An architectural tragedy: Riverdale has been destroyed [updated]

It is a sad day for architecture and history in Portland. Riverdale Grade School, which carries the pedigree of having beee designed by the two most acclaimed architects in the city's history (A.E. Doyle and Pietro Belluschi), and a school that generations of Portlanders have attended, is no more. In a blaze of bulldozing, Riverdale was leveled like Dresden in World War II. Today all that stands at the corner of Military Road and Breyman Avenue is a pile of rubble. (The pictures used here were provided by architectural historian Libby Farr, Ph.D.)

The board at Riverdale that pushed through the demolition, in order to build a gargantuan new school (the style of which is a trite caricature - faux Riverdale on steroids), are not bad people. They think they're doing the right thing for the community and the students. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to live forever with their irreversible folly.

Historic preservation is never the easy route. Preserving and expanding the original Riverdale building might have been more expensive. It might have required more innovative thinking on the part of architect and client. But it didn't have to come to this. Riverdale could have been a model for historic preservation, which is also a key principle of sustainability. Instead, the stench of this deed is reeking all the way from the district's tony Dunthorpe locale up the Willamette and throughout the city.

"It's a shame the children of Riverdale have been denied the opportunity to learn that preservation and building a sustainable future go hand-in-hand," wrote Steve Jewell of the Preserve Riverdale campaign in an email today. "Riverdale has become a 'throwaway' community, in stark contrast to our traditions and community values. Regrettably, the 'bigger and newer is better' crowd holds the upper hand and has now destroyed the iconic symbol of our community's values and traditions."

Jewell and friends are at least up to one last bit of protest. Back in 1988, many Riverdale community members purchased individually inscribed bricks to help raise funds for a restoration campaign. The school has pledged to use those bricks in the new school building subsequently being constructed, in order to honor the memory of the previous building. But preservation supporters have arranged with Riverdale to allow individuals who bought a brick back in 1988 to have the brick returned to them upon request, instead of having it used in the new school. 

I wish more could have been done to save this poor wonderful schoolhouse. Not to go all Oskar Schindler on you, but certainly I could have done more. The City could have done more. The architecture and historic preservation communities could have done more. But in the end, if you can't convince the building owner of the value of his or her historic property, it is a very difficult uphill battle.

Even so, what can we do to at least make Riverdale a wakeup call for Portland? How can we strengthen lax preservation laws that allowed this to happen, or galvanize the community of sane people who opposed such destruction?

For starters, Portland has not updated its historic buildings inventory in more than 20 years. City Council could be committing funds to creating an updated list of buildings in this city worth protecting, and then put some teeth into their protection. We also need to look at the freedom this district had to self-immolate without much of any buy-in needing to be secured from the rest of the city. Shouldn't destroying a historic Portland school be a little harder? And we need, apparently, to educate both children and (especially) their parents about the value of historic buildings and our collective responsibility to preserve and protect them.

Meanwhile, no amount of good wishes will bring back Riverdale from the dead. The city will recover from this wound, just like we did when past historic treasures were leveled. But hopefully those at Riverdale will never forget the sobering destruction they have perpetrated.

UPDATE: Many have noted from the photos here that the building was not torn down in a way that allowed for proper salvaging of the building materials. Although some supporting Riverdale's efforts have written in promising that salvaging will happen, I wanted to highlight this comment from Nigel Barnes, who runs the architectural salvage department at Rejuvenation The Rebuilding Center:

"I can tell anyone who doubts it that this demolition was obviously done in a blitzkrieg style, with little, if any, consideration for materials re-use. They may perhaps have saved a few "prestige" pieces, like the lanterns, fancier windows, and cornerstones, but clearly the majority was simply smashed and will be completely wasted."

Contrary to that comment is one from an anonymous commenter called Enough Already, who seems to be writing with the inside knowledge of the Riverdale board. This commenter's most recent entry, defending the demolition, ended by simply saying, "This was about doing what was right for the kids." Enough Already went on to accuse preservationists of choosing a building as more important than the students attending. As I write this, I suddenly feel unable and unmotivated to come up with a witty or even angry retort. All I can say is the mindset here is as sad as the blitzkreig we see in these photos.

Comments

[Toni Magic]

Riverdale High School is located at the old Collinsview Elementary school near Lewis and Clark. As far as I know it is still standing. The grade school, the building that was just torn down, was located in Dunthorpe.

[dennis]

well good for them, who needs dirty old architecture in their city anyways.

[Brian Libby]

You're right, Dennis. I say we tear down City Hall next, or maybe the Pittock Mansion, and then we go after the Portland Art Museum or maybe Central Library. We have got to get rid of all these dirty old buildings!

And by the way, Paris and London are just full of this stuff, too. What is their problem?

[Paul]

What's to be done with the rubble? Is anything being salvaged for re-use? Libby Farr's photos show the types of used materials I've seen for sale at Rejuvenation.

[ValB]

Ah, as much as I hate seeing these images, they are very telling and useful. Look at all of the wood that was wantonly smashed into unusable condition. So, not only has another historic, but somehow not historic building been lost, these images show how much usable materials are being wasted as well. Ok, so maybe all of those building materials will end up at a recycling center, but that should not be good enough. Just think of how much of it could have actually been re-used in some fashion.

MEMO TO THE CITY OF PORTLAND AND THE RIVERDALE SCHOOL BOARD - HOW IS THIS MEETING OUR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS?

If you are not going to admit that buildings like these have historic or architectural merit and work to ensure their preservation, the least you can do is admit there is a real problem with sending all of these materials to a landfill! And even if they do go to a "recycling" center, has anyone asked just how this smashed up wood will be recycled? I'm guessing it could become lead tainted garden mulch that maybe can be used when they landscape the new Riverdale School building.

Sorry if I sound perturbed by this whole ordeal, wait, you know what? I'm not sorry. It's the City and the school district that should be sorry for supporting such wasteful activities.

[gerrrg]

Curious, but if this was supposed to be LEED certified, why does the mess of rubble indicate a lack of conservation of materials? The photos depict demolition without a care for salvaging brick, wood panels, beams and glass windows.

What gives?

Someone needs to run over there and document the amount of trash that ends up being hauled away to a landfill, and verify that this project isn't claiming the various, related credits.

[ka]

if they would have, and they should have, dismantled the building into useable parts and pieces, then it would have left more time for people to protest. Contentious demo projects are done fast and furiously, sometimes very early in the morning or late evening. Make no mistake about it, they smashed and burned to get it done quick. Too bad they did, because there probably were some nice straight grain wood in there, fixtures, and other useful relicts. I am sure they will separate and use what they can such as bricks, but the pictures are telling. Pretty devastating.

[PD]

Sad Riverdale had to go, but sometimes that's just what happens when a building owner decides to call it quits. I have no problem with that; historic preservation should be at the option of those that own property and there should be incentives to intice owners in this regard. If property owners see things differently, so be it. Good riddance.

I enjoy Brian's blog very much, but I also feel the same way about the MC. As a taxpayer and longtime Portlander, it saddens me to see it just sit there unused year after year. If the collective minds at the City can't get their heads together to make it a functional asset, then it is time to make way for something else (um, but not an "entertainment district").

HOWEVER...the idiots that allowed demolition to proceed in this fashion rather than deconstruct Riverdale in a sensitive way that provides for reuse of the materials should be held accountable for such waste. That is the real tragedy here.

[Nikos]

It would be useful to post a picture of the building as it was before, some of us (fortunately a few) had no idea there was an architectural gem in the league of Paris and London buildings that was there before...

[Brian Libby]

Good suggestion, Nikos. I have added a picture of the school before its demolition.

As for your other comment, I'm not saying Riverdale was St. Paul's Cathedral or Notre Dame. It was just a small school. But it was a lovely work of architecture by a couple of very significant local architects. When I made the Paris-London comment, it was a response to the logic of Dennis's comment, not in such literal terms as you seem to suggest.

[Brian Libby]

PD,

Thanks for the positive comment about the blog.

I disagree with your characterization of Memorial Coliseum. It does not "sit there unused". It nearly turns a profit with the numerous events happening there. It IS a functional asset.

I also disagree that not salvaging Riverdale's materials is a worse tragedy than tearing down Riverdale itself. But maybe we can agree that it's all bad.

Regardless, thanks for joining in the conversation.

[MJS]

The neighborhood may have money but lacks consideration, character, and discernment. Many new homes designed and constructed in this area are void of meaning and sensitivity to our environment.

The proposed design for the new school is pitiful and should have at least gone through a series of design reviews....salt on the wound at this point i suppose. Boo to Mahlum Architects and 3 big boo's to the residents in the neighborhood responsible for this tradegy.

The decision to demolish the building is an example of irresponsible leadership and poor environmental stewardship. I, too, can not belive materials were not salvaged. This is Unacceptable.

[KEB]

As a Riverdale graduate, I am so deeply saddened by this. Dunthorpe has gone so far downhill; it is just a mockery now.

[Wah]

To those complaining about wasting all the building materials, this is from the grade school's Web site.

"Dismantling means that everything we can save will be saved or reused in some way. Though all materials will be put into containers on site, they will be shipped to a sorting station. From there 75% - 95% will be preserved or reused in some way. The Steering Committee has identified items of historic and practical value.

This list includes:

• Front door lantern
• Library windows
• Green wood storage box behind the field backstop
• Façade bricks
• Flag pole
• Foundation cornerstones
• Reader Board
• Playground soft fall material
• Cupola
• Wood trellis over main entry
• Riverdale School District sign over main entry
• Donor brick pavers
• Art tiles
• Benches
• Tables
• Bike racks
• Play equipment"

http://www.riverdale.k12.or.us/152710722124247970/site/default.asp

[Enough Already]

It's wonderful how those of you who have no knowledge of the situation and have never set foot in the neighborhood somehow feel you have license to judge the character and beliefs of the people who live there.

No, not everyone who lives in Riverdale is rich, although it sure is fun to bash the stereotype, isn't it? The fact is, Riverdale is, like every other community, comprised of people of many socioeconomic backgrounds, ages, political and religious beliefs, and race and sexual preferences. It's a great place with very nice people who deserve better treatment than they are getting on this blog.

And for those of you who label the school board irresponsible and environmentally insensitive based on some emotional pictures of the demolished building, here's some questions to ponder: Do you know the Board or their background? Know of their educational decisions and policies? Know them as people? Guess what? This isn't a case of a bunch of morons running around ripping down buildings for fun, though it sure is fun to anonymously bash them, isn't it?

I'm absolutely disgusted with the simplistic, naive, self-righteous, comments some of you post as reasoned thought.

The world is a complex place. If you want to voice an opinion, get educated. A great deal of thought went into the decision to replace the building. This was the result of a two-year planning process, not a dice roll in a dark, smoke-filled room. If the building could have been saved, it would have been. But, unfortunately, site, educational program, health and safety, and cost considerations dictated that the building be replaced.

You don't agree? Dig in and get the facts.

And if you come out at a different place, fine. After all, this is an architectural blog, so one shouldn't expect anyone to support tearing down an old building.

But, you know what? You can disagree and be civil. You can disagree without labeling and name-calling people who you don't know.

Recognize that the world requires that difficult decisions be made, and tradeoffs considered.

You may not like it, but in this situation, given the operating constraints, this was the right call.

[ws]

Wah...thanks for that! I needed a laugh today. That ol' Riverdale School Board is quite the materials re-use model.

"Dismantling means that everything we can save will be saved or reused in some way. Though all materials will be put into containers on site, they will be shipped to a sorting station. From there 75% - 95% will be preserved or reused in some way.re-use model." Riverdale web site

Never have seen a building as big as the Doyle building dismantled and carefully sorted for re-use. I have personally seen two houses on two different properties that were dismantled for materials re-use. I can tell you this....the process was nothing like the dismantling process the Doyle building appears to have been subject to.

Every component; the roof; windows, walls, studs, plumbing...was methodically dismantled, piece by piece, carefully sorted, loaded, on site and stacked onto trailers and hauled away. These were modest houses too. It was like building a structure in reverse. I expect that everything will likely be re-used.

In comparison, the way the Doyle Grade School building has been dismantled, looks as though it was hit by a bomb.

[A friend]

Same thing is happening in Hillsboro right now, as the original Hillsboro High School demolition began early this week. School board is building Soccer fields.

[Johnstone]

I definitely felt that something needed to be done to improve the condition of the school, but this was certainly not the answer. I've spent a lot of time there (although I was never a student of the grade school) and it was pretty obvious the building was either going to need repairs or it would fall over on its own. What puzzles me is why they didn't look at the high school. I went to the high school the first 4 years it was open and it was an example of an old building being integrated with new construction classrooms. From the front it's almost impossible to tell that any additions were made (except for the new entrance). Why couldn't they have done the exact same thing here? I'm just shocked at the way this played out. All of the reasonable people seem to have left the school board and the loss of the superintendent was probably the nail in the coffin.

Also, anyone who wants to dispute that Dunthorpians are anything less than 95% wealthy and white is fooling themselves. Show me a house in that neighborhood anywhere near 2x the average home price in Oregon and I'll buy your argument.

[h-lin]

I don't know anything about the building reuse issue on this site so I won't comment other than to say that these decisions are not cut and dried. I would not expect everyone to agree.

Mahlum has no say in what is done with this building or any other that they don't own. We can only assume they did their diligence and put the community in position to make an informed decision. After that there isn't a lot they could (or should) do.

I wonder if salvage pays for itself. I'm thinking especially of the raised panels and some of the trim.

So, all seriousness aside:

It does look like they are planning to reuse the building materials...in a bonfire.

And, credit where due: the Steering Committee has identified items of historic and practical value...that they want for their back yards.

[Enough Already]

Johnstone you're a classic example of the type of person I described above.

Let's see, where to take apart your groundless conjectures?

If you followed the last Riverdale School Board election, you'd know that with one or two exceptions, all of the school board members since 2000 endorsed the current board.

The last superintendent STARTED the rebuilding effort and would have torn down the building in a heartbeat. He was pragmatic and saw that the building was falling down around our ears.

The construction of Riverdale High School went more than $1 million over budget, in part, because we did save the old building and, in doing so, incurred all kinds of cost overruns. Oh, and there were site differences that we didn't face up there that applied down at the grade school. And that only begins to scratch the surface of what is a complex issue.

But hey, don't let me stand in the way of your ignorant brainstorming. Because you're RIGHT; just ask your mirror. Or read a post from another uninformed blogger.

And as for the neighborhood, I do live here and have friends of all different SES and races and political backgrounds and ages. And some of us are struggling economically and are anything but rich white snobs. Yes there are doctors. But, you know what? We're also social workers, and journalists, and landscapers, and teachers.

Yes, houses here are expensive. But, shall we start pointing fingers at the West Hills? Irvington? Lake Oswego? Bend?

And know that some of us who moved here made huge sacrifices to get here. My parents were collecting unemployment benefits when I was in high school and I busted my ass to get an education and subsequently worked hard to be able to afford a falling down house in the neighborhood, one that I've fixed up with my own hands.

And I moved here so that I could provide for the education of my children. Not because I valued the architecture of an old building.

So you and others can go ahead and make up fanciful stories and label the people who live here all you want. But, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

And it doesn't change the fact that the right thing to do from an educational standpoint was to tear down the building.

[ws]

"...and saw that the building was falling down around our ears." Enough Already

Readers of this weblog were presented with that euphemism as used to fault the building's structural integrity a number of times. When one of the persons claiming this to be the case was finally pressed to explain exactly what that meant, it turned out that the roof hadn't been properly fixed, and so, some ceiling plaster came falling down...not the building.

No defender of the plan to tear down the Doyle and build an entirely new structure ever stepped forward to offer any details that would indicate the Riverdale gradeschool was falling down, or that the buildings basic structural integrity; foundation, walls, roof support was in question.

But Enough Already...why be concerned about criticism of your school board's decision? The old Doyle has bit the dust and your district has supposedly saved a cool million bucks. With this victory on behalf of the best education for your kids, I would thing you'd be tipping back and enjoying some champagne.

[Un-Biased Observer]

Buildings have lifespans, which aren't linked directly to how well they are built or maintained. A building's purpose, climate zone, demand for use - the list goes on - will ultimately determine it's lifespan.

We love to talk in Architecture how a building will last 50, 100, maybe even 200 years. But how can you know that for certain? You can't.

Preserving Architecture isn't a right a building earns once it's reached a certain age or has an impressive Architectural pedigree. There must be compelling reasons to preserve buildings. Buildings serve a purpose and are an expensive commodity. If they aren't serving their purpose, why continue to invest in it? It doesn't make logical sense.

All politics and personal opinions aside, it has been pointed out here more than once, you have to consider the whole picture. We should be thankful Riverdale didn't bulldoze it 2 years ago when they started trying to figure out what to do. They saw it through a process of evaluation and did due diligence. You can nitpick their process, but it doesn't do any good. The end result will ultimately be a step in the right direction to accomplish the district's goals.

That pile of rubble is quite an eye sore. Nobody can disagree that materials reuse is important and the right thing to do. Maybe they'll surprise us all and reuse the materials somehow. Then again, it's not required by law that they reuse the old materials. Good thing.

In order for re-use to work, there must be demand for it. I don't see a lot of developers clamoring to acquire old materials to build or finish new structures. Liability and expense come to mind.

We haven't done a good job in Architecture to create real demand for our convictions of Sustainability. We can barely convince ourselves of it's worth. The mighty dollar (or Yuan/Euro/etc.) makes the final decision, not "Doing the right thing according to the Architectural Community."

Recall everyone that we are in the midst of a recession, practically a depression. In these times, bad things happen to assertions with no basis in financial reality.

That's not to say that the Riverdale School would have been saved in better times, but it may have been. Perhaps the district would have had enough money to buy additional land needed for a new facility and re-purpose the old school using donor dollars.

Something to ponder...

[Eric Cantona]

ignorance is bliss, no?

[Enough Already]

Thank you Un-biased Observer for a thoughtful contribution to the dialogue. One observation is that, while monetary issues certainly had a role in the Board's decision, the move to demolish had more to do with educational program trade-offs and the complications associated with a limited building site than just money.

I would agree that architects need to rethink how they go about winning over the community to the sustainability argument. I would suggest that they begin by considering the cost-benefit equations associated with building versus demolition, and come up with practical arguments and solutions to support their position (not all of which have to be financial). Because, hey, while I'm actually into preserving old buildings, I'm not going to save one simply because it looks old, and I'm certainly not going to do so because some preservationists are rattling my chain.

To the contrary, if some group of preservationists comes out of the woodwork (so to speak) and attacks rather than constructively engages, you can bet there is not going to be a positive resolution for anyone.

No one is celebrating the old building being torn down. It's sad. But, the alternative was unfair to the kids who would be using the site for many, many generations to come.

And while the preservationist community was happy to yell and scream and even, in the case of Preserve Riverdale, hire lawyers to fight the district, not one, NOT ONE person stepped forward to say, "let me help raise funds or find another workable solution." Instead it was attack and misinform.

As to the claims by WS that no proof was provided as to the building's condition, what do you want? Repair bills posted? Photos of mold and dry rot and sagging ceilings and rusted pipework and outdated electrical systems? If so, go to the district office and review the materials that WERE SHARED WITH THE COMMUNITY. And read the materials that described the cost and other educational tradeoffs that WERE SHARED WITH THE COMMUNITY. Because you know what, a majority of the community re-elected three members of the sitting board because they were educated on the issues and came to believe that the decision to demolish was the right one. And just for the record, the big issue for those voting against the sitting board had more to do with floating a $21.5 million dollar bond in a recession and building what was misrepresented as a huge replacement building than in saving an old building. So Un-Biased Observer, you're right on in your points.

But as to te point about providing convincing evidence: This is a BLOG. No one in Riverdale has any responsibility to convince you that we made the right decision. If you're interested, then invest some time and go to the school or call the Board members and get educated. Or better yet, do it when there is still a hope to save a building.

And as for posts by Irlin about the Steering Committee taking materials for their own backyards...well, that's just stupid. And it's further evidence of how blogs can do more damage than good, because it allows simplistic, one-sided, unresearched, and at times, pretty vindictive, hurtful comments to be posted alongside thoughtful commentary by individuals such as Un-Biased Observer. Brian Libby, you want to be taken seriously, then police your blogs and set standards; otherwise, they become a joke that few people will take seriously.

So to all of you out there: You want to preserve architecture and save old buildings? Then engage constructively. Come up with practical alternatives that are cost effective and feasible. Attend meetings and ask probing questions. Dig deep and learn the whole story. Don't mindlessly attack and then whine when you don't get your way.

Be part of the solution.

I'm done posting here.
Attack me all you like, if venting somehow cleanses your soul. But know that until the architectural preservationist community comes up with winning arguments and constructively engages to find workable solutions, you're going to be fighting a losing battle. And you also need to thoughtfully pick your battles. If you do your research, you'll find that Riverdale was not a winnable one because of so many other construction- and cost-related issues. But there are other projects out there that are worth saving. And you will succeed in doing so if you get involved and help to contribute to finding workable solutions.

[Jon]

This is such a tragedy… No amount of justification can make this destruction OK. There are always other options, even if it does require sacrifice (something Riverdale apparently knows nothing about).
I do think that architects have a duty to help educate their clients, and should exhibit a sense of right and wrong. It seems Mahlum Architects has failed us twice. Once, not being able to provide an alternate design that saved the school. And twice, (the salt in the wound) the design for its’ replacement.