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.


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.


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…




  1. Eric Wheeler says:


    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.



  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

A mobile couple

Technology in Classrooms: In or Out?

by Becca Cavell

I just read this fascinating article thanks to a link that SCUP sent out to its members a few days ago. The piece, by NYU educator Clay Shirky, explains why a social media expert has banned the use of technology in his own classroom. As architects, much of our work in recent years has been trying to find effective ways to integrate technology into the classroom environment, so it is refreshing to pause for a moment and consider the relationship between effective learning and our human nature with technology. Shirky shows us that device designers and social media providers take advantage of our biological make-up to deliver “can’t ignore” messages – the sounds and visuals that emanate from our iPhones are a constant distraction from concentrated study. This probably isn’t a revelation to any of us, but when Shirky talks about the science that shows how students’ test scores diminish when they are simply within view of another person’s web browsing, we have to pay attention.

Read more »


The Great Debate of 2014: What’s next for the Portland Building?

by Audrey Alverson

When I heard Michael Graves would be in Portland to discuss the Portland Building, there was no question that I would be there. I was excited to gain perspective on this oft maligned and (most recently) hotly debated City building directly from its designer, and I knew this would be a quality production, with Randy Gragg (not one for shying away from the tough questions) as the facilitator.

After introductions, Graves started with a presentation of his body of work – immense as it is. Randy stated clearly he wanted to give some context to the audience’s perception of Graves and what he has done beyond the Portland Building. I appreciated this because knowing Randy, I assumed it was a little bit of a dig at the Portland public’s derision of Graves. Maybe we didn’t all have enough information to criticize so harshly?

Read more »


From the Vaults: Lewis & Clark Signature Project

by Sarah Bell

I recently ran across this article from SustainableBusiness.com – Which Universities Are the Greenest? – featuring Sierra Club’s annual “Cool Schools” ranking. I was surprised to see only one Pacific Northwest higher education institution on the list, but happy that Portland’s Lewis & Clark College ranked Number 5. As Lewis & Clark is one of THA’s earliest academic clients, reading this article inspired me to write about our early work there for our next From the Vaults post.

Read more »


Atriums: Bang or Bust?

by Laurie Canup

Last November, Dave Banks (CPP Wind), Mitch Dec (Glumac), and I had the great opportunity to do a presentation at Greenbuild about atrium designs, energy efficiency, and smoke control systems. Particularly in the Northwest region, atrium spaces can offer great energy saving benefits by bringing daylight into the building core and offering a pathway for natural and passive ventilation. However, fire and life safety issues present a design challenge. Throughout the design of the Lewis Integrated Science Building (LISB) at the University of Oregon, we learned a lot about how to design these spaces – both to save energy and to provide a safe environment in the event of a fire. For buildings that have a true atrium space, effective smoke control is an important part of ensuring life safety. After all, if it isn’t safe, it isn’t sustainable.

Read more »


From the Vaults: Arizona Historical Society Museum

by Sarah Bell

As THA turns 31 years-old this year, we want to honor our roots through a monthly post featuring past projects. Our first “From the Vaults” project is the Arizona Historical Society Museum, a winning entry in a national design competition that put THA Architecture (then Garfield Hacker Architects) on the map in the fall of 1985.

Read more »

glitz (Large)

The Perils of “Glitz” in Information Design

by Nic Smith

Last week Edward Tufte, a professor emeritus of political science, statistics, and computer science at Yale University, visited Portland to give one of his storied courses – Presenting Data and Information. I had the opportunity to take this six-hour course, absorbing all I could from this legend of information design.

The take home message, as old as time itself: Content is key.

Read more »

Masterplan-Diagram_Large-Color-Sketch (Large)

A Smattering of Sketches | For Fun

by Audrey Alverson

Yes, we do still draw by hand.

For all the hand sketches and diagrams we generate during the design process, most are rarely seen outside the office — have a peek!

Read more »

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 »


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 »

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 »