Portland Building 2.0: city takes bold, non-historic approach restoring Graves-designed landmark

Rendering of Portland Building restoration (DLR Group)

BY BRIAN LIBBY

The conventional approach to restoring landmark works of historic architecture is to rehab what's there and not make any radical changes with materials or the design experience. But the Portland Building has never been a typical work of historic architecture.

Completed in 1982, the building was the first major work of postmodern architectural style in the United States. Some were dazzled by the design, while others were aghast. Though the building was unmistakably striking, adding color and whimsy to the skyline like a work of Pop Art sculpture on a city-block scale, it was a compromised and arguably faulty work of construction from the beginning: overly cheap and not built to last, with unacceptably low levels of natural light that have made it a dreary place to work. Today, it leaks whenever it rains.

Now, a design team led by Portland's DLR Group is overseeing a Portland Building renovation that will seemingly make it a much better building experience on the inside. What had been an oppressively dark lobby almost totally lacking in natural illumination will be, thanks to the closing of ground-floor retail spaces on the perimeter, now full of sunlight. On the Fourth Avenue side facing the park, underground parking will be removed and the entrance glassed in, giving occupants a view of the greenspace. Upstairs, black glass will be made clear, substantially improving natural light levels.

Because of the changes in glass, the restored Portland Building will look noticeably different from outside. Yet it's another change to the exterior that may represent the biggest change of all: the painted concrete façade will be covered with a new metal cladding that's part of a new rainscreen system. The late Michael Graves's firm has pledged its support for the change, and outside façade consultants have affirmed the soundness of the approach. But the move will so alter the appearance of the architecture that there is talk that the Portland Building will lose its National Register listing.

This is a complex and unique restoration project, and the architects understand the building's needs far more than a layperson like me. Normally if I hear a famous historic building may be altered to a degree that it would lose its National Register listing, the phrase "full stop" comes to mind. The whole reason we have National Register listings is to guide us as to what's appropriate and inappropriate. The local DoCoMoMo chapter, devoted to preserving midcentury-modern architecture, has already voiced its opposition. But again, the Portland Building is a unique case. What's the right course of action? I honestly don't know.

The Portland Building in 2014 (Brian Libby)

To learn more about the restoration, recently I sat down with DLR Group principal Carla Weinheimer as well as Kristin Wells, construction manager for the City of Portland.

"It’s an opportunity to re-think the workplace for city employees," Weinheimer said as we began our conversation. "It’s part of the city’s history. It’s part of the story of the city. This is more than just fixing a building. There’s something important about doing this right."

Wells then began an explanation of how leakage was a major factor driving the approach to the renovation. "It’s always had water intrusion issues," she said of the Portland Building. "There have been a series of studies over the years trying to fix it with a systematic approach. The city hired a firm to do an independent study to ask, ‘How do we really fix the envelope?’ That study triggered the conversation: ‘If we’re going to holistically redo our envelope, and we have goals to seismically improve our buildings, what would it take to improve the seismic stability?’ Then it was at a price point that made us say, ‘What else should we be considering?’ That brought MEP [mechanical, electrical and plumbing]. At that point, it brought up, ‘How do we redo the interior?’ The visioning was an opportunity that presented itself. But originally the question was, ‘How do you preserve this as a long-term building that lasts in to the future from a building function perspective? How do we do business and want to work as a city? How do we serve our constituents?’ It brought up all this stuff that it wasn’t really about, but created an opportunity."

Weinheimer confirmed that responding to water-intrusion issues was "the number one criteria of the project. This better not leak ever again. So there is a solution that addresses that fundamental issue. Second, we need more light coming into this building. You’re seeing no more black glass. You have a pattern all the way up that is punched windows but is actually spandrel glass with wall behind it, including the stripes up there. Now everywhere you see glass on the outside will be clear glass."

One of the small new details on the project is the use of a new glazed terracotta tile at the base of the building that is about twice the size of the original tiles. But this has been done with the approval of Michael Graves's office. "The overall effect is aesthetically actually an improvement," the architect said. "It’s brought back some of the finesse."

Regarding the façade, Weinheimer argued that fixing the existing system was not viable. "It’s really in a shape that is not healthy," she said. "We spent many hours with Michael Lewis, our façade consultant, hashing it out: 'What is it we’re dealing with?' Cast concrete on a high-rise building on the exterior is unusual. And the intent was never to have a painted concrete façade. Originally it was to have terracotta panels on the whole building. But it didn't happen for budgetary reasons. This was the solution where Graves said, ‘I got my building.’ He got the surface color he wanted. But tile attached to concrete is not considered a viable façade today. What we did is take it a step further and say, ‘It really needs to be for the entire building.’ It’s not the cheapest way to do this project, but it is the right way to be the project."

Weinheimer and Wells also explained that the change to a rain-screen system behind the tile-clad portions of the façade amounted to a shift in the plane of the exterior that would have made retaining the painted concrete exterior out of whack with the rest. "The tile absolutely had to go to rain screen," she said. "Nobody felt comfortable adhering tile to a structural concrete façade. I don’t think it’s allowed by code now. It’s a system you don’t want to replicate. Now that means your tile is set out from the existing concrete. With concrete your first thought is I’ll replicate it with precast. But your building can’t support that. And it would force an even deeper rain screen solution. That meant the best option is to switch to metal panel to replicate the paint on the concrete."

One concern that was expressed to me by someone opposed to this restoration (on the grounds that it changes the original too much) was that the over-cladding will create a wider gap between the inside spaces and the edge of the windows: more of a tunnel effect. But Weinheimer believes this will prove not to matter much. "It's less true than you would think," she said. "Right now the sandwich is the skin, an air space, an interior wall, and the insulation attached to the back of the concrete. But if we peel back that inside layer and expose the concrete…the depth may increase a little bit at the windows but not very much because we’re actually replicating the joints, the size of the joints. Everything is going to be the same size."

The biggest aesthetic difference, Weinheimer said, will be not the metal over-cladding but the change from nearly black tinted windows to clear ones. "A gentleman at the AIA talk said, ‘Certainly Graves must have intended those windows because it’s so graphically strong.’ But that’s not really the case," she explains. "There was a real disappointment on the part of the Graves team when they saw the black glass. But that whole concept does make it very graphic."

"This building is about public service," Weinheimer added. "The public should have a good experience. It was fundamental that we needed to get as much daylight into this building as we could."

Renderings of new glass-walled portions of the ground floor (DLR Group)

That will be felt most noticeably on the first two floors. On the ground floor, the retail storefronts along the perimeter will be taken out so the spaces become part of a larger lobby. The second-floor mechanical equipment will be moved to the roof, which will free up that floor not only for extra space but create more of an atrium that brings light into the first-floor lobby.

"The original concept was that the storefronts would be urban design-friendly, but it never worked well," Weinheimer said. Now the front part of the building is about engagement with public. That is about transparency. It’s that sense that you’re welcome here because we want to help you. And you’ll see how wonderful that second floor becomes, with these windows all around the perimeter."

Similarly, removing the underground parking garage will not only allow a new fitness center, but will also create a glassed-in view onto the Park Blocks. "That loading dock is not functioning properly. It never did. It was not the highest and best use. It’s too steep of an angle for trucks," the architect explained. "So we’ve got a nice big opening. Our recommendation is the dock be closed to remedy a deficiency in the urban design. That’s something we were asked by Landmarks to do. There was an understanding that there was an openness. The composition really settles that façade. We just felt like that was the final piece."

"It’s pretty darn exciting to be part of remedying all of the problems: the urban design, the light issues. It brings up the building to what it needs to be."

Not everyone is sold on this bold, perhaps even aggressive approach to transforming the Portland Building. The Oregon chapter of DoCoMoMo, the national organization devoted to preserving 20th century modern architecture, explains on its website that while the organization "supports much of what is being proposed," they have a series of concerns: that (1) the new metal cladding "will alter the proportions of the building and has a fundamentally different material quality," that (2) the new terracotta tiles being twice as large as the original, that (3) infill at the parking entry and loggias "obscure the original composition of the building," how (4) the mechanical equipment will be "highly visible," and (5) that there could be a "potential loss of significant interior spaces."

Rendering of the restored Portland Building at night (DLR Group)

Thinking about it all, I personally remain on the fence. It does seem like the City of Portland could have pursued an approach where the existing facade is repaired and that would have stopped the leaking for several years. But clearly they felt like the leaking had to be stopped more permanently. I suspect the metal cladding will indeed give the building an unmistakably different look, and I'm not sure that's a good thing for such an internationally recognized and historic work of architecture. The fact that the Portland Building could lose its National Register listing, see its design rejected by the Landmarks Commission and only gain approval via City Council election is concerning. At the same time, in general I'd like to see more hybrid solutions for historic buildings, where one gets a true sense of how the building has evolved and changed over time. And if ever there were a historic building for which a more radical approach could be justified, it's the Portland Building. I guess the proof will come in the finished product.

If there's an over-riding concern I have about the Portland Building rehab, it's cost. It will cost something like $200 million to transform this city office building when you factor in the year-long relocation of employees. I can't help but wonder if the City of Portland might have been better off selling the building to a private-sector entity on the condition that the facade be maintained, then building a new building somewhere else. After all, $200 million is exponentially larger an amount than we'll ever see the City spend on some other worthy historic-preservation projects that fall under public ownership.

All that said, when the new Portland Building is unveiled in a few years, it will be quite exciting to behold from an interior architectural perspective. I'm anxious to step into that heretofore oppressively dark and windowless lobby and experience it full of light. I look forward to the building not turning its back to the Park Blocks so much with that parking-garage entrance; now there will be a wall of glass, better connecting occupants with the park. Portland has an impressive history of architectural firsts, be it Pietro Belluschi's Equitable Building as a pioneering post-WWII glass curtain-walled office building, the upcoming Framework building by Lever Architecture as the first mass-timber highrise in the United States, or even the Portland Building itself as a first work of postmodern civic architecture. Maybe the rehab itself can become a pioneering blend of historic landmark and new architectural ideas.

 

Advertisements

Comments

[Mac]

Wow this building is trash. $200 million dollar price tag for the Reno?

Are you kidding me! It would be better to level it and start over. Jesus

[custom essay writing service]

Thank you very much for your post, it makes us have more and more discs in our life, So kind for you, I also hope you will make more and more excellent post and let’s more and more talk, thank you very much, dear.

[R. Patrick Trickler]

Looks the same

[john]

This is not really a restoration. It is a rehabilitation. (US Secretary of Interior Stds.) As such, it has problems. The architects need to pay attention to the Landmark Commission and get approval.

[Mike Campbell]

I'm excited by it all, until I see the price tag. Then I agree - sell the building, with provisions for its preservation -- and let it become a private sector headache. There are better uses of public funds.
Isn't that what the Republican party always seeks, private sector solutions? Seems like this would be a perfect test case. I hate to see 200 million spent here, while Memorial Coliseum gets shabbier every year. One building costing every Portland taxpayer nearly $500? that's absurd.
Note that Key Arena in Seattle, another modernist landmark, is set to be preserved and renovated with primarily private funding, alongside tax credits.

[Jay Raskin, FAIA]

It looks like a very reasonable solution for a building that has had serious technical issues. I think the fact that Graves office support these changes should be a factor in the historic preservation discussion. It also points out to the another problem, which was the rush to get this building registered before the standard 50 year period had passed in the first place. Waiting would have made the discussion moot. In the end we get a building that performs better, has better seismic performance, is closer to the original design intention, and one that is more pleasant to be in.