RECENTLY ON TOL:
The TOL Blog
TAGS:
ValB's comments:
on Oregon's Historic Places
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.
posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context
on Oregon's Historic Places
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.
posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context
on Oregon's Historic Places
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.
posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context
on Oregon's Historic Places
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
posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context
on Oregon's Historic Places
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
posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context
on Oregon's Historic Places
The Coliseum wasn't built for the Blazers. It was a multi-use venue for a decade before the Blazers were even around.
posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context
on Oregon's Historic Places
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".
posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context
on Oregon's Historic Places
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.
posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context
on Oregon's Historic Places
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.
posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context
on Oregon's Historic Places
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.
posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context
on Green Buildings
Avoid the replacement window salespeople! Nothing detracts from a home's character more than seeing it's eyes ripped out and replaced with vinyl (bad stuff) in the name of energy efficiency. The time it would take to recoup your costs would likely be longer than you will be alive and the repalcement windows won't last nearly as long as the originals, meaning you'll end up on a treadmill of window replacement as replacements often cannot be fixed, like old windows can. Instead they have to be repalced once more.
For more information why in older homes it is better to repair your existing windows rather than tear them out contact the Architectural Heritage Center in Portland or the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
posted 2 years, 12 months ago
view in context
on Green Buildings
As someone else mentioned, there needs to be a more serious discussion about retrofitting existing buildings of all shapes and sizes. Currently, green building discussions most always are about building new. Meanwhile it takes fewer resources to renovate what already exists. Adding energy efficiency or otherwise updating our existing building stock keeps countless tons of energy embodied in our older buildings from being thrown away. There's a reason many old buildings have stood for a century or more - the materials used to put them together were more durable. It is also more sustainable to renovate/repair/re-use, than the more consumptive model of building new, in that it is more labor intensive than product intensive. The result is local job creation while creating sustainable neighborhoods that still reflect their original charm. There needs to be a move away from the consumer model of "green building" toward a "let's use what we have first" model. Not only will this be environmentally sustainable but socially and culturally sustainable as well. In other words, we can build all of the fancy new green buildings we want, but if the end result is the erosion of our sense of place - something that can be preserved while "greening" our existing buildings - what good is that?
posted 2 years, 12 months ago
view in context
