Portland Building Redux

Portland Building renovation in progress (photo courtesy of Carla Weinheimer, DLR Group)

It was only a few years ago that the fate of the Portland Building was in question. Primarily due to problems associated with its shoddy and cheap original construction, the City of Portland seriously contemplated razing the structure or otherwise disposing of it as surplus property after little more than 35 short years of life. I contributed to the debate then by advocating for its preservation on the grounds that it held historic significance as the first large-scale example of Postmodern architecture in the country. Notwithstanding what I and many others regarded as its “superficial and inelegant design . . . ill-proportioned and lacking in scale,” the fact is the Portland Building has become an iconic and inextricable part of Portland’s quirky charm. Additionally, in 2011 the design by the late Michael Graves was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition of its significance to the history of architecture. 

By 2015, Portland city councilors chose to move forward with a $195 million plan to reconstruct the Portland Building, its role as the civic government’s primary administrative office space thus being assured. In July of 2017, Portland’s Historic Landmarks Commission also voted to accept what proved to be a controversial renovation plan for the building. Strict preservationists had objected to the significant physical changes deemed necessary by the progressive design-build team led by the Portland office of architects DLR Group and construction manager Howard S. Wright. The plans include over-cladding with a new rainscreen enclosure, replacement of the original dark-tinted windows with clear glass, partial infilling of the street level loggias, repurposing of the underground vehicular parking with new uses, and a complete renovation of the tower’s interiors to provide brighter, more attractive spaces for the 1,700 city employees who will return to work there. 

Despite deeming the extent of the proposed renovation an “extreme measure,” the City’s Landmarks Commission recognized traditional methods of preservation or restoration would not adequately solve the chronic water infiltration and environmental quality issues afflicting the building. Additionally, the Commission cited the National Register of Historic Places’ listing of the project in 2011 primarily for its unique and groundbreaking design, articulated with color, symbolism, and decoration, rather than for the specifics of its construction. The Landmarks Commission acknowledged that while DLR’s solution will permanently alter the original materials of the Portland Building, the integrity of the overall design will remain. 

I’m likewise confident the completed project will be true to the essence of the original design. I actually believe the application of new materials will enhance its integrity and come closer in some respects to Michael Graves’ original aesthetic intentions. As I mentioned previously, Graves lamented the inadequacy of the project’s construction budget and how it forced his firm to make some painful design compromises. DLR’s senior associate in charge of the renovation’s design, Carla Weinheimer(1), AIA, DBIA, told me the members of Grave’s former office support the proposed modifications, believing their founder would have recommended similar improvements. 

There’s no doubt that when completed the Portland Building will not be the same. It will look different to many who may have not visited it since before its refurbishment, but they might have a hard time putting a finger on why it is seems so. When the reconstruction is done in 2020, the Portland Building will be a much-improved place to visit and work, absolutely weathertight, more energy efficient, and better able to resist seismic events. I’m looking forward to seeing it then and deciding for myself whether the changes to the building’s appearance have too dramatically altered its character. 

Rendering by DLR of the finished project.

A fundamental shortcoming of doctrinaire historic preservation is its inflexibility. Successful buildings are living things that evolve and adapt over time. Increased flexibility in preservation practices would allow for individual solutions—varying from case to case—that account for current needs while preserving cultural heritage. Despite the preservationists concerns about how much the planned changes would alter the Portland Building’s appearance, I think the Landmarks Commission exercised common sense and correctly assessed the nature of the challenges DLR confronted in the development of its design solution. 

A century from now, I expect the Portland Building will be standing, cherished and protected by generations of future Portlanders for the same idiosyncrasies that once drew scorn from legions of detractors. The recent controversies surrounding its fate will have been forgotten or judged a trivial footnote. What’s important is that the evocative design will still be there, contributing to the textured and meaningful layering of downtown Portland.

(1)  I presently enjoy the pleasure of collaborating with Carla on a scoping study for the proposed new Lane County Courthouse in Eugene. DLR and my firm, Robertson/Sherwood/Architects are working together on the study, with Carla and I serving as project managers for our respective firms.