Category Archives: Blog

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Public-Sector-Historic-Preservation Author’s note: I am a historian and historic preservation who has had many seats at the historic preservation table, ranging from consultant to SHPO staff. I have recently undertaken a deep study of where we are in historic preservation and how we might practice in the field differently in the near future. The retrospective look that was taken at the 50th anniversary in 2016 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) provided a lot of dialog but no clear ways forward that are any different than what we have done in the past. Based on the assumption that there are additional effective practices we should explore, bolstered by a growing interest in Critical Heritage Theory, I’m convinced that we can add effective practices within the existing regulatory framework – particularly if we base them on more robust theories of historic preservation. Therefore, we have important work to do together to develop and apply practice theories for heritage work in the public sector. This essay is one of several that will explore how our practice can be different.

With the term practice theory I am evoking how we integrate diverse interests and discipline-based practices into a more responsive relationship between those disciplines, more involvement of and service to the public, and more project-specific negotiations and solutions. I’ve adopted Hugh T. Miller’s understanding of the relationships between theory and practice presented in Postmodern Public Policy:

PRACTICE IS THE THEORY IN PLACE.
THEORY IS THE NEXT-TO-BE PRACTICE.
THEORY MAY BE SEEN AS ONE’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORLD.
PRACTICE IS THE ENACTMENT OF THAT UNDERSTANDING.

First, a look at where we are now. Historians, architects, anthropologists and archaeologists are trained differently in methods of investigation and processing the fruits of that research into meaning and knowledge. This makes for real differences in how we work in the heritage sector, even as the stated goals, standards and requirements are inclusive. This diversity is both a benefit to the public and a means for avoiding developing more robust and over-arching public-sector practice theories.

Some academics engaging in critical heritage studies see the American laws, regulations, practices and conceptual thinking so limiting that we must start over. Those of us who practice in the public realm recognize that negotiation is built into most processes and the openness of the structure allows for revised practice based on more sophisticated theories. I am firmly in this group.

THE NEED FOR PRACTICE REVISION
Teaching in the Goucher College master’s degree program in historic preservation for ten years has sharpened my understanding of the relationship between theory, policy and practice. Only policy is difficult to change, leaving theory and practice open for consideration. As most historic preservationists and cultural resource management consultants work in the public realm, this is worthy of rethinking.

We are in a social constructivist turn in historic preservation that addresses the above-ground built environment. In short, this means we recognize that buildings and landscapes have no inherent significance and they have meanings and importance constructed by people who experience and study them. This social-construction turn in historic preservation that is actually inherent in the Section 106 process. Section 106 of the NHPA requires consultation on federal undertakings and 36 CFR Part 800 is the set of implementing regulations for that process. The parallel to this social construction is raising the curtain on the power relationships that are inherent in negotiating the meaning, evaluation of, and treatment of historic resources.

For years we have overlooked the opportunities that the requirement for the public being informed and invited to consult in the Section 106 process provides. We have used gestures and dismissed the opinions of others as not understanding what we do, rather than committing to learn from broader perspectives and understandings. We have not developed theories and working premises that should guide public practice. These conversations are not happening, in part because of the unnecessarily hardened nature of the interpretation of the NHPA and 36 CFR 800.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, is leading us in the U.S. with the assertion that preservation is about people, not buildings. This popularizing of social constructionism of historic preservation work might well leave us anguishing over details of replacement windows that most of the public does not perceive, or perhaps on our knees in an excavation, a little sidelined. The Trust understands that heritage is what people negotiate, use, relate to, and work to save.

In academia, critical heritage studies, and in particular Laurajane Smith’s exposure of the authorized heritage discourse, echoes this point of view. Of course, the National Register program and its guidance, the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, as well 36CFR regulations are part of our authorized historic preservation discourse in the United States. As we unreflectively go through the Section 106 process and use this discourse and use our expert authority, we are able to avoid discussions of the more important, and interesting, challenges facing heritage work.

In Part II, Betsy explores: who is this public meant to be served by historic preservation?

Surveying the Laurelhurst Neighborhood in Portland, OR

Founded in 1912 on the original plat of William Ladd’s Hazel Fern Farm, Laurelhurst was developed to be an example of the potential for European “garden suburbs” close to the city. 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 community-centered neighborhood. To this day, many of these homes still exist, as does the pre-intended sense of comradery between its residents.
pmapdx-laurelhurst-survey-portland-oregon
WHAT IS THE LAURELHURST SURVEY PROJECT?
Peter Meijer Architect, PC (PMA) is in the process of conducting a Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) of the Laurelhurst neighborhood in Portland, Oregon. Data from the survey will be used to prepare a potential 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 records, Sanborn maps and other graphic data, newspaper articles from historic 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.

The primary objective of a Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) is to provide a “first cut” of typically residential resources within a given area that appear to meet the survey criteria for historic significance. An RLS involves only a visual evaluation of properties in relation to the overall neighborhood context, not an assessment of associated historical events or individuals connected to the property.
pmapdx-laurelhurst-survey-portland-oregon
With the information gathered from our preliminary research at hand, PMA set out in November 2017 to survey approximately 1800 properties that were constructed during Laurelhurst’s period of significance. Our approach will be informed by information gathered during our research and any additional background information provided by Laurelhurst residents’ initial observations. Factors includ¬ing potential eligibility, typographical distribution of resources, integrity of setting, and proximity to other resources will be considered when selecting survey properties.

So far, we have completed 70 percent of the total survey area. As Laurelhurst consists of approximately 1,800 properties, we still have a large number of houses to go!

There are distinct characteristics within Laurelhurst that are well known to residents and visitors. The inclusion and extent of these characteristics, like street patterns, open spaces, landscapes and trees, objects like sculpture, lamp posts, etc. will be discussed with the LNA, the City, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine the importance of the characteristics in telling the story of Laurelhurst.
pmapdx-laurelhurst-survey-portland-oregon
SURVEY PROCESS TO DATE
PMA project staff has been working with a taskforce of volunteers—residents of the Laurelhurst neighborhood and preservation graduate students from the University of Oregon. To date we have finished surveying three of five sections of the neighborhood. The in-field survey will be completed by late Spring 2018. Some properties have been noted as potential opportunities for an Intensive Level Survey (ILS), in which a more detailed review of the property would yield further information of its level of historic integrity and the significance of Laurelhurst as a whole. Intensive Level Surveys, if any, will also be completed by late Spring 2018. PMA aims to have a first-draft nomination ready for the Laurelhurst Neighborhood Association by June 2018.
pmapdx-laurelhurst-survey-portland-oregon
Challenges
The main challenge has been the large size of the survey area, the fact that we have a limited number of staff and volunteers, and walking around all day. The weather has also been difficult at times—with very cold temperatures, rain and snowfall. Dry days at this time of the year are hard to come by, but they are ideal because many leaves have fallen from the trees that block visibility of the houses and lighting is always better on a gray day.

Community Interaction
Many residents of the area have already conducted their own research on the history of their houses, and many have shared with us their findings. Of the stories we have received, we learned of a cluster of houses owned by many generations of the same family, one woman who met the famous architect that designed her house, and a man who has nurtured a dilapidated house back to life. We encourage anyone who may have more information about the history of development in Laurelhurst to contact us as well.

Interesting Resources
We have collected a number of historic photographs of Laurelhurst homes from multiple sources, including a 1916 Brochure of “Laurelhurst and its Park”, and have had a lot of fun tracking them down. Some have been demolished, but there are still MANY that exist.
pmapdx-laurelhurst-survey-portland-oregon

Written By Marion Rosas / Designer

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.
southwestern-oregon-community-college-most-beautiful-campuses-1024x608
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 / Designer

Presenting on Field Observations of Masonry Failures

Last month the Portland Chapter of RCI- a local chapter of the international association of professionals that specialize in the “specification and design of roofing, waterproofing and building envelope systems” (RCI PDX) hosted a two-day Education Symposium focused on Exterior Walls Quality Assurance & Building Envelope Presentations. The first day of the symposium was geared towards industry professionals “interested in performing observation to assure that exterior wall systems are installed in accordance with construction documents. The program covered diverse topics in the construction of exterior walls, and was intended for manufacturers, general contractors, quality assurance observers, and field inspectors.” (RCI PDX) While the second day was dedicated to Building Envelope Presentations. In addition to attending the first day of the symposium, Peter R. Meijer, AIA, NCARB, and Hali Knight presented on: When the Field Report of Masonry Does Not Correlate with Lab Results. Grant High School was the case study.

PPS-GH-2017-002

At the request of PPS, we provided a limited exterior condition assessment and interior historic evaluation of Grant High School. For the past 15+ years, Portland Public Schools (PPS) noted an accelerated degree of masonry face spalling on the original 1923 main building and 1923 Old Gym particularly when adjacent to concentrated sources of surface water. Other areas of spalling were not as obvious including protected wall surfaces. The masonry spalling was not occurring on later additions including the north wing (circa 1925), south wing (circa 1927), and auditorium building (circa 1927). Upon closer visual examination, it was observed that individual units were failing in isolated protected areas of the wall surface. Failures in such areas could not be accounted for under direct correlation of heavy water intrusion and typical failure mechanisms.

Before our assessment, it was hypothesized that the failure of the brick was potentially due to a number of separate or cumulative conditions including:
1) excessive water uptake by the brick;
2) sub-fluorescence expansion of salts in the masonry;
3) freeze thaw;
4) low quality of the original 1923 brick; and
5) the application of surface sealers preventing water migrating to the exterior surface.

As a result of the hypothesis and field observations, it was prudent to conduct a series of lab tests to the brick, mortar, and patch materials to assist in the determination of:
1) the quality of the brick;
2) the physical composition of the brick;
3) the quantity of naturally occurring compounds in the masonry and mortar, particularly salts; and
4) the quality of the mortar.

The findings would help narrow the potential cause of the spalling and lead to a more focused repair and maintenance process. To rule out damage caused by maintenance procedures, faces of the brick material were sent to determine if sealants were used on the brick and, if present, determine the sealant chemical makeup. The presence of a surface coating may lead to retention of water within the brick and thus prevent natural capillary flow, natural drying, and water evaporation.

TESTING AND RESULTS
Samples sent to the lab for coating assessment were analyzed via episcopic light microscopy, and Fourier- Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) per ASTM D1245 and ASTM E1252. The results found no hydrocarbon or organic formulations used on the surface of the brick refuting the hypothesis of a surface sealer.

The Petrographic Characterization resulted in the most unusual findings and the most relevant results related to the observed failures. The polarized light microscope indicated carbonate based salt crystals seeping into the masonry from the mortar. No sulfate based salts, typically associated with the clays used for making brick, were present. Furthermore the inherent properties of the brick showed very small rounded voids and interconnected planer voids. Planner voids result from poor compaction during the raw clay extrusion process prior to firing.

The presence of salt migration out of the mortar and into the brick, plus small pore structure and low immersion values, combining with a cleavage plane resulting from manufacturing are contributing to the Grant High School brick spalls. Brick with smaller pores are less capable of absorbing the expansive forces of freezing water and drying salts. Interlaced pores creating linear plains parallel with the face of the brick create stress failure points resulting in surface spalling. Since the characteristics of the brick resulted from the firing and manufacturing process, the brick will remain susceptible to the failure mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS
Field observations of masonry failures can lead to incorrect diagnosis of the source of the problem. It is critical to conduct advanced laboratory analysis of material composition in order to correctly deduce the known failure mechanisms. If the cause of the failure is from defective material or defective manufacturing, steps could be taken to slow the deterioration or eliminate the cause of the deterioration without compromising the original material.

Written by Peter Meijer, AIA, NCARB / Principal