Tag Archives: modernism

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.

Post Modern and Mid-Century Modern in PDX

New PDX development vs. post-modern Portland Building

New PDX development vs. post-modern Portland Building

Portland is home to the post-modern icon of architecture: Michael Grave’s Portland Public Service Building (aka The Portland Building). We have internationally known examples of Mid-Century modernism like Pietro Belluschi’s Equitable Building and Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill’s Veterans Memorial Coliseum. The city is also home to vernacular Brutalist buildings. Many of these mid-century modern, and especially post-modern and brutalist, works of architecture are ridiculed by the press, Portland architects, and City leadership.

But recently local architectural firms have designed new buildings in direct comparison to some of the most criticized structures. Portland’s Design Commission and Bureau of Development and Sustainability have approved local mix-use developments that directly reference mid-century Brutalism and the Portland Building, small windows and all.

Perhaps these new forms of “ugly” developments are establishing the fact that Post Modernism, Brutalism, and despised Modernism are no longer obsolete, tacky, and disdained. The buildings of an older generation have been replaced by younger icons of questionable architectural value. And what is more, the Design Commission and BDS have destined the citizens of Portland to ogle in disbelief as the new ugly sit side-by-side.

New PDX development vs. brutalist Habitat 67

New PDX development vs. brutalist Habitat 67

Written by Peter Meijer AIA,NCARB Principal

Practices for Preserving Post Modernism

Post Modernism, a style of architecture beginning in 1965 with the publication of Robert Venturi’s Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture and extending to 1989, has always elicited great public debate on the architectural merits of its built works perhaps best exemplified in the controversy over one of the most iconic Post Modern buildings, Michael Graves’ Public Service Building (aka the Portland Building).

Whether or not Post Modern architecture is considered merely flamboyant superficial decoration or serious building design and genuine work is greatly debated. The debate, beginning a mere thirty years after the apex of the style, has arrived sooner than expected and focuses on the distinction between design and architecture. Whether or not the materials and assemblies used to construct the buildings are impermanent remain to be assessed, understood, and judged over a longer duration of time. Therefore, are material conservators and preservation technologists ready (and willing) to contribute a scientific approach and unbiased assessment to a controversial debate over a design style?

Post Modern design was broadly practiced in both the United States and internationally. Large and small firms were attracted to the stylistic incorporation of classical western design vocabulary in stark juxtaposition against the plain, unadorned, square box that many argued architecture had become. Design magazines published examples of Post Modern buildings ranging from the academic and scholar approach by architects like the Italian Aldo Rossi to the flamboyant American style creator Philip Johnson, as well as, buildings by architects only known on local and regional levels.

Architects, engineers, and material suppliers were pushing new materials and innovative construction technologies as a way to create Post Modern design elements. Continuous innovation in building skins reintroduced porcelain enamel panels, a product brought by Lustron to the building industry during the housing boom following World War II. New skins made from Glass Fibre Resin (GFR) capable of being molded in classical curves and ornamental shapes favored by Post Modern design were created. Innovations in brick technology including large scale brick panels made from a single wythe of masonry to panels whose outer face was only one half inch of masonry, or thin bricks. Improvements in resins created new wood or simulated wood products and adhesives for mounting faux finishes to structural systems. Perhaps one of the more ubiquitous new materials used in the creation of Post Modern architecture was the faux stucco product Dryvit, and Exterior Finish Insulation System (EIFS). Like porcelain enamel panels, EIFS were introduced as insulated wall assemblies as a means to improve energy performance during the world’s energy crisis of the 1970s.
141013 APT Assemblies 2

As Post Modern buildings reach thirty and fifty years, systems and products are aging and, like all older buildings, significant investments or improvements to infrastructure systems are often needed. Compared to more recent material innovations, Post Modern building performance levels are low and some of the innovative materials resulted in long-term material failures. As it is with any building skin, often the deficiencies of one material are in combination with more robust materials or the failing components are critical to the character defining features of the Post Modern design. And when material failure is coupled to design aesthetics and those aesthetics do not offer universal appeal, questions arise as to the merits of retaining the component. But should subjective opinions about design, a very personal matter compared to one’s appreciation of art, drive decisions to preserve or demolish a building. And when the building carries international recognition as a work of architecture, or as a work that defines the Post Modernism, should more resources be given to its preservation? Does the inherent impermanence of the original materials justify an approach of non-preservation as preservation? Many Post Modern buildings incorporate systems or components that are neither produced nor currently assembled in similar manners due to improvements in technology and building envelope science. Therefore, the process and method of building envelope repair could dramatically impact the exterior character of Post Modern structures.
Ext Ceramic tile
Is the proper approach to retain the essence of criticism towards Post Modernism by preserving the appearance of insubstantial material installed incorrectly? Proposals to improve envelope performance of both the individual components and building systems are challenged in finding products that will both improve performance and retain the aesthetics of a Post Modern building. Like previous building styles and periods, the preservation of character defining elements that were originally inadequately or incorrectly produced or assembled has always been a source of preservation controversy. in preservation and the undersized windows of the Portland Building are defining elements of the Post Modern design. The preservation community should be prepared to participate in discussing the merits of Post Modernism. The conversation has begun.

Written by Peter Meijer AIA, NCARB, Principal.

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

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

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

Surveying Modern Resources in Portland’s Central City

“Modern” is not traditionally part of a historic preservationist’s vocabulary, but as time rolls on, modern resources have become notable for their architectural significance, construction technologies, and association with significant social patterns that define national, state, and local history.

During Summer 2011, Peter Meijer Architect, PC (PMA) performed a reconnaissance level survey of modern historic resources in Portland’s Central City. The work was completed for the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability to dovetail with the Bureau’s Central City 2035 Plan. For this survey the modern period is defined as 1945-1985, beginning with Post-World War II development and ending when all Modern era properties will be at least fifty-years in age when the Central City plan is fully realized in 2035.

PMAPDX Survey of PDX Many of Portland’s iconic landmark buildings are modern era resources, such as the Veterans Memorial Coliseum, Lloyd Center Mall, U.S. Bancorp tower, and the Portland Building. The survey intentionally excludes these well-known properties in order to highlight broader architectural patterns and identify some of the less prominent buildings that may be considered historically significant in the future.

PMAPDX PDX survey modern resourceOf approximately 976 modern period resources within the Central City’s seven geographic clusters, PMA selected 152 properties for reconnaissance level survey. Representation of geographic clusters, resource typologies, and
potential eligibility were considered when selecting properties to survey. In a selective survey, most properties should be considered potentially eligible for historic designation. Online maps, tax assessor information, and Google Earth were used to inform the selection process. Fieldwork involved taking photographs of each property, recording the resource type, cladding materials, style, height, plan type, and auxiliary resources, and then making a preliminary determination of National Register eligibility based on age, integrity, and historic character-defining features. A final report outlines the project and findings, and survey data was added to the Oregon Historic Sites database.

PMAPDX modern survey historic photo

Historic photo of East Burnside & Sandy Drive-In

Mod-toids: Some interesting modern survey findings:
• Glass and metal curtain wall, roman brick, and various treatments of concrete (block, poured, panels are the most common exterior materials found on Modern Period buildings.
• No single-family residential units were constructed in the Central City during the modern period.
• Small industrial buildings, including warehouses and service bay resources, are found in every cluster of the Central City. These building types have highly adaptable plan types and their size, character, and location make them ripe opportunities for redevelopment as industrial needs change.
• Modern period transportation developments, such as freeways and bridges, have greatly impacted the Central City urban landscape. Many of the Central City clusters are geographically defined by transportation developments. Larger modern resource types tend to be more concentrated near freeways and freeway entrances.

Written by PMA preservation staff.

Mid-Century Arenas: Memorial Coliseum

Mid-Century Arenas
The emerging interdisciplinary field of Arena Studies focuses on the dwindling global supply of modernist multipurpose arenas—an overlooked subject spanning the fields of historic preservation, architecture, architectural history, engineering, preservation technology, industrial archeology, urban studies, city and regional planning, landscape planning and environmental history.
Veterans Memorial Coliseum Exterior
After World War II, arena builders began to utilize a variety of new technologies and modern building materials to enclose large-scale urban, suburban and rural arenas. Innovative technologies (such as retractable roofs, glass curtain walls and clear-span timber domes) were combined with cutting-edge craftsmanship to create a revolutionary new aesthetic of form-altering functionalism. As an emerging field of study, the topic of historic arenas currently suffers from a dearth of scholarly research, resulting in typological confusion. General and pervasive misidentification and misclassification has greatly hindered the efforts of conservationists to rehabilitate, restore and repurpose these undervalued community resources.

Case Study – Memorial Coliseum
When completed in 1960, Memorial Coliseum, a flat-roofed square “box,” measuring 360 linear feet per side, 100 feet in height, and part of a larger 30- acre area, was a technological feat of engineering and operation unrivaled by any other large civic structure and a fully-articulated example of lnternational-Style Modernism. The building is the only large-scale public arena glass-walled structure of the mid-century retaining its original design, materials, workmanship, highly urban context, and original relationship to nearby geographic features such as the Willamette River.
Veterans Memorial Coliseum Interior
The Coliseum’s weight is supported by four cruciform-shaped, 7O-foot high reinforced concrete columns, 240 feet apart in one direction and 270 feet in the other. At the column pinnacle, “steel hemispheres,” the first use in arena construction, support the steel roof trusses. These half-round bearing points enable the entire structure to move under force, such as strong winds or earth movements. A prominent feature of the building is the oval, free-standing concrete seating bowl, visible from every exterior vantage point due to the building’s transparency giving rise to the nicknames “Glass Palace” and “Tea Cup in a Box.”

VMC steel structure

Photo courtesy of the City of Portland Archives.

Inflecting the conservation and re-use of public arenas is the political desire of the community and receptiveness of the team owner and manager. Many arenas were constructed with complicated financing and management agreements providing the sports organization authority over reuse, urban planning, and demolition options. The single, sports purpose arenas require dramatic alterations to adopt the structure to reprogramming like housing, office, or entertainment. Early arenas are, however, established public structures in the heart of the urban fabric offering unique and profitable opportunities for long-term future success. A key element of successful conservation is an understanding of the adaptability of these structures in material composition, plan, and function. The architectural qualities combined with the urban settings provide mid-century arenas with enduring historic value.

Written by Peter Meijer AIA,NCARB, Principal. A special thank you to Matthew Hayes for contributing to this posting.