91视频

As part of the current design/build team, Peter Meijer Architect PC (PMA) would like to comment on the proposed alterations to the Portland Building per the Type III Historic Resource Review to be presented to the Historic Landmarks Commission on Monday.

Our city is investing a lot in the concept to hide the Portland Building鈥檚 problems under a new metal skin. The most troubling aspect is that the Portland Building鈥檚 new facade would not even meet the intended redesign goals. The proposed 鈥渟olution鈥� is overly expensive, does not increase daylight, does not improve the work environment, does not meet the standards of preservation, and falls short of improving the urban environment. The solution would solve a single problem: keeping the rain off the original structure.

There are several reasons why covering the Portland Building is highly problematic. Primarily it鈥檚 the cost. There is a long-term, watertight solution that costs substantially less money to build and has been vetted by three to four professional firms, including PMA, that agree on the approach. A new metal skin will provide a warranty. A warranty will not keep water out and a warranty does not mean repairs are free. The dollars saved from not wrapping the fa莽ade in metal could potentially be invested in other city properties. It is fiscally irresponsible to waste money on a single structure.

Secondly, the window openings would actually deepen due to the application of the over-cladding, so daylighting would not be improved inside the building. This issue is the number one complaint of people who work in the building. And the new solution does not improve this condition even with the proposed new window glazing. You cannot get more daylight into the same size window by making the depth of the window larger. A professional approach would be to provide a full daylight study and software analysis focused on improving the working environment with improved daylight.

Also, in order to maximize the dollars spent, more workstations are being added to each floor. This would manifest into smaller, open workstations in the same amount of space that larger workstations occupy currently. The proposed design misses the opportunity to include implementation of new concepts for work space, new office environments, or accommodations for the changing demographics of the workforce.

Finally, the idea of adding a new exterior skin to a landmark building is disingenuous. City Council has consistently denied private developers the opportunity to demolish or significantly modify historic buildings because those developers were not meeting the intent of the preservation zoning code. When completed, the proposed solution will result in automatic removal of the building from the National Register of Historic Places 鈥� akin to demolishing the structure. Why is it OK for the city to support the proposed destruction of a landmark and disregard basic preservation zoning code?

There is widespread acknowledgment that the ground-floor atrium and parking garage entry do not work well in Portland鈥檚 urban street realm. Equally, there is widespread agreement that enclosing the atrium, removing the garage door 鈥渉ole,鈥� and improving the street fa莽ade would be an acceptable change to the Portland Building. The project does not provide enough response to the Urban Design Committee鈥檚 comments on improving the structure. In another disregard to the city鈥檚 own rules, an encroachment on the public realm is being requested. A request by a private developer to encroach on the public realm is routinely and emphatically denied. Why is it OK for an encroachment to be requested for this project?

In an attempt to bolster the misguided solution, our city has secured a current design partner of the original design firm, Michael Graves Architecture & Design, to provide written support on behalf of the sheet metal wrapped proposal. It is a known fact that the late Michael Graves loved the Portland Building, and it is troubling that our city would seek to counter Mr. Graves鈥� opinion after his death with the opinion of a lesser-known young partner seeking to carry forward the firm. And why is it OK for our city to decide the current colors are wrong and there is a need to refresh the building with new colors?

The proposed new building would no longer be an icon of our collective architectural history. As Karrie Jacobs noted in a 2014 ARCHITECT article on the Portland Building, 鈥渋t鈥檚 a bad idea to do something irreversible when your judgment is clouded by disdain. Not to mention that Portland, despite its reputation as a bastion of alternative everything, is a city where strong regulation tends to prevent anything too flamboyant from being built. It would be foolish for the city to discard a work of architecture stranger than anything that it will probably ever build again.鈥�

There is a way to make the Portland Building work. But in its current form, what is being proposed by the design team, with city support, is a building that will fall far short of the city goals, not improve key interior environments, and cause the potential loss of the most prominent example of postmodern architecture that many visitors from around the world come to experience or admire. Portland does not want to be regarded as a poor steward of the Portland Building. Wrapping the building in metal is the wrong solution.

Peter Meijer is founder and principal of Peter Meijer Architect PC. He has focused his career largely on building envelope science and historic preservation 鈥� specifically, historic renovations and condition assessments of existing and historic buildings. Contact him at 503-517-0283 or [email protected].