Pioneer Courthouse Square (Brian Libby)
BY BRIAN LIBBY
Late last Friday morning, I rode my bicycle around downtown Portland, the Pearl District and Old Town for the first time in several weeks. Though it was approaching noon on a weekday, it was remarkable how empty it was. Neighborhood shopping areas around the city are routinely busy now. Yet as we near the year-mark in the pandemic, it's astonishing to see the center of the city so devoid of people. Next to no one is going to work in office buildings, or sitting down in a restaurant or theater seat.
Lately I've heard a lot of talk about fixing downtown, and it's understandable. Vaccinations are underway and we all want to see life return to the urban core. But we have to be careful how we diagnose the problem before we fix it, because nearly as upsetting as what's happened to downtown Portland in the last year are the mischaracterizations of how and why, especially from outside the 503 area code. We are living in a time of unprecedented deliberate misinformation, which leads to exponentially more conflations. No wonder some have lost patience just as we're on the verge of turning a corner.
Recently I read two open letters and a Forbes opinion essay, all about downtown Portland's difficulties. One, a letter written collectively by 35 local members of the American Institute of Architects’ College of Fellows, is sober and wise, calling for collective vision and a holistic approach to the future.
But the Fellows’ letter specifically expresses solidarity with for another organization, the Rose City Downtown Collective, which itself has written an open letter; it's a mixed-bag wherein, after some initial conciliatory and progressive language, the latter letter strikes a different tone than the first. Most importantly it casts protests, not pandemic, as the ongoing reason for the emptiness, and that's hard to accept.
Then there's a Forbes opinion essay called "Death of a City: The Portland Story" by Lake Oswego-based economist Bill Conerly, who favors the hyperbole of comparing Portland to the ancient volcano-destroyed city of Pompeii. You'd think the pandemic was forecast to be here forever, that downtown's ills represented the entire city, and Adam Smith (1723-1790) was still our leading thinker.
I’m going to first publish here the entire text of the Fellows’ letter and its 35 signees (from firms like Hacker, ZGF, Bora, Merryman Barnes, Hennebery Eddy, SRG Partnership and TVA, among others), because I admire and have long respected many of these architects, and theirs is the most reasonable voice of the three. Then I'll quote from the Collective’s, which can be read in its entirety here, and the Forbes article by Bill Conerly, which can be read here.
The writers of these two open letters, the Fellows and the Collective, don’t appear at first to disagree with each other, and some names actually appear on both lists of signees. Even so, I think the two letters illustrate how people in different parts of the building industry can come at the same issue differently.
But at least these two groups of people are actually Portlanders and they seek consensus.
Apple Store (Brian Libby)
Something critical is missing from Portland’s future vision
At this difficult moment, exacerbated by COVID, economic uncertainty, political polarization and climatic extremes, it has become very clear that something critical is missing from the noble quality of life vision we aspire to create.
While Portland has succeeded in executing an enviable and beautiful physical infrastructure, we failed to match it with a social infrastructure that fully incorporates cultural and racial diversity and economic fairness and as a result we are now witnessing a level of frustrated rage and social breakdown not seen for decades.
In the near term, we support the efforts of Rose City Downtown Collective to clean up and revitalize our city. There are important, longer term goals to be addressed as well. So, what are these and what is to be done?
We believe it begins with optimism. This is a unique moment in time with much possibility for our entire community. Together we have a long history of creative innovation. In the same way that we modeled a healthy balance between vital urbanism, agrarian abundance and protected wilderness, we believe we can once again lead the way in the creation of a society that advances that foundation, and values fairness and equity as much as progress. This however requires a compelling guiding vision.
As architects we know that seemingly intractable problems can be solved through an iterative process of exploration which over time can lead to highly effective and self-evident solutions.
The first step is to convene a representative group of constituents who are committed to constructive and respectful creation of a shared vision. Information is then gathered which honestly considers all factors affecting and affected by the outcome - including existing strengths and assets which should not be lost but built upon.
Next is consensus about specific goals, aspirations and measures of success. With that firm baseline, extensive alternative solutions are imagined which are then thoroughly debated, ultimately to be championed or discarded. The hoped-for result is a shared understanding and passionate endorsement of a chosen vision with which to move forward.
It is important to note that there is strong precedent for this model. Many of Oregon’s most successful past innovations, most notably the 1972 Portland Downtown Plan sprung from grassroots creativity by a powerful alliance of business and community interests that inspired bold implementation by our elected officials. And while their intentions are honorable, the reality is that our current leaders are frankly overwhelmed with daunting immediate challenges limiting their time and ability to imagine a detailed pathway to a brighter future.
Since spring, as our country has faced a perfect storm of unconstrained pandemic, racial justice outrage, economic collapse and unprecedented polarization, our state's modest identity and progressive reputation has been both amplified and sullied as it has garnered extraordinary national and even international notoriety as a hotbed of political and climatic extremism.
In addition to extensive negative press, our formally vibrant downtown core like many other cities is experiencing reduced business occupancy, boarded up storefronts and many closed restaurants. Most heartbreaking of all is an extensive and highly visible houseless population. And if that was not enough, our planet’s relentless propensity for balance ignited unprecedented forest fires which for over a week gave many parts of Oregon the dubious honor of having the most unhealthy air in the world.
Not surprisingly, this has left many of us with a profound sense of loss. But Oregon has a reputation for addressing daunting challenges in innovative ways and this is a moment that demands creative action.
As architects, we tackle problems of vision and design every day – but reaching beyond today’s limitations to realize a future for our city that once again invites emulation around the world, we need to marshal the best talents across our entire community. Our purpose is to advocate for a broadly based initiative to forge a vision and a way forward for Portland beyond the dispiriting experiences of 2020.
So in recognition of this conundrum and singular moment in time, we as passionate stewards of this extraordinary place we call home are hereby calling upon our fellow citizens of good will representing all facets of our diverse community to come together and lead by example in imagining a better way of being, where we can all equally flourish and fulfill our potential.
Respectfully submitted by the following individual Oregon Fellows of the American Institute of Architects in their capacity as caring citizens of Oregon.
Jonah Cohen FAIA; Paddy Tillett FAIA; Larry Bruton FAIA; Kent Duffy FAIA; Don Stastny FAIA; Martha Peck Andrews FAIA; Linda Barnes FAIA; Anthony Belluschi FAIA; Doug Benson FAIA; John Blumthal FAIA; Stan Boles FAIA; Will Bruder FAIA; Tom Clark FAIA; Joseph Collins FAIA; Tim Eddy FAIA; Val Glitsch FAIA; Ron Gronowski FAIA; Mark Hall FAIA; Nels Hall FAIA; Bob Hastings FAIA; Alec Holser FAIA; Jim Kalvelage FAIA; Alison Kwok FAIA; Michael McCulloch FAIA; Nancy Merryman FAIA; Otto Poticha FAIA; Heinz Rudolf FAIA; Jeff Scherer FAIA; Jon Schleuning FAIA; Alan Scott FAIA; Bob Thompson FAIA; Michael Tingley FAIA; Ned Vaivoda FAIA; Jan Willemse FAIA; Bill Wilson FAIA
The meat of the Fellows letter is all about fixing the problem. They encourage us to regain our optimism by convening a broad base of people to forge a shared vision for action. That’s easy to get behind.
There was only one part that left me curious: when the Fellows early-on expressed solidarity with the Rose City Downtown Collective, a consortium of property developers, hotel owners and other local businesses that published its own open letter in early December.
Multnomah County Justice Center (Brian Libby)
“But…”
The Collective’s open letter begins with conciliatory words: “Downtown Portland, specifically on the blocks surrounding the Justice Center, has been the epicenter and the national stage for this important moment in history. Protest has long been the historical spark to ignite real change and the Rose City Downtown Collective could not be more proud to support the protests for civil rights happening in the heart of our great city.”
However, I found myself waiting, as one sometimes does in certain conversations, for one particular word: “But…” And I soon found it:
“But the focus of the movement has been blurred by the ongoing chaos and criminal destruction that is happening night after night, often after the protests are done, taking the attention away from the actual movement.”
Boarded-up entrance to the Pearl Building (Brian Libby)
Deliberate property damage, particularly if it impacts small business owners who lack the resources to bounce back easily, is not only against the law but in almost every case simply wrong.
Yet the letter’s next paragraph is concerning, because while it begins by noting that the pandemic has shuttered many restaurants and shops due to Covid, it then identifies vandalism as an equal scourge, and seems to politely threaten those in office for allowing it to happen — despite the fact that we’ve been experiencing a once-in-a-century deadly pandemic that emptied out downtown.
“Just like its citizens, Downtown Portland is hurting right now…Our elected officials let us down this year, but we are hopeful that the new City Council will step up,” the letter goes on. The Collective also says, they're "done passively waiting for help."
Is the Collective suggesting that Mayor Wheeler, City Council and the Portland Police have somehow been too lenient in the past? I'm not completely sure. Maybe the letter is suggesting lenience solely as it relates to graffiti and property damage and homeless people living on our streets. Even so, this gives me pause.
Most of all, for me the Rose City Collective’s open letter seems to not fully acknowledge that the pandemic is still going on, and it suggests the protests, not the pandemic, emptied out downtown.
The Collective would not be the first to conflate these circumstances. Way back in July, for example, as reported by The Oregonian’s Everton Bailey Jr., a reported $23 million hit to downtown Portland businesses mostly attributed to nightly demonstrations was almost entirely tied to Covid-related lost sale figures.
Lownsdale Square (Brian Libby)
To be fair, the Collective largely calls for reasonable actions: promoting cleanup of downtown, creating a graffiti reporting system, connecting vandalized businesses with resources for pursuing cleanup. What’s more, I like and respect a lot of the individual signees. The Collective also favors connecting like-minded local businesses with elected officials, and encouraging other volunteering. All those are fine ideas.
Perhaps tellingly, though, I don’t see any recommendations that have to do with helping the homeless find resources and shelter, or helping more people get tested for Covid, or that have to do with promoting police reform or other acts of social justice. In fact, when I look at the Rose City Downtown Collective’s wish list, it really only amounts to one thing: getting rid of graffiti.
Vandalism and Plywood
Despite the simple case of criminal mischief it’s sometimes purported to be, graffiti appears for different reasons. Sometimes it’s merely artistic expression, and other times it’s a way for gangs to mark territory. Sometimes it’s a form of political protest: a way for powerless people to leave a record; as we know, past social-justice movements such as the women’s suffrage campaigns of the late 19th and early 20th centuries came with attendant vandalism and graffiti, for example.
What’s more, in cases of politically-motivated graffiti, when demonstrators are brutalized by police and other authorities, the vandalism tends to increase.
The abandoned former Multnomah County Courthouse (Brian Libby)
Tagging itself has also long been found to occur in places where people aren’t looking, or places without architectural transparency: places that feel like crime might occur there. That makes downtown in 2020 and 2021 a vulnerable target: more like a peripheral neighborhood suffering from years of disinvestment than the financial and economic fulcrum of a million-citizen metropolitan area.
If the boards came down off more of the windows downtown, I strongly suspect the graffiti and vandalism would decrease. But one can also understand why the boards haven’t yet come down: because the missing ingredient is people, and the pandemic is still preventing us from going to most of the offices, restaurants and shops downtown.
While it’s of course true that the protests increased the level of vandalism this summer in particular, it’s still the boards and the emptiness of downtown, not the protests, that are the real issue. Graffiti is a symptom of an emptied-out, boarded-up downtown, not the cause of it. To suggest otherwise is to, however unwittingly, embrace an impatient, get-tough attitude that could do as much harm as good.
Studies have shown the majority interpret all graffiti as evidence of increased gang activity, as a sign young people’s disrespect for authority, or a threat to property values and neighborhood safety.
Maybe it’s no surprise, then, that when we unpack what the Rose City Downtown Collective has to say and who is largely saying it, this largely comes down to real estate developers and commercial property owners who are understandably frustrated with the caustic environment downtown.
They say progressive things about this summer’s protests and acknowledge at first the impact of the pandemic. But even as the pandemic rages and before many businesses have returned, there seems to be a desire to do something about the graffiti, and to do apparently do so before the boards come down.
South facade of Pioneer Place mall (Brian Libby)
Considering Authorship
Perusing the list of signees to the Collective’s open letter, there is certainly at first glance a long and diverse roster of businesses and their various owners and employees. The more than 200 names do include a hairstylist, numerous jewelers, a bike shop, a furniture store or two, a wine shop, and representatives of the Portland Trail Blazers and the Portland Timbers.
Yet the more scrutiny one applies, the more the Rose City Downtown Collective seems driven by property developers and hoteliers: the people who rent and sell downtown square footage. From developer Melvin Mark alone, for example, the open letter includes about 30 different signees. I also counted just over 30 more developers from other development and investment companies.
That means approximately 60 of the over 200 signees are property developers and real estate investors. In most cases, these are good people who happen to make their living from downtown real estate. But the profit motive may be more influential here than an altruistic feeling towards small businesses or a desire for true social justice beyond boilerplate expressions of support.
There are also several hotel employees, which is perhaps not surprising. After all, hotels are just residential real estate rented out on a per-night basis. There were 16 such signees, four of which came from the Society Hotel (although none represent its ownership, the hotel confirmed by email).
Then there's Bill Conerly, a freelance contributor to Forbes who gives the city last rites. He is the longtime chairman of the Cascade Policy Institute, one of Oregon's best known right-wing think tanks, and a former vice president at First Interstate Bank back in the late 1980s. He's quick to mention on his website that he has a doctorate from Duke University, and a little less quick to trumpet his bachelor's degree from the New College of Florida.
In other words, whom would you trust the most: (1) A group of local-architecture hall of famers from the AIA; (2) a consortium of largely commercial developers, real estate investors and hotel employees; or (3) the chair of a suburban conservative think tank?
Board-covered building along the North Park Blocks (Brian Libby)
Perspective and Listening
To some extent, who signed the Collective's open letter is not important because it’s no smoking gun. I can understand why it would seem like a good idea, or is a good idea, because it calls for a collective effort towards improving downtown’s appearance in a time when downtown is suffering.
I'm surprised, however, that a PhD-accredited economist like Bill Conerly would be so quick to make such rancid generalizations.
He suggests that Portland's economy rests almost exclusively on tourism and an influx of new residents caught up in cool-city euphoria and seems to assume that even when the pandemic has gone away that will still be the case. He mentions the city's tech and athletic apparel industries, but then drops them in characterizing Portland as an economically dying city.
Never mind that smaller cities have benefited from the pandemic-induced rush to remote communications and the mass realization that we can work anywhere. It's cities like New York and Los Angeles are seeing the most exodus, not a place with matchless natural beauty and a still relatively low cost of living. He also cites the city's increased homelessness, as if this is not a national and particularly regional problem. Oh, and he even question's Portland's decades-long commitment to density and urban sprawl.
Conerly purports to take an evenhanded, outsider perspective rooted in academic findings, but this piece is, at least to me, absolutely dripping with conservative armchair judgment rooted in unconscionable misreading of this summer and the current reality — really not that different from the Trump supporters in other cities who told me time after time this summer on Twitter that my city was burning to the ground, who told me that my eyewitness accounts were no match for what they'd seen on YouTube or read on Parler.
"Reputation may be Portland’s greatest damage," Conerly writes. "Coverage by newspapers, television and current affairs podcasts has been extensive, both across the country and worldwide. This is critical given that the area’s growth comes from in-migrants, mostly from other states in the U.S. Real estate developers and investors have significantly downgraded their attitudes about Portland real estate."
Maybe that quote is particularly telling. I think Conerly has been basing his opinion more on media accounts, but seemingly willing to dip liberally into extremist reportage rather than proven entities with journalistic integrity. Later in the same essay, he also cites the work of conservative activist Andy Ngo, who has made an art form of conveniently selective reporting and whose writing Powell's Books refuses to even carry on its shelves, as some kind of Edward R. Murrow of our time. A doctoral degree can't keep one from losing the plot. No wonder Conerly struck a more sober, evenhanded tone in a later interview with The Oregonian's Lizzy Acker.
Ultimately the AIA Fellows letter is the one I can get behind the most, because it’s a call to bring together a broad constituency and listen. The Fellows may represent a lot of firm presidents and partners, but they’re essentially advocating for a ground-up process that listens. There’s something about the Rose City Downtown Collective letter that feels like a work of veiled anger calling for top-down action, and something utterly cringe-inducing about even a highly educated economist like Conerly giving last rights to a patient with an increasingly rapid heartbeat.
If there’s one thing that 2020 taught at least me, it’s that both justice and effective policy can’t just be ordered from the top down but instead have to come by design, and by consensus.
One positive thing I do remember from my Friday morning visit to downtown and the Pearl: in numerous cases, I could see people taking the boards off the windows, or repairing the glass. Vaccinations are slowly rolling out, and as of this writing, new infections are down nationwide. We must remember that there is a horizon when we've emerged from these dark days — and that while it's right to want to clean up, pointing fingers can get messy.
Advertisements
Thank you, Brian! This was the most comprehensive and balanced article I’ve recently read about the current and future states of our city.
It’s encouraging to know that some of the plywood and fences are finally being taken down.
Your article also serves a good reminder for me to try to remain positive in my outlook and use my little soapbox accordingly.
Posted by: Mark McClure | February 01, 2021 at 12:00 PM
I have read similar sentiments in the pages of the Tribune and other business-focused outlets. As you point out, where is the outrage and calls for more and convenient testing, for rapid distribution of vaccines, and the like? It is underhanded to attribute our economic woes to the people with the least economic power. BTW, In my recent forays pedaling through downtown, while I've noticed parts of downtown are indeed quiet and near vacant, The Pearl, which I have mixed feelings about, remains quite active. Not really all that surprising given its density and mix of uses. South downtown has PSU, but not really a student population right now, and the SOM towers are not served by nearby businesses. Comparatively, The Pearl has a mix of business and residential. Enough to keep some (face covered) action on the streets.
Posted by: Alain L. | February 03, 2021 at 01:04 PM
Thank you, Brian, for taking a focused look at the state of our downtown, as filtered through an array of interested parties.
The recent Portland protests exemplify the very definition of a ground level action, focusing immediate attention on pressure-point issues. But it is only a means to an end, with the ultimate goal to define, and ideally institutionalize, a method of addressing those issues. Actions that work counter to this larger goal are simply wanton and counterproductive.
The members of the Rose City Downtown Collective have felt the damage to the downtown more directly than most, being in the center of the bullseye. It’s understandable that they would want to stop the bleeding, clean the wound, and allow businesses to return to a safe operation. We need RCDC to do this work, as an important step forward.
We also need a broader view and a methodology that leads towards a fuller resolution. It seems appropriate that the leadership of the AIA has stepped up to suggest a way forward. I hope this call to action is accepted by City Hall and other organizations, with serious efforts starting up in time for Spring (an appropriate metaphor).
This really could be the story of our era, working to overcome what seems like multiple, insurmountable issues. Portland has shown the pathway through some thorny problems in the past, and I’m hoping we have the will, the fortitude, and leadership to blaze a new trail forward yet again.
Posted by: Paul Falsetto | February 08, 2021 at 03:07 PM
Why does everyone think someone would take the time to go downtown during the pandemic when they are not passing through on their way to or from work (given the move to remote work)? Why would we want to spend money downtown when we are unsure of the economy and feel safer saving? What would be buy? Fashionable clothes nobody will see while we have ZOOM meetings? I completely agree with the intent to bring together a broad constituency and listen per the AIA article. Business owners and residents need to prepare themselves for the answer being "the nature of retail, public space, transit, and our cities is changing and some things will close".
Posted by: Lauren Zimmermann | February 12, 2021 at 04:36 PM