« The Architect's Questionnaire: Darin Dougherty | Main | Columbia Crossing, biggest boondoggle of our time, lurches closer to reality »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Brandon Spencerhartle

Thank you for the thoughtful blog post, Brian. I would encourage people concerned about these buildings or others in their community to consider nominating them to the 2013 list of Oregon's Most Endangered Places (application deadline March 1): http://www.historicpreservationleague.org/endangered.php

Zef Wagner

I love old, historic buildings, and love to see them restored and/or renovated. I get very frustrated, however, at the tendency of some people to think that everything that is old is also historic, or that the loss of any 100-year-old building is a terrible loss. This church is a spectacularly uninteresting and unattractive building. What is worth saving about it? The white plank siding? The generic church windows? The home featured later in the article is more interesting, but is still one of hundreds if not thousands of similar Victorians all over Portland.


This is happening all over inner portland. I think it's worth mentioning that although this building may be uninteresting or even run down, there may not be much to value in the alternative either. This just happened on my street. An 1894 year old home was demolished for the lot. That historical lot was split into three and now there will be three townhomes. Most likely University of Portland Rentals. Next door to that lot a modest three bedroom home is being converted to six and next to that another small home converted to eight bedrooms. No parking by the way. So, instead of an admittedly unsightly home, I will have a new triplex with no parking, filled to capacity with college kids who tend to be more of a negative presence than a positive. In my neighborhood, many, many two bedroom homes are being turned into 5-8 bedroom rentals or demolished. These new buildings may be more aesthetically attractive, but the lack of parking, the over-populated streets and the lost sense of community is not worth it. Half of the homes on my block are now rentals to college kids who will make the long-term residents' lives miserable and then leave never having cared about what their impact is, not unlike the builders and the city planners who carry out these projects without any care for the livability of the existing neighborhood. I don't care if it is a historic property or a church. I think there needs to be much more consideration, maybe not for what was there but for what will be and whether it's good for the community.


So to summarize the previous comment: we shouldn't knock down historic buildings in our city because someone might build a new building in its place that doesn't include a parking lot.

Fred Leeson

I seriously doubt there are "thousands" of old Victorian homes left in Portland. When they are gone, they are gone. We can't build new ones. On the other hand, we can build countless examples of modern schlock, because that's wehere the money is.

BJ Cefola

Not everyone has the time and money to maintain a 100 year old house (or to afford a gut rehab). And while they may not be Victorian a whole lot of pdx homes will be crossing the century mark in the next decade or two. If new construction is schlock where should people live?

Fred Leeson

Portland has plenty of buildable space without destroying our historic streetcar-era neighborhoods. Take a look east of I-205, for example. If there is greatness to be built, go do it.

BJ Cefola

There is a price for preservation in lost economic and ethnic diversity. East of I-205 looks a lot different than the area west, and I don't mean the buildings. I think perpetuating that division is neither healthy nor admirable.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Lead Sponsors


Portland Architecture on Facebook

More writing from Brian Libby


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

Paperblogs Network

Google Analytics

  • Google Analytics

Awards & Honors