Tag Archives: PMA Findings

Condo Cancer

The Greenest Building is the Existing Building

Portland has seen increasing demand for rentals over the past couple years and the trend towards high rents and low vacancy rates has enabled the rapid rate of new housing development we see today. In 2012, 5,300 new apartments were expected to hit the market by 2014. Appraisers suggested that this development would balance the market away from a landlord’s market. (5) However, this development has led to shocking amounts of high density development and demolitions of historic homes. Portlanders are probably very familiar now in 2014 with how this has begun to change their residential neighborhoods. Metro predicts by 2035, Portland’s population will reach 3 million, and the city would need to accommodate about 725,000 more residents in about 10% of vacant/infill land available within the urban growth boundary. Metro’s Research Center defines in a June 2014 draft that the Buildable Land Inventory for Residential Capacity Assumption includes 15,000 single family homes, 42,000 low density multi-family, and 171,000 high density. (3) With this predicted growth, what standards are we going to hold new construction to?

Portland Structures: Constructed before 1990 from Bureau of Planning and Sustainability

Portland Structures: Constructed before 1990 from Bureau of Planning and Sustainability



Unfortunately, the demand for housing and the support of high density development within inner Portland has led to the demolition of an increasing number of historic homes, from 73 single-dwellings in 2012 to 141 in 2014. (3) The market has also turned in favor of developers looking to turn a profit, and these financially-driven decisions are driving up larger, high density buildings. Currently, the Bureau of Development Services has no definition for demolition, which allows developers to define new construction as a renovation if any part of the building is kept, even just the foundation. Demolition of existing buildings usually is permitted with no design review if the project adheres to codes set in Portland’s 1979 Comprehensive Plan. (4)
Enlarged image of earlier focused on Division St.

Enlarged image of earlier focused on Division St.



The lack of check and balances on new construction has the potential to destroy neighborhood character one house at a time. Portland has already started to lose affordable housing for young families and minorities, and this will continue if starter homes are replace with high end apartments and high scale houses. Not to mention, demolition includes destroying old growth timber, custom workmanship of skilled labor, and irreplaceable history. Developers and architects should be held accountable for whether new construction will be able to age within the surrounding neighborhood and have longevity of actual craftsmanship.

From a sustainability perspective, restoring an existing build is ‘greener’ than demolition. Restore Oregon claims 26% of the state’s landfill comes from demolition and construction waste and on average, 115 lbs/sqft of waste is generated from a demolition. Rehabilitation of a historic structure could mean 60% of costs go into the local labor market, according to Restore. (3) The Portland Coalition for Historic Resources and Architectural Heritage Center are proposing a plan to the Portland City Council that include requirements to call any project that brings down 50% or more of a structure a demolition, coupled with removal of a section of the building code that allows some properties to be demolished without proper notification and delay. In addition, establish a task force to identify additional building and zoning code improvements that would ensure demolitions are appropriately managed and that replacement construction responds to neighborhood characteristics. (5)
Residential Demolitions by year demolished

Residential Demolitions by year demolished



If new construction projects are abiding code and are past the planning stage of the land use processing, communities are left with little options other than to watch as a bystander. It is no longer in Portland code to protect solar access or give neighbors notice of new development. (2) There are loopholes in requirements to post and deliver notices about demolition. We need to hold renovations and new construction to a new standard of contextual awareness and long-lasting architectural visions that are incorporated into codes. If we continue allowing developers to build to the maximum height, maximum FAR, with little or no design review from community representatives, what will become of our neighborhoods? Heather Flint-Chatto of the Division Design Initiative brings up some important points when she states for the Southeast Examiner: “Will we continue to allow significant impacts such as lack of parking, loss of solar access and privacy, increased traffic, lack of respect for adjacent context or existing character and no real ability for neighborhoods to have meaningful and timely input on projects?” (2)
Single-dwelling residential and commercial demolition applications via BPS

Single-dwelling residential and commercial demolition applications via BPS



Architecture for Humanity Portland is currently working with Division Design Initiative, a grass roots initiative to bring together a community vision and avenue actualization of its goals. This Initiative was created in response to the burst of housing development that has happened over the last 24 months. During the past year, as more than 8 high density housing projects have gone under construction, and Division’s neighborhood has felt the change. The Initiative has created a process that community leaders hope will engage neighbors and businesses to explore future design issues and concerns. This would include a toolbox of design guidelines for new development in the area, mapping of key sites/special places, and priorities for new development that is sensitive to existing character that supports economic growth and vitality. (1)
House being demolished on NE Alameda

House being demolished on NE Alameda


SE Uplift and Architectural Heritage Center also have been working to promote communities that are livable, socially diverse, safe and vital. Southeast Uplift provides an organizational structure and forum to empower citizens to effectively resolve issues of livability and community development. (3)

Written by Hali Knight, Architect I

Sources:
1 Division Design Initiative. Accessed 8 Aug 2014
2 Hery, Karen. “Profits Trump Courtesy.” Southeast Examiner. February 1,2014.
3 Kellett, Bob. “The Whos and Whats of Home Demolitions.” Southeast Uplift Neighborhood Coalition. July 11, 2014.
4 Pierce, Midge. “Downside to density designs.” Southeast Examiner. March 1, 2014.
5 Portland Preservation. Bosco-Milligan Foundation/Architectural Heritage Center. Accessed 8 Aug 2014 http://portlandpreservation.wordpress.com/
6 Njus, Elliot. “Apartment Market Grows Tighter,” The Oregonian. April 17, 2013. < http://www.oregonlive.com/front-porch/index.ssf/2013/04/apartment_market_grows_tighter.html>

Masonry Sealers and Historic Exteriors


masonry-test-pmapdxAre masonry sealers necessary on historic multi-wythe exterior walls? In general, likely not. Traditional exterior mass unit masonry walls, 3 to 4 wythes thick, leak. But rarely does the amount of water intrusion cause damage to the masonry, the masonry ties, or the interior finishes. Why wouldn’t a sealer be effective for these older walls?

Traditional means and methods of construction multi-wythe walls consist of course work bonded and tied together with header courses, row-lock courses, hidden headers, and set in full beds and back beds of mortar. There is no direct pathway for water intrusion following the mortar beds. And most sealers do not bridge bond line cracks between the masonry unit and mortar bed.

brick-test-pmapdxThe porosity and absorption rates of older masonry are often exaggerated because of the brick appearance. Many older masonry units show the results of imperfect firing techniques. It is not unusual to see older masonry with vertical and horizontal cracks due to low firing temperatures or impurities in the original clay mix. The surface cracks may lead to higher rates of absorption around the crack but rarely increase the overall absorption or alter the overall characteristics of the masonry. Masonry sealers will not bridge these firing cracks.masonry-water-test-pmapdx

If older walls exhibit a level of moisture intrusion, the drying dynamics have traditionally been from warm interior side and evaporation towards the exterior. Interior insulation techniques will result in a colder exterior wall that will stay wetter longer. Masonry sealers can impede the natural drying process and movement of water towards the exterior. Vapor permeable “breathable” sealers limit the outward movement of water by natural capillary action impeding the drying dynamics. The major concern with applying sealers to masonry is related to drying.

The Brick Industry Association, Technical Note No. 6A states: “Application of a water repellent coating is not necessary to achieve water resistance in brickwork subjected to normal exposures where proper material selection, detailing, construction and maintenance have been executed.” BIA goes further: “Application is not recommended on newly constructed brick veneer or cavity walls…” There is little to no research showing the effectiveness of sealers on reducing water intrusion in masonry walls. Sealers primarily reduce the initial rate of absorption at the brick surface. Sealers also cannot change water intrusion due to poor construction techniques. Wind driven rain is rarely impeded by sealer applications. “the use of water-repellent coatings to eliminate water penetration in a wall with existing defects can be futile.”

WSU-DD-hall-building-envelope-pmapdxTo control water intrusion and to increase performance of a masonry wall, it is much more effective to maintain mortar joints through re-pointing process, assure that mortar joints have no voids, replace brick with spalled faces, replace brick that are cracked the full depth, and repair bond line failures. The use of masonry sealers should be based on known research and field tested success and not chosen as a means to remedy poor construction methods.

Written by Peter Meijer AIA, NCARB Principal

How to Determine the Cause of Masonry Failures

Masonry-Failures-pmapdx
Visual observations are not sufficient to determine the cause of failures in masonry walls. However, visual observations, combined with technical knowledge, provide a good direction for further investigation. In the Pacific Northwest, with the predominance of rainy winter weather, the effect of moisture saturation on masonry walls is readily apparent. Moisture is the primary cause of masonry deterioration. Horizontal surfaces will accumulate organic growth, mortar and masonry surfaces show rain water runoff patterns, and any discontinuity in roof runoff systems quickly cause further deterioration to the masonry walls. Severe masonry deterioration does occur in the northwest but its occurrence is considerably less dramatic when compared to harsher winter climates in the Midwest and East. For instance, brick spalls due to freeze thaw effect are a rare occurrence in the northwest.

Masonry-Failures-pmapdx When severe deterioration of masonry walls is not a prevalent condition, what other non-visual processes are employed to determine the cause of deterioration? Two common techniques, well known to historic preservation professionals, are non-destructive testing (NDT) and material testing in the laboratory. NDE methods include RILEM tube water absorption tests, metal detector scanning, video scopes, infra-red photography, ultra sound testing, ground penetrating radar, and in some cases, x-ray diffraction. Common laboratory testing include petrographic examination, electron microscopy, and Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) methods.

Masonry-Failures-pmapdxFTIR, when combined with the diagnostic RILEM tube field test, in particular is an effective evaluation to determine if masonry sealers have been applied to a wall surface impeding the capillary evaporation of trapped water. RILEM tests also provide an observation of a masonry wall’s initial rate of absorption under wind driven rain circumstances. Petrographic analysis of both masonry and mortars determines the material composition and will identify harmful natural elements and harmful additive elements like salts.

Masonry-Failures-pmapdxA common misconception in the northwest is that surface spalls are a result of freeze thaw cycles. Freeze thaw susceptibility can only be determined through laboratory testing. Visual observations are insufficient to conclude masonry spalls resulted from freeze thaw forces. Since freeze thaw tests are graded either pass or fail, further tests methods are typically required for additional diagnostic evaluation. More likely sources of surface spalls are hard Portland cement mortars which exceed the strength of the masonry, salts introduced into the masonry through incorrect material selection, or surface sealers impeding the evaporation of water and thus creating a saturated sub surface layer which will freeze. (It is important to distinguish that the masonry unit may not be susceptible to freeze thaw but rather the sealer creates a dam like effect inducing a layer of water subject to freezing)

Masonry-Failures-pmapdxBy combining visual observations with NDE and lab testing, most surface masonry deterioration can be determined and thereby implement proper repair, maintenance, and protection methods.

Written by Peter Meijer AIA, NCARB, Principal

Steps to Replacing Historic Wood Windows

QAHSC-landmarks-review-pmapdxOur first choice, and ethical preference, is to retain historic wood windows. Repaired and maintained wood windows constructed of old growth lumber will outlast any modern alternative. We advocate strongly for a process and philosophy that seriously evaluates retaining original material. The best approach compares long-term costs, embodied energy, and cultural importance relative to the same criteria for new replacement material.

But what do you do when the comparative process favors new material and replacement becomes the option of choice? And how do you gain jurisdictional and historic approval for removing character defining features from a historic property? Correct research, documentation, presentation, and material selection are the key factors to successfully replace historic wood windows.

Lack of maintenance is rarely accepted as a justifiable rationale for window replacement. Arguments for window replacement based on peeling paint, surface tracking of the wood, and/or glazing putty failure are typically countered with comments that benign neglect is a conscious act and straight forward maintenance will reverse the deterioration and deficiencies noted. A better strategy is to base replacement rational on existing significant deficiencies that require financial investment and resource allocation to repair the deficiencies.

QAHSC-landmarks-review-windows-pmapdxMost existing, older properties have had more than one owner. Research into original design documents, major rehabilitation projects, building permit requests, and other documents provide insight into processes that might have replaced original material. The removal and replacement of non-original material is justifiable and acceptable rationale.

Documentation by means of an on-site, window by window survey is the only method that will yield quantifiable data regarding the physical condition of existing wood windows. The resulting comparative data is critical for structuring an argument in favor of replacement. The field observations also provide invaluable information pertaining to the means and methods of construction and conversely deconstructing, or removing, the windows. Understanding wood window construction is important to understanding how wood window fail. Source documents like the Association of Preservation Technology’s Window Rehabilitation Guide for Historic Buildings (1997) and the National Park Service Preservation Briefs: 9, The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows provide exploded diagrams of both wood window construction and typical failure locations. These locations generally include the sash mortise and tenon joints, the exterior stops, and horizontal rails. The field assessment will need to document the quantity, location, and extent of any failed components.

QAHSC-landmarks-review-pmapdxAfter a thorough evaluation and understanding of the existing wood windows, the next decision is to choose a replacement product. In-kind replacement,(i.e. wood window for wood window; true divided lites for true divided lites, matching pane divisions, etc.) is preferred. When the replacement window is virtually identical to the historic window, it is hard to say no. Absent exact replacement, the visual qualities exhibited by the cross section profiles, the sash height and width, and the proportion of wood to glazing, are the most important attributes to match. Appearance from the exterior will trump appearance from the interior during a historic review approval process.

How the research findings, existing conditions, and replacement products are presented is fundamental to a successful request to replace historic wood windows. Agencies and commissions with jurisdictional review and approval authority require clear, methodical, and linear processes to understand the research, findings, and selection process. Collating the field data using charts and graphs, including graphic representation of previously altered windows, and defining the quantity of failed components will assist a decision in favor or replacement.

QAHSC-window-flashing-pmapdxWhen an opportunity to retain original fabric/windows is available, the opportunity should be incorporated into the work. Even retaining as little as 20% of historic fabric will increase the likelihood of approval for replacement of the remaining components. The retention of historic fabric also allows successive generations to better understand the history and changes of an existing property.

Written by Peter Meijer AIA, NCARB, Principal.

The Evolution of Open Space

Photo by Charles Birnbaum courtesy The Cultural Landscape Foundation.

Photo by Charles Birnbaum courtesy The Cultural Landscape Foundation.

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

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

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

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

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

Portland Open Space courtesy TCLF

Portland Open Space courtesy TCLF

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Kristen Minor, Preservation Planner

Towards a Death of Architecture

Buildings are physical representations of the social, economic, political, technological, and cultural climates of their eras of origin. Ultimately buildings represent our cultural heritage and our architectural history. However, mid-century modern era buildings are increasingly interpreted as antiquated architecture that is functionally obsolete and lacking use in today’s society. Our recent-past modern buildings are being labeled as “failed” or “useless” architecture. As a result, mid-century modern architecture is rapidly being demolished and replaced with newer sustainable structures believed to better represent our most current social and cultural ideals. Current architecture is believed to be far more aesthetically pleasing than their modern predecessors.
But in the context of society, including heritage, what constitutes “useful” architecture verses useless building? There must be a relationship of parts to complete the building, but structure and function alone do not equate to architecture. Perhaps “useful” should be a term connected to architecture exhibiting enduring design excellence? Paradoxically, design excellence is tangled with style, and history demonstrates that style preference is ephemeral, subjective, and fluxuates at a high velocity. Yet the loss of style preference, or the falling out of design aesthetics favor, is one of the biggest rationale for the demolition of modern era buildings. Presently, Brutalism is at the crux of the demolition/ preservation debate.

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

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

Written by Kate Kearney, Marketing Coordinator

When A Master Work Fails: Three Case Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Peter Meijer AIA,NCARB, Principal
portlandbuilding-model

Washington Park Reservoirs

With the Portland City Council’s final decision not to further delay projects to build new reservoirs to replace the five historic open reservoirs, on the west side of the city in Washington Park a new below grade water storage tank is being planned in the general footprint of one reservoir. The second of the two reservoirs at Washington Park will be decommissioned and used for new purposes. The implementation of underground storage tanks may still elicit a spirited discussion. And at the heart of the discussion is how to implement thoughtful change to a historic, well loved cultural resource to the rigors of rapidly evolving public safety and seismic protection mandates.
WA Park Reservoirs
Reservoirs 3 and 4
Reservoirs 3 and 4 were constructed as part of the Bull Run water system, a gravity-fed mountain watershed system built between 1894 and 1911 to provide the City of Portland with high quality drinking water. Reservoirs 3 and 4 continue to function as the city’s primary water distribution source for the west side of Portland. The reservoirs have been in continuous operation for more than 100 years. They serve as a featured amenity enriching the landscape of Washington Park, one of Portland’s largest and oldest parks, with vistas of open water, and period historic structures. Also due to their location on hills on the west side of the city, scenic views are afforded across the reservoir water.

As summarized in the National Register of Historic Places nomination, “one of the most defining landscape principle of Reservoirs 3 and 4 is the open expanse of water, their irregular shape, rusticated concrete structures, and ornate wrought iron detailing of fences and lampposts. The reservoirs are a striking and elegant addition to the serene forest that makes up this end of Washington Park. The surrounding forest is composed primarily of Douglas fir, western red cedar, and big leaf maple all predominating native tree species of the Pacific Northwest.”
Historic 1894 photo of WA Park Reservoir 3
The Design Challenge
The challenge is to design a 100 year plus engineering solution while simultaneously designing a thoughtful change to the context, natural park setting, and historic district. Arising from the Olmsted Brothers vision for Portland and the City Beautiful movement, the changes to the Reservoirs offer an opportunity to evaluate the evolution of development outside Washington Park within the Park, changes to the Reservoirs themselves, public access, and protection of cultural amenities. If access to the “water” is transformed to a public amenity, how does the design enhance the serene qualities of the site? How should the change reconnect the reservoir area with the surrounding neighborhood and Park features?

WA Park ZOO circa 1900The reservoirs embody the challenge associated with retaining a historic place as both a visual element and a dynamic landscape. The safety, security and seismic solutions may alter the purpose of the visual feature and the interaction with the “water,” but that does not translate into a diminishing of a historic place. There are no easy answers. In the end, this final decision should be assuring that the Washington Park Reservoirs will continue to provide safe, reliable water storage, and to elicit wonder well beyond the next 100 years.



Written by Kristen Minor, Preservation Planner

Preserving an Icon

Under the leadership of the Pittock Mansion Society, Portland Parks & Recreation, and hundreds of volunteers, the venerable Pittock Mansion is undergoing the first phase of preservation activities in anticipation of the Mansion’s Centennial celebration. Built for Henry Pittock, an Oregon pioneer, newspaper editor, publisher, and wood and paper magnate, “the Pittock Mansion occupies a place of special importance for Portland. It is a City of Portland Historic Landmark, a State of Oregon Landmark, and a national landmark listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The City of Portland owns many historic landmark properties, but Pittock Mansion is the only [property] operated as a historic museum [within] the city parks system.” (Historic Structures Report, 1st Edition, A Staehli, 1984)
Pittock Mansion Site Observations
After successfully raising funds, and with City Council approval of additional funding, the Pittock Mansion is repairing the exterior terraces with new waterproofing membranes, new sandstone replacing inappropriate concrete castings, and structurally reinforcing the baluster railings so that all the brides and grooms, admirers, and visitors, can once again perch and pose with the vista of Portland and Mt. Hood as the splendor of Pittock Mansion is in front of them.

“Pittock Mansion was design in 1909 by Edward T. Foulkes and took five years to complete. Georgiana Pittock, wife of Henry, died in 1918, having lived in the house for only four years. Despite its prominent site, imposing French Renaissances exterior, formal rooms and parlors, and impressive central hall with a grand stairway, Pittock Mansion was fundamentally a home for a family with modest tastes having lived most of their lives in undistinguished Victorian houses in downtown Portland.” (Historic Structures Report, 1st Edition, A Staehli, 1984)
Pittock Mansion Terrace Repair PMAPDX
Original stone quarries are no longer operational, so an exhaustive search for replacement stone was conducted finalizing in a selection of stone from Idaho closely matching color and texture of the original. Local and regional craftsman are again involved in the careful dismantling, numbering, cleaning, fabrication, and re-installation of the stone details. New terrace tile, selected to better match the variegated colored clay tile roof, will be installed with a new waterproof membrane and improved flashing details. The original glass “sidewalk” purple lights that admit light into the basement will remain for all to enjoy.

Histoirc photo Pittock MansionThere is still much work to be done. The Pittock Mansion Society has identified the top priority projects ranging from the practical structural and electrical work to additional programming and preservation projects. The Centennial celebration will be a grand formal affair, fitting for such a magnificent and unique cultural icon within the City of Portland’s stewardship.


Written by, Peter Meijer AIA,NCARB, Principal

Preserving the Modern in St. Louis

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

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

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

W.A. Sarmiento design

W.A. Sarmiento design

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

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

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


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

Lambert International Airport


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

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










Written by Kate Kearney, Marketing Coordinator