Portland Architecture

A First Look at UO's White Stag Block

Earlier this week I toured the cluster of three buildings in Old Town at the edge of the Burnside Bridge being renovated into a new home for the University of Oregon's Portland Center, the White Stag block, under the design supervision of Fletcher Farr Ayotte.

Comprised of the White Stag Building (1907), the Skidmore Block (1889) and the Bickel Block (1883), the new UO home is in its late stages of construction now, with a move-in planned for February. Inside there will be numerous classrooms, offices, and meeting spaces, all connected with lots of wide-open public spaces that double as introducer of natural light.

But that's only the start of the green features (appropriate for UO, by the way). Rainwater harvesting will allow gray-water to be used for all toilets and urinals, reducing water usage by 86 percent. The building will also be 30 percent more energy-efficient than ASHRAE code standards. That is very, very impressive for an old cluster of buildings on the National Register with lots of restrictions for reconstruction. Photovoltaic solar panels will also be installed on the roof, presumably beside the 'Made In Oregon' sign.

And speaking of the sign, I'm told that could change slightly. The deer is restricted, and even the typeface and size. However, 'Made' could possibly changed to 'University of'', which seems a fair move since the 'Made in Oregon' text isn't original. Actually, neither is the White Stag brand that most people remember. Originally it was a sign for White Satin sugar. Apparently somewhere there is an old photo of Roy Rogers riding his horse Trigger across the Burnside Bridge during the Rose Parade with the White Satin sign in the background.

Although it's hard to tell with the hard hats, dust and hammering still going on, it clearly seemed like the middle portion between the buildings with nicely preserved brick cladding a kind of mini-winter garden, and a ceiling atrium flooding the space with illumination, will be an extra special place to be. I also liked the studio space reserved for architecture classes on the southeast corner of the White Stag building, where big look out onto the eternally under construction Burnside bridge.

Of the three buildings, the White Stag one seems the least interesting, with a very simple brick palette that seems like it could have come from any time in the 20th Century, but both the Bickel and Skidmore buildings are wonderful examples of classic late 19th century Portland architecture with handsome detailing and color. That the mostly front Naito Parkway and Waterfront Park gives the project the chance not only to re-invigorate Old Town, but the waterfront as well.

As such, I was disappointed to hear that the main entrance to the Portland Center will be on Couch Street, not on Naito Parkway as the architecture seems to indicate. However, it sounds like a future renovation could easily restore the entrance at the front of the building where it belongs. And even if it doesn't, it's clear that this project will be a real catalyst for this area, achieving laudable historic preservation in prime downtown real estate while setting up the most downtrodden area in the central city for a real renaissance.

It's all so nice, I can almost make myself forget that the UO's football team has arguably suffered its most tragic season in its entire 113-year history.

PSU, UO Student Reviews on Display

Beginning today at the Unitus Building (2121 SW Fourth Avenue) and continuing through December 5, Portland State University's Department of Architecture will begin public displays and final reviews of student design studio work from the fall 2007 term. Also, the University of Portland has student work up for review at its Portland Center (722 SW Second at Yamhill). But virst, the Vikings.

Up at 5:30 today is professor Garrett Martin's class, "Edge and Flow". Isn't that the movie about the pimp-turned-rapper? (Just kidding; that's Hustle and Flow) Incidentally, many of these classes seem to have somewhat abstract names. Tomorrow brings professor John Froning's class, "Residual Understanding". (Maybe it has to do with GOP politics.) Friday is professor Jeff Schnabel's class, "Anonymous Remains" (what I'd like the Ducks to make out of the Beavers this weekend). Also on Friday is Matt Janssen's class, "Housing the Masses". This one will be held at the offices of Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects, which, considering the class title, seems appropriate.

Professor Nikola Boscanin has been a frequent commenter on this blog (keep it up, Niko!), and his "Making Promises" class will show their wares at 6:30pm next Wednesday, December 5. Also, three drawing classes have begun showing their work as of Monday, and that continues through today, and then picks up again from December 3-5.

In its final weeks before a February move to the White Stag blog being renovated as its new home, the University of Oregon's Portland Center plays host today from 4:30-8:30 to one class working on the Old Town/Chinatown Commons. Tomorrow at the same time is a prefab housing class, and Friday from 1-6 brings the work of a class reclaiming New York's Penn Station. And as someone who took several trains in and out of there over the years, I would be not at all sorry to see it go, transformed into something entirely new.

Looking at Sellwood Bridge Prototypes

Multnomah County has, on its Sellwood Bridge website, unveiled six prototypes for a replacement span. “Depending on the type of bridge that is chosen,” the website explains, “a replacement Sellwood Bridge could blend with or completely redefine the landscape of Portland’s south Willamette River area.” I couldn't tell you which of those is more important; is it naive to think it could be both?

A county-sponsored working group comprised of local bridge experts has recommended the six replacement bridge options, and a Community Task Force will weigh public input when recommending options to the Policy Advisory Group, which (after an environmental impact statement) will make the final decision about a bridge type over the course of the next year. In 2009 the ensuing design phase will develop refinements to the bridge type to arrive at the actual design and cost.

The renderings of the bridge types, the website warns, “are not meant to depict the final designs and they do not include design details like color, texture, lighting, etc.” The finished product will also be wider on the west end to give vehicles enough space to queue before turning.

For all I know, this is probably the same way other communities and municipalities choose their bridges. And as the city cautioned, none of these illustrations show the details that will make the bridge uniquely ours. They also should be commended, as the county and city often are, for their public involvement in the process.

Yet somehow it feels like we’re just picking out of a catalog here. I wonder how much creativity, originality and overall design excellence will be possible given such strict parameters about what form it will take. Are these the conditions that Santiago Calatrava and Norman Foster (arguably the world’s most acclaimed contemporary bridge designers) encounter when they set out to do something dazzling?

Obviously nobody that original will be working on Sellwood, and we don’t need a famous name to get a good bridge. But what will it take to get one? Picking a type is not exactly the inspiring step I'd hope would be taken by the county per se. However, it's nice to be asked. One way or another, I'd imagine the county will give us the bridge we ask for. I'm just not sure we're asking for something unique and beautiful.

And it has to be said, however monotonous the sound has become: What about a design competition?

That said, I’d have to go with the “cable-stayed” and the “Extradosed” as my favorites. Certainly it should be possible do create a very fine bridge that functions well and is beautiful as well, without an enormous budget. Who out there is optimistic or pessimistic that it will be?

PNCA vs. Public Market and the Emergence of NW Broadway

It's really a shame: the 511 Building on Northwest Broadway, ideally situated just a few blocks north of Downtown between the Pearl District and Old Town, has undergone a tug of war between two very worthy candidates.

First the Portland Public Market somewhat abruptly went for the striking Italian Renaissance structure, abandoning its previous plan to target Union Station. (I never could completely wrap my head around the idea of a public market in a train station anyway.) The Pacific Northwest College of Art then eyed 511 for its rapidly expanding school. When the Portland Development Commission held the reins, it looked like the market might have an inside track. But PNCA smartly targeted the federal government, which owns the building, and now might not only get the building but get it for free - and a renovation by Brad Cloepfil and Allied Works to boot.

The circa-1918 building does indeed seem well suited for both parties. PNCA would be several blocks from its existing building, which doesn't make for much of a campus. But the school only rents its current home, so PNCA could eventually give that one up. (That'd be a shame, by the way. I love the big warehouse they occupy.) The market only would have needed the ground floor, and in their proposal for 511 it looks as though housing would have gone above.

Which begs the question: is there any way a public market could go on the ground floor of 511 and have PNCA classes above?

There are actually two similar buildings anticipating future uses and tenants on this stretch of NW Broadway, the other of course being the US Customs House just down the street and its comparable French Renaissance/Italian Revival style. It was built in 1901 and expanded in 1938.

A couple years ago the General Services Administration decided to give up the Customs House, and the University of Oregon had its sights on the place. But the GSA favored a hotel developer over the UO, which seemed very uncool then and does today in my mind. Meanwhile, the developer hasn't moved any closer to putting a hotel on the property. Why not let the market occupy the ground floor of that building? I'd guess that many visitors to a potential hotel there would find a big market underneath an added attraction.

This stretch of NW Broadway, moving from Burnside Street north to the Broadway Bridge past Union Station and the post office, has long been under-utilized. It's not to say there are lots of vacancies here; you have various dance clubs, restaurant suppliers, and various other modest small businesses. But it seems like there could be so much more "On Broadway", as the George Benson song goes. Perhaps the greatest symbol here is the boarded-up Burger King at the corner of Broadway and Burnside, seemingly one of the more important intersections in the city but largely wasted. Even if the Burger King were still churning out Whoppers it'd be a shame to have a single-story fast food restaurant here.

One can only assume that if Portland continues developing its central city at roughly the same pace it has over the last 20 years (or even slower for that matter), NW Broadway will ultimately be transformed into a grander avenue befitting its location. A revitalized Union Station, a hotel, condos, an art school, and a public market are just some of the possibilities. Can we make it all fit? I bet those PNCA kids would enjoy shopping at the market, as would future high-speed rail passengers at Union Station.

And while we're at it, an even bigger property -- the post office across from Union Station -- could very well change over and be redeveloped. It could be another Brewery Blocks, or if we screw up, another Burnside Bridgehead.

Today NW Broadway seems almost like a sink hole that you hop over when moving between the Pearl and Old Town or Downtown. I hope that PNCA and the public market people aren't just stuck in a game of musical chairs, but can both occupy a place on this encouragingly transforming street.

From the Last 50 in 150

At last week's Pecha Kucha night at the Ace Hotel Cleaners, I got talking with a local architect about today's new crop of buildings and the long-term outlook there will be for this era's architecture. He posed to me something along these lines: "I'm not sure if any of the buildings here from the last 50 years will still be here in 150 years."

There's a lot of ways you could look at such a statement. Maybe it means that with green building and global warming taking off, in a century and a half so much will have changed about the physical, thermal and electrical aspects of architecture that there won't be a place for many of today's works to endure. Maybe it means that only the most exceptional buildings from the past survive for a century or more, because to go through the extra headaches and cost of preserving and restoring them, they have to resonate enough to be really worth it. Or, maybe it's just a cynical way of saying nothing we've built in Portland in the last half-century (since about 1957 if you're playing at home) is significant enough architecturally to merit being preserved.

Suffice to say, Portland of 1857 looks scarcely anything like it does today. You'd really have to struggle to think of many or any buildings predating the Civil War (the actual one, not the local football game) that still have a presence here. Even the Pioneer Courthouse only dates back to 1875.

Perhaps you could argue that a few big local landmarks made in the last 50 will endure: Pioneer Courthouse Square, Big Pink. In cities with much longer histories than Portland, there are of course many buildings older than 150 years. Maybe the fact that we're more of an established semi-large metropolitan city now would give more buildings from 1957-2007 a chance to be here in 2157.

I think the square stands the best chance. There are other structures predating the last 50 years, like the Portland Art Museum or the Benson Hotel that you'd think, barring massive earthquake, would continue on almost indefinitely. And I just have this gut feeling that someday Memorial Coliseum will still be standing after the Rose Garden has been torn down. But recent buildings of the last 10 or 20 years? Hmm. Even the really exceptional ones don't always endure. Maybe OHSU's Center for Health and Healing at the base of the tram. Or the tram itself. Maybe the Wieden + Kennedy building, or 2281 Glisan, or one of Thomas Hacker's libraries. Or this new condo tower that Skylab has planned.

I think the architect who made that statement about the last 50 and 150 ahead was talking more strictly about the aesthetics of buildings. Is there anything so handsome people will fight fore it? Will people fight for, say, Big Pink a hundred years from now?

Of course with a question like this, anybody who thinks they really know is only fooling themselves. Who knows what context might exist in a century and a half that we could never dream of today? However, this is really an exercise in considering what architecture of our own past generation or two or three - the city's growth over the last five decades - has produced anything that is exceptional and resonant and relevant enough to transcend the limits of style, use and viability.

One would like to think there's a renaissance beginning for Portland in our time, and that, like Amsterdam or other great cities, the built reflection of that will be something future generations want to preserve. But then again, they probably thought back in the 60s and 70s that the Brutalist concrete behemoths and freeways they were building would be awed at a century later. And then there's a local case like the phrase "Portland's Eiffel Tower", which a hopeful mayor bestowed upon a Michael Graves building here that has not at all stood the test of time well.

So with that confidence in mind, who's brave enough among us to venture a guess about the last 50 in 150?

McCulloch and the Design Commission

A few days ago in The Oregonian, Fred Leeson did a kind of exit-interview with architect Mike McCulloch as he prepares to leave the Portland Design Commission after 11 years.

I thought that a couple of things McCulloch (previously of Waterleaf Architecture, now heading his own firm) said in the interview might be good discussion topics. First, on the downtown condo market, he told Leeson: "We are building them at a socioeconomic level that is relatively exclusive." [That part we know, but here's the more important point:] "Once this first wave goes through, there will be a next wave of more affordable projects by necessity. I'm looking forward to the next wave, which is really the enrichment wave, adding a deeper cross section of culture. You have to start with the first wave."

I'm no expert, but I'd like to know what others think: Is there really a second wave coming of more affordable condos and apartments? Certainly there's been talk of its need, and there have been an isolated project or two, such as the one Gerding Edlen Development and Thomas Hacker Architects are collaborating on now downtown. But who else believes that this second wave is definitively going to arrive? I'm all for it, but I wasn't necessarily prepared yet to acknowledge a trend, let alone a wave. Maybe it's just the morbidly depressed Duck fan in me.

Also, McCulloch had this to say about design commission hearings: "What I've really liked is the full participation by the development and design communities in the discussion about design. It's not at all about how big it is and how much money it will make. There's always a central core of discussion about how it affects the livability of the city, and how it strengthens what we have here--or not."

When I read that quote, I instantly wondered what the broader design and building community thought about that assessment of the commission. In other words, I think most of us agree in the role of the commission and the fact they should exist. But how would all of you rate the design commission in terms of how it's structured, and the way it operates within the broader context of the city government and private sector? If you had a magic wand and could structure the commission's power and role however you wanted, what might that look like?

There are plenty of things I would like to see done in terms of the city and its approach to both public and private sector design. But the amount of projects that actually qualify for design review in the city overall is, if I'm not mistaken, rather small. So it's probably easy to hope for things from the commission that's not really part of their purview.

It's more or less a given that when you go to listings online for hotels and restaurants, most of them tend to have more bad comments than good ones because of the "squeaky wheel gets the oil" phenomenon - that those relatively few who had bad experiences tend to have a much larger appearance because they're more motivated to leave comments than the silent majority who had a satisfactory experience. So if this comment section should be dominated by jibes against the commission, I think we may have to take it in context. I'm really more interested in hearing constructive ideas or informed viewpoints about the design commission's past, present and future. Where are we now and where are we going?

Can G-E and GBD Make M&F another WK?

A few weeks ago Portland's most prolific central city developer, Gerding-Edlen, announced they have purchased the old Meier & Frank warehouse in the Pearl District. Instead of condominiums or luxury apartments, which have comprised most Pearl projects, this one will have offices.

Unsurprisingly but still impressively, Gerding-Edlen and their usual design collaborator, GBD Architects, have announced that the project will be targeted to earn the top 'Platinum' LEED rating from the US Green Building Council. That will mean things like solar panels, a green roof, and toilets flushed with rainwater. I'm guessing there will also be a very large atrium in the middle to flood the interior space with natural light.

I haven't worked in an office for the last seven years. But if I did, I'd probably prefer this building for my desk to just about any in town.

As with the Portland Armory that G-E and GBD renovated into the Gerding Theater for Portland Center Stage, this project will also have the difficult task of negotiating both green building strictures as well as those for a historic renovation. For example, light shelves on the exterior of the building would certainly help bring in and distribute more natural illumination, but how would they look on that historic exterior shell?

Regardless, I see this building's offices filling up quickly. The simple truth is, once you've worked in a green office space, it's very difficult to go back to the darker, more drab conditions of even the swankiest non-green buildings. I mean, who likes fluorescent light? Who wants to get sick more often? And what bosses wouldn't want to invest in their employees with spaces that make them more productive?

In the future, as more green offices fill the Pearl District, perhaps the increasing challenge will be to retrofit a generation or two of downtown offices to make them more competitive and inviting now that our perception of what makes a pleasant space has changed for good with green design principles.

The M&F warehouse-to-office renovation of course brings to mind a similar project that Gerding-Edlen also developed: the Wieden + Kennedy headquarters. That project turned out exquisite, with gorgeous concrete and wood workmanship and a breathtaking inner cathedral of catwalks and soft light. But the architect for W+K was Brad Cloepfil and his highly acclaimed firm, Allied Works, which is currently designing museums and other high-profile projects all over the country after winning design competitions against 'starchitects' like Rem Koolhaas and Zaha Hadid.

GBD Architects has done a very impressive job of designing, with their fellow building team members, a host of ultra sustainable spaces in the Pearl and South Waterfront, most all of them for Gerding-Edlen. But is GBD capable of building something as beautiful as the W+K space? I mean, look at the concrete in the Gerding Theater and then go look at the concrete in W+K. Surely we're talking two very different budgets here, but I'm still not sure I believe GBD is up to making W+K II. It'll probably have a Platinum rating to be proud of, and no one wants to belittle the fact that this M&F warehouse-turned-office will be a great addition to the Pearl, particularly for its office-worker inhabitants but also in how this 120,000 square foot warehouse will be preserved for future generations. That's all great. But in comparing themselves to W+K, as they've done in the press release, I think the G-E/GBD team is setting themselves up for a comparison that they'll only come out favorably in with respect to sustainability. Why not hire Allied Works to be the design architect and GBD to be the architect of record on this one? Or about 10 others? It's a broken record to lament the city's most acclaimed firm always getting shut out of projects in its own back yard. But every time one sees the same cluster of two or three firms getting almost all the condo and office work in town, one wonders if the development community is doing all it can to embrace great, beautiful, holistic design.

Courtyard Competition Winners and Family Housing in the Central City

On Wednesday night at 7PM, winners of the Portland Courtyard Housing Design Competition will to be announced to the public from city offices at 1900 SW Fourth Avenue, Room 2500A. The announcement follows a day of deliberation by the competition's jury panel. The competition has attracted over 250 submittals from around the country and the world. As the press release goes on to explain...

"Participants were invited to submit innovative designs demonstrating how higher-density courtyard housing can serve as an attractive option for families with children, while also contributing to environmental sustainability, providing an affordable housing option, and responding to neighborhood context.

The competition is part of city efforts to foster design excellence and the creation of new family-friendly housing in Portland's neighborhoods.  During the announcement event, the winning designs will be on display and competition jurors will be on hand to comment on the competition and their choices.  Following this event, the public will be invited to choose their favorite designs as part of "People's Choice" balloting to take place later in November and in December."

Having been in Beijing the week before last, I was interested in that country's traditional hutong housing, which is similarly inwardly oriented, only without much of a real open-space courtyard - just a well, really. But courtyard housing has a rich and very diverse history in places like the Middle East as well as in Europe.

What's interesting about Portland having a go at courtyard housing is that ours is a city that's decidedly oriented to the pedestrian, which in theory can be the opposite of courtyard oriented architecture. Obviously it doesn't have to be one or the other, though, and that's why it will be cool to see what the winners come up with - particularly when you remember that this stuff should ultimately get built here.

Meanwhile, on Thursday from 6-8pm at the Ecotrust Conference Center  (721 NW Ninth Avenue, Second Floor), a lecture and discussion will focus on how Portland continue to provide new housing options for families as the city continues to grow and densify, and how can this be done in ways that are environmentally sustainable.  Presentations will be made by two authorities on child-friendly housing and sustainable community design, Clare Cooper Marcus and Cynthia Girling, who served as jurors for the Portland Courtyard Housing Design Competition. Clare Cooper Marcus is co-author of Housing as if People Mattered and People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Spaces. Cynthia Girling is co-author of Skinny Streets and Green Neighborhoods: Design for Environment and Community and Yard, Street, Park: The Design of Suburban Open Space.

Sounds like these two events go together. Courtyard housing is an ideal way to densify while still maintaining open space for children and families to play or (if your family was like mine) escape each other now and then. Just remember to curb your dog, people.

I recently read a statistic looking at Portland's number of persons per square mile (4,199.17 according to Wikipedia) versus other American cities like Boston (12,327) and Chicago (12,470), which is to say nothing, of course, of New York (27,083). Portland has such a long way to go in terms of real densification. And if the figures are correct, with millions moving here in the decades ahead, I don't think any of us have really completely wrapped our heads around how much the fabric of the city is going to change. But, considering how few hutongs are really left in Beijing when they once comprised virtually its entire fabric, perhaps such things are largely inevitable.

The "Other" Wells Fargo Building at 100

When one hears the name “Wells Fargo Building” in Portland, thoughts usually go to the downtown’s tallest structure, sitting just south of City Hall and clad with white granite in a minimalist style.

But there’s another work in town that shares the name Wells Fargo Building. In fact, it’s called Portland’s first skyscraper, and is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year.

Situated at 309 SW Sixth Avenue, the building was commissioned by the bank and designed by architect Benjamin Wistar Morris III, a native Oregonian working in New York City. The 12-story building was jointly occupied by Wells Fargo, Southern Pacific Railroad and Oregon Railway & Navigation. Here’s some more info about the building from the press release:

“The building was designed to evoke the Second Renaissance Revival style. Terracotta was the favored material for most large, commercial structures built during Portland’s era of rapid growth, as it was fireproof, lightweight and relatively inexpensive. Decorative terra-cotta blocks adorn the crown of the building—artisans created these blocks by pressing fine clay into plaster molds and then glazing, drying and firing them. Along with glazed terra-cotta exterior sheathing, gray granite plinths were used on the ground-floor level and limestone sheathing was used on the second and third floors; buff-colored brick was laid in decorative diamond-and-cross patterns; the roof was lined with a prominent copper cornice, a terra-cotta parapet and dentils.”

“Combining elements of Victorian and classical Italian architecture, the Wells Fargo façades stand out with unique compositional elements, colors and materials. The windows and door frames of the two-story street level arches are trimmed with cast iron; the upper floors have sets of double-hung wood sash windows.”

I’ve always loved the combination of early 20th Century buildings and modern ones from a few decades later. In this case, the name Wells Fargo represents both. I’m not nearly as negative towards the tall modern Wells Fargo building, which to many represents the epitome of behemoth Brutalism that supplanted itself in countless downtowns without concern for local architectural contexts. To me it’s a big minimalist granite sculpture that anchors the downtown with its height and simple palette. But it’s also true that the smaller-scaled buildings like the circa-1907 Wells Fargo Building, along with structures here by A.E. Doyle and other early 20th century architects, are an unqualified local treasure.

Pecha Kucha and NWF&V (or, Bobby Brady No More)

Pecha whatcha? That's what I first said when approached by Bill at Works Partnership to join in a slide show that is sweeping the world. Pecha Kucha Night was first conceived as a place for young designers to meet and show their work. It's a cross between show-and-tell, peer review art critique, and a party. The idea is that people show 20 slides for 20 seconds each, making each presentation 6 minutes and 40 seconds. After starting in Tokyo, Pecha Kucha events have now been held in 70 different cities. Portland's version, at which I'll be showing photos from various trips to Asia and Europe, will be held Monday, a little after 8:00, at the Ace Hotel's event space at 430 SW 10th Avenue.

Also, continuing the shameless self promotion, tonight opens the Northwest Film & Video Festival at the Portland Art Museum/Northwest Film Center with a lineup of short films, including my own piece, Creamery Birds. It's just a modest three-minute short observing pigeons flying about the Darigold creamery just of Southeast Powell, but I was shocked to see that the film has won a special judge's award. I am blessedly no longer an award-less Bobby Brady figure. If you can't make tonight's screening, which also includes stellar shorts by the likes of Gus Van Sant and Vanessa Renwick, I can at least offer an online version of Creamery Birds and several other films in the sidebar at right.

Meanwhile, I'm off to a last-minute architectural tour of Chicago by boat, eager to get closeup glances at the 'corncob' towers, Mies Van der Rohe's IBM headquarters, and the landmark Wrigley building.

Measure 49: Halleleujah!

It's about 7AM as I write this from Greenbuild in Chicago - WAY before a freelance writer's normal wakeup time. But it was with irrepressible joy I read this morning (from a comment left by Aneeda here, then on the Oregon Live website) that Measure 49 has passed. I can hear voices in my head of a chorus of children going, "Ding dong, ding dong." Not as in Hostess snack cakes, but as in the old refrain, "The king is dead!" The king, in this case, being that wretched hive of scum and villainy: Measure 37. After the election of 2000, I feel a little paranoid that the announced results will be reversed in some kind of vast right wing conspiracy. But if the 49 victory holds, Oregon's land use planning has for now been rescued from oblivion, from strip malls and subdivisions paving and sprawling our little paradise here.

37 is dead - long live 49!!!!!!

Saltzman Announces New City Green Building Standard

Tonight at PDX Lounge, the Portland showcase at the USGBC's Greenbuild Conference, Commissioner Dan Saltzman announced a new incentive and fee program for all new buildings based on their carbon footprint and energy usage profile.

The standard is still just in the talking stage - it hasn't been approved. But it seems very likely to pass in this city council.

As I understand it, the standard would break down like this: If your building is 45% more efficient than energy code stipulations, you'll actually get a rebate check from the city. If your project is 30% better, there'll be no rebate, but also no fee. If your building is less than 30% more efficient than code, you'll be charged what's called a "carbon fee".

As a point of reference, the OHSU Center for Health & Healing by GBD Architects is about 50% more efficient than code, and it attained a 'Platinum' LEED rating from the US Green Building Council. So even if they wouldn't have to attain high LEED ratings, the City is more or less saying that every building built in Portland will need to either meet that range of greenness (the only way to get those kind of efficiencies) or pay the cost in a very literal sense.

This would be the first carbon fee issued by an American city for new buildings.

I'm sure architects and green building enthusiasts would be quite jazzed about this plan. But there also is probably going to be some fear and trepidation. What do the rest of you think?

Gearing Up For Greenbuild

Hello frequent flyer miles.

Less than 36 hours after touching down at PDX airport on Sunday night from a Beijing trip, I again embarked for the Friendly Skies to attend this year's Greenbuild conference here in Chicago. As I write this, I'm looking out from my hotel at Michigan Avenue and downtown Chicago, including two buildings I particularly love: the twin 'corn cob' buildings (officially known as Marina City, and pictured here), by architect Bertrand Goldberg (also seen on a Wilco album cover).

It was funny on the flight to Chicago this morning, because it seemed like half the plane was filled with people attending Greenbuild. Even Mayor Tom Potter was aboard - he'll be speaking at the PDX Lounge opening tonight. And say what you will about our self-described "irrelevant" head Portland honcho, but you've got to love any mayor of a major American city who flies in economy class. I also ran into principals from BOORA Architects, Opsis Architecture, and several others.

For those of you who don't know, Greenbuild is presented by the US Green Building Council, the people who issue the LEED ratings for green buildings. This is my third time around at the conference, after catching previous editions in Austin and Portland. I refused to go the year it was in Atlanta (not a fan of sprawl or the red-state South), and reluctantly missed last year's shindig in Denver. It's fun to be here in Chicago, though. And let me tell you: the Windy City is much prettier than Beijing.

This week in addition to posting here when I can, I will also be a guest blogger for BetterBricks.com, one of this blog's sponsors. I'll focus more on the intricacies of educational sessions I and the other BB people attend on their site, and use my own blog for a looser, more anecdotal perspective.

Speaking of which, we're all feeling a little star struck at this year's Greenbuild because the keynote speaker is not an architect or business leader, but one William Jefferson Clinton, the last legitimately elected president of the USA and a personal hero (for his politics, not the personal stuff that got him erroneously impeached). Maybe if I hang out at McDonald's after the address, I might get a personal audience with Bill over a couple Egg McMuffins.

Oh, and not that this has to do with architecture, but in this land of Big Ten football, I am very proudly prancing around in my Oregon Ducks stocking cap. It's needed, too. It's quite cold here and, appropriately given the city's nickname, very windy.

A Duck in Peking

My apologies for going since Monday without writing. I'm actually in Beijing on a press junket for the opening of a big new contemporary art museum here, the Ullens Center. This is my first time in China and it's been quite an eye opener.

I'm trying to think as I write this what might be most relevant to Portlanders. The first thing that comes to mind is historic preservation. This morning I visited the Forbidden City, and naturally was staggered by the scale, form, detail and all in all magnificence of the architecture - all 9,999 and a half rooms (that's the actual amount, not an exaggeration). But the Forbidden City is one of the only occasions in the better part of three days here when I've seen any historic, traditional Chinese buildings. Most all of them have long since been replaced with concrete buildings that seem to have come from the 1960s-70s, but are in decay that seems to have gone on even longer.

Luckily, though, I have been able to see some very, very compelling new architecture here. Yesterday we went to the new Olympic Stadium designed by the great Herzog & de Meuron. It's more commonly known as the 'Bird's Nest', for that's precisely what it looks like. There is seemingly no a single right angle in this entire structure, which really does seem to resemble the gentle intricacy of a real nest, even as it avoids appearing corny like a postmodern building. Much as I love Autzen Stadium, this is easily the most impressive stadium I've ever seen. We also today drove past the new Rem Koolhaas designed headquarters for CCTV, Chinese television. It looks like two separate skyscrapers that are leaning toward each other and finally meet at the top. The building isn't finished yet - it's got the two separate buildings mroe or less done, but the dramatic horizontal portion between them at the top is still under construction. But in a way that made it all the more impressive for seeming like two organic things growing towards each other, like a plant leaning towards sunlight.

One of the exceptions with espect to presevation is the Ullens Center and the surrounding 798 art district. Here the East Germans came to China in the 1940s and built a host of weapons-making facilities, all of which has been transformed into not only the Ullens museum, but a cluster of art galleries.(798 was one of the many numbered buildings in this previously classified and restricted area.) Contemporary Chinese art has  skyrocketed in attention and popularity today after being virtually nonexistent before the mid-1980s. And all this art is happening in places they used to make bombs and guns.

At the same time, with traffic here so out of control it literally chokes the inhabitants (I've seen numerous local people wearing masks, and my colleagues are complaining of sore throats), it seems that Beijing really suffers from the way the city seems to segregate different functions like business, art, and government. Naturally that happens to a degree in every city, but seemingly more so here. For us Portlanders, the mantra has increasingly become that in terms of urban planning you have to get people able to live, work and play in the same areas with a mix of uses.

I think I'm the only journalist on this trip who isn't from a major world city. Everyone else comes from New York, Paris, Los Angeles, Vienna, Berlin, Tokyo and so on. Portland is never going to be one of those places, but I think most of you out there reading this will probably join me in being more than OK with that. I hate to resort to a rancid cliche, but as much fun as I've had seeing China for the first time, Portland is really gonna smell like roses.