Tag Archives: modern

The Historic Documentation of Umpqua Hall

Southwestern Oregon Community College hired Peter Meijer Architect in September 2017 to assist in the historic documentation of Umpqua Hall. This significant resource will be reconstructed as part of the college’s new Health and Science Technology Building, a project that will provide additional classroom space to support the college’s nursing and EMT programs. Umpqua Hall played a significant role as one of the first two buildings constructed on campus to serve as the primary location for the college’s vocational courses. Below is an excerpt from the documentation that PMA provided for the State Historic Preservation Office that assesses the historic significance of Umpqua Hall.

1972 ca._Umpqua Hall
History and Context
Southwestern Oregon Community College was the first post-secondary education available to students on the Oregon Coast in the early 1960’s. It held its first classes in 1961 at the North Bend airport, and was relocated to its new home three years later. Prior to its establishment, students in this coastal area travelled long distances to be able to attend college, and many could not afford to go at all.

Southwestern Oregon Community College began as a vocational school with the mission of preparing the general population of Coos Bay to enter a workforce created mainly by the timber and fishing industries in the area. As the original “Shops Building”, Umpqua Hall was at the heart of this development. It was the primary building on campus to house many of the school’s vocational-technical programs. The automotive, welding, and carpentry shop classes that were a part of the Mechanics and Industrial program all took place in Umpqua Hall.

In the 1970’s, the college faced the dilemma of a changing market in Coos Bay. As housing development increased in the city and brought the opportunity for new businesses with it, minimum wage service-oriented jobs began to replace the higher paying manufacturing jobs that the college’s courses were tailored toward. Graduates of the programs offered at SWOCC were in less demand, and student enrollment began to decrease. As a result, SWOCC recognized a need to provide displaced workers—as well as veterans that were returning home from the Vietnam War and students seeking to later transfer to a university at an affordable cost—with the appropriate type of education required to compete in the changing economy.

The campus has since evolved to accommodate these economic changes. Umpqua Hall was retired from its academic function when the Automotive Technology program was eventually eliminated in 1994. The oldest buildings that still exist at SWOCC, namely Umpqua and Randolph Halls, represent a significant period of economic growth in the history of Coos Bay that played an indispensable role in the initial development of the city and in its educational options.

1964_Aerial view SWOCC with Randolph and Umpqua Halls only
Umpqua Hall Construction Timeline
1963 to 1964—Umpqua and Randolph Halls, as well as parking lot #1 on the south side of campus, were constructed as part of Phase I of the 1963 six-phase Master Plan. Randolph Hall was known as the “Laboratory Building” that served as the main academic building. Umpqua Hall was known as the “Shops Building”, and originally functioned for vocational schooling that included automotive, carpentry, woodworking, and industrial technology classes.

1964 to Mid-1960’s—The campus underwent Phase II of the Master Plan that included Dellwood Hall (the administration building and temporary home of the library at the time), Coaledo Hall, Sitkum Hall, and parking lot #2.

1981—A storage outbuilding was built to the west of Umpqua Hall by this time, probably in the late 1970’s.

Circa 1985—The college planned to relocate the “Industrial Building” to a location northeast of Prosper Hall, but to keep the metal welding and auto diesel programs located in Umpqua Hall. The plan was to eventually phase out the use of Umpqua Hall.

1994—The Automotive Technology program in Umpqua Hall was eliminated, and the building was retired from academic purposes.

1994 to 1999—By this time, new buildings had been constructed northeast of Prosper Hall to accommodate for the retirement of Umpqua Hall. Fairview Hall held the new welding and manufacturing classrooms, and the new Lampa Hall housed what became known as the B-2 Technology Annex.

2005—Umpqua Hall had since been used for an assortment of different functions. At this point, the building served as the college’s computer networking and hardware instructional labs. As early as 2005, a Master Facility Plan mentioned that a design for a Health, Science, and Technology building was being considered, which would have resulted in the conversion of Umpqua Hall to additional campus storage and maintenance space for the Plant Operations department.

2008—As part of a potential $2,600,000 project to reintegrate Umpqua Hall, another Master Plan of the SWOCC campus proposed to rehabilitate the building to serve as the electronic lab and to hold AutoCAD and computer classes for students. This plan also proposed to add a Student Center Addition to the western side of Umpqua Hall. This proposal was not actualized.

2017—Currently, Umpqua Hall is used for campus security operations and storage, and its western outbuilding serves as an auxiliary maintenance warehouse for Plant Operations. A new project to incorporate Umpqua Hall into the new Health, Science, and Technology building is underway.
At a Glance – Proposed Project for Umpqua Hall
The most substantial work proposed at the SWOCC campus is the reconstruction of and addition to Umpqua Hall, one of the college’s two oldest buildings, to develop the new Health & Science Technology Building (View 10). The outbuilding that sits west of Umpqua Hall will be demolished to make way for the construction of the new “west wing” addition. Both the interior and exterior of Umpqua Hall will be heavily altered to provide space for the program’s health and science classrooms and offices. A new “west wing” addition will also be built southwest of the Umpqua Building, and will more than quadruple the overall square footage of the new facility. The eastern end of the addition will intersect with the southern end of the existing building at a 90-degree angle. A large lecture hall will protrude from the northern façade of the addition.

Written by Kristen Minor, Associate/Preservation Planner with Marion Rosas.

Future Trends for Architectural Conservation

As part of the sesquicentennial celebration of Canadian Confederation independence, the National Trust for Canada and the Association for Preservation Technology International co-sponsored the largest joint conference of heritage professionals. Over 1,100 attendees from twenty countries attended the week-long event focused both on technical issues and heritage planning.

The shear size of the conference was overwhelming, but the host city, Ottawa, (APTI) was an ideal venue because of its position as the capitol city of Canada, the quantity of heritage resources, including the Rideau Canal World Heritage Site, and beautiful world class museums and parks.

As with all APTI annual conferences, the week begins with two day long workshops highlighting the craft of preservation. This year’s workshops included Logs & Timbers, Masonry Mortars, and Digital Tools for Documentation. Masonry Mortars has been offered several times over the last five years at APTI conferences and is always popular demonstrating the continual need to understand mass masonry walls, their performance, and specialized products and skills required to restore and preserve the walls.
How Robots Can Assist with Conservation
National Trust conferences, in both Canada and the United States offer many tours during the course of the conference and one of tours focused on robotics for heritage conservation. A conservation lab at Carlton University, founded after World War II and one of Ottawa’s public universities, has created a curriculum around the use of robotics to enhance the preservation craft of traditional materials. Conference attendees viewed a demonstration of a robotic arm manufactured in Germany, by the supplier of robotic arms to the automotive industry, with a custom built “hand” designed to hold stone cutting tools. As a demonstration, the Carlton University staff carved a block of sandstone scheduled to replace original material on the Canadian parliament buildings as part of a massive restoration effort. The demonstration was fascinating in the speed by which the robot carved the material with fine accuracy. Attendees were interested in the conservation aspect of the robot and asked about the stone cutting techniques and potential replacement of stone carvers.

Since the robot uses circular drill bits as cutting tools resulting in smoother finishes than traditional chisel cutting, some attendees were skeptical of the robot as a tool for capturing traditional stone techniques. As to the replacement of stone carvers, the response was straight forward: there are fewer and fewer trades personnel that know how to carve stone. The robot is envisioned as a method to allow traditional stone decoration to return to modern design.
With seven separate tracks of Paper Sessions, it was impossible to take in the full offerings of the joint conference. The use of robots, technology, and computer software simulations continued throughout some of tracks of the Paper Sessions. Particularly interesting was hearing from archeologists in Italy and Chile that, unlike US archeologists, are involved in the documentation, history, and preservation of building materials. Using traditional archeological approaches to documentation and recordation, the archeologists combined their research, historic photographs, current images, on-site destructive testing in unique ways of explaining the chronology of construction and materials used.

Demonstrating the continued convergence of building envelop science with preservation science, many Paper Sessions focused on windows, energy retrofits, and the need to develop better science and research of traditional construction means and methods. One session on mass masonry walls hypothesized that mass masonry walls have a temperature ductility allowing them to expand during cold wet weather in order to accommodate the stress induced by freezing temperatures. One early study in the 1960’s documented the phenomena but without sufficient repeated testing. The engineer making the presentation asked for all those in the audience to create an accessible database of masonry performance in order to expand the collective knowledge base.
The Future of Preservation Looks Modern
One of the plenary speakers called on heritage preservation to continue leadership in the adaptive reuse of existing buildings, specifically mid-century modern structures, because of the huge environmental impact conservation efforts will have on global warming, waste reduction, and heritage values.

Attendance at APTI national conferences are a great way to gain new knowledge, converse with professional peers, anticipate future trends, evaluate current business practices, and interact outside day to day professional demands.

Written by Peter Meijer, AIA, NCARB / Principal

Modern Residential Building Styles

city-of-olympia-survey-pmapdxBuildings constructed before 1965 have reached the age of eligibility for being considered historic by the standards of the National Register. That means that much of Modern Architecture, the general period ranging from 1950 through 1970, is historic, or soon will be considered historic as the 50-year mark is crossed. As historians assess and study Modern Architecture, we provide ever more precise descriptions and terms to describe the sub-styles and variations within the large umbrella term, “Modern.” As in taxonomy, which classifies and categorizes living organisms, we can recognize and assign groups of similar resources together for study.

Modern architecture had its roots after World War I as part of an egalitarian movement. The new architecture looked to industrial materials and processes to replace painstaking handwork; a horizontal proportion and deliberate embrace of the ground plane as opposed to a formal, vertical building proportion; and the rejection of ornamentation.

A Mid-Century Residential Survey in the City of Olympia

PMA has been working on a Mid-Century Residential survey in the City of Olympia. The date of construction for resources surveyed is limited to a two-decade span from 1945 to 1965, and the building type is limited to single-family residential. Surprisingly, there are more individual sub-styles found in this survey than were identified in a more broadly focused survey, our 2013 Mid-Century non-residential survey in St Louis, MO. The reason for this is that the tight focus of study allows for classification based on more specific characteristics.
WWII cottage-city-of-olympia-survey-pmapdx
The St. Louis survey identified resources constructed from 1945 to 1975 as being either Moderne, Brutalist, International Style, New Formalist, Neo-Expressionist, or simply “Modern Movement” if the style could not be placed in any sub-style. A few had mixed characteristics. The wide variety of building types in the survey, including churches, high-rise towers, and industrial buildings, kept style classifications necessarily broad. Local variations of styles were observed and identified, but were not given their own identifying style name. A future regional survey of the same time period could invite more stylistic classification, if there were enough similar resources to compare.

The Olympia Mid-Century Residential survey covers approximately 400 single-family homes. The variations in style identified might be described in an overview as belonging to one of three “families.” Transitional Modern includes Stripped Classical, Minimal Traditional, and World War II-Era Cottage styles. The second group is Ranch style, which covers a broad range of sub-styles and forms, including Split-Level or Split-Entry Ranch; Contemporary Ranch; Storybook Ranch; and Colonial or Early American Ranch. The last group is a Neo-Expressionist collection of styles that were primarily constructed starting about 1965. These styles include A-Frame, Shed, Geodesic Dome, neo-Futurist, Pavilion, and other eclectic explorations and celebrations of building technology and structure. While none of these Neo-Expressionist styles were identified in the Olympia Mid-Century Residential survey, PMA expects at least one of these (Shed style) to be identified in urban Olympia if the time period studied is extended beyond 1965. Also, many of these styles were constructed in more rural areas than the concentrated Mid-Century neighborhoods examined in the survey. It is possible that Neo-Expressionist residences will come to light with further survey and exploration.

Min-Traditional-city-of-olympia-survey-pmapdxThe Olympia survey classified the first grouping of styles as those that are transitional. Transitional Modern styles have some elements of Modern and some elements of more traditional architecture. Windows might be vertically-oriented, double-hung wood windows (traditional) rather than having horizontal proportions (Modern). A roof might be a moderate pitch, with minimal overhangs (traditional), rather than a shallow pitch with outwardly-extending gables (Modern). In Olympia, 37% of the houses surveyed were Modern Minimal Traditional, by far the most prevalent Transitional Modern style.

Ranch-city-of-olympia-survey-pmapdxRanch style architecture is the style that architecture critics have generally spurned, since houses were often constructed by contractors without architect’s involvement. Ranch buildings are broad, one-story, and horizontal in overall proportion. They have an attached garage which faces the street and is part of the overall form of the house, and almost always a large picture window facing the street as well. Cladding is used to accentuate the horizontal lines of the house, so there is often a change in material at the lower part of the front façade- brick veneer was a popular choice. Many of the sub-styles of Ranch architecture are “styled” Ranch houses, meaning that elements from another style of architecture were placed on a Ranch form building. One example is Storybook Ranch, which uses “gingerbread” trim, dormers or a cross-gable, and sometimes diamond-pane windows. Are these decorated sub-styles still part of the canon of Modern Architecture? In many ways, they are more Post-Modern than Modern, but that distinction is worthy of an involved discussion of its own.

Split-level-city-of-olympia-survey-pmapdxThe Olympia Mid-Century Residential survey found over half the resources surveyed to be Ranch or variants of Ranch style. 31% of the surveyed homes were identified as simply Ranch, with another 11% Early Ranch, 9% Contemporary Ranch, 4% Split-Level or Split-Entry, and 4% one of the “Styled” Ranch variations. Sheer numbers alone remind us that the Ranch is deserving of study and shows us how the majority of middle-class Americans lived. As Alan Hess writes in his book Ranch House,

“Most critics overlooked or ignored the prototypical Ranch house architecture, the variety of its manifestations, the social complexity of its neighborhoods, and the tract Ranch’s often innovative mass-construction methods. To most critics living in traditional cities with little contact with the conditions, desires, and apparent satisfactions of middle-class suburban life, the suburbs were a foreign land.”

The more we study these styles of Modern residential architecture, the more they may be appreciated, celebrated, and well-maintained. And if you live in or grew up in a Ranch style house, it is now potentially historic.
cropped_orig elev-city-of-olympia-survey-pmapdx

Written by Kristen Minor, Preservation Planner. For additional MCM survey projects, please visit our STL Modern Non-Residential Survey project.

Veterans Memorial Coliseum: Portland’s Architectural Jewel

Historic Aerial of Memorial ColiseumPresently, the City of Portland awarded a contract for Spectator Facilities Construction Project Management Services for a yet unnamed Veterans Memorial Coliseum project. The city is preparing for potential renovation scenarios. The uncertain future of the Coliseum feels like déjà vu.

Portland’s Veterans Memorial Coliseum, designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) and built between 1960 and 1961, is a premier jewel of International Style modernism in the city. The structure consists of glass and aluminum, a non-load-bearing curtain wall cube with a central ovular concrete seating area. It is a true engineering and architectural masterpiece that offers uninterrupted panoramic views of Portland from the seating area. The Veterans Memorial Coliseum is also a war memorial, featuring exterior sunken black granite walls inscribed with the names of veterans in gold paint.

At its completion it was the largest multipurpose facility in the Pacific Northwest. And a significant structure within the larger urban planning Rose Quarter Development project. In 2009 the city of Portland proposed to demolish the Coliseum to make way for a new sports facility. The greater community of Portland, including architectural preservationists and historians, successfully applied for National Register of Historic Places status for the building. In 2011 it was placed in the National Register.

Portland’s Veterans Memorial Coliseum is a phenomenal renovation opportunity from both historic and economic perspectives.

Despite being listed in the National Register, built during an era of urban and planning reform that advocated for the latest in building technologies, and designed by one of our countries leading modernist firms, many challenge its architectural value. The Coliseum shows the remarkable and collaborative approach towards design and construction by SOM. It is also the only arena world-wide with a 360-degree panoramic view from the seating area. Consider the inability to experience this modern architectural marvel and war memorial firsthand. Simply put, the demolition of the Veterans Memorial Coliseum would be a loss to the city.

Concerns regarding its deferred maintenance and historic materials are often attached to the illogical demolition conclusion because the building does not meet specific 2014 building codes. It is possible to integrate new building technologies while retaining the building’s exterior and interior character defining features. Unfortunately, significant modernist architecture designed by influential architects in the 1950s-1970s have not been regarded with proper facility maintenance. Deferred maintenance has its price. Regardless of building age, if a structure is not properly maintained it will fall into disrepair. Thankfully, Portland has a robust AEC industry dedicated to solving design challenges.

As a city, Portland boast’s its commitment to living green and investing in sustainable practices throughout the greater community. The renovation of the Veterans Memorial Coliseum is exactly the type of project that would highlight our city’s commitment to sustainability. There is no greener option than renovating and reusing existing architectural resources. This renovation would also economically benefit the city by boosting investment around the Rose Quarter area. Potentially extending and overlapping with the renewed development interest in the Lloyd District. Portland could have two premier sports facilities, doubling the city’s ability to provide world-class sports and entertainment events. It is a renovation project with long term urban renewal benefits.
Veterans Memorial Coliseum is an internationally recognized architectural masterpiece. Its architectural legacy is deeply intertwined within Portland’s socio-economic and cultural heritages. Portland must learn from the recent demolitions of modernist architectural marvels like Prentice Women’s Hospital, several Paul Rudolph buildings, and the forthcoming Astrodome. Threats to our modern architecture is a threat to our architectural heritage. It is time to celebrate the last fifty years of Portland’s international jewel with a thoughtful renovation that looks ahead to the city’s next fifty years of architectural history.

Written by Kate Kearney, Marketing Coordinator

The Evolution of Open Space

Photo by Charles Birnbaum courtesy The Cultural Landscape Foundation.

Photo by Charles Birnbaum courtesy The Cultural Landscape Foundation.

Public open spaces, especially urban open spaces, are coming into their own recognition as historic resources. They are receiving more attention because well-designed outdoor landscapes reflect our values as individuals and as a society. Though the way we use these spaces may shift over time, the designs still reveal our collective aspirations for our relationships with nature, the built environment, and with each other.

Two parkscapes in Portland are particularly good at showing us the values and aspirations of their era, and it is worth remembering the design concepts, and remembering how our interaction with the parkscapes has changed over time. These landscapes are the Washington Park Reservoirs, completed in 1894; and the SW Portland sequence of places anchored by Keller** and Lovejoy Fountains, completed in 1966-70.

historic-WPR-pmapdxWashington Park Reservoirs is a historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It was developed to store and distribute clean drinking water, but it had another important function which drove its design: it was a recreational destination for a growing urban population. At the end of the 19th Century, the City Beautiful movement across American cities inspired planners and politicians to create parks as refuges from urban life. Parks were seen as restorative, where citizens could breathe fresh air, stroll along paths or promenades, and view natural plants, lakes, and garden vistas. Many of our most famous American parks were developed during the City Beautiful era, including Central Park in New York City.

Washington Park and the Reservoirs were directly served by public transportation (the Portland cable car) and offered panoramic views east over the City towards the Cascade Mountains. The Reservoirs served as reflective focal points in a landscape designed to look completely natural, yet evoke romantic memories of western European aqueducts and fortresses.

By the 1930s, civic open spaces and the development of public parks had become unaffordable for most municipalities, and also had become less valued by Americans who were increasingly moving out of the cities and into suburban developments. Existing parks were generally not well maintained, and crime and vandalism created more abandonment by well-off city dwellers. By Mid-century, though, a new type of open space was being developed in many American cities. Under urban renewal programs, cities razed perceived decrepit, crowded, and crime-ridden neighborhoods and replaced them with open, clear, utopian style developments.

Portland Open Space courtesy TCLF

Portland Open Space courtesy TCLF

One of the largest and most successful Modern-era urban renewal projects in Oregon includes a series of public parks, walkways, fountains, and plazas designed by landscape architect Lawrence Halprin, known as the Halprin Open Space Sequence. The project, at the south end of downtown Portland, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2013. The Halprin nomination quotes from J. William Thompson, editor of Landscape Architecture magazine, comparing Frederick Law Olmsted Sr. (the progenitor of the City Beautiful movement) to Lawrence Halprin: “For Olmsted, the vision was one of pastoral relief from smoke and crowding; for Halprin, one of celebration of the city’s rambunctious vitality. Both viewed city parks and open spaces as a meeting ground for people of all classes.”

How much has our use of these two open spaces changed over time? We still get out of the house to walk in a park, possibly more than we did 50 years ago or 120 years ago. We have more leisure time, many of us own pets that need exercise, and people stay active longer than they used to. There have been societal changes that work against the popularity of local parks, including the ease of automobile transportation (pulling people further afield), the proliferation of other ways we can spend our leisure time, and the rise in obesity; but in general we use and care for our shared local parks and open spaces. However, there are changes in our relationships with these two specific open spaces that illuminate deeper trends in our society. One of the most complex relationship is the trend towards an increased mistrust of government.

WA Park Reservoirs 130329 011The Washington Park Reservoir area shows the most profound shift in use over time. The need to cover and further protect drinking water in underground storage contains in lieu of open Reservoirs reflects a growing national divide between government and the public made visible by current limited access to a once prominent bucolic public destination. Perhaps a certain level of distrust is to be expected from decisions affecting public safety, but the potential loss of the Reservoirs as a contemplative, experiential destination is in stark contrast to the one of original design intent. Part of the current limited access results from the explosion in liability, where government agencies can and will be found at fault for any harm that might befall a park user or a water consumer. Federal regulations requiring municipal drinking water to be covered also feed our collective sense that there are malicious people among us.

The City of Portland is boldly attempting to both comply with the federal ruling to cover our drinking water reservoirs and restore the original city beautiful interaction with the park. In so doing, the City will eliminate the biggest concern with the liability and safety of our drinking water and the restorative design will re-imagine the Reservoirs, not as a highly urban, interactive series of features like the Halprin Sequence, but as a tranquil, even romantic, natural setting for the public to once again walk through and enjoy a natural beautiful city.

Lovejoy-Pavillion-preservation-pmapdxAmazingly, the Halprin Open Space Sequence continues to survive the “age of liability” with its wonderful interactive fountains, plazas, and pools intact. Nothing this fun- and potentially hazardous- will likely be constructed again as a public project. The design reminds us that we must be responsible for protecting this level of freedom, and that this very public- and yes, democratic- open space, is uniquely valuable as a symbol of public trust.

Written by Kristen Minor, Preservation Planner

Towards a Death of Architecture

Buildings are physical representations of the social, economic, political, technological, and cultural climates of their eras of origin. Ultimately buildings represent our cultural heritage and our architectural history. However, mid-century modern era buildings are increasingly interpreted as antiquated architecture that is functionally obsolete and lacking use in today’s society. Our recent-past modern buildings are being labeled as “failed” or “useless” architecture. As a result, mid-century modern architecture is rapidly being demolished and replaced with newer sustainable structures believed to better represent our most current social and cultural ideals. Current architecture is believed to be far more aesthetically pleasing than their modern predecessors.

Berkeley Art Museum interior

Berkeley Art Museum interior

But in the context of society, including heritage, what constitutes “useful” architecture verses useless building? There must be a relationship of parts to complete the building, but structure and function alone do not equate to architecture. Perhaps “useful” should be a term connected to architecture exhibiting enduring design excellence? Paradoxically, design excellence is tangled with style, and history demonstrates that style preference is ephemeral, subjective, and fluxuates at a high velocity. Yet the loss of style preference, or the falling out of design aesthetics favor, is one of the biggest rationale for the demolition of modern era buildings. Presently, Brutalism is at the crux of the demolition/ preservation debate.

Prentice Hospital

Prentice Hospital

Framed in the context of history, it can only follow that Brutalist buildings were going to be executed as formal monumental concrete structures that directly juxtapose (even challenge) their environments. But more often than not, the perspective of historic context is outnumbered by present aesthetic preference. For example, Prentice Women’s Hospital (Bertrand Goldberg) in Chicago, the Berkeley Art Museum (Mario Ciampi) in California, and several of Paul Rudolph’s brute beauties were technological and architectural triumphs of their time. However, the Brutalist buildings like other modern era buildings that rate low on the aesthetic-scale have been equally disregarded in their maintenance. The argument for demolition based on deficiencies caused by a lack of maintenance becomes all too convenient. The wide-spread demise of brutalist civic and urban buildings is a demise of the ideologies
behind the intent of the architecture and those housed within.

Aesthetics cannot be the pretext for significance or the preservation of architecture. Letting aesthetics judge value will strip our architectural history of some of the most influential and innovated examples of modern era architecture. In effect, we are killing, and ultimately denying claim to, a portion of our architectural history. There is value in the perspective of context and value in re-using and re-imagining modern era architecture. If aesthetic preference continues to get in the way, what use is there for the architect or an architectural legacy?
Paul Rudolph drawing, Yale Art & Architecture Building

Paul Rudolph drawing, Yale Art & Architecture Building

Written by Kate Kearney, Marketing Coordinator

When A Master Work Fails: Three Case Studies

Some of the greatest restoration challenges arise when historically significant works weather, degrade, are neglected, or simply have suffered through inappropriate renovations. Restoration strategies are compounded when original historic materials, either natural materials like wood or stone, or production processes are no longer available. And when the failure is due to improper design or inadequate construction methods, corrective restoration methods may alter or compromise the original design intent. The following three case studies illustrate restoration philosophies based on balancing preservation, resolving the underlying building deficiencies, and introducing “thoughtful change” in protecting significant local structures for future generations.
John Yeon 2012 004
Case Study 1
John Yeon’s 1948 Portland Visitors Centerwas designed as an exhibition showroom with large open spaces, a pinwheel plan, on a highway dividing median, accessible by car, and constructed of standardized wood framing components including recently developed experimental plywood. When the highway was replaced with a riverfront park and the Visitor Center programming was relocated, the singular purpose building became obsolete resulting in a number of incompatible conversions including substantial alteration of the main gallery space to an industrial kitchen. Contributing to the slow demise was the degradation of the exterior wood components and failure of the plywood as a result of the northwest climate and inadequate weather protection. By the time the Friends of John Yeon and the City of Portland Water Bureau invested resources into the restoration, the Visitor Center had lost or compromised 80% of its historic interior finishes and the exterior façade had been heavily altered. However, the original floor plan, massing, scale, exterior spaces, and essence of Yeon’s modular design and sense of place remained.
WS Scheme 3 Entrance 101209Space programming respected the historic floor plan and scale of the original structure and recreated Yeon’s original design intent of integrating indoor space with outdoor space. Extraneous equipment and unsympathetic additions were removed from both the interior and exterior. Interior design elements, furniture, and fixtures maintain the open gallery spacial quality while integrating new furniture and fixtures meeting the needs of the tenant. Major preservation focused on the exterior restoring original paint colors through serration studies, restoring building signage in original type style and design, preserving original wood windows, when present, and restoring the intimate courtyard with a restored operating water feature.

Case Study 2
120907 Lovejoy Pavillion 002Moore, Lyndon, Turnbull & Whitaker’s 1965 Pavilion at Lawrence Halprin’s Lovejoy Fountain is a whimsical all wood structure with a copper shingle roof. Although a small structure, the pavilion represents a major mid-transitional work for Charles Moore as his design style moved from mid-century modern to Post-modern design. In keeping with the naturalistic design aesthetic established by Halprin, northwest wood species comprise the major structural system including the roof trusses, vertical post supports, and vertical cribs built from 2 x 4 members laid on their side and stacked.

Vertical loads are transferred from the trusses to the wood posts and spread to the wood cribs. Under the point loading, the cribs have compressed resulting in a sag or lean in the roof structure. Since the 2 x 4 wood members have crushed, they cannot be restored or salvaged as part of the restoration effort so new members were designed to replace the historic material.

120907 Lovejoy Pavillion 009The restoration approach is intended to correct the structural deficiencies and replace the failed members with no changes to the historic appearance of the structure. The crib design allows for insertion of new steel elements, invisible from the exterior, capable of providing additional support for vertical loads. The difficulty arises because standard wood products available today have different visible and strength attributes from standard components available in 1965. Sourcing appropriate lumber is dependent upon clear and quantifiable specification, high quality inspection, and visual qualities. There are no structural standards for reclaimed or recycled lumber compounding the incorporation of “old growth” lumber as part of a new structural system. When original source material is no longer available, best practices for narrowing the selection of new materials will of necessity be combined with subjective visual qualities and a best-guess scenario as to how the new material will age in place similarly to the historic material. There are no single solutions so experience is key.

PMAPDX-survey-city-of-portlandCase Study 3
Whether or not Michael Graves’ Portland Building is considered a master work is greatly debated. Never the less, the building was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places after only 30 years and is recognizable around the world as THE building representing the start of Post Modernism. There is no debate to the fact that the building leaks. However, the method of building envelope repair could dramatically or minimally impact the exterior character defining features.

The façade of the Portland Building incorporates standardized aluminum single unit windows, aluminum windows ganged together to form a curtain wall, ceramic tile, and stucco veneer as the prominent construction materials. All of these systems or individual components are neither produced nor assembled currently in similar manners due to improvements in technology and building envelope science.

Proposals to improve envelop performance of both the individual window units and window systems are challenged in finding products that will both improve performance and retain the aesthetics of a Post Modern building. (i.e. retain the essence of criticism towards Post Modernism by preserving the appearance of insubstantial material installed as a thin veneer). Windows have always been a source of controversy in preservation and now the definition of windows has expanded to include curtain wall systems as the importance of preserving Recent Past and Modernism has entered into the mainstream.

When a structure, like the Portland Building, relies heavily on the expression of its skin as the character defining feature, off the shelf solutions for fixing envelop deficiencies must be expanded to include customization, façade impact studies, robust strategies for solving the issue, and out-of-the-box thinking by conservators, architects, historic consultants, and building envelope experts. A collaborative approach based on the original architect’s design intent must drive the decision making. It is an unusual approach, but original design intent will be a key factor when resolving façade problems on Modern and Post Modern structures.

Written by Peter Meijer AIA,NCARB, Principal

Preserving the Modern in St. Louis

St. Louis, MO is home to several architectural gems from the mid-century modern era. The city recently conducted a property survey of over 2,000 non-residential buildings constructed between 1945 and 1970. The Cultural Resource Office of St. Louis is highlighting a selective survey & inventory of 200 significant properties with input from PMA and the public to help develope a master list of 25 of the most significant mid-century modern masterpieces. Surveying these architecturally significant structures gives a voice to a past era that still directly influences today. St. Louis’s built heritage from the mid-century modern era showcases structures from internationally recognized architects that revolutionized architecture and design throughout the 20th century.

A Legacy of Modern Architectural Design
The post-World War II era in the United States led to the development of the Modern Movement Architecture across urban areas. Contributing factors of this development included the impact of the auto industry on the built environment, a more cost-conscious public and government, and several technological advances. In addition to these factors, St. Louis was home to the prestigious school of architecture at Washington University. The school had diverse and international students and teachers that contributed to some of the most prolific designs of modern architecture.

When discussing St. Louis mid-century modern architectural design three architects stand out: W.A. Sarmiento, Gyo Obata, and Minoru Yamasaki. Their designs were sleek, yet whimsical, and made St. Louis globally recognized for its modern architectural designs.

W.A. Sarmiento design

W.A. Sarmiento design

W.A. Sarmiento is an internationally regarded architect who designed some of the most prolific buildings in the city of St. Louis. A native of Peru, Sarmiento began as a draftsman for Oscar Niemeyer. In 1952 he accepted a position with the Bank Building & Equipment Corporation. From 1952 through 1964, Sarmiento revolutionized the design and function of banking facilities. Ten years after working for the Bank Building & Equipment Corporation, Sarmiento left after J.B. Gander’s death and formed his own company. W.A. Sarmiento Architects expanded to included offices in St. Louis, Phoenix, and San Francisco. Sarmiento closed his practice in 1978 and left behind a legacy of modern architectural design including the saved American Automobile Association (AAA) Building (1976), the Chancery of the Archdiocese of St. Louis (1962), and the Jefferson Bank and Trust Building (1955).

St. Louis Science Center James S. McDonnell Planetarium (1963

St. Louis Science Center James S. McDonnell Planetarium (1963

The St. Louis Science Center James S. McDonnell Planetarium (1963), was designed by the local firm of Hellmuth, Obata, & Kassabaum (HOK), with Obata as lead designer. HOK was founded in 1955, and to this day is a global leader in architectural design. The practice began by designing schools in suburbs of St. Louis, and by the 1960s it a grown and began to open offices nationally, with their first international branch opening in 1984. Obata was the lead designer of the Saint Louis Science Center along with other notable St. Louis buildings. The building has a visually striking and expressive shape, somewhat reminiscent of a nuclear power plant tower. It is a thin concrete shell structure, hyperboloid in section. This architectural design is a premiere example of continuous contemporary design.
Lambert International Airport

Lambert International Airport

Minoru Yamasaki’s domed design for Lambert’s main terminal became the forerunner of modern terminal building plans. In 1951, the firm of Hellmuth, Yamasaki, and Leinweber was commissioned to design and update the Lambert- St. Louis Municipal Airport. In 1956, their design was the first building in St. Louis to receive a National AIA Honor award. This building was originally composed of three vaults, with a forth added in 1965. Yamasaki’s design became a model for a new generation of airport terminals. Eero Saarinen’s designs for the TWA terminal at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, and the Dulles Washington Airport terminal both echo the repetitive concrete vaults of Lambert St. Louis Municipal Airport.

STL MODERN logo PMAPDXFor more information about this exciting project, including a list of buildings for intensive research, mid-century modern properties, city map with property locations, and property descriptions. Visit: Mid-Century Modern Survey

Written by Kate Kearney, Marketing Coordinator

Historic Preservation and New Construction in Historic Districts

Historic Districts are not frozen in time.
Ideally, Districts are busy, vital places where people live, work, socialize, and see community values reflected. Typically, buildings contribute to a district and share common characteristics becoming more historically valuable as a group than as individual properties. If we create, restore, and invest in Historic Districts, the Districts will continue to tell a story about a particular time period, a particular community, or perhaps a particular industry. So is new construction appropriate within a Historic District, and if so, how does one properly design and integrate the new building within the existing historic context? This posting will explore some factors and opinions on new construction in Historic Districts.
PMAPDX OSU Buildable Landarea
Some individuals argue that appropriate infill must be visually identical to nearby historic resources. Most architects in practice today have a condescending reaction against recreating previous styles as making “faux” or “Disneyland” architecture, even though western architecture for hundreds of years has recycled various stylistic revivals. It is not an absurd concept to design and build beautiful, high-quality buildings that reflect an older style and method of construction. Other individuals have no trouble placing a contemporary structure next to older structures, since modern buildings have a responsibility to reflect our shared culture and lifestyle.

Neither of these absolutes works for most situations. New buildings, as stated in the Secretary of the Interior Standards, do need to be “differentiated” from contributing buildings in a District to avoid a false sense of history. The question is how much differentiation is required? Though there are cases where a “missing tooth” in a very cohesive pattern of buildings should be constructed to resemble its historic neighbors, in other cases the visual diversity of architectural styles and periods within a District allows for more flexibility in differentiating new buildings. Historic Districts are listed on the National Register because they possess a concentration of buildings that are linked either historically, aesthetically, or both. One Historic District might represent a fairly large span of time, various architectural types and styles, and a number of different uses. Another District might be much more specific in its focus.

Opsis Architecture for OSU

Opsis Architecture for OSU

As Preservationists and Architects, we need to analyze the characteristics and contexts that are the same and the characteristics and contexts that are different about the resources within the District. Each case is unique and site-dependent. It is possible to allow for stylistic additions and change without showcasing the change; to temper the inclination to design an individually iconic building; and to limit a modern “intrusion” so as to respect and highlight the older buildings. Good design, high-quality detailing, and high quality materials contribute towards compatibility, and adaptive reuse and change is inevitable to the vitality of a Historic District.

Each jurisdiction having authority makes its own interpretation of what it means to be compatible. One recent example is an approval by the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) in Corvallis, Oregon. The Corvallis HRC approved a design for a freestanding metal and glass canopy in the heart of the national registered Oregon State University Historic District. The HRC concluded that there was no historic precedent for a freestanding non-building element, but found that the canopy was visually light and well-designed and fit into the open space pattern of development without detracting from the neighboring Contributing resources. The role of the historic consultant in this case was to construct an argument as to why the canopy was compatible in the District, and push back against earlier suggestions that the canopy become more “building-like” with masonry columns. An open structure with a veneer of building material would have created a less compatible design.

Opsis Architecture Canopy design for OSU

Opsis Architecture Canopy design for OSU

Each proposal for new construction in a Historic District should be informed by its context. There is latitude for new construction to be distinct, as long as the new work does not detract from the surrounding historic resources.

Written by Kristen Minor, Preservation Planner

Brutalism: The Ugly Face of Preservation.

Brutalist architectureIn recent months there has been much discussion and conflict over the preservation of architecture from the Modern Movement. Structures that once represented the technological and artistic triumphs from the mid-twentieth century are viewed as unruly intrusions to the environment around them, especially Brutalism. Brutalism represents an aesthetic of architectural design and planning that is rational, geometric, stripped of ornamentation, and predominantly composed of corrugated concrete. This style was initiated by Le Corbusier whose architecture was perhaps the “brutal reaction to the machine mass-produced Miesian building types” born in the post-World War II era. (Curcic, Slobodan. “Review of The New Brutalism. Ethic or Aesthetic by Reyner Banham.” Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1969) 171-173.)

While we have come to slowly accept, as significant to our architectural history, the glass curtain wall machine-like jewels from one camp of the Modern Movement, we are quick to deny claim and significance to those rugged, concrete, man-made structures of the Brutalist style. Why? They are aesthetically unattractive. Brutalist structures are testaments to urban ideals for civic and educational facilities of the Modern Movement. They also project attitudes of raw unforgiving dominance, and were built by some of the world’s most forward thinking architects. Yet, Brutalism has been and continues to be met with severe criticism and cold reception. Not only is the criticism directed towards the design and rough aesthetic qualities of the facades, but also for the lack of resilience of corrugated concrete with damp climates. No wonder vocal distain was heard loud and clears at the University of Oregon campus during the late 1970s, implementing the initiation of The Oregon Experiment. (University of Oregon. [Accessed May 2, 2012].)
Paul Rudolph designed Orange County Government Center
Still, today there are cries for the demolition of Brutalist structures, many of which are called architectural eye-sores or more simply, ugly. Two of Paul Rudolph’s designs, The Orange County Government Center of 1958 and Sarasota High School of 1960 have been in the spotlight of the demolition or renovation debate. Acceptance of Brutalism has been rough from the beginning, and history has proved it is not getting easier. However, we must preserve structures from the Modern Movement, even the declared eye-sores, because they are significant markers of our architectural history. The Brutalist style of architecture offered an alternative and direct challenge to the glass curtain wall that was a dominant characteristic of urban renewal and planning during the Modern Movement. Brutalism was the bold statement to the passivity of glass curtain wall design, and perhaps the closest bridging of conceptual architectural drawings and building. (Rohan, Timothy R. “Rendering the Surface: Paul Rudolph’s Art and Architecture Building at Yale.” Grey Room, No. 1 (Autumn 2000) 84-107.)

Perhaps a more pressing issue is why is there a lack of value associated with preserving architecture from the Modern Movement. Even the more favored glass curtain wall structures are still met with uncertainty in regards to preservation. Let’s not forget that Veterans Memorial Coliseum once faced cries for demolition, despite its intellectual display of form and material. Structures from the Modern Movement are historical documents that attest to the cultural, social, economic, technological, and artistic climates of the eras in which they were conceived. Yet, preservationists are met with ferocious declarations of demolition once these structures begin to show any signs of weathering and aging, reminding preservationists that for some individuals modern structures are aesthetically disappointing and offensive.
Brutalism is Beautiful
Preservationists have to ask the more difficult questions of which structures should be saved, and why. Preservation becomes problematic because a set of criteria has been created that ultimately judges the significance of a structure not only for the manners in which it was conceived, but as part of our “perceived architectural heritage.” Declaring a structure(s) as part of our cultures architectural heritage further complicates the preservationists roll because it is then implied that the structure(s) has been significant to the contribution of our current cultural identity. Have structures executed in the Brutalist style been significant towards the contribution to our cultural heritage? Perhaps not, but they are important markers in our architectural history. (Whiteley, Nigel. “Modern Architecture, Heritage, and Englishness.” Architectural History. (1995) 220-237.)

Should structures executed in the Brutalist style be wiped clean from our architectural history? No, but this style should not be fostered, recreated, and executed again. And one of the best manners in which to ensure this is to keep a physical and visual historical record. Preservation cannot be for the aesthetically pleasing only, because our architectural history would be stripped bare and left with dispassionate and boring structures.

Written by Kate Kearney, Marketing Coordinator