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.

Comments

[Mike Thelin]

When will the Clinton be available?

[Randy Rapaport]

The Clinton is expected to be completed in the firt quarter of 2007.

[terri edwards]

Where can I see the rendering of The Clinton?

[Randy Rapaport]

A presentation of The Clinton will be given by the architect and developer for The HAND neighborhood group on Tuesday, August 2nd at 7 in the evening.

[Radcliffe Dacanay]

Will the meeting still be St. Philip Neri? Or will it be held elsewhere?

[Radcliffe Dacanay]

Will the meeting still be St. Philip Neri? Or will it be held elsewhere?

[Fran Drake]

I read the artice in the Oregonian and I hate what is being done to Portland with the modern condos. If you must build, then please make the buildings FIT IN with the Portland style....no Portlander likes the modern style....just maybe Californicators.....
I'm trying to buy a condo now, but will look for something that doesn't destroy Portland.

[Brian]

Fran, I have to thoroughly disagree. First of all, I don't think it's fair or accurate to lump all Portlanders together. Pretty much any legitimate architect or architectural enthusiast in the city I know agrees that the best buildings are of their time, not a caricature of old styles. Modern buildings actually honor older architecture BETTER than faux-historic buildings that mock "traditional" style. If you don't like contemporary, late-20th/early 21st century architecture, that's your right. But with all due respect, don't make sweeping generalizations that most of us don't support.

[Doug]

Modern buildings, by and large, do not honor the classical system of architecture built up over 200 years. There was a language of architecture, which wasn't just about details, but about proportion, about easily "readable" architecture (you could always tell where the front door was by the entablature surrounding it, the porches or porticoes, etc.) Moldings around windows, whether stone or wood, gave depth and solidity to the building. Yes, a floating glass box may be a novel thing to look at, but it is not a building that makes people feel good, or comfortable, or secure. Floor to ceiling glass in upper story rooms is scary. People who work in such spaces often cover the lower part, to relieve the feeling that they'll fall through the glass.

There are many examples of the impracticality, the arrogance, the faddishness of "modern" architecture. And I haven't even mentioned flat roofs!

Of course, the readers of this site are mostly self-selected fans of contemporary architecture, so generalizations about this group may not work, but the public at large does not seem to really prefer contemporary architecture, otherwise the "traditional" homes wouldn't sell so well. (Admittedly most are not done well. That doesn't mean all "classical" style architecture is bad. It's just that most don't have the training to do it right. And architects are not trained in classical architecture, either. They have to seek it out and learn from the old books and old buildings.

[Justin]

Umm... how does architecture of residential housing in portland reflect a connection to Oregon?

Back in the 1800's, if I'm not mistaken, most settlers just brought over from the East Coast the general building styles available at the time (or bought Sears kit homes straight from the factory!). There may have been some modification to make them more 'native' to Oregon, but they are a far cry from vernacular architecture in places like Greece, where the construction types & materials used are the result of centures of incremental development and actually respond to the environment.

The real vernacular architecture of Oregon - longhouses, for instance, of the Native Americans - was pretty much wiped out when we committed genocide against those people.

True, there is a lot of crappy architecture. But please, much of it is because lame developers buy pre-designed plans from a book that has no context whatsoever to the locality of where it ends up being built. What makes it worse is when people opt for 'architectural details' - like crown mouldings, trim, etc - without having a damn clue as to what it's for.

Why, for example, do townhouses need fake little columns on their porch?! Do you have any bloody idea why the ancient greeks pioneered the idea of the column? Didn't think so.

[Randy Rapaport]

I have no interest in historic design in architecture. We can no longer look to the past for answers.

Fresh, innovative design is much more interesting. My projects have large floor-to-ceiling windows to let in more light. Radiant floor heat because it is far superior to conventional HV/AC. I fight for high ceiling heights because most humans appreciate the spacousness.

We have an opportunity, here and now in Portland to do better work with regard to design and quality. And I am going all-out to express this intention on projects to come.

[Casey Hughes]

I agree with Randy 110% here. There is no value in copying styles of the past. We can learn from certain vernacular values, yet move on and improve on them. It is ridiculous to impose 'tradition' for the sake of making a bland box that keeps everyone happy. While Doug may think modernism is an arrogant fad- the fact that it has been around for 80+ years tells me that it is here to stay. Design and quality are not limited to any style, and since we are not in the 1800s any more, we should use the technologies available, and push forward to develop new ones.
That includes the flat roof- there's no reason it shouldn't be fully utilized. If it can work in Lake Tahoe, it works anywhere.

[Gabriel Bocanegra]

To the individual who wrote that modern architecture is destroying Portland, think again. If you consider the mindless and ghastly sprawl of Hillsboro or Beaverton then, yes, what is happening there is arguably destructive, from an aesthetic, civic, and environmental standpoint. Moreover (and speaking of Portland "proper"), if you consider the equally mindless architecture of developers seeking to please everyone with their faux craftsman bungalows, you are right once more. Why? This city has an incredible opportunity to be a mecca for architecture that is daring, innovative, sustainable, and yes, livable on a human scale. Its decaying housing infrastructure calls for no less. Please remember that us younger ones are stuck paying the steep price (emotional, environmental and financial) of having to inherit these tired, old, and (what's worse) shabby structures. If living like your grandmother is what you seek, so be it. But please do not criticize those of us who demand to define or redefine fresh environments/experiences for ourselves and the future (just as, in my opinion, our elders ill-defined them for us). It is high time for architectural reinvention in Portland.

[Gabriel Bocanegra]

"This city has an incredible opportunity to be a mecca for architecture that is daring, innovative, sustainable, and yes, livable on a human scale."

Beautiful and anti-nostalgic too.