Author Archives: Kate Kearney

Pioneer Courthouse Seismic and Historic Renovation

As the second oldest federal building on the west coast and the third highest ranked historic structure in the General Service Administration’s portfolio, Pioneer Courthouse is a significant historic sandstone structure. Peter Meijer Architect, PC (PMA) acted as the Preservation Conservator hired directly by the General Service Administration to consult the construction team engaged in the base isolation seismic upgrade and historic renovation of the circa 1875 Pioneer Courthouse. PMA revised the means and methods associated with the preservation specifications, represented the Owner, and provided CA services on issues affecting the historic property.

AWARDS & RECOGNITION
Preservation in Action Award Pinnacle Award
Architectural Heritage Center/Bosco-Milligan Foundation, 2008

Craftsmanship Award
AIA Portland Chapter, 2006

Top Project
Daily Journal of Commerce (DJC Oregon), 2005

Transforming the Built Environment: What are our ethical responsibilities to communities as architects?

When stepping into the AIA Annual Conference at the Javits Center in NYC this year, I began to question the theme of the conference, a “Blueprint For Better Cities.” The expansive expo center sprawled out on three levels with thousands of booths promoting their products, from software to interiors to exteriors, but the one thing missing was representation from community groups or visible connection to the place of NYC.

Of course, the Javits Center adequately represents the grand nature of NYC amidst the building boom currently happening in Hudson Yards. It is hard to imagine anything but extravagant wealth when passing by the $150 million stairway to nowhere, aka the “Vessel” being constructed across the street. In a time of such great wealth disparity, what role do architects play in gentrifying our cities and creating safe public spaces for those without wealth and privilege? I believe architects continue to have a large impact on the growth of our cities and it is important to check our ethics as professionals on the impacts made in communities that may not be represented. The AEC industry seems to be expanding in exponential ways and defining our cities at a faster and faster pace, so conversations on equity and inclusion need to be brought to the forefront. Even though my first impression walking into the AIA conference at the Javits Center was not one of equity and inclusion, there were some great speakers bringing the conversation back to these important topics.

DESIGNERS ADDRESSING EQUITY IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
One session on Architectural Activism included a panel with Deanna Van Buren of Designing Justice + Designing Spaces, Bryan Lee of Colloqate, and Michael Ford of Hip Hop Architecture. These designers are addressing equity in the built environment and setting new standards for the profession.

Byran Lee reminds architects to think about the communities’ cultures when designing and not to perpetuate systems of oppression. Architects have the ability to change the built environment and also be advocates for the communities in which they work. Laws that allow the victimization of marginalized communities need to be challenged. Public spaces which should be the democratic spaces available to all people are made unsafe to communities of color because of ambiguous laws around vagrancy and other systems of oppression. Understanding the needs of communities in which you are working in paramount. Architects can start by supporting marginalized communities through youth education, advocacy for groups with less priviledge, and equitiable policy and placemaking.

Michael Ford has been working on the youth education component of architectural activism. Hip Hop Architect facilitates youth camps that introduce design, architecture, place making through the expression of hiphop culture. The camps provide an opportunity for youth of underrepresented populations to learn about the architectural practice and reinvision the future of our built environment. A factor in the lack of diversity in architecture is lack of accessiblity to the field, and this program strives to provide that support to youth.

Deanna Van Buren talked of her work around restorative justice and restorative economics, exploring alternative to prisons and addressing the root causes of mass incarceration. Restorative justice is statistically proven to build empathy and decrease recurring offenses by 75%, while allowing for reconciliation and healing. Deanna reiterated that prisons are the worst form of architecture, created to express the harm that we are doing on another. Altnernatives presented were popup resources villages that provide services to isolated communities and peacemaking centers that use Native American practices for healing communities that have experience the trauma of violence and racial oppression.

Many speakers recalled quotes from Whitney Young Jr when talking about equity in the architecture profession, especially from his poignant speech regarding equity at the 1968 American Institute of Architects Conference in Portland. A well quoted statement was “[A]s a profession, you are not a profession that has distinguished itself by your social and civic contributions to the cause of civil rights, and I am sure this has not come to you as any shock. You are most distinguished by your thunderous silence and your complete irrelevance.”

LANGUAGE AROUND ETHICAL AND EQUITABLE DESIGN
I would argree that the profession as a whole still struggles with its social and civic contributions, even though there are some great leaders as mentioned previously. Currently, the trend in most large cities is gentrification resulting in loss of community connections and a huge housing crisis. Do the ethics of architecture speak towards our professional responsibilty to provide for the well being and safety for all within the communities in which we design for? In the AIA Code of Ethics, the only somewhat relevant bylaw I found was “In performing professional services, Members should advocate the design, construction, and operation of sustainable buildings and communities.” Perhaps the lack of language around ethical and equitable design is why it seems so lacking within the built environment. There needs to be a shift.

Large firms may promote their community work by supporting employees to volunteer a couple days of the year, or provide pro-bono design services. This approach is too compartmentalized and does not build the disruptive change needed to challenge systems of oppression in our built environment. These one-off gestures of pro-bono work can easily be perceived by communities as a savior complex instead of community building. The factors that push architects to design without community in mind needs to be resisted by the industry. Rather, more efforts need to be made so our ethical responsibilities to the public outweigh the profit driven interest groups’ needs that are currently prevalent in our industry. The sustainability movement has started to touch on some of our ethical responsibilities for healthier spaces, but these efforts are not preventing people from losing their homes, connection to place, civic amenities, and much more. There is much work to be done. To promote equity and inclusion for all when designing spaces, I believe we must work on our role as architects to listen, learn, be humble, engage, teach, and provide support and advocacy that serves the communities in which we are working.

Written by Hali Knight Assoc. AIA, Designer

At A Glance: Preservation of Modern Built Heritage

Associate, Halla Hoffer, AIA, Assoc. DBIA, recently participated in a three-day course on the preservation of modern built heritage from the Getty Conservation Institute: Conserving Modern Architecture Initiative, in partnership with the National Center for Preservation Training and Technology (NCPTT), and with support from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The course included lectures regarding the technical challenges of preserving modern heritage within the framework of historic preservation practice and philosophy, laboratory sessions, and visiting one of LA’s most iconic modern houses.

Mid-century modern era structures are approaching historic status, if not already there. This status necessitates finding the best option(s) for renovation and rehabilitation – from integrating current energy conservation standards, to updating components to meet current code and seismic regulations – because aesthetic impacts to a historic resource must be kept to a minimum.

OVERVIEW OF COURSE LEARNING OBJECTIVES
– Understanding the importance of following preservation methodologies when working with modern heritage.
– Using case studies as examples, understand how to apply these to actual modern buildings and sites
– Understand how developing successful preservation solutions depend on thorough and detailed analysis of the site.
– Learn how to assess the cultural significance of modern building.
– Understand the historical development of reinforced concrete.
– Learn about the material characteristics of reinforced concrete.
– Understand the most common decay mechanisms of reinforced concrete.
– Understand the principles for conserving historic reinforced concrete.
– Understand the historical development and building typologies of the modern era.
– Explore the challenges to preserving buildings from the modern era.
– Learn how existing preservation standards and charters are applied to modern buildings.
– Learn about the listing and protection of modern buildings.
– Learn about the development of glass used for 20th century windows.
– Learn about glass making techniques and how to determine the fabrication techniques.
– Learn about glazing types such as IG units, and film applications.
– Learn how various metals in windows weather and how to treat them.
– Learn in a lab session how to identify corrosion as it is expressed in different metals.
– Understand how saving a work of modern heritage is different from saving the heritage of other
eras.
– Learn how to decide, prioritize, and build support for protecting and preserving modern places.
– Explore the issues involved in determining how modern resources can be saved.
– Explore how to evaluate significance relative to the vast number of modern buildings that exist
today.
salk-east-pmapdx-getty-conference
COURSES AT A GLANCE
The three day course began with an overview of the history, designation, and conservation methodology of our built heritage of the modern era. A highlight included a case study presented by Sara Lardinois – Utilizing the Conservation Methodology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies. The Salk case study focused on the restoration of the teak window wall assemblies, from significance to performing an integrity evaluation of the window wall assemblies. The Salk Institute is an international masterpiece of architecture from the modern era. The treatment recommendations had to stop fungal biofilm from further damaging the window wall assemblies, improve performance, abate hazardous materials, all the while preserving the integrity original teak structural members.

Day two was focused on windows and curtain walls – something especially interesting to PMA. Stephen Kelley led lectures and a lecture/lab on the history of modern windows and curtain walls, European and American precedents, fabrications, types, common problems, field testing, fabrication practices, history of sealants, and engineered sealant joints. Day three closed-out the course with a special day at the Eames house. Participants learned about the conservation planning and building materials case study created for the house.
eames-case-study-house-pmapdx-getty
COURSE HANDOUTS
15 Preservation Briefs – Preservation of Historic Concrete
Salk Institute Report
Eames House Case Study

Written by Halla Hoffer, AIA, Assoc. DBIA / Architect

Encuentro Conference Recap

Encuentro, meaning “encounter” or “gathering” in Spanish, has been a modern effort within Latin@ communities nationwide to encourage discussions on preservation in regards to Latin@ culture, heritage, and history. In April 2018, I attended the annual Encuentro Conference in Providence, Rhode Island on the Leonor Xochitl Pérez scholarship. This gathering was put on by a triad of organizations— Latin@s in Heritage Conservation (LHC), Rhode Island Latino Arts (RILA), and Rhode Island Historic Preservation & Heritage Commission (RIHPHC). As an aspiring Chicana architect, my mission in attending this conference was to better understand how I can apply emerging preservation strategies to my own field of study.
pmapdx-encuentro-conference
Speakers at the conference told empowering stories of projects that they were working on in cities with the largest deeply-rooted Latino populations in the United States. A majority of these speakers came from various career backgrounds (archivists, lawyers, architects, preservationists, city planners, students, teachers, artists, and musicians) and hailed from communities in Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and California. They spoke about the industry that brought the Latino community to their city, the challenges that Latinos faced in seeking employment while also retaining their culture, and the tremendous resurgence and transformation that Latino communities have undergone in recent years. The two presentations that stuck most with me were one given by Zulmilena Then, an architecture student from Brooklyn who established Preserving East New York to speak out against the demolition of sacred buildings in her neighborhood, and another given by Layqa Nuna Yawar, an Ecuadorian Latinx artist who represents Latino heritage in the murals that he has painted on historic buildings in multiple countries.

I was the only attendee from the Northwest, which prompted me to consider what might be different about my own community. Portland, Oregon, a relatively young city, experienced its first large period of development from the 1870’s to the turn of the 20th century during the Expansive Railroad Era. For comparison, older cities on the East Coast, and even on the West Coast in San Francisco, began an initial period of city development sometime in the early 19th century and have already undergone two turn-of-the-centuries transitions. Like many American cities, the majority of Portland’s architecture reflects the histories of European settlers and was often constructed at the expense of underrepresented African American and Asian neighborhoods. In part because Portland is so young, there wasn’t enough time for minority groups to establish a strong historical foothold before their homes were bulldozed. These events, while shameful for our city, are important and relevant when considering future preservation strategies.
marion-rosas-pmapdx-encunetro-conference
Portland is a younger city caught in the fast-paced nature of our modern-day technological and societal revolution. Modern construction technologies make it possible for Portland to keep up with the incoming wave of approximately 30,000 residents seeking new entrepreneurial opportunities each year. As we are all witnessing, Portland is undergoing another major period of development in present time. We see this daily in increased traffic and in the number of new housing projects that have popped up around town.

PRESERVATION FOR UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS
Some preservation efforts involving underrepresented groups are occurring today in consideration of Portland’s past mistakes. The Bosco-Milligan Foundation/Architectural Heritage Center and City of Portland have joined forces to perform a survey of the remaining Portland buildings that reflect the preserve that the African American community held in our city’s history. Monuments have been established around the city to remember the Chinese and Japanese communities in Portland (i.e. the Japanese Gardens, Japanese American Historical Plaza, Oregon Nikkei Legacy Center, the Lan Su Chinese Garden, the new Chinatown/Japantown Historic District). Although city development has resulted in the gentrification of minority neighborhoods in the past, this is not a trend that has to continue, if we accommodate all groups in the construction that is occurring now.

After returning from Encuentro, I did some research on the history of the Latino community in Portland, wondering why I hadn’t seen any historic resources devoted specifically to commemorate the impact that the Latino community has had. I thought maybe, like other major cities on the West Coast, the Latino community had been pushed out. I am learning that the Latino community wasn’t necessarily oppressed in Portland’s development so much as it did not buy into Portland’s early industries as strongly as other minority groups.

According to city data, the Latino population is growing, appearing today in architecture through the appropriation of existing buildings. Some examples that I have seen of this around town are Latino restaurants (El Cubo de Cuba, Güero, ¿Por Qué No?, Pambiche, etc.) and the Milagro Theater on Stark that have repurposed previous apartment buildings, residences, and warehouses built in styles that are reminiscent of European culture (Queen Anne, Italianate, Colonial Revival, Beaux Artes, etc.). A few buildings that I’ve found have been constructed purely to further the Latino community and will hopefully serve as a record of history moving forward. One great example is the Portland Mercado, a food and grocery store cooperative that was constructed in 2015 in SE Portland to cultivate new Latino businesses. While other cities on the West Coast like San Francisco and Los Angeles are starting to devote museums (i.e. Chicano Park Museum and LA Plaza de Cultura y Artes) to communicate the historic influence of their Latino communities, Portland is just beginning to build edifices that support the incoming growth of the Latino community that is happening as a result of entrepreneurial opportunity now.

The most prominent question that I took away from Encuentro was this: How do we achieve the important task of remembering Portland’s story of initial development (including all groups that were present in Portland’s history) while still allowing for the creation of history within the city by emerging minority groups?
pmapdx-encuentro-conference
Although Portland has a strong historical foundation, it is still a relatively young city with a great deal of history left to make. When looking at other older cities, I recognize how much can happen in a difference of 100 years, or even in 50 years (or even 20) considering the rapid technological revolution that is transforming our society today. There is a great deal of opportunity to learn from past mistakes because our city is still young, because there is a greater awareness of the importance of diversity and inclusion today, and because we have the technology to build responsibly.

Written by Marion Rosas / Designer.

Laurelhurst Neighborhood RLS

In spring of 2018, PMA completed a Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) of the Laurelhurst neighborhood in Portland, Oregon. Over 1,800 properties were surveyed. Data from the survey was used to prepare a historic district nomination of the neighborhood. A great deal of research was necessary to understand Laurelhurst’s general historical context prior to beginning survey fieldwork involved in the RLS. We began by reviewing all previous documentation that has been collected of the neighborhood—including historic tax and permit records, Sanborn maps and other graphic data, articles from historic newspapers and periodicals, and the City of Portland’s Historic Resource Inventory. We also reviewed context statements that had been written for earlier historic district nomination efforts, and primary source documents that had recorded Laurelhurst during its early stages of development.

Founded in 1909-1910 on what had been William Ladd’s Hazel Fern Farm, Laurelhurst was developed to be a combination of pastoral English “garden suburbs” close to the city, with a more formal Beaux-Arts radial layout. An eclectic variety of architectural styles, from “fairyland” bungalows to quaint English cottages to the more classic Dutch Colonials, was chosen as a set of prototype designs for the creation of this Streetcar-era, community-centered neighborhood. To this day, most of these homes still exist and create a pleasing variation of historic styles predominantly from the 1910s to the 1930s along the pedestrian-friendly public streets and sidewalks.

DOWNLOADS: Architectural Styles | Architects and Builders

Studio Building Window Replacement

PMA provided planning and building science services for TMT Development’s project at the Studio Building in downtown Portland. The Studio Building is a twentieth century Baroque-style building built in 1927 by Ellison-White Conservatory and designed by locally renowned architect Luther Lee Dougan. Over time, the Studio Building has undergone multiple changes including new openings (1940), the addition of a new marquee (1956), and the construction of a new front entrance (2002) to name a few.

PMA lead the project teams Type III Design Review application for the replacement of windows on the building. After assessing the existing 192 historic steel windows, we recommended replacement windows to match the historic windows in style and size, and to fit within the existing window openings on all elevations. Drawings created during the assessment were used as part of the Type III Design Review application, as part of the pre-hearing review packet, and as part of the power-point presentation during the hearing in front of the Design Commission.

Residential Architectural Styles in the Laurelhurst Neighborhood

PMA is surveying and documenting the Laurelhurst neighborhood for a current project. Below is an overview of the typical residential architectural styles found throughout the neighborhood, with a brief introduction on its development.

Laurelhurst is a 442-acre residential neighborhood in Portland, Oregon, located thirty-two city blocks east of the Willamette River. Most of the neighborhood is in northeast Portland, with only the southernmost quarter, below E Burnside Street, in southeast Portland. César E Chávez Boulevard, originally called NE 39th Street, runs north to south, dividing the neighborhood into two halves. The original 1909/10 plat boundaries of the Laurelhurst neighborhood were generally bounded by NE 32nd and 44th Avenues, and NE Halsey and SE Stark Streets. Construction of the Banfield Freeway (I-84) has had a major impact on the northern portion of the neighborhood, separating the northeastern corner of the original plat from the rest of Laurelhurst.
Historic-Photo-Laurelhurst-PDX-Glisan-Street
DEVELOPMENT
The development of the neighborhood was a result of the extension of city streetcar lines to the east side of the river, enabling a tremendous population increase in this area right before 1909. The layout and development of the Laurelhurst neighborhood was strongly influenced by the national City Beautiful movement. This social movement was initially a crusade for reforms in many facets of public and private life, pushing for food and water systems, schools, and cities to be more healthful and science-based in the period after the Industrial Revolution.

The neighborhood demonstrates the results of Portland’s early transit system that triggered the city’s expansion and enabled family life to be removed from the center of the city yet efficiently connected to the downtown hub of business and commerce. In this sense it was a true suburb, representing an idealized plan for residential living. The curvilinear streets were laid out with an eye for beauty as well as harmony between the structures and the environment. Laurelhurst remains one of Portland’s oldest intact East Side neighborhoods, and illustrates an era of tremendous suburban growth in Portland’s history, made possible by streetcar networks.

Economic Trends 1900 – 1970
The Lewis & Clark Exposition, in 1905, marked the beginning of a period of prosperity and growth for Portland. Portland’s population almost doubled in the single five-year period from 1905-1910, from 110,929 to 207,214 residents.[1] Laurelhurst’s population continued to increase until the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, when homebuying and development reached a low once again until just after 1940. This mirrored the trend across the United States during the Depression years, with a 95% drop in new home construction from 1925 to 1933. The 1940’s marked a period of major economic development, mainly due to advancements in the automobile industry. As a result of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921, the rising popularity of cars in the 1930’s, and the post-WWII recovery from the Great Depression, residents of Portland could live much further away from their jobs than they could even with the development of streetcars only thirty years prior. Suburban development and lifestyles became even more appealing. Portland experienced another period of economic decline during the Vietnam War from 1955 to 1975. In particular, property values in Laurelhurst plummeted in the 1970’s, to below average at best, and often below the cost of affordable low-income housing in the city.
Laurelhurst-1937-Sandy-Blvd
ARCHITECTURE
Building restrictions maintained Laurelhurst’s reputation as a desirable neighborhood. The homes encompassed a controlled variety of architectural styles, so much so that a brochure was given to families upon purchasing a lot for the types of styles that were recommended for development. Recommended styles in Murphy’s promotional materials of the time included “Pure Italian, Japanese, Old English, Swiss Chalet, Colonial, New England, or Spanish Mission.”[2] This variety of architectural styles contributed to Laurelhurst’s reputation as a “neighborhood of character”; this aesthetic holds true as the majority of styles and examples in Laurelhurst retain their material and stylistic integrity.

A single block, located in the southeastern quadrant of the neighborhood between SE Ash and E Burnside, was developed by the Laurelhurst Company as a showcase for bungalows.[3] This block was named Fernhaven Court, called “bungalow fairyland,” and still has many of its original features today. Some of these 1915-1925 Fernhaven Court bungalows have a noticeable Japanese design influence. The block also has a twenty-foot alleyway through the middle, one of only two alleys in Laurelhurst.

In the southwestern quadrant, the west end of the block bounded by NE Couch, NE Davis, NE Laurelhurst Place, and NE Cesar E. Chavez Blvd was designed as “The Laurelhurst Group of Cottages,” nine homes laid out and designed by architects Ellis Lawrence and W.M. Holford with George Otten, landscape designer. Five of these were built by 1919, with a “central garden” divided by shrubs and specifying “service uses” screened by lattice. The homes, constructed by the Laurelhurst Company, are in English Cottage style.

Paul Murphy’s own house at 3574 E. Burnside, also designed by Lawrence & Holford, received accolades for its “picturesque” design in the July 1919 issue of “The House Beautiful.” By November of that year the house was named one of the ten best examples of architecture in Portland by that same publication.[4]
Laurelhurst-Architectural-Styles-PMAPDX-001
Typical Neighborhood Architectural Styles
A majority (88%) of resources in Laurelhurst date between 1910 and 1932, and the architectural styles of the neighborhood reflect that majority; the first property owners of Laurelhurst were restricted in their choices for designs, which aimed to create a cohesive and more desirable neighborhood appearance. The most prevalent architectural styles identified in Laurelhurst are Craftsman (42%), Colonial Revival (36%), and English Cottage (19%). Some houses do have a combination of styles so percentages will add up to more than 100% of resources. Other identified styles from that era include Prairie School, Tudor Revival, Mediterranean Revival, Neo-Classical; later architectural styles observed within Laurelhurst include Minimal Traditional, World War II-Era Cottage, and Ranch.
Laurelhurst-Architectural-Styles-PMAPDX-002
Prevalent Building Use and Typology
Across the United States from the 1890s into the 1920s as the ideal suburban home was being refined and developed, houses were becoming more technologically innovative and less formal in layout. Two principal house typologies emerged during this period, the bungalow and the American Foursquare. Both of these were often mass-produced and offered for sale by catalog. Bungalows offered an affordable house type for a family without servants. The typical bungalow is one or one-and-a-half stories, with a broad, shallowly-pitched roof and a wide open front porch across the full front or most of the front of the house. While bungalows can be in English Cottage or Mission Revival styles, they are most often associated with the Craftsman style and the California Arts and Crafts movement. A typical Foursquare is boxy and more vertical in form, usually two to two-and-a-half stories in height. A single-height porch runs across most or all of the front of the house, and the layout is generally four major rooms on each level. Like bungalows, Foursquare houses can appear in a variety of styles.[5] The Colonial Revival style predominates in some areas, but in the Pacific Northwest the Craftsman Foursquare is by far the most prevalent style.

After WWI, the trend for single-family homes across the U. S. was generally smaller. A variety of period revival styles appeared in the 1920s as bungalows or period cottages. Most common were the English Cottage or English Tudor as well as Colonial revival styles ranging from Dutch, English, French, and Spanish. A period cottage is generally no more than one-and-a-half story, and has a small street–fronting façade but may extend back on its lot to create a long, narrow footprint.

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

Download Laurelhurst Architectural Styles.

Footnotes
1. K. Zisman et al, Portland Oregon’s Eastside Historic and Architectural Resources, 1850-1938 (United States Department of the Interior, 1988, as amended 2012, edited by Timothy Askin and Ernestina Fuenmayor), E:10.
2. “Laurelhurst and its Park,” 22.
3. A bungalow can be described as a small house, low and broad in form, with a wide front porch and spreading eaves. They are most often Craftsman in style.
4. Rene Marshall, “In Portland, Oregon,” The House Beautiful vol 46, July 1919, 30-31 and Helen Eastham, “Best Examples of Architecture in Portland, Oregon,” The House Beautiful vol. 46, Nov 1919, 308-310, 336.
5. McClelland et al, 56.

Design Considerations for Accessory Dwelling Units

“The City of Portland’s Zoning Code allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be added to a site accessory to a house, attached house, or manufactured home in all Residential zones, all Commercial zones, and the Central Employment (EX) zone as described in Chapter 33.205 of the City Zoning Code.” [1]

Many established traditional single family neighborhoods provide opportunity for new exterior ADUs via conversion of garages or the building of a new structure. The maximum size of an ADU may be no more than 75% of the living area of the house or 800 square feet, whichever is less. Zoning limits the height and site placement, which may reduce the area to less than 800 SF. ADU roof ridges are limited to 20 feet, and if kept lower than the main house, this will help increase the compatibility of the new ADU to the existing house and regulate its form and massing.

In general, the exterior finish materials, roof pitch, trim, eaves, window orientation and dimension must be the same or visually match those of the primary house in type, size and placement. In other words, be compatible with the design and aesthetics of the main house. New ADUs can seamlessly blend into the context of the street when the scale, massing, and exterior materials reflect the neighborhood context.
Accessible-Dwelling-Unit-pmapdx-002
Creative design solutions can develop ways to maximize allowable heights and remain compatible with the main house. If an ADU shares a wall with the main house, it is considered attached and its height can exceed 20 feet depending on the zoning’s height limit. Fire codes require one hour fire separation between the units, so existing walls within the main house may need to be modified.

Another important design consideration is limitations on the entry sequence. Only one main entrance may be located on the street-facing facade of the house, meaning an attached ADU must have a front door on a side or rear elevation. Entry stairs, porches, or decks can extend into the side setback if not higher than 2 ½ feet, otherwise a 3 feet side yard setback is required. Detached garages are typically converted into ADUs, which can be a loss of an amenity for the main house. For the Peerless project, there was opportunity to develop a below grade garage that connects at the basement level of the house. This below grade development allowed the ADU to maintain an appropriate height, keep the homes’ garage, and provide 800 SF of living space above the garage.
Accessible-Dwelling-Unit-pmapdx
New ADUs provide great opportunity to build low energy units. Setting Net Zero or Passive energy goals increase the construction costs approximately 10% but will provide long-term utility and energy savings for both the ADU and the main house. Since an ADU cannot exceed 800 square feet in size, there is usually only small mechanical units and one bathroom, keeping utility usage at a minimum.

ADUs are permissible in residential Historic districts. Any exterior ADU will require additional design review by City of Portland staff, or possible the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission. However, if the general guidance of proper massing, scale, set-back, and material choices are followed, the compatibility of the new ADU to the historic district will likely be achieved and approval provided.

Written By Peter Meijer, AIA, NCARB / Principal, and Hali Knight / Designer

[1] Zoning code information comes from the City of Portland, Bureau of Development Services, Accessory Dwelling Units Program Guide.

Sellwood Warehouse Change of Occupancy

Every building is designated an occupancy classification when built, however, as buildings age, the use may change and not be documented or permitted by the building officials. The result is a building that is not code compliant and there could be life safety hazards for its current use. Historic buildings are most likely not built to comply with current code, but a change of use will require that building to be brought into compliance, such as meeting required exiting, structural standards, and energy upgrades. PMA has consulted several clients on strategies to address change of occupancy of historic buildings. The following warehouse in Sellwood is a prime example of the complexity of this type of permit.

The warehouse, built in 1921, had previously been a battery manufacturing business and a carpet warehouse, and the newest tenants are using the space as an antiques warehouse and sales floor. Tenant improvements alerted the building officials of the building’s unpermitted change of use, from an industrial plant-factory (F-1) to mercantile (M).

PMA provided the owner with as-built drawings of the space and provided a code analysis to determine the minimum requirements needed in the change of use. For a 100’x100’ large historic warehouse space, seismic and energy upgrades were required in addition to new exiting and life-safety measures. Historic buildings are not exempt from energy code, which proved a challenge in a warehouse with original single-pane steel windows, concrete walls, and slab-on-grade floor. Change of use from an F-1 to M also requires a seismic ASCE 41 Teir 1 report and associated upgrade.

Part II | Toward More Robust Practice Theory in Public Sector Historic Preservation: Getting Started

Part II of II guest blog post by Betsy Bradley, Historian and Historic Preservationist.

WHO IS THIS PUBLIC MEANT TO BE SERVED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION?
While many can agree we need to involve the public in a meaningful way, we don’t often do so. But, who is the public we serve with public sector heritage work? The term public is left unqualified in most sections of the NHPA and 36 CFR 800. The phrase “general public” appears often, while “interested public” is used in sections referring to Tribal properties. Agencies are to seek and consider the views of the public and to consider the “likely interest of the public” in addressing effects to historic properties. In short, the regulations assume that the public will be notified and provided information about the identification and evaluation of historic resources and invites “the public to express views on resolving adverse effects.” How easily this process devolves into a Decides, Informs, Implements scenario with some paperwork.

Consequently, we have the freedom to almost ignore the public even as we make the process somewhat transparent and provide information to those who ask. Conversely, we can identify various publics who could actively participate in the process and who can be involved in identifying and evaluating historic properties, as well as creating and using mitigation projects. We must go beyond the consideration of the public as the whole body politic, or all citizens.

Situational theorists working within the public relations field tell us there are three types of publics that have some interest and likely involvement in a topic or process, the:

1. Latent public becomes interested due to a certain project.
2. Aware public has interest in resources/topics before a project.
3. Active public is aroused to organization and action by a project.

I can easily further parse further the publics that we might serve as: the current public, future public, public affected by the undertaking, single-issue public, broader picture public, Historic Preservation public, and the general public. We must design consultation and mitigation projects to affect as many of these publics as we can, or have a good justification for serving a smaller segment of the public.

Currently, we act on the weak premise that—if some undefined member of the future public someday goes to the archives or museum storage facility and accesses documentation about a property that no longer exists—we are working in the public interest. However, we must note that the staff of the ACHP charged with the oversight of the Section 106 process has included in a policy statement that academia and academic associations are not considered to be “the public” for the purposes of the archaeological component of the Section 106 process. Even if this is not guidance that has widespread implementation, we must take this reading of the definition of the public to heart. It speaks to the need to serve more than one segment of the public.

My recent experience is that if authority is shared in the Section 106 process, it is likely that the public becomes problematic for bureaucrats. A portion of the affected and interested public in St. Louis faced with a large redevelopment project does not see history ending 50 years ago, the timeframe we use as for evaluating historic resources. This public saw the federal undertaking in the continuum of depriving African Americans of their neighborhoods that began with Urban Renewal and that remains unacknowledged. This public also did not separate history from activism; the insistence that our history project was totally separate from politically-charged protest of the use of Eminent Domain did not resonate. I find these points of view valid and worth taking to heart. The mitigation proposed by this public departed from the standard projects and some at the table were eager to dismiss them out of hand as not what we do. Even when part of this public participated in a public history project, some professionals wanted to control and approve of that work. Despite all this, a meaningful participatory public history project was completed.

The St. Louis project was a consultation process that exposed our inadequacy in consulting with the intent to respond to the affected public’s standpoints and recommendations for mitigation. We must learn how to respond differently to make affected publics valued partners in Section 106. It is us who must transform, not various publics, in order to share authority. My experience is that this will be both harder and more rewarding for all involved.

Will you be commit to a renewed effort to include various segments of the public in historic preservation consultation? What practice theories and methods can you bring to the conversation? Let’s work on this together.

FURTHER READING
Laurajane Smith coined the term authorized heritage discourse. Her Uses of Heritage (2006) and subsequent books and articles have been foundational in the Critical Heritage Studies field.

Randall Mason Mason has been a leader in decentering the physical attributes of resources in order to elevate the meaning and values we assign to resources. His important essay in Places, “Fixing Historic Preservation: A Constructive Critique of ‘Significance,’” is available here.

Jeremy Wells takes the position that our policies based on regulations cannot be adapted for more effective work; he also positions further study of historic preservation in social science research. Wells’ website Conserving the Human Environment, provides links to many of his papers. This link takes readers to the page where he explores Rebooting Environmental Compliance.