Familiar Modern/Historic Debates in Tribune Architecture Survey, and A Personal Musing on Favorites

A few weeks ago the Portland Tribune surveyed local architects for a list of the five best and worst buildings in Portland. In an article by Peter Korn on October 24, the winners were listed: the 2281 Glisan Building by Brad Cloepfil's Allied Works, the Belmont Lofts by Holst, the Portland Art Museum by Pietro Belluschi, the US Bancorp Tower by Skidmore, Owings, Merrill (with Belluschi), and the Mark O. Hatfield US Courthouse by Kohn Pederson Fox and BOORA.

I'd certainly agree with the first three. While I definitely like the US Bancorp building (a.k.a. 'Big Pink') a lot, I'm not so sure it would be singled out in larger cities. And I have mixed feelings about the Hatfield. That curving roof is so mid-90s, and the building is pretty bulky. Would it be handsome without the expensive materials?

The larger argument, though, has turned out to be a modern versus historic architecture debate, which already is playing out here very often as modern condos begin to occupy old neighborhoods. The Tribune received so many angry letters about the top 5 list of best local buildings, Korn wound up writing a follow-up article on November 16 about it. (The paper also published several letters that are worth a look.)

A data processor and architectural enthusiast named Matthew Slick was quoted in Korn's latter article saying, "What planet are these architects on? I was appalled to find that I hated almost everything that these architects said that they admired.”

It's a hyperbolic quote, which journalists often have a hard time resisting (myself included). Does Slick really hate the Glisan and Belmont buildings? Or Pietro Belluschi's Portland Art Museum? Come on.

However, the larger thrust of the article made a valid point, that 4 out of the 5 buildings that architects chose for the list were modern ones. But some of the city's most treasured architecture is its historic buildings. Arguably the heart of the city is Central Library, the warm, elegant work of Georgian-styled architecture by the great A.E. Doyle. There is also the Jackson Tower (pictured) overlooking Pioneer Courthouse Square with its signature clock. The city also has lots of great old churches and single-family homes.

And Matthew Slick even rings in later to make a more thoughtful point about modernism's lack of ornamentation. "A lot of times you’re eliminating, eliminating, eliminating," he says of contemporary design. "And then you get this thing that is not very interesting. I can deal with unremarkable. The Pearl District is totally unremarkable to me, with a few exceptions, and the few exceptions actually have ornamentation on them.”

Done right, modern architecture is sublimely simple and poetic. But the opposite side of that coin is plain and boring, which a lot of contemporary buildings are.

Still, when today's buildings add ornamentation it often feels ham-fisted to me, like the ye-olde English style railings on the otherwise modern Elizabeth Lofts. Oy, fancy some eel pie, guv-nah? But some people love that stuff. A lot of this debate comes down to personal preference.

One reader emailed me to ask for my top 5 list of favorite buildings. It's a hard question, becuase probably the best thing about Portland design-wise is the city itself. And in terms of iconic structures, Mt. Hood is really our Eiffel Tower, so to speak, and Mt. St. Helens the Arc de Triumphe. But the leading candidates for my faves list would probably be the very ones previously mentioned on each side of the debate.

I love Central Library, so much so that I wouldn't even trade it for the famous Rem Koolhaas designed library in Seattle. But I also love the 2281 Glisan building for its gorgeous sculptural simplicity. I continue to marvel at the interior of the Wieden + Kennedy building, but so much so I find the exterior warehouse to be a bore.

Of course there's Pietro Belluschi's Equitable Building (now called the Commonwealth), which was exceptionally innovative for its time (1946) and has a timeless elegant geometric look that still inspires.

And in a completely different way, I've also more recently come to love The Rebuilding Center (pictured) and its facade of used windows and planks. I also love the Gilbert Building downtown, a humble little brick job on SW Second. I love the vacant multicolored checkerboard facade building on 10th mentioned in previous posts. I really like the two Brewery Blocks along Burnside. The Jackson Tower and various old white brick AE Doyle buildings are great, and I even am fond of the Portland Plaza apartments.

This summer I also visited the Pietro Belluschi-designed church at the University of Portland and was astounded by its beauty. Look for a separate post about that buidling down the road.

After the controversy surrounding the pending demolition of the Rosefriend Apartments, that buidling has become a favorite. Luckily we have a similar building, the Ambassador Apartments (pictured), nearby, which is another favorite, as is the empty Solomon federal courthouse it sits around the corner from. Oh, and Thomas Hacker's libraries are very nice, particularly the Woodstock and Hillsdale branches.

But I think my current favorite among Portland buildings would have to be the Standard Plaza (a.k.a. Standard Insurance Building), one of two buildings called the 'Standard' within a couple blocks of each other. I'm talking about the one with lots of glass, and curtains in all the windows. It was built in 1963 by S.O.M.

Incidentally, one of the most reviled buildings in Portland, the Union Bank of California building (downtown on broadway), is the subject of a new short film by my filmmaker friend Andy Blubaugh, whose last film played at the Sundance Film Festival. Andy's got an interesting take on the building, and you can watch the film online, complete with commentary by yours truly.

Comments

[Richard]

Who reviles the Bank of California Building and why do they revile it? How embarrassing. I always found it elegant, well-proportioned and interesting. Also, I like the green stone cladding. What am I fooling myself into seeing? What am I missing? Please don't tell anyone that it's one of my favorite post-WW II buildings in downtown Portland.

Seriously, if this building has a bad rep in the architectural community, or is or was the object of widespread public scorn, I'd be interested in knowing why.

[Bob R.]

I agree with Richard - this is the first I've heard about supposed widespread negative reaction to the building.

- Bob R.

[val]

I'm glad Brian, that you decided to address this topic as it was quite interesting to see the opposing perspectives in the Trib. For me, buildings like those by A.E. Doyle, are timeless and enduring, not only the library but even his lesser known designs such as the Ford Bldg. at SE 11th & Division. Modern buildings can also acheive this, but it is premature to call anything built in the past two decades timeless without much time having passed. As an example of how something isn't timeless, the Wells Fargo tower was seen by architects in the Trib article as the worst building around - I thought that was a bit harsh but clearly that building is not timeless - it is a product of the era in which it was constructed which is why it looks like a giant square Atlas rocket standing at its launchpad. In this respect I guess I kind of like that kitschyness but nonetheless its not a timeless design.

Regarding the Hatfield Courthouse - in looking at its base on the east side and wrapping around to the front are a dozen or so courses of faux-tuff (I believe it is cast concrete). This is significant in the recurring discussions on this blog, over design in historic districts, as this shows an example of modern architecture reflecting historic materials, Tuff, or its cast concrete version, were used all over Portland in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Whether one likes the building overall or not, I think the architects of the Hatfield building did an admirable job of building something new while subtly paying respect to the designs/materials of the past.

Lastly, the Dekum building is simply awesome! I hope some of the things built today will be as enduring as this 110+ year old masterpiece.

[ws]

Of course, responses to the question of best/worst building are largely a matter of personal taste. I think the Wells Fargo Tower is one of the city's best skyscrapers. It's sleek, smooth, and is faced with beautiful stone. I enjoy the sweeping feeling experienced when gazing up those vertical ribbons of stone fron the towers base. This is what a skycraper should do for the person on the street.

My feeling is that some otherwise good building designs in town have suffered dramatically with time from having been clad with aggregate concrete. Plain concrete cladding also has shown itself to wear poorly. Just my own personal taste.

[andrea]

It really is horrible that they're demolishing the Rosefriend apartments...I always walked by there on my way to school at PSU and wished I could live there, so I guess now that will never happen. It always seemed to me like an elegant building.
As for new buildings: one that I can think of that I like is the Gregory Lofts, and it just happens to have a bit of decoration on the outside. Minimalism is great, but a little variety is good, too.

[Frank Dufay]

Regarding the Hatfield Courthouse...Whether one likes the building overall or not, I think the architects of the Hatfield building did an admirable job of building something new while subtly paying respect to the designs/materials of the past.

I have to laugh. I was called as a witness to a case there, spent three days, and the very elegant --but completely uncomfortable wood benches-- speak to architecture/design as eye-candy, not something that conerns itself with something as banal as "comfort."

At least a dozen fellow witnesses, left to sit outside those courtrooms, kept wondering: "they spent all that money and its not comfortable to SIT here?"

Utility is NOT a four letter word. Thinking about people who USE the building shouldn't be an afterthought. I do, however, think it still looks cool from the outside.

[Hitch]

Function over form, isn't that the modernist crede? Ironic now, isn't that...

[Tim K.]

I guess in addition to personal taste driving this divide, I would add another nuance: that there is something of an acquired taste to modern architecture.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it takes a fair amount of exposure to architecture to see the beauty in simplicity. I've been kind of an avid amateur reader about architecture for 20 years and the first time I saw a Neutra house I thought it had all the character of a mobile home. Now I find the simple elegance of his designs invigorating. But I think I had to learn a lot to get there.

[kd]

It's an interesting aspect of this discussion that when Belluschi was designing the Portland Art Museum he was being directed to follow the style of the much loved Central Library designed by A.E. Doyle (Belluschi's former boss.)

He won his appeal to design a modern building in part because he got Frank Lloyd Wright to send a letter endorsing modernism over historicism.

Today we have the Portland Art Museum, truly one of the city's great buildings - and representative of what can happen when people are encouraged to follow their talent, rather than forced into a rehash of design from years past.

[pdx2m2]

The base on the Hatfield Courthouse is Indiana Limestone, sculpted by hand just like the Dekum building and a dozen others in the neighborhood. Like it or not, it is not faux anything.

[val]

pdx2m2, thanks for clarifying the material at the base of the Hatfield courthouse. Whatever the material, they did a good job of reflecting the use of materials seen in many historic buildings in Portland. This is a key point when there are discussions on this blog about design review in historic districts - It is clearly possible to use the same or similar material in new construction as was used a century ago and still have a new design, that (the Hatfield bldg),apparently is seen by many in the architecture world as pretty nice. So when there are discussions about an Apple store or other new projects, this should serve as a good example of what can be done - not the "phony historicism" that it often mentioned or feared.

[Valarie]

I think Tim K. is right. Before I knew anything about architecture, I could only really notice buildings that were loud or different in an obvious way (eg - the Hilton roll-on building). I had to acquire some knowledge about architecture to appreciate restraint and elegance.

[Peter]

I've always liked the Union Bank building too, but I'm not surprised to hear that feeling isn't widely shared. I pointed it out to a visiting friend once, someone whose design sense I think is pretty good. He said, "hmm." But he was enjoying the modern half of the Benson Hotel across Stark St., especially the exterior stairway. I'd barely noticed it before.

[raya]

Those were absolutely interesting articles from Portland Tribune. I do agree architecture is subjective and a matter of personal taste. The articles shows the gap between what architects consider good architecture today and the public in general. Mr Slick and a lot of people are enamored with architecture of yesteryears because of the ornaments, sense of permanenence, materials. Unfortunately, the economy, technology, labors skills, social importance have change. they no longer build things the way they use to. The fundamental elements of architecture does not change..ie scale, proportion, transparency, massing and contextual relationships.

The gap between architects/designer and the general public is education. Until someone becomes part of the process of creating a piece of "Architecture" it is really hard to understand the factor that shapes a building. Change is scary to people..that goes with everything.. from urban density to architecture language.

Mr. slick, whatever your name is.. as part of the architectural community, i'm going to represent.. and say that most of us love the older building as well that goes withou saying. We learn from them and take their essence and apply them today in a new way.

"arches were made because of the material + technology available that period"

[ws]

"But he was enjoying the modern half of the Benson Hotel across Stark St., especially the exterior stairway." Peter's visiting friend.

Oh my...well, that is extraordinary. I've occasionally wondered if there might ever be hope of seeing the Benson addition torn down and replaced with something less appalling. The Benson is so beautiful, and then it has the misfortune to be shoulder to shoulder with that ugly thing.

Maybe if there were at least a little distance between the two buildings, it might have worked, but the result of making a direct physical connection between those two architectural styles without attempting some kind of intelligent aesthetic transition, is two poorly matched companions. I wish any virtues the stairway might be argued to possess, could make up for this error on Broadway, but unlike Peter's friend, I don't see it.