Portland Architecture

Sifting Portland and metro area population data

Last Thursday's Portland Tribune had an interesting feature by Peter Korn that displayed some common myths about migration here.

Among Korn's findings, based on IRS data, are that about as many Multnomah County residents have left for California as have left the Golden State for here in the last several years. Portland also does not, Korn found, attract an unusual amount of people from other states. "Many other states and most western cities have higher rates of migration than Oregon and Portland," he added. Seattle, for instance, gets much more Californians and people moving there overall. 

In fact, for most of the past decade, more people actually left Multnomah County to live elsewhere than moved here. The reality is different in suburban Washington and Clackamas Counties: they've gone up in population.

But Korn notes that trend has changed: "Tax returns for 2006-07 (the IRS groups the migration data in two-year segments) show 3,601 more people moving into Multnomah County than leaving. 

Another finding: "Portland residents aren't moving to the suburbs anymore, but out-of-staters have taken up the slack." For much of the last several years, the article says, the demographic trend has been for out-of-state residents to move first to Portland and then, after a few years, to move to the suburbs of Clackamas, Washington and Clark counties. Now, however, the number of people moving into Washington County versus a decade ago, while roughly the same overall, is made up 19.6 percent Portlanders versus 24 percent ten years ago.

What should we make of some of this data?

It's hard to draw concrete conclusions because there are a lot of complicating factors. Sometimes we may tend to see population increases as indications of which places people like best, and what cities are therefore the most pleasant to be in and experience. In reality, though, it may be more of an economic indicator, or maybe even climate.

After reading Korn's article, my Google search of fastest-growing US metro areas found this CNN article from a year ago listing the Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix and Houston. Notice a theme here? Sprawl. Having an urban growth boundary like Portland does, and combining it other statewide anti-sprawl measures, means the added quality of life is (perhaps inevitably) tied to increases in the cost of living. Take away those restrictions, and you have cheaper land. The divide between rich and poor has become greater in America over the last decade, and over a broader period, central cities and suburbs have to some degree traded places as coveted and cheap destinations, respectively.

I'm probably just being too sensitive or seeing mirages, but I wondered if the paper had a bit of an agenda . The headline for the story, in big bold type on the cover, asked, "Nirvana? Possibly Not." Is it possible the Tribune's owner, the conservative Doctor Robert Pamplin Junior, might get a little extra satisfaction in taking Little Beirut down a peg?

Even if so, however, the numbers are there in plain sight. The tidal wave of Portland immigrants may indeed be a myth. But ultimately if there is a competition between Portland and its suburbs, or between the Portland metro area and those in other regions, our strength lies not in quantity but quality.

New Yorker on Belluschi, NY Times on Alberta Street

Two bits of New York press (arguably the nation's best magazine and easily the best daily newspaper) have turned their sights on two very different pieces of Portland design.

First, New Yorker architecture critic Paul Goldberger looks at the renovated Alice Tully Hall and the Juilliard School it's part of at Lincoln Center. The original design by Pietro Belluschi has been renovated by Diller Scofidio + Renfro, one of the country's best contemporary firms. (The image below is a rendering of DS+R's renovation.)

"Amid the tepid classicism of so much of Lincoln Center," Goldberger writes, "Juilliard stood out as something totally nineteen-sixties, all cantilevers and boxy geometries. Granted, it was covered in travertine, to match its genteel neighbors, but that served only to make the building seem ill at ease, like a wrestler dressed in a Sunday suit."

Goldberger goes on to call Belluschi's building (co-designed with Eduardo Catalano) "a misfit" and decry its "half hidden" entrance, as well as to take issue with a rectangular building on a trapezoidal site.

I agree that Pietro Belluschi's work from the 1960s and 70s is not necessarily his best, particularly the larger institutional work. When the architect traded wood and glass for limestone and travertine, something was lost. What's more, the Juilliard and Alice Tully definitely qualify for the "brutalism" tag that is often given to buildings from this period. At the same time, I still feel Goldberger is too dismissive of Belluschi's work at Lincoln Center and of so-called Brutalist architecture in general. The Diller Scofidio design unquestionably breathes new life into Belluschi's building, making it more humane with added transparency. At the same time, this is hybrid architecture of old and new, so whatever Goldberger praises about the renovation would, for all intents and purposes, not be possible without Belluschi's original. And while Brutalism certainly invites criticism in general, I'd hate to think of Goldberger being too dismissive of the original without really giving it thought.

Meanwhile, the travel section of the Times declares in its headline for a story on Alberta Street that the neighborhood was "saved by design". The story briefly profiles a key developer in this history, Rosalyn Hill. She bought numerous downtrodden properties on Alberta in the early 1990s and "laid down new rules": no metal bars on windows and no locked doors during business hours." (The photo at right, which appeared in the story, is by the excellent Portland photographer Basil Childers. I took the one below.)

This is an extension of the "broken window" theory that helped transform the feel of a lot of central cities in the 1990s, particularly New York (I saw it happen first-hand), by improving the cosmetics of place to not look like environments for crime. Turns out criminals are often looking for those places, if you believe the statistics. "I told my renters, 'You have to interact with the community," Hill told writer Jane Hodges. And sure enough, if you look at places Rosalyn renovated, they are teeming with street-front glass. Urbanity needs transparency. If you look at the blighted, graffiti covered places in any city, they're often the places with the least amount of glass.

I happened to meet Rosalyn Hill about a year ago as we visited some of the properties she renovated, where the Random Order coffee house and the tin Shed Garden Cafe are now located. On the day I visited, Rosalyn was watering the plants around both buildings and seemed to know almost everyone who walked by. And it's also worth noting that, given how Alberta Street has heard cries of gentrification and accusations of the diverse African American and Latino populations driven out by middle class whites, Rosalyn Hill is a black business owner who has stayed and thrived.

This article wasn't really about design, at least not in the sense of paying much attention to the architecture of the properties Hill renovated. But there's definitely reason to celebrate the unique sense of place that exists on Alberta Street, one that has emerged from years of crime and poverty to prosper, yet has also done so without a single Starbucks, Blockbuster Video, Old Navy or McDonald's. The piece also celebrates some local business that we Portlanders would do well to support in these tough economic times: Guardino Gallery, Office PDX, and Helser's restaurant.

John Jay and Old Town/Chinatown

In Sunday's Oregonian D.K. Row interviewed John Jay, who is not only executive creative director at Wieden + Kennedy (more or less the #2 guy to Dan Wieden), but also is playing an increasing role as a developer - particularly in the Old Town/Chinatown neighborhood.

Jay and his wife, Janet, have teamed with Andy Ricker Richter, owner of Pok Pok (purveyor of some of the tastiest food I've ever tasted), to create a new restaurant called Ping in the old Hung Far Low lounge site at 4th and Couch. But Jay also has his hands in numerous other efforts. He hired Brad Cloepfil to renovate his Pietro Belluschi house two years ago, and then wound up collaborating with Cloepfil on the spec Macleay View House in the West Hills. Jay has also been supporting and following efforts to bring the Uwajimaya grocery store to Old Town Chinatown.

I've written about John Jay a few times in the past and find him an incredible personality. The guy never seems to sleep. If he emails you, chances are the message was sent in the middle of the night. He flies back and forth constantly between Portland, Tokyo, Shanghai, Amsterdam and New Dehli to Wieden's offices, and even at 60 has vastly more energy than I do at 36. Plus he can tell you anything about the most obscure graffiti artist, an early-80s hip hop group, high fashion trends in New York and Milan, and a vast array of contemporary art.

Here are some questions and answers between DK and Jay that I found interesting:

Row: Why should Chinatown be important?

Jay: Chinatown represents both the past and the future. It may well be potentially the most interesting and influential neighborhood in the city waiting for reinvention. It sits on the edge of Broadway, an area of creative energy with the Museum of Contemporary Craft and other galleries in the DeSoto Building. Then there's the 511 building owned by the Pacific Northwest College of Art that's poised to be the new incubator of artists and designers. From the Pearl, Chinatown leads to Old Town, which will evolve with the emergence of a rejuvenated White Stag building and its focus on architecture and design.

So, Chinatown sits in the middle of an emerging creative corridor.

What group of people will decide the fate of this area?

I wish I knew. I don't know. I hope the city will have a vision. I hope people at the Portland Development Commission understand that there are wonderful things happening in Old Town -- the White Stag building, for example, and much more. But that's not Chinatown.

What will Chinatown look like in the future? 

The growing prominence of Asian creatives in the world at large is huge right now. That's intersecting with the fact that there is this place called Old Town/Chinatown on the verge of being remade by someone -- by the city, by ground forces. And what does that future look like? The future may be a very contemporary expression of what used to be a Chinatown that is a multi-Asian ethnic neighborhood that includes a lot of creative forces. When you think about the early days of the Pearl, about TriBeCa and SoHo, it was always the arts that drove them. But this opportunity here is based on Asian culture, the importance of Asian culture and China and Tokyo. (Note: the above photo is by Michael Rubenstein.)

How do you keep this part of town distinct from the Pearl District?

This is wishful thinking but I would like to keep the area a little more affordable and younger. It's hard and difficult, of course: I can't blame developers because for them to make things work financially, they have to build luxury condos. We need the city's help. I remember talking to Sam Adams before he was elected. We were talking about the enthusiasm in Chinatown. He was very positive and supportive of the creative businesses in this town. I think he understands how important this area is.

Historically, what held the area from progress?

Well, the 900-pound gorilla is the presence of social services. I think those who live here have to embrace that because it's the authentic DNA. But whether or not the area can absorb more or not is up to the city. It's an area that's been down on its luck for a while -- businesses open, then close, and some people haven't felt entirely safe. Young people, however, don't fear that. I go back to my business and think about an encounter with Jay Chiat, who opened the advertising firm Chiat/Day. I saw him one time on Fifth Avenue in New York. He had just moved his offices there in the 1980s. I said, "Congratulations." He said, "Yeah, yeah, but we should be over on 10th and 11th avenues, where it's more shady and dangerous. This is a creative company. We shouldn't be that comfortable."

Portland Spaces Magazine Announces 'Root Awards'

Portland Spaces magazine has announced a new set of design and architecture awards, called the "Root Awards: Portland Design from the Ground Up." Awards will be given out in more than 20 categories, including single family homes, individual rooms, commercial offices and restaurant interiors. The winners will be featured in the magazine's November/December issue this fall.

Root Awards nicely conveys a sense of permanence and ties to the past for a brand new magazine's brand new awards. Perhaps they could give individual names to awards like The Carrot for Lifetime Achievement, or the Turnip for Best New Architect.

Editor Randy Gragg and company have put together an accomplished four-person jury: Karrie Jacobs, founder of Dwell magazine and architecture/urban planning critic for New York magazine, the New York Times, and Metropolis; Katherine Lambert - leading advocate of ecological design, founding principal of Metropolitan Architectural Practice, and chair of interior design and professor of visual studies at the California College of the Arts; and Iris Harrell - president and founder of Harrell Remodeling in San Francisco. I would imagine Randy having some say as well, although that's only conjecture; however I do like the idea of one juror in the quartet (or quintet) being from here and having a strong sense of Portland. But perhaps there's also more integrity in having a jury entirely from outof towners looking at it fresh. That's how the AIA has always done their annual design awards.

The competition is open for submissions now to July 14, 2008. Submitting is easy: send Portland Spaces a 500-word description of the project, up to eight high-resolution images, and a $50 fee per entry (with discounts for early and/or multiple submissions). The entry form and complete instructions are available at www.portlandspaces.net/designawards.

Nominations also will be accepted in four special categories: The Masters; Rising Stars; Portland, World (for exported design); and Sustainability. I think these are particularly interesting and fun. Who do people naturally see as Portland's masters, rising stars, and sustainability gurus? I of course have my own preferences and opinions, but I'd be curious to here somebody else's out there. Maybe some of my own ideas about people in these categories is knee-jerk stuff. Design a cool retro diner and you're a rising star, an impressive big public building and you're a master. Add oil, vinegar and salt to taste. It'll be interesting to see another set of awards articulate the successes out there, and possibly in a slightly different pecking order. Hopefully there will be room for both this and the AIA awards. Why shouldn't there be?

In addition to celebrating the incredible design work being produced in the Portland metro area, the Root Awards will benefit a new college scholarship fund that will provide cash awards to top local students in the fields of design and construction. That may be the best part of this whole thing.

"Dreamers + Builders" In The Oregonian

Today in The Oregonian's A&E section is a story package I wrote called "Dreamers + Builders", highlighting the key players on Portland's architecture/design scene.

The piece has two principal components: an overall feature story about how the local scene has changed over the last decade, and a list (with portraits by Motoya Nakamura) of 11 people making it happen. It's actually a list of 10, but one entry on the list consists of two people: Bill Neburka and Carrie Schilling (at left) of Works Partnership Architecture.

The other 9 people on the list, in no particular order, are:

• Brad Cloepfil, Allied Works Architecture
• John Homes, Holst Architecture
• Eugene Sandoval, Zimmer Gunsul Frasca
• Tiffany Sweitzer, Hoyt Street Properties
• Sohrab Vossoughi, Ziba Design
• Jeff Kovel, Skylab Design Group
• Heinz Rudolf, BOORA Architects
• Robert Thompson, TVA Architects
• Thomas Hacker, Thomas Hacker Architects

The list was intentionally made up almost entirely of architects. If it had been a list of the most important building industry people, of course it would have been very different.

I decided to choose one developer for the list, and that was probably the hardest part. To me Mark Edlen of Gerding Edlen Development is arguably the most significant developer in town, and I want to make it very clear that I'm a fan of Mark, his firm and the work they do. Not having Mark on there is probably the most glaring omission. But in making these lists, one has to make a couple of contrarian or at least somewhat surprising choices. Originally I wanted to have a three-person developer entry with Tiffany Sweitzer, Mark Edlen and Randy Rapaport, but the list was getting too big. I chose Sweitzer instead of Edlen for a few reasons. One, it's been fascinating watching Hoyt Street, the Pearl's most prolific developer, evolve in their designs as they go north. Does Hoyt Street build better buildings today than Gerding Edlen? Not necessarily, and certainly not in the past. However, I like Hoyt's latest, The Metropolitan, better than about any big condo in the city.

There are also, of course, several other architects and firms I could have chosen as the city's most significant. The first two coming to mind are GBD Architects and SERA Architects. The Brewery Blocks, which GBD designed, are a wonderful success, particularly as neighborhood placemaking. SERA has also been a real leader in sustainable design and I think their design quality is only going up. If the list were based solely on design talent, I might also have chosen Rick Potestio. But he's in between firms and being under-utilized lately. Would some firm please reach out to this superb architect, like, yesterday?

In terms of the feature story that accompanies the portraits by Motoya Nakamura, I tried to compare Portland's architecture/design environment to how it was in the late 1990s. Back then it was the age of Bilbao, and lots of cities were investing in signature architecture - particularly museums, but also courthouses and other public buildings. I worked at the AIA at the time, and I remember during Architecture Week there was a panel discussion hosted by Jonathan Nicholas of The Oregonian about whether Portland suffered from a design malaise.

It's not that we have much of any individual great buildings today, but I sure don't hear any talk of malaise. In the article I tried to make the point that a combination of factors has made Portland much more of a design city: the rise of sustainability, the economic boom bringing condos and lots of other work, the influx of young creatives to the city, etc.

What do the rest of you think, by the way: Is Portland a better place for creating and building quality architecture than it was a decade ago? Who should have been on the list who wasn't, or who is on the list who shouldn't be?

Kenton and Town Centers

Do you ever have that moment where you recall a conversation you’ve had in the past day or so, and then think about an idea or question never expressed? I’m having one of those with the inaugural ‘Designs On Portland’ conversation from last night with newly minted Portland Spaces editor Randy Gragg.

As it happens, Stephen Beaven’s cover story from the InPortland section of Thursday’s Oregonian connects with it. Or it least I think it does.

In the talk at Design Within Reach last night, we were discussing Metro’s 2040 plan of trying to create certain regional town centers, I believe they’re called—basically clusters of higher-density development (mixed used, multi-story, condos, etc.) centered around key MAX light rail stops and, eventually by extension, the Washington County commuter rail line.

What we seemed to agree on was that there seemed to be a mixed-bag of measurable success on that front, with struggling but in some ways very laudable developments like The Round in Beaverton emblematic of the growing pains happening in suburban areas trying to go high-density with both financial success for the developer and an urban success for the neighborhood.

In last night’s conversation and now, as I write this, I also remember (or remembered, as it were) a past interview with award-winning planner George Crandall of Crandall Arambula, whose plans have helped revitalized a number of medium-sized American cities and was also involved in Portland’s earlier downtown revival during the 1970s. Crandall believes (or at least he did when I interviewed him a couple years ago) that Metro has been much more successful at macro-level planning for the Portland Metro area than micro-level. Which, I guess you might say, means the idea of the high-density, MAX-oriented clusters is a good idea, but the seeds are sprouting only with middling success. Two totally different challenges, guess.

Stephen Beaven’s article talks about the Kenton neighborhood in North Portland, traditionally a sleepy blue-collar enclave, that’s the latest of many close-in neighborhoods to experience gentrification (rising housing prices, other social and demographic changes brought on with generational ownership turnover). It’s in some ways an apples/oranges comparison to look at Kenton versus locales in, say, Beaverton. But even so, they’re both fruit, ya know?

I thought Beaven, interviewing Portland State urban studies professor Ethan Seltzer, summed up the ingredients in an urban Portland’s neighborhood’s makeover.

• “High housing prices in the core and surrounding neighborhoods force young people to buy further out. This is why Kenton and St. Johns are getting trendy.
• These outlying neighborhoods usually have good bones: mature trees, parks, well-tended streets and commercial buildings that can be easily renovated.
• Public investment—whether it’s a light-rail line or the sale of city-owned land—sparks retail and residential development.
• New residents throw themselves into neighborhood, reinvigorating community organizations or starting new businesses."

What are the ingredients that exist in Kenton that could are missing in some of the Metro town center locations, but could realistically be grown over time? You can't rush the trees growing, but I wonder what needs to change to eventually, over the coming decade beyond any particular recession or boom, to see clusters in Beaverton, Hillsboro, Gresham or Gateway flourish as environments where you can walk for a lot of your basic services, where there's a built environment that doesn't feel synthetic, bland or Disneyland -like (or Edward Scissorhands) but is affordable as well.

Then again, when your neighborhood has a gigantic Paul Bunyan statue -- a not completely un-Disney-like presence (if I you'll forgive me for pretzel-like phrasing) -- you always have a built-in advantage.

But I think Kenton is also just entering a particularly fun moment: that sense of betweenness, where the old hasn't disappeared. There's a quintessentially Portland blue-collar grittiness like you might see in a Gus Van Sant film that hasn't disappeared. Some some senior citizens living across the street from the tattooed young folks. And a place on a reasonably nearby corner to get a decent cup of coffee.

Portland Spaces Debut Party NearlyRuns Out of It

Last night the anticipated new magazine Portland Spaces, edited by former Oregonian architecture critic Randy Gragg and published by Portland Monthly, arrived on the scene with a party in a decked-out warehouse over in the Northwest industrial area near Pyramid Brewing.

If the turnout for this shindig was any indication, the magazine ought to do well. When it came time for Randy to speak shortly after 8PM, the room he spoke from (there were two adjoining spaces for the party) actually reached its limit and some of us wound up watching from closed-circuit flat screen TVs in the overflow room. It felt a little surreal, but thanks to the genius stroke of having free hors d'oeuvre from Burgerville in the form of little cheeseburgers, cups of fries and shakes (plus free booze at the bar), the big-brother effect went down a whole lot easier.

The jam-packed gathering also was somewhat of an odd mix. On one hand, you had lots of art and architecture people, most all of whom know Randy. And on the other hand, there was also, if you'll forgive the stereotyping, a cleavage and Range Rover contingent. A cynic might say this represents the marriage of Randy and Portland Monthly's demographic (which, in full disclosure, I've freelanced for). But in the end it doesn't matter. It's about the product, the magazine itself, which was handed out in little goody bags with jars of Burgerville spread (or what I still think of as "special sauce"). And that could wind up being an interesting pairing--Randy and the magazine, that is, not the magazine and the fry goo.

I've only made a first run-through of the magazine, but it was fun seeing the successful brisk and well-designed graphics of Portland Monthly applied solely to homes and architecture, underscored by Randy's erudition about local planning, preservation, and architects. (Two writers from Willamette Week I like a lot, Zach Dundas and Mike Thelin, also contributed to the first issue.) For example, there's a spread of four pages tracing the lineage of housing design in Portland that includes pictures and small bits of text on everyone from Van Evra Bailey, Pietro Belluschi and John Storrs to Brad Cloepfil, Bob Oshatz and Rick Potestio.

In addition, there are more in-depth looks at individual projects in smart ways, like the under-construction 2121 Belmont project seen through the eyes of three people: an architect from Ankrom Moisan involved in the design, someone from the neighborhood organization, and an architect previously part of the design commission. The cover-story is a house by Jeff Kovel and his superlative firm, Skylab. That's probably a good example of a cool modern project you'd be less likely to find in, say, Oregon Home. (Although I do remember seeing a few cool Rick Potestio projects there from time to time in years past.)

Regardless, it's always great to have more voices and resources devoted to covering design and architecture in Portland.

And speaking of Randy Gragg, if you didn't get a big enough dose from the magazine, or would like to hear more about the making of it--and more about architecture in Portland--next Wednesday, January 16 at 6:30, I will be interviewing Randy as the debut in a new discussion series that I'm doing in partnership with Design Within Reach called "Designs On Portland". The event is free and will be held at DWR's studio in the Wieden + Kennedy building. We'll be doing one about every other month. More to come on the discussion in the days ahead.

Randal O'Toole vs. Smart Growth (or, Houston? They Have a Problem)

As Portland State University professor said in Anna Griffin's Oregonian profile, maybe we shouldn't even be giving Randal O'Toole any attention. After all, the guy actually thinks Houston is a far better model for urban growth than planning.

O'Toole, who lives in Bandon but is a Portland native, says Portland's emphasis on government planning has led to higher housing prices, a shrinking population of families, and increasingly bad congestion. Within his argument are kernels of truth: We are indeed facing all of those challenges here. It's O'Toole's conclusions, though, that push him towards what one might call "Dumb Growth".

"They're actually building roads in Houston," O'Toole says in the article. "They know something in Houston that we haven't figured out here. You can build your way out of a traffic problem." In fact, I think they could soon simply link up the freeways of Houston, Dallas and Phoenix so they become one continuous sprawled out megalopolis. In fact, you probably wouldn't have a traffic problem, or at least not an automobile-based one. People would just fly everywhere. Daughter's got a dance recital at school? Hop in the Cessna, everybody!

I've been to Houston. It is far, far, far from any kind of Utopia. In fact, visiting there a couple years ago confirmed for me the direction Portland is going: away from giant freeways, big houses with big lots, and the rest of the unsustainable post-World War II model. If O'Toole has somewhat of a point about what Portland's challenges are--housing costs, etc.--he completely mischaracterizes them.

For example, if there were a Mt. Hood Freeway like they almost built here in the 1960s, it'd be easier to go east quickly - at least when it's not rush hour. But what would we be driving to? And through? The apartment I live in in Southeast Portland might not even be here. It could be in the freeway's path. Meanwhile, I'm about to walk to the grocery store this morning, Mr. O'Toole. A Houstonian would more likely encounter a drive to get there - or anywhere. Those families O'Toole so valiantly defends? That'd cost them more in gas money in Houston.

Actually, though, Houston is no longer the Dumb Growth poster child that O'Toole wants it to be. That's right, even in deep in the heart of Texas they've decided to build light rail. Be sure to check the inside of those cars for residual manure and tobacco juice.

Nevertheless, as Griffin and her editors seem to feel, we can't ignore the Randal O'Tooles out there. Even here in Portland there are countless Libertarian true believers like him, who worship at the altar of free markets with endless faith, as if organizing and imagining and working toward the kind of community we want is some kind of folly. By that rationale, you'd think the freeway--loving O'Toole would like it better if the road ahead no longer was paved with asphalt, and instead we all made different grooves through the grass and dirt. Yet to merely ridicule them isn't very helpful. Just as countless people even a few years ago didn't believe in the reality of global warming, but now have come around to the inevitable, we need to seek out and engage these contrarians chasing windmills and all who would listen to them.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to look to European cities for Portland's inspiration, not the nation's most disastrously laid out urban wastelands. O'Toole's right that it costs more this way. But Randal, keep this in mind: you get what you pay for.

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.

YGH's Revised PSU Rec Center Design, and a New Leeson Life

As Fred Leeson reported in Thursday's Oregonian, Yost Grube Hall returned with a revised design for Portland State University's recreation center building on the plaza across from the school's very nice Thomas Hacker-designed Urban Center.

YGH won the job a few months ago after beating out both Hacker and Opsis Architecture. At the time, I liked their proposal the third best out of the three finalists. I was particularly keen on the visually much bolder-looking Opsis design with its ribbons of curvy metal. But it's not as if the YGH design was bad or anything. I'll bet if I hadn't seen the other two designs, I'd have liked it more from the start. Besides, as Randy Gragg argued in a January Oregonian column, the university may have been going about this in a "bargain basement" kind of way (as Randy put it), regardless of what designer was chosen.

As it happens, though it seems PSU may wind up getting a pretty nice building, for the rendering YGH unveiled (above) seems much more unified and coherent. It's still not a blow-you-away kind of design, but it's the kind of timeless modernism that figures to age well over the generations. It's Portland for better and worse: a nice fabric building, nothing truly great but quality stuff and a good neighbor - kind of like a lot of the old turn of the 20th century buildings surrounding Courthouse Square that many of us love today, a hundred years later.

One small point of contention Leeson reported from the Design Commission hearing (at which the design was shown) I actually found myself tentatively agreeing with the architect over the commission. It involved the upper portion of the building, from which a metal-clad top floor rises (but set back from the perimeter) from a larger brick-clad portion. In the article, one of the commissioners suggested there should be more done to stitch these two materials together transitionally in the facade. Nells Hall of YGH seemed to resist this idea. And I think he may have a point. I think these are visually a couple of cubes resting against each other; they don't need stitching, I say.

Meanwhile, what do the rest of you make of the revised PSU rec center design? And having had a few months to reflect on the competition, in which comments here got somewhat heated about the university's handling of the selection process, how do we feel about things now?

One other note, about Fred Leeson, who reported on the story for the paper. Leeson recently retired from being a full-time staff writer. It happened with no fanfare, but Leeson leaving was, considering his frequent articles about architecture in the InPortland section, a loss for the architecture community here comparable to Randy Gragg's more talked-about departure for the same paper. But luckily, Leeson has now returned to somewhat regularly contribute as a freelancer. Which design enthusiasts should be happy to see.  I know I am; I steal all my best ideas from Fred's articles.

An Arts Award and A Cover Story

Two more accolades to report on this week: First, Zimmer Gunsul Frasca has received a 2007 Governor's Arts Award from the Oregon Arts Commission. Here's the blurb from the press release:

"The firm has a long history of to integrating artists into its design teams, not just because a percent for art program mandates it, but also because the ZGF architects truly appreciate what artists bring to their projects. It has worked with the Regional Arts & Culture Council on numerous public art projects and often hired artists without any public art requirement. ZGF has also taken a leadership position with RACC's new Work for Art workplace giving program. ZGF was an early adopter of the program and consistently raises the most money each year out of the dozens of workplaces large and small that participate in Work for Art."

The award seems only peripherally related to design itself, specifically as it relates to art, but as it happens ZGF also seems to be doing good work, brought about by a nice balance of old principals like Bob Frasca with an influx of young designers. However, take the honor as you will; a fellow honoree was Oregon Art Beat, which has the sensibility (in my biased opinion) of a well meaning but out of slightly touch yokel.

Meanwhile, Portland's own Brad Cloepfil has his name on the cover of this month's Metropolis magazine as one of "4 Emerging Stars" (the others being Piero Lissoni, Bernard Khoury and Kieran Timberlake). The title of Andrew Blum's piece is "The Elementalist" and the subheading crows, "Brad Cloepfil's emerging body of work may symbolize a shift away from glib shape-making toward a more timeless and lasting architecture."

I'll bet that is music to Brad's ears. I first interviewed him five years ago for Architecture Week magazine, and I remember in that piece him talking firmly about how postmodernism was "an aberration" in the otherwise continuing history of modern architecture. He very much saw Allied Works as a continuation of what people like Louis Kahn and Mario Botta (for whom Brad worked) were already long since doing. When I profiled him for the NY Times a couple years later, the message was all the more about using a language that is elemental and timeless.

Blum also delves into past/current projects of Allied's like the Seattle Art Museum, the Museum of Arts & Design, and our own Wieden + Kennedy building.

Speaking of W+K, if you get a copy of the magazine, make sure to check out the full-page photo of its interior by Sally Schoolmaster. (I believe Allied used Sally for a few different projects, and I have long thought her work is first-rate.) In my copy, the photo was mistakenly placed after another article, isolated by itself. But it's a gorgeous shot that shows a panoramic view of the building's remilled timbers, angular concrete and natural light.

One of Allied Works' upcoming projects is an office building for Disney. Coincidentally, there was also an article in today's Oregonian about how the Portland office market is heating up. Apparently, a new crop of office building projects from a variety of developers could eventually be in the works. How about an Allied office building in Portland to carry on the tradition of the Standard Plaza and Big Pink?

Not likely, though, of course. These are mostly conservative business people putting these projects together, people thinking real estate and profit margin more than timeless architecture. I'm afraid they probably wouldn't be anywhere near aware enough of architecture to understand the opportunity that exists design-wise; they'll surely go with a service-oriented firm and an on-time, on-budget focus. The best you can hope for is that it'll be sustainable; at least green design the mainstream is starting to get.

You Win Some, You Lose Some

Recently some Portland projects and the city overall have received some more accolades:

The Bob and Diana Gerding Theater at the Portland Armory has been selected by the Urban Land Institute as a winner of the 2007 Award for Excellence for the Americas region. The theater, developed by Gerding Edlen Development for Portland Center Stage with design by GBD Architects, was chosen from among 23 finalists selected from 167 submissions.

The Portland Aerial Tram, designed by Angelil/Graham (hey--that rhymes!), was a co-winner of the 2007 Presidential Award of Excellence by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) in recognition of the distinguished structural engineering. The tram's co-winner is the angular Denver Art Museum expansion designed by Daniel Libeskind, currently causing much talk (some love, some hate) in architecture circles. Not bad for a supposed boondoggle, eh?

In its annual 'Design 100', Metropolitan Home magazine has christened Portland "The Greenest City in America", going on to say, "In this park-filled urban oasis, everyone thinks green...And then there are the 226 miles of bike lanes, part of a bike-and-urban-outdoors culture that has led to numerous best-cycling-city awards. From controlling sprawl to transforming highways into parkland, Portland truly deserves its greenest city title."

  But there's also a bit of sad news: Randy Gragg, longtime architecture critic for The Oregonian, announced recently he is leaving the paper after 17 years and about 2,500 stories. "I leave as somebody who tried a lot of different ways of writing about Portland's culture, urban form and growth," he writes. "I hope I was successful occasionally. I know I was not, sometimes. But the opportunity was a privilege..." No word yet on what that means for the paper, but Randy says in the article he'll be staying in town. There are any number of ways he could be engaged, and Portland will be better for it.

Meanwhile, Randy's parting shot asserts Portland is "Running On Empty" when it comes to a comprehensive vision for the metropolitan area. The city, he writes, "seems trapped in its own mythology, as though our 200-foot blocks plus one more light-rail line will assure our continued nirvana. There's no other way to put it: We think small when we need to think bigger, way bigger. We built a lovely metropolitan area of two million. But we've not ventured the question, much less developed a vision, of what a metropolis of three million or four million really looks like." He cites cities like Denver, Houston and Phoenix all having billion-dollar mass transit initiatives in the works after overwhelming voter approval. And those cities are not exactly the most progressive ones on the map when it comes to mass transit.

So that begs the question: exactly who sets about the task of advocating for and putting together a big, long-term vision for housing and moving an extra two million people? We have a regional metropolitan government - should it be them? Is this something Tom Potter's visioning process should encompass?

One way or the other, hopefully Portland will stay ahead of the game when it comes to growing the right way.

Weston the Height Away

Sunday’s Oregonian included a Randy Gragg profile of developer Joe Weston in the Opinion section. Weston has spent decades of developing small apartments and other projects around the city in established neighborhoods. He’s now one of the city’s major players in the boom of larger high-density residential projects.

Weston took over as developer of the Benson Tower in the West End for the late Eric van Doorninck of Vancouver, who originally spearheaded the project. The Benson, which is now nearing completion, will be the first point tower – a condo with 8,000 square feet or less, as compared to the more standard (for Portland) slab tower of 12,000-20,000 square feet.

More recently, Weston has taken the Benson model here and will break ground soon on The Manhattan, a 31-story condo at 14th and Alder. And as Randy reports, there is also a Weston project coming to the Lloyd District: The Cosmopolitan at Grand and Multnomah, which hopefully finally invigorate residential activity there to balance out the shopping, offices, the Rose Garden, and the overall suburban-esque environment.

But what caught my eye most in Randy’s profile was Weston’s campaign to have the city change the building code to remove height limits for buildings with 8,000 square feet or less per floor. With the Central City Plan update coming from city planners, it’s not out of the question. I think it’s unlikely, but an idea worth discussing.

Randy's article calls the emergence of point towers "era-shifting".What do the rest of you think of Weston's proposal? I don't know about allowing unlimited height, but I certainly favor skinnier buildings. This could favor more quarter-block developments as well, which would be great to see. I'm really tired of big condos that take up entire blocks or even half-blocks.

Downtown's Retail Challenge(and Opportunity)

In two articles in today's Oregonian, one in the Business section and one from In Portland, Fred Leeson looks at downtown's retail challenge. "Facing competition on all fronts," the In Portland sub headline goes, "business leaders bank on the city center's biggest transformation since World War II to win back shoppers."

In the other article, Leeson summarizes things nicely:

"No fewer than 112 blocks will face a new transit mall set for completion in 2009. Condo towers are putting hundreds of customers steps from shops. Business leaders have a $15.3 million plan to help downtown stores compete with malls, including the new "lifestyle" centers that cater to the regions most affluent shoppers."

These lifestyle centers are just malls with pedestrian areas outdoors instead of indoors, which is supposed to be more like a city but feels a lot more synthetic. However, they've been on an upswing in popularity. With more of a true melting pot downtown (including some destitute, begging and/or hackey-sack playing people) as well as no free parking like most of their mall competitors, retailers downtown have (or at least perceive) more challenges in being reached by their customers.

However, I also think of examples like REI's Pearl District store. In one article I wrote recently, the manager there told me how business had been way up since they relocated from Jantzen Beach Center. Customers told them the store was so much easier to access than before, because they didn't get sucked into the Interstate 5 bottleneck at the nearby Columbia River bridge crossing.

Regardless, I think downtown will fare well in the long run. The biggest asset is housing. However pedestrian friendly lifestyle centers may be once you get there, they usually have to be accessed by car. That means dealing with terrible traffic in places like Tualatin, Tigard and Clackamas. It's probably worth it if you live in those areas already, but I think in the long run downtown Portland businesses needn't worry about Portlanders disappearing to Bridgeport Village.

Downtown may present more practical, logistical and social headaches, but it presents the chance to have shoppers living above you or within a few blocks' walk or just a quick streetcar ride away. In other words, housing is the key to Portland's retail fortunes, as well as the central city's larger health.

I also think that at least from a retail perspective one has to think of downtown and the Pearl District as one place. When I go shopping downtown, I inevitably continue on to the Brewery Blocks and beyond, usually with shops, food/drink and art galleries all part of the same trip. Or vice versa. The notion of two neighborhoods is an imaginary one. If there's both a downtown business association and Pearl District business association in this city, they ought to be having a lot of shared meetings and strategy sessions.

At the same time, I don't think retail concerns should be the biggest driver in urban development. Business and retail are important - we want them to be successful. But they're only part of a larger picture. The needs and desires of homeowners, students, non-profits and numerous other groups should be just as importantly considered in planning the city. Retail in downtown will benefit most from a healthy and balanced downtown, embracing its most distinct asset compared to suburban malls: that they are welcoming of and easily accessible to all--not a Lifestyle Center but a center of life.

Stadler Mines Beauty in Beaverton

Matthew Stadler is the author of four novels and the editor of local publishing house Clear Cut Press. He also is active in the visual arts world (he co-curated last fall’s Portland Modern group show at Disjecta), organizes a popular dinner-speaker series for visiting authors called The Back Room, and writes for magazines like Dwell and Artforum. He also is a frequent speaker.

In addition to all this, Stadler has developed an enduring fascination with Beaverton, both its individual history and offerings as well as the wider suburban American transformation going on today. Stadler calls Beaverton “…a cul de sac of ghosts amidst rivers of traffic.” But he also believes fervently in this suburb’s ability—like any place or work of architecture—to reinvent itself as something beautiful.

Stadler spoke of this and other related topics in a recent speech in Seattle now available to watch and listen to online, which I heartily recommend.

“We need beauty to compel our resourcefulness,” he says early in the lecture, “even if it is only as a political tool so that we can solve the landscape’s many deficiencies. Because beauty is an instrument of persuasion. Without it we become dispirited and cynical and we let valuable resources go to waste.”

At the same time, Stadler cautions, “This not a criticism of architects who make ugly buildings. Nor it is a call for them to make more beautiful ones. Beauty is made by us, not by the object. This is a call for the culture that uses buildings to work harder to engage them and to in essence generate their beauty.”

Stadler’s lecture was full of Beaverton beautiful photos by Shawn Records, some of which were also included in the Oregon Biennial at the Portland Art Museum. (I profiled Records in The Oregonian as well.) Records’ photos often document places of historical significance, such as the site of the first trading post in the area. At first, I thought the photographs were ironic, because in many cases Records profiles with great beauty the parking lots, bland suburban boulevards, and decaying freeway overpasses which collectively represent quintessential suburban sprawl. But when I heard Stadler’s words about mining beauty from unexpected places, the sincerity of the images clicked even more. (All the enclosed images in this post are Records'.)

Stadler says reinventing yesterday’s ugly building as tomorrow’s gem is what societies have done for thousands of years. “I can marvel at how the poisonous castles of Europe became beautiful,” he says. “Art and writing made them that way. Similarly, huge imaginative resourcefulness turned centuries of hostility toward the woods into a broad secular worship of wilderness. The chronicles of early naturalists, and the art and writing that followed have shaped the logic and beauty of wilderness.”

I don’t quite agree that art and writing conferred upon any architecture a beauty people had not bequeathed in the past. I believe this is a more gradual, ephemeral process. Still, the identification of beauty in unexpected or under-appreciated places is precisely what art and literature are all about—at least to me.

“Cities like Beaverton,” Stadler adds, “are now seeing the first naturalists of sprawl: intrepid urbanists who make the trek out into the wasteland, saddled with a polemical agenda to either decry the ugliness…or declare the beauty…of this landscape. But I don’t count myself among them. Beauty and ugliness do not inhere in landscapes. They are dynamic, perpetually reinvented aspects of use.”

There are probably a lot of counter-arguments one could make about finding and re-affirming beauty in a place like Beaverton. It’s the patterns of use that are ugly, the terrible traffic and auto-everything patterns at the expense of the pedestrian. And there is the oppressive ubiquity of chain stores as well. But I love that Stadler and, by extension, Records, are engaging a place right in their back yard that most of us fellow urbanites don’t travel to without ample practical reason—like the need for a new CD player, or to visit an old relative. I also love to see people from artistic backgrounds get thoroughly involved in the ongoing public discourse and dialog about our local built environment. We need the architects and builders to get the buildings actually made. Yet if more novelists and photographers were thinking about Beaverton or Portland, not only how to improve urban and suburban places alike but also how to see them anew, we’d all be better for it.

Rose Slams Cloepfil andPortland LEED Projects

Randy Gragg's Q&A with architect Charles Rose in Saturday's Oregonian was for the most part an interesting, measured, thoughtful conversation. But by the end I came away wincing at a couple of half-cocked displays of disrespect and bad form.

Rose, the Boston-area architect selected by the Oregon College of Art and Craft to design a new library and studio building, talked to Gragg of the "perfect fit" he felt with the project. "My work is all about the relationship between site and architecture. [And] these are great people who care deeply about craft and architecture."

And indeed, his firm's work is deservedly well regarded for, as Randy put it, "deep sensitivity to landscape and an ecological awareness honed well before green became a global cause celebre." I'm excited Charles Rose is coming to Portland to design buildings.

But on a couple of occasions, it was shocking just how blunt Rose was willing to be. First there was his response to a question about sustainable design:

"We always chuckle about Portland, Oregon. Everyone is so proud of all the LEED-certified (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) buildings they've created. But the fact is, because the temperature differential is so mild, it's really not that hard compared to, say, Vermont, New Hampshire or even down South, where people want air conditioning."

"Chuckle"? Maybe Rose has a valid technical point. But did he really intend to show such an arrogant, dismissive attitude?  It's one thing to say, "We have a more difficult challenge on the East Coast and in the South with energy efficiency because of greater temperature fluctuations." It's another thing to basically say, "Portland LEED projects? Give me a break."

But that LEED comment was nothing to what Rose had to say about celebrated Portland architect Brad Cloepfil:

"Brad's work is looking backward. I'm not interested in this high modernist approach. It's boxy and boring. It doesn't challenge me.

Kanye West hired us to do his house in New York. He basically wanted a Giorgio Armani showroom -- the type of architecture Brad does, very orthogonal, minimalist stuff. We decided to go find the guy who did all the Armani showrooms -- Claudio Silvestrin. It's beautiful minimalism. He's the designer; we're the architects. I thought it would be good for the firm.

But I can now tell you that having worked with the best minimalist architect today, it's so boring."

Usually I find such candor refreshing. But if I were Rose's marketing guru, I'd be lying on the floor in a fetal position right now. I mean, who's next for comeuppance: Pietro Belluschi? I'm not saying either Cloepfil or Belluschi or their modernist style can't be subject of criticism - far from it. But I think it should be prefaced with a certain expression of respect.

To rattle off Brad Cloepfil's accomplishments in defense against Rose's jibe would to give it more dignity than it deserves. I also still want to give Rose the benefit of the doubt, because he's an excellent architect and shouldn't be judged on two comments. But if Gragg's interview is an accurate indication, it's a good thing Rose went into architecture instead of engineering, because he certainly doesn't appear to be a bridge builder. Either that, or he's suffering right now from a case of athlete's tongue.

You Can't Go Rome Again

In the Opinion section of today’s Oregonian, local freelance writer and former Conservative Digest editor Richard F. LaMountain writes about the proposed Oak Tower project, but not about the handling of its land parcel by the Portland Development Commission, as has been a frequent and controversial topic as of late.

Instead, LaMountain indicts the Oak Tower’s design as a symbol of today’s cold modern architecture proliferating rapidly throughout the city amidst a condo-building boom. “How do the Oak Street tower and the ever-growing number of these look-alike glass highrises," he asks, "affect downtown’s character and livability?”

LaMountain then describes with suspicion how today’s modern buildings are born from the Bauhaus tradition:

"Influenced by Marxist theory, they designed buildings that were rigorously utilitarian…In the decades that followed, in Portland and elsewhere, the Bauhaus ethic cospawned countless of these sheerly functional buildings…But is functional all a building should be? Look at these structures. They’re sterile, bland, impersonal and – in their geometric cookie-cutter uniformity—utterly forgettable."

I appreciate how passionate LaMountain seems to be. He rightfully believes that, as his essay concludes, “…buildings must seek to impart the nobility, the complexity and the beauty of mankind.”

Yet I couldn’t help but notice that LaMountain’s background at Conservative Digest seems in tune with a conservative attitude about building design and style that’s conducive to creating architectural Disneylands. I also think that linking modern architecture to Marxism is a laughable cheap shot. To my ears LaMountain's implication seems to be that the Commies are ruining America with their newfangled glass boxes. Didn't he get the memo that we bait the yokels with terrorism now?

LaMountain’s premise is rooted in the assumption that all modern buildings are inherently lifeless and lacking in beauty. But of course that’s a highly subjective opinion. I and a lot of other architectural enthusiasts see tremendous beauty in modern architecture. Ever heard of Mies van der Rohe, buddy?

I do acknowledge there’s a kernel of truth to what LaMountain is saying, in that an ordinary, run-of-the-mill building of yesteryear very well may be more attractive than a run-of-the-mill work of modern architecture. Embellishment can act as camouflage, and bad modernism has nowhere to hide, except perhaps in its materials.

Nevertheless, LaMountain in this op-ed reminds me of an art fan who thinks painting went downhill for good after the Impressionists. To some extent, it merely is a difference of personal preference. I happen to love Mondrian, and I’d guess he prefers Thomas Kinkaide.

What we ought to have, and always will have, is a variety of styles to our architecture. But at the same time, the current generation of working architects share access to the same technologies and materials that give shape to today's buildings, and all we can ask them to do is to make architecture that is of its time.

I also think there is a variety to today’s contemporary architecture that LaMountain apparently isn’t able to see. Buildings allude to and incorporate historic styles all the time, but they do so within an appropriately modern context. Otherwise, that’s when you get the Disneyland, Colonial Williamsburg or Las Vegas affect. Should Portland’s modern buildings be better? Absolutely. But they should get better by favoring the creative talents of the city’s best architects and creating a system better equipped to sponsor architectural excellence of any appropriate and relevant style.

Jacobs on Portland: Big Towersand Skinny Houses

Last month esteemed architecture critic and Dwell magazine founder Karrie Jacobs swung through Portland (along with Seattle and Vancouver, BC) to promote her new book and make a couple appearances. Now that visit is described in her Metropolis magazine column.

Jacobs credits the three Pacific Northwest cities for being places where "the progressive power of urban planning is taken very seriously, and concepts like livability and sustainability dominate the local civic culture to such an extent that to visit all three in rapid succession...is to drop in on another country. It's not the United States or Canada, but more highly evolved combination of the two." Dude, thanks eh!

In describing Portland, Jacobs first touches briefly on the South Waterfront neighborhood and the "spectacular aerial tramway" as an ideal example of a major urban development "that promised to refresh the urban landscape in conspicuous ways." But interestingly, a greater portion of Jacobs' attention is devoted to the Living Smart program for narrow-lot homes.

Living Smart, for those who don't remember, began with a design competition a couple of years ago to address the problem of hideous housing on lots less than 36 feet wide. The city was almost prepared to ban them, because builders were tearing down existing homes to build two in their spots. But the creation of homes through Living Smart is aiding density by allowing the homes (along with a corresponding ban on developments for five years on lots where a single-family home has been torn down) but encouraging better design through a streamlined permit process associated with winning designs.

The only problem, Jacobs contends (as I and others also have) is that the first two permit-ready houses "are traditional even though the catalog of winners contains a range of styles." Project manager Anne Hill told Jacobs, as she's previously said, that the first two plans were chosen for "mass appeal", and that one of the next two will be contemporary.

Jacobs also offers her critique of the first two Living Smart permit-ready homes. "One, a steeply gabled 1,779-square-foot existing house by local architect Bryan Higgins, is essentially a shotgun house that grew two extra stories. The other, designed by Berkeley, California architect Roxana Vargas-Greenan with a side-facing gable and fussy detailing would put it squarely in the tradition of Seaside [the Disney-sponsored new urbanist development with lots of neo-historic flourishes]." In Higgins' case, though, I think he deserves some credit for being a pioneer and making his house happen before Living Smart even started.

Jacobs closes by revisiting the age-old question of whether restrictions inhibit good design as much as they encourage it. "I take it as a reminder," she says, "that while careful vetting may keep out the bad, it can also suppress the good." That's certainly true, but it's a dilemma that could go on forever, and I don't blame the city of Portland for taking a stand and using the power of law to encourage good design. Will that prevent some good ideas? Of course. But like the old Hollywood production code, those restrictions can also foster an all the more subtle brand of creativity in the right hands.

Familiar Modern/Historic Debates in Tribune Architecture Survey, and A Personal Musing on Favorites

A few weeks ago the Portland Tribune surveyed local architects for a list of the five best and worst buildings in Portland. In an article by Peter Korn on October 24, the winners were listed: the 2281 Glisan Building by Brad Cloepfil's Allied Works, the Belmont Lofts by Holst, the Portland Art Museum by Pietro Belluschi, the US Bancorp Tower by Skidmore, Owings, Merrill (with Belluschi), and the Mark O. Hatfield US Courthouse by Kohn Pederson Fox and BOORA.

I'd certainly agree with the first three. While I definitely like the US Bancorp building (a.k.a. 'Big Pink') a lot, I'm not so sure it would be singled out in larger cities. And I have mixed feelings about the Hatfield. That curving roof is so mid-90s, and the building is pretty bulky. Would it be handsome without the expensive materials?

The larger argument, though, has turned out to be a modern versus historic architecture debate, which already is playing out here very often as modern condos begin to occupy old neighborhoods. The Tribune received so many angry letters about the top 5 list of best local buildings, Korn wound up writing a follow-up article on November 16 about it. (The paper also published several letters that are worth a look.)

A data processor and architectural enthusiast named Matthew Slick was quoted in Korn's latter article saying, "What planet are these architects on? I was appalled to find that I hated almost everything that these architects said that they admired.”

It's a hyperbolic quote, which journalists often have a hard time resisting (myself included). Does Slick really hate the Glisan and Belmont buildings? Or Pietro Belluschi's Portland Art Museum? Come on.

However, the larger thrust of the article made a valid point, that 4 out of the 5 buildings that architects chose for the list were modern ones. But some of the city's most treasured architecture is its historic buildings. Arguably the heart of the city is Central Library, the warm, elegant work of Georgian-styled architecture by the great A.E. Doyle. There is also the Jackson Tower (pictured) overlooking Pioneer Courthouse Square with its signature clock. The city also has lots of great old churches and single-family homes.

And Matthew Slick even rings in later to make a more thoughtful point about modernism's lack of ornamentation. "A lot of times you’re eliminating, eliminating, eliminating," he says of contemporary design. "And then you get this thing that is not very interesting. I can deal with unremarkable. The Pearl District is totally unremarkable to me, with a few exceptions, and the few exceptions actually have ornamentation on them.”

Done right, modern architecture is sublimely simple and poetic. But the opposite side of that coin is plain and boring, which a lot of contemporary buildings are.

Still, when today's buildings add ornamentation it often feels ham-fisted to me, like the ye-olde English style railings on the otherwise modern Elizabeth Lofts. Oy, fancy some eel pie, guv-nah? But some people love that stuff. A lot of this debate comes down to personal preference.

One reader emailed me to ask for my top 5 list of favorite buildings. It's a hard question, becuase probably the best thing about Portland design-wise is the city itself. And in terms of iconic structures, Mt. Hood is really our Eiffel Tower, so to speak, and Mt. St. Helens the Arc de Triumphe. But the leading candidates for my faves list would probably be the very ones previously mentioned on each side of the debate.

I love Central Library, so much so that I wouldn't even trade it for the famous Rem Koolhaas designed library in Seattle. But I also love the 2281 Glisan building for its gorgeous sculptural simplicity. I continue to marvel at the interior of the Wieden + Kennedy building, but so much so I find the exterior warehouse to be a bore.

Of course there's Pietro Belluschi's Equitable Building (now called the Commonwealth), which was exceptionally innovative for its time (1946) and has a timeless elegant geometric look that still inspires.

And in a completely different way, I've also more recently come to love The Rebuilding Center (pictured) and its facade of used windows and planks. I also love the Gilbert Building downtown, a humble little brick job on SW Second. I love the vacant multicolored checkerboard facade building on 10th mentioned in previous posts. I really like the two Brewery Blocks along Burnside. The Jackson Tower and various old white brick AE Doyle buildings are great, and I even am fond of the Portland Plaza apartments.

This summer I also visited the Pietro Belluschi-designed church at the University of Portland and was astounded by its beauty. Look for a separate post about that buidling down the road.

After the controversy surrounding the pending demolition of the Rosefriend Apartments, that buidling has become a favorite. Luckily we have a similar building, the Ambassador Apartments (pictured), nearby, which is another favorite, as is the empty Solomon federal courthouse it sits around the corner from. Oh, and Thomas Hacker's libraries are very nice, particularly the Woodstock and Hillsdale branches.

But I think my current favorite among Portland buildings would have to be the Standard Plaza (a.k.a. Standard Insurance Building), one of two buildings called the 'Standard' within a couple blocks of each other. I'm talking about the one with lots of glass, and curtains in all the windows. It was built in 1963 by S.O.M.

Incidentally, one of the most reviled buildings in Portland, the Union Bank of California building (downtown on broadway), is the subject of a new short film by my filmmaker friend Andy Blubaugh, whose last film played at the Sundance Film Festival. Andy's got an interesting take on the building, and you can watch the film online, complete with commentary by yours truly.