Portland Architecture

Bridge Over Troubled Potter

It's a funny, audacious idea: take the old Sauvie Island Bridge that was recently replaced by a new span, and recycle the structure into a new bike and pedestrian bridge over I-405. It also may be an indication of the risk and reward of Commissioner and mayoral candidate Sam Adams, a proponent of the idea, versus current/outgoing mayor Tom Potter.

The bridge has been discussed for a few years, but originally the idea was to make it a simple, cheap concrete crossing. That's what Mayor Potter still supports, according to an article in today's Oregonian, because it's about $1.5 million cheaper than recycling the Sauvie Island Bridge. But $1.5 million is practically pocket change to a major metropolitan city like Portland, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't choose, money aside, the Sauvie span for its superior aesthetics and the message it sends about Portland's values.

Potter has every right to oppose an extra budget outlay, but when I read that he opposes Adams on this matter, I couldn't help but roll my eyes. Tom Potter is a good man, no question about it. But this is the latest case where, at least when it comes to the built environment, he just doesn't get it. Adams does.

I mean, a long ugly concrete slab in the central city, to save a million and a half? That's like choosing a kiddie burger over a Big Mac to save a nickel.

At the same time, the fact that Adams, as head of the city's transportation department, may be able to push this through, also may show his danger, or at least the irony of this whole thing. The original discussion about a bike/pedestrian bridge was born of talk about the Burnside couplet, which Adams has pushed hard. The bridge itself is just the kind of project that Adams ought to champion, but the couplet is a rogue project that is about much, much more than transportation; a change this big really ought to come as part of a larger central city planning process coming from...city planners. So in other words, I think the bike bridge battle shows Adams at his best, but it's also inextricably tied to a bad idea.

Adams and Potter are like the eager son and the fatigued father. I'd rather have the son leading in this case, but he could perhaps use just a little of the father's restraint. In the case of this proposed bike/pedestrian bridge, though, I think the island is Potter, not Sauvie.

As always, though, I say this as a conversation starter, not an ending. What do the rest of you think?

Potholes, On the Road and In the Head

In Friday's Daily Journal of Commerce, Tyler Graf writes, "Sam Adams' road-maintenance fee continues to make political enemies. No surprises there."

Huh? Actually, there is a surprise here.

Graf is referring the plan hatched by Sam Adams and Randy Leonard to put through a road maintenance plan for Portland that breaks the intended fee into a three-part affair so it doesn't have to be referred to voters. He quotes Jason Williams of Oregon Taxpayers United, a reactionary anti-tax organization that seems to favor anarchy, closed schools, laid-off police and firefighters, and of course pothole-strewn roads, all in the name of protecting the masses from the evil specter of paying their fair share to keep our civilized society stitched together. Williams is supposed to stand as the voice of reason in this story.

Williams calls the Adams-Leonard move to stave off a referendum, which would probably be voted down because pretty much any tax measure gets voted down, "sleazy". Maybe it's sleazy like allowing the lifeblood of our economy--our public roads and infrastructure--to crumble.

Graf does point out at the end that some of Williams' points are psychotically off base. Like saying both the tram and even MAX are failures. Or that Oregon already has the highest fees for automobiles in the region when it has the lowest.

Maybe it's just me, but I think finding a way to fix Portland's roads is exactly the kind of thing we as a city should step up and do. And if city councilors like Randy Leonard and Sam Adams can find a creative way to get this deal done, then that's great. I'm all for democracy, but Oregon already has way, way, way too many initiatives referred to the voters. I expect my leaders to lead some of the time, not to patronize us with having to get a rubber stamp for the tough decisions we'll vote down if it saves us half a nickel. I doubt Adams and Leonard are making many political enemies out of this road fee, but if they are, perhaps this is the chance for the voting public to be heard without actually voting. Let's tell the naysayers that an enemy of decent roads is an enemy of ours.

Considering the State Renewables Credit

The State of Oregon's increased tax breaks for renewable energy businesses has been a subject of debate in and out of Salem lately because of a proposal to double the already sizable credit. As reported by several outlets, The Oregon House Revenue Committee has voted to forward an energy tax credit proposal for the full Legislature's consideration next month.

More than 170 projects worth around $200 million won preliminary go-ahead for renewable energy tax credits last year. Tax credits were boosted to as much as 50 percent of a project's cost. PPM energy alone received $33 million in tax credits for its Klondike III wind farm in eastern Sherman County. That's a lot of money that could have been allocated for schools, health care, and other budget strapped coffers.

Being a political lefty, I also don't always feel great about the huge tax breaks that are routinely used to attract companies. Why should they get it so easy when individual households and our essential institutions pay the price?

Still, I'm reminded of the examples in Germany, Denmark and other European countries that have attracted many millions of dollars in economic benefit thanks to the large number of companies in solar power, wind and various other alternative energy companies. If you remove it, they will come. And it's already begun here in Oregon, too.

Ideally, there would be as much tax revenue as ever being generated for Oregon, just coming at a lower rate from a wider volume of sources. It makes total sense. I just feel a little funny because it sounds a lot like the argument made for trickle-down, Reaganomics, the Laffer Curve and all that stuff from the 80s, which is not something I'm philosophically not onboard with, despite growing up in a household where it was gospel.

"The truth is Oregon's tax breaks for renewable energy businesses are working," an editorial from last Friday's Oregonian read. "How else to explain the glut of companies seeking these benefits?" Renewable energy businesses also tend to create family-wage jobs, the editors also wrote. "By accepting lower than possible tax revenues today, Oregon is investing in its place in tomorrow's greener economy."

In the end I find it hard to argue with the green energy tax credits. I'm not sure yet if it's changing times or a special case. How do the rest of you feel?

New Landmarks Commission Officers Elected With Little Debate

As Fred Leeson reported in a small blurb from today's Oregonian, last week the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission elected its new officers.

Member Carrie Richter nominated fellow member and developer Art DeMuro as chairman, and DeMuro nominated Richter as vice chairwoman. They won approval in a unanimous vote.

For a commission that has perhaps been the most controversial entity in Portland design and construction, I was surprised to see that this vote happened with so little advance notice and public participation.

For all I know, the City probably went through due diligence to give public notice of the meeting. But given that the Historic Landmarks Commission has made some very controversial decisions all over the city, particularly in the last year--the Apple store in Northwest, the Kurisu project on Mississippi, various small projects throughout the neighborhoods--I'd have expected at least some talk about possibly changing the Commission's makeup or at least having some kind of roundtable on its mission and process.

This is not an attempt to badmouth the current Landmarks commission membership. I don't know Carrie Richter, but I've interviewed Art DeMuro before, and found him to be very nice and reasonable. Even so, there increasingly seems to be a disconnect or at least a lack of consensus in Portland on the tenets that comprise the Landmarks Commission's efforts.

How about some kind of public forum to take a new look at the group and its mission?

Delivering New Life to Post Office Site, and More from the City's Wish List

As reported in Tuesday's Portland Tribune, a realignment of downtown urban renewal districts may be in the works that could have a few significant effects. The plans are being drafted by a Portland Development Commission advisory committee.

This is also tied, I believe, to a drafted wish list for about $53 million in federal funds for eight projects from Congress as part of the "2008 Federal Agenda" that Andy Dworkin reported in The Oregonian a couple weeks ago.

One idea being considered is to River District to include up to 61 acres in Old Town/Chinatown area to go with the existing Pearl District portions. This would also guarantee millions of property tax dollars to help redevelop the main U.S. Post Office site. It's something that has been talked about for a long time, and I've long felt this property seemed like a sleeping giant.

What's more, I hope some of the existing post office building could be incorporated into a new structure. It's somewhat shabby now as a post office -- I really have to struggle to think of a post office that isn't shabby in one way or another -- but there are aspects of its mid-century modern design that are very handsome. If it could be done, I'd love to see a kind of hybrid of old and new architecture there. Why not make this a home for a public market, but a lot more as well? Then again, how about a new concert hall for the Oregon Symphony? Or a new contemporary art center? Even just a well executed mixed use project with housing or offices above retail would possibly suffice. If PDC were handling the allocation of that work, though, I'd like to see a revamping of the process to better empower great design as a priority, and not just something that meets livability and sustainability parameters. It doesn't have to be fancy, just good.

Another project included in the advisory committee plans, says the Tribune article, is a possible streetcar line for West Burnside. This, of course, is additionally tied to a re-routing of Burnside and Couch as one-way streets between I-405 to the West and 12th Street to the east.

Plenty of reasonable and intelligent people think this is a good idea, the couplet (pictured at left and below). There's an argument out there that it would foster development and more efficiently move traffic. Maybe so. But I'm still skeptical.  As I've said, it seems like a suburban solution, meant more to move cars than to be good urbanism. I think it'd make an island of blocks between Burnside and Couch like that between Northeast Broadway and Weidler, and between Grand and MLK. Perhaps it's warranted in those cases, but Burnside, I think, is different. It's the only street in the city touching SW, SE, NE and NW -- both literally and symbolically a unifying street. I think it needs to be two-way.

It also seems like the City Council is supporting this idea largely because of the attached streetcar proposal. Regardless, I also don't see how you can make such a major rupture to the traffic pattern on and around Burnside without looking at it in relation to the whole central city.

But, if you have a cool new post office project on Broadway, across from a renovated Union Station with a MAX train going by, a renovated 511 Broadway building occupied by PNCA, the Customs House remade as a boutique hotel (or its developers conceding interest to some type of arts program), and maybe even a completed Burnside Bridge construction project, and that sounds like an exciting transformation.

Hopefully it won't get lost in the mail like the last "Priority" package I sent to my sister.

Beyond the Bowtie: Blumenauer on Architecture

In case you didn't happen to pick up a copy at the newsstand, this month's AIArchitect magazine includes a fairly extensive interview with Congressman Earl Blumenauer, whose district is comprised largely of east Portland and Multnomah County.

"A staunch advocate of the architecture profession and built environment, the congressman is committed to promoting livable communities at the federal level," the intro goes. "Dubbed the “Johnny Appleseed of Livability,” he has authored and co-sponsored legislation to preserve and protect public lands, shift U.S. energy policy towards renewable energy and energy efficiency, curb global warming, and restore America’s lakes and rivers. In the past 12 years, he has visited more than 100 U.S. communities to help local governments, citizens, and civic organizations build effective partnerships to manage growth, improve the environment, and provide transportation choices."

As it happens, one of the first articles I ever wrote, back in about 1997 for the now defunct Our Town, included an interview with Blumenauer. The piece was about faith-based charities and the question of whether federal social-service funding could be allocated to them without violating the separation of church and state (a nice fluff piece to get started with). Why he wanted to talk to a free downtown weekly I'm not sure, but press not involving scandal or gaffes never hurts an elected official.

Blumenauer is practically a lifer as a politician, but he has used that time to steadily win greater influence not only for his Portland-area district, but also to advance the idea of Portland: the way we put together our built environment and transportation matrix.

Asked a relatively softball question in the interview, about what the architecture community "is doing well" to enhance communities, the Congressman--apparently the owner of many, many frequent flier miles--had this to say:

I try to be in a different community every month. Two weekends ago, we were in Miami and San Juan, Puerto Rico. I’m struck by how everywhere, the architecture community is increasingly effective in being part of the community planning process. The [AIA] 2030 Challenge that deals with energy conservation has been seized upon and is being used both in new architectural commissions and in local policies dealing with energy conservation. The architecture community is at the right place at the right time with the right solutions, and they’re being more vocal about it.

Asked about asked architects and political advocacy, he went on:

"I think there’s no better advocate than an architect for tying these pieces together. They understand the role that design principles play, but they also interact with code requirements and comprehensive plan elements. They’re the master weavers and the communicators who talk to the clients, local authorities, and oftentimes people in the community who have concerns about the impact a project will have. The architectural community needs to be willing to engage more broadly in what they do nationally with the AIA and other organizations, including being more aggressive locally and raising the profile of these issues, spotlighting the good stuff, and being constructively critical about outmoded policies and practices. The architect is right in the middle of the most important public policy considerations in any community. The more they understand, appreciate, and act that role, the better off we’ll all be."

Asked later in the interview about what he likes to do in his free time, Blumenauer turns out to be an avid marathoner, completing his 36th earlier this fall. For those politicians able to stay more or less continually in office over the years and (in some cases) decades, without succumbing to scandal or other reasons for backlash, and surviving the ebbs and flows of one party and then another grabbing ahold of the majority, an elected official's career really is a kind of marathon. He's never really the hottest commodity in the cult-of-personality that drives large national media outlets, and he doesn't wield the kind of power that would warrant it anyway. But slowly over time, by consistently carrying his message back and forth between Portland and DC, and to all the other cities he visits, there's no question Earl Blumenauer has had a big effect on Portland's built environment and transportation network.

Now, the bow tie is another matter altogether. But then again, this is not exactly a formally dressing city, and there's probably something appropriate to Blumenauer's look, especially amid the sameness of probably all 544 other elected leaders on Capitol Hill wearing regular ties. (An exception would have been the former Illinois senator and 1988 presidential candidate Paul Simon, but he's no longer in Congress...or alive.) Maybe I'm just jealous that the congressman is being inherently more Portland than I will ever dare.

Notes on Design Competitions, Permeable Pavement (and Tyler Durden)

It seems like a host of design competitions, both actual ones and those merely in the talking stage, have come up a lot lately.

In today’s Oregonian, Eric Mortenson reports on a new competition sponsored by Metro, “Integrating Habitats”, to generate ideas and designs that result in green clusters of development, not just green buildings. The competition has already attracted 234 entries from 10 countries, Mortenson reports, with a respected jury that includes local developer Jim Winkler, German architect Stefan Behnisch, and Metropolis magazine editor Susan Szenasy.

The Metro competition likely won’t ever be a high-profile one because it’s more of an ideas-based competition, rather than one resulting in tangible built work. But it’s a logical next step for the Portland area’s efforts to truly build green in a world-leading way.

Incidentally, the idea of green urban design got me wondering: what's to stop the Portland Department of Transportation from having its road-paving crews from now on use nothing but permeable pavement material?

Speaking of high-profile, today a reader forwarded me a New York Times article about a design competition co-sponsored by actor Brad Pitt to generate houses for the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans. Several star architects and firms like Thom Mayne and Pugh + Scarpa of Los Angeles, David Adjaye of London, and Japan’s Shigeru Ban. (Incidentally, If Pitt's Tyler Durden was the ringleader of Fight Club, what does it make these guys--The Magnificent Several? Charge of the Black Mock-Turtleneck Brigade?)

As I understand it, Pitt’s was an invited competition, as compared to the completely open-ended housing competitions we’ve had here, such as Living Smart to generate skinny-lot houses, and the city’s more recent competition to generate courtyard-style housing. I certainly like the idea of an open competition in that it allows young firms to compete on an even playing field and, theoretically, for the best design to win. But it’s probably no coincidence that the New Orleans designs in the Times today seem a little sexier and more interesting than the work our two competitions generated. But of course it also depends on what you're looking for; in a city competition, pure functionality understandably carries more weight.

Finally, there’s the matter of two local bridges set to be constructed. Recently on this site we talked about the planned new Sellwood Bridge, which is not using a competition. I’d questioned at the time whether a competition would have fostered more originality, but perhaps this particular project is not the right one for such a format because of its modest size. A lot of people seem to think something that functions well will suffice, and they wouldn’t be entirely wrong. However, what is enticing about a competition is the chance to get something better than sufficient—although of course it’s not guaranteed, either.

Where a design competition might be a lot more appropriate is for the new span planned for the I-5 Columbia River crossing. In case you missed it last week, the panel of experts looking at options for the span—particularly whether to expand/repair the existing bridge or build a new one—have recommended an entirely new structure.

The Columbia River bridge has a lot of function to attend to every day (moving thousands of cars efficiently without so much congestion), as well as a lot of red tape to clear (state, federal and local officials). However, this is a bridge that could and arguably should be a real landmark for the state. What’s more uniquely Portland than its rivers and the bridges that cross them? And this isn’t any river; it’s the Columbia, a particularly big, significant one. It's calling out for something not only functional, but beautiful. It doesn't have to be as showy as a Santiago Calatrava bridge like the one pictured here; maybe in the Northwest it should tend to be more like the land bridge being completed in Vancouver as part of the Maya Lin-overseen Confluence Project. I guess I'd be happy with something kind of in between. But, to borrow from the language of my fellow blogger Mike Merrill, it really needs to be awesome.

If one were to advocate for a design competition for the Columbia crossing, what are the chances of making it happen? Who needs to sign off? Many have credited the media and particularly former Oregonian architecture critic Randy Gragg (including Randy) for jump-starting the idea of a competition for the aerial tram. It really seems like the Columbia bridge is the next big public works transportation project that needs a competition.

But just as these projects are different, so too are the competitions themselves. I love design competitions, and have long advocated for them in Portland. But clearly they are no panacea, especially when executed or set up poorly. What would we need to do to ensure a Columbia bridge competition not only happens, but happens correctly? I’m thinking it should be an invited competition, for example, with only certain top firms and designers selected. But in the meantime, getting to that point is the vastly greater challenge. Are we ready to cross that span?

Courtyard Competition Winners and Family Housing in the Central City

On Wednesday night at 7PM, winners of the Portland Courtyard Housing Design Competition will to be announced to the public from city offices at 1900 SW Fourth Avenue, Room 2500A. The announcement follows a day of deliberation by the competition's jury panel. The competition has attracted over 250 submittals from around the country and the world. As the press release goes on to explain...

"Participants were invited to submit innovative designs demonstrating how higher-density courtyard housing can serve as an attractive option for families with children, while also contributing to environmental sustainability, providing an affordable housing option, and responding to neighborhood context.

The competition is part of city efforts to foster design excellence and the creation of new family-friendly housing in Portland's neighborhoods.  During the announcement event, the winning designs will be on display and competition jurors will be on hand to comment on the competition and their choices.  Following this event, the public will be invited to choose their favorite designs as part of "People's Choice" balloting to take place later in November and in December."

Having been in Beijing the week before last, I was interested in that country's traditional hutong housing, which is similarly inwardly oriented, only without much of a real open-space courtyard - just a well, really. But courtyard housing has a rich and very diverse history in places like the Middle East as well as in Europe.

What's interesting about Portland having a go at courtyard housing is that ours is a city that's decidedly oriented to the pedestrian, which in theory can be the opposite of courtyard oriented architecture. Obviously it doesn't have to be one or the other, though, and that's why it will be cool to see what the winners come up with - particularly when you remember that this stuff should ultimately get built here.

Meanwhile, on Thursday from 6-8pm at the Ecotrust Conference Center  (721 NW Ninth Avenue, Second Floor), a lecture and discussion will focus on how Portland continue to provide new housing options for families as the city continues to grow and densify, and how can this be done in ways that are environmentally sustainable.  Presentations will be made by two authorities on child-friendly housing and sustainable community design, Clare Cooper Marcus and Cynthia Girling, who served as jurors for the Portland Courtyard Housing Design Competition. Clare Cooper Marcus is co-author of Housing as if People Mattered and People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Spaces. Cynthia Girling is co-author of Skinny Streets and Green Neighborhoods: Design for Environment and Community and Yard, Street, Park: The Design of Suburban Open Space.

Sounds like these two events go together. Courtyard housing is an ideal way to densify while still maintaining open space for children and families to play or (if your family was like mine) escape each other now and then. Just remember to curb your dog, people.

I recently read a statistic looking at Portland's number of persons per square mile (4,199.17 according to Wikipedia) versus other American cities like Boston (12,327) and Chicago (12,470), which is to say nothing, of course, of New York (27,083). Portland has such a long way to go in terms of real densification. And if the figures are correct, with millions moving here in the decades ahead, I don't think any of us have really completely wrapped our heads around how much the fabric of the city is going to change. But, considering how few hutongs are really left in Beijing when they once comprised virtually its entire fabric, perhaps such things are largely inevitable.

Saltzman Announces New City Green Building Standard

Tonight at PDX Lounge, the Portland showcase at the USGBC's Greenbuild Conference, Commissioner Dan Saltzman announced a new incentive and fee program for all new buildings based on their carbon footprint and energy usage profile.

The standard is still just in the talking stage - it hasn't been approved. But it seems very likely to pass in this city council.

As I understand it, the standard would break down like this: If your building is 45% more efficient than energy code stipulations, you'll actually get a rebate check from the city. If your project is 30% better, there'll be no rebate, but also no fee. If your building is less than 30% more efficient than code, you'll be charged what's called a "carbon fee".

As a point of reference, the OHSU Center for Health & Healing by GBD Architects is about 50% more efficient than code, and it attained a 'Platinum' LEED rating from the US Green Building Council. So even if they wouldn't have to attain high LEED ratings, the City is more or less saying that every building built in Portland will need to either meet that range of greenness (the only way to get those kind of efficiencies) or pay the cost in a very literal sense.

This would be the first carbon fee issued by an American city for new buildings.

I'm sure architects and green building enthusiasts would be quite jazzed about this plan. But there also is probably going to be some fear and trepidation. What do the rest of you think?

Katz Back on the Prowl

Friday's Portland Tribune had an encouraging feature by Jennifer Anderson on former mayor Vera Katz. For three years since leaving office, she's kept a relatively low profile while battling cancer. But now, after finally receiving a clean bill of health, Katz is starting to become a little more active.

Currently Katz is chairing a committee of property owners to decide the placement of a new Willamette River bridge for bikes and pedestrians from the South Waterfront area to near OMSI. (Hopefully it will be as far north as possible to benefit downtowners and not just SoWa.)  The ex-mayor is also a member of the "creative capacity" group that her former chief of staff, commissioner Sam Adams, has created to find permanent funding for the arts. (How about some of that money for design?)

Katz also said this: “I’m thinking of asking Sam, when he’s mayor, if I can serve on the planning or design commission. I’d love that.”

During her tenure as mayor, Vera Katz was more of a friend to the design community than her successor has been. She started the Mayor's Design Initiative and used her office to help shepherd through projects like the Brewery Blocks, the restored Meier & Frank building, the aerial tram, and the East Bank Esplanade that now is named for her.

The best thing about Katz's re-emergence is the fact that there is one -- that she's in good health. But as it happens, the architecture community could also benefit from a reinvigorated ex mayor. If Sam Adams does indeed become mayor, it's not difficult to imagine Katz in some kind of emeritus role like she suggested. What could she do as head of the design commission, or the historic landmarks commission? The latter group could certainly use some help.  Maybe she could even talk Adams out of the ill-advised Burnside couplet. I'd like to see her head a new Mayor's Design Initiative under Adams that not only hands out awards, but seeks to reform various bureaus and commissions to make design excellence, and not just planning and development and sustainability, a top city priority.

Neighbors vs. Developers vs. City, and Properly Framing The Debate

The cover-story headline from today's In Portland section of The Oregonian is a provocative one: "Score One For The Neighbors."

"Tired of infil that doesn't fit," Erin Hoover Barnett's story goes, "residents are fighting back -- and winning."

There are definitely reasons to cheer for the neighborhood in this particular case. The focus of Barnett's story is a project in the Foster-Powell neighborhood near SE 74th Avenue. Developers wanted to put 19 row houses on a site near many single-family homes. On September 13, residents succeeded in winning a City Council vote that rejected developer Jeremy Osterholm's plans. Osterholm had even met with neighbors there about the plan. But, in Barnett's words, "he failed the earnestness test." It's not enough to just pay a lip service to neigbhors, listening and conceding little. In a way, that's very good. But it also can be very dangerous.

Barnett's story (or at least the big-font headline and subhead) casts this largely as a classic David-Goliath story, with the neighborhoods as good-guy crusaders and the developers as bad-guy wreckers of Livable Portland. In reality, of course, every project is different.

It's not at all wrong to look at this case as an indicator of the city council's increasing willingness to side with neighborhoods. There's more urban infill happening all the time, and some of it seems out of scale with nearby houses. And the neighbors have their community's health as motivation, while many developers are swooping into these neighborhoods for a short time driven by financial gain.

However, I also don't think the system is blameless here, nor are the intentions of the neighborhood organizations. First, we have to look to zoning for cues about what's allowable and what's not. That's what developers do. Who wants to gamble on a project that might get rejected? But there's also a lot of wiggle room about height and scale, so more and more often it seems to come down to some kind of fight. I'm not saying I want to cozy up with developers, especially the ones who build ugly, cheap stuff. But this is the same profession that empowers designers. It's a two-way street.

In many cases, it isn't David and Goliath. Instead, it's often a local small business person, maybe a builder or an architect, trying their hand at a small project in order to meet with the city's explicitly stated density goal by filling a market need, and doing so with very little if any profit margin. And with a lot of the people I talk to, like Sum Design Studio, the goal is to express and demonstrate their design talents, which happen to be impressive. But then their project gets stuck in limbo for weeks or months, sometimes even when the neighborhood association favors the design when a few dissenting voices file an appeal that stretches out the process some more.

What I'm saying, I guess, is it's great that neighborhood organizations and various design review mechanisms in Portland are strong, and it's an entirely proper use of their collective power to stop oversized, cheap and ugly developments from happening. But good design can also be undermined by those same efforts, and that's why I read a story like Barnett's and feel a sense of unfairness in the characterization. I felt this same way when Fred Leeson wrote in the In Portland section a few weeks ago about a neighbor's weeping at a hearing when her appeal of William Kaven's fine but modern and flat-roofed design was rejected.

I'm all for power to the people, but they have to earn the moral high ground, which can't be taken by shooting down good projects along with bad ones. We need to fine tune this process to ensure that good design is sorted out from bad. And no neighborhood organization should be entitled to change the design of a project simply for its own sake. With due respect to all involved, it can be a treacherously fine line between the collective little guy fighting for their voice to be heard and ensuingly becoming a localized mob.

I'm thinking now of another story I read in the paper recently, about a suburban resident's battle with her neigbors over her right to hang laundry outside to dry. I'm just sayin', let's not let ourselves do the same with buildings.

When the Levee Breaks (With Sanity)

Spencer Heinz was able to catchup in today's Oregonian with a ridiculous "scorched earth" policy being carried out along the Columbia under the auspices of FEMA emergency management. It makes things painfully clear how things went so wrong on the government's part after Hurricane Katrina.

Along the Columbia beside Marine drive between Interstate 5 and the Portland Yacht Club, nearly 500 full-size birch trees have already been cut down. Wednesday sawing began on another 120 trees. But late afternoon yesterday, a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge issued a temporary restraining order to stop the tree cutting until a hearing on September 28. The injunction was requested by the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association and Columbia Riverkeepers.

The problem, though, is if the trees are left and not cut, FEMA will decertify the levee from its ability to garner flood insurance. And that, in turn, means no federal assistance if the levee were to become breached in a flood. "FEMA and the US Army Corps of Engineers have argued that storms could blow over bigger trees and tear out roots and theireby loosen and weaken levee soils." You know, cut off your nose before it has a chance to spite your face.

It's bad enough the clearcutting we see driving through the Coast Range - like Sampson after getting his head shaved. But when it happens here in Portland, and out of reasoning that is illogical and arguably even bad ecological science, it makes one want to tip over with anger. Cutting trees makes a river levee safer? Who decided that - Weyerhaeuser? Dick Cheney?

In Spencer's story, a Bridgetown resident named Alise Goforth but it best: "That's what led to the failure of the levees in New Orleans. And it's the same policy that's being applied in Portland."

Potter Heads Out to Pasture

As first reported last night by the Portland Mercury's website (I looked all over Oregon Live and only found a vote about the mayor's beard), Tom Potter announced he will not seek a second term as mayor.

Regardless of what any of us think of Potter's performance when it comes to tangible initiatives, you've got to love this guy: a man with record-high approval ratings who shrugs off running again so he can go camping and hang out with his grandchildren.

As Anna Griffin wrote in this morning's Oregonian, though, it would be a mistake to be dismissive of Tom Potter and his four years in office - especially for those of us living near downtown and focused on wonky policy issues. That's how most people in Portland think. Griffin quoted Erik Sten, who may have had the best summation of the soon to be outgoing mayor:

"In a lot of ways, Tom Potter is Portland. He's sincere, he's respectful, he's focused on values rather than specific projects. All the things the political classes want him to be more of, most people don't care about. That's why he's so popular."

Looking ahead, prognosticators identify three probable candidates: city commissioner Sam Adams, developer Rob Ball, and African American Chamber of Commerce founder Roy Jay. Ball would assumedly be favorable to the local building industry; maybe he'd even bring back the Mayor's Design Initiative that Katz started and Potter dropped. Jay is a well respected community leader who, like Potter, would encourage participation from people across the city who've felt left out of civic debate in the past.

One thing that occurred to me immediately about Ball and Jay: if they really do want to get involved in city politics, why are they talking about the mayor's office but never considered a city council run? With the biggest complaint against Potter having been the inexperience of him and his staff at getting legislative and policy measures accomplished, why in the world would we want to choose one of two more political neophytes? Or better yet, if these guys are really interested in public service, why haven't they run for city council or some lesser office?

With the mayoral election still more than a year away, there will probably be a lot more to shake down in the meantime. A few years ago, for example, Erik Sten was the boy wonder of Portland politics. Does he really have no ambition for the mayor's office? There is also former councilor Charlie Hales in the background somewhere; he was instrumental in bringing the streetcar to Portland. There is also Kate Brown, who recently retired from the Oregon Legislature. Hell, why not John Kitzhaber?

Whomever becomes mayor next time around, let's all work hard to make sure design and planning are on his or her agenda.

Historic vs. Modern in TVA's Saturday Market Design For Waterfront Park

After shooting down a proposed Apple store in Portland and successfully getting the impressive Kurisu mixed-use project in the North Mississippi neighborhood dumbed down, the curmudgeonly power of Portland Historic Landmarks Commission has risen once again.

As Fred Leeson reported in last Thursday's Oregonian, a design by TVA Architects and Walker Macy Landscape Architecture for the new covered Saturday Market space along Waterfront Park and the Burnside Bridge, which "earned favorable comments from a a citizen advisory committee" and received approval from the Parks & Recreation bureau after months of study and public comment.

The project also has ramifications far beyond Saturday Market (for those of us not needing hemp necklaces). It's a very prominent site along the Willamette and provides a much-needed covered space for enjoying the park during the rainy months. I'd love to see more of these winter garden-like, indoor-outdoor public spaces in our city.

But because Waterfront Park lies in the Skidmore-Old Town Historic District, the Historic Landmarks Commission also weighed in. And they didn't like the design.

There's no doubt the light steel frame and boxy, diagonal form is pretty modern.  TVA more than most firms seems unapologetically modern in that way. The design consists of two adjacent sloping pieces that mimic the slope of the adjacent bridge. I don't want to say I'm in love with this design, but I feel far more reticent about being lumped in with the opposing viewpoint.

According to commission member Carrie Richter, "It looks like it belongs at the airport." Instead, Leeson reports, the commission wants the design to "reflect historical references by acknowledging street patterns, warehouse shapes or maritime themes."

It seems like this is a debate that keeps happening as it extends from project to project. A modern structure is planned for a historic neighborhood and seeks to establish a contemporary identity of its own. But we have reason to feel protective of historic architecture, districts and neighborhoods. It's hard to argue either of those basic principles. So what's the answer?

I personally feel that if the design is good, modern and historic structures can stand next to each other and actually both benefit from their disparate looks. One usually doesn't want any one structure to stand out incongruously if it harms the surrounding historic architectural fabric, but who benefits when a modern building's design is changed to fit in at the expense of the integrity of the design?

Regardless of whether TVA and Walker Macy's design here survives or is changed, I think the design community and city government need to take a look at how the design review, historic resources and other city agencies can benefit the design community and the urban fabric without taking away from it. Because a sizable portion of interested parties (myself included) worry the latter may be happening too often.

Email From A Frustrated Architect

A few weeks ago I wrote about the small Portland firm William Kaven Architecture and its various housing projects. This week I received a follow-up email from co-principal Daniel Kaven expressing some major frustration at the apparently lengthy process of making his firm’s latest design, a multi-family project in North Portland called the North House, a reality.

The City of Portland actually recently approved the Kaven design on North Albina Vancouver (sorry, I originally wrote the incorrect street - it's in the Albina neighborhood), but it has been appealed by a neighbor near the property. "The proposed development is in a residential zone and therefore should be designed to enhance these existing and predominant features," the appeal argues. "The design is not compatible with the existing structures and neighborhood."

A design review commission hearing this Thursday, August 2 (1900 SW Fourth Ave., Room 2500A) will allow public testimony, and the architects asked me to appeal to the design community to come and support their efforts. It’s not just about the North House, Daniel argues, but the ability of contemporary architecture to get approved in a timely fashion that doesn't let good projects die on the vine.

“The City of Portland has made it excruciatingly difficult to make the most simple changes to its own community-design standards,” he goes on. “I have been sucked into the BDS [Bureau of Development Services] bureaucracy for months now based solely on my attempt to have flat roofs, which exist in order to have more urban space and foster green roof development.”

“The manner in which the City of Portland and neighbors can hold your design hostage has really gotten out of control.  There needs to be major changes in the "community design standards" in order to accommodate modern design. Modern housing, which might only slightly deviate from the standards, is slathered in red tape, while awful track housing still gets the green light.”

I present Daniel’s experience not as gospel, because to be honest I hear varying things about city design review and have never been through this process myself. Anyone I’ve ever talked to at the City seems pretty reasonable about crafting a balance between unchecked design freedom and rigid guidelines. But proof is in the project, of course. What do other architects and developers trying to generate contemporary urban infill projects in historic neighborhoods have to say about their experiences?

It seems tempting to cast this, as Daniel has, as evidence of civic growing pains, wherein residents who love their Craftsman bungalows, Tudors and other pitched-roof single family homes see the arrival of contemporary architecture as out of character. I and many others have argued that, done properly, modern buildings and homes fit in easily with historic styles, and the diversity enriches the entire neighborhood. However, with any project there can be a lot of subtle but important details regarding scale and material that can and should be worked out in order to help a modern structure fit into a more historic context or accentuate the pedestrian experience. One of the appeal's other complaints other than the contemporary style had to do with public access and pedestrian integration, which I think may have been better served as a stand-alone argument rather than this "the world is flat" mentality about the place of contemporary architecture.

The city may have certain legitimate concerns about certain details regarding the North House they want to take time to resolve, and quite often the timetables of public and private concerns can be different ones - like two cars on the freeway who belong in the far-left and far-right lanes but have to somehow ride together. But I know William Kaven is not the only architecture firm to express frustration about red-tape. The very term "red tape" is a cliche, after all, because so many people have reached for such shorthand terms over time for government slowness and time-wasting. Does the BDS need more resources to do its job, or are these architects just Kaven to the pressure?

Progressive Garbage

In today's Portland Tribune, Toby Van Fleet reports on Metro's plan to place a garbage tax on November's ballot that would fund improvements and restoration of natural areas around the region as well as outdoor school for kids and conservation programs.

The tax increase would amount to between 75 cents and $1.25 per month. The comments section on the web version of the article is dominated by people (all four of them) saying they won't support them thar Democrats' latest tax-and-spend initiative, but Metro polling indicates a majority of voters in the region would support spending less than a cup of coffee per household per month on inarguably worthy green-oriented efforts.

Aside from the money involved, this would also be a progressive tax that, however subtly, encourages people to contribute less garbage and more recyclable refuse. Tax-phobics don't like that either, but I've always approved of pulling the tax strings to help society.

It's funny to put it this way, but while we're on the topic of garbage, what other changes could or should Metro make to garbage and recycling collection? I, for example, would like to be able to leave my food waste at the curb for composting pickup. Either that, or maybe we could all stop composting and recycling and, just for fun, make a new mountain in the Cascades out of our trash.