Comments on: ‘U’ signs a nagging problem for Portland preservationists

By: Heidi Bertman

Heidi Bertman — Fri, 27 May 2011 06:07:41 +0000

I have long wondered at the unwillingness we have to upgrading historic buildings as opposed to tearing them down and building new ones with the very technology we’d insert into the existing ones. There is no comparison from a material use and quality point of view – it makes more sense to upgrade existing structures when they include include craft and material quality that is no longer available at many times the cost of the retrofit, which is quite often the case.

Safety and quality are complementary priorities with long-term economic benefits. Incentives of some kind (tax, etc.) would be a very effective way of offsetting the first cost to the property owner and mitigating the spike in costs to tenants.

By: Aaron Douglas

Aaron Douglas — Wed, 25 May 2011 02:00:24 +0000

I have been wondering what those “U”s were for — I noticed recently that they seem to be all over town. At first I thought it meant some kind of underground “raves” or secret parties were held there. Ha! Anyway now I know. Seems like maybe it’s shorthand for “teardown.”

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 24 May 2011 17:36:27 +0000

“Anne Naito-Campbell, whose family owns a number of historic buildings in the city. She called for creation of an incentive program. . .”

So, she’s in favor of someone else paying to repair buildings that she owns?

“Personally, I would love to see a PDC program,” said architect Fredrick Zal, who performs historic preservation work.”

Someone in favor of subsidies for work that he performs?

Not exactly a big surprise.

Save buildings that can be saved. Lament the fact that the world isn’t perfect with the rest, acknowledge that we’ve made mistakes, rebuild smartly, and move on.