Tag Archives: preservation

Residential Architectural Styles in the Laurelhurst Neighborhood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download Laurelhurst Architectural Styles.

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

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

Future Trends for Architectural Conservation

As part of the sesquicentennial celebration of Canadian Confederation independence, the National Trust for Canada and the Association for Preservation Technology International co-sponsored the largest joint conference of heritage professionals. Over 1,100 attendees from twenty countries attended the week-long event focused both on technical issues and heritage planning.

The shear size of the conference was overwhelming, but the host city, Ottawa, (APTI) was an ideal venue because of its position as the capitol city of Canada, the quantity of heritage resources, including the Rideau Canal World Heritage Site, and beautiful world class museums and parks.

As with all APTI annual conferences, the week begins with two day long workshops highlighting the craft of preservation. This year’s workshops included Logs & Timbers, Masonry Mortars, and Digital Tools for Documentation. Masonry Mortars has been offered several times over the last five years at APTI conferences and is always popular demonstrating the continual need to understand mass masonry walls, their performance, and specialized products and skills required to restore and preserve the walls.
PMAPDX-APT-2017-Conference-002
HOW ROBOTS CAN ASSIST WITH CONSERVATION
National Trust conferences, in both Canada and the United States offer many tours during the course of the conference and one of tours focused on robotics for heritage conservation. A conservation lab at Carlton University, founded after World War II and one of Ottawa’s public universities, has created a curriculum around the use of robotics to enhance the preservation craft of traditional materials. Conference attendees viewed a demonstration of a robotic arm manufactured in Germany, by the supplier of robotic arms to the automotive industry, with a custom built “hand” designed to hold stone cutting tools. As a demonstration, the Carlton University staff carved a block of sandstone scheduled to replace original material on the Canadian parliament buildings as part of a massive restoration effort. The demonstration was fascinating in the speed by which the robot carved the material with fine accuracy. Attendees were interested in the conservation aspect of the robot and asked about the stone cutting techniques and potential replacement of stone carvers.

Since the robot uses circular drill bits as cutting tools resulting in smoother finishes than traditional chisel cutting, some attendees were skeptical of the robot as a tool for capturing traditional stone techniques. As to the replacement of stone carvers, the response was straight forward: there are fewer and fewer trades personnel that know how to carve stone. The robot is envisioned as a method to allow traditional stone decoration to return to modern design.
PMAPDX-APT-2017-Conference-001
With seven separate tracks of Paper Sessions, it was impossible to take in the full offerings of the joint conference. The use of robots, technology, and computer software simulations continued throughout some of tracks of the Paper Sessions. Particularly interesting was hearing from archeologists in Italy and Chile that, unlike US archeologists, are involved in the documentation, history, and preservation of building materials. Using traditional archeological approaches to documentation and recordation, the archeologists combined their research, historic photographs, current images, on-site destructive testing in unique ways of explaining the chronology of construction and materials used.

Demonstrating the continued convergence of building envelop science with preservation science, many Paper Sessions focused on windows, energy retrofits, and the need to develop better science and research of traditional construction means and methods. One session on mass masonry walls hypothesized that mass masonry walls have a temperature ductility allowing them to expand during cold wet weather in order to accommodate the stress induced by freezing temperatures. One early study in the 1960’s documented the phenomena but without sufficient repeated testing. The engineer making the presentation asked for all those in the audience to create an accessible database of masonry performance in order to expand the collective knowledge base.
PMAPDX-APT-2017-Conference-004
THE FUTURE OF PRESERVATION LOOKS MODERN
One of the plenary speakers called on heritage preservation to continue leadership in the adaptive reuse of existing buildings, specifically mid-century modern structures, because of the huge environmental impact conservation efforts will have on global warming, waste reduction, and heritage values.

Attendance at APTI national conferences are a great way to gain new knowledge, converse with professional peers, anticipate future trends, evaluate current business practices, and interact outside day to day professional demands.

Written by Peter Meijer, AIA, NCARB / Principal

Assessing a Historic House in Springfield, Oregon

Owning, maintaining, and providing active use within a single family settlement era house is not a typical mission for a public parks agency. One such property is the Reynold & Eva Briggs House located in the northeast corner of the Dorris Ranch Living History Farm, in Springfield, Oregon, currently stewarded by Willamalane Parks and Recreation District (WPRD). Compounding the unusual situation is that the area is a historic site, a working farm, and a public park. In addition the property’s history, age, material, and conditions of the house add further complexity to the stewardship role. In order to guide the WPRD with long-range decisions regarding the Briggs House, the District sought an up to date exterior and interior condition assessment and potential rehabilitation options in support of current and future park programming needs, including as a source of income derived from continued residential use. The Briggs House has not been occupied since its last resident left in 2009.
Briggs-House

THE ASSESSMENT
The property, The Dorris Ranch Living History Farm, was listed as a National Register of Historic Places Historic District on June 22, 1988. While the Briggs House is located on the ranch property, it sits outside the boundaries of the historic district.

As researched by University of Oregon historic preservation students, the settlement era house is one of the five oldest houses in the Springfield area and one of the city’s few remaining examples of box construction from the Homestead era. The oldest portion of the house—the two-story volume and its eastern wing—was originally constructed by George Thurston in 1872, and later served as the home of caretakers Reynold and Eva Briggs. Once vernacular in the Willamette Valley, the house exhibits a Gothic-influenced upright-and-wing style of construction and was expanded in the 1890’s to accommodate the changing needs of its residents.

Typical of early homestead sites, the Briggs House was constructed without a foundation. The original substructure that continues to support the house consists of partially hewn wood posts on stone piers set directly on the ground surface. Utilizing the box-construction method, 1-inch by 11-inch boards were set vertically and connected to the 7-inch by 9-inch sill plate and ledger plate above the posts to create a “box” form without the use of other framing members. Two-inch by 4-inch roof rafters were then set above the top ledger plates. Floor joists, the original board-and-battens wall siding, and roof panels were added to the house after its basic skeletal structure had been completed. The original wall siding was replaced with weatherboards at an unknown date. Portions of this siding were later replaced with shiplap in the 1890’s, and the entire exterior was later covered with T-111 siding in the 1970’s.
Briggs-House

REHABILITATION CHALLENGES
After discussing the main program activities that take place on Dorris Ranch with Willamalane Parks and Recreation District staff, PMA recognized the primary challenge to any rehabilitation options was the balance between maintaining the historic character of the house and meeting all the code requirements mandated by a rehabilitation, including public access, universal access, and mechanical, electrical, energy, and plumbing upgrades. Previous studies undertaken by Restore Oregon on similar settlement era houses indicated that a balance must be reached between preserving the essence of the house while changing and modifying other portions of the house and property to achieve programming needs. Complicating the Briggs House options are siting of the house within an active area of the park, the two story volume, the lack of an adequate structural foundation, and accommodating large classroom needs within original tiny floor plans. Every room of the historic property has an established spatial function and are tiny in size. Any rehabilitation option must consider that all rooms in the house would be “flexible” and be used as needed for a variety of purposes.

THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF HISTORIC STATUS
Willamalane Parks and Recreation District currently stewards the Briggs House as a historic property by maintaining and protecting the property from encroachment by nature, animal and pest infestation, and unsafe use by park visitors. Inclusion of the property within the district as a contributing resource has both pro and con impacts. Inclusion within an expanded boundary of the current National Register Dorris Ranch Historic District could prove beneficial in finding financial sources to help with a rehabilitation although the available funds are likely insignificant when evaluated against the full cost required to upgrade the Briggs house to a public structure. On the other hand, including the property in the district may prove problematic for WPRD as it may limit, or make more difficult, viable and creative rehabilitation options that would not be approved by the local jurisdiction having authority.
Briggs-House

It is generally agreed that house museums (properties that are preserved as homes to be visited by the public) are not financially prudent uses to retain historic properties. Recent studies conclude that a compromise must occur between balancing original historic character with up to date and flexible programming space to achieve viable long-term solutions for unique homestead-era properties.

Written By Marion Rosas / Designer and Peter Meijer, AIA, NCARB / Principal

Preservation Month 2017

May is Preservation Month! Review ten (10) handy preservation resources:

ONE – We explore some factors and opinions on new construction in Historic Districts.
PMAPDX OSU Buildable Landarea

TWO – An iconic example of a landmarked building less than 50 years old.
portland-building-pmapdx-nomination

THREE – Visit Oregon’s SHPO website to browse historic sites, NR listings, & available grants.
Union Station Historic/Seismic Renovation

FOUR – Get to know your local architectural styles from the 1840s – 1970s.
Hillsboro J-B House

FIVE – Pledge your support for a rehabilitated VMC because this place matters.

SIX – How you can find a historic place in the state of Washington.
PMAPDX-planning

SEVEN – Tax Incentives for Preserving Historic Properties.
USCH Courtyard

EIGHT – Oregon’s Most Endangered Places via Restore Oregon.
PMAPDX modern survey historic photo

NINE – Keeping It Modern. An architectural conservation grants for 20th century buildings.

TEN – How Historic Preservation is Reviving America’s Communities.
Hillsboro_OrencoInventory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Form and Function of Lighting Design

When we experience an interior architectural space, lighting plays a large role in setting the mood and functionality of a space. No matter an existing, modern or historic building, light of a space is a critical aspect of great interior design. Lighting elements can be designed to enhance the space and architectural details, set the mood, and compliment furniture, color schemes, and art work. For spaces without an abundance of natural light, lighting design becomes even more critical design consideration. For a recent project, PMA designed lighting schemes for two historic four-story tall interior atriums.

The existing atriums utilize natural light from skylights above; however the original design provided no artificial overhead lighting in the space. During the winter months or at dusk and night, the light quality of space relies on the little ambient light from the skylights or artificial light from the surrounding rooms and halls. The light during these times is inadequate for the necessary function of the space. PMA was tasked with providing a lighting solution that would sensitively address the historic nature of the atriums and provide adequate visibility in the space.
pmapdx-lighting-design-004
Defining the Project Challenges
The concepts for our lighting schemes were based on the intended function of each identical space. The focus of the design and specified need of the client was to provide lighting for evening social gatherings, networking, and overall entertaining. Lighting needed to be adequate enough for speakers presenting to a crowd and for listeners to be able to read any related literature. Therefore, it was crucial to design lighting schemes that could provide ample lighting for evening events without compromising the historic integrity and ambiance of each space. To provide a solution for our clients’ challenge, we considered the following when approaching our design for the lighting schemes:

How to provide power to the source of lighting without compromising the historic elements.

Designing for large volumes of vertical space: hanging lighting within the atrium versus lighting from the top; how the light travels in the space, how it casts down shadows, the reflections off the floor and other surfaces.

One atrium exhibits permanent hanging sculptures and art; the lighting design required minimal approach to integrated and highlight the sculpture without distracting from it.

Designing for and highlighting the atriums’ architectural details, like the cornices, in addition how to hide or incorporating other non-historic architectural details like the structural support columns.

pmapdx-lighting-design-002
Methodology for Design Solutions
The prominent design goal was to increase overall light levels through a refined, modern scheme that would provide juxtaposition to the historic architectural elements and hanging sculpture. As in any historic project, it is important to avoid solutions that are faux historic, competing with, compromising, or confusing the original historic character. The few pragmatic design parameters defined by the client allowed for design freedom to provide several unique, distinct solutions. While creating our designs, PMA experimented with the type of fixtures (down lights, sconce, defused) and placement of these fixtures within the large volume of the atriums. PMA explored these options in a Revit model of the atrium spaces, which enabled evaluation of the design solutions through lifelike renderings that portrayed the quality and levels of light. Illuminance studies of lux levels provided a way to evaluate each design and provide refinement to meet necessary levels defined by the function of the space. Some lighting design options included:

Design lighting to highlight and contrast architectural features from surroundings, for example placing fixtures in the cove of architecture cornices located above openings within the atrium.

One atrium has a glass block floor element which could be illuminated from below to provide a dramatic light feature.

Accenting the verticality of the space with defused ribbon lighting set within the non-historic structural C-channels. This would transform these elements into elegant vertical lines leading the eye to the above skylights.

Pendant lights interspersed between sculptures would provide orbs of light to highlight elements of the sculpture. These fixtures would provide defused-light with optional downlights within the same fixture.

Suspended down lights at top of atrium with lights accenting sculptures from above and side.

Wall sconces to accents light and wash the atrium walls and columns; this would provide an overall glow to the space.

pmapdx-lighting-design-001
pmapdx-lighting-design-003
Scheme 1 unified serval lighting design ideas to provide different light level options in the space. Wall sconce lights provide general illumination of the space. Large circular hanging fixtures consist of defused tube lights and large circular defused downlights. Each group of fixture types can be controlled independently and dimmed to provide the ambience desired.

Scheme 2 specifically works with the sculptures in the second atrium space. Vertical ribbon lights provide ambience illuminance of the space while concealing non-historic structural elements. Pendant lights hang interspersed within the sculptural elements. These have a defused light with an option for downlights. Each grouping of fixtures can be illuminated together or separately depending on the quality of light needed.

Scheme 3 was chosen by the client and until announced must remain confidential. Stay tuned for the reveal.

Written by Hali Knight.

State and Federal Historic Preservation Incentives Available in Oregon

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

Oregon Special Assessment

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

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

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

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

Federal Historic Tax Credit Incentives (HTC)

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

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

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

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

gus-solomon-interior-courtroom

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

OTHER INCENTIVES OR PROGRAMS

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Kristen Minor, Associate/Preservation Planner