Targeting the Galleria for a smaller urban big-box store

The Galleria (photo by Fred Leeson)

BY FRED LEESON

It would be entirely understandable if Art DeMuro, chairman of the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission, feels like he has a big red target on his chest.  Make that a Target.

The mega-retailing firm based in Minneapolis, best known for its suburban big box stores, hopes to open a smaller, urban outlet in downtown Portland on the second floor of the Galleria Building at 921 SW Morrison. But to achieve that goal, it needs approval for exterior changes to the 101-year old landmark retail building.

DeMuro and other members of the landmarks commission can’t help but feel the pressure on this one. The downtown retail community badly wants Target, presumably for spillover business from shoppers Target might attract. It would be a coup for downtown, where vacant storefronts are common as a result of the poor economy.

And the landmarks commission is perceived by some – rightly or wrongly – as an obstacle to developers hoping to renovate in the urban core. The commission, now approximately 40 years old, is charged with approving exterior changes to designated landmarks and buildings in historic districts. Decisions of the commission can be appealed to the City Council. Earlier in June, Greg Goodman, an outspoken member of the prominent Goodman family of downtown property owners, criticized the commission in DeMuro’s presence at a meeting about the role of historic preservation in the evolving 2035 Central City Plan.

Galleria facade intended for Target loading dock (photo by Fred Leeson)

Goodman declared that developers see the landmarks commission as a costly obstacle in the way of progress. He said some developers won’t take on projects if the commission’s approval is necessary. He suggested, in essence, that the commission was too picky in trying to preserve the fabric of historic buildings, and that public hearings and design changes the commission sometimes recommends comprise unwelcome additional costs.

Then, surprisingly perhaps, Goodman said his own company had never had any problems in dealing with the landmarks commission.

Target representatives and their Portland design team at Fletcher Farr Ayotte accepted a suggestion that they meet with the landmarks commission for an advisory meeting on June 27. The key changes they seek are a new entrance at the west end of the Morrison Street frontage near S.W. 10th Avenue, and the removal of two window bays on the Alder Street frontage to create loading docks.

On the plus side, the design team plans to restore wood windows to some openings that were replaced with louvers over the years, and to recreate a canopy, long since removed, over the central entrance on SW 10th.  The central entrance on 10th would be the main entrance for other tenants in the building, not the primary entrance to Target.

The loading bays appear to be the biggest hurdle. The original loading facilities were on the SW Ninth Avenue side of the full-block building, but modern trucks are too big to negotiate that narrow street. Even on the wider Alder Street,  Target plans to use 28-foot vehicles to serve the proposed store, considerably smaller than the 53 and 60-foot rigs that haul goods to its big-box stores.

Roll-up doors would replace the two big display windows, but the designers said the doors could duplicate the bulkhead and transom dimensions of the adjacent bays. The doors would be opened only to allow entry and egress; they would be lowered while trucks are inside.

The building, completed in 1910 for the pioneer retail firm of Olds Wortman & King, was designed by Charles R. Aldrich, who designed some major commissions in Minneapolis before moving to Seattle in 1905. He worked for an investment firm that erected buildings in Seattle, Spokane, Portland and Los Angeles. The building was the first full-block retail structure built in downtown.  Its steel frame with terra cotta exterior and wide bays is somewhat reminiscent of Louis Sullivan’s famed Carson Pirie Scott store finished in Chicago in 1899, which set the standard for new large-scale retail stores.  (Coincidentally, Target is planning to open a store in the former Carson Pirie Scott building late next year.)  

Although its full-block footprint has been unchanged, the building has been altered many times over the years.  The interior was substantially remodeled in the 1940s, and again in the 1960s when the building bore the Rhodes nameplate.  After Rhodes closed in 1973, the building was purchased by Bill and Sam Naito for $565,000, even then a “fire sale” price for what was considered a terra cotta white elephant. The innovative Naito team reopened the central transom and rebuilt a central stairway, making the first three floors into retail shops and the upper two stories into offices. They converted the basement to parking, with an entry off Alder Street.

The Galleria, as the Naitos renamed it, was a major retail success and helped re-establish downtown Portland as an interesting retail venue. But the opening of Pioneer Place in 1990 pulled the retail core westward, and the Galleria lost its retail charm. The central stairway was pulled out and Brooks Brothers leased approximately half of the first floor in 2007. Private cooking and  medical training schools occupy the upper floors.

DeMuro, the landmarks chairman, is not an architect. But as the principal of Venerable Properties, a firm that concentrates on restoring old buildings, he has vast knowledge of historic building styles and details. It was no surprise, then, that when Target showed up for the advisory hearing DeMuro grilled the design team about details of original doors, windows, canopies and other elements.   He already was aware that the four sides of the building show a “mish-mash” of original and often-changed parts.

“The more restoration of the façade, the better,” he said at one point.  “That helps the case for other changes.”

And that will be the key to matter when Target submits its formal renovation application in coming weeks.  As Judy VanAlstyne, a property manager for The Bill Naito Company said in opening remarks, the Olds building was a retail structure from the start.  It still is a retail building and can continue to be a key retail asset in the future.  It just needs a few accommodations.  DeMuro and other restoration professionals on the commission don’t need to be told that adaptive re-use is the key to most restoration projects.

The commission’s goal will be to restore and preserve as much original fabric as possible, to minimize damage and to encourage sensitive design of new elements.  In the end, that will be the best result for Target, for downtown Portland and for the landmark building.

Fred Leeson is a Portland journalist and president of the Bosco-Milligan Foundation and its Architectrual Heritage Center.

Advertisement

Comments

[Pipinghotbowlofkimchi.wordpress.com]

I think the loading dock at the prime corner of SW 10th/Alder is a big issue, though more an urban design issue. I want to see this store as much as anyone else downtown but dead groundfloors especially in prime locations are destructive to pedestrian traffic. Even just shifting the loading dock over a bay to the east might allow for a tiny hole-in-the-wall storefront on the corner like the Pizza Schmizza in the Fox Tower or the Elephants Coffeestand in Macys (along the transit mall) which would do wonders to keep this key corner active. SW 10th has become one of the main N-S retail streets in downtown Portland.

Ideally the loading dock and freight elevator core would go on Alder closer to 9th Ave where that useless entrance and poor retail location is in the Galleria. This would allow a normal retail space to remain at SW 10th/Alder where Collier and Made in Oregon was which would be even more valuable with the new Target foot traffic.

BTW, I'm just curious, will the Target store have customer parking? Would it be validated or on your own? Use the basement parking garage or the SmartPark across Morrison with the skybridge?

[Fred Leeson]

Just to clarify, the loading docks would take out the two window bays immediately west of the basement parking ramp. The two window bays closest to 10th on Alder would not be affected by the loading scheme.

[Justin Morton]

I am torn on this one. I lived in downtown Chicago for a year and there was a Target store similar to this one smack dab in the center of the city. And I used it all the time. Loved it. But that building was much newer, and it appeared to have been developed specifically to host a big box store.

If Target keeps the alterations to the facade of this building at a minimum, then I say let them build it. But if Target is going to eliminate ground-level retail with their loading docks, then I say no. There is no reason to rush into this. One Target store is not going to magically fix downtown's commercial scene. You need lower unemployment and a stronger economy to do that.

[Pipinghotbowlofkimchi.wordpress.com]

Fred, having only seen the pre-app plans, I recall the freight elevator core for the store would be between the loading dock and the corner? If I understand correctly, the exterior would stay the same but there would only be space for a display window on the corner.

[Mudd]

It seems that the urban design issues and the historic concerns align fairly well with this project. Traditionally, the big box folks are quite poor at providing street presence. (I think that Target is one of the better ones, though.) I hope Art and the rest of the commission don't budge on this at all. While it would be great to have Target there, we need to remember that these design decisions will last 20 plus years, at least the length of their lease. Sure, they may restore some things but it cannot come at the cost of really screwing up the corner.

[Fred Leeson]

Pipinghot...If there was any discussion of the freight elevator, I missed it. The commission's jurisdiction is only over the building's exterior.

[Sy Ableman]

I think a Target store would be a significant enhancement to Downtown Portland as a residential neighborhood. At the same time, I'm concerned about the impact that two loading bays plus a parking garage entrance are likely to have on walkability. Because of its proximity to one of the city's largest food cart pods and to highly-frequented streetcar stops, SW Alder has become a major pedestrian thoroughfare.

At last week's Landmarks Commission hearing, Target representatives made two assertions that deserve closer scrutiny:

1. Target says that loading bays cannot be placed on SW 9th due to PBoT's concerns about the ability of trucks to negotiate the necessary turns onto such a narrow street. This may well be a legitimate issue, but it's worth probing further: Was PBoT referring to the smaller, 28-ft trucks? Are there any modifications that would make this turn possible? Is PBoT saying that drivers would actually be unable to make this turn or just that it would not be optimal?


2. Due to the high turnover of merchandise that they expect at this downtown location, Target says that it needs two loading bays. But are two bays a necessity or just a convenience? In an era of cell phone communication and just-in-time inventory and GPS tracking, would it not be possible for Target to supply this store through careful staging of delivery? I don't pretend to understand the challenges of stocking a large store such as this, but I would definitely like to see the math before I conclude that Target might not be able to get by with a single loading bay if it were willing to make some accommodations.

[Mudd]

Sy, further to your point #1, what truck size WOULD work on 9th? If that is the best area for loading, just make it happen. If Target really wants to be there, that probably won't stop them even though they might at first say it would. (Unless you can only fit a Honda Civic on that side, then I would see their point.)

[Jim Heuer]

Mudd raises an interesting question relative to just what would it take to make use of the historic 9th Avenue docks, where the predecessor department stores received their merchandise deliveries for decades.

The PBOT folks appear to have argued that getting trucks to turn into 9th from Alder would be too difficult. Certainly that would be true of the standard 53' van trailers that typically make chain store deliveries. But a 27' or 28' (both are standards) van could do it easily. The problem would be getting such a van around a turn on 9th Avenue into an inside dock. That was never done in historic times and actually needn't be done now.

The solution would be a small fleet of 28' van units with side doors and a small modification of the existing 9th Avenue docks and the associated sidewalk to allow the vans to pull up alongside the building and unload from the side. While this type of equipment is not extremely common, it is offered by most of the major truck and van suppliers as an optional design for exactly this type of delivery.

The fact is that the cost of two or three such special units would be a fraction of the total cost of the remodel required by Target, and the end result would be preservation of valuable window display space facing Alder. It would also free up interior space otherwise required for the interior unloading bays. Since deliveries to big box stores typically are done by closed systems from central distribution centers using contract or dedicated fleet carriers, the scheduling and dispatch of the equipment is completely in Target's control, and could likely be handled by their existing systems.

If Target intends to be a player in central city urban retail, it will need to figure out how to operate in areas with narrow streets and awkward access by 53' van trailers. Inner city Philadelphia, Boston, Manhattan, and others come to mind. Portland is absolutely not unique in this regard.