Portland Architecture

Compatible but not caricature: Landmarks Commission approves Goose Hollow row houses infil

Rendering courtesy Argo Architect

BY FRED LEESON

The design solution would not be easy. For starters, the site at 2004-2010 SW Madison Street slopes downhill in two directions. It also sits in a corner of Portland’s Kings Hill Historic District, meaning that the design would have to be compatible with, but not a replica of, older buildings in the district, mostly erected between 1882 and 1942.

And because the new plan would have to be approved by the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission, two or more public hearings likely would be needed to reach a design satisfactory to the city’s historic design review body. Add to the stew: another developer, back in 1997, once proposed a seven story building that was fought by the Goose Hollow Foothills League (without success) at both the Landmarks Commission and the state Land Use Board of Appeals. For whatever reason, it was never built.

Well, new problem solved – with surprising speed.

Beaverton architect Ted Argo presented plans for two row houses, covered by a single hipped roof form with dormers and pediments over the front doors. The bottom floor is encased with cedar lap siding and the upper floor and dormers with cedar shingles.  Brick veneer wraps the concrete foundation. Unlike plans for most new buildings in historic districts, Argo’s plan for Encore Homes won approval in a single brief public hearing.

Based on a recommendation from David Skilton, Argo didn’t bother with an advisory session before submitting plans for approval. “I felt pretty good about where we got,” Skilton told the commission at the meeting’s start.

Rear of proposed project (rendering courtesy Argo Architect)

“We knew we did not want copies of existing buildings, but there are compatible precedents,” Argo said. He took advantage of the slope to tuck off-street parking under the building.

Jerry Powell, a veteran planning committee member of the Goose Hollow Foothills League, criticized the plan, albeit with some reluctance. “It’s difficult to sit here and say I like it but I don’t like it,” he said.  Powell said he felt it lacked “a certain amount of grace,” and said he thought the small front porches looked “kind of tacked on.”

But Argo’s plan drew little criticism from the landmarks commission. Brian Emerick, an architect-member of the review body, called it “a good infill design in keeping with the district without being a replica.” He added that he wasn’t “wild” about the exterior color scheme, but noted that the commission does not review color choices. “On balance, I think it will be a strong contribution to the neighborhood and a strong development,”  Emerick said. The plan was approved by a 4-0 vote.

The vacant site was once home to an Arts and Crafts era apartment building that burned many years ago.  Powell, the Goose Hollow representative, said, “The whole neighborhood is sighing with relief that finally there will be a building on that corner instead of a tent camp.”

 

Advertisements

Bowl in a glass box: Landmarks Commission and PDC renew Coliseum renovation discussion

Memorial Coliseum (photo by Brian Libby)

BY FRED LEESON

Here’s question that might be novel in the history of architecture. Can a single building have two exteriors?

The issue arose when the Portland Landmarks Commission on May 14 considered proposed renovations to the “exterior” of Veterans Memorial Coliseum. Under Portland’s zoning code, the commission cannot rule on changes to an interior space unless the interior space itself has been designated as a landmark.

That distinction was troubling to two landmarks commissioners, who said the building’s unique “bowl-within-a-glass box” design makes the concrete seating bowl an essential element to the building’s external appearance.

“In my mind we really have two significant exteriors, the bowl and the glass,” said Harris Matarazzo, a Portland lawyer who sits on the commission. Matarazzo said he didn’t think it was appropriate for the commission to approve changes to the building’s appearance when the city has not yet revealed all the changes is hopes to make inside the building. He added that to his way of thinking, the Coliseum’s “interior” was located inside the seating bowl.

Kevin Brake, a project manager for the Portland Development Commission that is managing the Coliseum upgrades, said there would be “no modifications to the bowl itself.” Inside the Coliseum, he said the bowl would be fitted with new seats, plumbing would be replaced, restrooms upgraded, new audio-visual equipment and a new scoreboard. Outside the bowl, he said there would be changes to concession stands, lighting and differing paint colors.

When Matarazzo asked whether the building would look any different to an observer from the outside, Brake replied, “It will be generally similar in form and presentation.”

Paul Solimano, another landmarks commissioner, agreed with Matarazzo about the important of the bowl’s appearance looking at the Coliseum from the outside. Based on the detailed building history that led to placement of the Coliseum on the National Register of Historic Places in 2009, Solimano said, “I’m not convinced the interior is not covered” by the commission’s jurisdiction.

But David Skilton, a city preservation planner, said the National Register listing has no bearing on the city’s own rules for regulating landmarks. Under the city code, Skilton said the commission’s only jurisdiction is over a building’s exterior, unless an interior space specifically has been given local landmark status.

The “exterior” changes include a new, better-insulated roof that will not be visible from ground level, and renovations to the swooping entry canopy that will better reflect the original design. The PDC had originally asked that the so-called Pine Court, an outdoor plaza that was added several years after the Coliseum was finished, be removed to make way for a new design. However, that element of the application was dropped. The PDC is expected to return later with detailed plans for the Pine Court and for the Fountain Court that was the original monument for veterans killed in wars.

Matarazzo cast the lone vote against the exterior changes, saying it was inappropriate to approve them without knowing the full scope of proposed improvements. “I can’t put aside what I think our mandate is for the purpose of expedience,” he said.

The commission asked, and Brake agreed, to hold an advisory session at some future date when all proposed changes will be presented and discussed. But given the city’s interpretation of the landmarks commission’s jurisdiction, recommendations from the landmarks panel about any changes inside the Coliseum’s glass walls would be advisory rather than binding.

 

Advertisements

Preservationists skirmish with city on Coliseum restoration details

Memorial Coliseum (photo by Julius Schulman, courtesy Taschen)

BY FRED LEESON

The battle to save Memorial Coliseum from demolition was won three years ago. Now the battle – skirmish, is more like it – is over how the landmark building will be renovated for further use as an event arena.

Two architects who worked mightily to place the Coliseum on the National Register of Historic Places, Peter Meijer and Kristen Minor, objected strongly this week when the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission took a first look at several comparatively minor changes proposed for the Coliseum’s exterior.

Meijer and Minor contended that the commission also should be reviewing changes that will occur inside the International Style monument, even though city regulations limit the commission’s purview to exterior changes on designated landmarks.

“We don’t see any rational reason why the whole project doesn’t come before you,” Meijer said. He said the basic building design – an oval concrete seating bowl inside a four-sided glass box – was intended to expose the interior to public view from the outside. He said the inherent design makes no distinction between the building’s its interior and exterior.

Which begs the question: What’s the plan for the interior? So far, no formal plans have been filed with the city development office. Kevin Brake, a senior project manager for the Portland Development Commission that is overseeing the renovation, said the interior changes “primarily” concern color and lighting. He said there were no changes planned for the interior bowl, although some representatives from veterans’ groups said the number of seats inside the bowl apparently will be reduced.

Tim Heron, a senior city manager who is the chief staff to the landmarks commission, said the city zoning code does not allow for review of interior changes unless the space is designated as an interior landmark. He said the only two interior landmarks designated by the city are two restaurants, Huber’s and Jake’s Famous Crawfish.

For procedural reasons, the landmarks commission cannot rule on the proposed exterior changes until May 14 at the earliest. It was clear from the opening discussion on April 9, however, that the commission sees no problem with a new roof that will add four inches of solid insulation or with some minor changes to stairway railings. The thicker roof will not be visible above a low parapet.

The commission, in accord with a staff recommendation, headed off a proposed change to the curvilinear, swooping entry pavilion that significantly differed from the building’s original 1960 design. The PDC had asked to line the underside of pavilion roof with narrow cedar slats over a black background to disguise deterioration in the ceiling. The original plaster ceiling was covered in approximately 1993 with beaded-plywood that was painted white.

Based on the commission’s discussion, Robert Mawson, a consultant working with the PDC, agreed to drop the cedar slats and install a new ceiling of a white, “plaster-like” material, instead. He said the cedar slats had been proposed as a less-costly solution. Mawson said the renovation plan includes removing paint from the glu-lam beams that support the swooping roof so the beams will appear as they originally did when the building opened early in 1961.

Another skirmish in the renovation involves the so-called “Pine Court,” a lower-level plaza on the southeast side of the building. Originally vacant when the Coliseum opened, a brick plaza and concrete planter were added later, possibly in 1967. The plaza may have been designed by the Skidmore Owings Merrill firm that designed the Coliseum, although it seems to relate to a different design aesthetic.

The PDC has asked the landmarks commission to remove the Pine Court plaza while it works with veterans organizations to design a more fitting memorial in the same location. The plaza includes a low memorial wall with names of soldiers killed in the Korean War. The commission, however, expressed reluctance to demolish the Pine Court before a new design is proposed. Brake said the PDC is working with a committee of veterans, but if past history is any hint, those talks are likely to be lengthy and boisterous. The delay should provide more time to investigate the history and design of the Pine Court, in the event that strong sentiment emerges to save it.

 

Advertisements