Portland National/International News

[PacificNW]

This commentary was in today's Oregonian:


PORTLAND ARCHITECTURE
Wednesday, January 03, 2007

A rising question of character and livability

N ews about the proposed condominium tower on Oak Street in downtown Portland has focused on the Portland Development Commission's questionable appraisal dealings with developer Trammell Crow.

But long after that controversy is forgotten, the tower itself -- a stark, right-angled behemoth -- will live on. So Portlanders must look beyond transitory financing concerns and ask themselves a question: How do the Oak Street tower and the ever-growing number of these look-alike glass high-rises affect downtown's character and livability?

First, some history. In the 1930s, leaders of Germany's architectural Bauhaus movement immigrated to the United States. Influenced by Marxist theory, they designed buildings that were rigorously utilitarian. Via "the flat roof and the sheer facade" walls that were "thin skins of glass or stucco," and exteriors that were "completely free of applied decoration," wrote critic Tom Wolfe, Bauhaus structures sought to "reject all things bourgeois" and obliterate any "manifestation of exuberance, power, empire, grandeur, or even high spirits and playfulness."

In the decades that followed, in Portland and elsewhere, the Bauhaus ethic spawned countless of these sheerly functional buildings. Our downtown teems with them: the Fifth Avenue Building, Standard Plaza, Portland Medical Center, Harrison Square, even the heralded 200 Market Building.

At the dawn of the 21st century -- as proved by Oak, Benson and Eliot Towers and other new downtown high-rises -- architects still render obeisance to Bauhaus' rigidly mechanical functionality.

But is functional all a building should be? Look at these structures. They're sterile, bland, impersonal and -- in their geometric, cookie-cutter uniformity -- utterly forgettable.

Before Bauhaus, architects regarded buildings not as mere shelters, but as art. Their work sought to convey the fundaments of a nation, culture or religion -- to transmit, as Leo Tolstoy wrote, "the highest and best feelings to which man has risen." To this end, architects employed imaginative, ornamental features like pilasters, cornices, balustrades, friezes and cartouches. At its best, their work forged a tasteful balance between rococo ostentation and stark utility.

Portland's downtown area boasts many such buildings. The Ambassador Condominiums feature a stately brick exterior, bay windows and recurring decorative motifs. Two old hotels -- the Governor and Benson -- have glazed terra-cotta facades and ornately designed roofs. The Art Deco-style Charles F. Berg building, colored in black, aqua and a smattering of actual gold, teems with metal scrollwork and spiraled engravings. The Italian Renaissance-style Pioneer Courthouse and U.S. Custom House manifest structural gravitas and seriousness of civic purpose. And the Pearl District's Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center -- a restored warehouse with gracefully arched windows -- marries simple elegance to Industrial Age solidity and easily outclasses the antiseptic towers that dominate that neighborhood today.

The bottom line: Buildings define much of a city's character. Those that are sheerly functional beggar the human spirit. Those that convey charm, beauty and uniqueness enrich it.

For Portland to be a great city, its buildings must be more than ascetic glass boxes. In the future -- as in architectural eras past -- those buildings must seek to impart the nobility, the complexity and the beauty of mankind.


Richard F. LaMountain, a former editor at Conservative Digest magazine, is a Portland freelance writer.

[WonderlandPark]

Bleh, just slap some columns and pediments on a building and then this guy will be happy.

The new towers are not perfect, but, jeez, it is 2007 now, not the 1890's which he seems to harken to.

By the way, there are plenty of forgetable older buildings, just because it is brick, doesn't make it the "perfect" building.

I <<HATE>> these kind of backwards-ass tirades. I appreciate 100% old buildings and want them preserved, but that is a whole 'nother ballgame than mimicking history by slapping some columns on a building of the 21st century.

[Drmyeyes]

Does this architect that aparrently rates a guest appearance in the Oregonian, do any location related research at all?

I was completely amazed that amongst the list of pre-bauhaus buildings in downtown Portland that he cited as examples of richly expressive architecture of great value to the city's character, the Ambassador Condominiums were mentioned but not the nearby, similar but more modest in style Rosefriend Apartment Building.

In doing so, he failed to take advantage of a choice opportunity to highlight the impending loss of a currently standing Portland example of just the kind of architectural expression he rightly praises as being absent from much contemporary Portland architecture. In fact, he didn't take the point far enough. Had he done so, he might have made the point that practitioners of contemporary architecture, by investing greater imagination and creativity in their work, could rise to a level of ideals and expression established by their forbears in classic and romance architecture withought aping the exact styles of those periods.

As one with a relatively higher profile opportunity than the average person to make his voice heard, the fact that he failed to do either of these things explains in part why so much of new architecture is so vacuous.

[mhays]

On average buildings were much nicer looking before WWII.

Architects generally hate to hear that. But that's what much of the public is saying. I assume that if a public vote were taken, that prevalent group of architects would get annihilated.

I wish architects would think less about their own egos and intellectual fulfillment and more about designing buildings people like. Many architects have built practices around buildings that achieve both objectives, and I say more power to them.

[WonderlandPark]

Originally Posted by mhays

On average buildings were much nicer looking before WWII.

I diagree, I would agree with part of what you say, but, in the last decade or so, architecture has gotten much more interesting, IMO. Downtown PDX is full of crappy 60's-80's junk, tons of gawd awful 70's T-111 sided boxes litter SE and SE. But of late, things have gotten much better. Whether you like revivalist stuff, new modernism, or even general commercial buildings, things are SO much better today than the drek of 20-30 years ago.

[PacificNW]

Hmmm...I think that good design has lasting value and appreciation. Many designers thought, at the time, 60's, 70's, & 80's design was good/great. Now many, today, would disagree. I agree with mhays but I think there has been good design after the war also...just not on the scale of design that became a part of a city's soul and character for centuries prior, imo. It is a shame that we are losing the Rosefriend but the place was falling apart. It was never designed, or built, with the same amount of monies, materials, or thought, as the Ambassador. I think it would have taken an incredible amount of money to bring the Rosefriend up to safety standards. Who, on this board, has the money and will to save/restore design like the Rosefriend? Should the city have made an offer for the property and restored it for low income housing?

[Drmyeyes]

"It is a shame that we are losing the Rosefriend but the place was falling apart. It was never designed, or built, with the same amount of monies, materials, or thought, as the Ambassador." PacificNW

Really? Who says so? Who told you that? Was a serious engineering analysis of that building ever made and factored into decisions regarding redevelopment of the the Ladd block? I doubt it. I have never ever heard that the Rosefriend Apartment Building was structurally unsound. Of course all century old, and some newer buildings obviously require seismic upgrades to bring them up to today's standards, all do-able tasks. And obviously, the Rosefriend is a more modestly appointed building than the Ambassador, but I'm not inclined without verification, to conclude that this also applies to the structural integrity of the Rosefriend.

Of course the building's original interior had been compromised, but that is a decor, not a structural issue. You check it out for yourself if you haven't already. From an exterior examination, there is no sign of structural failure anywhere on the Rosefriend Apartment Building. Only reasonably drawn conclusions to the contrary taken from a professional engineering analysis of the structure should be entitled to change that status.

The intended demolition of the Rosefriend Apartment Building is a hustle. It's that kind of hustle that results in today's bland glass boxes that steal from modernism's ethic without providing the soul and inspiration that modernism's originators and other great architects invested in their designs.

[PacificNW]

^Believe what you want....but where were the buyers (you?) to save the Rosefriend? Obviously, the city wasn't interested..or preservationists, for that matter. People had plenty of time to make an offer to the church owners... There was talk, and articles, about the changes on that block, long before any concrete plans were shown. Saving the Carriage House was the only structure, on that block, that struck a nerve with people.

You are correct, I don't know what the structural issue's that might have been hidden in the Rosefriend but I have visited friends in years past who have lived there. It needed a lot (plumbing/electrical) of work. I don't know if the cost factor to rehabilitate was too prohibitive... I am the first to admit I don't know these answers. If tenants who actually lived there, who owned their units, maybe it could have been saved.

I can agree with your comments but can we try and get back to the subject of the commentary...the "cosmetic appearance's" of today's architecture and how it's appreciated, or not, by those who live in the city? Unfortunately, the Rosefriend wasn't appreciated enough....by the people/organizations who had the power, money and desire to save it. It's a shame. The same thing is happening in cities all over the U.S.

[Drmyeyes]

Well thanks PacificNW, but it's not what I want to believe, it's what the situation is according to sources of information available to me and what I'll loosely refer to as the average person.

That information tells me that the Rosefriend was summarily dismissed from a future in the development of the Ladd Block, not because it could not be brought up to today's seismic standards within a reasonable budget included in a new development for the Ladd Block, but because the developers preferred a development plan with the least risk and the greatest promise of return over any that would be an adventurous and inspiring legacy to the city. That includes plans that would include the Rosefriend or not include it.

The momentum that preserves the life of one architecturally noteworthy building and forsakes another does not seem to be a simple thing. There are many currents and eddys of various origin that come together to coalesce into new development. Maybe it could be said that the process is often more Darwinian than it is democratic. I venture my opinion, regularly strengthened or revised as I learn new things, but yet today, I can't say or seem to understand exactly why the Ladd block has come to be developed as it has. I hope to know more about that some day.

As for LaMountain's ideas, I think it's easy to jump to conclusions about what such a person suggests from thoughts they suggest in a small piece. The "average person" likes old stuff, face it, but they like new stuff too. They however, are rarely the ones that decide how ideas will be pulled out of the big bag of architectural history to create something exciting and new. That is the job of dreamers with a heart and soul in their body rather than only the bean counter that so many developers seem to have in theirs.

The average person public depends upon these dreamers to know, as LaMountain included in his piece, "....the fundaments of a nation, culture or religion -- to transmit, as Leo Tolstoy wrote, "the highest and best feelings to which man has risen." , and to know that they as average persons, consider this to be an important essence of architecture that makes up the cities where they come to live.

In Portland, we need more architect, developer teams that are inspired and determined to create new buildings, drawing as called for, from all the great architecturally inspiring styles at their disposal, buildings that will also be practical, economically affordable and productive places to live.

[mcbaby]

i predict that when leed architecture catches on across the country so will a renaissance of sorts occur in design. people are craving more beauty and nature in their lives. parking lots are frustrating. plain, bland buildings are uninspiring and subdivisions lack soul and sense of community. whole neighborhoods in chicago were bulldozed during the 60's in the name of urban renew and replaced with stark cement and brick buildings. these "chicago projects" literal encouraged violence.

people love san francisco because it has retained it's beautiful queen anne architecture, paris isn't loved by accident and amsterdam's historic district inspires awe. we are moving towards newer and better construction techniques that save energy and are less harsh on our environment but soon we must address the psychological impact that modern buildings have on people. not just the function but also the asthetic. 1% for art shouldn't be about placing a dead tree in the front entrance of a big glass and steel box. it should be about the entire building. the chinese might refer to it as feng shui but i think it's common sense. i don't want to live in a cul de sac with a bunch of houses that look the same and i don't want to work in a boring glass box.

I believe that we'll be heading into a new era where beauty will become just as important at function in constuction. planning a better city will be considered before the bottom line.

[cab]

This single reason the rosefeld is going down is PARKING for the church members. Its the same reason why the small footprinted carrage house has to be moved instead of restored on site. There simply was no way to save that building once the church made its decision to build parking, they wouldn't have sold it because they still would have the parking issue. Don't blame the building blame the parking.

[MarkDaMan]

^at least they are putting the parking under ground. The church does have the right to build a massive, fairly cheap, above ground parking lot on 3/4th of that block. It would also provide stable revenue for years to come as it could be used for church peeps on Sunday, and public parking the rest of the week.

I find the Rosefriend a beautiful place, but I was kinda shocked when a few weeks ago I noticed almost an exact replica of the building on the 405 and SW Morrison or Taylor (I think). Anyone know what building I'm talking about?

[Leo]

Originally Posted by PacificNW

This commentary was in today's Oregonian:

First, some history. In the 1930s, leaders of Germany's architectural Bauhaus movement immigrated to the United States. Influenced by Marxist theory, they designed buildings that were rigorously utilitarian.

...

But is functional all a building should be? Look at these structures. They're sterile, bland, impersonal and -- in their geometric, cookie-cutter uniformity -- utterly forgettable.

My personal preferences for modern asthetic aside, I think this article is a shameful example of demagoguery . The author claims that all austere designs are based on the Bauhaus movement and then makes a quick jump to link Bauhaus with Marxism. Those pinko commie architects! That austere designs can also be linked with other philosophies that focus on voluntary simplicity, such as Zen, is conveniently ommitted by the author.

You don’t hear any fans of modern design criticizing ornate architecture because it is rooted in the psychotic despotism of the French Sun King.

Is it so difficult for the author to imagine that the buildings he finds merely functional, others actually find beautiful?

[cab]

To be honest, the better arguement for modernism is Capitalism. Modernism is the cheapest form possible. All those nice details cost bucks. Convincing the public that a simple box is "great" a developer can save a bunch.

[Urbanpdx]

That is not actually true. Do you notice the cheapest suburban tract homes all have a lot of bric-a-brac? Only the most expensive custom homes are modern.

[PacificNW]

I am a person who likes clean lines without a lot of clutter/detail. I, personally, admire much of the architecture designed today. But I have admit that architecture of yesterday can also be beautiful and interesting to study/admire.

Through my own travels of Europe and the U.S., and photo's posted on this forum/or books I have learned to appreciate an architect's efforts (for the most part).

The details on a caste iron building of to the simplicity of "Big Pink" there is much to admire in Portland.

[PacificNW]

From Brian Libby's column:

You Can't Go Rome Again

In the Opinion section of today’s Oregonian, local freelance writer and former Conservative Digest editor Richard F. LaMountain writes about the proposed Oak Tower project, but not about the handling of its land parcel by the Portland Development Commission, as has been a frequent and controversial topic as of late.

Instead, LaMountain indicts the Oak Tower’s design as a symbol of today’s cold modern architecture proliferating rapidly throughout the city amidst a condo-building boom. “How do the Oak Street tower and the ever-growing number of these look-alike glass highrises," he asks, "affect downtown’s character and livability?”

LaMountain then describes with suspicion how today’s modern buildings are born from the Bauhaus tradition:

"Influenced by Marxist theory, they designed buildings that were rigorously utilitarian…In the decades that followed, in Portland and elsewhere, the Bauhaus ethic cospawned countless of these sheerly functional buildings…But is functional all a building should be? Look at these structures. They’re sterile, bland, impersonal and – in their geometric cookie-cutter uniformity—utterly forgettable."

I appreciate how passionate LaMountain seems to be. He rightfully believes that, as his essay concludes, “…buildings must seek to impart the nobility, the complexity and the beauty of mankind.”

Yet I couldn’t help but notice that LaMountain’s background at Conservative Digest seems in tune with a conservative attitude about building design and style that’s conducive to creating architectural Disneylands. I also think that linking modern architecture to Marxism is a laughable cheap shot. To my ears LaMountain's implication seems to be that the Commies are ruining America with their newfangled glass boxes. Didn't he get the memo that we bait the yokels with terrorism now?

LaMountain’s premise is rooted in the assumption that all modern buildings are inherently lifeless and lacking in beauty. But of course that’s a highly subjective opinion. I and a lot of other architectural enthusiasts see tremendous beauty in modern architecture. Ever heard of Mies van der Rohe, buddy?

I do acknowledge there’s a kernel of truth to what LaMountain is saying, in that an ordinary, run-of-the-mill building of yesteryear very well may be more attractive than a run-of-the-mill work of modern architecture. Embellishment can act as camouflage, and bad modernism has nowhere to hide, except perhaps in its materials.

Nevertheless, LaMountain in this op-ed reminds me of an art fan who thinks painting went downhill for good after the Impressionists. To some extent, it merely is a difference of personal preference. I happen to love Mondrian, and I’d guess he prefers Thomas Kinkaide.

What we ought to have, and always will have, is a variety of styles to our architecture. But at the same time, the current generation of working architects share access to the same technologies and materials that give shape to today's buildings, and all we can ask them to do is to make architecture that is of its time.

I also think there is a variety to today’s contemporary architecture that LaMountain apparently isn’t able to see. Buildings allude to and incorporate historic styles all the time, but they do so within an appropriately modern context. Otherwise, that’s when you get the Disneyland, Colonial Williamsburg or Las Vegas affect. Should Portland’s modern buildings be better? Absolutely. But they should get better by favoring the creative talents of the city’s best architects and creating a system better equipped to sponsor architectural excellence of any appropriate and relevant style.

Posted by Brian Libby on January 03, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (8)

[Dougall5505]

^at least they are putting the parking under ground. The church does have the right to build a massive, fairly cheap, above ground parking lot on 3/4th of that block. It would also provide stable revenue for years to come as it could be used for church peeps on Sunday, and public parking the rest of the week.

I find the Rosefriend a beautiful place, but I was kinda shocked when a few weeks ago I noticed almost an exact replica of the building on the 405 and SW Morrison or Taylor (I think). Anyone know what building I'm talking about?

ya like that big parking structure next to the broadway building. was that built at the same time?

mark i actually thought that building was the rosefriend apartments also, i even starting taking pics of it until i realized my mistake

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by Dougall

mark i actually thought that building was the rosefriend apartments also, i even starting taking pics of it until i realized my mistake

ha, yeah, even back in the day they had track housing...albeit on a grander scale...I wonder how many Rosefriend type buildings are actually in Portland?

[Hoodrat]

The thing is ...boxes can be nice, but unfortunately, for the most part, they need to be tall and slender to be really good (check out the Trump World Tower in NYC, or even the Seagram Bldg., also in NYC for really good boxes).

These days, it seems that developers are using the mid-century moderne fad as an excuse for cheap details and dull designs. The green movement seems to reinforce the trend for expenses to remain within the structure, with the skimping occuring on the exterior considerations.

As for tract housing...I have never seen a modern home (other than a custom built model) that had the architectural detail such as brick, stone , or stucco detailing applied to anything other that the streetside facade of the house. There are countless spec homes in the 1mil+ range in suburban Seattle that have fancy stone, brick and stucco facades, and cheap LAP siding on the remaining 3 sides of the house. I have notices that the same homes often have interior amenities that cost thousands more than the exteriors. Compare them to thier counterparts in not only low cost places such as Houston and Atlanta, but also mid priced places like Chicago and Denver, as well as expensive markets like L.A., S.F., and D.C. You'll be surprised at how cheapo and tacky the 1mil+ tract/spec housing in the PNW appears from the exterior.