250 Taylor & Hyatt Unbound | 130'-0" & 245'-6" | 10 & 21 floors | Completed & Dead

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

Yes, that's the final design. The Design Commission absolutely loves grey windowless concrete boxes as it is encouraged by the zoning code and central city plan.

imagine what would happen if'n historic landmarks got ahold of that AMAZING minimalistical architectural statement. they'd totally, like, ruin it.

this city needs more windowless gray boxes.

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by eric cantona

imagine what would happen if'n historic landmarks got ahold of that AMAZING minimalistical architectural statement. they'd totally, like, ruin it.

this city needs more windowless gray boxes.

Why? It's too plain.. Sorry agree with you. Your totally wrong

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

Why? It's too plain.. Sorry agree with you. Your totally wrong

He's jerking your chain. That gray box isn't a proposed design. It's a placeholder to show a building will be built there.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

He's jerking your chain. That gray box isn't a proposed design. It's a placeholder to show a building will be built there.

Right, its a placeholder for the office portion of this project. Probably because people in this forum said it was a boring design before (glass box).

[65MAX]

I don't think "boring" was the problem. Demolishing the Temple (at least for me) was the problem. Hopefully they're rethinking that destruction. And I'm glad they separated this project into two discrete parts because they really are two different buildings.

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

I don't think "boring" was the problem. Demolishing the Temple (at least for me) was the problem. Hopefully they're rethinking that destruction. And I'm glad they separated this project into two discrete parts because they really are two different buildings.

Well it's not structurally sound to be incorporated to what their doing. That's not a personal choice by anybody or the city. It's literally nothing they can do. Then at the same time it doesn't make economic sense for it to pencil out as creative space as well.

So I'm glad restore Oregon realized that notion and have pretty much waved the white flag

[maccoinnich]

Based on a conversation I had last weekend with a friend who works for Restore Oregon, they are absolutely not giving up the hope of saving the Temple Building.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

Well it's not structurally sound to be incorporated to what their doing. That's not a personal choice by anybody or the city. It's literally nothing they can do. Then at the same time it doesn't make economic sense for it to pencil out as creative space as well.

So I'm glad restore Oregon realized that notion and have pretty much waved the white flag

There may be several structural problems with the Temple, but nothing that can't be fixed and brought up to current code. It's not that the developers CAN'T do it, it's that they don't WANT to. They want to go the cheapest route possible for their bottom line. I happen to think that putting up a "cheap" office building by destroying an architecturally distinct 123 year old building (whether you like the building or not) is wrong. Especially when they could very easily incorporate at least the historic facade into their new proposal.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

It's not that the developers CAN'T do it, it's that they don't WANT to. They want to go the cheapest route possible for their bottom line.

Don't worry. They're going to use brown metal panels instead of glass. It'll be great.

[tworivers]

65MAX: There may be several structural problems with the Temple, but nothing that can't be fixed and brought up to current code. It's not that the developers CAN'T do it, it's that they don't WANT to. They want to go the cheapest route possible for their bottom line. I happen to think that putting up a "cheap" office building by destroying an architecturally distinct 123 year old building (whether you like the building or not) is wrong. Especially when they could very easily incorporate at least the historic facade into their new proposal.

A-fucking-men. And this in a nutshell is exactly the problem with capitalism in general: it's an antisocial economic system that rewards greed and short-term thinking. State intervention is the only hope we have to blunt its deleterious effects but -- given the fact that the US has evolved into a plutocracy with democratic forms, mirroring the insane concentration of wealth we face -- I won't be holding my breath. These developers should be told 'no way', in my opinion.

innovativethinking: Well it's not structurally sound to be incorporated to what their doing. That's not a personal choice by anybody or the city. It's literally nothing they can do. Then at the same time it doesn't make economic sense for it to pencil out as creative space as well.

In addition to not making sense grammatically, this is literally the least innovative line of thinking you could possibly take with this proposal, not to mention factually incorrect.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Based on a conversation I had last weekend with a friend who works for Restore Oregon, they are absolutely not giving up the hope of saving the Temple Building.

Good for them, I really hope they can come up with a solution, but they are fighting a very steep hill with this one. I am expecting it to be torn down, but will be pleasantly surprised if they find a way to save the building and give it a better life than a wall for bums to sleep against.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

There may be several structural problems with the Temple, but nothing that can't be fixed and brought up to current code. It's not that the developers CAN'T do it, it's that they don't WANT to. They want to go the cheapest route possible for their bottom line. I happen to think that putting up a "cheap" office building by destroying an architecturally distinct 123 year old building (whether you like the building or not) is wrong. Especially when they could very easily incorporate at least the historic facade into their new proposal.

Well anything is possible for the right amount of money, but no developer is ever going to do something that is a guarantee loss of money. That is the bottom line.

As for saving the facade, I really question if it would be worth the added expense and complications of saving it while the interior would just be a generic modern office building. I would almost feel more sorry for the building if that were to happen to it, it would be like taxidermying a building.

Originally Posted by tworivers

A-fucking-men. And this in a nutshell is exactly the problem with capitalism in general: it's an antisocial economic system that rewards greed and short-term thinking. State intervention is the only hope we have to blunt its deleterious effects but -- given the fact that the US has evolved into a plutocracy with democratic forms, mirroring the insane concentration of wealth we face -- I won't be holding my breath. These developers should be told 'no way', in my opinion.

I get where you are coming from, but if the city told the developer "no way" they have to keep the building, then the developer will let it sit there and rot. Unless someone wishes to buy the building and renovate it at a loss of profit, there isn't much that can be done. Also, this is Oregon, where if you own the land, it is yours to do what you like with it as long as it is within the zoning codes and there is nothing in zoning that says you cannot tear down existing structures. So my solution to anyone who wishes to save something, buy it and then save it.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Well anything is possible for the right amount of money, but no developer is ever going to do something that is a guarantee loss of money. That is the bottom line.

As for saving the facade, I really question if it would be worth the added expense and complications of saving it while the interior would just be a generic modern office building. I would almost feel more sorry for the building if that were to happen to it, it would be like taxidermying a building.

The developer is not going to lose money on this, they're going to pocket a chunk of $$$ no matter which route they go. Don't you think it's better to preserve a little piece of our early history when they do? There are so few of our 19th Century buildings left that bulldozing them for a quick buck shouldn't be an option. They purchased this building KNOWING it was historically significant, but hoped to get in and out before anybody noticed.

And if all they were gonna do is a "generic modern office building", then all the more reason to say 'hell no'. But if they did a new heavy timber structure behind the existing facade, that would be perfectly compatible with the historic nature of the building while making it much more marketable and more valuable in the long run when they (undoubtedly) will sell it off to an out-of-state or overseas investor.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I get where you are coming from, but if the city told the developer "no way" they have to keep the building, then the developer will let it sit there and rot. Unless someone wishes to buy the building and renovate it at a loss of profit, there isn't much that can be done. Also, this is Oregon, where if you own the land, it is yours to do what you like with it as long as it is within the zoning codes and there is nothing in zoning that says you cannot tear down existing structures. So my solution to anyone who wishes to save something, buy it and then save it.

There are ways for governments to work with developers to keep historic buildings, such as tax abatesments and historic preservation tax credits to zoning variances, etc. It really depends on the community and how much texture and activity downtown it wants. Portland is at its most successful where there are the most old buildings. Or, put another way, it's at its most boring where there are the least contributing buildings to its architectural record and texture. South of the Temple building, Portland fades into Anywhere, USA. The modernism is okay but hardly thrilling. The sidewalks tend to be less active and there are fewer tourists. As an economic development strategy, historic preservation makes sense. Another example: Pearl succeeds precisely because it has a large number of old buildings. South Waterfront, by comparison, is comatose.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

The developer is not going to lose money on this, they're going to pocket a chunk of $$$ no matter which route they go. Don't you think it's better to preserve a little piece of our early history when they do? There are so few of our 19th Century buildings left that bulldozing them for a quick buck shouldn't be an option. They purchased this building KNOWING it was historically significant, but hoped to get in and out before anybody noticed.

And if all they were gonna do is a "generic modern office building", then all the more reason to say 'hell no'. But if they did a new heavy timber structure behind the existing facade, that would be perfectly compatible with the historic nature of the building while making it much more marketable and more valuable in the long run when they (undoubtedly) will sell it off to an out-of-state or overseas investor.

And you know this how? I am all for saving the building, but I also understand when a developer isn't going to do a high risk or something that could lose them money.

If something works out and the building is saved, then that is fantastic, I am just not holding my breath for it.

Heck, if this developer wanted to, they could tear down the building and make it a parking lot because they own it. If you don't like that, then by all means buy the building.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by soleri

There are ways for governments to work with developers to keep historic buildings, such as tax abatesments and historic preservation tax credits to zoning variances, etc. It really depends on the community and how much texture and activity downtown it wants. Portland is at its most successful where there are the most old buildings. Or, put another way, it's at its most boring where there are the least contributing buildings to its architectural record and texture. South of the Temple building, Portland fades into Anywhere, USA. The modernism is okay but hardly thrilling. The sidewalks tend to be less active and there are fewer tourists. As an economic development strategy, historic preservation makes sense. Another example: Pearl succeeds precisely because it has a large number of old buildings. South Waterfront, by comparison, is comatose.

I get that you want this building saved, I am all for that, but I don't think this building makes or breaks anything. Things that will make that part of downtown more active outside of business hours (because lets be honest, that part of downtown is active during the weekdays) is going to be the new hotels that have been added to there.

The Pearl District was mostly rail tracks, and most of the buildings that were there before the Pearl District have all been replaced. So that really isn't that great of an argument. Slabtown is full of modernism and brand new buildings, but that too is very much Portland rather than Anywhere USA. Also, there are plenty of historic and old buildings on the southern end of downtown, and plenty that makes you feel like you are in Portland rather than anywhere else.

The South Waterfront is a fairly isolated district that still has a long way to go before it is built out. With OHSU and the Zidell blocks being developed, that will only help that area become more active. I remember years ago when we could also say that the Pearl District was dead above Everett....but those days are long gone.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I don't think this building makes or breaks anything. Things that will make that part of downtown more active outside of business hours (because lets be honest, that part of downtown is active during the weekdays) is going to be the new hotels that have been added to there.

I hate to say it (because I love history) but I agree. The fact that something is old doesn't make it worth saving.

If given the choice, I'd save The Lotus building before I'd save the temple building. And let's take it a step further. 99.999% of Portlanders don't know either of the two buildings, but many know The Lotus, and many know of the mural behind The Lotus (which has tragically been covered up with ads).

History is a challenging topic because it forces a conversation to determine the difference between what is historic and what is just old.

The Temple building is a mess. Restoring it would mean turning it into something none of us ever knew - something Portlanders don't even recognize it as. How is that different from Disneyfication? How is that different from tearing it down and building a replica? Preserving it would mean keeping it in the hideous condition its in now, and nobody wants that. I loved the idea of restoring it and building above it, but I will gladly admit that was a ridiculous idea. I'd love to see it turned into something marvelous again, perhaps as it was over half a century ago when it was apartments. But is it really meaningful? And is the interior in a condition that can be made useful for another hundred years? Wouldn't 'restoring it' mean turning it into something fake for another hundred years? For what purpose?

I'll be sad to lose The Lotus even though I never go there. The Lotus is living history. In a perfect world, its building would be saved and the lobby to a new hotel built behind it would have a soaring entrance using the mural from The Lotus as a backdrop. I know that's not realistic, but it'd be marvelous because it would preserve a chunk of old Portland that is still meaningful.

The Temple building is a fortress that's falling down. It brings no vitality to the city and holds no place in the hearts of Portlanders. I'm not against saving it, but I'm not against tearing it down either. I'm indifferent because it isn't part of the fabric of Portland. Take a look at its wikipedia page. Irrelevant. Here's its entire history:

Originally serving as a club and office for the Ancient Order of United Workmen fraternal organization, it later became the Tourny Apartments. Portland architect Richard Sundeleaf made modifications in 1942 and 1946, and Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects in 1980.[2]

As of November 2015, a re-developer's architect deemed the building unsafe, and it was removed from the city's Historic Resource Inventory.

And what happened to the Ancient Order of United Workmen? It ceased to exist 90 years ago, before any of us were born, at a point when the building was only 34 years old.

I'm sorry, but that building will be no great loss. And if it is restored, it will be turned into something none of us knew it as being.

[Abide]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

I'll be sad to lose The Lotus even though I never go there. The Lotus is living history. In a perfect world, its building would be saved and the lobby to a new hotel built behind it would have a soaring entrance using the mural from The Lotus as a backdrop. I know that's not realistic, but it'd be marvelous because it would preserve a chunk of old Portland that is still meaningful.

The Temple building is a fortress that's falling down. It brings no vitality to the city and holds no place in the hearts of Portlanders. I'm not against saving it, but I'm not against tearing it down either. I'm indifferent because it isn't part of the fabric of Portland. Take a look at its wikipedia page. Irrelevant. Here's its entire history:



And what happened to the Ancient Order of United Workmen? It ceased to exist 90 years ago, before any of us were born, at a point when the building was only 34 years old.

I'm sorry, but that building will be no great loss. And if it is restored, it will be turned into something none of us knew it as being.

Disagree strongly. The Lotus building is architecturally fairly common and not terribly interesting. The Lotus bar itself is fantastic and definitely worthy of preservation, perhaps in the lobby of the new hotel. The Temple building is worth preserving, at the very least in its facade, because it is a Richardson Romanesque beauty unlike any other in the city. It may be a mishmash of styles, but that's part of its charm. It has a commanding presence and it's gorgeous. It would definitely bring vitality to the street if the retail space weren't vacant. The demolition of the Temple building would indeed be a very lamentable loss for the city. It's been special to me ever since I first saw it when I moved here 9 years ago. No, I've never been inside it, but I would mourn its loss and I think a great many others would as well. It's precisely because so many of us recognize it only from the outside that I think retaining the facade isn't a bad option. I also doubt the developers would lose money on it. The thing is, they probably just won't make AS MUCH as they would like if they retained it.

Heck, if this developer wanted to, they could tear down the building and make it a parking lot because they own it. If you don't like that, then by all means buy the building.

While the developer could tear the building down and make a new parking lot, the city would immediately begin levying fines, because new parking lots are not allowed downtown.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by Abide

While the developer could tear the building down and make a new parking lot, the city would immediately begin levying fines, because new parking lots are not allowed downtown.

Yeah, but that code is goofy.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by Abide

The Lotus bar itself is fantastic and definitely worthy of preservation, perhaps in the lobby of the new hotel.

Agree with everything else you said, but even the inside of the Lotus is lacking. The wood bar against the wall is nice and will definitely be preserved and can move, but if you look at the ceiling and walls, it's basically an unadorned blank space.

I agree that the outside is a typical old building without anything unusual or fantastic. if it was part of a historic district, i'm sure it would be a contributing structure, but it's not.

The Temple building has always stuck out as an unusual building to me and one that I've always wanted to see preserved. Regardless, I'm curious to see how this will play out.