A Tragic Day For Architecture in Portland: Rosefriend Apartments Destruction Begins

After reading in this morning's paper that demolition on the Rosefriend Apartments was about to begin, I drove downtown around 10:30 - and I was just in time. The arm of a giant crane, with two grabbing hooks on the end like some prosthetic limb from a horror movie, was lurching toward the decorative top of the building.

The Rosefriend, as regular readers here know, is the victim of a plan hatched by First Christian Church, which owns the block, and their developer partner, Opus Northwest, to build a half-block tower here. The original impetus for the project was underground parking for its members. Churches in the downtown area face difficult challenges, but it's ironic in such a pedestrian, bike and transit friendly city that a religious institution of all people is not only destroying a beautiful historic brick apartment building right on Broadway, but is doing it (to borrow from the Tonkin car dealer headline) for the love of cars.

And yes, the other part of this story is the Ladd Carriage House, which is being saved thanks to laudable efforts by the Friends of the Ladd Carriage House (led by Paul Falsetto of Carleton/Hart Architecture) as well as onetime Ladd Tower co-developer John Carroll. As reported in today's Oregonian, the house will be moved this Saturday for a few months but was saved from demolition, which was the church's original plan.

The only problem, as I see it (and others certainly may disagree), is that the preservationists turned a blind eye to the Rosefriend to save the Ladd Carriage House. And I don't buy the argument that the Rosefriend was gutted on the inside already as justification, as one person was quoted as saying in today's paper. Call me shallow, but I think the exterior facade is still pretty important. In fact, I wouldn't have cared if they made it a crack house on the inside - at least the beautiful old building the I've enjoyed throughout my years in Portland would still be there. 

A crowd of people gathered in front of the Oregonian building, as I did this morning, to watch the spectacle of concrete, brick, glass and metal being torn from the facade and dropped onto the ground. A few times, so much dust was kicked up that we all got covered with it across the street. Meanwhile, in between they've kept one lane of the street open, and a slow crawl of cars is constantly going by (kind of like in Jean-Luc Godard's Weekend for you fellow film geeks reading this). I asked one of the sidewalk monitors for Opus why they hadn't closed the street for the day, and he said, "The City wouldn't let us."

In the days ahead, I'd like to encourage anyone else who was a friend of the Rosefriend to go and take some pictures of the demolition while it's in progress. If we have to lose the building, I think we should at least have proper documentation of its death. If you do, I'd love to have a copy.

I bear no ill will towards the Ladd Tower project itself or Ankrom Moisan, the firm designing it. But one shirtless man on the street I talked to had this to say: "I can guarantee you whatever replaces this one won't have the same kind of integrity. And I say that knowing nothing about what they're gonna build here. It doesn't matter."

Comments

[josh]

i've lived here for 35 years and the Rosefriend building sucks. i'm glad it's being torn down. yeah it's old but that's about it. there's bad historic buildings too and Rosefriend is one of them. new portland is here baby...live in it or move

[Brian]

Thanks for your words of wisdom, Josh. Or should I say, 'Baby'?

[Richard]

Thanks, Brian, for your early advocacy for saving the Rosefriend and for your continued attention to the architectural crime of tearing it down.

What a terrible loss. I can barely stomach looking at those photos.

[Morgan]

Shirtless man is a sage for our time.

[Nikos]

Drink a stiff martini or anything double and you'll get over it. I don't think the building sucks but it was not that attractive, impressive, original, or beautiful as you claim (I think)...um baby.(I like that kind of casual talk....) Although I don't see the new Portland as clearly as Josh. Where is my new concert hall? Where is my Cleopfil designed condo tower? Where is my signature bridge? Where?

[val]

It was a great example of an early 20th century apartment building - in a part of town (east of the park blocks) that has lost much of its historic character. The Rosefriend and the carriage house should have been saved (and protected as local landmarks) but that's a product of the property rights mindset blended with pure capitalism. Watching the video on the Oregonian's site, shows the incredible waste of materials- and we call ourselves such a sustainable community. And, I thought the developers were going to preserve the entry arch integrating it into the new building. It looked to me like that was destroyed too. If this is "new Portland" then no wonder I feel like moving away after more than 35 years in the area.

[Scott]

what exactly makes it a "bad" historic building? is it the fact it actually has character and isn't a bland, completely rectilinear building like every other new construction project going up today

[Peter]

The thing that angers me about the Rosefriend demo, as I and others have written here before, is that it was surely preventable. Perhaps it could have been prevented by better historic regulations. But more crucially, for me, it could have been prevented by responsible action, civic leadership on the part of the owner.

The church could have gotten its parking, it could have profited from a quarter-block development on the site of its outdated addition, and the Rosefriend would then be part of a block that would be better, richer. It's not about status quo vs. change, but about the QUALITY of the change that takes place. The Church did not sponsor a creative solution. They went for the bottom line pure & simple.

[thedude]

What does this say about the state of architecture? I have to agree with the shirtless man, I have absolutely no faith that today's architects have the ability to design something better then this rather nice, but average turn of the century apartment building. And I believe that even if an architectural firm had complete design control and a reasonable budget. We'd get a sterile minimalist glass box, or "jewel" as they like to call it now a days. Sad really.

[Nikos]

Much as Modernism has prevailed so as to be omnipresent, it is interesting to see people attack it today as "minimalist", "rectilinear " even when by now it is a "historical" style. I am not trying to defend the building that will replace the appartments, it may very well be a failure. I just think (as I said before) you are overemphasizing Portland's significance as a repository of "historic" architecture. Portland is a frontier town that is too new to be "preserved" yet. It needs to concentrate in creating new architecture. This should be Portland's wisdom.

[Carlo]

Interesting how, even though nearly a century has passed since modernism as a movement burst onto the scene, people are still uncomfortable by the prospect of "modern" buildings. I think that whenever people say they like buildings like the Rosefriend and fear that whatever replaces it will not be as nice, all their opposition really boils down to one thing: decoration. People like decorated buildings (and, conversely, dislike modern architecture because it eschews decoration). So all the architects have to do with whatever follows the Rosefriend is slap a few Greek columns and pediments onto whatever they design, and everyone will be happy!

[val]

"Portland is a frontier town that is too new to be "preserved" yet."

Nikos, are you serious? At what point does the city become old enough? If say, we don't preserve anything over the next 50+ years until the state is 200 years old would that be long enough for you? If so, how much of the late 19th - early 20th century buildings will remain? Just because Portland's history does not date back much more than 150 years does not mean we have no history! Portland already lost hundreds of important and historic buildings during the development booms of previous decades, which means that what's left is only a fraction of what we could have. That alone to me increases their worth, not just because they're old but because they provide an expression of how our city has developed over the years, giving a foundation for our very culture.

[anp]

I love both good modern architecture and good older architecture, so it is disappointing to see some people claim that supporters of the Rosefriend are simply motivated by nostalgia. I would argue that this building, though probably not THE most important historic apartment building in Portland, is not merely "average." I have long appreciated the Rosefriend's original detailing, which was not just an application of neoclassical or neogothic elements as in many other apartment buildings of this era. Those who claim there was nothing at all special about this building are not looking very carefully. For example, the spandrel areas of the bay windows had stylized horizontal banding with an almost art deco look (long before art deco hit the scene), and the windows on the primary facades were inswinging casement windows rather than the standard-issue double hung windows. The overall design of the building was skillfully executed, with regard to both composition and proportion. This clearly wasn't just a cheap, cookie-cutter apartment design. It's too bad that a lot of people only see an "old brick building."

[Nikos]

None should or will remian in 50 or 100 years. An earthquake will see to that. I admit my bias, in Greece anything less than 300 years old is not "old" architeturally.
You preserved the atrocity of Schnitzer Concert Hall with the kitchy egyptian revival decorations, it takes a lot of music to soothe the visitor in there.Keep up the good work!

[Nikos]

The problem with preservationists is that they want to save EVERYTHING. Cities are live organisms that evolve, not museums. Cultures that are alive, tear down and rebuild, chose the best to preserve, modify as need be. How many previous buildings were on the site of St Peter's at the Vatican or even at the site of the Parthenon in Athens. Imagine if they preserved what they buit in the first 100 years.
Hausman bouldozed half of Paris, back then when they had some passion for creating something new. Are we a dynamic, creative city or nostalgic for an ornate pseudostyle we never really had?

[val]

anp, great comments and attention to those details that are now unfortunately lost.

Nikos, if I read you right, we better abandon the city today because its all going to collapse in "the big one," maybe tomorrow.

But seriously, your comments about preservationists are misguided. We do not want to save EVERYHING but if all you save are the most opulent buildings or those of the wealthy then you are ignoring the history of average citizens everywhere. This city is at a key moment where we can decide to respect an inclusive past or choose to ignore it and focus upon the immediate and the well-to-do. Is that the history we want to create?

Putting the straight historic preservation aspect aside for a moment, what about todays difficulties with diminishing natural resources? Isn't it a good idea to get as much use as possible out of existing structures? Innovation in adaptive reuse can keep a city "alive" just as well.

[Brian Libby]

Readers,

The following was sent to me by email by the chair of the AIA historic resources committee, Philip Stewart, who graciously emailed me his comments first but also offered me the chance to make them public. I'm choosing to do so out of respect for the committee's efforts. Philip also has a point that in saying the Friends of Ladd Carriage House 'turned a blind eye' to the Rosefriend, I may have been fair. But a guy who loves architecture has a right to get angry and say some stuff when a building he loves is getting torn apart, don't you think? Anyway, here's the letter:

"Brian;

I take exception to your statement on the blog saying that "preservationists turned a blind eye" to the Rosefriend apartment building. There was a group who toured and analyzed the building. Paul Falsetto was one of them who reported to the AIA historic resources committee on their findings. Yes, we said that the interiors were pretty much a hodge-podge of retrofits and that much of it was rundown from the high turnover of tenants typical for these types of buildings. I do agree with you that the exterior is special - a fine example of turn of the century masonry design and detailing.

However, in keeping with the times, the exterior masonry is also unreinforced. You may have noticed that as the building facades were coming down, there was no rebar sticking out of the cells of the bricks...which basically means that any amount of underpinning while the parking garage was being built below the building could not have prevented it from merely crumbling down. Your statement of a few cracks occurring is simply not realistic. Unreinforced masonry has no way of withstanding the enormous stress that would have been placed on the building.

We had a discussion with the developer and designers and suggested a myriad of "preservation of memory" strategies. Anywhere from saving relics of the building for use on the site to reusing portions of facades. Whether or not the owners, developers, or designers chose to follow any of this advice is not my call or that of any other preservationist to make. They chose not to do so. In fact, it appears that they even ripped out the courtyard entry piece after seemingly committing to save it and reuse it as an ordering element on the site. As I recall, I invited you to this meeting earlier in the year, but you chose not to come.

Brian, advocates can only do so much. We spoke on the issue. You wrote about it. But in the end, it is not our call to make. As somebody who writes on behalf of the profession at the public at large, I hope that in the future, you carefully consider where you focus blame when our advocacy efforts ultimately fail. We did not turn a blind eye, we merely lost the fight.

Regards,

philip stewart
chair, AIA Historic Resources Committee"

[thedude]

Again this would be a non-issue if people had faith in today's architects. The rosefriend was a nice average building, but I challenge anyone to point out a building built within the last 30 years that is its equal in PDX? We're in the dark ages of architecture, this is why so many get upset when we lose a building of value. We know it WONT be replaced with anything of quality. Its not modernity that we fear but the circle jerk of architects.

[Brian Libby]

I think The Dude's comments are overdoing it in this case. (Do I really have to refer to someone as 'The Dude' with a straight face?) There's a lot of really nice architecture in this city designed by local architects over the last 30 years. What I do agree with is that the average fabric building of today is less interesting and less detailed than an average building of the Rosefriend's time. That's the same everywhere, not just Portland. In Holland they have some of the greatest architects in the world right now, but even their work arguably pales compared to the 15th century skinny houses of old Amsterdam.

In lamenting the Rosefriend tragedy, I don't think we should blame ANY architects, be it today's designers in general, the architects of the Ladd Tower, or the architects who worked hard to preserve the Ladd Carriage House. I blame First Christian Church and weak preservation laws.

[aaron]

The loss of the Rose Friend apartments is a deep tragedy for Portland. We are losing yet another important historic resource in the name of greed and parking (thanks First Christian Church, your legacy in not appreciated!).

We are once again getting a ubiquitous glass and steel ice palace and Portland becomes a colder place to work and live. We have been robbed of an important piece of our cultural history and identity. Like death by a thousand cuts, Portland bleeds with each of these losses and becomes closer to being "anywhere USA". My condolences.

[snowden352]

Reading these comments, I feel a strong force compelling me to argue on First Christian's behalf-though I have yet to attend any of their services, or even reconcile my long lost faith. That said, I'm not sure, but I thought the only reason the tower was built was to facilitate parking. The point of the parking is that the people that First Christian is trying to attract would probably have to drive to the Church to attend. Being located in downtown Portland isn't exactly the best place to operate a functioning church (with the exception of the Unitarian, apparently).
For those who don't know, Churches are not profit-driven. Churches are non-profit, thus they're typically exempt from tax. Yet in spite of this, churches still need money to keep their doors open (I remember many a fund-raiser from my family's church growing up). While it might seem callous, this isn't a callous gesture, but rather a desperate one-of an instituion which predates the Rosefriends. One can argue about the efficacy of organized religion, but if the concern is old relics, then one should be as concerned with whether First Christian would remain operating as a church as much as the Rosefriends apartment.
In truth, I did like that old building and felt a pang of loss with its deconstruction; the architecture of yesteryear seems to be the only warmth of our cityscape, now increasing concerned with the latest sterile postmodern box (even the "good" ones lack so much of the vitality that the older buildings possessed. But I'm just rehashing old words here, and besides I know nothing of architecture).

[ws]

I wonder what kind of person Josh is. What is it to such people, that seems to make the proliferation of big glass towers so much more important than the continued existence of a vanishing example of older architecture uniquely suited in scale to people?

We live in this city whether we actually sleep here or not. Don't kid yourself....the Rosefriend building, disguised in the state of decay to some extent, deliberately imposed upon it by its owners, was greater than most Portland architecture of the last couple decades, and this bodes ill for the city's future. The loss of this building is a troubling reflection of the values and vision of this city's leaders.

Further notes:

Describing the Portland Theater (schnitzer) an "atrocity"? The Portland Theatre building is a great building, but it's a cinema, not a concert hall. And Paris by way of Hausman? At least much of what Hausman tore down were inner city hovels.

I appreciate what Phillip Stewart, chair, AIA Historic Resources Committee has to say about the Rosefriend's lack of masonry reinforcement in his letter to Brian, yet qualified opinions on this aspect of the Rosefriend's physical status never really seemed to rise above the level of unconditional dismissal where public disclosure was concerned. That's unfortunate in that it impaired the ability for a greater number of people to determine whether or not realistic means to conserve the Rosefriend Building could have been accomplished.

Snowden, of course, the church and what it can do for the community is important and it's important that it be able to arrive at some means to continue doing so, yet the means that the church elected to employ to accomplish that in this instance are not acceptable. The church did not satisfactorily demonstrate that it exhausted all alternatives to the destruction of this building in order to allow it to continue its ministry. It did not satisfactorily demonstrate that what it chose to do faithfully represented the ideals of an institution having humanity's best interests in mind.

[Nikos]

If the Rosefriend building was so beloved by the architectural/preservation community why wasn't there an effort to designate it a historic building(say like the National Registry or some such). What is the process by which the city goes about designating buildings as improtant to the heritage of Portland (just curious)and shouldn't this work be done way before someone decides to tear a building down for whatever reason...
I am not against presevation, for the record, I just don't agree with your aesthetic judgement about the rosefriend or Modernism for that matter.

[val]

Unfortunately it's not up to the preservation community to "list" a property as historic. The 1995 legislature gave all of that authority to the individual proprty owner. Owners can even have a historic designation removed should they choose to do so. All we "preservationists" can do is publicly advocate for the preservation of individual buildings and seek to reverse that earlier legislation. To the city's credit, a few years ago they did tighten up local regulations as much as they could, meaning demolitions can be delayed but only for so long if the owner really wants to tear something down. This was in part a response to the potential demolition of the Ladd Carriage House.

[Brian Libby]

You know, the AIA has become more active lately sponsoring a sustainable buildings bill in the legislature. Why not make the design community's next collective effort be to reverse that 1995 legislation? I'd like to see the state have some more authority to save important architecture. The Ladd Tower is good for its developers. The Rosefriend, however much it may have needed serious investment for seismic upgrading and other reconstruction, was good for the architectural fabric. I'd like to see an investment fund (perhaps some sort of public-private partnership?) that assists property owners in restoring properties on the National Register. I'll bet the owner and developer would have been more willing to consider a program that included a restored Rosefriend if they could have received some assistance for saving it. Maybe they could have given an exception to height restrictions on the Park Blocks and built a tall skinny quarter-block tower. Who knows? But as the pictures indicate, it's too late now. I say the next legislative session we sponsor a 'Rosefriend Bill' designed to keep such things from happening next time. For example, there's a building a couple blocks away from the Rosefriend with a similar courtyard-style floorplan and brick facade: the Ambassador Apartments. How can we help them make sure their building stands the test of the time amidst pressures to build McCondos?