Portland Architecture

Young Architects: How Does Portland Compare?

Each year at the American Institute of Architects’ national convention, five practitioners are chosen for the Young Architects Award. This year the award went to architects from DC, Las Vegas, Austin, Boston, and Connecticut.

Meanwhile, Architectural Record magazine has also spotlighted twenty-five firms owned and operated by architects under thirty. Among these are two Rem Koolhaas disciples in New York known as Work Architecture Company, a University of Oregon-trained duo working in Seattle called Lead Pencil Studio, a Milwaukee firm called Johnsen Schmaling, Texas sole practitioner James Harkrider, Australian-born New York architect Andrew Maynard, Montreal’s NOMAD Architecture, Boston’s Studio Luz, XTEN Architecture of Los Angeles, and Seattle’s PLACE Architects.

Although two Seattle firms were featured in the Record story, nobody from Portland received either the AIA award or placement in the magazine. So my question to you is: Was this an oversight? Are there some talented young Portland architects who deserve more recognition? Or if not, is our city in any way lacking in young talent or opportunity for up-and-coming architects?

Portland has always suffered from not having an accredited architecture school, although we do have Portland State offering non-accredited studies as well as the respected University of Oregon school of architecture 110 miles south, which allows some study at its Portland center.

But I doubt that is the only determining factor in the caliber of and environment for young architects. What does it take for Portland to be a healthy setting for young designers? How do we get there if we’re not already there?

These are a lot of questions for a Tuesday morning after a three-day weekend, but if you know of a talented Portland architect under thirty, or have any thoughts about what kind of opportunities (or lack thereof) exist here for young practitioners, please write in.

Architect Websites

As an architecture writer, I spend a considerable amount of time looking at local firms’ websites. Some are flashy, some bare bones. But more importantly, some work at conveying the information you want better than others.

I think when a company hires a web designer to create or recreate their website, there can be pressure to consider Flash graphics and slick presentation. But it has been rare that I’ve seen motion graphics that really illustrate something important. Too often it seems to be just the glossy wrapping paper that you have to tear away to get to the information you want.

Another common feature is for firms to open with some kind of poetic statement about architecture, that it’s “a synthesis of passion and ideas” or that the firm listens intently to its clients and makes their dreams a reality. It’s usually pretty trite.

Yet there are also certain features that I find exceptionally helpful that would be very simple to employ on a firm’s website and hardly ever are there. For example, if I log onto a site, chances are it’s because I generally want to learn more about that firm. The site pretty much always has a portfolio of projects to choose from, but almost never a separate classification for work that is in progress. It’d be nice to easily differentiate between a building completed in 1989 and one due out this fall.

Ultimately websites are similar to buildings. Although they’re virtual in this case, websites consist of a series of screens that act as “rooms”. Their order and what they provide should first be simple and comprehensive.

Off the top of my head, there are a select few websites I like: BOORA, SERA, Yost Grube Hall, Thomas Hacker. But even these I would change certain things about if I could. Who are some of your favorites and why?

The Fate of Centennial Mill

Yesterday the city council declared its intent to explore saving the decrepit Centennial Mill. The council is calling for public input over the next several months on saving the 200,000-square-foot, circa-1909 grain mill. Clearly it's the hope that a private developer will step forward during that borrowed time and pledge to save the building.

One need only look to a project like the Brewery Blocks and its preserved brew house, or to other old Pearl District warehouses, to see how nice a re-imagined old industrial building can be. And situated on Naito Parkway along the river, Centennial Mill occupies coveted real estate.

But the building is in real bad shape. Can it really be saved without bankrupting its developer? I can only assume many out there wouldn't touch it. Historic preservation always comes with surprises, often bad ones. But might there be a developer out there with the guts to take on Centennial Mill? The reward could be immense if somebody could save even portions of the structure and re-imagine it for the next century.

Small Firms, Great Projects

A few months ago I wound up on the mailing list for the San Francisco chapter of the American Institute of Architects. And recently I got a postcard in the mail from them for an event called “Small Firms, Great Projects”. Each year a number of Bay Area firms with 19 employees or less submit projects for consideration for an exhibit at the chapter and publication in a special issue of San Francisco magazine.

Here in Portland at our AIA chapter we have what’s called the Small Firm Roundtable, a group of architects from small firms that meet once a month to discuss common issues and show each other their work. They also have a yearly exhibit at the AIA Gallery. But unlike San Francisco’s “Small Firms, Great Projects” event, there is no selection process—anything goes.

I’d like to see some higher-profile exposure for the best work by small firms in Portland, something curated or reviewed and then presented to the public. Whether it’s houses, neighborhood mixed-use, or other kind of work, there’s a lot happening at the small firm level that we ought to be more aware of.

If anyone knows of some high-quality small firm projects that have not received the publicity they deserve, please contact me. I’d like to share some of them on this website.

Measure 37 Forum: Join the Rebellion!

This Thursday the Portland State University Community Development Student Group is hosting a forum entitled "Measure 37: The Dynamic Future of Oregon's Land Use Planning and Property Rights." The forum starts at 6:00PM in room 338 of the Smith Memorial Student Union.

From the press release:

"This forum is an opportunity for meaningful community dialogue and awareness around the issue of sustainable and equitable land use planning. The event’s content will be shaped by questions submitted by community members through the Community Development Student Group website and collected at the door before the forum begins.

Oregonian reporter Laura Oppenheimer is the introductory speaker. The panel includes: Lane Shetterly, the Director of Department of Land Conservation and Development; Sonny Conder, the Principal Regional Planner of Metro; Pramod Parajuli, the Associate Professor and Executive Director of Leadership in Ecology, Culture, and Learning at PSU; Robert Clay, the President of the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association; Mike Collmeyer, Attorney for 1000 Friends of Oregon; Ross Day, the Director of Legal Affairs for Oregonians in Action. Ethan Seltzer, the Director of the School of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University is forum moderator.

I’ve already written this before, but I think it merits reiterating: We have got to do something about Measure 37. We can’t just accept defeat when it comes to rescuing Oregon’s progressive land-use planning. Sprawl is not acceptable. Period. Perhaps this forum could be a first step toward organizing a concerted effort towards either repealing 37, passing legislation to take the teeth out of the measure, or whatever else we can think of to prevent communities around Oregon from committing land-use-planning suicide.

The Potential of Ankeny Square

Now that the design competition for Fire Station 1 has come and gone, it may be time to turn our attention toward the area the Fire Bureau will vacate. The old FS1 site is a key piece of land that lies on the riverfront and is part of the larger Ankeny Square, which in turn will probably one day be home to the Portland Public Market as well as whatever combination of housing, retail and offices rise from the old fire station site along Naito Parkway.

I spoke recently with Ron Paul at the Bureau of Planning, who has long been involved with efforts to make the public market a reality. I also was in contact with Amy Miller Dowell of the Portland Development Commission. Based on those conversations, it seems like a strong possibility that developing the market and the old FS1 will happen as part of a coordinated timeline. What’s more, a design competition is a very real possibility for at least a portion of the space.

It’s unclear so far, however, whether such a competition would be for the Skidmore Fountain Building, which will probably be home to the public market, or whether it would be for a redeveloped former FS1. The Skidmore site is more likely, simply because the old FS1 site is likely going to be housing, and that's trickier to do a design competition for. If there were a design competition for the FS1 site, it would in all likelihood be a competition for the development rights, not a competition between designs or designers. And as Burnside Bridgehead showed, choosing the best qualified developer can be very different from choosing the best design or designer.

But because neither the market or the old FS1 redevelopment project is going to happen tomorrow, there is still ample opportunity for those interested in good design to influence the decision makers working on Ankeny Square. Amy Miller told me that next week (or soon after) PDC will send out an RFP for the site, seeking to form a "clear urban design vision and development goals" by bringing architects, urban planners and other professionals into the fray. There's still a good six months of study to be done before anything tangible starts to happen, but that means there is still ample opportunity for us to help PDC and Planning shape this project well.

Just as Burnside Bridgehead, South Waterfront and other development areas in town have occupied our collective thoughts, Ankeny Square is a place with tremendous potential. This could and should become a high-density area brimming with activity, a place where people live, work and play. Stay tuned.

A View of South Waterfront

Earlier this week I visited the South Waterfront Discovery Center for the first time. It’s a marketing tool on one level, of course, but it’s also a chance to visualize what this exceptionally ambitious new neighborhood is going to look like.

There is a tabletop model of the entire neighborhood there that must be several feet wide, and it shows better than a two-dimensional image how the buildings will relate to one another. Together the Meriwether’s twin riverfront condo towers designed by GBD, the John Ross condos one block back from the water designed by Thompson Vaivoda, and the as-yet-unnamed riverfront condos at Block 34 by Thomas Hacker comprise theater rows on the water. They cooperate in spatial placement so that the view is shared.

The taller and skinnier the buildings are, the easier it is for this kind of relationship to happen: dense, vital urbanity that doesn’t feel claustrophobic. You can still see the sun this way, and that’s important in a rainy climate.

But as mentioned in yesterday's post about Jack Onder's tower near 23rd and Burnside, no view is sacrosanct. If there is a consensus that taller, skinnier buildings in the South Waterfront are the wisest choice from a collective civic architectural or urbanistic standpoint, then it ought to happen. Nobody actively seeks to disrupt a homeowner’s picture-postcard view of Mt. Hood, but that view isn’t as important as the overall city’s decision about how tall our buildings ought to be.

As it happens, the first three South Waterfront projects seem promising. The Meriwether could be some of GBD's strongest work yet. The John Ross is a curving form welcome in boxy Portland. And by early accounts Hacker's Block 34 is a jewel. Kudos to Gerding/Edlen and Williams & Dame for seeking talented designers like Hacker and TVA to join the party with GBD -- and please keep it up, guys! And for now the buildings will certainly less bulky than what’s been built in other parts of town where the zoning is different. But as this neighborhood continues to take shape, height should be considered in terms of what’s best for South Waterfront, not the West Hills.

What Homer Simpson Can Teach Jack Onder

There’s an episode of The Simpsons that reminds me of the 150-foot tower proposed by developer Jack Onder near 23rd and Burnside.

In the episode, Homer Simpson discovers he has a long lost half-brother named Herb who is CEO of a big auto manufacturer. Herb decides Homer perfectly represents the beer-swilling American everyman, and decides to build a car according to his half-brother’s specification. The car is filled with every bell and whistle a car could ever need or want. And what happens? Like the Edsel, it’s a complete disaster and bankrupts Herb’s company.

The final look of Jack Onder’s tower has been arrived at in a manner resebling Homer's car. It's piecemeal design. Granted, much of that was unavoidable. Considering Portland’s path toward density, a busy intersection like nearby 23rd and Burnside is a suitable place for a tall tower. But the nearby Northwest District and Hillside neighborhoods are worried about their views. There was bound to be some conflict.

Yet I can’t help but believe that if Onder had worked with a great architect to produce a really compelling design from the start, the neighborhood wouldn’t have been quite so up in arms.

The firm Onder did hire, Ankrom Moisan, deserves praise for modifying their design so many times. I imagine the firm gets hired so often because they’re adept at providing that kind of service. But what if from the start Ankrom had been paired with a smaller, design-oriented architect or firm that could craft a real unified, compelling vision for this building while Ankrom backed them up?

Maybe it’s just the architecture geek in me, but if I had a choice between looking at Mount Hood some fifty miles in the cloudy distance or a great building a couple blocks away, I’d be fine with the building going up. That said, however, it couldn’t be just any building. And being skinnier towards the top and well integrated at street level wouldn’t be the only criteria for its success. In fact, that would be secondary in my mind to the overall importance of the building being of poetic, captivating design. I don't mean the kind of trite showiness of the Portland Building, but an elegant modern structure that locals like Brad Cloepfil (Allied Works), Rick Potestio, John Holmes (Holst), and Mark Engberg (Colab) know how to do.

If we look at the drama surrounding Onder’s building and see only the individual design issues that have occupied neighborhood activists and the Design Commission, we’re missing the larger point. Even Homer Simpson could tell you that.

Climbing Aboard the Tram

In yesterday's Willamette Week (which I also write for), Henry Stern wrote an article that used the 25th anniversary of Mount Saint Helens to speculate on future eruptions. Stern chose a variety of easy targets: the Trail Blazers, the Portland Development Commission, and the tram connecting OHSU with the South Waterfront.

I've already gone on record saying that Portlanders are getting ridiculously carried away with PDC. We need some new blood at the very top, but that's going to happen anyway with a handful of board members and executive director Don Mazziotti leaving in July.

Now let's talk about the tram, which the WW article described this way:

"Engineering nightmare plus an ever-growing budget and a shaky business plan equals more than one neighborhood plotz to come in OHSU's quest to connect Pill Hill to the South Waterfront. Instead of scouting spots to view St. Helens' next blast, how about heading up to the mountain to catch the view of this boondoggle-to-be?"

The budget only grew because it was ridiculously under-sized in the first place; it's not like Sarah Graham suddenly decided to plate it in gold.

And the neighborhood, while understandably touchy about the cars going over their houses, has had their say. The right thing to do is appease Corbett/Terwilliger/Lair Hill by improving the horrible Ross Island Bridge entry that lines up through their neighborhood and building a pedestrian bridge over Barbur Boulevard.

None of these difficulties change the fact that the tram is the linchpin in the largest, most important development Portland has seen in a century, one creating an entire neighborhood that will add several thousand jobs and residents. Meanwhile, the buildings are already going up. The streetcar is on its way. Shuttle buses will not sufficiently accommodate all the traffic moving back and forth between South Waterfront and Pill Hill -- period. Hell, that windy little road is ridiculously clogged already!

Innovative mass transit projects like the tram are not the problem. They're the solution.

Village Building Convergence

This Friday begins a ten-day architectural conference in Portland that’s off the radar of most people in the local design community.

The Village Building Convergence is described as a “localization event” and is being put in by the City Repair Project. Led by architect Mark Lakeman, they have sponsored activities all over Portland for several years that are geared toward fostering a greater sense of communities at the neighborhood level. Perhaps you’ve come across one of their events in neighborhoods like Belmont or Sellwood, easily identified by a four-way intersection that’s been painted and gussied up in an effort to claim a sense of place for the people who live there and not just the cars driving by or parked outside. City Repair also operates something called the Tea Horse, which is a mobile structure for serving food and drink at such activities.

Like City Repair, the Village Building Convergence has a decidedly hippy vibe to it. As a result, some of us who, say for example, don’t wear tie-dye or white dreadlocks and choose to shower regularly, have not taken the efforts of this organization and its conference as seriously as they deserve.

As Miles Hochstein, an advocate for the VBC, told me, “Where else in the US or on the planet do non-architects gather for a 10-day conference on issues of space, urban design, and community?  Sure there is a big crunchy granola feel to this festival, but it is notable that right here in Portland there is a whole community of people who are not architects or design professionals who are holding an event that attracts people from up and down the west coast and around the country to learn about how they can be participants in the design of their environments. We've got a ‘popular architecture’ movement going here in Portland right under our noses. Of course its perspectives are different from those of the big firms and big contractors. You'd expect that. But many of its concerns are related to the very issues that inspired design professionals to go into their profession in the first place... a desire to work with space and materials to create places that people can live in and enjoy being a part of."

The Village Building Convergence begins Friday evening with a lecture by Randal Schmidt called “On The Nature of Order: Structure-Preserving Transformations, and the Creation of an Urban Housing Village.” There will be lectures each evening during the May 20-29 conference as well as numerous daytime workshops with titles like, ”Physical Basics of Good Social Spaces” and “Creating Sacred Spaces Using your Natural Environment to Attract the Seen & Unseen Community”.

Kudos to Mark Lakeman and his friends/colleagues for engaging communities and bringing architecture outside the sometimes-insular world of CAD drawings and Dockers.

Rapping With Rapaport

Over the past several years I've had the chance to meet and write about a variety of Portland developers working in places like the Pearl District, downtown, and South Waterfront. But for quite awhile I've wanted to learn more about some of the developers working in other parts of the city on smaller-scale commercial, residential and mixed-use projects.

That was my motivation for having coffee this morning with Randy Rapaport, developer of the Belmont Street Lofts on Southeast Belmont Street. Designed by Holst Architecture, who are in my opinion easily one of the most talented firms in town, The Belmont Lofts are a beautiful work of architecture. If only the average new building in the Pearl District were even half as nice!

But beyond his efforts developing the Belmont Lofts, Randy Rapaport is a developer to watch. More than any other developer I've met in this city so far, Randy has a genuine passion for architecture. He wants to do great work. Sure, he has only one ground-up building to show for himself so far, but I came away exceptionally impressed with this guy. At a recent PNCA event, Brad Cloepfil called Randy "...the most progressive developer in Portland. He takes risks." And I wouldn't argue.

Randy has a very eclectic background. Originally from Maine, he spent ten years as an investment advisor before going to grad school and becoming a school psychologist. He also is a fervent arts supporter. For those of you who know the superb indie rock band The Flaming Lips, Randy was actually onstage at the band's New Year's Eve show last year at Madison Square Garden, dressed up in an animal costume. Randy is also the sponsor of a terrific retrospective of Robert Frank's films beginning next week at Cinema Project. He even has volunteered his development services pro bono to PNCA to build an Allied Works-designed tower for student housing. "I'm so passionate about what I'm doing," Randy told me. "I want to express myself at the highest level no matter what I'm doing."

Randy Rapaport's next building, still in the works, is a multifamily housing project on Southeast Division near Clinton, called "The Clinton" but actually named for Clintons Bill and George as much as the adjacent street. Designed again by Holst, the rendering I saw was very impressive, featuring multicolored translucent glass panels amidst a sculpted concrete form not unlike Stuart Emmons' proposal for Fire Station #1.

As Southeast, Northeast and other parts of Portland become more feasible for mixed-use projects, developers like Randy will increasingly come to rival bigger developers in terms of relevance and project scope. And if projects like the Belmont Lofts are any indication, there could be a much brighter future architecturally for Portland if people like Randy have their way.

Hacker Wins Fire Station 1 Competition

Word just came from the Portland Communique that Thomas Hacker Architects has won the three-team design competition for Fire Station #1. No details yet on how the jury arrived at their decision, but that should follow in the days ahead.

Clearly Hacker's plan was both modern and, through its materials in particular, recalled fire stations of old. It also seemed to work very well for its users, with perhaps the best plan for moving fire trucks as well as a contemplative space for off-duty fire fighters. This ought to be a nice little jewel along Portland's riverfront.

And let's not forget the other two teams vying for FS1, both of whom ought to still be given a major commission in Portland. Brad Cloepfil's Allied Works is unquestionably the most nationally and internationally acclaimed firm our city has produced in decades. Stuart Emmons is an architect's architect whose Dutch-influenced design sensibilities should be given a bigger stage, and his partners at Hennebery Eddy have done some excellent work as well. Whether it's the next government building or a high-rise condo for a private developer, I'm rooting for these guys to get the choice commissions they didn't receive today.

But meanwhile, congratultions to Thomas Hacker, a firm that's increasingly putting its stamp on turn-of-the-21st Century local architecture. With the Hillsdale Library, Woodstock Library, Beaverton Library and the PSU Urban Center as proof, the firm routinely produces elegant craftsmanlike buildings that work on a human scale and are bathed in natural light. Hacker himself previously worked in the office of legendary architect Louis Kahn, and clearly learned the virtues of more soulful modernism. Hacker also taught at the University of Oregon, where he influenced top local architects of today like Brad Cloepfil and Richard Potestio. If Cloepfil is the Pietro Belluschi of our time, then Hacker is A. E. Doyle.

It Takes an Actual Village

Last Thursday brought the official opening of Bridgeport Village, the new shopping mall just off I-5 near Tualatin. Bridgeport represents the hot new trend in malls, the "lifestyle center", with open-air public spaces and shops in (seemingly) independent buildings, all of which contributes to the feeling that the mall is less of an isolated place and a more naturally-occuring urban space.

But urbanistically, Bridgeport Village is little better than Washington Square or Clackamas Town Center or Lloyd Center. While it's certainly an improvement that Bridgeport is not surrounded by a sea of parking -- its shops come right up to the street along Bridgeport Road and 72nd Avenue -- the "Village" is not integrated with the surrounding community. Why can't there be some housing mixed in with the shops, or nearby? Why must BV consist only of high-end retail? What about a doctor's office or a DMV?

The central core of Portland may have a nice integration of residential, retail and commercial/office environments, but we simply must do something about the way suburbs isolate different kinds of places. It's just ridiculous to have all the high-end shopping in one area, all the cul de sacs of housing in another, and so on. It leads to terrible, terrible traffic and wasted time and makes it very difficult to do anything on foot other than walk to and from your car.

I confess that I enjoy perusing Crate & Barrel and Design Within Reach as much as the next yuppie. But I don't want my money going to support another suburban mall that heards us like cattle in and out of its faux-historic architecture and back onto the interstate without any real sense of place and community context.

A Bridgehead Collaboration?

I must say I'm getting tired of talking about Burnside Bridgehead. But an article by Ryan Frank in the Business section today's Oregonian, about Tom Potter asking Beam and Opus to discuss a compromise, is very intriguing.

Just what would this compromise entail? Would it mean that Opus and Beam would divide up responsibility for the buildings? Might we see a building from Beam's proposal and one or two from Opus? Or would they start from scratch and work together on a new plan?

I must say there is possibility here - not in compromise so much as collaboration. Imagine a Burnside Bridgehead that had: (1) the deep pockets of Opus behind it, (2) the community support of Beam, (3) a blend of Opus's traditional housing-oriented plan with Beam's riskier but more progressive artist incubators, and (4) the most talented of each developer's chosen architects: Gary Larson of Mulvanny G2 and Mark Engberg of Colab.

So you tell me: What are the real chances of a scenario like this playing out?

A Tale of Two Juries

Even though a final undisputed winner is yet to be chosen for Fire Station 1 and Burnside Bridgehead, not to mention the building of the structures themselves, I think it's safe to say at this point that FS1 was a successful competition and Bridgehead was not.

And the reason for that is pretty simple: the difference in juries.

Fire Station 1's jury was balanced, with design experts complementing a developer and a client representative. It included Dave Miller of Seattle architecture firm Miller Hull, Steve McCallium of local industrial design firm Ziba, Francesca Gambetti of Portland developer Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Bing Sheldon of local architecture firm SERA, and Jack Graham of the Fire Bureau. They picked three excellent finalists and we're pretty much assured of a good building.

Burnside Bridgehead's jury consisted of the Portland Development Commission board. As reported today by Ryan Frank in The Oregonian's In Portland section, they are made up of a preacher/bureaucrat (Matt Hennessee), a lawyer (Doug Blomgren), an insurance executive (Eric Parsons), a banker (Janice Wilson), an affordable housing advocate (Bertha Ferran), and PDC executive director Don Mazziotti (although I'm not quite clear if he had a vote). You could make a pretty solid argument that there isn't one person on the PDC board with an expertise or background in design. Their decision to choose Opus over Beam seemed pretty much entirely based on money (not because the Opus plan was a terrible design and Beam's was perfect -- far from it -- but because finances seemed to dominate their criteria).

I'm not saying finance shouldn't have been a factor in the Bridgehead decision -- of course it should have. But the fact that design was seemingly all but ignored (not to mention the overwhelming will of the people) was a real tragedy.

Of course it's not as simple as I make it out. The Bridgehead competition was about selecting a developer, while FS1 is about choosing an architectural plan. But Bridgehead didn't just request qualifications from developers -- it called for architectural plans as well. Which, in turn, were then largely ignored in favor of economics.

If we had it to do over again, I think Bridgehead should have either been just a selection of the developer based on resources, track record and community connections with the architecture figured out later (with PDC and the public's input), or it should have been an architectural design competition preceded by a lot of public deliberation about what the program should be.

But as convoluted and schizophrenic as Bridgehead seems to have been, I'll bet if we had had a more balanced and diverse group making the decision--a group with at least one experienced architect on board--there wouldn't be quite so much sour grapes now. Just look at how well FS1 is turning out: That's the way it could have been with Bridgehead.

Oh, and one other thing: two PDC board members (Wilson and Hennessee) will leave in July, in addition to Mazziotti. Who will Mayor Potter select? If you care about architecture in Portland, I urge you to call, write or email the mayor and urge him to add a design expert to the PDC board.

Fire Station One: In Good Hands

I was just at City Hall to view proposals for Fire Station One from the three local finalists: Thomas Hacker, Allied Works, and Emmons/Hennebery Eddy. I'm happy to say that, when the jury makes its final decision (which I believe should come on Monday), there won't be a bad choice.

Thomas Hacker's design has a beautifully geometric terra cotta facade that is being called a "shield" in that it acts as a kind of second skin for the glass and concrete building behind it. Above that is a glass top with an extending flat roof that gives lightness and presence to the building. As with pretty much all Hacker's work, this is distinctive craftsmanlike design. But at the same, perhaps because of the firm's collaboration with Michael Willis Architects, it feels new and fresh, not quite like anything the firm has done before.

Allied Works' entry, on the other hand, definitely is reminiscent of the firm's Seattle Art Museum design. But that's not to say it isn't beautiful. There is just the elegant visual poetry of glass and metal we've come to expect from Brad Cloepfil. I also found it interesting that Allied's entry proposes a mixed-use building with residential and/or commercial space, something that wasn't part of the RFP.

The Emmons/Hennebery Eddy entry includes a very striking cantilevered main building that gives the structure an ideal combination of presence and lightness. Same goes for the brick fire station museum on the back side of the project, which hovers over a glass entryway. The glass facade fronting Naito Parkway also includes the introduction of colored panels that would nicely jazz up monochromatic Portland architecture, yet not in the silly way the Portland Buiding does.

I can't honestly say which of these proposals is best, because there is a lot about the functionality of fire stations that I wouldn't pretend to fully grasp. But considering the location of Fire Station 1 across Naito from Waterfront Park, as well as the potentially invigorating presence it will bring to Old Town, I would be happy to see any of these proposals chosen.

I think winning would mean the most to Emmons and Hennebery Eddy, both of whom are underrated firms waiting to move into a deservedly bigger role in the city. That said, another major Allied Works building in Portland is way overdue, and Hacker has shown with his superb collection of libraries for Multnomah County that his firm can be trusted to deliver an ideal balance of beauty, functionality, and integration with the surrounding context.

For all the negative publicity that has gone to the Portland Development Commission over Burnside Bridgehead, let's give them a round of applause for doing a great job with Fire Station 1. And while we're at it, let's all encourage PDC and the city to hold another design competition for the crucial parcel just a few blocks south on Naito (adjacent to the coming public market) that the Fire Bureau is vacating.

Mend It, Don't End It

The Portland Development Commission has taken a lot of criticism lately, and some of it justifiably so. But after a proposal by Commissioner Randy Leonard to abolish PDC as we know it, I find myself taking a defensive posture with regard to the commission.

Many have begun to question the independence with which PDC operates, a privilege enjoyed by no other city agency. The Burnside Bridgehead verdict is cited as an example of how PDC can go against the wishes of a majority of citizens as well as (seemingly) the city council, and get away with it. But we can't evaluate the merits of PDC's independence based on one project.

Ironically, PDC is independent so politics can be kept out of decision making about urban renewal. In the case of Burnside Bridgehead, it didn't work out that way. But what if the reverse had happened? What if the PDC board wanted to pick Beam and the city council had the power to take that decision away and pick Opus?

The current debate over PDC reminds me of a debate about Affirmative Action during the Clinton administration. Certain members of the Republican party wanted to abolish this crucial civil rights law, but President Clinton had a more measured and thoughtful plan: "Mend it, don't end it," he said.

Even Randy Leonard has admitted that his proposal to abolish PDC as we know it really is more a case of hyperbole intended to stir debate than a serious fatal threat against the agency. Because that proposal is now genuinely on the table, however, it's cause to stop criticizing what PDC has done wrong for a moment and defend the far greater array of right moves the agency has made.

There are neighborhoods all over the city whose residents, businesses are better off thanks to the improvements PDC spearheaded, from downtown to Northeast to outer Southeast and elsewhere. Along the way came tough decisions made relatively safe from city politics. Maybe a little more oversight is needed in the future, but we should not be so hasty in closing down a path that has until very recently been deemed very successful.

Communique Breakdown

Just when you thought we could all move on from PDC's Burnside Bridgehead decision comes two new revelations concerning the fate of the project.

First, a participant in Opus Northwest's winning proposal is lashing out in a loud and embarassing way. Nathaniel Clevenger, who provided PR to the Opus team, already had raised ethics concerns when it became known he has performed contractual communications work for PDC as well, including speechwriting for board member Matt Hennessee. Now, Clevenger has also publicly harrassed the Portland Communique editor in a series of emailed and posted diatribes.

Even though I endorsed Beam Development for the Bridgehead job, I feel sorry for Bruce Wood, Opus and their team having to deal with this embarrassment. It's one thing for us to argue over planning and architecture and differ about design. But can't we at least be ethical and civilized about this? People like Wood and architect Gary Larson want to do the right thing, and their efforts need not be undermined.

But now there is also word that Beam's head, Brad Malsin, is appealing the Bridgehead decision on two grounds: that PDC commissioners didn't properly disclose conflicts of interest, and that they violated public-meetings law by conducting private deliberations on their decision. With all due respect again to the Opus team, whom I respect, I can't say I blame Malsin, the former eye doctor, for seeing this the way he does.

Although Mayor Potter has stepped in to ask PDC to put Bridgehead on hold during the appeal, it's actually Development Commission head Don Mazziotti who apparently will judge the merit of Beam's appeal. And with Mazziotti having already announced his resignation several weeks ago (it takes affect later this summer), it's very interesting that he could potentially change the course of the Bridgehead, not to mention the city, if he were to reverse the pro-Opus decision.

What a shame that a landmark project like Bridgehead has to begin this way. I'll be glad when we can go back to focusing on design and what's best for Portland, not what exposes us at our worst.

Playing To Our Base

A couple weeks ago in The New Yorker magazine, architecture critic Paul Goldberger gave a scathing review to a glossy, glassy new apartment tower by Charles Gwathmey in Greenwich Village. Something Goldberger said about the building made me consider the current era of Portland buildings in a new way:

“A chunky trapezoidal base is topped by a twenty-one-story section...the squat limestone base tries too hard to fit into the surrounding streets.”

Of course many Portland buildings have this same feature, allowing skinnier towers to extend their lower floors all the way to the sidewalk. This helps maintain the integrity of the pedestrian experience and is part of good mixed-use development, zoning and planning.

But, to borrow from Golberger, when a skinny tower is paired with a base extending to the street, at what point is the building trying too hard to be something it's not? At what point is it diminished by trying to be all things to all people? Paired with such bases, buildings like this only begin to express their true sense of sculpture a few floors off the ground. It’s like we’re building a generation of buildings with booster seats.

I’m not saying our buildings shouldn’t cooperate with one another as part of a unified streetscape. But too much of one thing is always a danger to design.

Increasingly we’ve looked to Vancouver, British Columbia and its taller, skinnier towers as an appealing alternative to our chunky, stumpy buildings. But whether it’s height restrictions or vocal West Hills residents getting proprietary about their views of Mt. Hood, there’s simultaneously a resistance to letting our buildings get tall. We have a plethora of buildings that don’t rise high enough from their bases to become anything compelling.

The first condominiums to be built in South Waterfront, the Meriwether Condominiums by GBD Architects (currently under construction), at least partially solved this problem with two skinny towers instead of one fat one. Although one of the buildings is paired with a short, wide base, the other tower seems to stand on its own.

Recently, however, Thomas Hacker’s design for another residential project was switched from two towers to one. I don’t know what the circumstances were behind that decision, and I have every faith in Hacker’s firm to come up with a good building either way. But I hope this isn’t a turning point where we tried to do something different in South Waterfront and wind up having to follow the same old path.

Portland Draws an Ace

Great news for any design-loving Portlanders with out-of-town guests coming next year: Seattle’s Ace Hotel, the best-designed lodging I’ve ever stayed at in the Emerald City and also an affordable one, will begin construction next month to convert the 93-year-old Clyde Hotel on Southwest Stark into a Portland version of the hotel.

At the Ace in Seattle, there is literally whiteness everywhere, from the halls and doors down to the wood floors—even your room’s TV and clock radio. The achromatic look is balanced with a colorful collection of bold floor-to-ceiling murals, including a panoramic shot of Mount Rainier behind the front desk and another of galloping wild horses in the hallway. One room I stayed in a couple years ago had a floor-to-ceiling revolving, mirror-covered door made from an entire wall between the bathroom and bed. The bathroom was all silver, stainless steel, and white tile without even a bath mat to clutter its look, as spare as Mother Hubbard's cupboard and sleek as the inside of the spacecraft in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yet this impressively minimalist interior occupied a historic old brick building in Belltown—a surprising and engaging contrast.

I’m sorry for the Clyde Hotel’s owners that their renovation of this historic hotel just a few years ago apparently didn’t work out business-wise, but I’m ecstatic to see the Ace coming to town.

217: Highway to a Dangerous Precedent

As David Anderson reported in today's Oregonian, Metro is considering tolls as a way to pay for needed widening of Oregon highway 217. I could not possibly be more against this idea.

Oregonians rightfully take pride in certain key places being free and open to everyone, whether it's our pristine Pacific beaches or our roads. When you start charging per-use fees, whatever fairness may be achieved by those using these resources paying for them, you lose so much more: the notion that Oregon belongs to all of us equally.

There has already been a terrible precedent with certain state parks charging day-use fees, and once you open the Pandora's Box of road tolls, 217 will only be the first. How about an extra $5 to travel down south to wine country, or east to Mt. Hood, while your next door neighbor pays nothing because he happen to use other public roads?

There is a much fairer and obvious way to pay for 217 widening as well as all the other infrastructure and public spaces we all share: taxes. There--I spoke the verboten word. But I'm not kidding. Raise taxes if you need to pay to widen the highway. Better we all pay together than a few people having to continually pay more. Nobody likes taxes but there is no painless way to pay for what our community and our region needs.

I urge everyone to contact Metro and urge them to drop not just the idea of a toll for 217, but of ever charging a toll for any stretch of asphalt. You can email the Metro council at metrocouncil@metro-region.org.

AIA's Green Top Ten and Portland

The American Institute of Architects’ Committee on the Environment (COTE) has announced its prestigious annual Top Ten projects list for 2005. And two projects with Portland ties made the list.

For the first time ever, the list included not a building project but a sustainable urban design plan: Lloyd Crossing. Designed by Mithun Architects of Seattle, the plan is intended to transform a 35-block area in the Lloyd District into a mixed-use green neighborhood with a five-fold increase in density by 2050 while reducing carbon dioxide and water usage to pre-development levels, when the site was actually a forest. Pretty amazing targets, huh? Funny that Lloyd Crossing seemed to be nominated for pretty much every BEST Award a couple weeks ago and came up empty-handed, yet they still won the big AIA/COTE prize.

2050 is still 45 years away, but I hope the Lloyd District can grow denser a lot sooner than that. All those surface parking lots are a real blight. It’s been a shame to see good projects like Jeff Lamb’s Cascadian Condominiums unable to get off the ground there. Lloyd desperately needs more housing.

Although usually I try to favor Portland firms whenever possible, I have to say: Mithun is an excellent firm and I would be very happy to see them do more work in the city. Locally they’ve already designed the Belmont Dairy (GBD was the architect of record), Stephen Epler Hall at Portland State, a master plan for New Columbia, and some in-progress work at Concordia College. (I’m also hopelessly addicted to one small feature on their website: When you move your mouse over the firm’s logo, this weird female robotic voice says “Mithun” as many times as you desire.)

Another COTE Top Ten listing went to a new building at Evergreen State College in Olympia by Mahlum Architects, which has offices in both Seattle and Portland. The firm seems to have done a lot of work locally in Portland’s suburbs, particularly schools in Hillsboro, Beaverton and Forest Grove. They also did the Dr. Martens USA headquarters here in town, the photos of which look pretty cool. And Mahlum has been responsible for student housing at Portland State, Reed and Lewis & Clark. This is as best I can tell a pretty huge service firm, but one capable of nimble design and, obviously, a commitment to sustainability.

Congratulations to both firms.

A Third Angle on Portland Design

Yesterday I attended the Frozen Music concert by Third Angle New Music Ensemble, which included three different classical works performed in three different buildings. It was a fascinating and entertaining experiment and shed new light on the city.

First came a performance in the Hilton Hotel basement. At first I thought, "What's architecturally significant about this place?" But this portion of the show was all about virtual environments, with four huge floor-to-ceiling screens providing virtual reality accompaniment to the live music being played.

Next we walked to the Fox Tower lobby for a performance of modern classical music by John Cage, and then down Broadway to A.E. Doyle's US National Bank. The music sounded great, but I was as interested in the limitations as the strengths of the show.

While the music was being played at the Fox, there was a loud May Day parade going on outside, and the lobby's elevator doors were beeping as they opened. At the bank, you could hear busses going by. But rather than hindering the performance, these distractions seemed to actually enhance the show. It was as if not just one building was the stage for this music performance, but the whole city, with all its sounds like instruments in some overall urban symphony.

Kudos to Third Angle for not only their superlative musicianship, but also their willingness to experiment and take a risk like this. It's just what we could use in our architecture.

Redeveloping the Post Office

A Portland Tribune article last Friday about the Pearl District renewed a topic that was often bandied about while the Montreal Expos were considering Portland as their new home: redevelopment of the main post office. Back then the site was suggested for a baseball stadium for the team. Now that the Expos have relocated to Washington, DC, however, the coveting of this key parcel along Northwest Broadway hasn’t stopped.

The question of historic preservation is best determined on a case-by-case basis. Some buildings really need to be preserved and others, of lesser architectural heritage and distinction, don’t. If the US Postal Service is to acquiesce and move out of its headquarters, freeing up the building for redevelopment, it will be very interesting to see whether it is razed or preserved.

Midcentury modernism is only now being considered for widespread preservation. Until recent years many “modern” buildings weren’t old enough to need saving. The main post office would be an interesting test case.

In the right hands, I think this building could be given a dazzling new identity. But it’s not a great building now. If the letter carriers moved out and the site was redeveloped into condos or office space, would it be better to level the thing and start from scratch or hold onto the old building?

In that scenario, I’d like to see the post office preserved, but not in a rigid way that hinders it from being transformed. I see the roots of a great new-old modernist building here, but one that needs the vision of a talented architect.