should protect existing historical architecture. What are they protecting themselves from? They should be more supportive of creativity.

[Josh]

Figures a city famous for trannies and homeless people pissing on front lawns would be hypersensitive to aesthetics. If there is any real history around NW 23rd (was the Frappuccino invented there one warm summer night?), I'm sure it is hardly worth remembering.

[ws]

Could be right that the Historic Landmarks Commission job description finds them out of their boundary in weighing in on Apple as they did, but their conclusions about the compatibility of Apple’s desired design with 23rd Avenue seem right. Somebody has to be watching the farm or the place would go to hell in a handbasket. 23rd already has had some out of control modern design clash problems.

The georgia stone sounded as though it might be good, but stainless doesn’t sound good at all. We still have some of those BP, now Union 76 stainless steel clad gas stations around. Take a look at that example of minimalism when you get a chance.

Tried to find the source of where I read it but couldn’t. It was possibly at a Northwest Neighborhood Association meeting by someone attempting to characterize the design for the new Apple store on 23rd Avenue. His words, paraphrasing here: “….franchise architecture”.

Also, this from the Fred Leeson article: “The debate could come down to a wordless, back-lit sign of a big white apple with a bite out of it. It would measure 5 feet 3 inches by 6 feet 4 inches”. I suppose it was at eye level too. This is typically arrogant corporate marketing strategy that sacrifices architectural aesthetic in favor of brand conditioning.

Would Holst let us see the design illustrations? They could produce a whole different set of feelings.

[val]

Whether the building on the property was "historic" or not does not matter. The property lies within a historic district of which ALL properties within said district are supposed to meet certain design requirements, when remodeling, rennovating, or building something new. The idea is to conserve the character of the district as a whole and therefore individual properties within the district cannot be taken out of the equation.

Think of the guidelines as covenants, like those in a suburban housing development or perhaps a condo development - all residents are expected to comply. In the city, there are no other covenants in our neighborhoods, so a historic district designation can act as a tool for maintaining neighborhood integrity.

Another thought. The area in question became a designated historic district, likely because residents and property owners wanted to some protections against the complete loss of neighborhood character. Therefore it is feasible that had the area NOT been revitalized in the 1980s (if I have my chronology correct), it would have been turned into who knows what? ugly apartment buildings, lots of mini malls, etc... And today the very wealth of business that has been brought into the neighbohood may not have existed, had people not decided they wanted to preserve the neighborhood. It is reasonable to assume then that if it weren't for the historic district status, the economic boom along 23rd would have taken a vastly different path - if at all. The very reason Apple wanted to be in this area is because of potential business. Business that only extists today because two decades ago people saw fit to preserve the neighborhood as best they could and one part of that revitalization was the creation of a historic district.

One final question to those who wanted an Apple store. How would you feel had the proposal been exactly the same but instead of Apple the proposed tenant was Walgreens?

Wrap it up in whatever pretty package you want and it was still just another proposed chain store.

[whalt]

I think the only sensible solution is to demolish all of the buildings in the area and rebuild all of the previous sructures that stood on those sites to look exactly as they did before they were so senselessly torn down by the modernists of a previous era.

"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." -- F. Scott Fitgerald

[burl]

I cannot believe folks care one way or the other if another giant corporation gets to put a yet another shiny temple to consumerism in town. How many more stores do they need in Portland? You can ride the Max for 5 minutes and get to the one dowtown. Keep corporate junk in malls. I for one am happy for this decision. First Apple puts up a stainless steal alter then Wal-Mart can come in. All this discussion over something that you will be able to buy in a value village for $10 in ten years. It is a disgrace.