415 SW 10th, Mork from Ork's suspenders, and the meaning of historic preservation

Tyler Graf has an article in Tuesday's Daily Journal of Commerce about the "checkerboard" building downtown on 10th Avenue (around the corner from the Ace Hotel), which is being renovated, but possibly signficantly altered as well, by developer Richard Singer and the excellent Holst Architecture. Graf was nice enough to quote me in the article on this favorite building of mine:

“'Coming around the corner and seeing the checkerboard building always makes me smile,'” Libby said. “'It’s an architectural Rubik’s Cube: fun, colorful and a bit puzzling. I totally love it...If Portland gets even a handsome modern building on that site at the expense of the checkerboard, I think an important and wonderful part of the city and its architectural past will be lost.'”

But Graf also has what may be some editorializing of his own in the first paragraph:

"Even though its design looks like it was rubber-stamped by a 1960s-era architect who, during a pique of deadline pressure, let his five-year-old son design it using nothing more than a limited set of Crayons, the building located on the block surrounded by Southwest Washington Street and Southwest Stark streets and Ninth and 10th avenues is still a bit of a Portland institution. Or at least it is to Brian Libby..."

I'm not writing this post because I got mentioned in Tyler's article, or because he and I may disagree about the aesthetic value of this building. But, after receiving a call from one reader asking what he could do to help save the Checkerboard building, I was reminded of an important point.

Graf speaks of the building being hopelessly out of style. He compares the Checkerboard's signature facade to a pair of rainbow-colored suspenders, presumably like the kind Mork From Ork used to wear on Mork & Mindy. I'm not saying Mork's suspenders will ever come back in style, but one has to take more of a long view with history and preservation.

Societies often rush to preserve buildings that are 100 years old, patting themselves on the back for not tearing them down like the heathens of the generation that preceded them. But then those same people are equally eager to demolish buildings 50 years old because they're out of style or character.

The reason there aren't more historic early 20th century buildings around is because people in the 1950s tore them down while they were preserving stuff from the 1850s. People in 1900 saved stuff from 1800 but scoffed at buildings from the 1850s. Obviously I'm over-simplifying here, but this is a general tendency that many historic preservation experts have told to me time and time again.

Of course not every midcentury modern building must be saved. But if you drive around Portland looking for mid-1900s architecture with panel systems like the Checkerboard's, there are fewer and fewer all the time, and none with the Checkerboard's sense of color. Some might find that kind of rainbow-suspender look outdated. But why not give your grandchildren a chance to decide?

Comments

[sodapop]

Didn't we already do this, and decide the building is not all that great?

http://chatterbox.typepad.com/portlandarchitecture/2008/07/checkerboard-building-to-be-renovated-by-singer-holst.html

[val]

Brian, you make a great point about how generations view the architecture of their predecessors. Buildings from the mid-20th century are in grave danger across the country because it is a tough sell convincing people of their architectural value. In the very least it is important to photo document this building - in detail - prior to any work being done on it or before it is demolished (let's hope it isn't). Maybe the building owner will be open to allowing such a project. There are a few ways to draw attention to buildings of the "recent past," check out what the National Trust for Historic preservation has to say about such buildings at this link: http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/modernism-recent-past/.
Another site that helps document endangered buildings is the Recent Past Preservation network: http://www.recentpast.org/index.html

[ws]

The building isn't that great. Still, I'd be in favor of keeping its square and rectangle facade design for what it adds to the area's context. There is something really simple and cool about being able to do something fresh with a combination of basic shapes. Being sandwiched between buildings of other more traditional facade styles really perks the area up.

I say enjoy it while it can last there as a low level structure. At some point the vultures of enterprise and profit will swoop down on the lot and insist that a much taller building makes far more sense.

[Bo]

Well stated. Last weekend I took a friend from Melbourne on a brief walking tour of downtown. As we strolled down Second and First Avenues toward the hopping Saturday Market, we passed a number of small storefront buildings of the 1870s/80s cast-iron era, and I felt both grateful and amazed that they had survived to the present at all - they certainly weren't Blagen Blocks. They are exactly the kind of unremarkable and easily dismissed sub-great architecture that the Checkerboard represents - period-expressive fabric buildings of contextual character that carry within them an essential part of the city's architectural and cultural story while sitting smack dab on real estate that represents a different kind of value altogether. While Portland's downtown has perhaps 20 or so buildings of the cast-iron era woven into it's fabric, I wonder how many it has right now to carry the mid-century message to future generations?

[truth]

As you all discuss the merits of preservation, please take this comment from the last time this building was discussed on this blog into consideration...

The quirky checkerboard colors aren't original, but were added in the early 90s. When Paul Gold (a prominent downtown landowner from 1951 to his death in 1981) built (rebuilt) the building in about 1962, he put in uniform orange panels. There was a building near PSU that used the same wall system and orange panels below the windows.

[ws]

The checkerboard colors aren't where this building's fundamental strength is. In real life, they're actually faded and drab, not like what you're probably seeing in the pic above.

The building's strength is in the appearance lent it through the use of the modular construction system incorporating simple squares and rectangles of opaque and glass material.

[MOB]

The building should communicate that the lot it sits on cuts through the entire city block with only a quarter block exposure on either side.