Tag Archives: pmapdx

March is Women’s History Month

March is Women’s History Month, and we thought it fitting to celebrate the women that shape, contribute to, and inspire every aspect of our practice. Actively engaging in a more inclusive and equitable work place is an integral part of our firm philosophy. This is reflected by the 71% female representation across all levels of staffing at PMA. Below is a snapshot of the women at PMA, from what they contribute to, how they spend time outside of the fast-pace world of architecture and design.

pmapdx-march-womens-history-month ROLE: Associate / Architectural Designer
EDUCATION: Master of Architecture, University of Oregon; Bachelor of Arts, Architecture, Cum Laude, Clemson University

While at PMA Halimeda has completed numerous projects, primarily with a focus on restoration and building enclosure design for historic civic and educational facilities, and commercial tenant improvements. She understands how to effectively balance a strong design concept with the cost, sustainability, and goals of the client.

Halimeda is passionate about being an active and contributing member of her community and was a director of the local non-profit Open Architecture for 4 years. Living sustainably and mindfully are important to her. She feels rejuvenated when spending time in nature and her garden, making meals to share, playing music with friends, and reading a new book.

pmapdx-march-womens-history-month ROLE: Associate / Architect
EDUCATION: Master of Architecture, University of Oregon; Bachelor of Arts, Architecture, University of California, Berkeley

Halla is passionate about rehabilitating historic and existing architecture. Her career has encompassed civic structures and sites, K-12 and higher education facilities, affordable housing, and working directly with private development companies on renovation and rehabilitation projects. Halla’s approach balances technical knowledge, while excelling at organizing project processes to maintain schedule and budget.

She is a registered architect in the state of Oregon, and an Associate Design-Build Professionals (Assoc. DBIA). The Design-Build Institute of America is the only organization that defines, teaches and promotes best practices in design-build project delivery.

Halla’s favorite thing to do outside of the office is check out all of the different rivers, lakes, and streams throughout the PNW.

ROLE: Associate / Marketing
EDUCATION: Bachelor of Arts, Art History, Lewis & Clark College

A creative with a background in the arts – a former professional ballet dancer, lifelong painter, holds a Bachelor of Art, Art History – that works within the world of professional services marketing. Her education and professional experience have trained her to visually communicate complex ideas via a creative lens, implement strategic planning framework, and develop client-care best practices.

Giving back to the community has been a common thread throughout Kate’s career and education. She fulfills this through her involvement with local nonprofits by serving on their board of directors, volunteering her services, or assisting with fundraising opportunities. Kate is the current president of Docomomo US/Oregon, a local chapter of a national nonprofit dedicated to moving modern forward.

pmapdx-march-womens-history-month ROLE: Architectural Designer
EDUCATION: Master of Science of Architecture, University of Oregon; Master of Science in Historic Preservation, University of Oregon; Bachelor of Science in Architecture, Magna Cum Laude with Honors in Architecture, The Ohio State

Skyla’s interest in architecture and design began in grade school, and has since grown into a career dedicated to solving unique building enclosure challenges for historic properties. In her role as architectural designer, Skyla has worked on small-to large-scale projects from sustainable and historic materials research to construction documents. She is a team player that strives to bring preservation to the community in a way that is approachable, supportive, and celebrates local history.

In her free time, Skyla enjoys collaging, catching up with her friends and family, and spending time with her rescue cat Olive. Some of her favorite PNW activities include berry picking on Sauvie Island and hiking at Mt. St. Helens.

pmapdx-march-womens-history-month ROLE: Preservation Planner
EDUCATION: Candidate for Degree of Masters of Business Administration in Non-Profit Management, University of Portland; Masters of Science, Architectural Conservation, University of Edinburgh; Bachelor of Arts, History with honors, Amherst College

Tricia is a preservation planner with 5 years of experience on a wide variety of preservation projects. Her specialties include communicating and coordinating project deliverables with local, state, and federal historic review agencies, National Register Nominations, Federal Historic Tax Credit applications, State Historic Incentives, and conducting historic resource evaluations and surveys. She is dedicated to the process of reinvesting in our existing and historic properties.

Outside the office she is #optoutside in all manners of ways including hiking, backpacking, and climbing with her husband and rescue lab-mix pup, Juniper. She is an avid Ultimate player and currently the president of Portland Ultimate, a local nonprofit offering playing and growth opportunities to youth and adults.

Five Questions with PMA’s Summer Intern, Skyla Leavitt

This summer Skyla Leavitt had the opportunity to participate in a paid internship at PMA in our Portland office. In addition to working as an intern, Skyla is working at the University of Oregon (UO) in Portland as a Student Services Assistant. Her position at UO includes fielding emails from incoming students, organizing orientation and a field trip that the incoming class takes, and giving tours for both the architecture and historic preservation programs. Additionally, Skyla is the first and only student to pursue concurrent Masters in the Architecture and Historic Preservation programs at the UO Portland campus. She holds a Bachelors of Science in Architecture from The Ohio State University: Knowlton School of Architecture, a Masters of Architecture from the University of Oregon: College of Design in Portland, and is currently finishing her Master of Science in Historic Preservation from the University of Oregon: College of Design in Portland. It has been a delight to have Skyla working with all levels of staff at PMA on renovation projects for existing and historic properties.

Describe something new you learned while at PMA during your internship?
I came to PMA with some professional experience in architecture and a fundamental knowledge of historic preservation. However, in the 7 years since I have started this career path, I have somehow never learned Revit, let alone how Revit is used in conjunction with an existing building. I have been developing my Revit skill-set during my internship, and I think it has been particularly helpful to learn this program through the lens of preservation, as this is how I will continue to use it throughout my career. The use of 3D laser scans and point clouds, technology I had never previously been exposed to, has not only been interesting, but also eye opening to the ways this field is effectively utilizing technology.

What have you enjoyed working on while at PMA?
I have been allowed the opportunity to partake in a variety of work in my short time at PMA, which I am very grateful for! The process of carrying out condition assessments and documenting the current state of a historic building, as well as how we might address its issues, is very satisfying to me. I have also enjoyed developing enclosure details, which has exposed me to the numerous and specific challenges architects face when working on historic buildings.

Has your internship changed your perspective on historic preservation, or working with existing resources?
I wouldn’t say my perspective has changed, rather that it has been validated. My internship has confirmed for me that I am in the right field and that I have found my niche, so to speak. I have always wanted a specialization, and new construction has never appealed the same way adaptive reuse or renovation work has. Preservation was a natural fit for me and sits well with my tendencies towards the nostalgic.

How will your internship experience influence your studies when you return to school?
When I return to school this autumn, I plan to write my Master of Science in Historic Preservation thesis about the intersection of architecture and historic preservation in practice, specifically the interdisciplinary negotiations and compromises that allow a building to maintain its historic integrity, while also achieving improved technical functionality and code compliance. I believe our ability as architects to successfully facilitate these conversations is integral to sustaining not only the physical longevity of a historic site, but also the relevance and importance it holds within the community by allowing it to serve users in new or improved capacities.

Do you have a favorite aspect about architecture or historic preservation?
I am very interested in building enclosures and how we marry modern concepts with historic practices when we make an intervention in a historic building envelope. Masonry in particular, as opposed to wood, fascinates me as it is both fragile and enduring.

BONUS: Anything fun you did in PDX this summer?
The highlights of my summer have been tubing down the Clackamas River, berry picking at Sauvie Island, attending a few concerts at the Moda Center, and hiking the Tom, Dick, and Harry Trail on a clear day when I could see Mt. Hood, Mt. Adams, Mt. Rainier, Mt. St. Helens, and Mt. Jefferson all at once. But I also just hang out with my cat, Olive, a lot!

History of Fountain Place Apartments, formerly Wheeldon Annex

Back in April, we introduced an exciting on the boards project – Fountain Place Apartments Seismic Upgrade. Working with Lorentz Bruun Construction, we are delivering a design-build project to improve the life safety of Fountain Place Apartments, while retaining its historic character. Completed in 1914 and originally named Wheeldon Annex, Fountain Place is a five-story unreinforced brick apartment building located in downtown Portland, owned and operated by Home Forward. There are 74 total units, with studio, one-and two-bedroom homes. The unit mix is 5 at 40%, 5 at 50% and the rest restricted at 60% area median income (AMI). While the project is progressing on schedule, we will be discussing below the architectural significance of this historic resource as it relates to our built environment.
historic-1916-fountainplace-wheeldon-annex
OVERVIEW
Constructed in two distinct phases in 1911, the Fountain Place Apartments were originally named the Wheeldon Annex. The building occupies a quarter-block lot in downtown Portland, Oregon, at the corner of SW Salmon Street and SW 10th Avenue. The Wheeldon Annex is one of the earliest surviving examples of a U-shaped residential apartment/hotel in downtown Portland. It is a 5-story brick structure with intact Italian Renaissance Revival features such as a decorative bracketed cornice, buff brick body with corbeled details and rusticated base, and an upper level treated as a paneled frieze. Character-defining wood double-hung multi-pane windows have been retained throughout and appear to be well maintained. Alterations to the exterior have been quite minimal.

The interior of the Wheeldon Annex has good integrity; although a number of units have been altered or divided, the general layout with U-shaped double-loaded corridors at every floor remains, and many units still contain at least some original features, materials, and layouts. These include primary rooms with original oak flooring and in some cases, the original built-in furniture with pull-out beds and fold-down desks; kitchens with wood cabinetry and trim; and bathrooms with claw foot tubs and built-in ventilation and cabinetry. While there are many units that have been divided, the alterations (primarily in the mid-1930s but continuing into the 1990s) have generally left original features in place.
detial-fountain-place-home-forward

The history of Wheeldon Annex is engrained in Portland’s and Oregon’s social history and practice of systemic racism. From Oregon’s statehood in 1859, the Black population were marginalized and segregated from the White population. Oregon’s State Constitution included Article 1, Section 35, “No free negro or mulatto not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside or be within this state or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein.” With the 14th and 15th Amendments, in 1868 and 1870, respectively, the Article should have been nullified, but the practices within restrictive covenants, discriminatory real estate sales, and racist zoning practices overwhelmingly prevented Black people in Oregon from accessing jobs, housing, and other vital resources.

In 1910, one year before Wheeldon Annex opened, the Black population in Oregon was 1,492 while the state’s total population was 672,765. In Portland, the Black population was 775 while the city had a total of 90,246 inhabitants. The legal and systemic provisions put in place by the White majority were working to the detriment of Black people in Oregon.

DESIGN OF WHEELDON ANNEX
When Ernest MacNaughton was commissioned to design an apartment building for Frank Warren, he would have been quite familiar with the large apartment blocks built for well-off tenants on the east coast. MacNaughton’s design for the 1911 Wheeldon Annex illustrates a residential apartment block form with front courtyard protected on three sides. This form created an outdoor area but with restricted access, a pragmatic response to the more urban condition in downtown Portland.

The Wheeldon Annex, with its front entry court, appears to be among the first buildings in Portland to use a residential apartment typology in the downtown setting. There are only two earlier examples of a U-shaped apartment-style building constructed closer to downtown than those listed above; one of these is now demolished: the 1910 Beaux-Arts style Rose-Friend Apartments at 1307 SW Broadway. The other comparable downtown example pre-dating the Wheeldon Annex is the 1908 Nortonia Hotel (now Mark Spencer Hotel) at 409 SW 11th Avenue. The 6.5-story building was designed by Josef Jacobberger and has, atypically for a hotel, individual rooms along the ground floor rather than storefront with more commercial or public uses. The building exhibits a U-shaped plan with a central front pedestrian entry court and has a restrained style, with some Tudor elements and some Italian Renaissance Revival decorative touches. It is worth mentioning that there was another much larger but well-known hotel that may have been inspirational in its massing and layout. The opulent full-block Portland Hotel, which opened in 1890 and was demolished in 1951, was a 6-story building with H-shaped plan including a large forecourt for carriage drop-off.
fountain-place-home-forward
SIGNIFICANCE
Designed by MacNaughton & Raymond for owner Frank M. Warren, the Wheeldon Annex is locally significant for its illustration of the newly acceptable, and even fashionable, shift towards high-end residential apartment living in downtown Portland. The building is one of the earliest downtown examples of a U-shaped residential apartment block form, which later proliferated across Portland, including in the downtown setting. It was completed in 1911, using a U-shaped layout first seen as early as 1907 in high-class apartments in the exclusive “Nob Hill” residential district to the west of downtown Portland. The Wheeldon Annex is associated with Portland’s exponential growth during the ten-year period starting with the Lewis and Clark Exposition. During this time, apartment buildings were introduced in Portland as a new type of construction and use targeted towards the wealthier class.

The Wheeldon Annex is also locally significant because it is a highly intact work of the well-regarded Portland architectural partnership of MacNaughton and Raymond. The building displays distinctive characteristics of the Italian Renaissance Revival style in its division into three parts; the rusticated base, middle, and decorative cornice. The Wheeldon Annex was conceived as a high-end venture; and its use of modern built-in, fold-away furniture, single bathrooms for every apartment, dumbwaiters, and tenant services gave the building a highly respectable and up-to-date reputation as soon as it was completed in 1911. While not all of these interior features, especially in individual units, are still present, the building still has good integrity overall. The building is still in its original and primary residential use, although it no longer has “hotel” functions. The building maintains its original location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship and still conveys its overall historic feeling and association.
1920-wheeldon-annex-oregonian
The incredible boom in apartment and hotel construction in the first decade of the 20th century in Portland took place primarily in downtown and in northwest Portland. What is significant about the Wheeldon Annex is that it was one of the first to take the new apartment building block form, the largest and newest residential typology, and put it downtown without any ground floor commercial or significant public uses. Rather, the building featured a residential-style front courtyard. Almost all earlier forecourt apartment block examples in Portland were located significantly west of downtown. The Wheeldon Annex was constructed as an apartment-hotel, offering limited services to guests who might be permanent or temporary.

The building is locally significant for its association with the period of explosive growth starting with Portland’s Lewis and Clark Exposition in 1905. It is one of the earliest existing representations of a building typology that was to become all but ubiquitous. The size, scale, and general footprint of the building spawned hundreds of structures across Portland using a similar size, scale, and front court entry well into the 1930s. The building was designed by MacNaughton & Raymond for Frank Manley Warren, a man who made his fortune in the salmon packing and canning industry and died on the Titanic in 1912; one of only two Oregon residents to perish in the disaster. The building design features highly intact Italian Renaissance Revival exterior features such as a projecting decorative cornice with grouped brackets, a rusticated brick base, and multi-pane wood double-hung windows. It is therefore also locally significant for its architecture; as a well-crafted example of the style by a highly regarded Portland architectural firm.
HF-Fountain-Place-PMAPDX-LBC
MACNAUGHTON & RAYMOND ARCHITECTS
Ernest Boyd MacNaughton was an architect in Portland who practiced successfully for several decades. However, he also succeeded in becoming, through his own efforts, one of Portland’s powerful and influential banking and civic leaders. MacNaughton was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1880. MacNaughton arrived in Portland and was employed by Edgar M. Lazarus for three years until he formed his own office in 1906 with his brother-in-law, Herbert Raymond, an engineer. In 1907, only a few years after he had arrived in Portland without appreciable money or family connections, MacNaughton began to make speculative real estate transactions, riding the incredible growth in land values at that time in Portland.

In 1913, E. B. MacNaughton’s reputation took a hit when he was fired by Henry Pittock, publisher of the Oregonian. MacNaughton had been hired to renovate the Marquam building at Sixth and Morrison, but the east wall of the building collapsed when renovations were attempted and the building ultimately had to be demolished. By some accounts, the building was poorly constructed with defective materials.

By 1928, MacNaughton became involved with the First National Bank of Portland. He became president of the bank in 1932, and by 1947 chairman of the board. MacNaughton also sat in a position of leadership with many Portland institutions.

Across his design career, MacNaughton’s work shows an excellent sensitivity to scale and composition and a propensity towards a muted, 20th Century Commercial aesthetic perhaps most evident in his later warehouses. He did not have his classmate and early partner Ellis Lawrence’s facility with asymmetrical compositions or charming English styles, but MacNaughton showed a more than competent talent for the design of urban, commercial structures. Many of his buildings use tripartite “Chicago” windows, and almost all are brick.

Written by PMA staff, edited by Kate Kearney, Associate, for clarity.

On the Boards: Fountain Place Apartments Seismic Upgrade

HF-Fountain-Place-PMAPDX-LBC

Built in 1914 and originally named Wheeldon Annex, Fountain Place is a five-story unreinforced brick apartment building located in downtown Portland, owned and operated by Home Forward. There are 80 total units, with studio, one and two bedroom homes. The residents it serves have incomes between 40% and 80% of the area median income. The building is listed in the City of Portland Historic Resource Inventory, with an III ranking for its architectural significance. Fountain Place was built in the Second Renaissance Revival style with a raised basement, bracketed sheet metal cornice, and belt course with brick corbels. The building has a basement and courtyard. Presently, PMA is working with Lorentz Bruun Construction on a design-build project to improve the life safety of the building, while retaining its historic character.

Within the need for seismic upgrade lies a number of challenges our team has the solutions to resolve. Seismic upgrades within historic buildings are disruptive to existing electrical systems, mechanical systems, plumbing systems, and impact existing resident walls and units. The design-build team understand the challenge of minimizing the disruption and how to navigate current City of Portland URM retrofit standards as they relate to potential future mandates for these types of buildings.

While the project is in its preliminary stages, the team has reviewed the existing conditions at Fountain Place, including the extensive previous documentation and visited non-occupied spaces within the building. Up next for the team are additional investigations into the existing conditions that go beyond research and visual observations.

FOUNTAIN PLACE TEAM
Lorentz Bruun
Peter Meijer Architect
KPFF
Reyes
GLUMAC
Salazar Architect, Inc.

HF-Fountain-Place-PMAPDX-LBC

Five Questions with Halla Hoffer, AIA, Assoc. DBIA

This fall, Halla Hoffer, AIA, Assoc. DBIA and Peter Meijer, AIA, NCARB, had the opportunity to teach a course in the Historic Preservation Program at the University of Oregon, School of Architecture & Allied Arts: Field Recording Methods. The course is designed for students to learn and practice the methods and strategies for conducting physical site, structure, building, and object investigation using professional practice standards. The case study for learning these methods and strategies included the Belluschi designed Robert and Charles Wilson Homes situated along the Deschutes River. The homes are included in Restore Oregon’s 2019 Most Endangered Places list.
belluschi-wilson-homes
1. How does your architect’s mindset influence your role teaching a historic preservation class?

Historic Preservation and Architecture are very closely tied together – and yet there can be a disconnect between the two fields. As architects, we are taught to think creatively about problems and develop design solutions, while also understanding building constructions and materials. I believe our background in architecture gives us a unique perspective on not only on the construction of historic buildings but also allows us to creatively find ways to preserve those structures. In this course, we’ve been able to share our architectural experience through discussions on building observations/assessment, drawing conventions, building materials, and more.

2. What is your favorite aspect of working with students interested in learning about how to conduct site-specific observation/assessments for historic structures?

We’ve had the opportunity to take two field trips out to the Wilson Homes in Warm Springs, Oregon. Each visit has been a really fun experience for the entire class. When learning how to conduct a building assessment – there is only so much information that can be communicated through a lecture. The experience of being in the field and observing a structure in person cannot compare to photographs. I’ve had a lot of fun looking at the Wilson Homes with the class – and making observations with them about the condition of the homes, original constructions/materials, existing conditions, etc.

3. Do you have a favorite aspect of the Belluschi designed Wilson Homes? [layout; relation to the land; opportunity for rehab; etc…]

One of the most unique aspects of the Wilson Homes is their location on the Deschutes River. The homes are located directly on the river – and deeply connected to the landscape. It is difficult to explain the experience of being within a canyon along the Deschutes River and within one of the Wilson Homes. The views and sounds of the landscape are completely intertwined with the experience of the Homes.

4. Why is it important to rehabilitate these structures? What stories will be lost if they disappear?

Few intact examples of northwest mid-century modern homes remain. As a culture – our preferences for interior finishes, appliances, spatial layouts, etc have changed over the last half-century. Many mid-century homes have retained their exterior appearance, yet significant interior alterations have altered the original design intent. The Wilson Homes are unique in that minimal interior renovations have taken place. In both homes, the original spatial arrangements remain in-tact and many of the finishes are unaltered. The Robert Wilson home is particularly unique in that the original kitchen remains, dishwasher included. A rehabilitation would preserve these unique examples of mid-century architecture in the Pacific Northwest.

5. If you could give one piece of advice to graduate students (or recent graduates), what would it be?

Take the time to form relationships with both professors and people outside of school you can learn from. School is a wonderful, structured way to gain knowledge. But… that structure falls away once you graduate – and the need to continue learning doesn’t. Having people you can reach out to for guidance can be a valuable tool!
historic-belluschi-wilson-homes

Halla Hoffer, AIA, Assoc. DBIA
Associate / Peter Meijer Architect, PC

Halla is passionate about rehabilitating historic and existing architecture by integrating the latest energy technologies to maintain the structures inherent sustainability. Halla joined PMA in 2012 and was promoted to Associate in 2016. She is a specialist in energy and environmental management, as well as building science performance for civic, educational, and residential resources. Halla meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61).

Recycling Steel Windows: Is there a process?

PMA is leading the discussion to find a process to recycle steel windows.

Through our work of existing building restoration, PMA often encounters older properties with original steel windows. And more likely than not, we receive a request from the property Owner to upgrade those existing steel windows. Rarely does the request result from degradation or damage of the window system. Most often the Owners desire thermal and energy improvements.In order to achieve the desired improvements, while meeting code upgrades and other tenant improvements, replacement of the original steel windows is often the option of choice. And that is when the difficulty of recycling existing steel windows begins.
existing-steel-windows
STEEL WINDOWS 1920s – 1940s
In the 1920s through 1940s, there were a number of local and national steel window manufacturers. Steel windows were the preferred window system in both commercial and industrial buildings because of the simplicity of components, ease of installation, availability of product, size of window openings, and affordability of the product. Steel windows from every manufacturer typically used the same readily available extruded steel bar profiles: the “T” & “h” cross sections. The entire window assembly is characteristically composed of three materials: the frame, the glass, and glazing compound. Operable windows have added hardware. The steel sections of historic windows are still in use on today’s steel windows.

With such sparsity of components, and availability of an industrial steel recycling industry, why are steel windows not recycled? The answer is hazardous materials: lead paint and asbestos containing putty. Creating clean steel for recycling involves a two-step process. Once removed from the building, the steel windows must have the glass and glazing removed and the paint removed. Both the glazing and the paint must be disposed following hazardous material regulations. And that is the primary block to recycling. There are very few business established to remove hazardous waste from windows.
typical-steel-windows
CURRENT INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES
However, if we look at two current industrial practices, wood window restoration and carpet tile manufacturing, there is a basis for introduction of steel window recycling. Wood window restoration processes include the removal of lead paint and asbestos containing glazing putty. The industry has the capacity to use dipping tanks to remove the paint and putty on a large quantity of windows and then properly dispose of the waste. Modify the existing process to accommodate steel windows could be readily achievable. Manufacturers of carpet tiles revolutionized the industry by owning the recycling process from cradle to grave. Carpet tile manufacturers take back the tiles they manufactured for recycling and reuse. Steel window manufactures could do the same.

Currently steel window manufacturers purchase the cross sections from steel producers and do not become involved in the life span of the products they produce. If the steel window industry reassessed and evaluated their role in sustainable products, an opportunity to recycle existing steel windows would become available.

Here at Peter Meijer Architect, we are committed to lead the discussion with the design, build, and manufacturing community to find an economical solution to recycling steel windows. We believe that existing industries can be adapted to keep steel windows out of the waste stream and better utilize existing resources for reuse.

Written by Peter Meijer, AIA, NCARB / Principal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Hali Knight Assoc. AIA, Designer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surveying the Laurelhurst Neighborhood in Portland, OR

Founded in 1912 on the original plat of William Ladd’s Hazel Fern Farm, Laurelhurst was developed to be an example of the potential for European “garden suburbs” close to the city. An eclectic variety of architectural styles, from “fairyland” bungalows to quaint English cottages to the more classic Dutch Colonials, was chosen as a set of prototype designs for the creation of this community-centered neighborhood. To this day, many of these homes still exist, as does the pre-intended sense of comradery between its residents.
pmapdx-laurelhurst-survey-portland-oregon
WHAT IS THE LAURELHURST SURVEY PROJECT?
Peter Meijer Architect, PC (PMA) is in the process of conducting a Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) of the Laurelhurst neighborhood in Portland, Oregon. Data from the survey will be used to prepare a potential historic district nomination of the neighborhood. A great deal of research was necessary to understand Laurelhurst’s general historical context prior to beginning survey fieldwork involved in the RLS. We began by reviewing all previous documentation that has been collected of the neighborhood—including historic tax records, Sanborn maps and other graphic data, newspaper articles from historic periodicals, and the City of Portland’s Historic Resource Inventory. We also reviewed context statements that had been written for earlier historic district nomination efforts, and primary source documents that had recorded Laurelhurst during its early stages of development.

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

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

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

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

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

Written By Marion Rosas / Designer