Holst's Mississippi Project Under Fire

Recently the city’s Bureau of Development Services rejected a proposed building on North Mississippi that earlier the Boise-Eliot Neighborhood approved by a two-thirds majority.

The project, a four-story mixed use building with condos above, was designed by Holst Architecture and developed by the Kurisu family. Holst, as many know, is one of the city’s most talented design firms, and the Kurisu family also owns a respected Japanese garden design firm. (Patriarch Hoichi Kurisu came here 27 years ago to help design Portland’s Japanese Garden.) The Kurisus planned to put their headquarters on the ground floor and build a garden that would, at least some of the time, be open to the public.

The project’s opposition is led by members of the anarchist Black Rose Collective, which is headquartered next door on Mississippi. They say it doesn’t reflect the character of the neighborhood.

And to my surprise, the BDS agreed. In Thursday’s Oregonian, city planner Jeff Joslin of the BDS is quoted as saying the building “shows little deference to nearby patterns and elements.”

At four stories high, the building is a floor or two higher than its neighbors, including two historic buildings the developer owns and is preserving. One of the things that got the project rejected was that the fourth floor isn’t set back from the rest of the street-facing façade. But the code allows for this height on transit lines such as Mississippi.

There are more design and code issues to the BDS rejection than the fourth floor, many of which have been highlighted in detail on the Indymedia website. But more broadly, this is about modern architecture and density in historic neighborhoods—growing pains. Often in these cases, I believe contemporary design becomes compromised by attempts to fit in that turn out to be faux-historic. I believe the original buildings are better honored by architectural diversity. Otherwise, historic districts become architectural Disneylands.

It's the same problem we faced on Northwest 23rd when the Historic Landmarks Commission rejected a proposed Apple store there, another Holst-designed project. One could argue that Holst doesn't know how to design for a historic neighborhood context. But I suspect it may be the other way around. The Apple store project is already dead, and if the same fate besets the Kurisu project, I can't help but feel frustratingly pessimistic about the chances of modern architecture in Portland.

Black Rose Collective member Brian Bailitz told the Oregonian part of the project’s problem is the designers didn’t seek out community input. He has a point there, although by no means were Holst or the Kurisus obligated. But for such a supposedly flawed building, it sure looks gorgeous to me.

I don’t live in the North Mississippi neighborhood, nor am I a planner with expertise on code issues. Indymedia makes a strong case that many details need to be changed to meet compliance. At the same time, I see this as a wood-for-the-trees issue. I dearly love great architecture, which this city has relatively little of and would find, I think, in the Kurisu project. And I fervently support high-density development, which this project helps achieve.

There are also related issues of gentrification in North Mississippi that seem to fuel a lot of the Black Rose Collective’s fire, and I respect them for that, at least in theory. But stopping this project isn’t going to stop gentrification. It’s only going to give North Mississippi a lesser building by a lesser architect and client, or it’s going to give the neighborhood no building at all.

On Monday at 1:30pm the Portland Landmarks Commission will hear an appeal of the BDS rejection. (Location: 1900 SW Fourth Avenue, 4th floor - attendance encouraged.)

If the rejection is sustained, I hope the architects can come up with a design that addresses individual elements without sacrificing the integrity of the whole. But perhaps the best solution, if it can be achieved, is for this building to be built on another site in another part of town. If North Mississippi doesn’t want this project, I think many, many other neighborhoods would jump at the chance.

Comments

[kd]

You're right on the money here, Brian. There seems little support to build anything that represents our times and supports freethinking in architecture and design in Portland. We're doing little to inspire the next generation towards achieving great things, instead teaching them that new thinking is unwelcome - that we should rely on old ways; even, as you point out, the so-called 'vernacular' is faux-historic.

I guess I'm a little surprised that an organization which considers itself a force for anti-establishment independence would cling so tightly to establishment rules, rather than encourage a little rule-breaking towards a more vibrant and diverse community.

[Jeff Joslin]

Without discussing the specifics of this case, I'd like to simply, once again, assert that is not about a conflict between architectural style (modernism) and historic fit (contextualism).

To reduce this discussion to a conflict between regulation and style, or regulation and "good design", is to ignore the fact that the guiding process and guidelines were created and emplaced by an exhaustive community process. The purpose of these project-specific processes is to determine whether proposals correspond appropriately to those embodied values. In this case, those values speak principally to specific qualities found in this historic conservation district. This does not preclude stylistic departures, bold design, and absolutely does not suggest "faux historic" approaches.

For example, there's nothing faux historic about the Mississippi Lofts project, or those elements (additional window area and some form of canopy) that were requested of Apple. In both these cases, changes were requested that did not conflict with the stylistic intent of the respective projects, but were intended to ensure the projects gesture to, and integrate with, their respective historic contexts to an appropriate degree.

It's not untrue that our regulatory environment may afford freer expression in some locales than others. A particular design premise or desire may be more challenged in a National Register historic district than in an area with neither historic constraints nor design review. These are among the choices we've made as a community. I genuinely appreciate this worthy and challenging, ongoing discussion about how we manifest these goals and values, in these specific areas, over time.

Jeff Joslin

[EdgePDX]

To me the ironic thing about this is that if the Black Rose Collective were really anarchists then wouldn't they favor all regulation and government interference be removed? Isn’t the basic tenant of anarchy that everyone is allowed to do what as they please? Yet they're using a government board to block a building that doesn't fit into their personal ideal of what the neighborhood should be. It's a shame that this sort of NIMBY-ism is blocking great modern projects all over town.

[jerry]

I think challenging the fake-historical look is worthwhile, and it's obviously the typical (meaning, cheapest) strategy to appease these vaguely-specified mandates to "reflect the character of the neighborhood." Rather than in some way integrated, they generally look pointlessly compromised and, in a word, cheesy.(I'm thinking especially of the attempts to emulate structural brick or stone with what is basically paneling.)

Then again, aren't old residential neighborhoods exactly where the assertively modern-looking will be most disruptive? Ordinary people are always going to be turned into architecture-critics by the new place on the block, and in a way they have every right to whatever resentment they feel, and to whatever conservative actions they undertake.

I'd say it's important to keep in mind that the various stories lately of neighborhood resistance have nearly all concerned a single type of development: the mixed-use condo/retail. Maybe municipal or commercial buildings affect us less emotionally than those erected to house a bunch of new neighbors. I don't think we're examining what the immense reliance on the "mixed-use" designation implies. Presently, condo life atop upscale retail is what we're told to expect. But ten or twenty years out upscale retail may well move on, and maybe all we'll have is an oversupply of cheap storefronts for convenience stores, fast-food outlets, or whatever future unsavoriness will sign a lease. To me it's this cautiousness, as well as the likelihood of eventually stupid-looking buildings, that justifies efforts against filling the future with too many hastily-built, "mixed-use" relics of the housing bubble era.

[Toni Magic]

Mixed use housing is not a fad. It is the way cities have been developing for thousands of years. This is because it is the most efficient use of space. The neighborhoods that these mixed use developments are reenergizing will be centers of our city for years to come just as they were before the automobile took over. The relics will be the strip malls and single use, auto oriented developments we continue to build now.

[Jim]

What was that load of crap Joslin just posted? I'll try and translate; They didn't do what we wanted them to, so we rejected it. Were holding out for Starbucks.

[val]

Good comments Mr. Joslin. Design for new buildings within historic districts do not have to become "faux historic" and it is imperative that people understand the amount of work that goes into historic district or neighborhood plans. Often these things take years to create and finalize and they are not created in a vaccum by some cabal of NIMBYs as some may believe.
There needs to be a realization on the parts of developers, architects, and for that matter, all property owners, that if they live or are planning a project in a certain area there may be well-defined design guidelines in place that must be followed. In this case, the architecture firm is no stranger to running up against design guidelines and should have sought from the outset to use their creativity in a manner that both met their creative expectations and the expectations of the design review commission. The plans for the MAL were adapted to meet district requirements - a good example of what can be done - if one is willing to try.

[Jeff Joslin]

Not a great translation, Jim. As always, I'd be glad to have an off-line conversation, if you'd like to develop a better understanding of the intent.

Jeff Joslin
503 823 7705

[george]

the proportion of mississippi ave that actually falls within the historic district is much smaller than most people imagine. its just 3 blocks long or so.

if you check portland maps, most of the mississippi ave business district is zoned more loosely for "central city development".

i think jeff is doing the right thing by ensuring that this tiny district is better served.

personally, i would prefer having contemporary buildings predominate the infill. but its not about what i think. its about following the rules.

[Rich]

I'm generally more of a fan of pre-WW-II architecture than modern-era stuff, so I have some sympathy for the folks who opposed the building in question. But I'm even more fundamentally appreciative of how buildings functioned, not just looked, in cities and neighborhoods that came to life before the car-dominated era. Mixed-use buildings--residential on top, commercial on the bottom--are an essential structural element in cities that are interesting, vibrant and not environmentally disastrous. The city of Portland is exactly right in promoting that kind of development. And as Toni pointed out, it's not some new, trendy experiment in urban planning.

While accurate reproductions of past architectural styles are theoretically possible (in the case of small apartment buildings if not gothic cathedrals), they almost never get built. I generally agree with Brian and the many commenters on this blog who see the "historicist" style as a failure. The best we can reasonably do as a community is preserve the old and viable buildings that are still standing as we return to developing our city according to the still-sound principles that gave rise to many of those old buildings.

I don't know enough about the situation in question to draw conclusions about the actual motives of those who opposed the development. I just hope it didn't boil down to "I was here first, and I don't like anything new." If that's the kind of feeling that Jeff Joslin has to deal with as he tries to interpret vague architectural guidelines, then he must have a very frustrating job. As for the building itself, it looks good to me, and I wouldn't mind if it were built near my 1910 craftsman-style house.

[ws]

Mississippi Avenue is the business street for the so-called Mississippi corridor in the Boise neighborhood. The site for the building that Kurisu proposes is not on Mississippi Avenue, it's on a side street next to people's homes.

If they were aware of the codes and guidelines for this area of the Boise neighborhood, why would the Kurisu's contract with their architect to design a corporate monolith building that overpowers neighboring homes on a side street aparrently dedicated to residences?

Maybe the Kurisu's weren't obliged to seek out community input relative to the design of their building and its impact on the neighborhood, but it certainly seems unwise for them not to have done so.

I actually like this building's design, but as near as I can tell from the few sketches published, it looks pretty damn awkward next to the splendid old ballroom, and is likely to be equally so alongside the nice old houses in the neighborhood but not included in the picture.

I can't understand how educated people with pencil, paper and computers, trained as architects, seem unable to scale divergent design elements of a building so as to complement architectural styles of a different era or philosophy manifested in neighboring buildings. I believe Holst and Kurisu could successfully submit the very same design motif of their current proposal if it were scaled down to be compatible with neighboring architecture. Not the height or floorspace of the building, but the design motif.

The impression is left that they gave not the slightest consideration to what this building would look like in the neighborhood, or what it would do in regards to other aspects mentioned in BDS's denial.

As regards Apple, if they want to bail out rather than accomodate the needs of rain assaulted Oregonians with the installation of something like a simple, nearly invisible glass canopy/awning, let them go. This isn't California.

[jerry]

Mixed-use buildings certainly are a fad. The trend to "mixed use condo/retail" hit Portland recently and hard enough to qualify. And it represents significantly different economics than the apartments-over-shops left over from previous centuries. Condos cause the city to become more of an ownership society, off-limits to any but the solidly successful.

I fail to see that condo housing, when it's unaffordable to so many of us, has to be promoted as the only possible solution to questions of society and its environment. The obvious reality is that condo+retail is being built because it turns a big, fast profit -- no waiting around for rent! But it's got nothing to do with saving us from strip malls, the car culture, or urban areas that aren't "vibrant."

[jerry]

And by the way, that 80s classic, "NIMBY," is a bit nyah-nyah if we're trying to have a serious discussion, and anyway less than apt. NIMBY's more like, "put the porno store in someone else's neighborhood, I don't care..."

[ben]

ws you are misinformed. the building fronts mississippi avenue between the ballroom and the anarchists. it fronts a transit street that is intended to have 4 story, mixed-use density. it is made of finely detailed wood and stucco - what was the last corporate monolith built this way?

also, the neighborhood association is in support of the project. how much more can the Kurisus "seek out community input"?

this isn't about window size or materials or scale. it's about fear. vocal minorities are afraid of losing a perceived value, and bureaucrats are afraid of standing up for what THEY KNOW is good design.

[Jeff Joslin]

Well, no, as one of those bureaucrats, I'm a passionate promoter and supporter of good design. And I think we're phenomenally successful in encouraging and ensuring the best and most-fitting design that a given team and circumstance can rise to. We're also not shy about getting out of the way of good or strong design when it presents itself in the right setting. However, as I've said previously, good design in-and-of-itself does not necessarily win the day.

The typical design review process offers a provision that affords decision-makers the opportunity to waive certain design guidelines if it can be demonstrated that a project better meets the purposes of design review. This is in place specifically to allow the process to get out of the way of propositions that present the unanticipatable and/or the remarkable.

The historic design review process offers no such flexibility - designated historic districts were created specifically to ensure compatibility with that pre-existent fabric.

All design operates within constraints (budget, regulation, program...), and such constraints can be viewed as limitations or opportunities. Good design can happen within the bounds of historic design review, but it still needs to demonstrate consistentcy with community-established rules and expectations. These values are not inherently in conflict with projects being bold or of their time.

Jeff Joslin

[ws]

Ben, thanks for the heads up on the building's intended location in relation to Mississippi Av. I have been to the location and seen the ballroom, so I was pretty sure I had it right, but maybe not. What you say, based on what I can gather from the rendering showing the portion of the ballroom on the right side of the picture, doesn't make semse to me. I intend to go there soon and check it out again.

I don't really see that people consider this building to bad design. I certainly don't. The BDS isn't denying approval for its style, but for a lot of technical criteria pertaining to code guidelines.

As for the corporate monolith description, I haven't walked right up to them, so I don't know that they're using stucco, but if you go driving out in Washington County, past those corporate campuses....well, this building would seem to fit right in there as a kind of corporate monolith reception building.

Meanwhile, the following website features a design that might have worked quite well for the Kurisu's purposes and the fit into the neighborhood without major problems. In fact, it looks like it would have worked great.

http://www.shizenpdx.com/

[ws]

Sure enough, I was confusing the Mississippi Ballroom with a similar looking building on Skidmore that people on the avenue today told me was Mississippi Lofts. Sorry about any confusion.

So Kurisu's building would be on the business street, but what a different business street it is. Across the street to the west, the vintage Rexall Drug building. Going north from there, in the same block, two old houses, then a cleared lot, then the vintage building that used to be Niklas and Sons nursery. Kurisu's direct neighbors to the north would be the collective house and a vintage commercial type building where they have their bookstore.

It's hard to guess everything that people imagine will occur in the form of development in this little (3 block historic conservation district according to george, above)area. I imagine a lot of people anticipate that economic momentum will cause all the houses on the avenue to be torn down and replaced with something offering greater density. Nothing wrong with that.

Well, I'm not doing the deciding about whether a building like the Kurisu's propose gets placed in that setting. I walked around the neighborhood for several hours today, looked at the site and the neighboring houses and buildings from a lot of different angles, under different exposure to the sun. I'm not completely decided, but am still inclined to think their design would be awkward for that setting.

I think the Kurisu's could try just a little harder to conceive of something that would be a little more complimentary to the kind of architecture represented by the ballroom bldg, the drugstore builiding, and some of the other vintage buildings to the south on Mississippi Avenue.

[lupin]

the black rose collective and the house adjacent ARE NOT ANARCHIST. Please stop this rumor crap.

[rt]

Talk about 'faux historic' crap, that building looks like it was built in 1962.

[ADH]

That's right, BRC is not run by Anarchists they simply sell books on Anarchy among other things. Sort of like a Christian bookstore isn't necessarily run by Christians. It’s just a business opportunity.
As you might expect, the Indy Media discussion touches a lot more on the social justice aspects of the development. Anyone have an opinion on architecture’s benefits/impacts to the community? Will pastiche architecture lessen the impacts of gentrification? Are current residents better served by no development at all?

[justin m]

It seems to me that while the building may fit into the overall neighborhood, it doesn't really fit in well with the two buildings it's going in between.

That said, Mississippi is kind of a wierd funky neighborhood and doesn't appear have any consistent architectural theme. It's just a lot of different buildings on the same street. (Which is what I think gives the neighborhood its charm.) Anyway, I say let them build it.

[RandyR]

.

[Ccl]

It is nice to see everyone from city officials to surrounding neighbors involved in this discussion. I believe this may be a problem of presentation. The blocky and game-like rendering (probably sketch-up) does not portray the sensory dialogue this building could create. The most exciting aspect of this project is the semi-public experential japanese garden which is completely absent from the renderings. Whether it is stucco, wood, stone (faux or not), that garden would create the street presence first...the architecture would just contain, frame, and expose it. The height and proportions is fitting for this neighborhood, especially if you imagine what Mississippi will look like in 50 years. However the low stone base appears it is only there to appease something/somebody. It seems the stone, wood, and stucco could be more composed at the base than the rendering shows. Again, this project should be about the garden first. That is what people are going to see, hear, touch, and smell with different experiences depending on the season. That is what could have been presented more thoroughly. The garden is a gift.

[ws]

Of course there are many implications, benefits, disadvantages and consequences that will occur as a result of developemt on Mississippi Avenue. At least some new development there, incorporating greater density is inevitable and desirable. Fortunately for this neighborhood, there are some zoning and planning tools that allow its residents to have some significant input into what form that development takes.

It seems as though some people advocate development with very little consciousness or regard beyond a very few select points, for the nature of change that such development will bring.

For one, higher buildings will definitely and dramatically alter the level of light that reaches into the avenue. Anybody thinking such a consideration for this neighborhood is a frivolous trifle is not taking the needs of the neighborhood seriously. New construction can be designed to mitigate the loss of this basic element to some degree, but have developers there to date shown any inclination to do this, thereby gaining the support of neighborhood residents?

This avenue has some good, historic architecture(the ballroom, the missi lofts, phipps rexall building, others) as well as a long history that can be used to help define architectural criteria for new construction. If neighborhood residents like this historic style, why shouldn't they work to encourage developers to create designs that, while not neccessarily of the same historic period, are at least complimentary to to the historic period and style exemplified by the avenue's existing historic period buildings?

How high shall the avenue's building's rise? Is the Kurisu's overly bold in comparison to existing architecture, justified because some people hope that developers will win out in favor of even higher, bolder commercial buildings?

I certainly can see that the houses to the west of Kurisu's building site will eventually give way to higher buildings offering living and business space to more people, as is likely to be the case with the collective house. Question is, should the new designs that come be welcomed to completely repudiate the fine, existing architectural tradition that aparrently many residents of this neighborhood appreciate and wish to sustain?

The proposed garden is just great, but the neighborhood shouldn't have to swallow a building design that isn't right for neighborhood, in exchange for a nice garden. In fact, prior to all this, I believe the lot was providing a very nice play area for neighborhood kids without being a fancy don't touch garden.

This just as a final note, because I'm still not that familiar with the Kurisu's rationale for, or plans to deal with the alley behind the site of their proposed building; I walked some of those alleys this weekend. They are great things for a neighborhood. There aren't that many neighborhoods that have them in Portland. Mississippi should take care to see that they are not closed for any reason by development.

[AT]

It seems strange that nobody has considered the tenants. The design firm would be a great addition to a mostly homogeneous district that is full of coffee shops and retail. Also, what about the firms right to realize their vision for what they stand for? Portland needs many more successful firms (and the good jobs that come with them) and I hope we can celebrate them rather than leaving a bad taste in their mouths. This firm, I assume, already pays the mountains of local city taxes that come with doing business in the city. Hopefully this building can be built somewhere in Portland without neighborhood interference.