Portland Architecture

The Architect's Questionnaire: Kristin Slavin

Kristin Slavin (image courtesy of the architect)

BY LUKE AREHART

Next in the Architect’s Questionnaire series is Portland architect Kristin Slavin. Kristin is currently an associate with PATH Architecture. She recently worked on completing the finishing touches on The Radiator Building, one of the newest built additions to North Williams Avenue. Previously, Kristin’s career included stops at notable Portland firms Hennebery Eddy Architects and SERA Architects, the latter where she served as the project assist on the Collaborative Life Sciences Building.

Portland Architecture: When did you first become interested in architecture as a possible career?

Kristin Slavin: My mom told me that my interest started in middle school, but I don’t quite remember the beginning of my interest. I definitely knew that I wanted to be an architect when I started high school. I took every single drafting class that was available.

Where did you study architecture and how would you rate the experience?

I earned my undergraduate degree at Texas Tech University and did my graduate work at the University of Oregon in Eugene. They were very different programs, which I think is really valuable. However, I didn’t realize how valuable the experience was until after I was done. Texas Tech was great; I think that their architecture program is underrated. It doesn’t seem to get much press in the architecture community. The program was focused on design and leveraging computer programs to get your point across graphically, along with the necessary experimentation of unique solutions. We also had really tough critiques there, which I think was very useful to develop your design. U of O, on the other hand, is driven by sustainability along with the technical details involved to get a building built. My education experience was a good combination of multiple aspects. In contrast to Texas Tech, U of O could do a better job with design reviews by being more critical of students’ work. It was a good combination of schools overall.

Kartini Clinic (photo by Josh Partee)

What is your favorite building project that you’ve worked on?

The last project I just finished: the Kartini Clinic, a tenant improvement project in The Radiator Building. The reason that this project was my favorite is because I was able to be in control. It was my first project where I was the lead. Our firm (PATH Architecture) is small; we’re only four people. It was my responsibility to make sure the project developed through design, permit and construction. We build our projects too; I was working directly with our contractor. This project was more hands-on than any other project I worked on, which was awesome. I’m sure my next project will be my favorite and the one after that and so on. It was a really nice introduction to leading a project from start to finish.

Who has been an important mentor among your colleagues?

I have had a lot of great bosses, mentors and people who have been willing to talk to me openly about my career path and what I want out of it. The person that I have stayed in touch with the best is Alene Davis at SERA Architects. She was my first boss in the business here in Portland. I worked with her on the Collaborative Life Sciences Building while I was at SERA. She was great at developing me as an architect. We’ve stayed in touch and it’s been very useful having someone who is a strong female in the profession to go to over issues, questions, etc. Alene has been involved in AIA Oregon and I’m involved in AIA Portland, so it’s nice to have that duality and touch base on those topics as well. We both attended the AIA Grassroots conference in Washington DC, which was great.

What part of the job do you like best, and as an architect what do you think you most excel at?

The part the like best is seeing the project when it’s done. It’s nice to have that gratification. Hopefully the client is also happy, which helps to validate all of the decisions that were made throughout the process. I think what I’m best at is thinking through the building code, which is not the most glamorous part of architecture. I also really enjoy designing; it’s fun for me. I enjoy getting the design sketch or idea in your head that isn’t real yet and developing it through the city and figuring out which things need to be nudged in order to get the idea to work, this is what I’m best at.

What are some Portland buildings (either new or historic) that you most admire?

The Wieden + Kennedy Building. I love the beauty inside this building. The spaces are amazing and I wish more people could see it and experience it. I understand the need for secrecy and security around the building, but it’s such a nice space to be in.

I also like Union Way and the urban space that they created in the little weird, funky alley; it’s pretty cool.

Union Way (photo by Brian Libby)

What is your favorite building outside of Portland and besides any you’ve worked on?

This is one question that I had some trouble with, I decided that I don’t want to mention any building that I haven’t visited yet because I don’t think that you can actually understand a place until you’ve been in it and experienced it. I know there are a lot of great buildings out there that I haven’t been to. My favorite that I have actually visited, is the Clyfford Still Museum in Denver by Allied Works. I really love the ceiling in the space and the light is perfect too.

Is there a local architect or firm you think is unheralded or deserves more credit?

di loreto Architecture has completed some nice projects. In the last couple of years I have been introduced to their work and they have a great community center at the corner of NE Alberta St and NE Eighth Avenue behind St. Andrew’s Catholic Church. I had no idea who did it, and I always liked it and walked by it all of the time. When I found out di loreto designed it, I looked at their website and thought their other work was great too.

What would you like to see change about Portland’s built environment in the long term?

We need to get more aggressive with design. Right now it’s way too safe and boring. I think we need some iconic buildings. People come here to Portland and everyone loves it here, but if there are architects that come here to stay and see, it’s hard to tell them where to go. There are some nice places to walk around in but there aren’t any ‘that’ buildings, or iconic buildings that you can send them to. I think we can play around a little more and try to have more freedom with our design and not worry so much about what was built a hundred years ago. Recognize old styles but try to do something new, modern and fresh.

How would you rate the performance of local government like the Portland Development Commission, or the development and planning bureaus?

Depends on the day. I’m on the design-committee for Alberta Main Street and we work a lot with the PDC on grants for storefront improvements. They’ve been great usually, but not always. I think sometimes there are just odd limitations to what you can and can’t do. There are also limitations that weren’t there last year and are here this year. You understand the intent behind the move, but the execution isn’t always thought through as far as who is eligible to get grants.

The rest of city government, like the PDC, is a little bit between a rock and a hard place. We recently had the experience with the city where we wanted to do something very innovative and asked for their help to get us through. We said, "We know we are breaking the rules, but to be fair, we know new rules will be coming in the future that allow this.” We tried to work with the city to get though the issue which is going to be more prevalent in the future. They don’t really have any money, so it’s tough to do something experimental and innovative without the developer paying for it. If the developer does pay for it, it becomes difficult because they don’t have any control over the process (like a structural analysis for example). It’s up to the city to get the people together to administer the peer review, come up with the findings, and then decide whether or not it’s going to work. It’s not a very efficient model currently and it doesn’t incentivize people to do very innovative things, but there is no money for them to just take on this challenge on their own to figure ahead of time what will and won’t work. Maybe there is a different way of paying the city for permitting. Maybe there is a five-cent innovation tax on each permit, so they can preemptively decide what new technology will be acceptable.

Who is a famous architect you’d like to see design a building in Portland?

Peter Zumthor would be great. BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group) does great work as well. I’d really like to see anyone who has a new idea and willing to open it up and let something new happen.

What’s the next style? There was modern, contemporary, post-modern running around and mixing together. There is a lot of talk, at least in residential architecture, about matching the existing fabric. This often means designing something that looks like it was supposed to be built 100 years ago, but you can tell was built only two years ago. This isn’t really what we should be doing. What’s beyond where we are at right now, what’s the next phase of design?

Corpus Chair (image via Kristin Slavin)

Name something besides architecture (sneakers, furniture, umbrellas) you love the design of.

Furniture. I like this scale a lot. I did a competition with some friends for urban design and that scale was fun; but I found I like smaller scale better like furniture and product design. I find them more interesting and tangible.

What are three of your all-time favorite movies?

I don’t know, I fall asleep at every movie we watch at home. I did like the movie Serenity based off the show Firefly. I’m not sure if I have any others…I really like the podcast This American Life, and I’ve listened to every single one of them as well as Serial. I really like radio and audio-books. I’ve been really into listening during drafting days, where I’m focusing in on drawing.

 

Advertisements

Bill Steel of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network discusses earthquake preparations

Cascadia Subduction Zone (image courtesy National Park Service)

BY BRIAN LIBBY

If you're like me and thousands of others living west of the Cascades, you were left stunned and scared by a recent New Yorker magazine article suggesting that it's almost inevitable that Seattle, Portland and other Pacific Northwest cities will be "toast" (as one Oregon State University seismologist put it) when a massive Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake arrives, causing what is predicted to be the worst natural disaster in American history.

In the days and weeks following the article, there was a lot of arguing amongst other seismologists and the general public as to just how dire the circumstances are. Is it guaranteed that we'd be hit by a 9.0 earthquake or more? Is it really overdue by decades or could it come in another 75 years? Will we really all be camping outside our houses for over a year without electricity?

Recently I spoke with Bill Steele of the University of Washington's Pacific Northwest Seismic Network to separate paranoia and fear from cold hard facts, and to learn more about just what Portland buildings are under the greatest threat.

From the beginning of our conversation, it was clear that one particular type of building is the most vulnerable: unreinforced masonry, where load bearing walls and other portions of the building like chimneys are made of brick, cinderblock, tiles, adobe or other masonry material that is not braced by reinforcing beams. Steele believes it's just not realistic for us to keep most of them, which is sad, because these old buildings are a huge portion of our city and our architectural character.

"Going back and trying to bring old buildings back up to current standards now that reflect the hazard we face is extremely difficult and in some cases impossible without very expensive base isolation or other strategies," Steele explained. "You wouldn’t employ that unless it was a very special building like a city hall. What you want to do is try to identify those historic structures you absolutely want to keep and find ways of improving their life safety so they don’t collapse on people. And you want to find ways to improve other old buildings or in some cases replace them. One way or the other you hope for all your structures to come up to minimum life safety standard. But it is costly and many of these buildings may have to be torn down after the quake even if the retrofit works. Maybe you were able to evacuate but the building is damaged beyond its reasonable repair. That makes it an expensive proposition to invest in. That’s the challenge: you do you do that? How do you bring everything along?"

But, Steele adds more optimistically, "I think Oregon’s doing a lot of right things. And I know the city is now working on an unreinforced masonry ordinance and involving stakeholders as we speak. I think Portland and Oregon are moving forward, but it’s going to take a significant investment." He says a recent visit to downtown Portland revealed a lot of unreinforced masonry buildings there.

Steele also says our plethora of bridges poses an extra problem. "Some were built to minimum code standards. Oregon didn’t always have as high of a code as Puget Sound. It didn’t adopt Uniform Building Code level 3 [which has more rigid seismic protections] as early as Puget Sound did. There are a lot of important structures that are really quite weak and need retrofitting. I know Oregonians have worked to improve the I-5 bridge to Washington over the Columbia. I think that kind of investment is going to be extremely helpful. Even if you lose one or two bridges, if you have alternatives it doesn’t make you an island. So that’s important."

Bill Steele (image courtesy Pacific Northwest Seismic Network)

I asked Steele to further explain the UBC levels, which haven't traditionally been as high in Oregon as in California and Washington. "The Unified Building Code was one of the first with seismic standards built in based on the hazard. UBC [level] 3 is essentially designed so the building will not collapse when subjected to 30 percent of the force of gravity in horizontal shaking," he said. "UBC 4 is designed to withstand 40 percent without collapse. It doesn’t mean they will always be safe, but they won’t kill people. That’s the first level of engineering that you want to achieve, your base level. Nowadays Oregon and Washington have adopted the International Building Code, which has some different ways of approaching these standards. It’s more adaptable. It takes the USGS seismic hazard maps and takes the probable shaking levels a building will receive on a given site and establishes level 4’s criteria based on that."

Why stricter standards for Seattle? "Because Seattle has a big crustal fault that has produced quakes. It’s uncertain in Portland with the Eastbank Fault. We both have the Cascadia Subduction Zone, but Seattle has more possibility of local quakes. If you go down to Eugene it will probably be a bit lower than Portland from all sources. It’s all kind of grounded on the best science available, but in some cases like crustal earthquakes we have less experience with it. We have a 10,000-year history with the Cascadia Subduction Zone, but less info about the crustal faults. Many have one earthquake we know about from paleo-seismologists. It’s kind of hard to predict based on one quake in the past."

Steele also said that more rigid codes are not always the answer. "You don’t want to make the codes unnecessarily strict so it unrealistically increases the cost," he explains. "You also don’t want someone to make the investment and then have it destroyed during a quake. That’s what they’re working on with the IBC, to find the level best suited for the areas. If you’re a police station or a hospital, you just build to a higher performance standard than the basic minimum code. I think key bank is one of the first to do so in the private sector in Portland. They wanted to use their bank after the earthquake. These performance-based standards are coming into play. UBC can say, here is the minimum life safety value. What level do you want to achieve? It becomes much more tunable, if you will."

Does this threat of a massive Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake make Oregon a more dangerous earthquake zone than California? Steele says no. "California has a much higher hazard. They have about two-thirds more risk than we do," he says. "That’s based on the frequency of big quakes, how close their built environment is to active faults like the San Andreas and the Hayward. There’s a whole suite of them. They have more deformation, more quakes, bigger faults near their population centers. It makes sense that they need to build to a higher standard."

If Portland were to have a large crustal earthquake, though, that might be different. "If you had a magnitude 7 on the Portland Hills fault, the impact might be greater because you have more vulnerable buildings than San Francisco does," he says. "In that sense, when the earthquake does occur it’s going to be every bit as bad. Buildings like hospitals should consider that standard or even more. We're only talking about a small percentage of the building’s cost. It’s something worth thinking about, so your hospital is functional after the earthquake. And I think with schools it’s something to consider. And it’s a question: are we going to keep this old reinforced masonry structure? We can’t build the building anywhere near where it should be. Maybe we should consider taking it down and building a modern structure. It’ll be much safer for the children and actually may cost less than retrofitting the old one. Those are the decisions that have to be made."

As dire as the forecast may be, when I told Steele that I worried about all of Portland's historic homes being destroyed, he took less of a fatalistic tone. "It’s less of a problem for a number of reasons," he says. "One, wood framed structures tend to perform pretty well in earthquakes. Many aren’t bolted their foundation though. But for a small percentage of the cost of your home you can do so, and you can create what’s called a pony wall so the house won’t rack over without any reinforcement and drop onto its foundation. You strengthen that and bold to the foundation, and you’ve made a good improvement. It’s also important to strap down your hot water heater so it won't tear the gas lines from your heater."

"What I’m not sure about," he adds, "is if the ground will shake enough during a Cascadia quake to shake homes off their foundations. It’s difficult to anticipate with any accuracy how strong the shaking’s going to be in any neighborhood. There’s great variability. That said, it would probably be around 20 percent shaking. It takes 30 and above before houses are shaking off their foundation. Crustal quakes, things come off their foundations fairly easily. But that’s not the most common hazard. Those really high accelerations are probably not going to happen."

Perhaps the biggest takeaway from our conversation is that the New Yorker article can provide a wake-up call that saves lives.

"It takes good planning and a focus of our resources," Steele says. "If it’s something we really love, those areas should get some public investment to do what’s necessary to protect those buildings. Secondly, the public has some skin in the game. We can say, 'We want you to spend lots of money to protect these structures.' The public needs to look for ways to help property owners make those improvements and share some of those costs so it’s doable. You don’t want buildings abandoned so no one can afford to do something. But really tearing down some old buildings that aren’t iconic is really the best option."

"It’s a balancing act, isn’t it? It’s trying to take advantage of the opportunities. After the quake a lot of unreinforced masonry buildings are damaged, and some of those you’ll want to rebuild. But there would be a lot of federal dollars and other resources that would flow in that would allow some significant improvements. There are advantages you can achieve when part of the deck is cleared."

"You can’t do everything," Steele says. "I just wish we were a little more systematic about strengthening our infrastructure. Seattle has failed so far to pass an unreinforced masonry ordinance. Hopefully Portland will have a little better luck. You’re still looking at ways of helping landowners meet the requirements. The engineering part is the simplest. It’s about how you implement this and bring everyone alone. It’s everybody’s problem. It needs to be everyone’s solution."

 

Advertisements

 

Design calendar: August 16-31

June Key Delta Community Center (image courtesy AIA/Portland)

BY BRIAN LIBBY

Walking tour: Historic Multi-Family Housing Of Northwest Portland
Northwest Portland’s Alphabet District is often thought of for its beautiful mansions, when in fact, as this Architectural Heritage Center tour will demonstrate, it has a surprising history as a rental district. The Couch family built some of the earliest upscale rental units. In the 1920s, Elmer Feig became well known for his Northwest Portland apartment designs, and a housing crunch during World War II led to the conversion of many classic homes into multi-family units. Tour begins at NW 22nd Avenue and Kearney Street. 11AM Sunday, August 16. $20 ($12 for AHC members).

Walking tour: Skidmore-Old Town Historic District
Learn about some of the oldest buildings in the city and the people who built them in this Architectural Heritage Center tour of Portland’s only National Historic Landmark District. The area also contains the highest concentration of cast-iron fronted buildings on the west coast and much of that iron was even produced locally. Tour meets at Skidmore Fountain, SW First Avenue and Ankeny Street. 6PM Wednesday, August 19 and 6PM Wednesday, August 26. $20 ($12 for AHC members).

UNITE: Retail Design
Design Museum Portland's ongoing UNITE discussion series continues with a panel talking about retail design. Panelists include Stacy Day of Design Within Reach, Andee Hess of Osmose Design, Nike's Kimberly Yeager, and Suzy Alexander of ACME Scenic & Display. Pioneer Place, 700 SW Fifth Avenue. 6:30PM Wednesday, August 19. $10 (free for DMP members).

Tour: June Key Delta Community Center
Led by the American Institute of Architects/Portland chapter's Committee on the Environment, the tour features the June Key Delta Community Center, which first opened its doors in August 2011 in a redeveloped gas station that repurposed shipping containers and other construction materials.  The 2,700 building is registered with the Living Building Challenge. A rehabilitated brownfield, i is paved with permeable pavers and includes bioswales to divert stormwater, a garden, and even water collection for toilet flushing. Energy efficient features include insulated windows, increased insulation, shading, and a heat pump system.  Recently, the project installed a 20Kw solar array system on the roof to continue its commitment to the Living Building Challenge. June Key Delta Community Center, 5940 N Albina Street. 11:30AM Thursday, August 20. $15 ($10 for AIA members).

Walking tour: Terra Cotta Downtown
As this Architectural Heritage Center tour will demonstrate, downtown Portland’s collection of terra cotta-clad buildings (including the Jackson Tower, pictured above) is one of the finest in the nation, exemplifying the popularity of this building material during the early decades of the 20th century. The concentration of these buildings, designed by the likes of architect AE Doyle, also shows us how, by 1910, the city’s central business district had moved west of Fourth Avenue. Tour meets at Pioneer Courthouse Square, on SW Broadway above the fountain. 6PM Thursday, August 20. $20 ($12 for AHC members).

Walking tour: Pearl District - Preservation In the Midst of Change
Over the last 20 years, the Pearl District has been transformed from industrial enclave and rail yards into one of Portland’s most popular residential, cultural and retail districts. A century ago, the area went through a similar transformation, from a working class housing area at the edge of a marsh to the city’s biggest industrial and warehousing area. Many of Portland’s best known architects of the period designed buildings for important local and national companies. Most of these buildings remain, with their exteriors intact, and new uses inside. But as the pending demolition of the Pacific Northwest College of Art's Feldman Building (a renovated old warehouse) reminds us, the current wave of development could threaten more historic buildings. Tour meets at southeast corner of NW 10th Avenue and Johnson Street. 10AM Saturday, August 22. $20 ($12 for AHC members).

Behind the Scenes at the Rayworth House
Join Restore Oregon for a special behind-the-scenes look at a historic home restoration in progress. The ca. 1890 Edwin Rayworth House, recently relocated to avoid demolition, is in the midst of a full scale restoration at its new location in North Portland’s Piedmont neighborhood. Location undisclosed. 1PM Saturday, August 22. $18 ($15 for Restore Oregon members).

Walking tour: Belmont-Sunnyside Neighborhood
The Sunnyside neighborhood along SE Belmont Street contains a wonderful mix of late 19th and early 20th century homes, as this Architectural Heritage Center tour will show, along with fantastic streetcar-era commercial buildings as well as public buildings like the historic Belmont fire station. Tour meets at Sunnyside School Park, SE 35th Avenue and Yamhill Street. 6PM Thursday, August 27. $20 ($12 for AHC members).

Walking tour: Downtown Sacred Spaces
A rare opportunity to peek inside several historic downtown houses of worship, including the First Presbyterian, First Baptist, First Congregational, First Christian and the Sixth Church of Christ Scientist. Along the way in this Architectural Heritage Center tour, attendees will see an array of stained glass created by the acclaimed Povey Brothers and learn about the variety of architectural styles that these sacred spaces embody. Tour meets outside First Presbyterian Church, SW 12th Avenue and Alder Street. 12PM Sunday, August 30. $20 ($12 for AHC members).

 

Advertisements

 

Kengo Kuma discusses his Portland Japanese Garden expansion designs

Future Portland Japanese Garden buildings (renderings courtesy Kengo Kuma & Assoc.)

BY BRIAN LIBBY

When acclaimed Japanese architect Kengo Kuma was announced last year as the architect of a major expansion to the Portland Japanese Garden, it was a coup for the city. Although we enjoy an impressive roster of home grown design talent, this is not a city that often brings in the most famous architects to contribute. But then again, the city has a more impressive list of projects by acclaimed landscape architects like Lawrence Halprin and Peter Walker having worked here than it does architects. Even if Kengo is a building designer and not a landscape designer, his new structures at the Japanese Garden will exist in the context of, well, a Japanese garden, and that is fitting well beyond the notion of his happening to be Japanese.

Recently, the Japanese Garden unveiled a $33.5 million Kuma-designed expansion plan (for which approximately 60 percent of funds has been raised) that, while only increasing its footprint by 11,328 square feet, will include  three new LEED certified buildings as part of what's called a Cultural Village, as well as seven new garden spaces. (Portland's THA Architecture is the executive architect, and local landscape firm Walker Macy is the executive landscape architect.)

The original five gardens within the current Japanese Garden will remain intact. The expansion design follows the Japanese tradition of monzenmachi, or gate-front towns, where village activity exists just outside the gates of shrines and cultural sites. With the Cultural Village located outside of the main gardens, visitors can participate in festivals, art exhibitions, and workshops while preserving the gardens' sublime sense of tranquility.

Kengo Kuma (image courtesy DBOX)

Recently I interviewed Kuma by email to learn more about his plans as well his impressions of Portland and its garden.

Portland Architecture: What have been your impressions of the city of Portland, such as its architecture and urban design? Are there any particular buildings or spaces that you particularly like?

Kengo Kuma: I like the city of Portland very much, especially its urban design. It feels intimate, as the scale of each block is fixed at about 200 feet, and this makes for well-scaled city spaces in general.

How would you characterize the Portland Japanese Garden in the context of other Japanese gardens outside of Japan?

I consider that of all Japanese gardens built outside Japan, Portland’s is the Number 1. One reason is perhaps to do with the rainy climate of Portland, which is similar to that of Japan. Moreover, the garden is always in an excellent condition, thanks to the careful and tenacious maintenance by Sada Uchiyama and all the staff and locals related to the garden. Their effort is making the garden unique in the world. 

Today as cities in the United States become more and more dense like Japan, can you explain the special role that Japanese gardens can play in urban settings? Do they provide a kind of tranquility that is unique?

I am convinced that the Japanese gardens can play a big role in busy urban environments. They can introduce a new way of thinking to people, a particular philosophy of contemplation and deep connection to nature and maybe even themselves, which is completely different from western-style gardens. 

There seems to be a strategy for the Portland Japanese Garden's new cultural village buildings to act as both a social space and a buffer for the rest of the garden. Could you explain how this is based on traditional gardens and shrines in Japan?

I’ve found your point interesting. Yes, the new buildings can function as a social space and a passage to the rest of the garden. Indeed, Japanese shrines and temples are integrated into their environments, often built at the foot of Satoyama (semi-natural hill) and people stop by or get together there for socializing. The situation will be the same in the design for Portland Japanese Garden, too.

The new buildings seem to achieve a delicate stylistic balance, not only between traditional and modern architectural traditions but also between Japanese and American Pacific Northwest architecture. How did you approach the question of architectural style? Or did the design evolve more organically?

I have always thought that the Pacific Northwest and Japan have affinities in climate and culture. As we pursued the design, it took shape this way just naturally. It is not that we sought for a particular architectural style.

Could you explain some of the key materials that will comprise the new buildings? Of course glass is a primary material, because of the importance of natural light. But what were some of the other key materials you chose, and why?

We will use lots of wood. The texture of trees, such as cypress or cedar, determines the quality of a building. We succeeded in taking advantage of the character of Port Orford cedar, which has the same quality we wanted. I look forward to using it in the new buildings, especially for the screens. In general though, many of the materials are taken from local sources, including stone, other wood species, and natural materials with rich textures--I hope crafted with care, and pleasant to the human experience.

Portland is a city praised for its urban planning and landscape architecture, but without many signature buildings by internationally renowned architects. Given your acclaimed international reputation, did you view this commission as a chance to create a landmark, or was your design based only on the contextual needs of the project and the needs of the client?

My purpose has always been to give an identity to the building with its surroundings. Integration of the structure and its environment is what I aim in design, and this design for Portland Japanese Garden is no exception. This has been a great intersection of client vision, a fantastic site in a great city with culturally minded people, experience of the landscape, and personal philosophy--a lot of passion. It would be great if this could eventually draw people’s attention and be appreciated as my architectural character, rather than anything superficial. In the case of the Portland Japanese Garden, the design is supporting what is already there, so the new project is not supposed to be a landmark in the way that the original gardens are. I am more interested in contributing well-integrated architecture to Portland rather than a signature monument. I think this can be the strength of Portland, a more sensible approach for our times.

 

Advertisements

 

Portfolio: Art Hupy's photos of Veterans Memorial Coliseum

Memorial Coliseum (photos by Art Hupy, courtesy University of Washington archives)

BY BRIAN LIBBY

Our occasional series offering photos and renderings of past, present and future Portland architecture continues on a personal note.

Several months ago I received an email from a local architect who wanted to know if I was interested in some copies of Pacific Architect & Builder magazine from April 1961 that had belonged to her father. The issues he kept, all from the same month, featured a cover story on the newly completed Memorial Coliseum in Portland.

Naturally, having volunteered since about 2009 with the Friends of Memorial Coliseum, working first to save the arena from demolition (for a minor-league baseball stadium) and then in the ensuing years toward convincing City Council to invest in an overdue restoration, I was excited to see the issue.

The cover story began with a statement from the building's architects — Skidmore, Owings and Merrill — that encapsulated the design intent well:

"Many coliseums, because of their solid enclosures, give no hint of the activities going on within. We desired to develop a scheme for the Portland Memorial Coliseum that would provide visual excitement and a sense of action from both inside and outside the building. The structure viewed from Interstate Avenue at night with the lighting of the seating bowl and the people and activities on the concourse level is the best illustration of this concept."

The architects go on to describe the decision that would ultimately make the MC almost one-of-a-kind in the world, an interior seating bowl with views to the outside, something most stadium architects are only now embracing a half-century later:

"While some arena activities require light control, most do not. It was felt that the ability to vary the visual environment from within the seat bowl would lend drama and versatility to the space. The curtain concept was developed to permit spectators within the arena to have the benefit of the feeling of the total space and volume during events where light control was not required." In other words, having a 360-degree view from one's seats to the outside could be a breathtaking experience."

But more than words, what caught my eye was the array of photos in the article, dramatically portraying Memorial Coliseum at night, its curving bowl glowing from within like a flying saucer about to take off into the stratosphere. I'd seen some great photos of the Coliseum before, because America's greatest 20th century photographer, Julius Shulman, made this the one Portland building he ever photographed. But these photos, by Art Hupy, were a perfect compliment, and just as compelling as anything shot by the better-known Shulman.

Both I and my Friends of Memorial Coliseum co-chair, Stuart Emmons, tried to scan the Hupy photos directly from these gifted copies of Pacific Architect & Builder. But the grain of the decayed magazine paper meant that the scans just didn't look very good. We decided to try and track down Art Hupy and/or his archive, and while it turned out that Hupy had passed away, thousands of his photos had been donated to the University of Washington archive. Stuart wound up driving to Seattle to peruse the photos, and to see about having some of Hupy's Memorial Coliseum photos scanned.

Recently we received from UW the glorious result: a set of Coliseum photos that truly wowed us. Whether it's a shot of the building from the Broadway Bridge, its illuminated interior reflecting onto the Willamette River, or up-close shots of the arena surrounded by the old Fords and Chryslers of Kennedy-era Portland, we were smitten.

I could easily write a few thousand words here about the architecture of Veterans Memorial Coliseum (renamed a few years ago with the word 'Veterans' added), which was added to the National Register in 2011, and a few thousand more about our continuing effort, at six years and counting, to see the building not only saved but restored. But that's a post for another time. Right now I just want to pass on Hupy's photos, and hope that some of you enjoy them as much as I have.

Great cities don't tear down their most renowned historic architecture. To some it still sounds a bit funny to call modernism historic, but it is. Thankfully, public appreciation for mid-20th Century modernism has never been greater. And smart cities don't tear down busy venues like the Coliseum, which continues to break even with over 100 events a year despite its deferred maintenance.

Meanwhile, though, take a moment and give Hupy's work a look. Or take a moment to peruse Shulman's equally masterful shots. It's a reminder of how great architectural photography can help transform our sense of both the past and future.

 

 

Advertisements