Historic Landmarks Commission

[PDX City-State]

I couldn't find a relevant thread, so I made a new one.

A great rant on historic preservation from today's Portland Spaces Burnside blog:

http://www.portlandspaces.net/blog/t...ces-modern-bui

Greater Preservation Movement Embraces Modernism. Will Portland's?
By Mike Thelin

Maybe it’s because living in Portland has made me skewed that when I went to a lecture by National Trust for Historic Preservation President Dick Moe, I expected to hear an interesting yet ultimately frustrating rant extolling the merit of the cornice, and how new buildings ought to conform to a prescribed context of existing buildings in respective historic areas. After all, this has been the stance the all-powerful Historic Landmarks Commission%, the body that collectively decides how buildings look and behave in historic districts.

So imagine my surprise when Moe commenced his 30-minute speech Wednesday by expressing pride in his organization for saving a number of modern buildings in 2008, including the famous Phillip Johnson Glass House in New Canon, CT. Further, Moe mentioned that mid-century buildings, specifically those built between 1950 and 1980, now comprise the majority of the American building stock, and that it’s our duty to preserve them for two reasons. They, like the grand cast-iron buildings in Old Town, reflect our history. And environmentally speaking, it’s the right thing to do. As has been said a few million times, the greenest building is one that’s already built.

Here was a refreshing moment for this young Portlander; the most prominent historic preservationist in the country was reminding us that history did not end in 1900.

The 20th century rich with architectural history, and so will be the 21st. History, is a continuum, and as we look forward to new development in our city, we shouldn’t be encumbering our architects from creating buildings relevant to today because these will be the buildings worth saving tomorrow. While the Landmarks Commission ought to do everything it can to salvage and protect existing buildings, and we the citizenry should support them, the commission’s reach seems a bit overextended. The Historic Landmarks Commission should not be dictating the aesthetics of new architecture. Period.

Just as historic buildings reflect their time, new buildings ought to be equally relevant. Portland in 2008 home to a great number of talented architects, and we ought to be championing their talents. Nothing great has ever happened by conforming to the past.

[downtownpdx]

That is great! Seriously, so many of the buildings I don't like in the Pearl, for example, are the ones that try to replicate the brick-warehouse style. It's great when historical buildings are preserved for a new use, but the new construction should strive for its own modern style. But it's a delicate balancing act, I guess, trying to incorporate new development while not totally wrecking the character of existing neighborhoods.

[Preservationist]

Certainly the interiors of new buildings in historic districts must be designed for modern uses, and materials and structural design should meet modern codes - but there is a good case to be made in certain areas to, if necessary, re-create the exteriors of demolished buildings. Buildings exist in a streetscape and can't be considered in a vacuum. The area around the Skidmore Fountain, for example, should be re-built to look like it did before the great wave of demolition in the 40s and 50s, and the demolished quarter of the Smith Block should be rebuilt to match the rest of the building. To those who say that "replica" buildings should never be built, I say go to Warsaw and stand in the Old Town Square. It looks like the 16th century, but it was all re-built from the ground up in the 1950s.

[MOPIdaho]

^I would love if that area was fully restored but it doesn't seem realistic due to the expense (U of O couldn't even fully restore the cornice on the Bickel block) and because of this reproduction buildings IMO come out half baked. We need to care of the ones we have before we start cloning more.

[anp]

Originally Posted by Preservationist

there is a good case to be made in certain areas to, if necessary, re-create the exteriors of demolished buildings.

Department of the Interior standards for preservation actually encourage the opposite approach. The generally accepted philosophy is that new construction should distinguish itself from actual historic fabric, to make clear which elements are authentically historic. That said, even new buildings in a contemporary style can be designed to "fit" within a historic district based on scale, relationship to the street, and other factors.

[sopdx]

Originally Posted by Preservationist

The area around the Skidmore Fountain, for example, should be re-built to look like it did before the great wave of demolition in the 40s and 50s, and the demolished quarter of the Smith Block should be rebuilt to match the rest of the building.

Why? It was horrible what happened in the 40's and 50's in Old-town, but why not accept that, preserve what we have - although I agree with rebuilding the demolished section of the Smith Building if possible. However, I think it is ok to progress with structures that respect their neighbors as far as scale yet represent the best possible design of our era.

[MarkDaMan]

any pics of the Smith building in its glory?

[Preservationist]

There is clearly a philosophical issue involved regarding re-creating demolished buildings, and I find myself disagreeing with the Interior Department standards. I had thought when I went to Warsaw that I would find the re-built Old Town cheesy, but I didn't. It's 50 years old now and even has developed a certain patina of age. The Poles even faithfully re-create towns like Gdansk (Danzig) and Wroclaw (Breslau) that were mostly German before the war. Yes, it's expensive, but it can be done if the will is there - the Freimann Building replica at 1st and Oak looks pretty good and will settle in more and more as it gets older. Now if somebody would just restore the poor Hallock and McMillan Building (1857, the oldest building in downtown) at the end of that block!

[MOPIdaho]

^^The Freimann Building at 1st and Oak is not a replica, it was painstakingly dismantled and rebuilt, IMO that's not replicating it's restoration but it is a gray area.

[zilfondel]

Don't forget that buildings built now will be considered historic in 50-100 years. Making them a copy of a past style will likely make them future tear-downs, as they don't bring anything to the table architecturally.

Architecture is in many ways a constantly evolving, reflection of a society's culture and technology.

Bah, this argument has been ongoing since 1850. I was hoping we were past it.


Have you guys seen the Pala building? Like the Minnesota flour mills, it keeps an archaic destroyed remnant of the urban fabric as a unique space that can be inhabited in a way it was never intended (new Centennial Mills project is another good example!). The city needs a thoughtful approach to rethinking space and structure that can introduce a new and unique way of experiencing things. I'd hate for everything to just be a copy of a certain style... if I wanted that, I'd move to Beavertronia.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by Preservationist

There is clearly a philosophical issue involved regarding re-creating demolished buildings, and I find myself disagreeing with the Interior Department standards. I had thought when I went to Warsaw that I would find the re-built Old Town cheesy, but I didn't. It's 50 years old now and even has developed a certain patina of age. The Poles even faithfully re-create towns like Gdansk (Danzig) and Wroclaw (Breslau) that were mostly German before the war. Yes, it's expensive, but it can be done if the will is there - the Freimann Building replica at 1st and Oak looks pretty good and will settle in more and more as it gets older. Now if somebody would just restore the poor Hallock and McMillan Building (1857, the oldest building in downtown) at the end of that block!

The technology and techniques used to build historic stone and wood buildings today would be so cost-prohibitive that it would be ridiculous. Not to mention that they would be seismically unsafe, and a real fire hazard. Updating them to today's standards and codes (they go much further than just seismic and fire/life safety standards) would virtually ensure you end up with something that barely resembles the original.

Rebuilding cities like Munich and Warsaw was in many ways a response of the populace to bring things back to normalcy after literally 100s of thousands of people were murdered. There is no parallel in urban areas in the US - I mean, 84% of Warsaw was blown up by the Nazis, and 650,000 people were killed there.

Back in 1945 places like those still had a huge artisan class who could inexpensively, and very skillfully, build those historic buildings. This is 2008; we don't have the people with those skills here in the states who could even pull it off, even if you had the materials and could bypass the building codes.

[Preservationist]

I agree that we are re-hashing old arguments here, so this will be my last post on the subject. The Freimann Building may have used some of the old bricks (and old bricks from other sites), but the sad remnants of the original structure were completely removed from the site and the current building constructed, using old pictures to re-create the appearance of the outside - I doubt the interior is anything like the original. So we do at least still have skilled bricklayers who can do that sort of thing. Zilfondel is quite correct, no one in his right mind would advocate building anything to 19th century standards - I am only advocating recreating the outside appearance to give the streetscape back its original look. And I know that I am on the losing side of this argument, except in those rare cases where the property owner (as in the case of the Friemann Building) seems to share my opinion.

[bvpcvm]

could you guys post some pictures of the buildings you're talking about?

[tworivers]

Sometimes when I am riding up N Williams I fantasize about winning a hundred million dollars in the lottery, buying that block of land at Russell back from Legacy Emanuel, and rebuilding the block brick by brick according to the original plans. And then give it back, with apologies, to the local black community.

In general, though, I'm not so much in favor of re-creating old buildings, although the idea is intriguing -- I've been to Warsaw and Gdansk and what the Poles did there is incredible. And Portland's demo-craze in the 50s and 60s makes my stomach turn when I think about it. I definitely prefer the idea of rebuilding according to original plans than the current practice of designing new buildings with faux-historic proportions, materials, and detailing. When faced with a choice between new faux-historic and new contemporary infill, though, I'll definitely get behind the unapologetically modern -- I'd much rather have a streetscape that is visually interesting and a jumble of new and old.

The Historic Landmarks Commission, I think, should have its teeth removed and act as an advisory committee to the Design Commission. I like the idea of HLC acting as preservationist for existing buildings, but don't think they should have any power over new plans -- leave that to Design.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by Preservationist

I agree that we are re-hashing old arguments here, so this will be my last post on the subject. The Freimann Building may have used some of the old bricks (and old bricks from other sites), but the sad remnants of the original structure were completely removed from the site and the current building constructed, using old pictures to re-create the appearance of the outside - I doubt the interior is anything like the original. So we do at least still have skilled bricklayers who can do that sort of thing. Zilfondel is quite correct, no one in his right mind would advocate building anything to 19th century standards - I am only advocating recreating the outside appearance to give the streetscape back its original look. And I know that I am on the losing side of this argument, except in those rare cases where the property owner (as in the case of the Friemann Building) seems to share my opinion.

Well, its certainly an interesting idea, perhaps for just that one specific area around Skidmore Fountain. I would be for creating a zoning code to require new buildings to emulate the massing and facade window size and repetition along the corridor and create a sense of continuity. Course, we could do that with a more contemporary design as well - I really like the old cast iron building facades, maybe we could do something with exposed steel structural columns in the front? There are some high tech buildings (Foster, Piano, Rogers) who have explored those kinds of designs.

Maybe something akin to this project:
http://www.richardrogers.co.uk/rende...1,4,24,343,726

Scaled to the Skidmore Fountain building height, setback, and so on.

Or Kabuki Cho - excellent facade detailings. (courtesy richard rogers)

[MOPIdaho]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

could you guys post some pictures of the buildings you're talking about?

If you go to Google maps street view and use the location of 1st and Oak, the building is on the NE corner.

[Preservationist]

There will be an open house to present various design plans for the Old Town area, on April 17th from 4:30 to 6:30, in the old Globe Hotel (used to be Import Plaza) at First and Couch. Should be interesting. The city has a fairly good collection of salvaged Portland cast iron and part of the discussion will be how to integrate it into any new construction. Mercy Corps is now rehabilitating the Packer-Scott (Skidmore Fountain) Building, but I believe that ultimately they'd like to build on that parking lot that now surrounds it - so a lot is going to happen in the next few years. If only the City had bit the bullet and moved the Fire Station.... thanks, Mayor Tom!

[MarkDaMan]

^I think Mercy Corps is building a new building on the parking lot that is on the NAITO side of the Packer-Scott building. That was part of the delay of the project because it was having some difficulty getting through the historic landmark review.

[maccoinnich]

Andrew Smith is set to be appointed to the Landmarks Commission.

[NOPO]

I think historic preservation only leads to more of a housing shortage by preventing new dense construction in historic zones. I would be happy if almost all preservation went away. If someone truly thinks a structure is historic, they should fund preservation on their own and not get a community covenant to protect their structure.