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

1198
00901_N176_ppt

University of Wyoming Visual Arts Facility Wins COTE Award

by Nic Smith

Hacker is a proud recipient of a 2016 AIA COTE Top Ten Green Projects award for University of Wyoming’s Visual Arts Facility (VAF), a pioneering LEED Platinum facility that has shaped a new approach to health, safety, and sustainability in arts education. The 80,000-SF building consolidates the University’s fine arts program from its scattered locations, establishing a central component of the campus’s new arts district. It also marks a turning point in the campus’s thinking about environmental responsibility. Read more

1188
High Desert Museum entrance

From the Vaults: High Desert Museum

by Sarah Bell

When the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Central Oregon’s New Home had its dedication last year, I drove to Bend for the day with my two youngest boys, who were both under 5 years old. I arrived several hours before the dedication with both boys needing to expend energy built up over the 3-hour car ride. Not having planned on it, I took them to the High Desert Museum – not because I wanted to show them a Hacker building, but because I knew it would wear them out.

Read more

1183
Capture

Designing for Design Schools: What type of collaboration space works?

by Becca Cavell

We’re excited to be working right now with UC Davis on the renovation of the north wing of Cruess Hall – a rather industrial 1950s building that will house screening rooms, labs, and maker spaces for the Cinema & Digital Media and Industrial Design programs. Some of these spaces will be quite industrial themselves, and seem a fitting use for the currently vacant building.  As we begin to look for case studies to inform our work, our client shared this video from Stanford’s D-School, showing 10 days in the life of the D’s central collaboration space. It’s time-lapse, and takes just four minutes to view – and it demonstrates how a very utilitarian space can be the beating heart of an institution if you plan it right, furnish it right, and relax a bit.

Read more

1161
Denny Hall 4

Denny Hall Finally Gets Its Due

by Stephanie Shradar

At the University of Washington, Denny Hall has been awaiting revitalization for nearly a decade. During that time, Hacker has been working on and off again to get UW the final product. The project has gone through funding stalls and starts; the design firm has gone through two name changes; and the building has patiently awaited its new core.

Read more

1148
THA-bike-commute-challenge

Hacker is Carbon Neutral

by Sarah Post-Holmberg

Hacker was founded on the idea that architecture should be in service to community. For over three decades the firm has designed enduring spaces that inspire people to contribute to positive cultural change. This guiding vision extends beyond humanity to encompass the natural world and the diversity of species it supports. Over the years, Hacker has developed an aesthetic for buildings that interact dynamically with their surroundings and make humble use of the earth’s resources. Through research, conference engagement, and continuing education, we continue to refine our design process, detailing, and material choices to reflect our priority of preserving the well-being of all life systems on our planet.

Read more

1139
01203_N17_halfpage

Building Community: PCC Cascade’s New Student Union

by Nick Hodges

As higher-education institutions rapidly adapt their curricula and campuses to accommodate new models of learning, the line between places for studying and socializing, learning and leisure time has become blurred, to say the least. We’ve written about how that transition has prompted big changes in the conception and design of libraries, but it’s also led colleges and universities to reconsider the traditional role of the student union.

Read more

1135
We-are-Hacker_sm

THA Architecture is now Hacker

by Sarah Bell

Today we announce a new firm name, which both honors the legacy of our founder, Thomas Hacker, and marks a new chapter for the firm.

In the words of Becca Cavell, our managing principal: “Hacker is moving in exciting new directions, but at the same time we remain deeply rooted in Thom’s founding vision of creating beautiful spaces that enrich the world – spaces that are authentic expressions of their purpose and place.”

We are excited about the future, and are so pleased to say:

We are Hacker.

Read more

1099
5.1.2

From the Vaults: OHSU’s BICC

by Sarah Bell

Of all the potential projects that I could write about for these “From the Vaults” blog posts, Oregon Health & Sciences University’s Biomedical Information Communications Center (BICC, for short) is the one I’ve been most intimidated by. Mostly because it is one of my all-time favorite projects, in addition to being the first large education project completed by the firm (the building opened in 1991). It’s not a stretch to say that winning the commission in 1987 and subsequent completion of the building was seminal in the formation of THA. The firm was just 4 years old, and the 81,000 sf building’s wide acclaim put the firm on the map, led directly to another large project at OHSU (the School of Nursing), and laid the track for nearly 40 higher education buildings completed since the BICC’s opening.

Read more

1067
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

THA Field Trip!

by Daniel Childs

Last week, our entire office got to step away from our desks, hop on a bus, and take an all-day field trip to see some of THA’s finished projects. We were fortunate to have most of our Principals on board, including THA’s founding principal, Thom Hacker (and his wife, Margaret). Without email, Revit, or ringing phones, it was nice to spend time with co-workers outside of our project teams and daily office rituals.

Read more

1045
IMG_1073 (Large)

Reflections on a Practicum at THA

by Higinio Turrubiates

Beyond the classroom.

As part of my final year at the University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture, I had the opportunity to pursue work as a practicum student for six months before I graduate in May. That I was able to pursue this opportunity with any firm in the country was extremely daunting and I didn’t know where to start. Initially, I thought I would take this opportunity to work in Chicago or on the East Coast, but quickly my research changed my mind. As I began to notice that different regions of the country have certain architectural styles and that I was drawn to the projects found in the West and Northwest, I decided to focus there, and ended up at THA. Read more