Portland's way, but not right away: Burger King at Broadway & Burnside finally gone

Abandoned Burger King at Broadway & Burnside (photo by Jason McHuff via Flickr) 

For all the development that happened during the last decade's economic boom years, a major eyesore and symbol of destitution has remained for years at one of the most prominent intersections in the city of Portland, at Broadway and Burnside: a boarded up Burger King. But last Tuesday, the long-vacant fast food franchise, first built in 1978, finally disappeared. It wasn't flame broiled or fried like a slab of ground beef, but demolition crews were certainly doing this, to borrow from a past BK slogan, our way if not right away.

As Lost Oregon blogger John Chilson notes, this Burger King was actually once lauded for its design. The local chapter of the American Institute of Architects actually gave the this Whopper of a fast-food outlet a design award in 1978. And if you look at it a certain way, noticing the sloping overhangs, it does kind of gently recall northwest modernism, or at least a bastardized form rendered in 70s corporate fast food form.

The same Burger King in 1978 (image courtesy John Chilson, Lost Oregon blog) 

More than any design award, though, this Burger King was long renowned for its less than ideal urban vibe. Apparently lots of drug dealers, prostitutes and petty thieves appreciated the royal treatment having a burger their way (unless it's fried, of course). One commenter on Chilson's blog recalls working there in the 1980s:

Great education in real life for a teen, I must say. Working the register left you open to threats, propositions, lost international tourists with travelers’ checks, crazy people, and shifty money-changers.

People were always trying to reach in and grab the till drawer at the drive-through–one of my coworkers kept a section of broom handle at that station so she could beat them on the arm. I just slammed the window as hard as I could. I also remember a coworker defending herself with a pot of hot coffee (yikes).

Addicts would nod off in the back dining area, and homeless would sleep there as well (most of the dining room, and the bathrooms, were completely out of the line of sight of the front counter–how stupid a design is that?!).

I had to clean the bathrooms sometimes and it was a real horror show. The mirrors were broken quite often, and there would be urine-soaked clothes laying around, and razor stubble from street guys trying to keep clean in there. Needles, flooding, you name it.

We used to slip the 'waste' (food that had been sitting longer for X number of minutes) to the homeless. The managers forbid us to give it to those in need, so there was an extra incentive to do it. That place is loaded with bad karma.

And that wasn't even the worst of it. Also in the '80s, a transient was crushed to death in the hydraulic trash compactor. "Supposedly, the man crawled in looking for thrown-away food (or possible just a place to sleep it off) when an employee threw a bag of garbage on top of him and flipped the switch," Chilson explains. "Although the homeless man’s cries were heard almost immediately, it was too late."

Burger King actually vacated this particular franchise in about 2002. Why has it sat vacant for eight years? After all, it's not as if there wasn't a very robust economic boom that could have revitalized this prominent street corner with housing, retail, office space or some mixed-use combination.

Rendering of future Broadway Recovery Center (image courtesy SERA Architects) 

Regardless, now the BK site will be transformed into a $19 million health clinic, The Broadway Recovery Center, run by Central City Concern and expected to open in 15 months. The three-story, 44,000-square-foot building, designed by Portland's SERA Architects, would be adjacent to the Richard L. Harris Building,  which houses the Old Town Clinic. The plan is to eventually knock down walls between the buildings. In one location, Central City Concern would then own two buildings and run programs offering health care for as many as 40,000 patient visits a year.

As The Oregonian's Tom Hallman reported, the first moments of demolition last Tuesday garnered cheers from the assembled crowd, which included Congressman David Wu. (Hopefully this is a kinder, gentler, more justified version of the architectural blood lust thrust at Memorial Coliseum.) But if you look at the comments section from this post (which admittedly I should remember never to do), it's not universally celebrated. Some feel the addition of more social services for the homeless and addicted will actually be worse than a boarded up burger shack.

"We don't need more of these losers in our city," writes the (unsurprisingly) anonymous commenter 'PDX97204'. "How much more do you want to spend on these people? And how many more from out of the area do you want to attract to our community?"

Another commenter believes the $19 million Central City Concern is devoting to this project a relative waste. "I wonder how many jobs would be created if they would have made Portland 19 million dollars easier to navigate, attracting new employers, and just plan being more customer/business friendly toward residents when delivering their services," writes commenter 'tombdragon'.

Rendering of future Broadway Recovery Center (image courtesy SERA Architects) 

Luckily these are just common misconceptions. The City of Portland doesn't control, and can't control, how many transients and homeless people come here. Portland has a mild climate that may attract those at the bottom of the social spectrum, and a liberal political climate given to progressive social services that help people in need. If doing so is wrong, let's not rush to make it right. What's more, although perhaps Portland's economic development climate is another conversation entirely, it's not as if that $19 million could magically be moved from a nonprofit into some sort of kettle reserved for business incentives and tax breaks. In fact, one would expect downtown and Old Town businesses to be glad for this treatment center. If Portland really does have a problem with too many destitute panhandlers, drug dealers, perennial alcoholics and transients, a new facility like this is the way to handle the problem.

Somewhat ironically, Central City Concern actually was founded in 1979, within a year of the Burger King opening at Burnside and Broadway. It's just a coincidence, naturally, but perhaps it collectively says something about the late 1970s in Portland and beyond: a time when downtowns were crumbling as the middle class continued a suburban exodus. In the '80s, the franchise might have fared better if it sold rot-gut alcohol or crack cocaine. Funnily enough, the BK franchise itself was an example of suburban, automobile-oriented America coming to downtown Portland. Other fast food franchises like McDonald's exist downtown, but they are built into mixed-use buildings. The Burger King at Broadway and Burnside was, on the other hand, a standard single-story, drive-through fast food franchise, no matter its local design award. Clearly the award wasn't for urban place-making.

Today, though, the boarded-up Burger King at Broadway and Burnside may be an indicator that, despite the decades of under-performing and the current cloudy economic climate, the NW Broadway corridor may finally be transforming into something better. Pacific Northwest College of Art is renovating 511 Broadway, one grand old piece of architecture down the street. The moribund Daisy Kingdom Building has been renovated into an art-gallery hub (rechristened as the DeSoto Buiding). NW Broadway is the border between the Pearl District and Old Town/Chinatown, and while the Pearl has long been thriving with art galleries, condos and restaurants, Old Town and Chinatown are showing new signs of life as well. Some local businesses remain concerned that there is too much clustering of social services in Old Town, and it's true that no city should seek to ghettoize its less fortunate. Successful urban planning is about creating a mix, a melting pot. And with Powells Books just two blocks up Burnside and Pioneer Courthouse Square a five-minute walk away from the old Burger King site, it's not as if Old Town is some wasteland of people without mailing addresses or healthy livers. It's called a city, and replacing industrial fast food with social services is what Portland, like any progressive place, is all about.

Oh, and fried burgers are way better than flame broiled. If you're missing your Whopper fix, I recommend a far superior cheeseburger a couple blocks away at Fuller's Coffee Shop.

Comments

[Ms. Sherman]

I think this very site as a B.K. is critical to a Dead Kennedy's song. Perhaps "Take This Job and Shove It"? There is a connection to this place and the band, I'll try to did it up but I'm working right now.

[mightythylacine]

When I first moved to Portland in 2000 I went here often because i was really really poor and lived near by. I have... memories of it, not necessarily great ones. I am fairly certain I saw a guy piss himself there once. It was either there or the old "psyco-safeway" where the Eliot tower is now.

Anyway, given its unique design and its connection to my personal history in town I was sad to see it go. When I heard it was definitely coming down on the 7th I dropped my work and went to take some pictures and say goodbye. I'm happy to see the space will be used to help people though. It certainly has found a higher purpose.

[Leo]

The "Psycho Safeway" still exists, it's not where Eliot Tower is now, but at SW 11th and Jefferson under the Museum Place apartments.

[Brian Libby]

The Psycho Safeway actually is gone as we knew it. It was originally where the Eliot Tower is, and then moved across the street to Museum Place. I used to live across the street from the old store, and it definitely had a sketchy vibe that's very different from the new Safeway.

[eenie]

I'm curious as to why the new building is only 3 stories. I get that Central City may only need/be able to finance a 3-story building, but it seems a bit of a lost opportunity for the location.

[Kathy Pape]

The building is designed with "vertical expansion" in mind and Central City Concern may add multiple stories of housing above the three existing stories in future years.

[marc]

I'm disappointed there was no effort to save this classic example of modern fast food restaurant architecture. It's a shame that such a historic edifice was not preserved as a monument to the past for the benefit of future generations.

[gerrrg]

The reason why it sat fallow, was because the price of the land was too high, and for any developer, having the SRO next door was NOT beneficial except to develop similar public related services.

If you subtract the $9M that came from the federal stimulus bill, that's $227/sf of local public money. If you use the $19M figure, that's $431/sf...or about how much some people have paid for their Pearl condos.

Can you imagine, however, that the acquisition cost of the property went UP between 2007 to 2009?

At least when it was empty, the owner was paying property taxes. With (an expected) non-profit status, they'll be removing $23K in annual property taxes, and millions more potential tax revenue (if it had been developed for highest use).

In effect, we are raising taxes on ourselves, as we increasingly remove land from taxable status, forcing Portlanders to accept increased property tax rates to make up for the shortfall for other services such as emergency, education and transportation.

Just saying, nothing comes for free.

[dennis]

I am happy for this going through, it is a good looking building from SERA and it would be interesting to see if there is ever the expansion on top of it to make it taller than the 3 stories.

Though speaking of the architecture of the old fast food building, it definitely reflected an era of architecture, but it failed when it came to a site specific location which allowed the place to be much more dangerous than it overall should of been...though I can only speak from what I have read about it seeing I moved here after it had closed.

Though I will say thank you Brian for the little bit of architectural history on this building. Often times that kind of information gets lost within history and we see things for just face value when it comes to wishing to tear down buildings. Obviously a building like this ranks very low on the scale of buildings to save...it is sort of a pick you fights kind of war that preservationists must deal with which is why there was no real issues with anyone over this building coming down.

As for this building being off the tax base for the city, it is an important consideration, just as much as the cost of throwing people in jail rather than providing treatment places for them.

[Don Libby]

You are telling Whoppers about Burger King.

[Brian Libby]

Marc, funny stuff there, but if this BK were truly one-of-a-kind, I'd happily argue for its preservation. :)

[Sam Butler]

If only we could lure more 'Chinatown' businesses to an area that became Chinatown, I'd be happier.

Got my photos, and go the photo view vistas through the space that will disappear once they start the new building.

[Stephen]

It will be great to replace that rotten tooth.
I am envious of SERA getting to do some urban architecture with the economy the way it is.
It will be good to offer these destitute folks some medical help. It really sucks that there seems to be such a big problem.
There are way too many homeless, destitute, walking wounded people around town and I am torn between wanting to help them and just wanting the problem to go away.
While architecture will not solve the problem, it will sure be nice to improve this part of downtown and help some people in the process.

[gerrrg]

I'm not saying, by the way, that a treatment center taking land / building off the tax books is a bad thing necessarily - if the need exists, we should meet it head on - but that the site had high property tax potential. (Anyone that uses the East Bank Esplanade and the general Waterfront, knows all too well that there are a lot of heroin and crack users. Early this morning, I saw two drug users and about two dozen homeless people just on the waterfront.)

Instead of locating such unproductive (property tax) use on highly sought after areas (downtown core), why not locate them at the periphery, where high density gives way to lower density, single- and two-story structures? Master plan it so that a village of these services can be served by free public transit and provide adjacent open, outdoor space for homeless people to camp legally.

It lessens the property tax impact (and thus provides more tax money for these services), helps to build up density along the periphery, provides much easier access to services, and discourages the impromptu encampments that I have seen under the Fremont Bridge and the I-405 Freeway and many other sites that turn into impassable sidewalks.

[kitten]

kinda boring

[Jeff Joslin]

Couple of fact checks.

One of the reasons it sat waiting for a riper re-development was because after three years of abandonment, the site has lost its drive-through rights no longer allowed by Code. Neither a drive-through, nor the multiple curb-cuts (especially the one on Burnside) were allowed despite a number of fast-food and bank interests over time, some of who were very assertive, and shocked that we'd choose a vacant site over occupancy.

There have been no other substantial efforts to redevelop the site in recent years. Bill Church was not the designer for a proposal on this site, but was the original designer for the Reach Community Development site that is now 8 NW 8th.

[Brian says: Thanks Jeff. I've removed the portion of the post in question.]

[dennis]

I am not sure if this is what you meant by village but there is a high concentration of these clinics and shelters within and around Old Town/Chinatown and over near PGE Park, both being fairly central location areas and at the given time these two areas were becoming target areas for these shelters and clinics, they were not known as being the best parts of town...though as times change and these parts of town are starting to become more attractive, we start to get issues with "why here?" When the answer to that question was answered long ago.

Though I do like your point about along the waterfront, I am all for helping people who are in need of medical or mental health or have fallen on hard times because personally if you are willing to be homeless, there is something wrong with that person mentally and should be given the chance to seek help with that. But with the Waterfront, I would like to see those parking lots along Naito be redeveloped and the waterfront take on a more prestigious look for the city...possibly even including an architectural gem for the city, but that really is a different topic all together.

[Mo]

"willing to be homeless" dennis? Really?

I've met many homeless individuals, each with their own story and situation, yet one thing that was a common thread was that none of them were willing.

[dennis]

I don't mean willing as in waking up one day and deciding, "hey, it would be fun to be homeless." I mean it in a sense that if one is willing to let their life sink that low usually with the help of some sort of an addiction (which addictions start off with willing choices.)

[Brian Libby]

Dennis,

I think you have a fair point when you express concern about lots of social service providers clustering along Burnside. We don't want to ghettoize the homeless.

While I can appreciate the principle you're arguing here, that each person controls his or her own destiny and must take responsibility for difficulties like addiction, ultimately I don't think it's so simple. These people aren't criminals, or at least not necessarily. I like the idea of having a government that is compassionate and proactive about addressing these problems, which are the result of a complex array of both individual and societal difficulties.

[dennis]

Nor do I Brian, I am a huge supporter of these types of clinics rather than expanding our prison system and treating the homeless as criminals. I grew up in a city that would just pick them up downtown, then take them over to a poverty stricken neighborhood and drop them off so it was an out of sight out of mind kind of attitude to dealing with such situation. I would much rather be in a city that showed some compassion to its poorest of citizens.

Though, like any addiction, there is no simple answer or solution to such problems, which would go far beyond this topic of what is replacing this building...which I am actually interested in seeing how this building turns out at that location, and I am really hoping the building sticks to its true white color in the renderings...Portland could use some white buildings to break up some of the more drab color buildings that we have.

[gerrrg]

@Dennis, no, I am not referring to the collection of homeless services in Old Town and the Pearl. Those are mere infill, hardly master planned, and still inside of the downtown area. They are still taking up valuable property and erasing the property taxes that could effectively fund these homeless programs on cheaper land.

For instance, we have an SRO being built kitty-corner to the Amtrak station, and by the way, it blocks one-quarter of the view of one of our city's iconic symbols. There is no master planning involved, just a building plopped into downtown, taking away property taxes and blocking the Amtrak station.

(Now don't get me wrong, I'm also very upset with the surface parking lot infill that produces income for property owners who are waiting for land prices to rise high enough to make it worth selling or developing into higher use.)

I am literally talking about creating an urban version of New Columbia. I mean, either HAP's strategy of creating these villages of housing and services is a failure and it should be stopped, or it's a template for SRO and homeless services.

[Mo]

gerrrg,

Are you suggesting that the Housing Authority or some other agency should purchase a large tract of land downtown (such as the post office site), and create (or "masterplan" as you say) an urban village for the homeless? Is that really the way to develop inside the central city? What would that achieve as opposed to carefully selected infill?

From what I understand, the homeless housing by Union Station had quite a lengthy community process to find its site, and was anything but "plopped" there.

I'm just trying to understand your point, besides your unrealistic nostalgia for lost view corridors across vacant, underused lots.

[ka]

Looking more at the proposed design, than the political landscape, I am surprised that the two buildings don't look a little more reflective of each other. I don't mean siblings, or uber contextual, but maybe cousins. The elevation that faces burnside appears to miss an opportunity of working together. Maybe the three story massing makes this difficult. It looks nice as a stand alone building, but I am looking for that extra layer of complexity between the two buildings.