Prism on Division: Visiting the Clinton Condominiums

When they last completed a building together, Holst Architecture and developer Randy Rapaport (along with a couple key co-developers) produced the Belmont Street Lofts. Five years later, it's still among the most compelling and attractive mid-sized condo projects in Portland, if not the very best.

Now, final work is being completed on the team's long-awaited follow up: the Clinton Condominiums.

The process has been a long and somewhat arduous one, with a nearly two-year construction process, some squabbles between architect and developer, and a housing market very different from the boom in which the Clinton was planned.

But now that the building is complete, all seems to be forgiven. "I loved working creatively with John Holmes," Rapaport said of Holst's co-principal when I visited the Clinton last week. "I wanted to challenge him to stretch what was possible in Portland."

Rapaport is not a designer, and as a client, he might not be right for everyone. Like me, he's a bit neurotic and verbose. Much has been made of this late-40s man’'s penchant for indie rock and skateboards. But more importantly, Rapaport relishes the idea of inspiring and empowering architects to do their best work, and he is willing to commit to the budget, materials and design work to make it happen. And the results speak for themselves. After all, like its predecessor on Belmont, the Clinton is quite beautiful.

In such a downturned economy, he and Holst could have value-engineered all the best aspects of the building away. But they didn't. Right now the building’s 27 units are 70 percent sold, but even if it gets completely filled, Rapaport says he'll take a loss. Better that than dumb-down the building, he says.

Among the residents so far at the Clinton are a renowned scientist just retired from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the founder of an award-winning coffee company. There is also a yoga studio and a bakery on the ground floor: Little t American Bakery, which I can tell you from personal experience makes an exquisite New Orleans style Mufaletta sandwich.

At the street level, what's quickly noticeable is the Clinton's mahogany trim framing floor-to-ceiling windows. Touring the building last week with Randy Rapaport, he told me the supplier ran out of the original wood intended to be used, Meranti, so they were upgraded to mahogany.

Looking upward at the condos on floors two through four, the signature element is an assortment of translucent green glass panels that are placed in a somewhat random pattern and at varying widths. It gives the building, especially at night, the look of a jewel or prism with organic sides and angles glimmering in different directions.

On the sides of the building, the Clinton is clad in core-ten Cor-ten steel, which is designed to rust over time. With the angular, complex looking glass front facade, the Cor-ten provides a noticeable counterbalance of simple form and rough texture. Cor-ten seems to be a popular material these days, and the Clinton is far from the first to use it. Even so, it's a nice addition and further evidence that every detail was attended to.

Inside, the Clinton's inside units are first rate, with gorgeous walnut trim throughout and wide open loft-like spaces but bedrooms that can be closed off. There's a sea of white glass tile in the bathroom as well. Looking out at southeast Portland just over the treetops, the top floor views are quite different from what you get in a condo tower, but one feels much more part of the urban fabric down a little lower.

On the corner where the Clinton sits at 26th and Division, the surrounding buildings seem incongruent: a dingy Plaid Pantry store, and an abandoned small warehouse. Just a block to the south, though, you have the cozy and inviting Clinton Street neighborhood that includes a couple terrific restaurants (Savoy, Dot's) and the Clinton Street Theater. Besides, I think the Clinton will set in motion changes for this stretch of Division. Which is not to say there isn't value in a less polished blue-collar urban neighborhood, as this area has been traditionally. I hope the Reel 'Em Inn tavern a block down Division, for example, stays put. It's a mix of old and new, dingy and pristine, that makes for a good neighborhood.  

In the years since they first collaborated with Rapaport and his co-developers on the Belmont, Holst has made some major strides. This is a firm that operated for years without having a completed building project, and now they have a lot of the most compelling work in town. In addition to the Clinton coming on line now, the gorgeous 937 project in the Pearl is nearing completion. And Holst recently broke ground on the new Ziba Design headquarters. Aside from a condo in Hood River, they've yet to expand very much out of Portland. But along with Allied Works, Works Partnership, Skylab, Rick Potestio, Thomas Hacker and a few others, Holst is unquestionably one of the best firms in town.

Meanwhile, Rapaport is looking to drum up community interest in what may be his next project: a 2,000-seat music venue. Rapaport either is or may be partnering with Brad Malsin and Beam Development on this, according to reports in Willamette Week and the Southeast Examiner. But it's all, as I understand it, in the talking stage now. The venue would be in the Central Eastside very close to the neighborhood's I-5 exit ramp.

To be designed by Works Partnership, the venue would seem to occupy a workable niche between smaller venues like the Roseland Theater (1200 seats) or Crystal Ballroom (1500 seats) and the larger Schnitzer Concert Hall (2700 seats).  Rapaport told me it'd be likely to have a kind of opera house design, with upper seating directly on top of the lower seats for optimum intimacy, and a cube-like form on the outside. He also says he's been more vocal about this project than he normally would for a hypothetical development because he believes a public project should get the public's input before it's built more than a private residence.

Meanwhile, next time you're on Southeast Division or in the adjacent Clinton neighborhood, have a look at its new condo namesake.

Comments

[anon]

this is one of the most gorgeous new buildings in portland. the selection of material and details are spot on. haters need to congratulate.

[Aneeda]

I like it too.

[Frank Dufay]

the Clinton is clad in core-ten steel, which is designed to rust over time

Installed rusted, the core-ten is already staining the concrete below with nasty looking orange lines where the rust is dripping off. Not such a classy look for us walking by as compared to the "gorgeous walnut trim" inside.

On the corner where the Clinton sits at 26th and Division, the surrounding buildings seem incongruent: a dingy Plaid Pantry store, and an abandoned small warehouse.

Gotta wonder why, at that intersection, the Clinton didn't replace "the dingy Plaid Pantry" or the "abandoned small warehouse" instead of the historic "Clay Rabbit" property? Imagine if the Clinton could've overlooked that last bit of open green space there on Division? (Hint: it wasn't about aesthetics but about buying land on the cheap.)

I know, I know...just neighborhood bitterness talking. But the little T bakery is a pleasant addition.

[anon]

i wonder if the plaid pantry or warehouse buildings were ever for sale?

as for me, i've always enjoyed the rust/concrete visual. like an urban estuary?

http://flickr.com/photos/cgc/1376317/

[val]

Brian, this blog entry should be titled "Prism on 26th" not Division. The building intentionally turns a cold steel shoulder to Division Street. Had the developer not come along when he did, he would have had to orient the Building toward Division under the Division Green Street Main Street Plan - a plan that was well known and awaiting final approval when said developer went forward with his project. As one of the first major buildings to be constructed along Division after the new Green Street /Main Street plan was created, the developer could have made a shining example of new construction oriented toward Division - instead Division Street received what Coos Bay got several years ago - a hunk of rusty metal in the middle of what was once a wonderful view. Lucky for Coos Bay they are cutting up and finally removing their hunk o' rusty steel.

I will congratulate the developer on one thing however, he managed to create something that is bringing neighborhoods across the city together in hopes of enacting stronger preservation regulations and design guidelines. More than one group uses this building as a prime example of how the wonderful vintage neighborhoods of Portland are being systematically punched in the gut by those claiming to be our saviors through adding density - no matter the cost to the very things that make Portland such a wonderful place to live. There is no doubt that adding density helps curtail sprawl but when added using tunnel vision, the cumulative effects are enormous and destructive to not only the built environment but our landscapes as well.

[anon]

val - maybe you could post a link to the similar coos bay building? to compare this building to a hunk of rusty metal (that possibly should be cut up and removed) makes you sound pretty ridiculous.

[Brian Libby]

Val, I love your principled stands for historic preservation that you regularly express on this site. Keep it up! But I've got to substantially disagree with you on this one.

While it's true that the Clinton is oriented toward 26th, it's not as if one stands on Division and doesn't get a sense of the floor-to-ceiling glass that wraps both Division and Clinton. Nor would someone on Division be unaware of the very open, glassy facade of the building on 26th.

I live just a few blocks from Southeast Division myself. To say that this beautiful modern building is a problem for the future development of the street--when there is a hideous Plaid Pantry across the street, countless decaying old cheap apartment buidings lining the street as well, and a host of light-industrial or other commercial spaces with no face to the street at all--it absolutely ludicrous!

Frank Dufay in a previous post also mentioned that the Clinton displaced a historic building instead of occupying the Plaid Pantry site. Maybe Plaid Pantry didn't want to sell. And besides, the south side of the block where the Clinton wound up is much better for the development because it becomes part of the Clinton neighborhood's fabric. And for god's sake: the historic house was moved. I wish I could say the same for the fate of other historic buildings like the Rosefriend Apartments downtown.

If you don't like the aesthetics of intentionally rusty core-ten steel, that's fine. But don't treat this as a cheap building material. It's expensive and very popular with architects and builders today. I know that in itself doesn't justify core-ten, but if you're trying to imply that this is a cheap material, and therefore indicative of a lack of design or construction integrity, well: that's just not the case.

And you also mentioned that the Clinton blocks what was before a nice view. As you of course know, however, this is what happens when a city densifies. This is a good thing.

If people in Portland are using the Clinton Condos as an example of bad high density housing that's destructive to the urban fabric, I truly feel sorry for their ignorance. Why don't they go take a look at the Graham Street Lofts on MLK Boulevard, a fluorescent orange colored, cloyingly neo-traditional monstrosity. The Clinton is going to be written up in major design magazines as an example of superlative architecture. You're barking up the wrong tree!

[Brian Libby]

Anon, Val is referring to the New Carissa tanker ship that's been aground on a Coos Bay beach for several years, which they're now dismantling. It was of course a joke, although this type of industrial shipbuilding has long been an inspiration for modern architecture and its materials. The New Carissa makes an embarrassing comparison to the Clinton Condos, but the other 99.9 percent of industrial ships out there are a good material comparison. Is it possible some readers out there just can't accept the idea of deliberately rusty material on a building? What'll these crazy kids do next, wear their T-shirts inside out?

[Aneeda]

The site is flat along 26th and makes it easier for the retail component. And I'm all for the rust on the sidewalks - check out Rick Joy's work sometime. It leaves a trace that tells you something about the materiality and processes of nature. What's the harm in that? Kudos to Holst!

And Brian - let's leave some room for fluorescent orange buildings, monstrosity or not...that will be some other blog writer's Checkerboard Building in about 40 years.

[Frank Dufay]

The Clinton is going to be written up in major design magazines as an example of superlative architecture. You're barking up the wrong tree!

Woof! I pee on trees, not concrete. The orange stains scare me. Not natural...

Peeing on "major design magazines?" Woof, woof, woof!

--Homz (east side dog)

[SE Resident]

Protect historic architecture, but don't let it dictate the style of modern buildings. This country needs to move forward. No more McCain/Palin/Bush/DeMuro/Val

[val]

First - SE Resident, I'm sorry but when did this become a politcal discussion? I personally find it offensive to have my name associated with McCain/Palin/Bush, so let's not go there, ok?

So, on to the real discussion. Brian I would hardly call the checkerboard of windows on the Division side of the building a continuation of the floor to ceiling glass on the 26th side.

Regarding the impact on future development: I don't think I was making a prediction so much as I was expressing dissapointment that the project was designed the way it was with FULL Knowledge of the Division Green Street/Main Street Plan design guidelines. The developer effectively ignored the hard work and time of a lot of people. This action is reflective of the attitiude both the developer and the architect expressed to neighbors from the beginning - The sort of I am all knowing and you are beneath our level of intelligence attitude was as offensive as the above politcial commentary.

I don't think I was treating Core-ten as "Cheap" but I do think it is ugly, especially on such a large area as the Division side of the building.

The loss of view that I was referring to was the loss of the ENTIRE Clay Rabbit property. I'm not just talikng about the house but also the outbuilding and several wonderful trees. It used to be you could stand at 26th and Division and view an almost park-like setting (the Clay Rabbit House and property). Now you are left with no landscape whatsoever. Again I would argue that DENSITY IS GOOD - it just should be accomplished with more sensitivity - something that the developer in this case certainly lacked. And to naysayers who will claim I am promoting "historicist" architecture you are wrong too. It is certianly possible to build decent - size appropriate mixed-use infill that blends well with its surroundings without being historicist - it just takes additional thought - outside of the steel, glass, and concrete box.

Thanks Brian for pointing out other unsightly infill. I'll make note of the property you mentioned. I think the Clinton is being used by many as an example -not so much because people don't like its design but because of the huge impact the building had on the neighborhood. When you compare the before and after photos of that corner at 26th and Division, there is no mistaking the impact and loss. I will email you a before photo that you can post if you want, so people can decide for themselves.

[Randy Rapaport]

Given the bleak economic reality of real estate housing projects going forward it is likely that there will not be another
quality project that disrespects your division vision.

Instead, your street will attract developments of wooden buildings that look bad from the beginning, but after 10 years will begin to deteriorate, just like those apartments scattered around the eastside and up and down division street.

The developers will make them cheaply, but they will "fit in" so the neighborhood association and the fearful will be sure to be happy.

[Brian Libby]

I have posted at Val's request a picture of the house that used to occupy the Clinton site. I totally agree it was a wonderful house, which is why it's great the building was moved instead of destroyed.

[val]

Thanks for the bleak prediction. I think developers/architects can build/design cheaply or expensively and still obtain a poor result. It is not the size of the wallet that determines quality of design but rather the pusuit of creativity - creativity that sets aside arrogance and pretension.

[val]

Thanks for posting the picture of the house but remember there was so much more than that structure on the property. Yes, the house was moved (and sits now completely out of context - but that's another issue). This was the loss of an entire "package" of local character - a vintage house, a vintage outbuilding, wonderful old trees - a corner walk with the original homeowner's name etched in the concrete, etc... all of this is gone or scattered to the winds and effectively neutered of significance.

[nj]

Since you're discussing buildings on Division, and other infill - anyone know what the story is with the orange/red building at 44th and Division? They've been pulling the cladding off the building to do some work. I thought I remembered Holst's sign on the fence when it went up but don't see it on their website.

[anon]

now i'm confused. this house looks like every other house on a typical residential portland street. being that this is a signaled corner on a fairly busy transportation corridor - am i the only person who thinks the pictured house is probably better suited for a less busy/commercial street?

the property was for sale. the house was moved to another location and not demolished. the new building doesn't conform to a division street plan that was public knowledge, but hadn't been approved/implemented at the time of the project. several mature trees were removed (never great to lose trees, but doesn't explain the level of uproar). why the tremendous animosity? where is all of this hate coming from?

Val finds the architect/developer to be pretentious? i'd like to meet an architect/developer who isn't. not creative enough? this is a matter of opinion. her wishes for the project weren't met and therefore the building is categorized as unsightly infill? likely.

[Craig]

This is one of the better infill projects done in PDX. The problem is what it replaced. THis is an ongoing issue. Quality newer buildings are replacing quality older buildings leaving a bad vibe that really shouldn't exist (remember the rosefriend property had a more suitable spot for the new apartment right across the street). What we should try to figure out is how to make it much easier to replace a Plaid pantry and parking lot then a beautiful old house or building (asphalt tax?). If this project had replaced any other property at that intersection, we'd all be bragging about having a great developer building quality housing. Instead we are stuck blasting something that really shouldn't be blasted. Its a super nice building, stuck in the wrong spot do to economics.

[Grant]

"It's expensive and very popular with architects and builders today."

So what? You can say that about a lot of styles (Portland Building, anyone?)

It is already hideously ugly, and is not going to age well.

[Scott]

I like this project. It elevates a common, mundane material as a steel plate to precious metal status on a prominent street. There is much inspiration to draw from the concepts that this building embodies.

This building challenges to look at it for artistic merit. When I pass this building I am reminded on a small scale of a geode with it's course and crusty exterior juxtaposed with its crystalline interior and that makes me feel good. It makes me think about holding opposite or contradictory ideas in balance. A larger scale analogy would be the beauty one sees at a pristine snowfield surrounded by dark and rough boulders. That rusting steel is an everchanging natural material. There is more rich color variation in one square foot of that material than in entire building facades of flat painted Hardi-board which many less committed developers use. That rich surface or varied color makes me picture an aerial view of some rugged canyon landscape. And if you see a rust stain on the concrete, it's just a reminder to look up at the world above you. While detractors could argue that using brick may have been more palatable to everyone, just observe that rich rusty red catching the diffuse light on a gray Portland day before complaining to the Design Review committee.

And nobody so far has mentioned the pleasing proportions of the rationally organized, stained wood, east facade. A lot of care and expense has been taken in making sure this building is visually pleasing and varied from all angles. This aesthetic obviously appeals to a certain number of Portland residents who chose to live there so to say it doesn't belong today on Division street really isn't true.

Buildings are serious and risky financial endeavors that don't leave much room for innovation or artistic exploration. It's amazing that this building made it through the process intact. Congratulations to the Holst/Rappaport team.

[ws]

I haven't yet been out to Division to see this new building, but I've been following the controversy surrounding its design approval and construction for some time. From the pictures alone, I can see it's not quite the cheap crap a lot of developers race to build in the frenzied profiteering efforts invited by densification.

Sounds like there's some validity to the objections people are raising about the building being oriented to 26th rather than. I'll take a look myself before deciding on that.

I like Core-ten. Sculptors...Serra's one...use it for free standing metal sculpture. The big blocky sculpture up in the S Aud blocks near the towers may be of Core-ten...I've never found it to be looking so good. I'm not sure I can think of an example here in Portland where, exposed to the weather over a number of years, it's beautiful, but it seems like a good idea to try it this way on housing to see what happens. Leaves stain sidewalks, so I'm not sure the stains are such a big deal unless the residue starts to kill something we want to keep living.

I'd seen the Clay Rabbit house in its original location before it was messed with. Sorry Val, appreciate the effort, but you're picture does not do it justice. The dark shadow in the foreground completely obscures the expansive front garden surrounding the house. It was a beautiful residence, redolent of old Portland neighborhood, and probably shouldn't have been sacrificed so soon, at least not for this building.

It's unfortunate but not at all surprising that market forces direct a lot of construction decision in Portland, as they have here on 26th and Division, rather than good sense, keen aesthetics, and good planning. The South Park Blocks; the Ladd Tower and Moyer's tower now being built on PB4 are other examples of this happening.

[Frank Dufay]

the property was for sale. the house was moved to another location and not demolished... why the tremendous animosity? where is all of this hate coming from?

The property's zoning was changed from residential to commercial explicitly and specifically to allow the Clay Rabbit to move there. The Clay Rabbit owners never did what was required to earn that commercial zoning, and for all the years that business was there, it was assessed as a residence. (That's a Multnomah County Assessment & Taxation record available to the public.)

The sale happened without any public process. Mr Rappaport came to the neighborhood association to tell us what he was doing, not asking how he could be a good neighbor. To squeeze every available centimeter of developable space out of the property, the building doesn't even provide bicycle parking, let alone parking for guests, shoppers, or even some residents. That's become a responsibility of the neighborhood.

No one hates Rappaport or Hulst. It's just sad to lose green space --and an old farmhouse-- which was an anomoly in this very urban neighborhood. "Put this elsewhere in our neighborhood" we asked, but that didn't pencil out, we were told.

We move on, but when we destroy history, when we destroy historic context, it leaves a bad taste. Not hatred, but a bad taste.

If anyone --including Mr Rappaport-- wants to show me an architects rendering of what would be the orange rust stains left behind...I'll be happy to accept this was part of the grand design. In the meantime, my sense of aesthetics doesn't think rust on concrete is all that attractive. And, meanwhile, the bicyclists that come to get their slabs of bread at little T lock their bikes around trees, not available bike stands.

[ben]

wait, the sale of private property happened without any public process!? hold the phone!

deep breath...deep breath.

over twenty new residents now live in the neighborhood, adding vitality and density to a neighborhood and city that wants it (for the most part).

history was destroyed and portland was never the same after the farmhouses that occupied downtown blocks were demolished for the buildings that now stand. or when the trees were cut down for the farmhouses.

the world changes, life goes on. and i'm sorry but the clay rabbit house and the corner of 26th and division was not something to behold, regardless of what you think about holst's architecture. i'll take quality density over irrational nostalgia every day.

and pdot will install bike racks soon enough, i'm sure, so you can stop with the inane argument that your red herring bike parking is somehow the end all be all mark of a good project.

and by the way, my house doesn't have a garage, does that mean you hate my house too?

[anon]

i wasn't aware that the sale of private property was required to have a public process.