HPLO seeks guidelines for new architecture in historic districts

Mercy Corps headquarters (photo by Jeff Amram)

BY FRED LEESON

One of the toughest challenges facing an architect is designing a new building in a National Historic District. Is the goal to build something that looks “old” so that it blends in, or should it be relentlessly “new” to let observers know that it belongs to its own time and place?

The Historic Preservation League of Oregon has spent much of the last year trying to capture “design principles” that could help guide new developments in historic districts throughout the state. It may come as a surprise to learn that Oregon has 123 districts placed on the National Register of Historic Places, including 15 in Multnomah County. Many of them contain gaps – often surface parking lots – that could someday be filled with new structures.

Peggy Moretti, director of the state-wide preservation advocacy group, said goal of the year-long project is to provide inspiration and guidance for new projects in historic districts. Too often, she said, preservationists are perceived “as purveyors of ‘no.’” During its study, the HPLO held public meetings in Ashland, The Dalles and Portland where design professionals, preservation advocates and citizens added their voices.

The topic is especially relevant in Portland, where planners, Old Town property owners and preservation advocates have been battling over several vacant “opportunity sites.” The developers, understandably, would like to take advantage of zoning that allows 250-foot maximum heights in parts of the district, while preservation advocates argue that the historic “context” of the district calls for far less. The HPLO study suggests that historic districts get hurt when there is a major “disconnect” between zoning regulations and existing historic fabric – certainly the case in Old Town. 

Some of the most interesting comments at the Portland session came after Ann Naito-Campbell, whose family owns many buildings in the historic district, said she had heard no negative comments about the Mercy Corps addition behind the Packer-Scott Building of 1892 at SW First Avenue and Ankeny Street. Well, now she has.

The addition, which approximately doubles the size of the original building, was designed by Thomas Hacker Architects. It was approved by the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission in 2007, after considerable discussion that resulted in a rare split vote, 4-2 in favor of the Hacker plan. Though the designers took some cues from the older building on the addition’s north and south faces, the east wall facing heavily-trafficked Naito Parkway is substantially a glass curtain wall. Motorists passing by would have no clue that the building is essentially a gateway to a historic district.

William J. Hawkins III, a retired architect and foremost expert on Portland’s historic cast iron buildings, said such modernism makes a “farce” of the historic district.  Henry Kunoski, who teaches architecture at the University of Oregon, said historic districts face “death by a thousand cuts” from inappropriate additions.

So: What could the guiding principles be?  The HPLO is working on as several, some more important than others.  The most significant, however, is that “the district is the resource.” That means designers of new buildings should look at the entire district in which they are designing, not just the immediate neighbors, for design cues and appropriate context.  Inspiration for massing, shape and materials, where possible, should come from the specific district.

Further, infill is secondary to the historic district. This could be a challenge for architects hoping to be daring or dramatic.  While designs should be compatible, they also should be sufficiently distinct to let observers tell easily what is old and what is newer. However, the scale, patterning and texture of new buildings should reflect the district’s character, and floor-to-floor heights should match those of historic buildings. New building materials need not be manipulated to mimic “old.”

Another topic if fertile discussion was whether design guidelines should be regulatory (read: mandatory) or advisory.  Jeff Joslin, a former Portland Bureau of Development Services manager, said many districts throughout the state lack guidelines – and that guidelines drafted for some districts are out-dated or ineffective. The mix is complicated by the fact that in many smaller jurisdictions, bureaucrats charged with overseeing historic districts have no design or historic expertise.

The consensus seemed to be that advisory guidelines are insufficient, but that designers need flexibility to deal with specific unusual circumstances that often arise. John Russell, a Portland developer experienced in renovating historic buildings, said he liked the idea of firm guidelines “with decision-makers” available to hear and rule on special requests. In general terms, that is how Portland functions with its Landmarks Commission.

The HPLO hopes to complete its infill recommendations in the next few months.  That should make them available for the next development fracas in Old Town.

Fred Leeson is president of the Bosco-Milligan Foundation and its Architectural Heritage Center.

Advertisement

Comments

[stephen]

I am all for preserving and adapting historic buildings and neighborhoods.
I think that maintaining a proper scale, material palette and sensitivity to the historic context is a good thing.
I am absolutely against the overt replication of a historic style. We do not have the ability, at least without significant expense, to properly recreate these wonderful old buildings. Most of the attempts at simulation that I have seen are poor at best.
Cities need layers. New buildings should be sensitive in scale and materials and should help delineate the sense of history.
I think the Hacker design fits well in these respects. It is contemporary yet blends well with the context.

[Doug Kelso]

Personally, I have no objections to putting a replica of an old building in Old Town as long as it is an accurate replica (at least on the outside). Don't tell me we can't create brickwork like the Pythian Building today. Don't tell me we can't pour a classic cast iron facade for the front of a building, even if it's attached to a steel skeleton.

Personally, I'd like to see the City draw a line around the Old Town Historic District and allow new buildings within that reproduce -- as exactly as possible -- the exterior of any notable building that was built in the Pacific Northwest prior to 1930. (At this point, that's a minimum of 81 years ago). Set height limits that let the buildings get as tall as their historic pre-1930 counterparts.

The trade-off for the developers would be the waiver of ALL off-street parking requirements -- a rule that's also historically justified, since very few people owned cars or even carriages in that era. The area is well-served by public transit and there's a lot of street parking, plus surface parking in the vacant lots in the district, and plenty of structured parking just a few blocks away. No need to make room for more cars.

Certainly, reproducing an old building isn't any challenge for an architect. It's more an engineering question -- take an old blueprint from a spectacular now-demolished 1922 Seattle building (for example) and modify the interior for modern materials, seismic standards, and energy efficiency.

But as noted, "the district is the resource." Keep the sense of a historic district all around, and the buildings will rapidly increase in value. It would be a good pay-off for property owners over the long run.

It would also make for a good tourist draw, something like a Portland version of the old towns in the hearts of many great cities in Europe. (Which, in some cases, are reconstructions of older buildings that had been destroyed in the Second World War.) That would help support a lively pedestrian district with a lot of retail and restaurant space on the ground floors.

[stephen]

I will tell you that unless a serious financial investment is made, an accurate historic replica is not possible. It does not pencil out for any developer to make this kind of investment.
I will tell you that creating a Disneyland like simulation is not a proper way to make a city.

[Doug Kelso]

That may be true, but I'm skeptical. It would certainly cost money to reconstruct an elaborate brick facade on the face of a building; a lot more than just slapping on prefabricated panels. But how would that balance against the savings of NOT having to provide a lot of underground parking?

And I said nothing about a "Disneyland like simulation." I'm talking about historic design on building facades to match the neighborhood around it. Neighborhood restoration to an approximation of what was actually there, not a theme park. If I start suggesting people wearing period costumes, 19th century gift shops, nickelodeon theaters and horse-drawn carriage rides, feel free to call me on it.