Architect and owner discuss potential United Workmen Temple and Hotel Albion demolition

United Workmen Temple, 1981 (University of Oregon Libraries)

BY BRIAN LIBBY

A few weeks ago came the news that two historic Portland buildings, the Ancient Order of United Workmen Temple and the Hotel Albion (housing the Lotus Cafe), would be demolished to make way for a 20-story hotel and a 10-story office building. Both properties were removed at the owners' request from the city's Historic Resource Inventory, usually the beginning of a slippery slope towards demolition. And within days, Restore Oregon began concurrent appeals to the City and to LUBA, arguing that the City erred in removing the Albion Hotel and Ancient Order of United Workmen Temple from the Historic Resource Inventory.

To learn more about what was happening and whether the two historic buildings' fates were really sealed, I first contacted Ankrom Moisan, the Portland firm associated with the hotel and office designs scheduled to replace them.

"We’ve been trying for about a year," said Ankrom Moisan's Michael Great about efforts to find a way to restore the buildings and add new construction around them, on the other two quarters of the block. But in investigating the costs, "it started painting a picture that we weren’t able to work through, unfortunately," Great added. "I think the entire development team is pretty disappointed. I know I am. We all talked internally a lot and wish there was more we could do. But it does sound like the Temple will come down."

As seen in Design Commission hearings and on the Next Portland blog, originally the idea was to keep the Romanesque Revival-style United Workman Temple and cantilever more floors over it from the adjacent building. "We were pretty excited about that potential," Great added. "We looked at punching structure down through it. We really dug into the realities of cantilevering it over the top, and the lateral impacts of sheer walls. It was becoming more and more difficult."

I asked why they couldn't just restore the temple and, instead of adding cantilevered floors above it, just build the adjacent building taller. "That’s also something we’ve looked at," Great said. "But there are a lot of significant setbacks unique to that district. It makes it impossible to do that. The floor plates of those types of buildings at the quarter block get too small considering the cores."

"With the reality of the block size," added Ankrom's Carolyn Forsyth, "once you get a core in there that has all the stuff a highrise core needs to have, the plate left over is not something a modern office tenant would be fit to use."

I feel sorry for architects and developers who get involved with a historic building project thinking they can restore it but then wind up as the people destroying it. That was a big part of the tenor of the ensuing conversation I had with one of the building's developers, Jeff Arthur of Arthur Mutal. I'd initially tried calling co-developer Jack Onder of Onder Development, but none of the calls were answered or returned. Arthur, however, was willing to be open about their journey from enthusiastic restorers to reluctant demolishers.

"I’m a native Portlander and have been doing a lot of adaptive reuse and some historical reuse for about 10 years," Arthur said, referencing projects like the Templeton Building renovation on East Burnside. "I’ve been involved in a lot of older buildings in a lot of capacities. I think I understand the capacities and challenges fairly well."

Workmen Temple rendering (Architectural Heritage Center)

"It’s been a tough journey for us. We’ve spent a year and a significant amount of money looking for ways to save it, Arthur added. "Whenever possible I like to keep older buildings intact and bring out their character. When we looked at that block, that was the goal and intent." He talked enthusiastically of traveling to New York City, for example, to look at buildings by the likes of Sir Norman Foster that had successfully combined new and old architecture.

But at a time when Portland has been awakening to the very real threat of a catastrophic earthquake, the developers realized they had "one of the tallest unreinforced masonry buildings in the city. The word seismic wasn’t a word when they built this," the developer said. "It was built to a different standard than what we want to see in the city today. And unlike say a three story building…it presents its own set of challenges."

Despite the de-listing from the city inventory and the architects' admissions that demolition may be inevitable, Arthur went to great lengths to emphasize that nothing has been decided, and that the 120-day waiting period that Restore Oregon went to City Council asking to be informed is something they would have agreed to even without the legal obligation. "There’s been no demo permit that’s been filed," Arthur said. "We’re still evaluating our opportunities when it comes to the Temple building. But one of the possibilities is it may have to come down."

If demolition were to happen, Arthur says his team would be "trying to create a win win no matter what the outcome became. At the very least, if it can’t be salvaged, we’d certainly explore all avenues of incorporating elements into a new design, or donating some of the materials and components." This was the only part of the conversation I rolled my eyes at. Demolishing a historic building is somehow okay if some of the parts and materials are donated? I don't think so. No absolution comes for good behavior in jail after a crime is committed.

"We haven’t made any final decision about anything. We’re still exploring options," Arthur said again. "As we’ve gone through this we’ve realized the challenges are greater than we thought. But we’re still working through what those figures might be."

I asked Arthur how much it would cost to restore the Workmen Temple if his team had all the capital they needed, but he was reluctant to answer, saying his team will have such figures in a couple of weeks. On one hand, it seems like they lack the proper figures to make a definitive decision about whether the buildings will come down, but they seem to have enough information to indicate demolition is the only option.

Arthur also made another point that about one-third of me agrees with. He called this block "a forgotten area of town," citing how it is so centrally located but feels relatively devoid of foot traffic and energy, not only because of the Temple being empty but the low-rise structures and a parking lot on the blog. "It’s a really important part of town we’d like to see vibrant again," the developer added. Of course he's right that foot traffic could be higher here, and no one wants to see an old building or any building sit vacant, especially when it's just blocks from City Hall and right in the middle of the downtown core.

But the implication here was that tearing down the Workmen Temple and the Albion would be better than letting either building sit vacant, and I find that self-serving and a faulty bit of logic. It conveniently ignores that a vacant Temple building can always still be restored, whereas once you tear it down it's gone for good. It certainly is true that a new hotel and office building on this block would add energy, but it would create a bigger problem than it solves: the eradication of historic architecture in a city that is losing its historic architecture at an alarming rate.

One interesting portion of the conversation with Arthur involved the question of whether it was worthwhile to preserve the Workmen Temple's facade if the owners gutted the interior. Arthur told me some had suggested that if none of the original interior remained then it wasn't worth it to preserve the exterior. I strongly disagree. Of course we wouldn't want the majority of our old buildings to lack historic interiors. When you restore the exterior only it's not a true renovation. But that doesn't mean it's not valid or worthwhile. Some of the best architecture is a hybrid of old an new, like tree sapling growing out of an old stump. It would be ideal to not only restore these buildings but preserve their interiors, but especially in the case of the Workmen Temple, it could be possible to build a new building in the shell of this old one and do something special. It would take a particularly talented architecture firm, of course, to do it right.

Ultimately this emerging story of a possible United Workmen Temple and Hotel Albion demolition is not really one of good-guy preservationists against bad-guy demolishing developers. The people who may ultimately demolish these structures would not be laughing all the way to the bank if they tore down these buildings. This is a time when Portland is seeing more and more projects developed by out-of-town developers and real estate investment trusts, and often these projects' developers, from Texas or San Diego or even Seattle, do not completely appreciate Portland's culture, urban fabric and values. These guys are longtime locals with, at least in Arthur's case, experience with and a genuine affection for old buildings and restorations.

Yet when good guys do bad things, it's still bad even if they're not. I hope for the sake of these old buildings and even for the sake of the developers that a compromise can be found: that either they can find a way to restore the buildings without losing money, or walk away from the project. But it's easy for me or any other outside observer to say when we're not the ones who have already gone all in financially. Even so, it would be a black mark for the city and for these developers' careers if the buildings come down, and while Ankrom Moisan may be a capable firm, I don't think there's anything they could design to replace this architecture that would be better or would justify what is being considered.

 

Advertisements

Comments

[Salim Warrick]

Every structure has a history. The structures being built will have a history. This process never stops. Stuff changes and that is good. The old days are not coming back. The new days will be better anyway. People need to stop tying themselves to the past. It's over. Sure, some things should be preserved, but those things are few.

[Brian Libby]

Salim, thanks for your comment. Some of the generalizations you made have merit, I think. But to say something like "the old days are not coming back" is not necessarily an argument against this specific building being preserved. To preserve and restore old buildings is not merely some kind of obsession with the past or some blanket refusal to acknowledge that time is always moving forward. When I look around downtown Portland, I see that the majority of the architecture was built in the recent past, and that's largely okay. At the same time, it would be equally ludicrous to wipe the slate clean of history. Ultimately I think we can find common ground in your final point, that a few select buildings are worthy of preservation -- like the United Workmen Temple and the Hotel Albion.

[Brad]

"Arthur told me some had suggested that if none of the original interior remained then it wasn't worth it to preserve the exterior."
This comment doesn't make any sense to me. If this were true, then most of historic Europe would no longer exist. Go inside a medieval or industrial age building in Holland and you find an ultra-modern interior more often than not. The exterior is vital to the city's cultural memory and our architectural history, as well a the built fabric of the city. There is so little that is old left in that part of urban-renewal ravaged downtown. I think a facadectomy is a perfect solution to this problem and one that I can't believe they aren't more seriously considering. Their argument about not being able to build on the quarter block is equally perplexing. There is an office building being proposed for the quarter block at SW Morrison and 12th right now!

[Chris Wilson]

Except you can save pretty much anything.

http://asitwasarchitecture.blogspot.com/2015/12/razed-and-put-right-back-together-again.html

[David Dysert]

Thanks Brian for a very thoughtful and informational piece on what appears to be another example of our lack of creativity and commitment to keeping our built environment from losing even more texture and history. I am trouble by those who scoff at preservation. They should be reminded that much of the history of our city HAS already been demolished--many times for a piece of asphalt. We need strong code to either compel and/or incentivize developers to work with existing structures when possible. I live in the Pearl and it's scary how every low rise structure now has a target on its back. What folks are forgetting is part of the success of the original part of the Pearl is the low rise friendly collection of adaptable buildings. Even more troubling than this project is what appears to be a foregone conclusion for Mayor Hales to tear down all of Centennial Mills. Unfortunately this is the pattern our current leadership: no passion, no ability to forge consensus on important matters and no big ideas. We used to think big here--We tore down a freeway and put in a park. We built a public plaza when everyone else was building private malls. We put in a well designed transit hub. We limited the amount of parking downtown. We didn't build a freeway--we built light rail. We can disagree on some of these but you can't deny they were big ideas that required leadership. What happened to us? All we hear now is "we can't afford it". rinse and repeat. Its time to think big again -- and we can start by figuring out how to maintain our vulnerable historic buildings. Thanks Brian for keeping these important matters on the front burner.

[Robert]

Even in the 1981 photo it looks like a boarded up derelict building. When was the last time this building was fully occupied? Too bad it had not been kept up; maybe it wouldn't seem such a likely candidate for the wrecking ball.

[billb]

I vote Facadectomy as the only real compromise.

[Marlon D Warren]

Great story Brian. There must be some way to utilize some of the old materials or character of the old structure in the new Design.

Comment likes " The olds days are not coming back" is very careless and and misses the entire point of doing quality Architecture that respects the history of Portland with a reflection of what is present.

If you want a specimen of this kind of thinking, look to the East Berlin Building going up at the East End of the Burnside Bridge.

Portland Native.

[maccoinnich]

Cantilevering a new structure over the existing building seems like a very Heath Robinson approach. I wonder if the architects and engineers have investigated facade retention?

[john]

1. Although Portland developers/ architects have a higher standard of integrity than other locations, once the $$$$$ start to get large enough, ethics go down the crapper.
2. If the city had a policy of not rescinding Historic Designation based on Owner's wishes the property value / designation would be warning signs to all developers on the environmental impact of purchasing such a building site.
3. Get the non-owner required designation law past now! All the talk about green building is a joke if you cannot pass this law.

[Ken Forcier]

If the parking lot from where the piture was taken in '81 is still there, then move the Temple across the street. Or vacate the street and slide it over. Book end that block with the two old buildings and have a communal space in between. There''s too much deference given to cars anyway. This is Portland! Start vacating the streets and build on them.

[Robert]

John, perhaps the historic designation "warning sign" is why this building has sat vacant for so long? Just wondering.

Ken, streets pre-date the Automobile. Also hard to imagine what it would take to move a six story brick building with a basement.

[Anton]

The Temple building is a wonderful old building full of richness and details and gravitas that can't be matched in newer structures. We have too few examples of the Richardsonian Romanesque in Portland and we need to save what we have, especially a quirky example like the AOUW Temple. It has a wonderful Gotham-like quality to it. That part of town feels dead precisely because of the rampant demolition of the great old buildings that had human scale and that were replaced by soulless full-block structures. The Albion bldg. has a nice scale too but is nowhere near as noteworthy and could be justifiably replaced. But save at all costs the Auditorium and Temple buildings.

[Maya]

Thanks so much for this article, Brian. I don't have time to comment on it at length but I concur that the decision to demo before cost estimates have been developed is highly suspicious. If high cost is the deterrent to re-using these buildings you would think they'd have the numbers in their back pocket. Additionally, Arthur states that if none of the original interior remained then it wasn't worth it to preserve the exterior - the Foster project in Manhattan that he is extolling the virtues of is the Hearst Tower (http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/hearst-tower), where they gutted the building and rammed a tower into the middle of it. I am not at all a fan of facadism but if it came down to this or demo (based on a robust cost benefit analysis!) it is one of many options.