Tag Archives: planning

Mid-Century School Design and Its Role in the Pursuit of Education

Schools come in all shapes and sizes. They are one-story and two-story. Schools serve young children, teenagers, and adults alike, and they are designed in all manner of style. In most instances, schools appear to be historic because of these architectural features. However, there is another yard stick with which to measure school building’s role in architectural history. As with all things, time changes our understanding and perspective, and educational theory is no different. Each school building reflects modern thought and beliefs of the era.

When imagining a school that is two-stories, designed in a classical, Spanish, or other revival style with a central corridor flanked by classrooms, it is likely to be a school from the Progressive era of education. The Progressive Era spans from the end of the nineteenth century to World War II. During this period, there was a shift from informal education to an organized system structed by putting age groups into grade levels and creating a curriculum based on intellectual rigor and mental discipline.
progressive-era-school-design-oregon-pmapdx
EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY SCHOOL DESIGN
By the early twentieth century, school buildings were becoming more specialized and standardized as educators pushed for more control of school design. Plan books and design guides for educational buildings were introduced. There was a movement to make schools a healthier environment, improving ventilation and illumination. H-plan schools were introduced to bring more light and air into classrooms. Early twentieth-century school buildings typically featured traditional architectural styles, monumental designs, symmetrical facades, oversized entrances, and rectangular plans. Designed as civic monuments, the architectural focus was on building a school that would be a source of community pride. [1]

However, despite various applied stylistic details on the exteriors, the interiors were generally the same. The classroom was the basic building block for the school building, stacked vertically and horizontally to form a school. Classrooms were identical and all featured fixed desks facing the teacher at the front of the room with windows along one wall providing a single-direction light source. The emphasis was on order and authority. [2]
mid-century-school-design-oregon-pmapdx
In 1918, the federal Office of Education published Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. It established a list of seven key elements that education should encompass: command of basic skills, health, family values, vocation, civic education, worthy use of leisure time, and ethical character. Clearly influenced by Progressive ideals, the publication emphasized personal development rather than academic criteria. [3] It developed seven tenets of Progressive education: freedom to develop naturally; interest in the motive of all work; the teacher as a guide, rather than task-master; scientific study of pupil development; greater attention to conditions that affect a child’s physical development; co-operation between school and home to meet the needs of child-life; and the Progressive as a leader in educational movements. Progressive educational ideals were being widely implemented in schools by the 1930s. [4]

There was a considerable lack of new schools constructed between 1930 and 1945, due to a lack of funding during the Great Depression and lack of available building materials during World War II. Educators at the 1947 National Conference for the Improvement of Teaching recommended a ten-billion-dollar building program over the next decade to meet the classroom demand, estimating that “between 50 and 75 percent of all school buildings were obsolete and should be replaced immediately.” [5] At the time, general consensus among educators was that the lifespan of a school was 25 to 50 years after which new teaching methods and technology made it obsolete. Moreover, the population of the United States was increasing at a faster rate than schools could keep up with and soon overcrowded schools became commonplace. New schools were desperately needed, and like the previous Progressive era schools reflected education theory of the day, so too did mid-century schools.
mid-century-school-design-oregon-pmapdx
MID-CENTURY SCHOOL DESIGN AND PLANNING
After World War II, schools stopped serving just the physical and educational needs of students but took interest in nurturing students’ emotional development. Schools of this era were typically long and low, one-story buildings designed in the International style with enormous windows, light-filled courtyards, and a decentralized floorplan.

According to mid-century educators, successful school planning required balancing three primary concerns: environment, education, and economy. The district needed to provide the best possible environment for students and teachers in order to facilitate learning while working within the limitations of the budget. [6] New schools had to meet both physical needs – sanitary, safe, quiet, well-lit – and emotional needs – pleasant, secure, inspiring, friendly, restful. In the Northwest, most schools reflected regional style by incorporating an interior courtyard. [7] During this period, the progressive theory of education was common. This theory was based on the concept that education should include the general welfare of students, not just their intellectual development, and that students should aspire to individuality not conformity. Teachers were encouraged to have a democratic classroom where they worked collaboratively with students rather than lecturing, and assignments were active and engaging rather than reading and watching. Additional topics were added to the curriculum that would better prepare students for the next phases in their lives, these topics included woodshop, home economics, and physical education. The general welfare of students was better minded and encompassed hot lunches, health services, and changes to disciplinary actions. [8]

The other hurdle for school districts was the rising cost of construction in the post-War era. For example, in 1930, $100,000 would buy a ten-room school, in 1940, it would buy an eight-room school and in 1950, it would buy a four-room school. [9] Fortunately for school district budgets, many communities wanted modern design schools rather than the neo-classical or art deco designs from previous decades, and these modern designs were less expensive to build. Mid-century schools and houses utilized new technologies, materials, and mass production methods to meet the demand for affordable and fast construction. [10] Classrooms also featured extensive built-ins that included sinks, slots for bulky roles of paper, and coat storage.
mid-century-school-design-oregon-pmapdx
TYPICAL MID-CENTURY DESIGN ELEMENTS
Mid-century schools and suburban housing shared many design elements, including: floorplans laid out to maximize space and flexibility; floorplans, fenestration, and landscaping designed to create connections between indoor and outdoor spaces; facades featuring large windows and ribbon windows; buildings designed to accommodate easy expansion later; decorative elements replaced with contrasting wall materials on the exterior; floorplans encouraged socializing; single-story designs with flay or low pitch roofs and deep eave overhangs; and buildings integrated into the landscape. Mid-century schools featured larger sites and a greater emphasis on landscaping and outdoor recreation. This resulted in more sprawling school designs. Instead of compactly containing all school facilities within a single rectangular block, facilities were clustered by function, such as separating quiet classrooms from noisy cafeterias. Plans were often irregular.

Schools are designed from the inside out and what is on the inside reflects education theory and beliefs of the day. The next time you admire a school’s architecture, be sure to notice more than its visual aesthetic, but its role in the pursuit of education.

Written by Tricia Forsi, Preservation Planner.

Sources
[1] Donovan, John J. School Architecture: Principles and Practices. New York: MacMillan Company, p. 24
[2] Weisser, Amy S. “’Little Red School House, What Now?’ Two Centuries of American Public School Architecture.” Journal of Planning History. Vol. 5, No. 3. August 2006, p. 200
[3] Graham, Patricia Albjerg. Schooling America: How the Public Schools Meet the Nation’s Changing Needs. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 76-77
[4] Weisser 2006, 203
[5] Benjamin Fine, “Broader Vocational System Is Advocated to Help Meet Modern Industrial Needs,” New York Times, April 11, 1948.
[6] William W. Caudill, Toward Better School Design, New York: F. W. Dodge Corporation, 1954,
[7] Entrix, Inc., Portland Public Schools Historic Building Assessment, October 2009, p. 3-18
[8] “Modern Design Transforms Schools.” New York Times. August 24, 1952; “Modern Schools Are Built to Fit Child Emotionally and Physically,” New York Times, December 23, 1956; New Schools of Thought: Modern Trend in Education Is Reflected in Buildings Themselves,” New York Times, December 16, 1952; Abigail Christman, National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Colorado’s Mid-Century Schools, 1945-1970,” May 1, 2017
[9] “New Schools, U.S. Is Building Some Fine Ones But Is Facing A Serious Shortage.” Time. October 16, 1950, p. 80
[10] Otaga, “Building for Learning in Postwar American Elementary Schools.” p. 563.

The History of PPS McDaniel (formerly Madison) High School

At the end of January, PMA was invited to give a presentation to students at Portland Public Schools McDaniel (formerly Madison) High School. “The History of Madison High School” turned out to be engaging for many of the students in two back-to-back social studies classes taught by Mr. Jason Miller, and fun for the presenter from PMA (Kristen Minor) as well. PMA is part of the multi-disciplinary team for the PPS McDaniel High School Modernization project.

Below are highlights from the presentation illustrating changes over time in the vicinity of the school, an area that is quite familiar to the students. Old photographs of a place remind us how radically our environment changes, even though it feels (especially to a high school student) that change is s-l-o-w. The presentation also covered basic facts about the school, including its design in the International Style, a subset of Modernism, and what that means in comparison to pre-war “traditional” architectural styles. Madison was constructed in 1957 and designed by the firm of Stanton Bowles Maguire & Church, who also designed Marshall High School in SE Portland a few years later in 1960.
PPS-Madison-HS-PMAPDX-Lecture
PRE-SETTLEMENT HISTORY
Much of East Portland, especially the northerly portions along the Columbia, was Chinook tribal territory. These peoples were decimated by diseases from contacts with European and American exploration, colonialization and fur trappers in the period between the 1780s and the 1850s. Oregon Trail pioneers began to come to the area to settle by the early 1840s. The Donation Land claim act of 1850 divided the western territories into quarter mile grid sections and deeded the land to individuals (up to 320 acres) and couples (up to 640 acres), as long as you would live on and farm the land. That’s why the distribution of land by the federal government is clearly visible in the grid pattern of streets of our western cities, with anomalies like Sandy Boulevard and Foster usually being remnants of older tribal pathways.

TRANSPORTATION
This image shows 82nd Avenue where it crosses Halsey in 1916, when the train tracks crossed the roadway at grade. This location is a little more than half a mile south of the school. In 1916, people were getting around by horse and carriage, streetcar, train, walking, bicycling, and for a lucky few, driving (Model T’s went on the market in 1908). By the mid-1920s most families were able to purchase a car, but people didn’t take them everywhere like they do today.

– Transportation –

LAND USE
These three photos, all looking north on 82nd Ave, are from the early 1930s. The lower right photo illustrates the 1934 construction of a viaduct for the train line, so 82nd could finally extend over the train lines. The upper photo shows early development along a segment of 82nd in the Montavilla area, with mostly houses visible along the roadway in 1932. By 1937, Portland re-zoned the entire 82nd corridor to be commercial or industrial, so all of these houses were later demolished or heavily altered. Finally, the lower left photo shows 82nd being widened in 1934, with the Madison school site at the left at the very top of the hill on the horizon. Large areas of land were still completely rural, either undeveloped or producing crops. By the 1920s and 1930s, most of the farms that had once been in this area (many originally owned by Japanese immigrant farmers around Montavilla) had given way to increased development.

– Land Use –

HOUSING BOOM
The same Halsey Street intersection in 1947 is shown at the center of the photo, with 82nd Avenue stretching almost up to the Madison school site (just off the upper right of the image). None of the major freeways had been constructed yet, so the gully still only carried long-distance train tracks. After the war, housing development really took off, which resulted in an immediate need for schools in the area.

– Housing Boom –

SCHOOL DESIGN AND EFFICIENCY
From 1945 to 1970, Portland Public Schools constructed 51 new schools! The district had to be efficient and smart about costs under all the pressure to create schools in such a short period of time. Modernism as a style, with its emphasis on functionality, repetition, and horizontality, worked well for the district to ensure that they could construct the most building area for the least cost. Schools were designed in standardized materials and in expandable forms, allowing maximum flexibility.

– School Design and Efficiency –

As McDaniel High School moves closer to its construction start date for the PPS Modernization project, it is worth remembering that the school is a highly intact example of the mid-century International Style design aesthetic, but that the new iteration of the school will preserve portions of this design. Students in the updated school will hopefully have an appreciation for both the changes and the past design, with a glimpse into the history of change at the school and in the area surrounding the school.

Written by Kristen Minor, Associate / Preservation Planner

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

Overview of Architectural Styles in Oregon: 1840s to 1970s

The City of Gresham applied for and was granted a CLG grant from the State Historic Preservation Office to increase community interest in historic preservation. The City felt that a presentation focused on architectural styles would likely to generate interest among the community. They contacted PMA to provide a power-point presentation geared towards citizens with no planning or architecture background, but also useful for City staff and historians. PMA
presented an overview of Oregon Architectural Styles. We used local Gresham area examples with state-wide examples in the presentation to highlight the residential and commercial styles most likely to be seen in the Gresham area.
Picture1-gresham-styles-presentation

USE, TYPE, STYLE
It is difficult to understand style without an appreciation of the ways style can be overlaid on various types and uses of buildings. The USE of a building is its primary function. For instance, a church (use) might have a hall with steeple (types or forms) and be Neoclassical (style). The use or purpose of a building is strongly linked to its form, but even within a category of use such as residential, one might find various types such as “apartment block,” “bungalow,” or “four-square.”

TYPE just means the basic form, so it is useful for historians to categorize these forms into expected sizes or arrangements of volumes. An apartment block is generally a simple rectangular building with several apartment units and a shared entry. A bungalow is simply a small house, one or 1.5 stories, horizontal in expression. Bungalows are often Craftsman in style, but a handful of other styles are sometimes used with a bungalow type. A four-square is a larger house, typically 2 or 2.5 stories, consisting of a somewhat square footprint with 4 rooms on each floor, and a broad front porch with columns or posts.

The building’s STYLE is determined by the architectural and ornamental details and exterior features applied to the basic structure. Styles change with the times. In fashion and out of fashion, some endure longer. The timeline included is generally reflective of Oregon architectural fashions. However, style also can be affected by technology- for example, the development of steel frame buildings allowed for a new style to emerge: Modernism. Older bearing-wall masonry construction only allowed for small windows set between structural wall areas. A proliferation of new building types, such as the geodesic dome, occurred in the Modern era.

We categorize buildings by type, use, and style when doing a survey of resources in a particular area. The data can be compared quickly and easily to data from other surveys, so we can see the patterns and history of development emerging in any particular area.

STYLISTIC TIMELINE OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLES IN OREGON
From Vernacular Forms and Styles, to Renaissance Revivals, Northwest Regional Style and Post Modern, Oregon has a robust and diverse vocabulary of architecture. The stylistic timeline below is meant as a broad overview, highlighting key attributes per style listed, to help you identify your local Gresham area, greater Metro area, and and PNW regional architectural resources.

overview-architecture-styles-oregon-peter-meijer-architect

overview-architecture-styles-oregon-peter-meijer-architect

2016 Year in Review

As we look back over the past year and reflect on our completed, on-going, and upcoming projects, we’d like to take the opportunity to say we have truly enjoyed collaborating and communicating with you!!
pmapdx-2016-holiday

2016 PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS
PMA-2016-year-in-review
From top, left to right: Studio Building Exterior + Window Assessment (Portland, OR); Joseph Vance Building Exterior Envelope Repair (Seattle, WA); PPS Grant High School Modernization (Portland, OR); SPS Magnolia School Renovation (Seattle, WA)

PMA HAPPENINGS
2015-2016-Halla-H We are excited to announce: Halla Hoffer, Associate, successfully passed her ARE and is a licensed Architect in the state of Oregon.

Halla is passionate about rehabilitating historic and existing architecture – integrating the latest energy technologies to maintain the structures inherent sustainability.

PMAPDX-silver-to-gold We are committed to the reuse and adaptability of existing resources, and in 2016 moved from Silver to Gold certification!

State and Federal Historic Preservation Incentives Available in Oregon

Historic Preservation Incentives at the State and Federal level are either tax incentives or grants. PMA keeps up to date regarding these programs as incentives are ever-changing and apt to suddenly sunset or be revised. Following is a brief explanation of incentives offered by state or federal government or private agencies as of 2016. PMA has worked with multiple owners and agencies across the Pacific Northwest to take advantage of state and federal tax incentive programs, and we can provide expert experience in the latest interpretations of work that meets the standards for these incentives. A few other redevelopment incentive programs are also mentioned below, if they have been successfully combined with historic preservation incentive programs in Oregon.
1-oregon-state-capitol-building
FEDERAL AND STATE OF OREGON TAX INCENTIVES

Oregon Special Assessment

Properties contributing to a district or individually listed on the National Register and in need of some rehabilitation are eligible for the State of Oregon Special Assessment property tax incentive. Property taxes are “frozen” at the time of application and are held at that value for 10 years. During this time period owners may make significant investments in the property without an increase in assessed value. The earlier the investment is made and the larger the resulting increase in market value, the greater the benefit to the owner.

A Preservation Plan must be submitted, outlining the rehabilitation work proposed. Exterior work is prioritized, and the work must meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The total valuation of work must be at least 10% of the property’s Real market value and that amount must be spent in the first five years of the special assessment period.

A second term of 10 years is available, with some limitations on the types of preservation work that are eligible for the program. Eligible work includes energy conservation projects, ADA compliance, seismic improvements, or sustainability. The investment must meet or exceed 10% of the Real market value of the property at the time of application.

Non-contributing properties in need of rehabilitation could be eligible for the State of Oregon Special Assessment property tax incentive, if it is determined by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that the property is or would be eligible for listing on the National Register, and that the renovation would restore obscured or missing historic character.

Federal Historic Tax Credit Incentives (HTC)

Rehabilitation tax credits, in the amount of up to 20% of the amount spent on the project, are available to qualifying projects.

Property must be listed either individually or as a contributing property to a historic district listed in the National Register. Alternately, to qualify for up to 10% in tax credits, a non-designated building must have been constructed before 1936.

Property must be income-producing for at least 5 years after rehabilitation. Owner-occupied residential projects such as condominiums do not qualify, but apartments or mixed-use projects are eligible. The project must be substantial. The owner must spend more on rehabilitation expenditures than the “adjusted basis” value of the property. The Investment Tax Credit does not include the purchase price of the property.

Rehabilitation work must meet certain standards for preservation. These are the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

gus-solomon-interior-courtroom

Federal Preservation Easement Tax Deduction
A preservation easement is a legal agreement to protect a historic property from changes, including neglect. The property must be individually listed on the NRHP or a contributing structure within a National Register-listed historic district or local historic district. If a property owner makes a voluntary donation to a trust such as the Historic Preservation League of Oregon (HPLO) of all or a portion of a property, the donation can qualify as a charitable tax donation. Only some of the rights associated with the property are being donated, and the donation permanently limits uses or changes as specified. The owner of the historic property may still use the property, and must maintain it. The owner may sell the property, but the restrictions will remain with the property. The preservation easement may be structured to include only the exterior of a building, or may include air rights, interiors, grounds, or other features.

OTHER INCENTIVES OR PROGRAMS

Private and Public Grants
Grants for historic preservation work vary widely as to eligibility rules, requirements, and amounts. While private-sector grant-making organizations are more apt to change grant programs or requirements year-to-year, they also are more likely to provide larger sums of money. Historic preservation grants are sometimes only available for preservation planning, survey, or designation work as opposed to “brick and mortar” projects.

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) administers Federal grants directly to local government entities through the Certified Local Government (CLG) program. The SHPO also administers State grants through the Oregon Heritage Grants, Oregon Museums Grants, Preserving Oregon Grants, Diamonds in the Rough Grants, and Oregon Historic Cemeteries Grants. These are all competitive and offer relatively modest amounts of funding.

New Market Tax Credit
In December 2015, Congress approved an extension of the New Market Tax Credit (NMTC) program through 2019. There is an immediate opportunity for investors, low-income communities, and businesses to use this successful program in order to revitalize economically distressed areas and create jobs. The State also runs the Oregon New Market Tax Credit program, which is modeled on the same requirements as the Federal program.

The Blanchet House of Hospitality, a new (2012) building in a historic district in downtown Portland, used New Markets Tax Credits. NMTC and HTC have also been used together, such as in the Mercy Corps restoration/ expansion in the Skidmore Old Town historic district.
The NMTC is not available for loans or investments in projects involving residential rental housing alone, but may be used for mixed-use and some other housing projects. Investments must be made to designated Community Development Entities (CDEs), which in turn provide investments in low-income communities. The investment is claimed over a 7-year credit allowance period.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
The federal government allots a certain amount per state per year to be awarded to developers willing to provide low income housing. Residential rental properties only may qualify for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) program. A certain percentage of the units must be restricted to occupants making 50% or less (or 60% or less) of local median income, and the affordability restrictions must be maintained for a minimum of 30 years. LIHTC has been successfully combined with HTC in downtown Portland projects such as the Admiral Apartments, the Martha Washington, and the Bronaugh Apartments.

Written by Kristen Minor, Associate/Preservation Planner

Local Historic Preservation Incentives Available in Portland, Oregon

With a firm comprised of architects and planners, we understand and assist owners and developers navigate local historic preservation incentives made available by the City of Portland. The following is a comprehensive overview of incentives offered by the City, as of 2016, in the form of various use allowances, development rules “waivers,” and opportunities to transfer allowed but unused floor area to other property owners, creating an opportunity for a monetary benefit. We grouped the available historic preservation incentives available by the following: City of Portland Incentives, City of Portland/State of Oregon Building Code Allowances, and Portland Development Commission Programs.

The City of Portland’s Central City 2035 Plan (as well as other related City code projects) are currently under review. The Proposed Draft was published in June 2016 and is being reviewed by many City and non-City agencies, bureaus, and organizations. Proposed changes directly affect portions of the Portland Zoning Code, but the existing Zoning Code will remain in effect until adoption of the final Central City 2035 Plan, probably in late 2018. Increased transfer options are the major change proposed.

“Landmark” as defined by the City is a property individually listed on the National Register, or evaluated by the City of Portland as a local historic resource. Many incentives are also available to resources designated contributing to a National Register-listed Historic District or locally designated Conservation District.

Marshall Wells Lofts building preservation plan.

CITY OF PORTLAND INCENTIVES
Additional density in Single-Dwelling zones. Landmarks in Single-Dwelling zones may be used as multi-dwelling structures, up to a maximum of one dwelling unit for each 1,000 square feet of site area. No additional off-street parking is required, but the existing number of off-street parking spaces must be retained. The landmark may be expanded and the new floor area used for additional dwelling units only if the expansion is approved through historic design review.

Additional density in Multi-Dwelling zones. Landmarks and contributing structures in historic districts located in multi-dwelling zones may be used as multi-dwelling structures, with no maximum density. No additional off-street parking is required, but the existing number of off-street parking spaces must be retained. The building may be expanded and the new floor area used for additional dwelling units only if the expansion is approved through historic design review.

Nonresidential uses in the RX zone. In the RX zone, except on certain sites which directly front on the Park Blocks, up to 100 percent of the floor area of a landmark or contributing structure may be approved for Retail Sales and Service, Office, Major Event Entertainment, or Manufacturing and Production uses through Historic Preservation Incentive Review.

Nonresidential uses in the RH, R1 and R2 zones. In the RH, R1 and R2 zones, up to 100 percent of the floor area of a landmark or contributing structure may be approved for Retail Sales and Service, Office, or Manufacturing and Production uses as follows:

a. Review required. The nonresidential uses must be approved through Historic Preservation Incentive Review; and

b. Previous nonresidential use required. The last use in the structure must have been in a nonresidential use category and have been allowed when established; if part of the structure was in residential use, the proposal must include at least as many dwelling units as were part of the last allowed use or uses. If the last allowed use was residential only, the structure is not eligible for this incentive.

Daycare is an allowed use in all residential zones in historic landmark or contributing structures. In non-historic structures, daycare uses in residential zones other than RX require a conditional use review.

Conditional uses in Residential, Commercial, and Employment zones. In these zones, applications for conditional uses at landmarks or contributing structures are processed through a Type II procedure, rather than the longer Type III procedure requiring a public hearing.

Exemption from minimum density. Minimum housing density regulations do not apply in landmarks or contributing structures.

Crane building historic consulting for storefront updates.

Commercial allowances in Central City Industrial zones. National Register-listed properties or those contributing to a National Register-listed historic district have potential to include office and retail uses.

Commercial allowances in employment and industrial zones. Office and retail uses are allowed in landmarks in areas where those uses are otherwise restricted.

Increased maximum parking ratios in Central City. National Register-listed properties or those contributing to a National Register-listed historic district within the Central City Core parking area are allowed to increase parking ratios.

Commercial allowances in Guild’s Lake Industrial Sanctuary District. Increases allowances for office and retail uses in landmarks in an area where non-industrial uses are otherwise restricted.

The transfer of density and floor area ratio (FAR) from a landmark to another location is allowed in Multi-Dwelling, Commercial, and Employment zones. Historic properties with unused development “potential” therefore may find a market for the FAR.

Proposed Development transfer opportunities (potentially adopted in 2018):
Landmarks and contributing resources in historic districts will be able to transfer FAR City-wide, as long as the “sending” resource meets seismic reinforcement standards. Seismic work may be allowable in phases over a period of years. FAR to be transferred is not only the base amount unused by the existing historic structure, but also an additional 3:1.

U.S. Custom House renovation and historic tax credits.

PORTLAND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PROGRAMS
The Portland Development Commission (PDC) has operated several programs to benefit owners of existing buildings (not necessarily historic buildings). These programs have been suspended and will be replaced by the Prosperity Investment Program (PIP). Information about the PIP is not yet available, but the program may still provide benefits to owners, similar to the suspended Storefront Improvement Program.

For further information on how PMA helps owners consider reuse options, navigate the regulations, and take advantage of available benefits – please visit our website to review our multidisciplinary projects and comprehensive architecture, building envelope science, and planning services.

Written by Kristen Minor, Associate, Preservation Planner

Back to School: A Historic Overview of Benson Polytechnic HS

For a recent Portland Public School (PPS) project, PMA had the pleasure of creating a Historic Overview of Benson Polytechnic High School for a broader master planning project for the campus. The goal of the historic overview was to conduct an assessment of the school’s campus, highlight new building additions and alterations (changes overtime), and to identify and define historically significant spaces. As part of the historic overview, PMA reviewed historic drawings and photographs, PPS archival material(s) and coordinated discussions with school staff. Resources assessed included: Main Building (1916), North Shop Wing (1917), South Shop Wing (1918), Old Gym (1925), Auditorium (1930), Library Science Addition (1953), Aeronautics/Automotive Shop (1953), New Gym (1964), New Library Addition (1991), and KPBS (1992). Below is a snap-shot of our findings included in the Historic Overview of Benson Polytechnic High School.

photo courtesy of PPS archives.

Background and History
Benson Polytechnic High School was built in 1916 and designed by former architect and superintendent of school properties for Portland Public School, Floyd Archibald Naramore (i). Supported and funded by Simon Benson, a local lumber baron and philanthropist, the school was built to reflect modern educational ideals and the industrial arts. According to the 1915 school district board of directors meeting minutes, Simon Benson offered to donate $100,000 to the school district for “the purpose of building the first unit of a School of Trades, upon condition that the district contract to expend at least $100,000 during the year 1916, in the construction of a second unit to the school.” (ii) This donation was accepted by the school district, and in 1916 construction began.

Historic Overview
Overall, Benson Polytechnic High School has shown significant changes over time. These changes have occurred to the campus as it has grown from just the main building in 1916 to the existing 10-unit campus it is today, and to most of the school buildings.

Originally, the site just consisted of the main, rectangular-shaped building to the west of campus. Designed with the intent to grow over time on a six-block parcel, this building and its campus did. By 1924, the site included the north shop wing with saw-tooth roof and foundry building to the northeast, the south shop wing with saw-tooth roof to the south, and the boiler building in between them all. The site was connected by a covered walkway that ran from the east façade of the main building, along the north and east façades of the boiler building to the north wing shop along its south façade and the south wing shop along its north elevation. At this time, the site also included a one-story portable building to the southeast of the main building.

By 1950, the site had grown again. At this point, the site included the old gym to the south of the main building, the auditorium to the north of the main building, and ten new portable classrooms, including an aviation classroom and shop where it is currently located, war production training building where KPBS is currently located, and a music room where the new library addition is currently located. During this time, the site still included the covered walkway that connected the building and remained relatively open.
PPS-Benson-PMAPDX-Auditorium
Significant Changes
Currently, with the addition of the aeronautics/automotive shop and library science addition in 1953, the new gym in 1964, the new library addition in 1991, and KPBS in 1992, the Benson Polytechnic High School site is significantly different from its early beginnings. With the addition of these later period buildings, the site has become denser with the main building connecting to 50% of the campus buildings. The covered walk way has since been demolished leaving most of the site circulation to the interior. However, much of the site still reflects the school’s period style and building methods along the site’s two primary thoroughfares, NE 12 Avenue and NE Irving Street. Like the site, many of the early constructed buildings have changed as well.

Of the five buildings built before 1930, the north wing and south wing shops have endured the most significant alterations. These alterations include the removal of their saw-tooth roofs, the additions of centralized locker-lined corridors, the reconfiguration of room sizes, the infill of original openings, and the replacement of original wood windows. The north wing shop experienced most of these alterations in 1958 and the south wing shop experienced all of these alterations in 1960. The two-story unit in the north shop wing underwent significant changes in 1977. These changes include the reconfiguring of most rooms, and the addition of new exterior CMU stairs and primary entrance, the removal of original staircases, wood columns, and chimney. The foundry room was also altered in 1977, as its second-level balcony and spiral staircase were removed and enclosed.
PPS-Benson-PMAPDX-Library
Well Preserved Character Defining Features
Overall, the character-defining features throughout each building are well preserved. This retention of several original interior spaces, features, and finishes contribute to Benson Polytechnic’s High School good historic integrity. As this school and campus continue to change, its significant structures and their character-defining features will add to the rich vitality of the school and contribute to the importance of the school as a community asset.

PPS-Benson-PMAPDX-Site-Plan
Sources
(i) Entrix, “Oregon Historic Site Form: Benson High School,” Oregon Historic Sites Database, compiled 2009, http://heritagedata.prd.state.or.us/historic/index.cfm?do=v.dsp_siteSummary&resultDispl ay=50450.

(ii) Meeting of the Board of Directors, School District No. 1, July 31, 1915.

Written by Kate Kearney, Associate, in conjunction with PMA Planning staff.

City of Hillsboro Cultural Resource Inventory (CRI) Update

Peter Meijer Architect, PC (PMA) led and conducted a selective Cultural Resource Inventory update of residential, agrarian, and early commercial structures in the historic community of Orenco for the City of Hillsboro. These properties were generally built in the early 1900s.

The CRI update included:
• Site visit to each location
• Review of historical information
• Uploading the information to the Oregon Historic Site Forms
• Review and approval of the completed forms by the City and by SHPO
• Revisions as necessary to meet SHPO standards

Research into the Orenco community, which was a “company town” outside of Hillsboro, depended on multiple primary sources including deeds, census forms, photographs, and maps. Earlier research was verified and expanded on. Full Oregon Historic Site Forms were then completed for each individual property and subsequently uploaded to the City of Hillsboro property inventory database.