Portland Architecture

Email From A Frustrated Architect

A few weeks ago I wrote about the small Portland firm William Kaven Architecture and its various housing projects. This week I received a follow-up email from co-principal Daniel Kaven expressing some major frustration at the apparently lengthy process of making his firm’s latest design, a multi-family project in North Portland called the North House, a reality.

The City of Portland actually recently approved the Kaven design on North Albina Vancouver (sorry, I originally wrote the incorrect street - it's in the Albina neighborhood), but it has been appealed by a neighbor near the property. "The proposed development is in a residential zone and therefore should be designed to enhance these existing and predominant features," the appeal argues. "The design is not compatible with the existing structures and neighborhood."

A design review commission hearing this Thursday, August 2 (1900 SW Fourth Ave., Room 2500A) will allow public testimony, and the architects asked me to appeal to the design community to come and support their efforts. It’s not just about the North House, Daniel argues, but the ability of contemporary architecture to get approved in a timely fashion that doesn't let good projects die on the vine.

“The City of Portland has made it excruciatingly difficult to make the most simple changes to its own community-design standards,” he goes on. “I have been sucked into the BDS [Bureau of Development Services] bureaucracy for months now based solely on my attempt to have flat roofs, which exist in order to have more urban space and foster green roof development.”

“The manner in which the City of Portland and neighbors can hold your design hostage has really gotten out of control.  There needs to be major changes in the "community design standards" in order to accommodate modern design. Modern housing, which might only slightly deviate from the standards, is slathered in red tape, while awful track housing still gets the green light.”

I present Daniel’s experience not as gospel, because to be honest I hear varying things about city design review and have never been through this process myself. Anyone I’ve ever talked to at the City seems pretty reasonable about crafting a balance between unchecked design freedom and rigid guidelines. But proof is in the project, of course. What do other architects and developers trying to generate contemporary urban infill projects in historic neighborhoods have to say about their experiences?

It seems tempting to cast this, as Daniel has, as evidence of civic growing pains, wherein residents who love their Craftsman bungalows, Tudors and other pitched-roof single family homes see the arrival of contemporary architecture as out of character. I and many others have argued that, done properly, modern buildings and homes fit in easily with historic styles, and the diversity enriches the entire neighborhood. However, with any project there can be a lot of subtle but important details regarding scale and material that can and should be worked out in order to help a modern structure fit into a more historic context or accentuate the pedestrian experience. One of the appeal's other complaints other than the contemporary style had to do with public access and pedestrian integration, which I think may have been better served as a stand-alone argument rather than this "the world is flat" mentality about the place of contemporary architecture.

The city may have certain legitimate concerns about certain details regarding the North House they want to take time to resolve, and quite often the timetables of public and private concerns can be different ones - like two cars on the freeway who belong in the far-left and far-right lanes but have to somehow ride together. But I know William Kaven is not the only architecture firm to express frustration about red-tape. The very term "red tape" is a cliche, after all, because so many people have reached for such shorthand terms over time for government slowness and time-wasting. Does the BDS need more resources to do its job, or are these architects just Kaven to the pressure?

Willamette River As Mass-Transit Mode

In Monday's Oregonian, an op-ed by developer Peter Wilcox asks us to imagine, "What would Portland look like like if we made the incredible Willamette River our most visible and sustainable public transportation mode?"

"Creating a public-private system like the streetcar's," Wilcox goes on, "requires only that the city set standards for docks, begin including sustainable river transit in political visions and plans, and agree on ways to go after the same available dock and shore-side facility funds that other cities are using. Given at least 10,000 years of river transport in the Northwest--certainly the first public transit in Portland--we deserve a web of transportation that includes green river transit as well."

Personally, I see no reason other than sentimentality to employ revved-up river transit simply because it hearkens back to the days of Fort Clatsop as our biggest Regional Transit Center. But at the very least it's an irresistibly intriguing question. In a literal sense, what might constitute a river-based means of transporting large numbers of people?

I suppose it could be ferries of some sort, like the one that goes between Manhattan and the Isle of Staten. That's basically what Wilcox calls for, citing a feasibility study commissioned by the Portland Office of Transportation). But aren't also there some more creative ideas out there? I'm not saying we need to make the Rose City something out of The Jetsons -- although I bet the namesake family's "Skypad Apartments" complex might go over well in certain higher density neighborhoods here. (Or failing that, certainly Seattle.) Still, are there ways in which we could better utilize the river without negatively impacting it from an environmental standpoint?

And most importantly at all, can this all be done without making the bridges go up any more than they already do?

A Different Breed of Street Musicians

This Thursday evening from 5-10PM, the Bus Mall on NW Fifth between Burnside and Glisan will turn into a free concert space. Exploring the relationship between architecture and music, the Music Population Project (MPP) orchestra is presenting an ongoing international concert series called “Can You Hear It?”

The orchestra seeks to, in the words of the press release, challenge “the passive relationship many have with architecture and music,” by playing in prominent ‘city rooms’ throughout Portland. On July 21, the MPP played in South Waterfront. Yesterday they played outside Bridgeport Village (apparently their definition of ‘city’ is a loose one). Their final show will be this one on the Bus Mall.

The intent of the “Can You Hear It?” concert series, which includes performances in Oslo, Norway in addition to Portland is encourage dialogs not just about music, but also the role that architecture plays in our society. "I think we use and surround ourselves with architecture without really considering or thinking about the structures that become the canvas for our society," explains MPP founder Brede Rørstad.

Unfortunately I’m posting this too late for the Bridgeport Village concert, but it might be great fun seeing a chamber music concert on the under-construction MAX tracks. Or at least it might be a step up artistically from the usual amateur musicians playing for a handout.

Come to think of it, I just had an idea – or remembered one somebody else had. What if some cultural organization such as RACC or the Oregon Cultural Trust started handing out grants to applying musicians to serenade the city? It’d be a great way to encourage and support artists, and might help create a nicer environment in the urban core.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Streetcars

It's been a few days, but I wanted to touch on Commissioner Sam Adams' speech last week at the City Club calling for a web of streetcar lines across Portland.

The thing I wanted to say was this: Bravo! Woo-hoo! "Flip" yeah!

Sure, it'll be expensive. Portland will have to be as creative about paying for streetcar lines as planning and executing the lines themselves. But as Adams asserted in his City Club speech, this isn't just Portland's future - it's also Portland's past. There used to be a hundred miles of streetcar tracks in Portland, many of which can still be seen in places like the Central Eastside. That was before General Motors and other American automobile companies conspired to purchase and remove the streetcar lines covering most US cities through the early part of the 20th Century.

"What would Portland look like if we implemented solutions to global warming and peak oil?" Adams asked the audience. "It would look a lot like Portland circa 1920, a time when the main means of motion were your feet, streetcars and bikes."

It'll take 30 years, experts say, but I hope I live long enough to see streetcar lines along Hawthorne (my 'hood so I'm biased), Killingsworth, Sandy, Powell and Lombard. (Notice I mentioned all streets east of the Willamette, by the way - the west side has received all the initial streetcars. It's our turn!)

There are also skeptics who say there's nothing an expensive streetcar line can do transportation-wise that a bus can't. I'm not an expert on delineating those differences, other than the streetcar as a proven development tool. But they are different, and somehow rail transit makes for a much better urban environment. And that's what this is all about, right?

One other tidbit about the streetcar from is also worth mentioning. The easiest streetcar line to enact would be to Lake Oswego, since the line is already there in essence for the Willamette Shore Trolley. Just put the cars on the tracks and you're mostly done. But there's whispering that the affluent residents of tony Dunthorpe don't like that noisy streetcar going by, able to transport riffraff past their doors so easily. I remember hearing of something very similar about 15 years ago when I lived in Washington, DC. The DC metro subway line extended throughout the city, except for one place: Georgetown, where power-broker residents kept a stop from being built. Too easy to get there from poor, African-American neighborhoods like Anacostia, they figured. Will Dunthorpe show similarly despicable opposition?

Meanwhile, although every politician and elected official proposes some ideas one supports, and others one doesn't, for what it's worth I'd like to express my unequivocal enthusiasm and support for a network of streetcars in Portland.

Commissioner Sam Adams will lead a free public event to brainstorm future streetcar routes and discuss streetcar system planning. When: 9 a.m. to noon, July 28 Where: Portland State University, Smith Center Ballroom, 1825 S.W. Broadway

City Announces Design Competition for Courtyard Housing

The City of Portland has put together a new design competition to generate ideas and encourage construction of housing oriented to shared courtyards. Courtyard housing is seen as an additional infill housing type that can provide a quality living environment at densities higher than conventional detached housing.

The competition, organizers say, seeks solutions to several key challenges: creating housing that’s an attractive option for families with children; providing usable outdoor that doubles as sustainable greenspace and setting for community interaction. Designs also need to respect privacy concerns, yet explore multi-use possibilities such as pedestrian-oriented spaces that can also accommodating cars?

And as with many types of housing that are oriented inward—in this case around a courtyard—designers also need to find ways to encourage and enhance a relationship with the surrounding street, neighborhood and city.

The competition has two submission categories based on two types of infill site opportunities common in different parts of Portland. First is the ‘Inner Portland Infill Site’: 100 feet wide and deep with 4-10 units oriented to a shared courtyard with one parking space per unit. Another option is the ‘East Portland Infill Site’, a little larger at 95 feet wide by 180 feet deep and 7-17 units. The courtyards themselves may be pedestrian-only or mixed pedestrian/vehicular courtyards.

My pal Eric Engstrom is a planner for the City, and I'd actually heard from him about this competition awhile back. Last year Eric and I were in London at the same time, and I remember him excitedly always taking camera-phone photos of curb cuts, tree-placing patterns, parking-pedestrian options, and other small urban ephemera his planner-radar was fine-tuned to pickup. Even aside from my connection with Eric, I'm really excited to see the City holding another design competition. After the sad abandonment of the Fire Station 1 competition, and the media uproar over tram costs following that competition, it's very important Portland keep committed to this means of generating better design ideas that lead to better projects.

There's also an impressive jury assembled for this competition, including Dwell magazine editor Sam Grawe; Robertson Merryman Barnes principal and recent AIA/Portland president Nancy Merryman; Miller Hull (Seattle) founding principal David Miller; and author Claire Marcus, who co-wrote the book "Housing As If People Mattered: Design Guidelines For Urban Open Spaces" and teaches landscape architecture at Cal-Berkeley (the superb school whose football team will inevitably fall to the mighty Ducks this year).

Submittals are due October 24, winners chosen November 14 and an awards reception December 14. Ladies and gentlemen, start your CAD programs!

Co-Ho In No-Po: The Encouraging Trend of Tenant-Driven Mutlifamily Housing

Recently a Portland Architecture reader sent notice of a new co-housing project in the Overlook neighborhood just west of Interstate Avenue in North Portland.

The project is called Daybreak and endeavors to create a space not just for multifamily housing, but a strong community to go with it. That's what co-housing is all about, with private dwellings giving way to large common areas for both children and adults. The other strong guiding principle (besides sustainability - a core component in Daybreak) is that residents take a participatory role in the design.

Daybreak is designed by Schemata Workshop, a small Seattle firm and (as its site defines it) architectural collaborative. Local partners like planner extraordinaire Marcy McInnelly of Urbsworks (and SERA Architects more recently), engineering giant Arup, and local landscape architect Lando and Associates. (So that's what Mr. Calrissian did after the Empire was destroyed.)

  "Our primary development goal is to execute our community vision and represent our values where appropriate in our physical space," the Daybreak website explains. "We are striving to create a physical environment that enhances our experience of community. We wish to live in a place that values multi-generational living, namely, being kid and aging-in-place friendly. We wish to incorporate sustainable materials and systems to the extent our budget allows. We are working to integrate with and welcome our neighbors to our community through our design."

The enclosed exterior rendering of the project doesn't seem too impressive architecturally in my mind, kind of like an old motor hotel. The architects also caution that this isn't the final design. But actually, motor hotels are a long tradition on Interstate, so perhaps that's somewhat intentional. Even so, I think what's more crucial to understand here is that this is not design intended to be flashy or win awards. Instead, it's pragmatic creation of community, a gathering of people who want to know their neighbors and live in a high-density environment that still is choc full of families and elderly as well as young singles and affluent retirees. Even if the final design never really floats our collective boat, it's hard to argue with what Daybreak's set of values and motivations.

I think there's a lesson in Daybreak, too. A smaller-scale condominium project, not a Pearl or South Waterfront tower but one of two or three stories in an existing neighborhood, often only consists of a couple dozen tenants. What if more groups of these people, these interested condo-buyers, got together and acted as developers for themselves? Why must almost all multi-family housing projects be conceived by those who will only turn around and sell the building for a profit? I'd like to see more groups of motivated buyers join together and, with the architect's help, make buildings for themselves.

My Ikea Trap

In today's Oregonian, James Mayer reports on how the soon to open Ikea store along Airport Way beside I-205 at the bridge over the Columbia came about on that site only after plans to attract smaller-scale developments (Ikea is a gi-normous place) were unsuccessful.

Usually it would go without saying that I'd be upset about this. Big-box retail outlets surrounded by seas of surface parking are to me the ugliest, most isolated and depressing eyesores anywhere in the built environment.

But I happen to be, like a lot of my friends, a sucker for Ikea. I've never even been in one of their stores, but I've perused their catalogs countless times, and admired friends' furniture from there - however cheap and flimsy it turned out to be. I grew up in a house with lots of Scandinavian teak furniture, and I've always adored it. My parents have moved on to a rounded-oak style which is not my thing, and so I've co-opted the stereo cabinet, coffee table, nightstand and various other Danish or Swedish-built pieces. So however cliche it may be to love midcentury modern furniture now, I was on this bandwagon from the beginning.

When Portland's Ikea store opens on July 25, I'm dying to drive out to this mammoth big-box store. Which of course feels pretty weird to be writing.

I've asked myself questions like, couldn't Ikea have been coerced into building a more urban-friendly store? But Airport Way has never been that kind of environment anyway. It's also arguable, naturally, that a metropolitan area has to have these kinds of purely large-scale, auto-oriented environments. They are just another part of the anatomy from a downtown or surrounding pedestrian-scaled mixed use environment more in the center of the city. or so the argument would go. And besides, there is indeed a MAX stop, so plenty of people can get here without a car.

I also think back to a presentation I went to several years ago about the Cascade Station area in which developer Trammell Crow talked about the kind of smaller scale offices and shops that would be planned. It certainly sounded better than the kind of airplane hangar scale that is most big-box retailers. But I always remember one of the speakers explaining that it would "Look urban, work suburban." And that doesn't necessarily sound ideal to me either.

In writing this, I'm not trying to express a particular argument so much as an open-ended question. Is a banal big-box alright if the designs inside are good enough? Is Airport Way going more big-box an inevitable reality check, or a depressing cop-out? And just how many consonants can these Scandinavian languages cram into each word?

Progressive Garbage

In today's Portland Tribune, Toby Van Fleet reports on Metro's plan to place a garbage tax on November's ballot that would fund improvements and restoration of natural areas around the region as well as outdoor school for kids and conservation programs.

The tax increase would amount to between 75 cents and $1.25 per month. The comments section on the web version of the article is dominated by people (all four of them) saying they won't support them thar Democrats' latest tax-and-spend initiative, but Metro polling indicates a majority of voters in the region would support spending less than a cup of coffee per household per month on inarguably worthy green-oriented efforts.

Aside from the money involved, this would also be a progressive tax that, however subtly, encourages people to contribute less garbage and more recyclable refuse. Tax-phobics don't like that either, but I've always approved of pulling the tax strings to help society.

It's funny to put it this way, but while we're on the topic of garbage, what other changes could or should Metro make to garbage and recycling collection? I, for example, would like to be able to leave my food waste at the curb for composting pickup. Either that, or maybe we could all stop composting and recycling and, just for fun, make a new mountain in the Cascades out of our trash.

Oh, They're Better

The BetterBricks Awards are returning for the fifth year to Portland. Sponsored by BetterBricks, the commercial initiative of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, the awards acknowledge extraordinary steps taken to design, build and engineer, operate or champion the most energy-efficient commercial buildings. Architects, engineers, developers, building owners, building operators, service providers, facility managers, emerging leaders, and other building professionals are all eligible.

So that of course begs the question: who are some of the important leaders and talents in Portland with respect to sustainable design, and are there certain people out there who haven’t been properly recognized? Everybody knows awards shows are never an exact or fair measurement of who is doing the best and most important work—just look at the Oscars. But it never hurts to celebrate those making a difference, ya know? Go to BetterBricks.com to cast your vote.

An Arts Award and A Cover Story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buildings Coping With Heat, Sans AC

Today as I write this, it's barely after noon and already close to 100 degrees, which we should surpass later this afternoon.

Most reading this are in air-conditioned buildings, while a few are toughing it out elsewhere. I work from home, and aside from a small window AC in the bedroom, I'm facing the heat without artificial air. I say this not proudly, but with lament. Still, I have a nice alternative I can take advantage of: the basement.

A basement is something hardly any new homes seem to have. I guess they're more expensive to build because there's the extra digging. But it's quite comfortable down here, even on the worst of heat days. Particularly if a home doesn't have AC or a heat pump, thus depending natural ventilation, I'd think surviving the summer would be worth the extra digging or expense, don't you?

Incidentally, I'm curious if there are architects or others enduring the heat today in green buildings with natural ventilation and no AC. How is your space holding up? When I've heard sustainable design enthusiasts talk about using things like thermal mass from concrete, thermal white membranes on the roof, exterior shading and all that stuff, it sounds great - until you get to a 100-degree day. Can any building without AC, no matter how green its design and materials, survive comfortably when we hit the century mark?

Falsetto Seeks New Note For Yeon's Visitor Center

Architect Paul Falsetto of Carleton/Hart is one of the city's foremost voices on historic preservation, particularly mid-20th Century modernism. Since late June, Falsetto has been leading a University of Oregon studio class  devoted to finding a new program for the former Portland Oregon Visitors Information Center building beside the western Hawthorne Bridge terminus at Waterfront Park, designed by John Yeon, which I wrote about in a previous post.

On Wednesday evening, Falsetto's students will present their findings and conlusions in a public event from 5-7pm at the UO Portland Center. This is a chance to learn not only about the POVIC project and weigh in on its future, but to hear Falsetto and the UO students talk about Yeon and Northwest Modernism.

As Falsetto writes, "The building has been empty for years now, and lack of occupancy along with delayed maintenance is starting to take its toll. PP&R (Portland Parks & Rec) would like to have the building occupied with a viable use. The preservation community would like to see the building rehabilitated in a manner respectful of its historic status and integrity. The challenges facing the Visitors Information Center signify those on the horizon as the great number of Modernist structures begin to outlive their initial programs and methods of construction."

Can 49 Trump 37?

This November, Oregon voters will decide on a new ballot measure, number 49, designed to take some of the sting out of the horrific, catastrophic Measure 37 that has raped our state's land use laws. Tonight and tomorrow, the environmental nonprofit 1,000 Friends of Oregon will host two campaign-kickoff meetings.

Tonight's, on the East Side, will be held from 6:30 to 8:00pm at the Hollywood Branch Library, 4040 NE Hollywood. Tomorrow's, on the West Side, will be at the same time but held at the Northwest Branch, 2300 NW Thurman.

If you'd like to get involved but can't make either of those meetings, the phone bank is already underway and seeking volunteers at its Lloyd Center headquarters. This Saturday at Colonel Summers Park (SE 17th and Taylor) from 11:00 to 3:00 kicks off canvassing on the issue.

Unless you want rural strip malls to go with the clearcutting and pickup trucks, please consider getting involved. Besides, the activism will be good practice for the real battle: November 2008.

Halfway There, Morningstar Church Still Living on a Prayer

As reported in today's Oregonian by Erin Hoover Barnett, Morningstar Missionary Baptist Church is still about $1.8 million short in its efforts to build a new church after fire destroyed their existing facility earlier this year. They'll need about $2.6 million to create a new facility, and insurance only kicked in about $500,000. It's up to us, as Portlanders, to help Morningstar make up the difference.

Besides the need for funds, one quote in Barnett's article piqued my interest. "They favor a contemporary design," Barnett wrote, "yet one that would honor the history of the Gothic and revivalist church, built in 1919."

For all I know, maybe Morningstar already has an architect in mind. Maybe several have already volunteered. But if not, wouldn't this be an ideal opportunity for a Portland architect or firm to offer its services pro bono? After all, ecclesiastic design used to be the ultimate commission for architects. You've got a client here that's open to contemporary design. Who's going to run with this?

As far as brick-and-mortar rebuilding issues, so far the plumbers and steamfitters Local Union 290 is helping the church; you can reach them at 503-691-1997 to help. Or for regular contributions, donate to the Morningstar Catastrophe Relief Fund at any Wells Fargo Bank branch at 503-284-0200. Beside the union (who deserve a round of applause), I'd also like to see some other member organizations get involved: how about the Associated General Contractors, the Portland Business Alliance, the American Institute of Architects?

I also wondered: what if the church were to partner with a small developer or other partner (like an architecture firm) to create more of a mixed-use project? You could have a church on the first couple floors, and then some small apartments or condos above. Ideally, the units could be low-income, but if money remained tight, the strategy could be to sell condos as part of a funding package for the church. In other words, the 'air rights' could help pay for the new building. Why not let the forces of gentrification and land appreciation work for the neighborhood and the congregation?

Lots of attention and help often come right after disasters, but it often dies down as the months go by. There is no longer the inherent spectacle and drama of the fire to capture our imagination anymore, just a bunch of churchgoers meeting in an Emmanuel Hospital conference room every Sunday. Portland may not be the richest city around, but there's plenty of money, labor and expertise available from developers, contractors, designers and other building industry professionals that could be helping Morningstar out. Let's make sure they have more than than just prayers to rely on; or, to put it another way, let's make sure those prayers come true.

I'm not a churchgoer myself, but I found these words from Morning Star pastor Albert Wayne Johnson powerful:

"To the Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church family, inner-city Portland - especially the surrounding community of morning star Baptist church - words cannot express the pain of this moment for all of us. This catastrophe is larger, broader, than the current membership attending week after week. The community is suffering because a city, state and nationally registered, historic landmark has been destroyed. But, our HOPE is not destroyed. We stand in ruins - we shall recover. Our foundation has been shaken - our faith is solid. Psalm 11 says, 'If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?' We shall heal our church, heal our community, and restore to this community a ministry that serves with open arms. Help us."

Yeon's Swan House Is Just That

Last week I was invited by realtor Bob Zaikoski of Portland Modern to tour a home off Skyline Boulevard in the West Hills designed by John Yeon.

As many readers know, Yeon, Pietro Belluschi Van Evra Bailey are the primary designers (Yeon was not a registered architect) behind the regional 'Northwest Modern' style that emerged in the 1930s and consisted of simple forms constructed in wood and allowing lots of natural light. Yeon and Belluschi both came up through the office of A.E. Doyle together, and also influenced other top local architects like John Storrs.

This Yeon design, the Swan House, was built in 1950 for a Dr. Kenneth Swan and his family. Fifty-seven years ago, now that Dr. Swan has passed away, the swan of a house is for sale for the first time.  (Not that most of us could afford it.)

Related to that, I wanted to touch upon my writing a blog post involving a sponsor (Bob is the Realtor selling the house on behalf of the Swan family). If this were a piece of journalism, this would probably be a no-no, at least if there weren't full disclosure. And I still try to follow the principle while blogging that editorial content is not influenced by sponsorship. However, I would be interested in this John Yeon house no matter who brought it to my attention, or if Bob brought it to my attention but wasn't a sponsor. So I am writing about this house in spite of the sponsor connection. Does that make sense? Is everyone OK with that? If not, please feel free to email your concerns.

Anyway, the Swan House is beautiful. It's not stunning in a way that calls attention to itself, however. That would be against the whole concept. The house is nestled into its hilly site with extended property comprising four acres of wilderness that are essentially part of the much larger Forest Park. And with its simple wood and glass palette, it's almost as if the house becomes a part of its landscape.

Inside one also gets a sense of Yeon's design (he was not a registered architect, by the way) existing upon an axis. Levels go up and down in interesting ways, such as the bedroom that's about two feet above the living room, or the basement with massive windows overlooking the forest. But everything seems to exist along the same basic horizontal plane. There is a carport to the right that leads along a long walkway to the front door. Inside, the carpet, fixtures, linoleum and other details seem a little dated, but the house is in wonderful shape. I also love the built-in sofa and fireplace in the living room. This house should have long ago obliterated the notion that modernism was cold.

In many details you can tell this is the work of a master. There are vents that pull out of the wall, aiding natural ventilation. Windows are everywhere, too. I visited on a rainy day last week and despite it being dark, no lights on and none were needed. Still, Yeon added lots some very interesting lights set into upper wall panels. Like a Frank Lloyd Wright house, you get the sense here that someone was designing every aspect of the experience, and not just the house but much of what would go inside it.

Climbing Aboard The Rocket

Late last week I visited The Rocket at 1111 East Burnside, the new building designed and developed by architect Kevin Cavenaugh. Kevin has made a career out of developing his own projects, and I've long been a fan. (He also was the subject of a 2004 Metropolis cover story I wrote.)

The Rocket is immediately striking, and for a few different reasons. It's painted red and has an array of arcades and outer decks extending from the building, in keeping with the existing design vocabulary - lower East Burnside being full of buildings transformed into arcade spaces (the building extending over and covering the sidewalk) during a previous generation's street widening.

The building also has a very ingenious and inexpensive way to combat heat gain: exterior sun shades that tenants can move back and forth to control light and ventilation. And best of all, the sun shades all feature artwork. There may be some people out there reading this who'll think the checkerboard of moving paintings on the building is tacky. I think it's terrific.

Although mostly offices, both long-term tenant spaces (a wine marketing company) and flexible short-term small rental spaces, the bottom and top levels have bar/restaurant spaces: Chesterfield below and Rocket above. The latter space, operated by chef extraordinaire Leather Storrs (whose voice is a dead ringer for John Tuturro), occupies the top level, which has an all glass wall. As much as I love the moving art-wall sun shades and the red cladding on the rest of the building, as I sat having a beer and appetizer up there, I thought about how cool it would have looked if the rest of the building was this glassy.

But it's also important to remember that this is a building done fairly cheaply. Kevin has pulled out a lot of stops to make a bare-bones building really take off. And that's precisely what the Rocket does.

Two other bits of news: This Friday, there will be an open house at The Rocket from 5:30pm to Midnight, with all floors open to the public. (I'll be sneaking into the restaurant to abscond with some lamb corn dogs.) And Kevin has been selected for a prestigious Loeb Fellowship at Harvard University, where he'll soon depart (in the footsteps of former Oregonian architecture critic Randy Gragg) for a year's worth of study and elbow-rubbing with top creative professionals from around the world. But Kevin, promise us you'll come back after Cambridge and build some more?