So long Rosefriend...

[MarkDaMan]

:dead:

From Portland Architecture (www.portlandarchitecture.com)
http://chatterbox.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/14/rosefriend_demo_01.jpg

http://chatterbox.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/14/rosefriend_demo_05.jpg

http://chatterbox.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/14/rosefriend_demo_19.jpg

http://chatterbox.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/14/rosefriend_demo_20.jpg

http://chatterbox.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/14/rosefriend_demo_15.jpg

http://chatterbox.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/14/rosefriend_demo_18.jpg


:eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue:
http://www.oregonlive.com/cgi-bin/prxy/photogalleries/nph-cache.cgi/cache=3000;/olive/images/5870/b1.jpg:eviltongue:

[MarkDaMan]

I feel angry like Jack Bog today. Like someone is stealing something from Portland, or something is changing and not for the better...

[Black Box]

That is awful. Big sigh.

[Drmyeyes]

Yeah, this is the kind of stupid stuff that passes for urban design planning in Portland. Let the collection plate stealing pastor, Rob Loy from First Christian Church cook up a deal for convenient and economically lucrative church parking by destroying distinguished architecture housing low-middle income people and replacing it with a monotonous glass sky stealing tower for upper middle-upper income people.

Among many other things about this event that the project is part of, I really resent that the new tower residential entrance opens on to the Park Blocks, where before, the Park Block side was dedicated entirely to church function. At least in that capacity, this important real estate, bordering a key public park, was reserved for a wider range of people than it will be with the tower. Exclusivity of this kind is not a healthy or welcome addition to the Park Blocks.

This is a sad time for Portland, barraged as it is by unimaginative city leaders further crippled by too many powerful but creatively and aesthetically bankrupt developers.

[MarkDaMan]

^well, that isn't exactly how I feel. I was hoping a compromise could be worked out that the Rosefriend could be saved if the quarter lot that abuts the park blocks, behind the Rosefriend, could have had a 40 story or taller point tower.

Problem was, instead of offering solutions to the problem, the activists demanded nothing be done, keep the building, keep the carriage house, and do it all out of good will, as well as protect the sky light in the park, hence no taller point tower in back in exchange for a renovated affordable housing complex in front. I knew unless a solution could be worked out the Rosefriend was doomed so I learned awhile ago to really not care, but it is sad to see it go.

And please, I wish everyone would stop blaming the church. I don't care for their message they preach and I don't like the crap the pastor has said, and subsequently was doing behind the scenes. However, the church has to survive in an expensive downtown location. I never believed myself that it was about parking, but more about needing to sell the land to Opus, or whoever, to stay afloat. They will also get some parking revenue? In any case, it was a business decision and sometimes churches have to make those to keep their doors open.

[brandonpdx]

It was all about the parking for the church. The impetus for this whole development is parking for the church. They’re losing attendance so they want to make it easier for the suburbanites to drive in and park. Initially the church was going to tear down the carriage house and build a parking garage in its place. Since then the idea has evolved to what we are historically stuck with today.

[Dougall5505]

wow running that demo claw thing would be the coolest job ever, if you didn't have to tear down buildings like the rosefried

[MarkDaMan]

It was all about the parking for the church. The impetus for this whole development is parking for the church. They’re losing attendance so they want to make it easier for the suburbanites to drive in and park. Initially the church was going to tear down the carriage house and build a parking garage in its place. Since then the idea has evolved to what we are historically stuck with today.

Parking, they think, will draw more members, more members pay more tithing. I do think this revolves around money moreso than members or their member's convenience. They owned an expensive piece of land and I'm sure walked away with a decent sum of money, with the hopes that the additional parking will bring more stability over the long run. It just seems to me there is more going on than just parking...

[brandonpdx]

After looking at those pics more closely it kind of irks me. This is Portland! There are a million people in this town that would of reused and refashioned, in a creative way, the beautiful craftsmanship and materials that are so clumsily and lazily being destroyed by, "the claw!"

[brandonpdx]

Parking, they think, will draw more members, more members pay more tithing. I do think this revolves around money moreso than members. They owned an expensive piece of land and I'm sure walked away with a decent sum of money, with the hopes that the additional parking will bring more stability over the long run. It just seems to me there is more going on than just parking...

the whole thing has evolved into something more than just parking, but the entire conversation was started by the church for more parking.

[MarkDaMan]

^at least that is what they said publicly. But they preach a conservative interpretation of the gospel in a pretty liberal town, and while they can find a niche market, I don't think most members would give up their 'mega-churches on crack' in the burbs for a downtown location where they have to step over beggers and drug users, people their mission, arguably, should be focused on. But than, that would require bringing Christ back into their Christian church and having a compasionate heart.

In any case, they are trying to survive, they might have said it was about parking, but it is about staying alive. Instead of modifying their message, they are banking their survival on a parking garage, and whatever money they could eke out of their deal with Opus. The sad thing is that in a rehabbed Rosefriend, they could have saved so many additional souls, still provided a housing tower for Opus, and walked away without looking like the Grinch!

[SFUVancouver]

What a shame.

[Drmyeyes]

DaMan, I don't expect anybody to feel exactly as I do, in fact I don't want even want them to, because I believe it's important for people to have their own ideas.

Respectfully, I'll say I never ever heard of any activists as a group that would accept nothing less than the Rosefriend and Carriage House where they stand with no flexibility on tower max height. The paltry few voices that had the gumption to sit through the long design review meetings did voice a fundamental objection to tower height, but it was the lack of innovative thinking on the part of the development team that precluded any options that might have existed in that respect.

On their part, an obsession with constructing the most cost efficient structure possible existed to the extent that no building configuration that might have accomodated the Rosefriend Building into it's design scheme could ever even have been considered. Absolutely, I believe that if the development team had seriously proposed an assymetrically designed tower allowing for greater height in the NE corner of the block, at least a greater exposure of light and sky to the park could have been sustained even if this meant the destruction or extremely difficult relocation of the Rosefriend to the NW corner of the block.

Regarding blame assigned to the church in this matter, I'll say that churches are community leaders. They bear responsibility for making decisions that positively affect the lives of people in the community. In this role, that may be uncomfortable at times, churches have an obligation to hear criticism regarding decisions they make so that in future, the decisions they make will be better ones.

[MarkDaMan]

Regarding blame assigned to the church in this matter, I'll say that churches are community leaders. They bear responsibility for making decisions that positively affect the lives of people in the community. In this role, that may be uncomfortable at times, churches have an obligation to hear criticism regarding decisions they make so that in future, the decisions they make will be better ones.

churches can influence a community, even have a positive effect in the communities they are in, however, it is very dangerous to call churches, community leaders. I view neighborhood activists as community leaders, the mayor and his council are community leaders, even certain pastors and priests lead communities, but churches are religious institutions, the house of the Lord, and I don't think they should be leading the community...like say, an Ayatollah and the way they impose Islamic Law upon their community. Right now, we have blured the lines of church and state and allowed the church to assume a community leadership role, instead of a volunteer force that can assist our community leaders in achieving their goals...such as ending homelessness. Instead empowered churches go beyond feeding the hungry, and try to impose Christian law upon the land, such as the anti-gay ballot measures, abortion restrictions and such.

Respectfully, I'll say I never ever heard of any activists as a group that would accept nothing less than the Rosefriend and Carriage House where they stand with no flexibility on tower max height. The paltry few voices that had the gumption to sit through the long design review meetings did voice a fundamental objection to tower height, but it was the lack of innovative thinking on the part of the development team that precluded any options that might have existed in that respect.

On their part, an obsession with constructing the most cost efficient structure possible existed to the extent that no building configuration that might have accomodated the Rosefriend Building into it's design scheme could ever even have been considered. Absolutely, I believe that if the development team had seriously proposed an assymetrically designed tower allowing for greater height in the NE corner of the block, at least a greater exposure of light and sky to the park could have been sustained even if this meant the destruction or extremely difficult relocation of the Rosefriend to the NW corner of the block.

Opus has to make a profit, they don't build buildings for the community good, they build them for their shareholders, their owners. Asking Opus to move the Rosefriend back to the NW corner, to allow a taller tower that wouldn't have as much impact on a tower on the freed up NW corner, so the height didn't 'impose' in some people's minds, on the park blocks is a non-starter. That is, unless those people went out into the community and tried to raise money to pay for the relocation. I've found that putting the money where the mouth is, is the best way to get people, especially large corporate people, pay attention.

That was my premise, the activists judgement got clouded because of the emotional attachment and anger, that the owners of the lot, Opus, pushed through whatever they could get through. Now we are all losers because we loose a great building, get a mediocre tower, and the tower will have a larger impact on the park blocks, as far as shadows, as a block long 250' tower, as opposed to a quarter block 450' tower.

Maybe there was nothing that could have been done. Our city policies didn't protect that building, and the policies that stand won't stop another Rosefriend from coming down. I hope the people that really felt strongly about saving the Rosefriend will now stand up to create new laws that will protect other historical buildings...possibly by allowing owners to sell their FAR to other section of town to limit any new development to the existing height, and than offer other incentives or restrictions to further discourage the demolision of historic treasures. We cannot rely on people to do things for the community good, and so we need to protect what is good in our community.

[James Bond Agent 007]

How sad. :( *sniff sniff*

[PacificNW]

Well said Mark....I, too, believe, church leaders have become much more involved politically and are losing focus to their mission...

I am not fond of the Rosefriend. I used to visit friends who lived there, as I have posted in the past, and it was basically a dump. I think the church possibly could have taken better care of their property and brought up the "livibility factor" for the lower income tenants. I figured that was an "honorable mission" for a church but, alas, they had different plans. I guess it is best to use this "loss" as a wake up call for other properties whose fate may be similar to the Rosefriend. How many people (including tenants) demonstrated against the demolition? If they did it was not covered by the local media to a great extent...it was only this forum and PDXArchitecture who seemed to discuss this project. The outrage was on this forum but not on the streets....right? I may be wrong.

I think the Portland branch of the AIA was "right on" regarding their assessment of the condition of the Rosefriend.

Time to move on and learn from this experience.

[PDX City-State]

I hate to see this building go, but I understand the dilemma that downtown churches face. Unfortunately, buildings are often razed because they're losing money while eyesores such as surface lots create revenue. It's not always about greed as much as common sense. Downtown churches have severe parking problems, and as downtown becomes increasingly dense and more surface parking lots are developed, it's only going to get worse. We are at a critical moment in the history of our city, that is, Portland's downtown is developing fast and everyone is competing for less and less space. Sadly, I think this saga is going to repeat itself.

As for the developers, they're giving the flower shop that used to be in the Rosefriend free rent during construction, as well as bargain prices on TIs and rent in the Ladd Tower. They want them to stay.

And as for church leaders as community leaders, I don't agree with you guys--as much as I'd like to. I'm not at all religious, but churches organizations in downtown Portland often take care of needs that the city doesn't address very well--such as homelessness and poverty. Portland is the least churched big city in America, but churches still play an important role--and not all churchgoers are evangelical zealots.

[zilfondel]

Hey, doesn't this make us more like Seattle tho? I mean, they lost a good portion of their historic downtown buildings over the past 100 years...

I'm not really going to worry much about it anymore. Time to move on and wait for the next projects to get built...
But I would hate for the larger scale historic structures south of Old Town to go.

[zilfondel]

I hate to see this building go, but I understand the dilemma that downtown churches face. Unfortunately, buildings are often razed because they're losing money while eyesores such as surface lots create revenue. It's not always about greed as much as common sense. Downtown churches have severe parking problems, and as downtown becomes increasingly dense and more surface parking lots are developed, it's only going to get worse.

Yea, but really? Sunday parking downtown is free, and who else can possibly be around on a Sunday morning??

[PacificNW]

I was attempting to make a point that church's, and their leaders, need to stay out of politics.. If they continue to use their powers in a political way I feel they should lose their tax exempt status. I am all for church's helping the less fortunate through their community/religious outreach programs (just be careful not to cross the political line...difficult, I realize).

[Drmyeyes]

Thanks for your comments DaMan. I am saying churches are community leaders, but definitely not suggesting they are or should be assuming the role of politicians in that respect. They are leaders, or have the capacity to be leaders in a spiritual sense. That distinction is important as others more or less have noted.

As PacifiNW has said about the building's interior, "...it was basically a dump". And as true as that may have been, so what? It was the exterior that most people saw and knew as part of the city's urban environment. The exterior was the issue. The interior could have easily if not cheaply, been restored to some kind of contemporarily functional magnificence.

Philip Stewart of the Portland chapter of the AIA (in a comment over at portlandarchitecture) also alludes to the Rosefriend's structurally unsupported masonry as a major obstacle to preservation or conservation. While that may be quite true, the facts of this issue were not clearly and openly disclosed to the public in a manner consistent with regard for a building that by virtue of it's architectural distinction (personal tastes aside) and it's decades long presence in the city, was arguably a very important part of the city's urban experience. Had this been done, despite the obstacles represented by the Rosefriend buildings structural integrity, some kind of much more favorable outcome for the block and the Rosefriend's signifcance to the city might have occurred.

Even if no other alternative than demolition of the Rosefriend could have been decided upon, at least something better than the current outcome might have happened. What's going on instead is definitely old school.

Yeah, it is time to move on and learn from the lesson offered by this disaster.

[mcbaby]

i'm sick. this is f-cked and what they are replacing it with makes me dissapointed in this city. if vera katz were still mayor or someone else with balls we wouldn't be lamenting this chunk of history.

[PuyoPiyo]

Wow, that is so sad! :(

[sequoias]

Wow, that is so sad! :(

Yep it is! Wait a minute, I know you from other forum. Hmmm...