Portland Architecture

Oh Planning + Design's OSU Energy Center

Oh Planning + Design of Portland and engineer Carter & Burgess of Los Angeles have collaborated on the new OSU Energy Center, a co-generation facility. The 25,000 square foot building will produce 7.5 megawatts of electrical power while heating the entire campus with steam. The building is targeted to achieve a ‘Platinum’ LEED rating.

The new Energy Center will provide lower operating costs, on-campus power generation, reduced use of fossil fuels and water consumption while providing facilities for sustainable/renewable energy research, demonstration and teaching. Phase 1 includes the construction of a new building with two boilers, to be operational by December 2007. Phase 2, will include installation of the cogeneration system and upgrade of the electrical distribution system to be completed by September 2008.

Sustainable strategies for the new building include rainwater harvesting, daylighting of plant and office space, passive ventilation, radiant heating and cooling, operable windows and automated light sensing and dimming. College of Engineering students will monitor the management of energy production through simulations, gather performance data that will be available remotely for modeling energy scenarios, and investigate test burns for new fuels.

Nice work !

USA Today Cover Story FeaturesPortland and South Waterfront

If you're looking for a sign that green building has gone mainstream, or that Portland is on the map as a leader in that movement, you'd be hard pressed to find a clearer sign than Wednesday's cover story in USA Today.

Two new residents at the Meriwether Condos (designed by Vancouver's Peter Busby and our very own GBD Architects) began the feature, which explores how a variety of increasingly larger-scale green buildings and multi-building developments from Portland to Chicago to New York and scores of places in between are securing LEED ratings and ratcheting up investments in energy efficient mechanical, recycled materials, low-VOC paints/finishes, and natural light.

Here are a few samplings:

Portland's $2.2 billion South Waterfront project, rising on a decaying industrial site south of downtown, signals a watershed in the green-building boom.

What has been a patchwork of green buildings in many cities is expanding to whole communities, whole neighborhoods. Portland, well known as an urban-design innovator, particularly for its transit-oriented developments, is leading the way again. The green ethic — energy-efficient, water-stingy buildings full of features that stress the natural over the chemical, the recycled over the new and the renewable over the finite — is firmly mainstream....

If you're not embracing green, you won't be at the table," says Homer Williams, one of South Waterfront's developers. "We do a lot of public-private work around the country, and it's the first question that comes up now."

Developers find that green technologies and construction materials add no more than 1%-2% to costs, a premium quickly recaptured by energy savings.

"Critics will say, 'Why should we pay upfront for these things?' " says Ethan Seltzer, director of the Toulan School of Urban Studies at Portland State University. "They'd also like to believe global warming doesn't exist."

Green building, he says, "is no longer confined to capital-intensive office towers. Green technology is to the point where these are valid questions for Home Depot shoppers."

To some, the article might seem a collection of boilerplate stuff we've heard about green building for years now. And here in Portland, we often have become mired in squabbles about tram funding or the width of the green way that the USA Today article doesn't even begin to touch upon. But I think the fact that South Waterfront and Portland were chosen as emblematic of the green building movement in such a widely read mainstream paper (if admittedly McDonald's-like in its bland everyman journalistic sensibility) is cause for a pat on the back. Congrats to all those who've had a hand in making it a reality.

Design Commission Delays Ladd Tower Ruling

On Thursday the Portland Design Commission addressed the proposed Ladd Tower that would replace the Rosefriend Apartments (or, as most at the hearing seemed to call it, "Rosefriends") at Broadway & Jefferson as well as the First Christian Church's annex building on the South Park Blocks. There were by my count about 60-75 people crammed into the small hearing room at the Bureau of Development Services to watch.

But the Design Commission wound up delaying its ruling until September 7, when commission will hear the project's request to shift FAR (floor-area-ratio) height restrictions within the overall block (all the same site) to the project as part of the Central City Master Plan Type II process. This is not a change in the comprehensive plan or Central City Design Guidelines, but a way to review and then permanently record the reduction of allowable FAR on relatively low rise parts of the block that could possibly be separated in different ownership.  As I understand it (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong), it's more common for applicants to seek design review and height-transfer approval at the same time, something the Ladd Tower team chose to do separately. But the Commission felt it couldn't rule on one issue without the other.

Nevertheless, the Design Commission went ahead with hearing architect Ankrom Moisan's presentation on how they'd changed their design since Design Advice Review earlier this year.

There was much discussion of the building at the base of the tower, which has a more traditional look than the modern, glassy tower above. That said, the architects have revised their original design, which some have described as "faux" historic, making it more streamlined and using a lighter 'shell stone' for the exterior.

The Design Commission also took comments from the public. Daniel Friedman called the Ladd Tower "grossly out of scale" for the Park Blocks. The president of the Downtown Neighborhood Association called it "totally incompatible."

For those interested in the fate of the Rosefriend Apartments or other aspects of the Ladd Tower project, the date to watch is September 7, when the Commission will re-examine the application.

Having attended the previous hearing, I confess that I found the whole thing pretty confusing with respect to zoning, height limitations and FAR. The Ladd Tower team believes they've done made some significant revisions in the design based on commissioner comments during the earlier DAR, and they've designed a building under the height limit. But I can't seem to tell if the Design Commission will agree, particularly about validity of the FAR transfer being requested. I think sometimes architects get frustrated when the rules of what's allowed and what isn't seem to change, as it did for the Alexan project. But whatever the city's process, these zoning and planning regulations are important tools for building the kind of city we want.

The Ladd Tower project is so many issues tied into one. It's the saving of the Ladd Carriage House, which is heroic and something to be thankful for. It's the demolition of the Rosefriend Apartments, a beautiful fabric building that even the developers and architects of the Ladd Tower admitted at the hearing they feel very bad to take down. It's also the question of what height we want to restrict buildings to along the Park Blocks.

Keep your dial tuned to this station for further announcements.

(Updated) Gerding/Edlen and Goodmans Plan Building for Popular Smart Park Site

In Wednesday’s Willamette Week, Nigel Janquiss reports that Gerding/Edlen Development and City Center Parking, the “powerhouse team” behind the coming 21-story tower at SW 12th & Washington, also are planning a building at the site of the Smart Park garage a few blocks away at 10th and Yamhill.

Janquiss’s article mined controversy where there doesn’t seem to be much: The Smart Park garage is the city’s second busiest, and during construction many will wind relegated to the more expensive private lot beneath the Fox Tower, the one being expanded underground underneath a new park on the Tom Moyer-owned surface parking lot between the Fox and the Guild Theater. But Janquiss also reports that a new public parking lot will probably go beneath the new building at 10th and Yamhill.

Meanwhile, the real question seems to be not parking but what will comprise the building and whom will design it. Gerding/Edlen has enjoyed a long collaboration with GBD Architects, and the two enjoy a collaborative relationship with contractors and engineers that has led to some very admirably sustainable projects. GBD could at the very least wind up architect-of-record here. The developer also may turn to Zimmer Gunsul Frasca, designer of its new tower. Or, perhaps Gerding/Edlen and the Goodmans (owner of City Center Parking and lots of downtown surface lots awaiting development) will branch out, calling upon the other numerous design talents in Portland and elsewhere.

Update -- July 26: Mark Edlen of Gerding/Edlen told me the following by email:

At this time we have simply responded to the RFQ or RFI that was put on the street.  We like the neighborhood a lot, we feel it ties into our Brewery Blocks and west end strategies exceedingly well, and we like the long term vision of a mixed use urban landscape for our central city and therefore we have expressed our interest.  We have concepts in our minds as to what could be accomplished there, however, it is really up to the city to determine how they would like to proceed and whether they have interest in working with us or others.  Regardless, we will do whatever we can to help make the project a success should it go forward because its success will be critical to all of us in the central city.

So from what Mark is saying, it sounds like the project may not be as far along in the process as I'd imagined reading the Willamette Week article. The project may also be affected by a re-look at the Central City Plan due to happen next year. Certainly it makes sense to get rid of the garage, however popular, and put a building there with parking underneath. (Cheap public parking strongly preferred.) Some significant height would really compliment the skyline, as would a real signature design. Hopefully those two things can be part of whatever Gerding/Edlen or another developer does on this site directly along the streetcar line, the MAX line, two blocks from Courthouse Square, and a block from Central Library. This is a very important block.

Friedman on the Ladd Tower

With the Design Commission set to look at the Ladd Tower today at 1:30 (1900 SW Fourth Avenue), I wanted to pass on this recent opinion article in the Portland Tribune by Daniel Friedman, a board member of the Downtown Neighborhood Association.

Friedman argues against the Ladd Tower for three basic reasons: that it's too tall for a front-row seat on the Park Blocks, that it would demolish the Rosefriend Apartments, and that this is a place for public buildings more than private residences. I agree with the first two, but disagree with the last. If you look at the Ladd Tower in comparison to neighboring buildings on the Park Blocks, it definitely seems like the tallest kid in the class sitting in the front row for a school picture. But I think we definitely need housing in the North Park Blocks area. The community's better for it.

Still, I think this quote from Friedman says it all:

Like many who believe the Ladd Tower is poorly suited to the South Park Blocks, I’m generally a strong supporter of high-rise development downtown. I’m a big fan of the new Eliot Tower, another John Carroll development just two blocks away. But picture the Eliot’s huge mass and height smack in the middle of the park blocks, with zero setback, and with three stories of ersatz-historical trim on the bottom, and you get the idea about what’s at stake.

Incidentally, so far on this blog the pro-Rosefriend, anti-Ladd Tower point of view has been one-sided. I want to make clear that Portland Architecture has tried to get comments from the First Christian Church, and from developers John Carroll and Opus NW. All have declined. But I will be visiting Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects in the days ahead to hear their side of things and get a better look at the Ladd Tower.

Potter, Sten and PDC Set Fire 1 Ablaze (Updated)

This morning's Oregonian headline reports: “Central Fire Station will not be relocated”.

This, in case you’re new to the discussion, was the relocation of Fire Station 1 from Ankeny Plaza to a few blocks north in Old Town. It was going to invigorate Ankeny Plaza with the opportunity for new housing and a public market on the site of a pretty ugly old fire station occupying prime riverfront land. There was also to be a Fire Bureau museum. In a post 9/11/01 world, I thought that was pretty cool.

There had been plenty of talk, of course, that budget problems were threatening the project, which Thomas Hacker Architects was designing after winning a city design competition. The budget, as today’s article by Anna Griffin reports, had risen from $22 million to about $30 million.

“In the past few weeks,” Griffin Continues, “Mayor Tom Potter, Commissioner Eric Sten and PDC executive director Bruce Warner and new PDC Chair Mark Rosenbaum met several times and opted to pull the plug. They wanted to avoid a public relations and fiscal debacle similar to the aerial tram connecting OHSU to the new South Waterfront neighborhood.”

This is a pragmatic decision that's unfaily influenced by the negative publicity surrounding the over-budget tram. I also see a short-term solution to a problem that needs a long-term view. I especially cringed after reading John Doussard, communications director for Mayor Potter, call this, "a great decision." Great? Even if you agree Fire 1 has to be killed because of the budget gap, the decision shouldn't be characterized as "great" but "with reluctance". What does this attitude say about the Mayor's commitment to architecture and urban planning in Portland?

The design competition that awarded Thomas Hacker Architects the job was extremely important as a demonstration on the part of the city that it’s committed to architectural excellence. They did a great job, attracting three very worthy finalists: Hacker, Allied Works, and an Emmons Architects/Hennebery Eddy partnership. This was important not just for Fire Station 1, but the precedent it would set. The City of Portland went two decades before holding a design competition after the bad feelings of Michael Graves’s Portland Building. This was going to be the clean slate that Portland architecture needed. Instead, they’ve made another blemish.

Certainly the budget gap is nothing to ignore. The city definitely had a problem on its hands after construction costs have risen and other factors contributed to the gap. But I still think there could have been some way to save the project. It's probably not fair for me to say this, but one of my first thoughts upon leaning of Fire 1's eradication was, 'Would Vera Katz have let this happen?'

Meanwhile, I encourage all who want (or wanted) the new Fire 1 to become a reality to make their voice heard, to give these leaders exactly the public relations fiasco they feared. Email Mayor Potter here, Eric Sten here, and PDC director Bruce Warner here. If others disagree, however—and I’m quite sure some of you will—thoughtful, civil articulations of such are, as always, welcome.

Looking ahead, we can expect the existing fire station on Naito to stay, with its back to Ankeny Plaza consisting of a walled-off parking lot. That will be something to address. And speaking of which, will Thomas Hacker Architects be designing the renovated station, or will a new RFP be issued? Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Thinking about Fire 1 a day later, two thoughts emerge. If the moving of Fire 1 to Old Town was going to free up the existing fire station on Naito Parkway and Ankeny Plaza to become a probable mixed-use housing tower, why couldn't some of the value of that deal go toward the construction of a new Fire 1 station and museum? Even if the current mechanism doesn't allow for that, the collapse of the project ought to inspire some new thinking. Seems like a private-public partnership would be needed to make this happen. What developer out there would pay a few million for the right to make many millions on this site?

Also, because a special component of the new Old Town Fire 1 station was to be a museum, it seems like we ought to be involving some nonprofit cultural organizations to partner in fundraising for the museum, which seems to have been draining funds for the overall project. Firefighters are heroes, particularly after 9/11/01. Shouldn't there be a lot of people out there in the private  who would be eager to help such a museum come to fruition?

Let's grant PDC, Commissioner Sten and Mayor Potter the acknowledgment that the project couldn't be funded under the present circumstances. But instead of just killing the project, why not show some leadership in finding new avenues to approach things?

Architectural Guidebook to Portland Author Seeks Input for Second Edition

Since it was first published in 2001, Bart King’s An Architectural Guidebook to Portland has proven an invaluable resource, cataloging most of the city’s most significant buildings and providing insightful, often entertaining commentary. Recently Portland Architecture was contacted by the author with news that a Second Edition is in the works.

Bart King is seeking input from readers and architectural enthusiasts in general on any changes and additions to the book.

Obviously a lot has happened since King’s book came out five years ago. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 caused all of us to, however temporarily, rethink the very existence of the modern skyscraper. Here in Portland, there are numerous buildings that have been erected since the First Edition of the Guidebook, particularly condos. Of these, I told Bart that I thought Holst's Belmont Lofts and the Zimmer Gunsul Frasa/Ankrom Moisan's Eliot Condos were particularly noteworthy. But there are non-condos of significance as well. For example, Thomas Hacker Architects has designed a string of beautiful libraries in Portland. I’d like to see the Woodstock and Hillsdale branches included—they’re both contemporary architectural jewels.

But the biggest and most significant development of the last five years, I’d say, would have to be the Brewery Blocks. We can debate the finer points of those five individual buildings—I really like the two ones fronting Burnside the best, for example, but am less fond of the Henry, and somewhat undecided about the Louisa—but Gerding/Edlen Development and GBD Architects were phenomenally successful in creating a vibrant urban place. Oh, and of course the Armory, currently being transformed into a theater for Portland Center Stage, should be in there as well.

That said, of course big projects have been going up ceaselessly in the Pearl and South Waterfront. What to include from here? None of the South Waterfront buildings are even finished, but I think the OHSU Center for Health & Healing (previously known as River Campus Building One) is very significant given its ultra high performance with respect to energy and other natural resource usage. (Disclosure: I did some paid writing about the project for one member of the building team.)

In the Pearl, from a design standpoint I think the two new parks there, Jamison Square and Tanner Springs, are the most noteworthy. But if someone wants to argue for new condos like The Pinnacle, The Metropolitan or some other structure there or on the boards, by all means speak up. IF there's an Achilles' heel to the Pearl, it's the fact that there are few buildings in this area that aren't condos. I can think of one wonderful exception that ought to be in the Guidebook, though, the newly remodeled Bridgeport brewery.

I'd also like to see some pages devoted to the best buildings here that never happened in Portland, or the ones that were supposed to be designed by a world-renowned architect but weren't. In the latter case, the Libertery Center office building near Lloyd Center comes to mind (originally to be designed by Cesar Pelli, ended up GBD) as does the Casey Eye Institute at OHSU (originally Richard Meier, eventually GBD again).

If there’s a building from the last five years you’d like to see in the book, or an older building you believe was improperly kept out of the previous addition, feel free to comment here or email the author. Mr. King has promised he will take reader suggestions into account. Meanwhile, look for the Second Edition of the Architectural Guidebook to Portland later this year from Oregon State University Press. (Go Ducks!)

Rob Bennett Brainstorms AboutPortland's Waterfront

Recently Portland Architecture received an email from Rob Bennett, who previously headed the Green Building Division of the city’s Office of Sustainable Development but is now living in Vancouver, BC doing similar work for that city. Despite being a couple hundred miles away, Rob has been brainstorming about Portland, and I wanted to pass on some of his thoughts.

Specifically, Rob suggests we take a fresh look at Waterfront Park and Eastbank, “particularly in light of PDC's work in the Ankeny area and Central Eastside and their URA [Urban Renewal Area] extensions.”

After living in Vancouver for the past 10 months, it is clear what an asset like the seawall and corresponding parks system provides this city's residents.  The key, of course, is all the dense housing that fronts the seawall. South Waterfront will be Portland's first foray into this, but how about Waterfront Park and the Esplanade?

As is well documented, Portland's waterfront park is an atrocious dead zone, designed for a handful of annual festivals a year. A new Waterfront Park design was adopted a couple years ago - what is happening with it? Has funding been identified? No one talks about it. How does the redesign of Naito impact the edge condition that disconnects buildings on the west from the park? How about a couple key areas where Naito Parkway could be tunneled for a couple blocks so that actual buildings front the park, providing more developable lots in downtown?

On the eastside, how is the Esplanade holding up, what are the use patterns, and how can it better connect to the water if ODOT [the Oregon Department of Transportation] were to sell land and activate the waterfront parcels under the highway? What is the status of moving the highway conversations? Can the Central Eastside ever be fully realized with that flipping highway running through it?

I love the idea of bringing focus back to this area - creating a downtown ring of amenities like play parks, perm music festival shell (a la Boston), water features, pedestrian bridge, restaurants, housing, etc. The Willamette between the steel and Ross Island bridges begs a radical visioning. I think Portlanders could get behind a bond measure to truly make it our living room.

Rob also has some ideas for the area around the Central Eastside Viaduct: turning the industrial area just south of OMSI "into a Granville Island [Vancouver] concept of light industry, artists retailers, artist live work.

Ross Island gravel will go eventually - what is the vision for that area? Portland could create a zoning and building code relaxation area so temporary building forms [could be allowed]: pallet construction, shipping containers, prefab. (How about a prefab factory?). Temporal building forms could support affordable housing and artist work spaces, temporary exhibits, etc.

Obviously Rob is throwing more questions than answers out there, and surely some will have knowledge of practical roadblocks getting in the way of some of these ideas. But I like the fact that Rob is throwing ideas out there. It's a healthy contribution to larger dialog. Much as we'd love to have him back in Portland, it seems a little outside perspective is helpful.

And if anyone else would like to submit some ideas for future posts, Portland Architecture is happy to oblige.

City Land Use Manager Jeff Joslin Says Apple Store Not Dead

Yesterday Portland Architecture spoke by phone with Jeff Joslin, who as Land Use Manager administers urban design, design review, and historic landmarks programs for the city.

Here’s what Joslin had to say about the proposed Apple store on Northwest 23rd Avenue:

"The proposal has not been retracted by Apple. In our view the land use review is still alive. We are hopeful that we are in an active dialog in hopes that we will have such a store in Portland, if not there than elsewhere. "

"In my view, the requests offered by the Historic Landmarks Commission hopefully were not fatal. There was a specific request that certain areas be considered for modification that weave it a little more into the neighborhood fabric, both for character and for pedestrians. But it was not a fundamental criticism of the project."

"There’s been a lot of talk of the commissions saying modern architecture is not acceptable in a historic neighborhood. That’s not the message that I believe was delivered by the commission. We’re aware that Apple cares deeply about its projects from a design standpoint, but there have been similar kinds of concerns with Apple stores in other cities. In Boston during a similar kind of discussion, Apple came back with a number of design alternatives. There’s a precedent of them adapting to the specific environment, and we hope some of that same creativity and flexibility is applied to this project. We think we can get there."

This seems like a surprisingly encouraging sign for the fate of the Apple store on 23rd. I still think it's exceptionally discouraging that Apple wouldn't be able to use the metal cladding that had planned, and I think conceptually that decision was a wrong one. It's a modern building and that material needn't have been considered a threat to the surrounding historic urban fabric - especially, as many have pointed out, since there are plenty of structures on 23rd already that aren't really the least bit historically significant.

At the same time, though, I do believe there is a legitimate role for such design commissions to play in assuring a cohesiveness for such a neighborhood. You shouldn't be able to build just anything, at least not here. With those two conflicting opinions, allowing for modernism while accommodating projects thoughtfully into historic urban fabrics, it then becomes a matter of degrees and nuances, and something that gets evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I think Apple is the world's leader when it comes to corporations with an ingrained sense of design acumen, and that should give the company--not to mention its superb local architect, Holst--the benefit of the doubt with the city. Still, even if they get it wrong now and then, I'm very happy design review is here. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Ladd Tower, Replacement for Rosefriend, Goes To Design Commission For Approval (or Denial)

On Thursday at 1:30, the City of Portland’s Design Commission will hold a hearing on the Ladd Tower, the proposed 21-story, half-block tower that would replace the Rosefriend Apartments as well as the First Christian Church’s annex building on the South Park Blocks. The site is owned by the church and the tower is being developed by John Carroll and Opus NW with design by Ankrom Moisan.

Although previous posts have focused almost exclusively on the Rosefriend Apartments and the church’s plan to demolish the historic building, the Ladd Tower is also important in its own right, particularly considering a code dilemma that could affect the Rosefriend as well as future Park Blocks development.

As I understand it, the Downtown Neighborhood Association is arguing that a sub-section of the code—a map, actually—calls for buildings along the North Park Blocks to be restricted to a 100-foot maximum building height. The main portion of the code, however, has a 200-foot height limit. The proposed Ladd Tower is 200 feet tall. If the Downtown Neighborhood Association is right, there could be a legal battle brewing. And that’s good news for supporters of the Rosefriend Apartments, because if the Design Commission holds up the 100-foot limit, it could delay the Ladd Tower’s construction even if the 200-foot stricture eventually wins out.

Of course, even aside from the fate of the historic Rosefriend and the question of what the code really stipulates, we need to ask ourselves if a 200-foot building is appropriate for the Park Blocks. The Ladd Tower would be much taller than the other buildings directly facing the park. If it were to be built, would the Ladd simply represent changing times—an increase in density happening throughout the metro area that we need to adjust our codes for—or would it create a new battleground on the Park Blocks over height? Certainly the larger picture of Metro’s 2040 Plan for high-density living comes into play, but so does the sanctity of the Park Blocks as public space.

The Design Commission hearing is open to the public and allows public testimony. It will be held in Room 2500A at 1900 SW Fourth Avenue. Although it’s the Ladd Tower being debated and not the Rosefriend, this seems like an ideal opportunity for Rosefriend supporters to be heard. For it’s the massive, four-story underground parking garage that’s part of the Ladd Tower plan that is potentially going to get the Rosefriend demolished.

The project’s owner, First Christian Church, definitely needs parking, a long-term revenue stream, and new facilities—all of which the Ladd Tower could provide. But this scenario is not the only one that could meet their needs. The best way to save the Rosefriend, even if the Ladd Tower is rejected in its current form by the Design Commission, is to find a solution that works for everyone. I’ve proposed that the Rosefriend be renevated into condos and a smaller quarter-block tower be built on the current church annex building site, with the two buildings meeting the church’s revenue needs while also providing new facilities. A more compact garage could be built beneath the quarter-block tower (using something other than the standard long ramp that requires the half-block), or the revenue from the two condo buildings could be used to purchase parking for members elsewhere.

I plan to attend the Design Commission hearing and encourage all other interested parties to do the same.

Hennebery Eddy’s HQ for Lorentz Bruun

Last week I took a tour of the new offices of Lorentz Bruun Construction, designed by Hennebery Eddy Architects, whose portfolio also includes the beautiful Loyola Jesuit Center and, in a co-design with Emmons Architects, a very cool finalist entry for Fire Station #1.

Why was I touring a construction company’s headquarters? The reputation of the architect was part of it, as was the photos I saw. But I was also instantly attracted to the site. It’s a small, triangular-shaped track along the Brooklyn rail yards just east of Southeast Powell, near 20th Street. As a result, it’s got a terrific view of the trains going by. Standing on a rooftop deck there, I recalled my long-ago electric train set.

The new headquarters is actually across the street from Lorentz Bruun headquarters, so it’s a property I’m told the company (which specializes in industrial construction) eyed and held on to for awhile.

The building, like its site, is shaped like a right triangle, two smaller sides forming a corner—where the entrance is—and the longer third side (also known as a hypotenuse, as I remember from 10th grade geometry class) faces three or four train tracks. I can personally vouch for the rooftop garden having a superb view of the Brooklyn yards: a picture postcard of Portland’s gritty industrial spine. Funnily, the kitchen of the rooftop garden had a sign that said, “Player’s Lounge”. I half expected Telly Savalis to appear in a tuxedo, reaching for one of the scores of Coors Light and Diet Coke cans in the fridge. (The rooftop garden recently hosted an event for the Architectural Foundation of Oregon.)

At the corner is a multi-story glass portion that acts as an open atrium—wait, is it still an atrium if it’s open but not in the middle? The only downside is that the first floor is covered, with the open atrium extending from the second floor upward. Too bad they couldn’t have gone without that ceiling, but it probably has to do with some code or other regulation I’m not aware of. Still, overall it’s a great piece.

The building is then broken up on the exterior with aluminum panel contrasted against CMU block (basically concrete), the latter of which, along with the glass corner, add visually a vertical emphasis to the forms. A canopy over the entrance and a series of sun shades on the window provide a series of horizontal planes intersecting with the concrete center. It’s also an appropriately industrial palette given not only the rail yards but the surrounding industrially zoned neighborhood.

Similarly, the interior has polished concrete floors and exposed ductwork, which is jazzed up using some touches of wood and glass. Given the thinness of most of the building and the corner atrium, there’s also an ample amount of natural light.

Congrats to Hennebery Eddy and Lorentz Bruun on a nice project.

AIA Historic Resources Committee Chair Philip Stewart on the 23rd Avenue Apple Store

Yesterday I spoke with Philip Stewart, chair of the Historic Resources Committee for the AIA/Portland chapter and an architect with Myhre Group, about the ill-fated Apple store on Northwest 23rd Avenue.

Stewart told me that the Apple store represents one of the only cases in recent memory where the city’s Historical Landmarks Commission did not follow the recommendation of the AIA Historic Resources Committee. He also provided Portland Architecture with a copy of the support letter written in May. Here’s some of that text:

The commercial streets of NW 23rd and NW 21st bisect the district and contain buildings from a wide array of time periods.  Generally, these two streets are pedestrian-friendly and contain an eclectic mix of evolving retail, office, and institutional buildings.  This existing condition echoes the intent of the Historic Alphabet District’s first Design Guideline, which states that 'most properties change over time.'

The proposed building will be replacing a structure that is lacking a pedestrian connection to the street and is out of scale within its context.  While the new building will be contemporary in design, the structure’s scale is in keeping with its commercial and residential context in terms of overall massing, height of storefronts, and height of parapets. The HRC believes that the design is a correct interpretation of the Historic Alphabet District’s second Design Guideline, which encourages designers to 'differentiate between old and new.'

Designing structures that aesthetically compliment historic neighbors can contribute significantly to the neighborhood’s vibrancy – new development can create momentum for well-designed future growth…Here, the Historic Alphabet District’s third Design Guideline is met, part of which states that 'new development will seek to incorporate design themes characteristic of similar buildings in the Historic Alphabet District.'

The HRC, therefore, supports the insertion of this new retail building onto the southwest corner of NW 23rd and NW Glisan because the architecture is appropriate to the stylistically diverse neighborhood, and it meets all three design guidelines for the Historic Alphabet District.

At the same time, Stewart says blame for the project’s dissolution should not lie solely with the city’s Historical Landmarks Commission. After attending the last HLC hearing on the Apple store, he says what the Commission was asking for could easily have been accomplished without fundamentally compromising the architecture.

The Landmarks Commission was most concerned that there weren’t any awnings on building. That sounds trivial but isn’t. What they’re saying is the reason they didn’t support the design is it wasn’t ‘Portland enough’. When it rains and drizzles a lot, you need a protective entry. That’s not a major design thing. On a modern building like that you can put a modern canopy that still looks modern. It’s just a basic retail tool.

The other major thing was they thought there should be more windows on the Glisan side. I don’t really think the commission was opposed to the design. They were looking for something that expressed a little more of a Portland look. This is the same prototype that they build in Chicago and elsewhere. It’s not the metal façade, but otherwise it’s basically like what they’ve built in other places too.

Based on Stewart’s take, it’s fair to ask if the brouhaha over the project’s dissolution is based more on symbolic battles of historic versus modern than real ones. At the same time, it’s still an open question of whether the Commission dropped the ball on this one.

The Continuing Rosefriend Saga

Since writing posts on June 19 and 22 about the Rosefriend Apartments, the beautiful brick building on Broadway that’s slated to be demolished by the First Christian Church, Portland Architecture has received numerous emails about the project.

Some have argued that we should forget the Rosefriend, because short of the owner changing its mind, there’s little that can be done before the wrecking ball moves in. Instead, many feel, it’s important to use the Rosefriend’s fate as a wake-up call to affect the system. Among the suggestions are waiting periods before buildings more than 50 years old can be destroyed, and a survey of other historic downtown buildings that may be targeted for destruction.

At the same time, many have emailed to say that so long as the Rosefriend Apartments stands, supporters of its preservation should not give up the fight. Whether it’s picket signs outside, letters and emails to First Christian’s leadership and/or congregation, many aren’t willing to give up until the demolition crew carries out its task.

Either way, I don’t see the harm in some brainstorming.

If you’re one of those who wants to keep trying to save the Rosefriend itself, I think the question becomes this: What can be offered as an alternative? The impetus for the entire project—the half block tower, the leveling of the Rosefriend—is parking. The church wants affordable, reliable parking for its congregation. Who out there reading this can offer a different solution?

Just as an example, I know that the Goodman family owns numerous parking facilities in the downtown area within walking distance of the church. Can they or another parking business offer the church some slots on Sunday mornings? There are also two surface parking lots within a block of the church on Broadway, the first where the former Chevron station was, the other across from Higgins beside the University Club.

As part of a scenario to locate parking somewhere else, I think the church could still build a quarter-block tower on the site of the church annex building. This would create some capital that would allow the church to secure parking elsewhere.

Along with parking, the church needs a long-term source of revenue. But I think they're destroying a big revenue source they already have: the Rosefriend itself. Why not renovate the building and turn it into condos? I know there are some who have joined in the groundswell of support for the Rosefriend's saving based on the fact that that they affordable housing, and I agree that it's vital we maintain an adequate level of affordable housing in the city. But it's the architecture of the Rosefriend that is one-of-a-kind. Technically affordable housing could happen on another block. If the only way to save the Rosefriend is to turn it into half-million-dollar residential units, I say that's better than letting the building be destroyed.

So picture if you will: the Rosefriend Condominiums. The church spends part of the money they were going to spend on the Ladd Tower on renovating the Rosefriend, and makes a handsome profit on their new condos, situated right on Broadway just a couple blocks from the Schnitzer concert hall, PCPA, and the Portland Art Museum, with the North Park Blocks as your backyard. If people will pay many hundreds of thousands or even millions to live in a mildly pleasant new building in a Pearl District neighborhood still in its infancy, why wound't they pay even more to live here?

At the same time, the project could include demolition of the ugly church annex building and turn that into a quarter-blog sized tower. And you could possibly still fit parking underneath. Most underground garages have long ramps and tons of spaces, but increasingly options exist for more compact ones, either with a lift system, a winding ramp, or just fewer spaces. Admittedly it'd cost more, but they'd be gaining all the presumed profits from the Rosefriend Condominiums, as well as from the units in the quarter-block tower. Currently the Ladd Tower, which is proposed for this site, has a base with a neo-historic style, designed that way by Ankrom Moisan at the request of co-developer John Carroll.

If, however, you believe it’s time to let the Rosefriend die its prescribed death and instead move on to using this tragedy to impact system changes, what shall they be? What are some concrete steps (pardon the pun) that we can take to make sure the next Rosefriend isn’t so shamefully destroyed?

Either way, I think this is a conversation that needs to continue.

The Vision Vessel

I've been meaning to write about this for the last week and got sidetracked. But last Friday I went to a media event at the Ecotrust building in which Mayor Potter was introduced to the "Vision Vessel", a portable device for recording citizen comments about Portland that was created in anticipation of the mayor's citywide visioning project.

Commissioned by the local nonprofit Public Media Works, the Vision Vessel consists of an Apple computer mounted on a pedestal that's surrounded by a scrum, or curtain, onto which text about Portland's history is printed. The idea is that one steps into the Vision Vessel like one would a voting booth, with the curtain both practically and symbolically conveying a private exercise of public expression. The overall structure was designed by three young architects - Ryan Lingard, Brad Demby and Larry Gregg (I apologize in advance for any spelling errors) - who work at BOORA but did this project in their spare time.

I really like what the Vision Vessel's creators (both theoretical and technical) have done. This is a delightfully modest little project with ambition. Not only is it technology being used for tangible community good, but it's also got some subtle design qualities achieved frugally. For example, the winding circular shape of the curtain resembles that of a classical garden labyrinth, which symbolizes the journey to God or, if one prefers, spirituality. Sure, it's just a damn winding curtain, but one with a heritage.

Potter seemed to love the Vision Vessel, which is no surprise considering this whole visioning project is the mayor's baby. What I hope Mr. Potter also realizes is that the Vision Vessel is a testament to the role of good design in the civic arena and its processes. In other words, designers should play a role in city visioning that goes far beyond the Vision Vessel.

Based on what the mayor told me in a brief interview next to the Vessel, there's reason to be encouraged, even considering the attendant skepticism one applies to a politician on message. "Design is important," Potter said. "It's how you reach people. I'm a strong believer in intentional communities, and that's where they come in: translating the vision from where we are into the future."

I was tempted to challenge the mayor to resurrect the Mayor's Design Initiative started by his predecessor, Vera Katz. But at that moment, with Potter making a positive gesture towards a design community I worried he didn't appreciate enough, it seemed like another discussion for another day. Meanwhile, a round of applause to those powering the little Vessel that could.

Landmarks Commission Bites Apple -Should We Bite Back?

In April I wrote about how a proposed Apple Computer store on NW 23rd Avenue had seen its plans significantly altered by the Historic Landmarks Commission. A stainless steel facade had to be changed to stone. The logo had to go. And so on. The point of the previous post was to raise concern about how the Landmarks Commission may be over-stepping its bounds, judging a work of modern architecture that seems to have little to do with historic buildings. Moreover, I argued against the larger principle that modern buildings can't complement different older architecture. In fact, I think it's the juxtaposition of two different forms, each true to its era and aesthetics, that makes a neighborhood and a city all the richer.

Now an update: If you haven't already heard, the project is now dead. Even after Apple and its local architect, Holst, agreed to the Landmarks Commission's changes, the commission as I understand it, still told Apple that more significant changes were needed. So Apple pulled out of the deal.

Certainly there will be those who read this and feel compelled to defend either the Landmarks Commission specifically or the values behind their decision. That's fine. But I don't think I'm the only one that feels the commission is way off base here.

In an interview published in Friday's Daily Journal of Commerce, Belmont Lofts developer Randy Rapaport came down strongly against the commission:

"We have a real problem in Portland...The mayor should immediately do two things. First, appoint a committee through one of the commissioners to do an application process so that professors of urban studies, professors of architecture, the finest architects in the region, can put their resumes in to quickly reformulate the commission. Potter should set up a quick application process - members on the commission currently can reapply - and there should be a refreshment of that board immediately."

Just so we're clear, here's how the City of Portland's Office of Neighborhood Involvement defines the task of the Commisison on its website:

The Historical Landmarks Commission provides leadership and expertise on maintaining and enhancing Portland's historic and architectural heritage.  The Commission identifies and protects buildings and other properties that have historic or cultural significance or special architectural merit. The Commission provides advice on historic preservation matters, and coordinates historic preservation programs in the City.  The Commission is also actively involved in the development of design guidelines for historic design districts.

The Historic Landmarks Commission consists of eight members, none of whom may hold public elective office.  The Commission must include a member of the Planning Commission; a historian with knowledge of local history; anarchitectural historian; an architect; two members from the following: landscape architecture, real estate, construction, community development, urban planning, archeology, law, finance, cultural geography, cultural anthropology, or related disciplines; and two members at-large.  All members must have demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge of historic preservation.  No more than two members of the Commission may be in the business of buying, selling, leasing, or developing real estate for profit, or be officers of such a business.  The Planning Commission member is chosen by the Planning Commission chair.  The other members are appointed by theMayor and confirmed by the City Council.

I don't see anything there about delivering verdicts on new buildings. There is mention of weighing in on design guidelines for historic districts, and the Apple store would have been located in one. But guidelines are different from rendering verdicts on actual cases. Somebody want to enlighten us on how the commission came to be telling Apple how to build its store?

The AIA's Center For Architecture

On Friday the American Institute of Architects/Portland Chapter, my former employer as well as ongoing sponsor of this site, announced it is moving. The chapter will vacate its downtown office and gallery at 315 SW Fourth Avenue (between Stark and Oak), where it has been since 1992, and move into a new Center For Architecture in the Pearl District at 403 NW 11th Avenue, the former S.K. Josefsberg gallery.

“In addition,” says the press release, “the 5,000 square-foot red brick building will provide space for art and design exhibits, conferences, receptions, lectures, and AIA programs for the architectural community and the public.” It will “be a center of knowledge and debate, serve as a resource for the public to gain information about architects and Portland architecture, and provide an on-going demonstration space for sustainable strategies, environmental design, and energy-efficient building methods.”

This month AIA will be holding two charettes to gather input and suggestions from AIA members and others in the building and design community. The first is an eco-charrette on Thursday, July 20, and the second is a design charette on July 27.  Ideas being explored include rainwater harvesting, daylighting, photovoltaic solar collectors and more. Construction will begin in the fall with completion slated for next spring in conjunction with the nationwide celebrations for the American Institute of Architects’ 150th anniversary.

What most excites is that the new space will transcend being a chapter office and come to stand as a home base for architecture in the city. The role of design is one that has to be constantly proselytized, and I like thinking of a more prominent headquarters helping in that fight. What’s more, the AIA’s gallery can have much greater access to the stream of art patrons in this gallery-heavy area. Good going to all those involved who have made it happen.