I attended the July 20th Design Commission meeting, listened to the presentation and all speakers opposed to the design, and 2-3 people speaking in support. Exactly understanding the status of the Commission’s position in regards to the design at this point is confusing. It seems they are waiting for the applicants to submit a key document before the commission makes its decision. You can read a better explanation that still might leave you confused, in this article on portlandarchitecture.com: Design Commission Delays Ladd Tower Ruling.
I’m not sure what this means to the overall project, approval of demolition, and so forth. Maybe they’re just waiting on the other documents as a formality, to avoid potential legal hassles inherent in an approval without them. So, the Design Commission delays their ruling until Sept. 7th. Wonder whether they’ll be discussing it in the meetings between now and then.
In my opinion, the design commission raised good points at the top of the meeting about the lack of setbacks on Park Ave, and the buildings overall potential impact on the Park Blocks. Despite this, the key factor opening the way for the design in this respect, is that apparently, setbacks are not required for buildings on the park. I don’t know that the commission’s concerns were such that they would rule against the design, even though this was the case.
That’s some great archival research material bvpcvm and pdxstreetcar. I could only have wished for some dates and attribution.
Probably any of those earlier designs do a better job of deferring to the park, serving the church’s daily activities, an in general, being more interesting buildings. The “earliest” and the second design have a setback favoring the Park Blocks. The “earliest” also has the courtyard entry open to the park side, unlike the present, that opens on Broadway. The idea of a point tower, quarter block is good too.
It just seems like really extraordinary architecture, either including the Rosefriend or not, should be encouraged for this block. Sorry, but the design the development team presented July 20th does not seem to be that. This could be due to lack of oversight, lack of inspiration, or maybe something else.
I suppose it’s highly debatable as to whether the Rosefriend should live on. There are good many reasons why it should, and many logical reasons the development team wouldn’t want it to. An obvious argument against the building is that, even completely upgraded and refurbished, it would still be an old building many would consider to be less marketable in terms of profit, then a modern building with larger glass area that would be more suitable for commercial tenants on the Broadway side.
Arguments in favor? Beautiful, cozy vintage architecture, that is increasingly rare downtown. Given the choice between modern and something like the Rosefriend, some people will always choose the latter. In addition to bearing testimony to Portland’s architectural heritage, the authentic break from modernity it offers is very important to the downtown experience. I think that architecture providing this commodity is far more important than some would have us believe.
What is most disappointing about the situation, if for example, you consider the development team’s Design Commission presentation, is that nothing was presented to indicate that it explored or considered ideas that would have used the Rosefriend Apartment building as part of a working design for the block. I don’t know for certain whether the Rosefriend should go or stay, partly because a selection of seriously drawn up optional designs has not been presented. It’s very frustrating that they did not do this.
Maybe ideas for keeping the Rosefriend building would have been ultimately impractical for any number of reasons, but at the least, with such a building as the Rosefriend, they could have offered something to demonstrate that such ideas were explored; artist renderings, or even napkin sketches, cost analysis, etc.. I don’t believe the reason they apparently didn’t explore such ideas has to do with the building’ presently non-vintage interior condition, or its undoubted need for seismic stabilization. It’s more complicated than that.
We’ve seen how a vintage building can be completely gutted and seismically upgraded. Two examples: Central Library and Pioneer Courthouse. I’m trying to think of an example where a vintage building has been incorporated into the body of a new tower, but don’t have one. I think it’s been done though, and could be an exciting concept here. For some reason, the Ecotrust building with its perimeter parking lot wall, using an old building façade sticks in my mind as a local example of this. It’s more of an example of a break from modernity.
Prev
Linear Mode
