The Burnside Blog
Preservation Movement Embraces Modernism. Will Portland?
Maybe it’s because living in Portland has made me skewed that when I went to a lecture by National Trust for Historic Preservation President Dick Moe, I expected to hear an interesting yet ultimately frustrating rant extolling the merit of the cornice, and how new buildings ought to conform to a prescribed context of existing buildings in respective historic areas. After all, this has been the stance the all-powerful Historic Landmarks Commission, the body that collectively decides how new buildings look and behave in historic districts.
So imagine my surprise when Moe commenced his 30-minute speech Wednesday by expressing pride in his organization for saving a number of modern buildings in 2008, including the famous Phillip Johnson Glass House in New Canon, CT. Further, Moe mentioned that mid-century buildings, specifically those built between 1950 and 1980, now comprise the majority of the American building stock, and that it’s our duty to preserve them for two reasons. They, like the grand cast-iron buildings in Old Town, reflect our history. And environmentally speaking, it’s the right thing to do. As has been said a few million times, the greenest building is one that’s already built.
Here was a refreshing moment for this young Portlander; the most prominent historic preservationist in the country was reminding us that history did not end in 1900.
The 20th century is rich with architectural history, and so will be the 21st. History, is a continuum, and as we look forward to new development in our city, we shouldn’t be encumbering our architects from creating buildings relevant to today because these will be the buildings worth saving tomorrow. While the Landmarks Commission ought to do everything it can to salvage and protect existing buildings, and we the citizenry should support them, the commission’s reach seems a bit overextended. The Historic Landmarks Commission should not be dictating the aesthetics of new architecture. Period.
Just as historic buildings reflect their time, new buildings ought to be equally relevant. Portland in 2008 home to a great number of talented architects, and we ought to be championing their talents. Nothing great has ever happened by conforming to the past.
By Craig on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 at 09:59AM PST
Its a matter of trust. Architects of today have to earn the trust of the population it serves. Over the last 50 years for ever hit there has been 100’s of misses that have done incredible damage to the built realm. Case in point compare and contrast the classic post office designs with the modernist design later in the century. Until the trust is regained I think society needs architectural policing. Balls in the AIA’s court, earn our trust.
By Mark on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 at 10:55AM PST
Trust is good, but Craig, I think it’s fair to point out that we’re no longer living in the 1950s. The first phase of modernism was notable, but buildings tended to be far colder than what’s being built today. Plus, one can argue, that a lot of the Post Office buildings actually have nice characteristics. They just need to be updated. Plus, that era was defined by the auto, so it may be the development style off these buildings that were poor, not the architecture itself.
By Craig on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 at 12:14PM PST
Great points Mark and that is exactly the type of info that needs to be articulated to the general public. Show us and tell us WHY today’s architecture is worthy. Admit mistakes :)
I would like to add that I think that today’s architects have done a nice job both in creating and explaining new single detached housing, its when you start to get into high density, especially big office towers, that things fall apart a bit. Not sure yet if there has been a true modernist style created for larger inner city buildings that compare to what was done in the early days of high density. One could argue that modernist single homes are better then ever.
By intheknow on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 at 04:20PM PST
One problem is that alot of our city’s larger buildings are designed by architects that don’t understand designing with a concept – let alone – understanding the concept enough to educate others about it.
By Mark on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 at 07:32PM PST
Amen to that Intheknow. And while we’re on the subject of Ankrom Moisan :), I personally think the Gregory sucks. It loots like a fat guy who just exited a buffet line, not any elegant piece of architecture. And yet, it’s the favorite among the masses. Then again, so is David Hasselhoff in Germany. At least they have the Bauhaus
By Mike Thelin on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 at 07:34PM PST
Yes Mark…how does that gel? Hasselhoff and Gropius?
By Monforts on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 05:38PM PST
Another issue that gets overlooked in discussions about “then vs. now” is a sort of architectural survival of the fittest; we are by definition looking at the survivors of any given era. They are likely the best examples from that time, since for a number of reasons they weren’t torn down. On the other hand, we are looking at EVERYTHING from today. It’s like a reverse pyramid: there’s a ton of work from today, but only a point of stuff from long ago. Thus, every era has a noted nostalgia for what came before it. It’s amazing how many architectural texts going back to the dawn of publication preface their arguments with a contemporary crisis of design. My advice: wait a couple hundred years, you’ll like 2008 better.
By Eves on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 05:59PM PST
Good point(s) Monforts. Nostalgia plays to the emotions of many people and in turn it stifles their understanding of forward thinking concepts in current architecture.
Craig says, “Over the last 50 years for every hit there has been 100’s of misses that have done incredible damage to the built realm.”
Are you implying that architecture/buildings that came before that had a better ratio? Considering the example that Monforts sites about the fraction of historic fabric that is left, I would suggest not. Again, maybe a little too much nostalgia doing the talking.
By Craig on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 08:16PM PST
Yes. Give me one modernist neighborhood in the US that can compare to the brownstones of NY City or any of the older neighborhoods of Boston or Washington DC? About the only form after 1950’s that may be up to that level is South Beach art deco buildings. I’d argue that we’ll look back in 100 years and call the last 50 years an utter architectural failure. Hopefully we don’t make it a 100 year failure. All I’m saying is it might be time to put that baby to bed and come up with a new language. Rehashing the 60’s, 70,s and 80’s form is not exactly breaking new ground.
By Mike Thelin on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 10:01AM PST
Craig,
You’re right to point out the charms of brownstones, but I don’t think any so-called ‘modernist’ would be inclined to disagree with you. What’s certain, however, is that it’s not possible to recreate these neighborhoods today. They were products of their time, just as today’s neighborhoods are products of their time. We didn’t always do the right thing in the latter half of the 20th Century, but as Mark rightly mentions, that’s more of a development issue than an architecture issue. Buildings, like those in the South Auditorium District in PDX, didn’t connect to street.
If you were to visit cities like Malmo, Copenhagen, Rotterdam or Melbourne, you would see great examples of functioning contemporary neighborhoods. Hell, even the Pearl District is a pretty good example don’t you think?
A friend of mine recently said that the problem with the discourse surrounding architecture in Portland is that we never debate architecture. Instead, the dialog is myopically focused on planning. I tend to agree. The arguments used to decry modernity are often supported by sweeping generalizations. When do we actually talk about design?
By Craig on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 10:16AM PST
I’ve actually been to Malmo, Copenhagen and Rotterdam (Melbourne is on my list). I was impressed with some of the new neighborhoods in Malmo and Copenhagen, not so much Rotterdam. Loved the Twisting building neighborhood (eo1 in Malmo or something) but it was very early on when I visited.
I guess my complaint is more US centric. 50 years on and we still don’t have a true modernist neighborhood that most would say lives up to the brownstones. I guess I’m starting to doubt whether the existing language of the architectural community can do something better then what was created in the past.
On that note, I always felt that the newer cobblestone branch of the Nike campus would have been an amazing neighborhood if converted to housing. Anyway just a thought.
By Eves on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 02:12PM PST
Good point you make Mike; When do we start debating about design vs. planning? Maybe intheknow’s earlier comment could speak to that: “One problem is that alot of our city’s larger buildings are designed by architects that don’t understand designing with a concept.”
It’s hard to debate empty design. Which brings us back to arguing over the graspable, touchy-feely planning stuff. I only hope the forumers understand the difference.
By Mike Thelin on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 03:10PM PST
Thanks Eves, but I admit having never thought of the planning vs. architecture divide before Monfarts brought it to my attention. Then I realized, we never talk about design as a city.
By Monforts! on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 03:39PM PST
It’s Monforts, not Monfarts! I assume you made an honest mistake? And thank you for pointing out the urbanism vs. architecture issue.
Craig- I agree with you that more recent buildings have not been built to the same standards as in eras past. But this is a trend toward more economical construction methods that began long before our century. It means we use less material in the building and fewer resources to climate control them, compared to the past. I think it is an intriguing debate: how long should be we building the buildings for? In a market economy, the periods are relatively short (40 years on average in the US?). Maybe that’s a good thing if you don’t like the looks of what is being built today ;-)
Finally, most brownstones were built for relatively rich folk who still had to live close to the city. We can afford brownstones now (kinda) because they have been subdivided into smaller units. Nobody waxes poetic about the horrific tenement housing that was in NY in 1880 (because it is torn down). In the past 50 years the expensive building stock was mansions in Lake Oswego. Now that people are moving to the Pearl, maybe we can subdivide those mansions up and recreate a bohemian society like c1960 SOHO in c2020 LO.
By Mike Thelin on Saturday, March 08, 2008 at 12:18AM PST
Sorry Monforts…an honest mistake indeed. I’d edit but can’t without deleting the entire comment.
By Monfarts? on Monday, March 10, 2008 at 03:21PM PDT
It’s okay, since you have the best architecture/real estate/urbanism blog in PDX, I’ll let it slide.
By Steve on Saturday, March 01, 2008 at 12:00PM PST
Hell yeah!