91ÊÓƵ

An exhaustive study recently found that repairs for the Portland Building, arguably the city’s most iconic, could total $95 million. Some members of the architectural community are split on whether the building is worth such an investment.

Critics view the building as a failure of the fledgling postmodern movement. Others disagree, citing the building’s representation as the seminal work of Michael Graves‘ architectural career and a flash of color in a downtown marked by dull gray tones.

Two architects, Peter Meijer and Becca Cavell, have strong opinions about the Portland Building. Their next debate of its fate is scheduled for March 11, at 7 p.m., at the Architectural Heritage Center in Southeast Portland.

Cavell, principal of THA Architecture in Portland, said she was ‘outraged’ when she learned in 2011 that the Portland Building had been placed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The building was not yet 30 years old and had long divided Portland’s architectural community. It was notorious for its dysfunctional windows, leaky exterior and lack of natural light.

Despite its flaws, the building had gained support from Meijer, principal of Peter Meijer Architect PC. He wanted an exception to the usual 50-year age requirement for historic building status.

“It wore me the wrong way,” Cavell said. “Just as (Meijer) thought it was too early to … tear it down, I thought it was too early to put it on the list.”

However, when Meijer submitted a nomination to the National Park Service for the Portland Building to receive a historic listing, the response, he said, was: “Why has it taken you guys so long?”

“Sometimes it takes a national register nomination to open the eyes of the citizens for what they have and what will be important 50 years from now,” he said. “Time has to go by before we can really judge this building.”

For Cavell, time to judge the building should be determined by the working conditions imposed on the approximately 1,300 city employees who work there. She does not believe the building lives up to its historic designation.

“You invest all that money and have a building that still doesn’t work,” she said.

The building as it was constructed failed to live up to its design, Cavell said. She referenced small windows, a failure to connect with the sidewalk and poor articulation of the facade.

“I think it’s a pretty dreadful building,” she said. “Why should citizens be required to hold onto it? That was not a good investment in the first place.”

Meijer, one of the Portland Building’s biggest proponents, agrees that it has functional flaws. There is almost a “cartoonish” quality to it, he said.

However, the building’s international significance is noteworthy, he said.

“It has been recognized in the press as being very innovative and significant for epitomizing postmodernism,” he said. “It also played in the development of Michael Graves as an architect.”

Cavell acknowledges that the historic designation opens up the building’s fate to a public discussion. She and Meijer have had several debates around town.

Other members of the architectural community have weighed in on the debate.

“I think of the Portland Building as an aspiring home run hitter in a city of singles hitters,” said Brian Libby, a freelance architectural journalist and author of the Portland Architecture blog. “It aspired to greatness and struck out.”

Libby said there could be another way to consider the Portland Building.

“It’s not that I would miss the Portland Building, but I don’t want to be the kind of city that tears it down,” he said. “The very thing that makes it a difficult problem also makes it a special opportunity to fuse the old and new.”

Arguments can be crafted for either tearing down the building or rehabilitating it, said Rudy Barton, an architecture professor at Portland State University.

Barton worked for the city before the Portland Building was constructed in 1982.

“The first time I saw it – the building wasn’t painted yet,” he said. “I wondered what all the fuss was about. At the time, it was just an ungainly concrete box. A lot of people attach value just to the paint on it. I think that’s extremely shallow.”

At the same time, a lot of the structural issues could be solved by investing millions of dollars, Barton said.

“If there is a public sentiment to retain the building, I think attention needs to be given to its exterior color scheme. It would need to match the original design.”

Randy Gragg, a longtime architecture critic for The Oregonian, said there is no question the city will not tear down the building. He believes the building was constructed under a flawed process, where the city asked Graves to build an iconic building, but failed to budget enough money to do the job right.

“Now, 30 years later, what do we have?” he said. “Graves has become an established architect and the city (takes pride) in doing things right. Why not rekindle the collaboration and do something that serves the people inside the building better?”

As for Graves, he said through a spokesman that he would work in collaboration with the city if asked.

“I believe its historic significance is without question and I hope the city of Portland makes the necessary investment to repair and protect it,” Graves said in a written statement. “I would actually be saddened by the demolition of the Portland Building … because I would hate for the community to lose a part of its history, which I believe is very important to its future.”