UPCOMING SHOWS:
RECENT SHOWS:
TAGS:
Oregon's Historic Places
- LATEST COMMENTS
- This is a good example of the difficulties in getting ... - ValB
- Found this interesting story only now. The Statesman Journal reporting ... - Rob Manning
- ValB, I don't think along such traditional lines. I ... - scottmil
Oregon's historic preservation office recently recommended Memorial Coliseum for a listing on the National Regiser of Historic Places — in part to save it from demolition. A local architect put in the application back in April, when the city strongly considered tearing down the building in order to put up a baseball stadium. The proposal was scrapped, in part due to public outcry. Once it's designated as a historical site, it will be nearly impossible to tear down, which could put a kink some of the city's development plans for the Rose Quarter.
If it is added to the National Register of Historic Places, Memorial Coliseum would join 1,891 other structures and districts around the state, including Timberline Lodge, the Tillamook Rock Lighthouse (built in 1879), and a 31 foot tall statue of Paul Bunyan in North Portland. Historic designation can serve to protect these various sites from demolition or significant remodeling, while putting them on the map as tourist destinations. It can also make construction in the area complicated.
Do you live or work in an historic building or district? How does the historical designation affect you? What are the places that you consider historically significant in Oregon? Are they on the National Register? (Please post links to photos.)
GUESTS:
- Peter Meijer: Principal at Peter Meijer Architect
- Roger Roper: Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer and assistant director of Heritage Programs at Oregon Parks and Recreation Department
- Bette Nelson: Widow of the man who built the Paul Bunyan statue
- Charlie Mitchell: Community and economic development director for the City of La Grande
Photo credit: Matthew and Tracie/ Flickr /Creative Commons
COMMENTS: (50 total)
-
Uncommon, you tagged part of my thought.
Memorial Coliseum is an under used, uninspiring white-and-black cube with fungus growing within. I'd prefer to see it razed and replaced with a structure that advertises Oregon's "Greenest Place on Earth" mantra. Let's put effort where we're currently spouting fluttery and pastel words.
Beijing gets a bird's nest and a neon water cube, and what do we get? A piece of white Wonder Bread with mold included which now will receive a bronze plaque.
Rather than remind us those who've fallen serving this country, is it possible to have an architectural reminder to not commit war in the first place? I'm reminded of the Peace Arch where I-5 crosses the Canadian Border in Washington.
War memorials, while pertinent, have not done much to make us change our behavior.
-
The National Register is a valuable tool for preserving our historic places. In Oregon, a listing in the Register is also one of the only ways to lessen the likelihood a building will be torn down.
I work in one of the oldest buildings on the east side of Portland - such buildings help connect us with our past and need all the protection they can get.
What we really need in Oregon in addition to the National Register listing, are more local incentives to preserve our built heritage and dis-incentives for building demolitions. After all, there is no better path toward sustainability than through the preservation of our existing buildings - historic or otherwise.
-
Portland's Memorial Coliseum is second-rate, even by second-rate standards. Portland is not a china cabinet where unmemorable buildings need preservation, just to leave a historical record of what even in it's heyday was a mediocre building.
It is questionable whether buildings that may be the best examples from a given period need to be saved, particularly if functionally they are a nightmare to maintain.
At any rate the Memorial Coliseum is not worthy of preservation. It may be Portland's example of mid-century modern, but nationally it has no place. It has no merit. It should go!
-
Peter Meijer failed to address what I think are some of the most significant historical factors in the development of Memorial Coliseum. Constructing the Coliseum led to the displacement of an entire neighborhood: nearly 500 homes and businesses were destroyed, half of which were owned by African Americans. It also served as the first in a string of urban renewal activities that literally erased social and commercial centers of minority communities in Portland, particularly in the Albina neighborhood.
Preserving buildings on the National Register is a good idea, but unless we acknowledge and learn from the total history of a historic development, we'll lose perhaps the most important lessons that could be learned. It's not the combination of bricks and mortar that make one building more significant than another, but instead the impact of the building on the broader communities that matters the most.
-
I think we should ask other architects, who are perhaps more sophisticated, and not involved in the "Art of Historic Renovation" as your guest Peter Meijer claims to be. I think his views are too subjective---considering his motivation is preservation. Quite frankly, I question the aesthetic judgments of anyone who is involved in preserving the past and not creating the future.
-
I've been to one concert at Memorial Coliseum. The acoustics were awful and I vowed then to never return to listen to music. Nothing like echo and reverb added to the musician's echo and reverb.
Also, I never knew or asked what Memorial Coliseum was a memorial to. Perhaps the significance would be brought home if there were more commemorative reminders around the building. I never perceived Memorial Coliseum as hallow ground.
-
I’m a born and raised Portlander. I saw my first concert and my first blazers game at the coliseum, met my prom date while watching Tom Petty and had my picture taken and was escorted from the premises at a Green Day concert. These and many more experiences have left me with no attachment to the Memorial Coliseum whatsoever.
The building should be torn down. The space can be better utilized and to keep such a large and at this point pretty much unusable structure for the sake of art appreciation is ridiculous. It needs to come down.
-
If the Boston Red Sox can continue to use the 1912 Fenway Park, certainly we can find it in ourselves to preserve the Coliseum and make use of it. Functional obsolescence is in the eye of the beholder.
-
They still play baseball at Fenway. The blazers don't play basketball at the Coliseum anymore and they never will again. It's a horrible place to see a concert. So I ask, What function can this building serve now and in the future?
-
The Coliseum wasn't built for the Blazers. It was a multi-use venue for a decade before the Blazers were even around.
-
It seems to me, that a major component of MCM architecture was the importance of surrounding landscape design. Looking at the historic pictures, the building truly does shine, but the current landscape doesn't do the structure any favors. The building seems to be pushed aside within the current Rose Quarter design. Can your guests address the landscape as well as the building itself and whether bringing the building back into the function of the Rose quarter; would make it more "attractive" to those that don't appreciate MCM design?
-
Historic preservation isn't just about saving pretty places; it's about saving important places. It's either significant or it's not, and that's not usually a matter of opinion. It is also separate from the argument of condition or economic viability or politics. It's important to take the long view with buildings like the Memorial Coliseum and think of ourselves as stewards of the heritage of the next generation. We don't always know right now what will be important in the future. We give the benefit of the doubt to the buildings because they are irreplaceable.
-
That is the point, and unfortunately the Memorial Coliseum isn't significant in any way. Aesthetic significance is always a matter of opinion, it is nothing but opinion. Even opinion-wise, I hardly think anyone is looking at the Memorial Coliseum as a good example of mid-century modern---I don't think it is going to be in the textbooks.
-
Who are the other members of this panel? Are their names public?
-
From the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation web page:
The SACHP members can be found at http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/HCD/NATREG/docs/sachp_docs/sachp_members.pdf
-
Thanks for that info, it is incredibly helpful and telling.
- Mr. Robert Dortignacq - Architect - Looked him up: Specializes in preservation
- Mr. John Goodenberger - Can't find any background information
- Mr. Robert Hadlow - Industrial Historian
- Mr. Jeffrey LaLande - Historical Archaeologist
- Mr. David Liberty - Cultural Anthropologist
- Ms. Judith Rees - Can't find any background information
- Ms. Gail Sargent, AIA - Architect -Looked up: couldn't find much. However, historical preservation was listed.
- Dr. William Willingham - Architectural Historian
Notice a pattern? All members of the panel specialize in history and/or preservation. Seems like they would be inclined to favor preservation in general, and in an unreasonably subjective fashion. Unless the board has members who are current, modern, thriving architects, who are doing, or creating modern masterpieces---their aesthetic opinions don't mean much. This is not a balanced panel, it is highly unlikely it will ever determine significance when it is by proxy such a sentimental group.
-
scottmil, if it seems the members of the SACHP favor preservation that's because (according to their website) their specific job is to review and vote on the eligibility of National Register nominations in Oregon. This means they need to be experts in the field of preservation and architectural history so that they can understand the often complex nominations that come before them. In the case of the Coliseum, the nomination had to first pass muster with the Portland Landmarks Commission, which it did easily. So hopefully you can understand that even though you may not like the building, it has been accpeted as a historically significant building by two panels of experts in Oregon. Now it is up to the National Park Service to give the final yes or no.
-
ValB,
I don't think along such traditional lines. I hardly think 'historians' or 'critics' are arbiters of good taste. I think current people, actually doing creative work, are more likely to be the true 'arbiters' of good taste. The panel does not seem balanced in anyway. By-the-way there is also no such thing as experts when it comes to aesthetics---anyone who has read about aesthetics in any meaningful way should realize this. Besides all the above, I question any panel of critics ever making a meaningful aesthetic decision. Because you have knowledge or are an expert in architectural history doesn't mean you are you an expert in architectural good taste. The panel would be better served by seeking the opinions of architects artists and other thinkers, who have recently created works considered significant.
-
Preservation of key pieces of our architectural heritage is vital to the cultural life of the community in so many ways.
Portland is blessed with many beautiful old buildings, saved by design and by chance by previous generations. The same challenge of saving additional buildings as they reach 40-60 years of age comes down to each generation in turn - and this is our turn.
Almost every building goes through a jalopy stage, where it is widely perceived as tired, junky, and commonplace.
Yet many of those jalopy buildings, if preserved for another generation, do indeed come to be revered as irreplaceable antiques - as are many of the grand older building in downtown Portland now.
Eugene faces a similar challenge right now around preservation of its modern City Hall. Although the structure is indisputably the finest 1960s building in the City's inventory, and very beautiful in architectural terms, it is hard for many people to see past the intentionally-left-peeling paint and the last-generation's-style to make a sound evaluation of its architectural merit.
To make these decisions well and responsibly, the community needs to look more deeply than just "the eye of the beholder" to save the right structures.
It's every bit as important as saving our ballet or our basketball team. Like environmental decisions, preservation calls for the seventh generation view of outcomes.
-
Sorry if this is a double post, the site seems alittle funky right now.
It seems to me, that a major component of MCM architecture was the importance of surrounding landscape design. Looking at the historic pictures, the building truly does shine, but the current landscape doesn't do the structure any favors. The building seems to be pushed aside within the current Rose Quarter design. Can your guests address the landscape as well as the building itself and whether bringing the building back into the function of the Rose quarter would make it more "attractive" to those that don't appreciate MCM design?
-
A lot of people appreciate "MCM" and just happen to think the Memorial Coliseum is a bad example of it.
-
The Veterans Memorial Coliseum is indeed worthy of being on the Historic Register. It is an ugly building, to my eye, but it is an architecturally worthy candidate for the register.
I have dozens of memories in the Coliseum, but three truly stand out. First was 1963 or 1964 when the Boy Scouts held a significant event there and my brother walked the length of the arena floor in single spotlight as the "all American boy". Second was an ecumenical Easter Sunrise service in 1964 or 1965. Singing Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus" while the curtains were drawn back to reveal the Easter daylight was beyond moving. Finally, June 1965 I graduated from high school on the arena floor - many high schools in the mid-late 1960s used the Coliseum for graduation.
There are so many civic historical events and so many personal historical events in the collective memories of Portlanders. I am saddened by the need to tear down the old because it doesn't sparkle anymore. Veterans Memorial Coliseum sparkles in the history and on the skyline of Portland and should remain whether it is on the historic register or not.
-
This is absurd! The coliseum, while a beautiful building, should not be kept forever, just because it is architecturally significant, which is questionable. Like other historical buildings, perhaps the person proposing the listing would like to buy it and move it to his property, like PSU did with the historic house now located on their property.
The coliseum is a dump! I suggest the interviewee attend at least one event there. Perhaps a concert... The building is know as the "Echodome" due to its HORRIBLE acuostics. The building is old and ditry, and should not be kept as an empty shell, just because someone thinks it is significant. After all, this is a basketball arena that has outlasted its usefulness.
This is a good example of someone using a workaround, the register, as opposed to working through official channel, the city government. If the city and a majority of residents agree to change the current structure, that should be the decision. Adding an inflexible layer of government only ensures nothing will get done, and it will become a ghost of the past and a blight on the rose quarter.
-
50 years ago or so, people thought all of our Victorian-era architecture was outdated and not worthy of saving; we then lost hundreds of buildings in Portland. Thank goodness for what was saved. The same concept can be applied to more recent buidlings today. 2 decades from now we might be revering buildings like the Coliseum for its architecture just as we revere houses like the Simon Benson House and the wonderful cast-iron buidings in Old Town.
-
Were any of those buildings near the size of the Coliseum? Is Seattle worse off because they no longer have the King Dome?
The Coliseum needs to go and we shouldn't be afraid to move forward because an architecture student may want to see it 20 years from now.
-
No PortlandDuck, the buildings torn down decades ago were not the same size as the Coliseum, but the impact was as great if not greater. 60 or more buildings were torn down to build ramps to the Morrison Bridge. Today we have lovely surface parking to show for our "progress".
-
What will the Coliseum be used for now and in the future? I can't think of any event that wouldn't be better held at another venue in the city.
-
I think Mr. Meijer pointed out that the building is already being used for 240 events a year - that's a lot of use. Obviously someone out there finds a need for that space.
It's ok not to like a building, but that doesn't detract from its significance. Preservation is not a beauty contest.
-
I honestly had no idea that it hosted 240 events a year. I live about two miles from it and haven't been to the coliseum in a decade. It would seem to me that those events would probably benefit from being held at the convention center or the rose garden.
It seems to me that the coliseum is just to big to keep. I honestly could care less how it looks.
The events being held at the coliseum according to the rose quarter website are "Slightly Stoopid and Snoop Dog", "the killers" and "Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover". That's from now through November. Doesn't really seem like it's living up to "advancement of cultural opportunities for the community" but hey cultural advancement is in the eye of the beholder.
-
The Memorial Colisieum is an all-weather building that could be used 365 days a year. To replace it with a building that could be used only for baseball games a few days in the summer seems a bit wasteful.
-
Portland has a lot to learn about historic preservation, which is evidenced by the recent debate over the Made in Oregon sign and the current debate regarding the Memorial Colliseum.
Portland takes pride and models itself as a green city. Preservation, particularly the reuse of significant historic buildings and landscapes, is one of the greenest things we can do. The waste of demolishing a building and using new materials to build anew can be avoided if we are creative in thinking about how we can reuse and adapt a historic building for modern use.
-
Write a book on the significance of the building, take some photos and tear it down.
So many of the views expressed by your guests (so far) are traditional, sentimental and passé---they are at odds with the main point of mid-century modern architecture and thought. This type of thinking about preservation is not cutting-edge and is un-modern.
If buildings are to be preserved they should be evaluated nationally (if not internationally) to determine their significance, before modern society becomes a slave to these buildings.
-
As a life long North Portland Resident, I have quite fond memories of the Paul Bunyan statue. When the Max line came in I feared the statue would be sold or destroyed. Fortunately, it was just moved it across the street. It is a great source of pride for us in North Portland and thanks to the National Register it will be for generations to come.
-
There are very specific criteria for determining whether a building should be listed on the National Register.
My problem with historic preservation in the State of Oregon is the the SHPO and the State Advisory Comittee don't apply these criteria consistently. The recommendation is based more on if the "like" the building or the applicant.
Also, in Hillsboro, a circuit court judge recently ruled that the SHPO rules are irrelevant because they are not consistently applied and there are no repercussians if they are not followed. Can Roger Roper comment on this ruling.
-
I am one of the principals in a company which purchased the building in the Pearl District known as the Buddha Building. The Buddha Building was built in 1910 by the Portland Buddhist Church. It is on the National Register of Historic Places.
It has a fascinating and somewhat sad history. It was occupied by the Portland Buddhist Church from 1910 until 1941, and used not only for the church services, but was also housing for members of the church, and school services were conducted as well. The building was shuttered in 1941, when the members were sent to the internment camps in Idaho.
The primary historic value of this building, in my mind, arises from the historical usage of the building, not so much the architectural features.
David Ambrose
-
Could you read out on the air a more representative list of the buildings currently on the Historic Preservation list within portland? You have mentioned Paul Bunyon, but a broader list of examples would be illuminating. Are places like the Neo-classical US Bank on SW 5th and Stark, the buildings of AE Doyle, many of the old red brick schools, the Kennedy School, or Bagdad Theater to name a few that come to mind?
-
More info on Portland's historic resources can be downloaded from the city here:
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=39750&a=132551
-
In Portland the Architectural Heritage Center - Bosco Milligan Foundation can offer information on historic preservation. We're located in one of the oldest buildings on Portland's east side on historic Grand Avenue.
www.visitahc.org
-
At Archiplanet.org, the all-building wiki, contributors of all stripes are working to document, celebrate, and critique historic buildings (and new ones too), like Memorial Coliseum:
http://www.archiplanet.org/wiki/Memorial_Coliseum%2C_Portland%2C_Oregon
Eugene City Hall:
http://www.archiplanet.org/wiki/Eugene_City_Hall
and even endangered buildings outside the U.S., like Tokyo's Nakagin Capsule Tower:
http://www.archiplanet.org/wiki/Nakagin_Capsule_Tower
-
The Paul Bunyan statue provides a whimsical anchor for my childhood. Keep Paul Bunyan because it loosens Portland's largely uninspiring architecture. I think of Paul Bunyan in feng shue terms. Paul protect's Portland's North entrance gate from the evil spirits of Washington's sales tax, or something like that.
Now consider the feng shue of the Coliseum and Rose Garden. These buidings are a jarring visual juxtaposition. It appears the Rose Garden was plopped down where room was available. The complex has no flow. It's purpose is functional while doing nothing to lift the spirit.
-
I agree, Paul is awesome and should stay!
The Rose Quarter is all about function and when all or part of it can no longer serve that function it should go.
-
The Memorial Coliseum conversation in Portland has little to do with the National Register. In reality, the conversation has everything to do with the Portland’s Demolition Review mechanism. In 2004 the City of Portland adopted the authority to deny the demolition of the city’s most valuable of historic resources (those listed in the NR) so long as a "reasonable economic use" can be found for the property. Demolition Review in Portland is a sensible counterbalance to the plethora of incentives and grants available to owners of NR properties- owners who ultimately have a choice of purchasing or nominating their resources to the NR.
-
While other states have State Registers, Oregon's pioneering Special Assessment of Historic Properties tax freeze program applies only to those properties listed in the National Register either individually or as part of a district, making National Register listing the primary designation for Oregon’s built heritage.
Information about the Special Assessment Program: http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/HCD/SHPO/docs/TaskForceFinalPrint.pdf
National Park Service bulletin “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation”: http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/
National Park Service bulletin “How to Complete the National Register Registration Form”: http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb16a/
-
Unfortunately, the process of getting on the National Register can take a very long time and cost a lot of money, many times costing thousands of dollars and taking multiple years. This is primarily due to the State Historic Preservation Office and their lack of a consistent, objective, transparent evaluation process. Because of this, the Special Assesment program is underutilzed.
The National Park Service bulletins you link to are excellent, but the Oregon SHPO and the State Advisory Comittee for Historic Preservation do not follow those criteria.
-
Obviously, PortlandDuck & Scottmil both dislike MCM architecture. The Coliseum is not the same as a common 50's ranch style home (which I also love). It was edgy in the 60s & it's edgy now. It's a structure that was ahead of it's time when built, with it's massive all glass curtain wall & no interior columns. If you think it looks bad, you just don't get Modernism & that's fine. I probably wouldn't like your generic tract houses either.
Just because the Coliseum is bigger than Paul Bunyan doesn't mean we should save one & tear down the other. Nothing proposed thus far, has been better than what sits there right now. There's room in this city to leave this building & plenty of uses to keep it busy all year round. I don't dispute that the Coliseum could use a spit shine, so a slight renovation to make it more useful, accessible & possibly more accoustically pleasing, could not hurt. It would also be much less expensive than building another ugly building like the Rose Garden. It's still a vital building, it has more engineering & architectural merit than most non-design savvy people can grasp. This is not a throw away building, such as the Kingdome was. I enjoyed watching the implosion of the Kingdome more than I did any of the games or concerts I attended there. It was a poorly designed, poorly built stadium that nobody tried to save. The Memorial Coliseum needs to be saved & loved. It's Oregon's best example of pure modernism.
Just like when some idiot bought Oregon's only Frank Lloyd Wright house on several open acres & wanted to tear it down to build a banal, generic McMansion in it's place. Everyone cried fowl & enough people cared to save the house. Unfortunately, that meant moving it, which is not an option for the Coliseum. If it were, I'd move it, restore it & live in it. The Frank Lloyd Wright house is now a big tourist draw at the Oregon Gardens. In the future, people WILL want to come see & tour the Coliseum. Like many historic entertainment venues around the world, the Coliseum could be open during the day for tours & people will come. Many Americans & even more Europeans appreciate Mid Century Masterpieces & will certainly want to tour it.
SAVE THE COLISEUM
-
MCMarvin,
It is terribly unfortunate that we are allowing the obviously subjective opinions of a few individuals, engaged in local-ism, to re-write architectural history. I am a fan of perhaps the most austere, minimal and oppressive buildings ever created. I also happen to love MCM---to set the record (you created) straight!
Portland's Memorial Coliseum is a third-rate example of MCM architecture. I would rather see a modern cutting-edge building in its place. The MC is never going to be on the tourist maps as a great example of MCM.
I didn't realize Portland was full of so many tasteless neophytes---if preservation is indeed supported by the local majority. Then again, perhaps we are, considering the appalling aesthetic of the waterfront development.
-
Roger Roper's comment about Paul Bunyan's shirt is ridiculous. The National Register and does not have regulations about how it should be painted, it only looks at how the structure meets the criteria.
If, for some reason, the structure is significantly changed so that it no longer meets the criteria or fails to keep it's historic context, then it can be removed from the National Register. Changing the color of the paint would not cause it to lose it's NR status.
The majority of rules and laws applying to historic preservation are enacted at the state or local level. Local codes and landmark boards determine what you can and can't do with a historic structure.
-
Found this interesting story only now. The Statesman Journal reporting on a decision in Silverton NOT to apply for an historic district downtown. Instead, elected officials are seeking historic designation for a limited number of buildings, and creating a "non-regulated" historic district.
-
This is a good example of the difficulties in getting new National Register historic districts created in Oregon. There is a mis-perception that people will somehow be forced into making their house more historic or that they won't be able to make the changes to their property that they want. Yes, there is typically some sort of historic design review process fro proposed alterations to historic properties, but that doesn't mean renovations won't be approved. And while there is an added cost involved, as the article points out, there are likely tax breaks involved that offset these costs.
It is so important, when promoting the creation of historic districts, that people be made aware of all of the positive benefits. There can be tax breaks, potential preservation grants, properties tend to appreciate more so than outside such districts, and having a designated district will help ensure that the very character defining features that people love about a particular neighborhood will likely be kept intact over the long-run, as they won't be as subject to short-sighted re-development. In commercial districts, the benefits of heritage tourism can also be tremendous, especially in small towns.
-
First my short radio worthy comment: If I recall it is actually the Veterans Memorial Colesium, if a new structure was built in it's place, I would hope it still has a veterans memorial, to include the names of Local Soldiers who have given thier lives in recent conflicts.
Now my long, concern riddled thoughts: Portland has a bad history with building things, MAX went over budget, the TRAM was a financial Disaster, The Rose Garden has almost folded how many times? It is hard to think of a successful city run construction venture that has gone on in Portland in recent history. Today unemployment is at an all time high, the nation is in a deep recession, Portland has a housing market that has priced out the middle class. The sheer though of spending more money to build another Gee-Whiz Building just seems wasteful.
If something replaces that building I can guarantee it would have nothing to do with a Veterans memeorial, but it would have windmills, and recycled water, and permiable subsrates, and light bulbs that help salmon swim upriver, and at the end of the day it would still be vacant.