Portland Architecture

Potter and PDC

I am very curious as to what Mayor Tom Potter will ultimately have to say about PDC’s Burnside Bridgehead selection. His entire campaign and early mayorship have been about the idea of giving more voice to the people of Portland in deciding the fate of our city. Potter is a populist. So what will the mayor have to say about a verdict by PDC that so unequivocally goes against the tide of public opinion?

And especially in light of the Bridgehead decision, it's going to be very interesting what names are floated as candidates for head of the Development Commission. According to an Oregonian report (which took me forever to find a link to on the atrocious Oregon Live website), early candidates include commissioner Erik Sten and former commissioner Charlie Hales, as well as Norris, Beggs & Simpson brokerage president J. Clayton Hering, Portland Family of Funds chairman Carl Talton, PDC deputy executive director Baruti Artharee, and former U.S. Green Building Council head Christine Ervin.

I'd definitely vote for Hales. He's someone I trust to focus on the buildings as much as the money (not that some of the other candidates wouldn't) Who do the rest of you think will get the job and/or should get it?

Good Man!

You’d think in the first couple days after the Portland Development Commission’s Burnside Bridgehead selection of Opus Northwest, that project would dominate our minds. But a front-page Oregonian story brings news of many newly developable downtown land parcels that could actually dwarf Burnside Bridgehead or even the Brewery Blocks in scale and importance.

The Goodman family has for decades owned a wide range of surface parking lots that are, while useful and profitable, a real blight upon downtown Portland. A city like ours seeking high density shouldn't waste precious real estate when the same amount of parking spaces could be placed underground with buildings on top of them.

Finally, though, the Goodmans are looking to develop their land.

Although the family's insistence on retaining ownership of their lots could make negotiations more complex, the land awaiting development is incredibly enticing. Five different blocks sit right on the downtown MAX line. Countless others are within just a few blocks. There are 26 properties totaling about 520,000 square feet or about 13 city blocks. Thirteen blocks!

Before developers begin working with the Goodmans, we must encourage the family to make sure buildings on their land get built the right way: designed by talented design firms, even if they ultimately are paired with larger service-oriented firms to work out the details. And sustainable, definitely sustainable—although merely being green is not enough.

One of the few Goodman properties that has previously been developed is the block between Second, Third, Morrison and Alder (or is it Washington? I can never remember) where the ODS tower now sits. With all due respect to Zimmer Gunsul Frasca, it is not an exceptionally attractive building. I really hope whatever buildings rise on the incredible array of Goodman-owned land parcels will be a lot better.

But for now, this is a great moment for Portland. The city needs the Goodmans’ land for more than parking automobiles. And regardless of their motivation presumably being more financial gain than civic good, a heartfelt thanks still should go to the family for moving forward.

The Straight and Narrow

It was with surprise and disappointment that I learned the Portland Development Commission chose Opus Northwest as developer for the Burnside Bridgehead project. And I'll wager that I'm far from the only one.

But in retrospect, it shouldn't have come as a surprise. After all, in a two-way race with Beam (again, Gerding-Edlen seems to have unofficially conceded the race), Opus was the developer with the far greater financial resources and stability. They have a national organization behind them, while Beam is an up-and-comer even within the context of Portland. And the Opus proposal included more readily acceptible numbers and thinking with respect to the balance of office, residential and retail spaces.

Still, I thought Beam would win because the the public--particularly people in the adjacent Central Eastside--seemed overwhelmingly to favor this contender. Especially considering PDC's recent unpopularity, I thought that would count for something. Besides, not only was Beam popular for being the only developer to not offer big box retail as part of its original proposal, but their plan also was the most creative, both architecturally and in terms of program.

Nevertheless Beam was a risk. Call it a worthwhile risk if you want, or a prescient one--I certainly do on both counts--but they were still a risk.

The people who decided Burnside Bridgehead's fate don't seem to have liked the idea of a risk. I imagine that in their minds, the many millions of dollars at stake in this development could not be taken lightly. A safe bet to them was not safe so much as sober. I think they looked at the hoopla behind Beam and reasoned that it was frivolous.

But I say a risk was precisely what would have served the city best. Beam's proposal was about the future. It was full of Pacific Rim trading partners from places like China, where Oregon's economic fate will increasingly be determined in the decades ahead. It rejected the conventional wisdom that a glut in downtown-style Class A office space was the be-all, end-all state of the market. Instead, Beam embraced Portland's burgeoning identity as home to young, creative professionals. These are the people who snatched up space in the developer's heretofore flagship project, the Eastbank Commerce Center, in droves. And I think they would have made an ideal population for the Burnside Bridgehead. This project shouldn't be considered an extension of downtown, after all.

And while the collective resume of Beam's design team included some economically successful but stylistically banal Pearl District work, it also boasted two very significant architecture names. Colab, the exceptionally talented local firm that's sadly done more work in Dubai than in its hometown, was to design a major portion of the Burnside Bridgehead, and in my mind one of the biggest tragedies of PDC's decision is that their building will never come to be. And lest we forget, legendary English architect Norman Foster had agreed to serve as design consultant to Beam. Norman freakin' Foster!

Although the Burnside Bridgehead decision is disappointing, I don't want to speak too badly of the Opus team, their proposal, or especially talented architect Gary Larson. Of course their proposal remains a work in progress, and I am somewhat optimistic that what gets built under their watch, with help from all of us speaking out and holding their feet to the fire, might still turn out well.

But in these first few hours and days after hearing PDC's decision, it's impossible to think of what might have been, and what all this says about Portland.

Our city of course has a great reputation for its pedestrian friendly, mass transit oriented, sustainability embracing, sprawl resistant urban fabric. But we usually shy away from the most ambitious and inded the most exceptional architecture. I don't know if these two aspects of Portland's built environment are merely ironic counterparts, or whether they are two sides of the same coin. In the meantime, however, it's time to collect ourselves and figure out where we go from here.

Burnside Bridgehead: It's The Buildings, Stupid!

So today is the day when the Portland Dvelopment Commission will decide on a development plan for the Burnside Bridgehead. And while there has been a whole lot of talk about the merits of Opus, Beam and Gerding-Edlen and their plans, so much of it has been about issues other than the architecture.

In the business section of today's Oregonian, for example, an article by Ryan Frank discusses how Beam proposes much more office space than Opus. (Gerding-Edlen is apparently all but out of the running at this point.) Portland is currently experiencing a multi-year glut in office space, but the kind Beam proposes is focused on the quickly growing market for smaller, more rough-around-the-edges startup spaces.

But I think we need to stop talking about the ratio of offices to condos and all the other questions surrounding how the project will do in its first few years or even its first decade.

Buildings last a lot longer. Designed and built well, they could very well remain standing more than a century from now. So why in the world is the architecture so often playing second fiddle in this debate?

If you look at the design itself, I have to say the winner here is Beam. It's not all spectacular by any stretch. But the Beam plan is, in my opinion at least, the one offering overall the most compelling design. And that matters a lot more in the long run than the office or condo market for 2005, 2006 or even 2012.

Our grandchildren could live or work in these buildings long after today's economic realities are forgotten. We have to think about what kind of buildings we will leave to future Portlanders.

I urge--no, I plead--with the Portland Development Commission to consider more than just the resumés of the developers, or statistics about units and dollars. Think about the glass and steel and concrete. Think about the inspiration that good design brings, and how our buildings represent who we are -- not just today or tomorrow but for generations.

Who the hell remembers the economic viability of the best Portland buildings when they were built? I defy anyone to provide me the Jackson Tower's occupancy rates dating from 1912, or Pietro Belluschi's Equitable Building from 1948. They're great buildings--period. And that's what matters the most.

Take a look at Burnside Bridgehead not from the perspective of 2005, but 2055 or 2105. Economics ebb and flow over weeks, months and a handful of years. Architecture lasts for centuries.

Floating Condos on Naito

An article by Fred Leeson in today's Oregonian reports that four 10-story condominiums "that would appear to float in large shallow ponds may be headed soon to a 4.4-acre site where the Pearl District meets the Willamette River" on Naito Parkway between the Albers Mill building and the Police Bureau's horse paddock.

Beyond the pond feature surrounding the buildings, which sounds interesting, I was curious just whom the architect was for the project. Reading the name Soren Rasmussen, my response was, "Huh?" But it turns out this is a pretty reputable Vancouver, BC firm.

While perusing Soren Rasmussen's website, it became clear that a good portion of the firm's so-called residential multi-unit work seems more like hotel/resort stuff than apartments and condominiums. Are they the firm to pull off such a visible project along Portland's waterfront?

But if the pictures they have online of the intended Pearl/Naito project turn out to be accurate, the design looks promising. Have a look for yourself and let us know what you think.

Develop This Land Series #1

A couple of months ago we started the Diamond in the Rough series, about old buildings deserving of restoration. And I’d like to now introduce the Develop This Land series, devoted to parcels of land that may carry the potential for greater future use.

This land actually includes a building already, but I think in this case the building ought to be torn down: a Safeway along Southeast Hawthorne Boulevard that until fairly recently saw healthy business. With the arrival of a New Seasons grocery store nearby on Division Street, this old Safeway—one of those huge old single-story concrete buildings surrounded by surface parking—has seen both declining business and an ensuing identity crisis. It’s not as cheap as the discount stores and it definitely doesn’t have the array of great organic, local produce and specialty items that places like New Seasons, Whole Foods and Wild Oats.

I propose that the way for Safeway to survive is to follow the model of its sister store downtown, which vacated a similarly antiquated suburb-style, single-story building with surface parking and became part of Museum Place, with housing above the store. Sure, downtown is a different urban environment than Southeast, but I think in certain key pockets outside downtown tied to major auto routes and/or mass transit lines, the lessons of downtown are very applicable.

Safeway is not going to develop its own mixed-use building, but if the right developer approached them, like Shiels Obletz Johnsen apparently did with Museum Place in mind, this Hawthorne eyesore could become the latest of several emerging high-density mixed-use structures in Southeast Portland.

Perhaps whichever developer loses the Burnside Bridgehead sweepstakes ought to bounce back by turning this old Hawthorne Safeway into their next project.

Safeway would be gaining a spanking-new store, re-invigorating its now-marginalizing presence in the neighborhood, and its bet would be hedged with an automatic customer base living upstairs.

The neighborhood would get rid of a retail environment that doesn’t fit Portland’s pedestrian-oriented, high-density plans—namely a store that looks more like the kind of big-box retail we just fought to keep out of Burnside Bridgehead.

And whatever developer took on the project would have a highly desirable anchor tenant with housing in a very nice, close-in urban neighborhood within a few blocks of the very popular Hawthorne retail area.

If the right architect was chosen to design this, say for example Holst Architecture, who did so masterful a job with the nearby Belmont Lofts, you’d have a home run.

So if any of you are familiar with the likes of SOJ, Opus, Beam, Williams & Dame, Gerding-Edlen or any other of the developers who might be able to pull this off, tell them to have a drive out to 29th and Hawthorne for a look.

Completion of the Brewery Blocks

As the Louisa Apartments near completion this spring, it means that the five-building Brewery Blocks development will be complete after years of construction. (You could also count the Armory as a sixth building, but that's somewhat of a different animal.) I'd like to know what Portlanders out there think of them.

My take is that the best thing about the Brewery Blocks is its placemaking. Walk around this area and it's usually brimming with people. Sure, Powell's is right next door, and that helps. But the sidewalk outside Whole Foods is a constant parade of people, as is the case all up and down Couch Street. (I particularly like the adidas store and Mio Gelatto.) The streetcar moving along 10th and 12th Avenues is of course an invaluable presence enhancing the urbanity of the neighborhood.

The architecture itself, I think, has its successes and failures, neither of which register strongly on the Richter scale. I like best the block just west of Powell's between 10th and 11th, the gray brick one. The exoskeleton bracing on the exterior gives it the feeling that you're looking at engineering as much as architecture, which in turn jazzes up what otherwise would be a fairly simple building made to fit into the surrounding Pearl and its historic industrial milieu.

I also like Block 1, as it's known, which also expresses its structure with exterior bracing. This is a modern glass and steel building, but because the first-floor walls of the previous art-deco building were preserved, you get the sense of one building rising out of another. It's a wonderfully theatrical and inspiring affect, like a new sapling rising out of a dead tree stump. That to me is one of the defining aspects of this era, the intersection of old and new structure in captivating ways.

I'm less enamored with The Henry. It has some nice geometry to it, with all the crisscrossing window panes and balconies making for a sophisticated skin. But the building's split personality of metal cladding on one side and concrete on the other come at the expense of a unified sense of structure. It's too busy. Plus the color of the metal is a tad too green for my taste, and while concrete can be beautiful, just a block away inside the Weiden + Kennedy building, for example, there's something about the shade and texture of The Henry's concrete exterior that feels to me ever so slightly prison-like.

Ultimately to me the Brewery Blocks are what you'd call fabric buildings. They fit into their environment with a mindful, dignified sense of the past while maintaining somewhat of a modern feel as well. They're not extraordinary, but I don't think they aspire to be. I like some of the buildings better than others, but what cluster of five buildings in Portland could you not say that about? They make a laudable gateway from downtown and the West End to the Pearl District,

And you can't mention the Brewery Blocks without talking about sustainability. From operable windows to abundant natural light, low-VOC paints to certified wood, the people behind this project deserve kudos for going green before it was quite so clear that it would be such a marketing/business boon.

But I wrote this post with the intention of finding out what the rest of you think. What's your verdict on the Brewery Blocks?

Sustainability or BEST

This morning I attended the BEST (Businesses for an Environmentally Sustainable Tomorrow) Awards, handed out by the city’s Office of Sustainable Development to businesses “demonstrating an extraordinary commitment to sustainability”.

Mayor Tom Potter began the crack-of-dawn ceremony with what I believe is his first speech devoted to the topic of sustainability. He led a round of applause for the OSD and announced that over the next five years, all city offices will convert to renewable energy. Potter also asserted that Portland’s standards for greenhouse gas emissions will exceed that called for in the Kyoto treaty. And he called upon businesses and environmental advocates to continue a spirit of collaboration and partnership, saying “That’s what sustainability is all about.” (The mayor later ducked out mid-ceremony.)

Next came a keynote address from author Bill McKibbon, who has written several books on the environment including The End of Nature, Hundred Dollar Holiday, and Hope, Human and Wild: True Stories of Living Lightly on the Earth. “What a pleasure it is to be in a city that gets what it’s all about,” McKibbon told the audience.

The author went on to describe how collaboration between business and environmentalists is a key to curbing global warming and other ecological challenges. He noted that fifteen years ago business had a more all-encompassing belief in the invisible hand of economics, but “that sense of how things will look in twenty or thirty years is precisely what the invisible hand can’t account for.” Because of dangerous climate change, he said, “we need other forces” in the form of regulations like Kyoto.

And increasingly industries have learned that these environmentally conscious moves such as reducing carbon emissions actually can enhance business opportunities. Regulation works hand-in-hand with the free market. “If you want a wind turbine, you don’t go looking for it in the US,” McKibbon said by way of example. “You go to Denmark.”

Finally came the awards themselves, handed out by commissioners Erik Sten and Dan Saltzman. Every category seemed to include some recurring nominees: SERA Architects’ sustainable office, a Toyota Motor Sales facility, and PDC’s Lloyd Crossing plan. The actual awards, to name a few, went to projects and organizations like the Portland State University Office of Transportation and Parking for encouraging alternative commuting options; the Fanno Creek Clinic for a remodel that focuses on renewable energy and energy efficiency; the Sustainable Industries Journal for regional coverage of sustainability; Intel and Bon Appetit catering for transforming the Intel in-house cafeteria (which serves 20,000 people a day) to using locally grown and organic foods; the Station Place condos, and two PSU buildings, Broadway housing and Epler Hall, for stormwater management.

Despite the early timeframe, it was very inspiring to hear and see evidence of the good work being done by businesses here to leave a lighter ecological footprint—not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it makes good economic sense too. It’s just too bad what’s happening in Portland is so different from what’s happening in Washington DC.

Fire Station 1 Design Competition

As Justin Stranzl reported yesterday in the Daily Journal of Commerce, the design competition for a relocated Fire Station One in Old Town has announced its three finalists: Thomas Hacker Architects, Allied Works, and a partnership between Henneberry Eddy and Emmons Architects. The winning proposal will be selected on May 16.

First, it has to be said what a refreshing, wonderful thing it is that the city is holding a design competition for this building. For a good two decades after the Portland Building competition, the city shied away from design competitions, even though they are an ideal way to assure the best design wins instead of making a kneejerk selection of some big service firm that has a lot of experience but a strong tendency towards mediocrity.

What's more, they city assembled a smart jury: architect Eric Cugnart (formerly with BOORA), Francesca Gambetti from Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Steve McCallion of Ziba Design and Bing Sheldon, chairman and founder of SERA Architects, as well as Jack Graham from Portland Fire & Rescue.

The jury showed they know their stuff by selecting a very talented trio of contenders. I don't know who comprised the other seven firms who didn't make it as finalists, but it would be very hard to argue with these ones. Cloepfil and Hacker are already legendary for their thoughtful modern buildings, while Tim Eddy and Stuart Emmons represent small-to-mid-sized firms doing excellent work and are deserving of bigger commissions. (Emmons's firm has also done previous fire station design that's very laudable.)

Considering how the city and PDC made the right moves in running this competition, it should once again prove to Portlanders the value of design competitions. I'm not saying they're appropriate for every building, but they really need to be considered for more than just public buildings and signature projects.

Which brings us to the old Fire Station 1 property along Naito Parkway and Ankeny Plaza. Soon the parcel is destined to become a high-density, mixed-use building, presumably with housing. Why not hold another competition for this project? Fronting the Willamette and anchoring this area along with a new public market, the building needs to be impressive.

We should demand that the old Fire Station 1 not be allowed to become another mediocre highrise with a handful of architectural gestures acting as window dressing for a bulky, uninspired mess. We should demand that a talented design firm be chosen to work on it. If they have to partner with a service firm specializing in maximizing units, that's fine. But we can't let the city's developers keep on hiring the usual suspects.

Chances are that one way or another we're going to get a really good new fire station in Old Town. But that victory should only be the beginning.

Randy Goes Ballistic

Wow, did you all see Randy Gragg's review of the Hillsboro Civic Center in yesterday's Oregonian? Considering how much mediocre stuff gets built, it's natural that the city's primary architectural critic frequently has some negative comments. But this review was really full of venom:

"What's so bad? Just about everything."

I'm not passing any judgment here. It's not my place. I do feel sorry for LRS Architects, who designed the facility, having to deal with the review. But I also don't blame Randy for speaking his mind. That's his job. Randy gets a fair amount of flack from local architects, and a lot of the time it's not fair.

My motivation for writing this post, however, is to ask what you think -- not to hear your estimation of Randy per se, but whether you've seen the building and agree/disagree with him.

And while we're at it, why didn't the City of Hillsboro hold a design competition? It's a &*@^$% city hall, for crying out loud!

Besides, I'll say this about the review: I usually avoid outer suburbs such as Hillsboro like the plague, but now I really want to make the drive out there and see for myself how this not-so-civic, not-so-central civic center, to paraphrase Randy, actually stacks up.

Frozen Music

On Sunday, May 1, the Third Angle classical music ensemble will be playing a three part concert that incorporates Portland architecture into the performance.

As a way of exploring the relationship between music and architecture, the musicians will play in three different settings: the Fox Tower, the original US Bank (designed by legendary local architect AE Doyle) and a virtual venue in the Hilton hotel basement.

Afterward, architect Craig Hodgetts of the LA firm Hodgetts & Fung will moderate a post-concert discussion and Q&A with the audience at the Portland Center for the Performing Arts.

Third Angle has always approached musical performance with a blend of passion and intellectualism (I saw them do a first-rate version of Debussy’s classic ‘Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun’), and I think it’s great they’re doing this. Plus it should be very interesting to see where the post-concert discussion goes. Because you don’t have to be a classical aficionado to appreciate the relationship between music and architecture. How can you consider the Ramones without picturing them at CBGB, the dingy rock club in New York's Bowery? Or John Coltrane across town two decades earlier at the Village Vanguard?

I find fascinating the subtle nuances of how architecture affects the sound of performance, and can only assume it’s a tremendous challenge to make a space with great acoustics. There are some Portland firms who have built massive concert halls and other performance spaces, such as Zimmer Gunsul Frasca’s acres-wide facility for the Mormon church in Salt Lake City or BOORA’s new Mesa Arts Center. How did they use materials and design to assure the best sound?

And of course the title of Third Angle’s performance, “Frozen Music”, refers to a familiar quote by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe that architecture is frozen music. All the more reason that architects better get it right the first time.

Blanchard: The Sleeping Giant

A little bird has told Portland Architecture that the City of Portland and Portland Public Schools are considering sweeping changes for the Blanchard Education Service Center just north of the Rose Quarter and the Broadway Bridge.

There apparently is some chance that this massive land parcel could be vacated by PPS in favor of a new location that would allow the institution to raise money (through sale of this centrally located, highly developable tract), re-organize administrative support, and build a better kitchen to provide organically/sustainable foods to students.

While everybody is talking about the future of Burnside Bridgehead, it's worth a moment to pause and consider the incredible potential of this site, which is ideally situated (a) just across the river from downtown and Northwest; (b) within walking distance of the Rose Quarter, Lloyd Center, the Convention Center and the MAX line; and (c) and right off such major arterials as MLK Boulevard and Broadway.

And along with the Blanchard facility, the city is also considering inclusion of additional maintenance yards and further property owned by the water and transportation departments. It could be a huge urban neighborhood in and of itself!

Not long ago the Blanchard site was considered for a baseball stadium back when Portland was in contention for the Montreal Expos. But after that opportunity fizzled, many of us forgot the dilapidated-looking campus. But picture how with the right touch, all the high-density housing and pedestrian-friendly environment that could be introduced to this auto-dominated environment, with residents crossing Broadway to exercise at the Memorial Colisseum's new amateur athletics complex. Imagine the lessons learned from the Pearl and South Waterfront that could be applied here, arguably an even better location. Imagine how the Blanchard area could perhaps re-ignite the drive to add housing to the Lloyd district and erase its surface parking lots.

With all this potential change, I just hope  Portland Public Schools doesn't alter my favorite looking delivery trucks in the city, those yellow ones with the delightfully simple circular PPS logo.

Sorkin Out

The Office of Sustainable Development is offering a great lecture as part of its "ReThink" series by architect Michael Sorkin, Director and Professor at the City University of New York's Graduate Urban Design Program and Principal of, what else, The Michael Sorkin Studio.

From the press release: "Michael Sorkin Studio is based in New York City and  is a highly respected architect, writer, and lecturer. A prolific writer of architectural critiques and contemporary culture, Michael is also Director of the Graduate Urban Design Program at City College of New York. His books include Some Assembly Required, Exquisite Corpse, Variations on a Theme Park, Gehry Talks, and Local Code, Constitution of a City at 42 degrees N. Latitude. His architectural designs are in Michael Sorkin Studio: Wiggle (Works in Progress). Michael has also authored After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City and believes that every architect must reinvent architecture with sustainability as a design challenge."

The lecture is this Thursday at the Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center (aka Ecotrust), 721 NW 9th Avenue, 2nd floor conference center, with tickets a palatable $10 compared to the big bucks for some previous ReThink classes. Sorkin is a very thoughtful, intelligent architect with some insightful commentary about Ground Zero, the profession and, I'd assume, Portland too.

Nice Try, Wal-Mart, But...

Yesterday's Oregonian reported that Wal-Mart has enacted a new policy that for every acre of land covered by one of its stores, the retailer will pay to protect an acre of wildlife habitat somewhere else. The first case will be a scenic canyon North of sisters as part of a new 10-year, $35 million partnership between Wal-Mart and the nonprofit National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Yes, the nation's biggest employer does deserve praise for committing itself to preserving scenic lands. But this doesn't even begin to let Wal-Mart off the hook for how the company destroys urban areas. The retailer remains committed to building giant big-box stores surrounded by seas of surface parking, all the while driving out small businesses.

Instead of seeking absolution through some populist environmental charity, why doesn't Wal-Mart consider transforming the way they build their stores? They could build parking garages instead of surface parking, and use the left over space in a more progressive way -- maybe a playground for kids or some surrounding greenspace. They could put housing above their stores, offering it to employees to cut commuting time or other lower-income members of the community. Or to counter the accusation that they suck the life out of small towns like a vampire, maybe Wal-Mart could even work in partnership with local businesses.

Certainly some of these concepts would cost more and seem outright radical to the Arkansas-based beheamoth. But sooner or later the company ought to ask itself why people villify Wal-Mart, and what they could do about it. The retailer need not be such an urban blight that they feel compelled to try and buy us off.

Mitchell on Burnside Bridgehead

There is an interesting architecture column in The Oregonian today. I'm referring of course to...Renee Mitchell?

The Metro columnist weighs in on Burnside Bridgehead and cautions Southeast Portlanders and Central Eastsiders to not be quite so fervent in their worship of Bradley Malsin of Beam Development, the lone Bridgehead development candidate whose plan did not originally include big-box retail.

Mitchell basically asserts that people are supporting Malsin, a former New York eye doctor, almost solely on the big-box issue and forgetting that he has far less experience and resources than the other two candidates, Opus and Gerding-Edlen. "Maslin's proposal," she writes, "costs more, offers residents fewer chances to own their real estate, needs more of an up-front public investment and depends on a hodge-podge of local partners and the good intentions of a foreign investor..."

One glaring omission from Mitchell's column, I think, is mention of the proven success that Malsin and Beam have shown with the East Bank Commerce Center. Sure, it's not as big as Gerding-Edlen's Brewery Blocks or some Opus projects, but it is a masterfully done project within just a few blocks of Burnside Bridgehead. Beam isn't just the anti-big-box candidate. They're the home team.

Mitchell concludes by saying that once the talking is done, "the PDC still needs to select a development team that can prove it can deliver this project on time and on budget, using the least amount of public dough." That summation is a little too conservative for my taste. Of course we want the project on time and on budget, but I don't see Beam being any more incapable than its competitors. And while public resources are tight, I'd rather have the best architecture win out than simply the developer or project that brings the fewest amount of budgetary or construction headaches along the way.

Too little of the Burnside Bridgehead debate has been about the architecture, big-box notwithstanding. Who has the best buildings? That's who I want to win.

A Road More Traveled

An article in today's Oregonian describes a growing battle in Gresham and Troutdale over a proposal by Multnomah County to sell surplus land there that local leaders have long eyed as part of a connector arterial between Interstate 84 and US 26.

According to the report, "the county is considering selling $1.8 million worth of right of way along a critical stretch in Troutdale to raise money for its proposed East County Justice Facility."

Now, you might think a website devoted to architecture and explicity against auto-dominant urban areas would come down on the side of the county -- in other words for the justice facility funds to be raised and the wide-laned road to be forgotten. But I'm not so sure that's a good idea.

First, for anyone who has ever tried to travel north from US26 to I-84, the route is a nightmare of stoplights, skinny roads and wasted time. That connector arterial is definitely needed. And second, Multnomah County essentially seeks in this deal to rob Peter to pay Paul. It'd be one thing if the county decided that connecting arterial wasn't needed, but that isn't it. They just want to make some more money. However valid a cause the future justice facility is, it shouldn't inhibit the future of traffic patterns in the area in order to get built.

But this is just one guy's opinion. What do you think?

Prefab

An Associated Press wire story run in today's Oregonian discusses the rise in single-family homes made from prefabricated materials, something Dwell magazine (which in the interest of full disclosure I sometimes write for) has been promoting with jihad-like fervor for the past few years.

Two of the familiar names to prefab enthusiasts and the magazine's readers, Glide House designer Michelle Kaufmann of San Francisco and Lazor Office architect Charlie Lazor of Minneapolis, are quoted extensively. They argue that prefab is a viable alternative for those seeking contemporary style but can't afford to hire an architect under the traditional fee-for-service model. And as soon as more of the manufactured home industry signs on to produce these homes and meet demand, they say, prefab can become much more widespread.

Here in Portland, I am yet to hear much talk of prefab. I'm not aware of any local firms who have sought to produce prefab homes. (If anyone knows of such activity, please write in!) And when talk with local architects has turned to prefab, I have heard a surprising amount of negative or at least lukewarm comments.

So you tell me, people: Is this prefab thing really for real, or is it a fad? With less than ten percent of the single-family homes in America designed by real architects, something clearly needs to change with respect to the profession's involvement. It seems to me that prefab makes a much-needed alternative to the horrible neo-traditional homes made from off-the-shelf plans that dominate our suburbs. And with Portland increasingly turning to half-lot-sized homes as a solution to the need for high-density affordable housing, it seems prefab could play a big role here.

What's your verdict?

Gotham Tavern

A couple days ago I had a peek inside the new Gotham Tavern, the latest culinary offering from celebrated Portland restaurateurs Michal and Naomi Hebberoy. When I first heard about the tavern a few months ago, I was very disappointed because it meant the end of the Gotham Building Coffee Shop, which previously occupied the space along North Interstate (just south of the Widmer brewery) and was a marvelously simple palette of wood and cement. But I must say the Gotham Tavern is, for lack of a better word, really cool.

As Christina Melander reports in today's Oregonian 'Platter' column, the GT was designed by James Harrison, the ultra talented architect previously known as a member of the Rigga collective. Harrison's GT design is most noteworthy for its open-weave timber wall separating the dining area from the bar and its beehive-shaped "dining cocoons" that bring extra privacy to some diners. There are also handblown glass fixtures hanging form the ceiling and some inviting booths that look very Design Within Reach. Oh, and if the Hebberoys' previous culinary outings (Ripe, clarkliewis, and the aforementioned GB Coffee Shop) are any indication, the food will be absolutely first-rate.

Coming on the heels of Doug Fir, the Gotham Tavern seems part of a sort of gilded age for Portland restaurant design, which also includes several other impressive spaces such as the Vigne wine bar and the new DF Mexican restaurant. Anybody have some other favorite restaurant/bar designs to celebrate?

The Portland Edge

In case you haven't found a copy yet yet at your local bookstore amongst the piles of Dan Brown and Danielle Steel, there is a new work by a group of Portland State University professors with a plethora of interesting facts and analysis about the city.

Edited by Connie Ozawa, a professor in PSU's Department of Urban Studies, The Portland Edge looks at the successes that have made this one of the most livable and best-planned cities in America, as well as the difficulties confronting us today.

For example, Ethan Seltzer traces the history of regional planning via Metro over the last 15 years. Matthew Witt analyzes conflicts and consensus in the city's neighborhood association program. Gerald Sussman and JR Estes consider KBOO radio as a tool in community development. The great Carl Abbott, who has already contributed so much toward an understanding of urban Portland's past, present and future, sets his sights on downtown. And additional chapters focus on housing, density, livability, transportation planning, and the homeless.

Even within the architecture community, not everybody wants to curl up in front of the fireplace after a hard day's work and read academic writing. I mean, it can get a little dry. But consider buying a copy of The Portland Edge, because it is a very useful tool in understanding the complex web of issues confronting the shaping of the city. We all make generalizations (myself included) about Portland's progressive civic nature, much of the time without properly knowing all of the history and interrelated issues involved. Consider this a solid reference point and, quite often, a surprisingly good read.

Vegas on the Columbia? We Can Do Better

I'd like to offer a little wager: that today Meriwether Lewis and William Clark are turning in their graves. This morning's Oregonian reports that Governor Kulongoski has reached an agreement with the Warm Springs tribes to build a casino in the Columbia River Gorge.

In all fairness to Ten Pin Ted, the Oregonian's editorial page correctly points out that the Governor cut a deal. The casino was going to happen whether we liked it or not. By greenlighting construction in an industrial park near the town of Cascade Locks, the Kulongoski has prevented the casino going up near Hood River, which would have been exponentially worse.

But this is certainly no time for celebration. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pointed out in a speech made here over the weenend (noted in Jonathan Nicholas's column), our natural landscape is "the unfiltered work of the Creator", and that communing with nature is "how we get to discover our own divinity". So one of the most spiritually compelling natural places in Oregon will also be home to a Mecca of gambling.

That said, now that the battle over whether to build a Gorge casino is over, it's time to consider what the casino will look like. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can not recall a single casino in America that is a truly great (or even good) piece of architecture.

Sure, there are lots of bold buildings that desparately call attention to themselves -- the Las Vegas Strip is full of them. But casinos like the Venetian, the Bellagio and New York New York are all just a kind of architectural Disneyland. They have not one molecule of integrity. And casinos built by the tribes are only marginally better. They often reflect the heritage of the American Indian in a superficial, skin-deep way, and have never even attempted to resolve the fundamental disconnect between this deeply spiritual, nature-loving culture and the decadent, corrupting influence of gambling.

If we have to have a casino on the Columbia, why not set a real precedent and make it a great place? It could be a building that embraces and considers itself part of the landscape -- no beheamoth battling the river canyon for our attention but instead yielding to God's Country all around. It could be built green in a manner that reveals its structure and natural materials but also (like some sustainable buildings) doesn't try too hard to wear its greenness on its sleeve. (This is something I think the Ecotrust building, for example, is guilty of). It could break from the casino tradition of dark, lightless spaces and be made with lots of glass to bathe the slot machines in natural illumination. And its form could reflect the heritage of the Warm Springs tribe, but in a way more than skin deep.

The Warm Springs tribe needs to think long and hard about whom it selects as an architect. Ideally they would hold an international design competition, which would benefit them not only in delivering the best possible building but quite likely would generate enormous press. At the very least, the tribe should resist the easy temptation to hire a big service firm that specializes in casino architecture. All the experience in the world means very little if you want to break from the norm -- and no industry needs a fresh architectural start like the gaming industry.

So as disappointing as it is to imagine a casino in our beloved Columbia Gorge, let's think of this not as an inevitable tragedy, but an opportunity to do something great. If Lewis and Clark were able to make it all the way to the Pacific, certainly we can honor the stunning landscape through which they passed with the architecture it deserves.

Teach Me About Daylighting, Charlie Brown!

This Friday, longtime University of Oregon professor G.Z. "Charlie" Brown will be offering a class at the BetterBricks Daylighting Lab (722 SW Second Ave.) called "Daylighting For Any Building: School Designs". Brown was one of the co-founders of the Energy Studies Lab in Portland and is a true treasure for architecture in Portland. He also wrote one of the most important early books on daylighting, called Sun, Wind and Light, long before the current emphasis on green design, and is a guru whose expertise many local designers have sought out, not only about daylighting but natural ventilation and other aspects of climate-responsive architecture.

A couple years ago I wrote about Brown and Joel Loveland, who runs BetterBricks' Seattle Daylighting Lab. Talking with them, and listening to their joint presentation of a daylighting seminar at Lightfair International in New York, was a real epiphany. For thousands of years people from China to the Middle East to Africa designed structures according to climate, solar orientation, and topography. And then with the introduction of air conditioning, all of that knowledge was suddenly ignored. The knowledge that people like Brown bring isn't just about today's emphasis on green building: It's a resurrection of the most basic tenets and precepts of architecture.

Regardless of whether local architects out there care anything about school design per se, I'd make a point to soak up what Charlie Brown has to say, because despite his name, this guy is anything but a blockhead.

Bolighus Ballyhoo

This month's issue of the Daily Journal of Commerce monthly magazine insert to the paper (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I freelance for) includes an article by Justin Stranzl called "Different By Design", a profile of four up-and-coming architects. All of them are deserving: Jeff Kovel of Skylab Design Group, designer of the sublime and white-hot Doug Fir restaurant; Sean and Lauren Cho of Bolighus Architecture; Fuji Shono of the husband/wife team Browning-Shono Architects; and Mark Engberg of Colab (who I previously wrote about on this weblog in a post called "Colab Is Fab").

As it happens, a couple of weeks ago I met for the first time with Sean and Lauren of Bolighus (which is pronounced BO-lee-hoos, I think, and is from a Danish word meaning "the way one lives in design"), and came away impressed. Both were educated at UO, and Sean's father was a longtime professor there. Sean previously worked at SRG Partnership and Lauren, his wife, at BOORA. Like a lot of small firms, Bolighus has mostly done single-family homes, a few of which have won some local design awards. Now I think the seven-person firm is poised for more.

Right now Bolighus is at work on the Bear Wallows Community Center as part of the Shevlin Commons housing development in Bend. The center will act as a sort of gathering place for this sustainably oriented collection of homes, and it's an inviting, light-filled space made with some innovative green materials such as Durisol blocks. Bolighus is also in the design stage for a church's community building near I-205 and Stafford Row.

Both projects not only represent the firm's evolution beyond single family homes, but also speak to their gift for creating modernism with an emphasis on local materials, a human scale, and thoughtful response to climate. It's often a real challenge for small firms to make the jump into larger commissions, but I hope some developer out there will consider Bolighus for the next mixed-use building, church, office, or school. If they have to be partnered with a service-firm chaperon, so be it. But Bolighus is an ideal example of the talent in this city waiting to be tapped for more duty.

How Green Are You?

Here in Portland we pride ourselves on being environmentally friendly.  The sustainable architecture movement has flourished here arguably more than anywhere else in the country and we have created an urban environment that caters to pedestrians and mass transit.

But what about how each individual person affects the planet?  On the Earth Day website, you can now answer a few simple questions to determine your own ecological footprint.

In the interest of full disclosure, here is the ecological footprint I apparently make: The average ecological footprint in the United States is 24 acres per person.  According to the Earth Day quiz, my total ecological footprint - based on my consumption of food, my use of an automobile, and other factors - is 22 acres per person.  But I can't feel too proud for being slightly better than the national average.  "Worldwide, there exists 4.5 biologically productive acres per person," the website says.  "If everyone lived like you, you would need 4.8 planets."

So how do you measure up?