Patrick Burke (Michael Graves Architecture & Design)
BY BRIAN LIBBY
For the latest issue of Architect Magazine, I had the opportunity to write about the Portland Building's somewhat controversial renovation, which will transform the building to such a degree that the building will probably lose its National Register listing.
Writing the article, as well as an earlier blog post about the proposed renovation, has been an interesting journey in which my impression evolved.
Going into it, I was quite concerned about whether the right approach was being taken. After all, the design, by DLR Group, includes an aluminum over-cladding on the facade that will undeniably change the original structure. It also changes the windows from dark to clear, and in moving mechanical equipment to the roof may negatively affect the composition. For some preservationists, including the local DoCoMoMo chapter, the new cladding in particular was a step too far, given that the original tile and painted-concrete facade probably could have been patched up.
Normally I take pride in always taking the preservationist side. And indeed, whether one supports this bold approach for the Portland Building or not, it isn't the way we should restore most any other landmark building. In particular, it's rightly considered inauthentic for key physical alterations or additions to historic architecture to be indistinguishable from original portions of a structure. Historic Preservation 101 teaches that to maintain architectural integrity of landmark buildings we must make it clear what is original and what is a new add-on.
Yet the Portland Building is, in my view, a special case, in which the original construction—its materials and techniques—was so compromised, so cheaply done, and such a compromise of architect Michael Graves's original vision that to radically alter the building might actually make it more authentic or at least truer to that vision. One might say that this renovation isn't changing the Portland Building but completing it, over three decades after the building first opened.
While reporting on the Portland Building for Architect, I had the opportunity to talk with Patrick Burke, a principal with Michael Graves Architecture & Design who has been with the firm since 1982, joining Graves (who passed away in 2015) just as construction on the building was nearing completion. Burke has testified on DLR Group's behalf in Landmarks Commission hearings and been unequivocally supportive of the idea that making big changes to the building is something that Graves not only would have OK'd but outright advocated for.
"I don’t know if it was technically the first," Burke said as we began our conversation, referring to my point that the Portland Building was the first major postmodern building in the United States. "Charles Moore did the project in New Orleans, the Piazza d'Italia [in 1978]. But there’s no doubt it was the first major significant commission in the postmodern style. It was shocking for the architecture profession. It was in color! It had all these classical allusions and symbols. It was shocking."
"I was in my last year at architecture school, at UIC Chicago, and was applying to grad schools," Burke remembers. "I really wanted to come to Princeton and be in Michael’s studio. Progressive Architecture had an awards issue that came out with the Portland building on the cover as I was finishing school. It was like, ‘Wow, look at that.’ I was working in his office and some of my friends were mocking me: ‘This is what you want to do? This isn’t architecture.’ It really started a debate."
When Burke joined Graves's firm, the Portland Building was about halfway through construction. By the time it was completed October of 1982 the building was finished and dedicated. But how to pay for staff to attend the dedication? "The office spent nights and weekends making 150 collages about the Portland Building and sold them at a gallery to pay for us to all go out for the dedication," the architect recalls.
More importantly, Burke got a first-hand account of Graves encountering what would remain his most famous (and infamous) design. "I remember touring the building with Michael and what he felt was successful and not successful," Burke says. "Michael new there were flaws in certain ways. That building is something that he’s had to own for the rest of his career. It was a building built cheaply and had a lot of problems. Michael knew that."
Although the aluminum over-cladding is getting the most attention, the changing out of black glass for clear glass is something that Burke believes really corrects a wrong, not just in terms of performance but intent. "Michael would have said, ‘Get rid of the black glass.’ It actually was a mistake," he says. "[Architect of record Emery] Roth put it in supposedly for energy efficiency. Michael blew up. They said, 'Too late, we bought black glass.' On the tour, Michael said to me, 'We’re never letting this happen again.' And we never did."
Burke also talked about the original intent with regard to the ground-floor loggias, which have been unsuccessful as retail outlets as well as in terms of place-making in that they're not places where people like to congregate. Yet the intent was to create better street-level urban energy than corporate office towers like the Congress Center across the street.
Rendering of a renovated Portland Building (DLR Group)
"The original intent was to make it pedestrian friendly," Burke said of the covered loggias. "So many of the '60s and '70s urban buildings were building these urban plazas [at the base of office towers, as the Standard Plaza across the street does]. Michael’s point was the building should come out to meet the street line. He said, 'You should fill out the site to meet the street, but we also want to be pedestrian friendly so we’ll create this loggia that will get filled out with shops. We’ll make it deeper for tables and chairs, and people can sit out there and eat but they’ll be covered from the rain.' It wound up being filled with bike racks instead." When it came time to renovate the building, "We said, 'You should just fill that in with glass, either for a larger tenant or let the office space interior come up to the edge.' Today’s glassy buildings you see the energy inside, and that adds to the life on the street. Now at the pedestrian level, the experience is held away."
One of the Portland Building's other shortcomings has always been that its entrance is on Fifth Avenue instead of on Fourth facing the South Park Blocks. Burke was able to shed some light. "You would think the building would want to open itself up to the park," he said. "I spoke to Lisa Lee [a project manager for Graves on the Portland Building]. Why did you put the parking entry facing the park? Why not put program against that? She said, 'I know. The slope dictated everything. We hated putting it there, but so be it.' So when I talked to DLR, I said there was not a design intent with the entrance. It’s unfortunate the parking was there [along the park]. If you could get rid of it, I’d do it and make it more glassy." Which is precisely what the renovation does. "Later on," Burke adds, "I was blown away to find people fighting about the historical intent, as if they don’t see removing parking and putting windows on the park as a positive thing. That one I don’t get."
I then asked Burke about the Portland Building potentially losing its National Register listing. Normally for a landmark building such a removal would be the biggest sign that a renovation was taking an improper approach. "Some of the commissioners were wrestling with that same question," he said of the Landmarks Commission hearings. "One commissioner was trying to look at it from a legal perspective. She was anxious about whether these renovations would force the building into a position of being de-listed. She wanted to keep it on the National Register. Then there was a conversation: 'Do we care?'"
"I said, 'My answer’s from a different perspective. I’m an architect and we faced issues many time with a historic landmark. It’s complicated. What you’d love to have is both the responsibility and the right to modernize a building: to make it better, particularly when it’s still being used. You have an obligation to the users. Monticello, I would think you should forever be restoring it for what it is. But I have no problem with a train station on a landmark list [that's] no longer being used as a train station be changed. I think you should let the buildings live. Michael was asked that question many times. He said, 'Do it. I’d rather see my buildings get updated than be out of date and out of step.' Being on the Register can handcuff you when you’re an active user. But I’m not being brash about it. It’s great that we can come up with mechanisms for saving history. Penn Station was torn down for a crummy train station. That got the preservation movement started. I just think sometimes it’s taken a bit too literally."
We then talked about intent with regard to the facade. "Where the weaknesses are [in the cladding] it’s getting worse and worse," Burke said. "What you’re fixing is something slowly falling apart. There was no [original] material intent. Michael wanted to do a glazed terracotta tile. He found this company in California. They worked up a price. Michael was so excited about it. He thought it was going to be this sparkly building in a rainy climate. Then the contractors told Michael it wasn't going to happen because of budget. So he said, 'We’ll use stucco.' The City of Portland pushed back on some things. They had to go back and do a second round. They didn’t want to accept stucco. They said, 'We don’t want a building we’ll have to repair every five to seven years. Michael said, 'What can I use that’s cheaper than stucco?' They came back. On a Sunday morning they called Michael with an idea. It’s a famous meeting in the history of the project. They said, 'We’ve got a way to use the façade as part of the structural system.' We can paint it. Michael said, 'I don’t care if we make it out of oatmeal.' He hadn’t executed anything at this scale. The way to win the competition was to be within budget."
Design-competition model of Portland Building (Dezeen)
One of the small changes being made at the ground-floor level in the Portland Building renovation is illustrative of the larger debate, perhaps. The tiles are being switched out for tiles twice as large. Unlike with the facade over-cladding or even the window tinting, there isn't an argument to be made that changing tiles is functionally or physically better. It's just an aesthetic change. But again, it's one that may get closer to the original in terms of intent.
At the time of construction, "Michael said, 'Can I use some tile?' They only let him use it at the base," Burke recalls. "And they reduced the size of the tile to the cheapest size possible. The historic people today are nuts about the size of the tile. It was a smaller tile than we wanted. It’s got lots of grout joints. We liked the bigger surface of the new tile." He also says it addresses a problem with the grout. "We’ve always done this: we pick grout colors that come as close as possible to matching the tile," Burke added. "In one of the re-grouts, they re-grouted it with black grout. They thought it was something we did originally. I said, 'No, no, no."
"Michael’s intent was shapes, colors. In truth, Michael loved working with nice materials when we had higher budgets. But he was also very quick to what he needed to do to be within budgets, and he didn’t usually fight material changes. Michael would have been open to talking about other materials. The question is what’s more important here: Michael’s intent or the way he’d treat the design versus an obedient replication of what was there? If you’re going to restore it, what is a responsible restoration?"
Ultimately Burke has become one of the biggest champions of the DLR Group and City of Portland approach. "I think they were incredibly responsible in trying to really think through the issues and come up with the best solutions," he says. "I think they did a very good job, and a tough job."
The Portland Building's restoration, including all of these changes, was approved by City Council earlier this month.
Advertisements
Another excellent piece,Brian, filled with interesting insights. You hinted at one that I will encapsulate this way: The proposed aluminum cladding is a really tacky solution for what was originally a really tacky façade. So get on with it!
Posted by: Fred Leeson | September 20, 2017 at 09:24 PM
"The way to win the competition was to be within budget."
So Graves decided to offer an irresponsible solution in order to be under budget and win the commission.
Pardon me if I have very little respect for either the building or the Architect, may he rest in peace. I'd prefer to take the building down and build a better building in its place. This "restoration" is just throwing good money after bad.
Posted by: D Morris | October 09, 2017 at 09:42 AM