A.E. Doyle's Riverdale School threatened with demolition (updated)

Although not as internationally renowned as his protege, Pietro Belluschi, A.E. Doyle is every bit as important to Portland architecture. The list of buildings he designed in our city is a list of irreplaceable landmarks: Central Library (1912), the Benson Hotel (1913), the Meier & Frank building (1909), and much more. The guy designed 35 buildings in Portland.

But in tony Dunthorpe, one of Doyle's signature designs, Riverdale Grade School, is now under threat of demolition. The biggest threat? Riverdale's own school board. Earlier this month a $21.5 million bond measure was passed for upgrades to the facility. The board has recommended that Doyle's school be demolished and replaced with new buildings.

Luckily there is already a grassroots effort underway to save the original Riverdale. As the Daily Journal of Commerce reported on Friday, last week a petition with 540 signatures arguing for preservation of Riverdale was submitted to the board.

Dunthorpe is fortunate to have plenty of funds to enhance the learning environment of children attending Riverdale. Apparently the school needs more space, which is understandable. And considering how studies show that students literally learn better (higher average test scores) in green buildings with abundant natural light, it's natural to seek that kind of architecture.

However, given the historical significance and understated beauty of Doyle's 1920 Riverdale school, the solution here seems to be a compromise: renovate the original buildings, but add on to the space with new architecture as well.

If Riverdale is not designated a historic landmark, that makes it harder to preserve. But it also might make compromise easier. What if the original school were a brighter, greener building after being upgraded?

Speaking of upgrades, Doyle himself oversaw two renovations of Riverdale in 1923 and 1927. The second renovation was overseen by Pietro Belluschi, who became Doyle's principal designer that year; Doyle passed away in 1928. That means there's extra pedigree to the architecture: not just Doyle but Belluschi too.

Mahlum Architects was hired by Riverdale before the bond measure to design a replacement.

Now let me ask this: Sure, the economy is tumbling, and architecture firms need work. Mahlum has designed many high quality K-12 schools and university buildings. They could surely design new educational facilities for Riverdale that would please the board, students and parents. But if Mahlum participates in a project that necessitates demolition of historic architecture by one of the city's all-time greatest architects, do they bear a responsibility in the tragedy of the Doyle loss? I'm not saying they necessarily do. Quite honestly I'm not sure the right answer here. But the first thought I had when learning Doyle's building was threatened and Mahlum was signed on to design the replacement was, if I were running Mahlum I would pull out of the job as a matter of principle. But again, it's easy for me to say sitting here in my sweat pants. Even so, Mahlum's LeRoy Landers said at the last school board meeting, "Saving the Doyle is the thread running through every person in this room." Right on, LeRoy.

According to the DJC article by Sam Bennett, the Riverdale board has a meeting scheduled for today and could decide right then and there to approve the new school and Doyle demolition. Or they could postpone the decision and decide to study a possible renovation.

If you'd like to make your voice heard, Riverdale School can be reached by phone at 503-636-4511. The principal's name is Jeremiah Patterson and he can be reached by email at jpatterson@riverdale.k12.or.us.

Update 11/25: The Riverdale board has postponed its decision until December 15. Meanwhile, there is now  an online petition to save Riverdale school, at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/savedoyle/

Comments

[Jim Heuer]

Brian, thanks so much for bringing this to light. The Portland Public Schools administration is in the midst of a review of the PPS schools to determine which are historically important enough to preserve. Unfortunately it appears that the Riverdale School District hasn't had the good sense to consider the historic importance of its buildings. Further, they don't seem to realize that the greenest building is one that doesn't have to be built.

Re-using an existing building, retrofitted for modern needs avoids vast expenditures of energy for demolition, disposal, and construction... Unfortunately, only in recent years has this "hidden" environmental cost of building a "green" building been fully understood by the green building movement.

There is no doubt that Albert E. Doyle was one of Portland's premier architects of the early 20th century, and casually to discard one of his buildings, even a relatively modest one like this, is a very bad idea.

[Jane]

Perhaps the Riverdale Board should tour UO's lovely new digs in the White Stag Building and PSU Dept. of Architecture's exciting new space in Shattuck Hall (a former elementary school). Both are great examples of creating vital, sustainable learning spaces within preserved architectural treasures.

[Libby Dawson Farr, Ph.D., Architectural Historian]

I agree with Jim Heuer. In fact, I didn't know about this meeting today until it was too late to re-arrange my PNCA classes to attend it. I saw the article in the OREGONIAN this morning. BUT, I went to Riverdale School for all 8 years - and my children went there as well. We ALL graduated from Riverdale, love it, keep in touch with our friends from childhood, and since I am now involved in writing nominations for Portland Historic Landmarks, AND National Historic Property designations, I am so concerned that I will make phone calls, and contact the Board. The school spent so much time this last summer getting us all invited to a ridiculous (in my opinion) reunion at Waverley Country Club, bombarded us with mail and invitations, BUT I never received a notice as an alum of Riverdale about the problem of renovation OR demolition. I am shocked, concerned, and will jump in and testify, write my opinion on its being retained in some way, and help the cause, if... it is NOT to late. Thanks for posting the information. I am a Doyle and Belluschi academic researcher, and I have all the job listings of Doyle and Belluschi's office records. I have known since 1977 that Doyle, and later Belluschi were involved at Riverdale. So, here's to the beginning of my getting on board. Let's hope it is not too late to save it. ANd, also in my opinion, a more aware, sensitive and concerned architect should be asked to take over now. Libby Dawson Farr

[ws]

Riverdale is a very small school district, considering that it's part of the metro area. Just two schools; the grade school and the high school. It's understandable that they might particularly feel the pinch of finances necessary to preserve over a knock down build new.

Still, it seems a bit incredible that the school board would recommend the Doyle be demolished and replaced with new buildings. Does this really characterize accurately the outcome of their discussion of the issue?

Just checked oregonlive.com.... . Fortunately, decision on the issue has been delayed until Dec 15th. Sounds as though developments to date on this issue have turned out to be a wake-up call for some people. From the O article:

"The fate of that building has pitted neighbors against one another and has pushed the school board to offer more community meetings.

Today's meeting drew 2½ hours of heated discussions. The board did not allow public comment and said members of the Save the Doyle Building committee had e-mailed "threats" to the board.

"I'm really, really sad that it has come to this point," board member Sarah Bradley said, "that people would threaten me ... and that it's all over a building." O/Casey Parks

The board's going to wait for "...design and architect firms to provide up-to-date numbers and plans...", before deciding.

I'm inclined to think that Riverdale School District could never get a better design than the Doyle for the money required to thoroughly modernize and upgrade its physical structure including additions of all the latest 'green' whistles and bells that would be incorporated in a new building.

[Steve Jewell]

Thanks for helping bring greater awareness of this issue to the Portland architectural community. There is very strong community sentiment for preserving this Doyle gem at Riverdale, and I hope the School Board will come to understand the gravity of their decision. Any help from those passionate about historic preservation will be greatly appreciated!

By the way, any "threats" the Board received were from individuals, not any organized group. I condemn threats and know that 99.9% of the Riverdale community does, too.

[Laurence Qamar]

This discussion runs deeper than the specifics of a particular building, it's architect's relevance, it's educational function, or the cost of renovation.

It's yet another chapter in the ongoing debate over historic preservation vs. the Zeitgeist. Granted, many of us love well designed contemporary architecture, but some will be all to quick to eradicate the past, and become enamored with the promises of new, sleek, 'high-performance, sustainable design. Some may even try to use the fine principles of green design as an excuse for eradicating the past (although Jim Heuers point is right-on that historic preservation is inherently greener than new construction).

This school building shouldn't need to be a monument of great architecture to be preserved and renovated. There is great value in preserving not only the monuments, but the historic fabric of our city. This school is all at once elegant, majestic, and yet modest. It embodies memory and meaning as an icon of it's neighborhood, and of a valuable era in Portland's past.

And finally, what about the children. Some would likely argue that a bright, new, gleaming, green, high-performance design would be a much better educational environment. I'd rather a pedagogy that honors the past achievement of our forbearers by layering past tradition with the present. Throwing away our history is not a good lesson for our children.

Is there an on-line petition that we can sign in support of the schools preservation and renovation?

[Steve Jewell]

Yes, here is the petition link:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/savedoyle/

[Steve]

Renovating Riverdale Elementary School is a greener approach than new green construction because more material is reused and there is less need for new materials. With a typical renovation, more money goes to skilled labor instead of materials (compared to demolition and new construction) as a result more money would go to living wage jobs for Oregon workers instead of potentially out of state materials.

More daylight in the classroom is one of the quantified educational benefits of new school construction, but in the case of this Riverdale School, it appears to have MORE windows than the typical new "green" school construction.

[Earl]

I hope they save and renovate Doyle’s Riverdale School. I hope the struggle to save the school will serve to wake-up Portlanders to the value of a THEIR historic well-designed and well-sited schools and the important role schools play in neighborhood identity.

As Lloyd T. Keefe, Portland City Planning Director said, "With proper forethought, schools can do very much for the community, more than the all-important function of educating children. The elementary school, particularly, is one of the keystones in the arch to better social and physical environment for urban homes."

I hope school boards and city governments recognize that they are not the owners of these properties, but are the stewards of the public’s property, and I hope that saving Doyle’s Riverdale School becomes the model that Portland Public Schools will follow in a truly green 21st century.

[Robert]

Ironically, they are planning to tear down the school portrayed on their emblem.
http://www.riverdale.k12.or.us/riverdale/site/default.asp

[potestio]

I find it hard to believe that "saving" the building is even a discussion topic. Of course, this building should be preserved. The building is part of the community's history and collective memory. As a work by one of the most important architects of our region, and arguably the US, this building is also part of our heritage and the legacy of enlightened clients of an era past. I would hope that those entrusted with the new work, respect and incorporate this building. There are many components of a modern educational facility that would fit wonderfully into this existing building.

We need to think about what we have lost... stop by Powell's books and visit the Portland and NW section... Books abound on our lost buildings... most significantly from the Victorian period, and from the "mid-century modern" period. I refer to post war schools, shopping malls, small professional office buildings and even libraries that have been destroyed for one reason or another.

Our blend of old and new buildings is one of the most compelling and defining components of our "urban fabric" which Goldberger commented on.

Rick

[Corey Martin]

I'm with Potestio on the loss of our historic fabric, especially the mid century buildings built in ways that we just can't come close to achieving nowadays.

Yeah it's a bit off putting that the demolition was considered the best option. I have not been to the school but it does look like it has plenty of window area to meet the standards of current daylighting design. There must be some large amount of work that is needed to the building, structurally or otherwise, that pushed their decision in this direction. Does anyone know any specifics about the budget?- The cost of a planned renovation and addition vs demolition and new construction and how much total sf each would create? And yes, re-use is usually greener, just not necessarily as cost effective. Every time we renovate a building it's always a surprise to compare the cost per sf vs new construction...it often is equal if not more than new construction.

[ws]

I can understand that the Riverdale school board would have considered demolition, but what begs an answer, is how they came to make that option their reccomendation. Until this most recent meeting, were there really no other, better options argued for the upgrade and re-use of this building?

It's possible to rebuild and upgrade an existing building from the inside out. This has been done. The people of Riverdale school district should be fully appraised of and given the opportunity to consider such an option and others supporting rebuild and upgrade of this architecture before being told by their school board that the board's recommendation is demolition.

It looks as though the windows run nearly floor to ceiling. That's a lot of light. In the picture, I think we're seeing an east view. In new construction, a different design might be able to permit the admission of more light with the creation of windows with a southern exposure, but the existing floor to ceiling windows are probably doing a pretty good job.

[Joanny]

Save the Riverdale Doyle building!

We have so little preserved in Oregon's history in the way of historic buildings. Mainly for a number of reasons and one is we keep destroying instead of preserving our architectural past. A.E. Doyle building is a classic example of the kind of building that deems restoration ---- not destruction. Let us start thinking about protecting our very limited connection to Portland's past and not let it be in fond memories of some one's old forgotten photographs.

In favor of preserving some of our beautiful buildings. Riverdale Board has a responbility to be good stewards of the peoples trust and fiscally responsible. It would be wiser more prudent to go green by saving this building then building another one to replace it. Please go see the U of O's beautiful example in the White Stag Building and PSU Dept. of Architecture's exciting new space in Shattuck Hall (former elementary school). Both are great examples of creating vital, sustainable learning spaces within preserved architectural treasures.

[John]

The Doyle building is not a great building worth saving. It does not even compare to the other buildings designed by Doyle.

Lets make Riverdale famous for providing the best education at the best educational facility possible. This is best done by replacing an aging building that is not AE Doyle's best effort.

Please stop worshipping a building and focus on the educational future of those that attend the school.

[Brian Libby]

John,

It doesn't have to be one or the other. The best educational environment for kids is, as we can all agree, a sustainable space with ample daylight. But this can be achieved by renovating the Doyle building - not just painting and changing finishes, but really creating a new space within the old one. So you can't claim demolishing historic architecture by a seminal local architect like Doyle is being done for the sake of the kids/students. Moreover, demolishing the building teaches them the wrong lesson. We should demonstrate to these kids and the community that preservation of architectural treasures is of paramount importance, and such efforts can accommodate a new generation of sustainable design and construction. It's really simple: Riverdale can either take two steps forward (historic preservation and sustainability) or one step forward and one back in a way that only feels like going backward.

[John]

Dear Joanny,

Firstly, the building is far from beatiful. In fact it is better described as a dump. Not exactly Doyle's best!!!

Secondly, the school board's first responsibility is ensuring that it maximizes the educational opportunities at Riverdale.
It is not to "be good stewards of the peoples trust" at the expense of educational facilities.

This is a school board not a building board. The SCHOOL board needs to do what is best for the school now and in the future. A year and a half of work, studies, proposals and possible designs of the buildings on the campus have lead to the very responsible conclusion that education is best served by replacing the Doyle building.

Please know that being for the Doyle building is by default being against a better educational facility.

I,m not sure how I would tell my kids that we could'nt build a separate lunch room for you and you have to eat in the gym, but at least we preserved this old outdated building.

Or maybe when they want to use the playing field in the winter and can't because the drainage could not be improved I could tell them to play soccer in the newly renovated Doyle building. I'm sure they would be excited to know that money set aside for drainage had to be used to complete the much more expensive renovation of the Doyle building.

I'm sure that the kids would be excited to know that they will have a significantly smaller outdoor play area because we had to save this "awesome" building.

The trade offs are many in keeping the Doyle. That is why it is a selfish and foolish decision to renovate and not replace.

[John]

Brian,

I am more interested in teaching children to be financially responsible. The current world recession and economic crisis is largely a result of poor financial decision making at all levels. Saving the Doyle building costs significantly more and provides very real limitations and possible omissions from the educational facility as a whole.

That makes saving the building a bad decision period. creating sustainability is important, but not while sacrificing facilities used for education. Additionally, Sustainability for Riverdale is best done by replaing Doyle with a new tasteful building that can provide the best possible education for another 75+ years.

You must not be aware of the trade offs or maybe you simply do not care.

[Steve]

The Riverdale Elementary does compare well to other Doyle buildings. Built as a small elementary school, it should not be as grand as Portland’s Central Library, but because of great design work, it is still a useful educational facility. If a comparable structure to Riverdale Elementary exists in the area, I would like to know about it.

John, what do you think will be missing from the children’s education in a remodeled Doyle school? I think I know what would be missing with the new “green” school approach.

I do not worship this or ANY building, but I do respect the contributions and investments of past generations and these treasures should be stewarded prudently and not destroyed because doing so is easier or cheaper.

[ws]

John, I, and maybe others would too, be interested in hearing some of the reasons you have for considering the Doyle to not be a great building. Maybe, besides the fact that the building is old, you can list some specific reasons to support your claim.

I think that, especially as grade school buildings in our area tend to go, this one is uniquely beautiful. Whenever possible, in the interest of providing the best possible education for the students studying within them, for the purpose of inspiration, it's important to incorporate great beauty into school buildings. This building already has that. Why fix something that's not broken?

Sunday's Oregonian had a nice bit on A.E. Doyle's other works in the area. I tend to forget things, so it's nice to be reminded that Doyle also did buildings such as the one at Reed College, and the lodge at Multnomah Falls.

[Brian Libby]

John, you say "being for the Doyle building is by default being against a better educational facility". You can't say that without letting architects give it a try. Again, those arguing against preservation of the Doyle building seem to discard the fact that such a renovation could be substantial enough to completely transform the inside. All the maintenance issues described about the old building are moot.

I'm not looking for Riverdale to be preserved at the expense of students and other occupants. I'm also not for historic preservation in the strict sense. If the best learning environment can be created by largely gutting the insides, so be it. But at least preserve the exterior. Show a little sense of imagination about what a hybrid new-old building could be!

[Steve Jewell]

For those wondering about the reasons the Riverdale School Board has given for favoring demolition of the Riverdale Doyle building, they were provided to the community on Nov. 19:

1. Costs: Renovation is more expensive than new construction. However, it is very likely all desired improvements, including the Doyle building, can be done within the $20M provided by the bond that was just approved. We will have more definitive information on this by December 15. Riverdale School District has the financial resources to be good stewards of our heritage AND provide excellent education.

2. Site Utilization: Confusion regarding the location of the main school entrance. Saving Doyle would reduce available play space, create a potential for "disjointed flow" to play areas, and make the campus less "unified." These can all be addressed adequately by good design.

3. Educational Program: Reduced space for outdoor learning. Decreased grade to grade connections. The Board would like to have all students, K-8 under one roof. Currently, K-4 is in one set of buildings, and 5-8 is in the Doyle building. This has been the case for 60 years, and the educational program has been excellent with this arrangement. Also, Doyle preservation is felt to result in less "flexibility" in the future.

4. Health & Safety: Campus less "secure." The thinking behind this is unclear. Possible improvements in parking and drop off.

These are the four areas which have guided the Board's decision. None are major or insurmountable issues.

Significantly, the Board has not formally weighed the following:
1. The educational value of historic preservation.
2. The sustainability of historic preservation.
3. The community building benefits of preserving a cultural icon.
4. Our community obligation to be good stewards of our history and heritage.

[anp]

If you are really interested in debating the merits of the various plans, take a look at the architect's report:
http://www.riverdale.k12.or.us/152710722124247970/lib/152710722124247970/Architects_Report.pdf
All plans, including those retaining the existing building, include the same basic features, and the price ranges for new construction vs reuse are very similar (17.5-20m vs 18.5-21m). As an architect, I can attest that trade-offs need to be made in any kind of building design, whether new construction or renovation. All the criticisms "John" levels against reuse appear to be addressed in all the schemes presented, including those that reuse the existing Doyle building (see scheme 3 in particular). And, whether or not the existing building is dumpy inside (and this would presumably be remedied during renovation), it certainly appears to be a beautiful building from the exterior, at least on the front side. I agree with Brian; the "building" vs "kids" argument is a false choice (disclosure: I also have elementary school-age kids in public school). With a diligent architect, it should be possible for a renovation of the Doyle building plus additions to serve educational needs well.

[anp]

Sorry, my link got cut off. For documents, go to:
www.riverdale.k12.or.us
Then click on "Grade School Renovation Documents," then "Architect's Report."

[John]

ws,

I have seen all of the renditions of the Doyle renovation and not one of them can be done without serious limitatins to the school facility as a whole. It was like trying to fit 5 puzzle pieces into a 4 piece puzzle.

The interior is only part of the issue. The total available acreage for this school is only 3.9 Acres. When you save Doyle and still need a new building to acomodate the need for additional class rooms you eat up a lot of space that would otherwise be available for outdoor play and an additional multipurpose room which will create a lunch space. That will allow the gym to be used as a gym and not a lunch gym.

Even if the architects come back with a financial solution they still have an ominous task of not sacrificing otherwise useable space.

You are aware that the entire playing field space is not useable based on the land use deed?

Also, using my imagination, I see a smaller renovated Doyle dwarfed by a much larger two story building right next to it. aesthetically, it will look disjointed and not have any sense of flow.

In fact it will look like what it is-a preserved building next to the better school facility. is that what people really want?