Comments on: Defining ‘historic,’ the Portland way /news/2011/11/28/defining-historic-the-portland-way/ Building and Construction News in Portland, Oregon and the Pacific Northwest Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:06:51 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.6 By: Brian Libby /news/2011/11/28/defining-historic-the-portland-way/#comment-98752 Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:01:07 +0000 /dailyblog/?p=75643#comment-98752 Interesting post. It’s true that the Portland Building is a disaster in many ways: trite exterior with its faux ribbons, small windows in a rainy climate, etc. At the same time, it’s the first major postmodern building in the world. That gives it important historical meaning. It’s the architectural equivalent of Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup cans. And while it may not have been successful, I’d argue that the Portland Building aspired to greatness in a way that few Portland buildings do. In a city that successfully hits single after single, I appreciate that this building sought to hit a home run – even if it struck out. I also made a similar argument in this article from 2002:

]]> By: Val Ballestrem /news/2011/11/28/defining-historic-the-portland-way/#comment-98753 Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:54:55 +0000 /dailyblog/?p=75643#comment-98753 It’s important that we don’t conflate a designation of historic status – such as the Portland Building’s listing on the National Register of Historic Places – with the act of historic preservation. The historic status is merely a designation and does not mean the building will be preserved. The vacant and underutilized buildings in Old Town are prime examples of designated historic buildings that are not being preserved. If asked why that is the case, I would say that the city and state lack the incentives to support preservation of these buildings. Such incentives, like support for seismic retrofitting, would help revitalize the entire Old Town area, leading to increased heritage tourism, perhaps more people living there, and eventually a stronger tax base – all while preserving the oldest remaining part of our city.

The primary reason that the Portland Building was listed on the National Register was because of its significance as one of the earliest examples of post-modern architecture. Like it or not, it is a seminal work of a particular architectural style. Getting the historic designation now helps ensure that the building isn’t re-muddled or re-skinned like the Edith Green/Wendell Wyatt Building – whereby all of its architectural significance would be lost.

I would also note that the oldest building, from 1857, is actually undergoing renovation that will restore its historic exterior.

]]>