Tear that Landmark down!! …or maybe…don’t?

by Becca Cavell

Peter Meijer and I recently reprised a debate on the future of Portland’s iconic Portland Building (designed by Michael Graves in 1982) as part of the Portland Design Festival. Peter and I are on the board of DoCoMoMo-Oregon and were invited to present the same topic at DoCoMoMo-US’s National Symposium in Sarasota earlier this year. The Modernism conservation group is beginning to grapple with the issue of Postmodernism and we tried to highlight some of the major issues while maintaining a fairly lighthearted approach. In Florida we only had 20 minutes to present our cases, and this time we had over an hour, and we had a lively and engaged audience who brought their own perspectives to the discussion.

This whole venture grew from conversations Peter and I had after the successful nomination of the Portland Building to the National Register of Historic Places. Peter and his firm PMA wrote the nomination at their own volition, and I was unaware of the venture until after the entire process was complete. My initial reaction was one of outrage – how could this failed building be considered a historic landmark? How could a building that is so reviled, and one that is barely 30 years old, even be a contender? The opportunity to take this discussion to the stage was too good to miss, and we both jumped at the chance. And as we have prepared and presented this topic twice I’ve learned a lot more about the building and have – begrudgingly – developed more sympathy for it as part of our cityscape and yes, our history here in Portland.

The story behind the Portland Building is complex and fascinating. The bare bones are these: The project was achieved through a design-build competition, with Philip Johnson advising the selection committee; three teams competed in the final round, and Graves’ team prevailed because it met various criteria including a very challenging budget. Graves was primarily an academic, teaching at Princeton at this point, although he enjoyed early fame as a member of the “New York Five” with several modernist houses to his credit. Always an exceptional draftsman, his sketches, drawings and models for the Portland Building were highly evocative and displayed a use of color and texture as well as material rendering that was a jolting contrast to the formal, somewhat austere language of Modernism that still dominated the design arena at that time. With Philip Johnson’s endorsement, and despite Pietro Belluschi’s protestations, Graves’ design was realized. Or was it?

meijer-cavell image 2

Michael Graves’ rendering of the Portland Building

My argument in opposition claimed that the building as constructed is not a representation of the design. The budget couldn’t support the details that gave richness to the building – materials were cheapened and details flattened to the point that the building is a caricature of the original intent – alarming, since the design sketches themselves are very gestural. The windows have always been and remain highly controversial. They are very small – according to Graves this was a budget-driven issue – but they are also placed without consideration of the staff who work within the building. When seated you cannot see out of the windows, and the interiors are quite dark and rely on artificial light. The loggias – one of the competition-winning “criteria” – don’t connect to the sidewalk because of grading issues and the intended street-level retail isn’t viable. And the coloration of the façade is achieved through paint rather than materials with the exception of the oddly under-scaled blue tiles that clad the street level.

portlandbuilding-model

This model indicates that Graves’ intended  for the building to have more three dimensionality than we got.

But Peter’s argument in favor has serious teeth too: the Portland Building is the first built example of Postmodern architecture in the United States. The building represents a sea change in style, materials, and use of color. And the building is potentially endangered. Well known internationally, Peter claims that it is only Portlanders who truly dislike the building, and its various construction problems are of increasing concern to its owner. Peter made it clear that the Landmark status now enjoyed by the building isn’t necessarily strong protection. The building can still be demolished or significantly altered, although the review mechanism is different with Portland’s Landmarks Commission having oversight.  And Peter argues that it’s too soon – the building is too young – for us to judge it a failure. That time will tell.

I can trot out my cheap shots – the building’s only redeeming feature is the enormous sculpture “Portlandia” that adorns its West elevation, that it faces the wrong way, that the blue tile reminds me of a public restroom. I can argue that it is an “object” building that has complete disregard for the wellbeing of its occupants. But I understand that Graves’ Portland Building is a significant design from a particular moment in our architectural history. A movement that I hope never enjoys a revival – but perhaps our Portland Building should survive. Or maybe the solution – the win-win – is to retain its shell and to completely reimagine everything that happens within its four walls. Now, that would make a great design studio project.

portland-building-detail

Alas, the three-dimensional flowing ribbons became flat, painted decoration… (photo by Brian Libby)

 

...and look at those tiny windows...

…and look at those tiny windows…

 

 

5 Comments »

  1. Eric Wheeler says:

    Becca,

    Sorry I missed your debate with Peter, but I imagine the article above is a good representation of your major arguments. Did you know that the sculptor of the statue (Kaskey?) took the basic image of “Portlandia” from the female figure on the Portland City seal? I just learned that recently.

    I have finally made the permanent move to Portland.

    It would be fun to share a cup of coffee with you sometime and chat a bit. I am leading walking tours of Portland architecture year around now.

    Best,

    Eric

  2. Chris Wise says:

    Love it or hate it – it is a Postmodern classic. 30 years from now, when Postmodernism is not so reviled, the loss will be mourned.

    Tearing down buildings every 30 years is not a good architectural solution. If we as architect’s eat our own, why will anyone else will care about architecture? (witness the demo of the Williams/Tsien Folk Art Museum with Diller/Scofidio paving the way of its demise).

    Shore up its sagging parts, plug the holes (or add more for windows!) and improve it. Repurpose it – but don’t tear it down.

  3. […] the many ideas for the building: tear it down, rehabilitate it as-is, or “retain its shell and completely reimagine everything that happens within its four […]

  4. Robert B says:

    I’m torn. This building is iconic only in that it demonstrates how mediocre a building can be when it’s value engineered to the point of missing the point.
    Back in ’82, the city should have done all those things that the city planners should have learned in RFP-101 class.
    I’m leaning toward either letting Graves (or another firm) have another crack at it, or pull it down, since it’s not even close to Graves’ concept. Build something iconic. Keep the statue.

  5. […] time to follow up on my earlier piece about the Portland Building. Peter Meijer and I publically debated the fate of the building for the […]

RSS feed for comments on this post. / TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

709
meijer-cavell image 3

The Portland Building Debate Circuit Continues

by Becca Cavell

It’s time to follow up on my earlier piece about the Portland Building. Peter Meijer and I publically debated the fate of the building for the first time over a year ago, at the Docomomo Symposium in Florida. Since then we’ve reprised our face-off three times in front of live audiences – in Portland and Hood River – and we had the pleasure of sparring gently on the radio courtesy of KBOO’s ArtFocus show as part of a longer program that addressed a couple of other local landmarks too (listen here). We’ve made a point to engage the audience in the discussion whenever we can, and along this journey I’ve learned a lot of things about the building and people’s attitudes towards it.

Read more »

701
SONY DSC

Bringing Presence to Meetings

by Jonah Cohen

As architects, we spend a good portion of our professional lives leading committee meetings – meetings that typically convene by immediately diving in to the subject at hand. Over a 3-year span of time some 15 years ago, I worked with the First Unitarian Church of Portland – with clients who gave me a great gift by modeling a different and compelling way of beginning meetings.

Read more »

679
PCC Cascade student tour

PSU Building Technology Class visits PCC Cascade

by Amie Bates

One of the best aspects of practicing architecture is that our education never ends. And on top of that, our classroom comes in many forms — from city sidewalks to the job site beside carpenters to the computer screen at our desks. So when Margarette Leite’s PSU Building Technology class approached us for a class tour of the PCC Cascade Student Center and Academic Building, we jumped at the opportunity. Not only are we excited about how the project is unfolding, but to be able to share it as a learning tool for architecture students is an extra perk.

Read more »

657
ronchamp (Medium)

Security Obscurity

by Kelsey McWilliams

Upon reading that the Chapel of Ronchamp had recently been vandalized, I was surprised; but even more so I was offended. Personally offended. It’s not that I have an especially close connection to Le Corbusier’s Chapel; In fact I’ve never even seen it in person. I just remember learning about it in school and seeing the photos of the original drawings. They were swoopy, organic, charcoal drawings that captured the weight of the structure but at the same time were based on the fulcrum of the human arm in a simple gesture.

Read more »

636
kengo kuma starbucks

No Brand is the New Brand

by Sarah Bell

Wired recently ran this article on Starbucks’ new design strategy for some of their stores. In a nutshell, Starbucks is creating stores that are designed to reflect the local culture around the store’s physical location, rather than just reflecting Starbucks. The desired result being that Starbucks should feel like your local corner coffee shop, not the generic corporate chain people perceived it as following its mega-expansion across the world. It’s a fascinating move, one that has already produced spectacular design results.*

But what does this move say about the nature of brand today?

Read more »

620
UWB3_ne corner (Large)

UW Bothell Science Building – Revealed!

by Audrey Alverson

Check out this great time-lapse video of the scaffolding coming down from our University of Washington Bothell Science & Academic Building. The project is expected to be complete in the spring, and open for classes Fall of 2014.

Read more »

599
file000120040629 (Large)

THA + PSU Research Collaboration Update

by Miguel Hidalgo

As a continuation of our ongoing research relationship with Portland State University, we’ve just begun another student / design team investigative session. The purpose of this collaboration is to give PSU architectural and engineering students the opportunity to engage in research on real projects that supports specific sustainability goals. On the other side, our design teams hope to gain timely and specific knowledge to enhance project design.

Read more »

576
Photo Nov 08, 12 17 27 PM (Large)

Staff Tour of the soon-to-be Downstream Headquarters

by Audrey Alverson

Last week, THA staff had the chance to tour one of our nearly-complete projects, and to see what some of our coworkers have been engrossed in for many months.

Read more »

527
Portland-Building

Tear that Landmark down!! …or maybe…don’t?

by Becca Cavell

Peter Meijer and I recently reprised a debate on the future of Portland’s iconic Portland Building (designed by Michael Graves in 1982) as part of the Portland Design Festival. Peter and I are on the board of DoCoMoMo-Oregon and were invited to present the same topic at DoCoMoMo-US’s National Symposium in Sarasota earlier this year. The Modernism conservation group is beginning to grapple with the issue of Postmodernism and we tried to highlight some of the major issues while maintaining a fairly lighthearted approach. In Florida we only had 20 minutes to present our cases, and this time we had over an hour, and we had a lively and engaged audience who brought their own perspectives to the discussion.

Read more »

519
go no go

To Go or Not to Go?

by Sarah Bell

The “Go/No Go” decision at an architecture, engineering or construction firm is arguably one of the most important and challenging marketing decisions a company faces. For the uninitiated, “Go/No Go” decisions simply refer to a firm’s decision to go after a project or not. It can happen as early as when one first hears about a project (even if it is years off), or it most typically happens when the Request for Qualifications or Proposals hits the street. Some firms have an incredibly rigorous process, answering dozens of questions, and assigning points to them that equate to a “Go” or “No Go” answer. On the opposite side of the spectrum, firm leaders loosely debate the proposed project and make their decision based on what their “gut” tells them. Either extremes can be flawed – one might be too rigid, not allowing for nuances or variance, while the other relies more on emotion than logic. So how does a firm implement and execute an effective “Go/No Go” process?

Read more »