except that the budget turned out to be $200m - around 950% - higher than the original cost, as a function of the inferior materials that allowed the original $29m price tag to be met.
Except that the City then spent many times more the budget fixing it because it was so poorly built. And then they did it again a few years ago. Then the pandemic hit and no one wants to go into the office anymore at the city. Oh, and it's even darker inside than it was before. You get what you pay for.
I worked in the Portland Building for 5 years starting about 10 years ago. During the end of my time in that building there were engineers evaluating the structure to determine what upgrades it would need to meet modern earthquake codes and the resulting report (not sure if it was released to the public) identified some unsurprisingly significant problems. Once being briefed on the structural issues, I really did not enjoy being there. It wasn't a pleasant place to work (though it wasn't as bad as some may make it out) and now we knew it was built poorly. There were some critical errors made during construction that badly compromised the integrity of the building (I believe at the behest of the city to save money). It was a ticking time bomb; an earthquake of even moderate magnitude for the area could easily destroy the building. So, that said, I do find it interesting that much of the discussion and hand wringing comes down to aesthetics when the most important need was safety. Incidentally, I recall the estimate for just structural upgrades (in 2014) was $93M. I'm also glad they saved the ecoroof...I worked on that :).
The city of Portland is built on a massive silt bed. I am glad I no longer work in downtown Portland as I would guess the majority of the city will be rubble in the event of an earthquake due to liquefaction of the silt it is built upon.
I must confess, I am not a big fan of the Portland Building and most other Post-Modern buildings. Given my age, I guess that's because I slip into that 40-year-old trap. I was already an adult when it was built, but still very young, and Post Modern buildings struck me then (and now) as superficial and "kitschy". That being said, I think the recent renovation of the Portland Building was very well done. The exterior is not much changed in appearance but the technical issues that led to its quick deterioration have been corrected. Since the appearance of the building was what was important to Michael Graves, not the materials of which it was made, I see no problem with the new skin. In addition, I saw an interview with Michael Graves several years back in which he said he wanted lighter glass from the start but that the city insisted on the original dark glass for budgetary reason, so it could fairly be said that the current appearance is closer to what Graves intended than the building as originally constructed. The interior is a vast improvement over what was there before and a much more pleasant place to work. On landmark laws, I think it's worth mentioning that local laws can often be far more strict than Federal laws. New York City has some of the strictest laws on the books, although how they're interpreted varies depending on who the current mayor is and who is on the Landmarks Commission. The same could be said for Boston, Charleston, SC, and New Orleans. I don't know if Portland has local laws or how they are enforced, but generally government buildings are exempt from this kind of review.
I'm a lot younger than you (30's) and I think post modern buildings are kitchy too. I don't think that will go away. But it's still a significant example of a time when people though kitchy was great. Sort of like preserving the world's biggest building shaped like a tea kettle. We need to keep them as a warning to others.
Very well stated! (And I'm glad to know that my dislike of the style is not merely due to my age.) I would add that I think it is irresponsible to tear these buildings down, especially for profit, when they are still serviceable, whatever their aesthetic appeal. It is a misuse of resources to see buildings as merely disposable consumer goods. Too much time, effort, and money go into their construction for them to be disposed of lightly.
I wasn't familiar with the Portland building, but looking at it here, my first reaction was that it was quint-essential post-modern. That says something to me in terms of preservation.
Great vid, I work as a conservation officer in the UK for a local authority. I don't know how familiar you are with heritage protection here in the UK but it couldn't be more different. The level of protection for those 2,500 landmark buildings in the US is extended to every listed building in the UK, of which there are around 400,000. Very insightful to finally have a better grasp of the US system.
Partially conditions for example the Chepstow railway bridge is extremely rusty as it is cast iron which could become extremely dangerous though I'm not sure exactly that's my guess
I actually really like how the Portland Building looks. I’m honestly kinda confused why people dislike it. It has impeccable vibes and I wish there were more buildings like it
I see something that feels really american about the building also if they removed all the buildings around it and put up spotlights it could be so intimidating.
Impeccable vibes is a perfect way to put it. It's going for a look, and it's hitting it. Even if we don't like the style, we can't deny it's a good execution.
Indeed, hell it gives me Gotham City (the city from Batman!) vibes and I always liked that city's design...strange what some people consider ugly, but then again it is a good thing we don't all like the same things, as that would lead to a rather bland world!
That idea of "Facadism" is an interesting one, but I feel like a very modern one. As in the past, people weren't all too concerned with historic preservation. If I look at least where I live, the facades of many of the buildings downtown are a mismatch of different eras and styles, but behind the facade, many of the buildings are 500+ years old. The facade was changed whenever a wealthy owner felt like it was "outdated". in fact, historical preservation was so much not in the mindset of politicians, that even after WWII, in my city they wanted to demo the oldest brick house in the country to make room for a road. This building remains to this day, but it apparently had a sister building that did not. Now due to all the laws of historical preservation, these different facades are frozen in place and time, while the interiors get adapted and modernized. For example, a building collapsed on the city market during renovations, and instead of building a modern building, they will construct something with a facade "in keeping with the historic nature of the city center", but of course it'll have all modern construction behind that facade.
The main reason why this wasn't a concern in the past is mostly due to the fact that not a lot of stuff got built so unless there was some sort of natural disaster you never saw wast swathes of cities get torn down in one go, instead they naturally evolved over time and always maintained some of their older character. But with industrialization suddenly building became way cheaper and there was a much greater demand for new construction and after some time people slowly got worried about completely losing historical architecture and buildings and they were worried that a city might completely lose it's character in the blink of an eye to make way for new construction. That's why historical preservation really started to take off, this mostly happened in the post WWII period where there was a construction boom and especially in Europe people got really worried that the cities they loved might get destroyed to make way for a high way. The difference perhaps was that in Europe these historical districts were tied closely to people's cultural identity, since European countries trace their history centuries into the past it's all part of that history and destroying it would feel like destroying part of yourself. In America this didn't happen to nearly the same degree, probably because America is a settler colonial nation and as such the majority white population don't have much of a connection with the history past the founding of their own country and are often directly antagonistic to the indigenous people who do have a connection to that history.
_"As in the past, people weren't all too concerned with historic preservation."_ Which is, of course, why Venice has its core idea of "As it was, where it was." Or Japan, where they rebuild traditional buildings every century or so, but if you ask, they'll tell you the structure is 1400 years old.
Fellow Portland area person--I've found any time I visit downtown to just appreciate the weird or fun architecture. It's the mix match of different architectures that help give the city its unique feel, in my opinion. That being said, I lived 20 mins away in a suburb so I can see portlanders proper having other ideas
As an architecture student, I find my course on historic preservation specially helpful as it gives an interesting framework to view architecture, historiclly but also for future practice. The distinction between different values of preservation by Alois Riegl (historic, age, artistic, newness, use, ...) and also Gabi Dolff-Bonekämper's "value to dispute" (Streitwert) helps to frame discussions around different values then just our subjective view of what is worth preserving. Even a small, nondescript building could have values hidden underneath the facade worth preserving. Thanks for your great videos, greetings from Vienna.
I worked in the Portland Building (before the "renovation"). The reason it was completed "under budget" was it was a shoddily built POS. It had all the construction quality of a movie set structure - built for looks on the outside/nothing worthy inside. It should be "delisted" as it should never been listed in the first place. On another note - Information on Portlandia, the large bronze statue facing 5th Street, suggests it was originally to be placed overlooking the park on Fourth Street. It is not hard to imagine - the builder probably read the blueprints upside down ...
My experience in the construction trades was that the developer wanted to spend as little money as possible. This often meant that they would hire out of state non union companies to do the work. One interesting consistency I found was that they often used companies out of California and Arizona, much warmer and drier climates than that of Portland Oregon. Many of these buildings have severe leak issues that once they get past the envelope (exterior) of the building, cause severe problems that can’t simply be repaired because of the way they were constructed. If I had to guess that was probably the case with this building.
Anyone remember one of Donald's mottos back in 2016 "Under budget and ahead of schedule"? The first time I heard it, I thought a few red flags were raised. It's almost like the billboard gag the first episode after the Simpsons Movie that read something like "Building cheaply, costing dearly" and had a picture of Mr. Burns on it.
@@blurboards1 Bogus. PLANS were drawn, submitted AND approved. Inspections WERE made. Has NOTHING to do with the contactor(s) you personally do not like.
@@billhosko7723 Plans and drawings are submitted for every job, by state law they are all inspected too. Clearly the inspectors catch everything right? considering how many leaks, defects and deficiencies I encountered when working in the high rise industry, your logic is what’s bogus.
I had been wondering about how that feeling of datedness work, and when it begins to fade again. Looking at some notable areas in my home city, there are perfect examples of this, like large scale neighbourhoods built in the same architectural style that were universally hated until a few years ago when they began to creep over that magical limit and started to become appreciated once again. And there are any number of areas facing the same issue, although it is often difficult to say when you're dealing with that blind spot or simply looking at bad architecture.
Mid-century homes of Palm Springs (and elsewhere) one could not give away in 70's worth premium today. Now the town is beautifully preserved time capsule of bygone era. Original work cubicles designed by Eams, thrown into dumpsters during office renovation worth $10,000 in semi-decent condition. After second round of approval appreciation is more likely to stay.
Some of those big, long 1950's/60's/70's mid century ranch houses have really come back into style here in middle Tennessee. The ones with big plate glass windows, that deliberately eschew that colonial aesthetic, that has been a trendy look here. You can see some of these elements from these old ranch houses in newer ones, with the wood/stone/plate glass.
It's just old not that the look is dated. Many houses that my mother thinks are ugly wind up being very cute once they are restored. Yes restored to look more like they did when they were made.
Points taken. The Portland building ALWAYS looked tacky to me, even when I had to study it in the 90s; just like all of Graves' Target collection. Not everything NEEDS to be saved. Ostensibly everything interesting about the building can be experienced in pictures. They CAN save the statue, tho. 🤷🏾♂️ Thank you for your videos!
I've kinda came around to Graves' designs, but I think things like that Target collection being so mass market tied his aesthetic to fashion and its fast turnover rate, burned me out on his ideas for a long while. Now I feel like I can approach it again, with the benefit of time and his aesthetic being less ubiquitous, I feel like its playful charm can kind of come through more. I understand tacky as a descriptor, but that whole postmodern playfulness with forms and scale disconnected from usefulness feels like something that still has merit to me. The Portland and other of Graves' buildings are the overplayed pop song of architecture, not everyones cup of tea to begin with, easy to get burnt out on, but still capable of being enjoyed through the lens of nostalgia.
Carlos Leon It can do that in a book. The formalized vocation of Architecture has always had a certain arrogance about it and is very self-congratulatory as a profession; sorta like the entertainment industry. But these behemoths take up space and it is questionable how much they cost to maintain as opposed to building something more modern, efficient and purposeful; not just to work out some theoretical ideas or prove an egoistic point. It is a building, not a sculpture. The community has to live with it. Besides, there are MANY more and better examples that WERE built to last. Thank god not everything survived from antiquity. I can only imagine if people back then were so reverential to EVERYTHING they produced.
I despise the metal plate cladding which seems to get slapped on every high rise building these days, but this is the best example of it I think I have seen, and I still love the building. That statue is beautiful.
That’s my favourite part of buildings! Especially when the plates are large and tiled rectangular, but offset sorta like the alternating lengthwise brick pattern, but in like a semi irregular way!
I always loved this building because as a kid my dad worked there and I would sometimes get to come visit him there, and every time I see it I think of him. I didn’t realize other people don’t like it.
I’m old enough to remember when the Portland Building was new and drawing much unfriendly comment from the architectural community as well the public. I guess I was part of that public; it looked so contrived, almost silly to me. The years have matured both my perception and appreciation of the building. When in Portland, I sought it out to see it in person. They could have put up a generic, steel and glass tower that would’ve soon disappeared unnoticed into the city scape. Instead they took a chance and built something that people actually come to Portland to see. I’m so happy the city saw fit to preserve this unique, dare I say, beautiful, building.
@@digitalrandomart3049 .. here in Winnipeg, they completed a “Gingerbread” City Hall in 1886 and stood for 75 years … demolished in the early 1960’s to be replaced by architecture .. well, let’s say .. it could have been any east bloc capital .. Now … I wish they had never tore that building down …
It's funny how people complain that if you build something out of glass that doesn't stand out then it's boring and soulless but if you try to build something that actually has decoration and character then it's ugly and needs to go as well. I think these people are just impossible and are basically the architecture version of people who think games and movies from their childhood were better and never stop to ask why they might think that.
I don't get why people dislike it. It looks beautiful! It reminds me of what I thought buildings in cities looked like when I was a kid, and had only seen cities in movies. It's really cool!
This is a super interesting topic. I'm from the UK and weirdly, a similar phenomenon exists here with the 40 years thing. I'm not sure if it's exactly 40 years, but I've definitely noticed that buildings start off new and trendy, then after a while fashions and tastes change and buildings from that period/era start getting demolished, while at the same time certain architects and critics start speaking out about preserving certain examples, then after a while, once those ones do get "listed" (as we say here) people start to appreciate their architectural merit and they become more popular again. At the moment I'm seeing this happening mainly with brutalist buildings, but it's also happening with post modern buildings in London. We recently lost a big brutalist building (Sampson House) near the Tate Modern that I used to walk past every day. It was big and many would say ugly, but it had a certain kind of beauty to it, and I think it's a bit of a shame it's gone. The project going in its place does look better from an urbanism/walkability/street activation perspective, and is definitely less controversial, but It's a shame we had to lose quite a good example of brutalism.
That's sad, looking at the pictures it seems quite nice. You do raise another issue about urbanism. The neighborhood has needs beyond aesthetics, and the primary function of an urban environment isn't to serve as a museum gallery of buildings. That isn't to say that this particular demolition was a good one - I have no knowledge of the issues at play there - but if a building is dangerous or harmful to its inhabitants or community, that also has to be weighed against its significance. Harm isn't always about health or earthquake codes, but could be something more subtle, like how it affects the flow of pedestrians or traffic.
@@briankirkpatrick8888 Yes true. I dont think that was a big issue here though. I mean, perhaps it could be an issue like asbestos though. Not really sure. I believe it was an IBM office.
@@mdhazeldine Probably just people being tired of brutalism then. A shame. I think it was great. Maybe those renovations where they cover something in trendy cladding would have been good a compromise. They can always remove it later.
@@briankirkpatrick8888 Re-cladding it would be just as bad as tearing down, because the facade is a massive part of what makes a brutalist building brutalist. I think re-configuring the inside, and perhaps the street level part would have been a better direction to go in.
Brutalism is definitely an interesting era. There's a brutalist building on my university campus. The exterior looks like a Soviet era hospital but the interior is very well laid out including concrete cast furniture.
I find the idea of how buildings become reavaluated very interesting. For instance NYC's world famous Chrysler building quite quickly became dated(within a decade or so) and a 1950s guidebook to the city described it as "the less said the better"!
Idk, for me Art Deco buildings like the Chrysler are just timeless. Certain architectural styles are pleasing to look at and stand the test of time. I just can´t see some 1960s commie blocks would ever get the same love and appreciation as a medieval half timbered house.
@@Horus4302 well, I guess the original comment just proves that the idea of "timeless" style is socially constructed and completely subjective. Anything can become a classic, if given time. Those 'commie blocks' you talk about would be an example of brutalist architecture--something that's very loved in many architectural circles. Much of modernist design (including art deco) was at its time continuously critiqued as regressive, yet has now created a lot of architecture that many would consider "timeless." You can appreciate both brutalism and medieval styles, and both are valid opinions.
@@evilshoemaker Yes! In fact there were quite a few negative reviews of the Chrysler building when it was brand new as well! Comments such as: that it was “an automobile ad in the form of a skyscraper,”, and had “no significance as serious design.”
Don't be too harsh in your judgement .. we have no idea what the condition of those materials were 45 years after initial construction, and 1938 wasn't the year of spending freely, if you look at your history books. The remodel saved it from destruction, so it served a purpose.
Excellent. Preservation nuts and bolts are rarely addressed, but essential to confront the "40 year likeability blind spot" of the people who rush to judgement with demolition usually just for profit. I like that phrase. Good observation.
"Keep in mind that being likeable by the public is not the same as significant, and that beauty is not he same as exceptional." Such a lovely phrase that can relate to so many parts of our lives 11:05
I am actually happy that the Portland Building was preserved. I am not a fan of it or Post Modernism but I understand its significance from an architectural historical point of view. As an architect I am always in favor of preserving buildings as they represent a snapshot of the era and like anything we tend to swing back and forth in what we find important and time passes. By the way I first heard of the Portland Building while I was taking my Arch History Class in College.
When compared to the Humana Building in Louisville, KY also by Graves, the Portland Building looks like a flat decorated box. It is important to consider the budget issues as well as the design issues.
It's so interesting hearing this from an American perspective, a building 40-50 years old would be considered relatively recent over here in the UK as we have many buildings that are several hundreds of years old, even a a thousand. Saying a building feels dated seems so odd as many of ours date back so far, I could likely walk around nearly any town in the UK and find a building older than the US itself haha. Great video tho !!
It isn’t just about the actual age. “Dated” means that fashions have changed. Classics eschew fashion and strive for a timeless look. The Portland Building is fixed in the Postmodern Era because of its square windows.
Yep. Kind of like Googie is now. Heralded at first, then reviled, and now *almost* universally lauded. And, like those atomic-age buildings, most will be torn down by people represented in a lot of the comments here.
Honestly just because it won awards from architects doesn't mean it's necessarily good architecture. That's like saying all movies that earned awards are actually good movies. Not necessarily.
Super interesting! On the matter of reaching 50 years, next year marks the 50th anniversary of the completion of Kisho Kurokawa's Nakagin Capsule building in Tokyo. But sadly, it has been decided to demolish it, albeit that they are selling off individual capsules to museums and other interested bodies.
One of the problems with most modern buildings is that they are not built to last due to a number of reasonable reasons. Within a few decades the maintenance costs become prohibitive. This will exclude most except the exceptional and lucky from preservation.
I would look also at the energy cost of renovating vs the energy cost of demolition and building new, as well as the operational energy cost of the two options.
In my first year in Urban Planning my professors stressed the need to appreciate the historical context of buildings and not just their aesthetic value. _However_ the Portland Building isn't just ugly, it's built like fortress, a bunker. It looks like a citadel. And such a building communicates to the public that it doesn't trust them, it's need to ward off people rather than embrace them. I believe that a building designed like this can have a negative psychological effect on people and their attitudes towards society. If it was placed in the middle of nowhere it would be fine. But it's got too much of a prominent position in Portland which might play a role, albeit a minor one, in the atttitudes of Portlanders.
I understand what you mean with the “fortress” with the shapes used, but I feel the colors and accents pull it towards a playful grandeur. I’ve lived in pdx for 11 years and worked downtown for 5, and I delight in its appearance as it reciprocates my motivations to moving to pdx/pnw. For further context, as a child some of my earliest favorite works were the 1992 movie Toys starring Robin Williams, PeeWee’s Playhouse, and pdx’s own NuShooz’s “I Can’t Wait”, and I was infatuated with The Space Needle. I love the bold confidence in expression of whimsical playfulness found in all these works.
I think preserving history is a very important thing, it can show how society has progressed, grown, shrank and moved over time. I think we should preserve a piece of every architectural movement in a city even the bad ones. I absolutely hate that building but in a enduring kind of way.
I strongly disagree. Buildings, like cities, are living things - more akin to trees than anything else. Just as we don't cut down an old tree for the sake of it, when one is full of rot and no longer sprouts leaves in Spring, we cut it down to allow another tree to take its place. Some buildings are mistakes. Some buildings are not of a lasting (materially) construction. Some buildings are beyond renovation and repurposing. This is a particular problem with a lot of the Brutalist buildings of the 60s and 70s, where the materials were not understood and were driven by political ideology, rather than other "normal" architectural considerations. They are often preserved for political reasons - often in spite of all practical considerations. High-rise housing is a particular issue, as, in many cases, their density is LOWER than traditional housing (due to building regulations), yet they come with a whole host of additional social problems.
@@edwardcullen1739 When you say buildings from the 60s and 70s are you talking about brutalist designs? Because I kinda love them, of course if a building is beyond repair you gotta take it down, however often builders will buy historic buildings years in advance and leave them to rot until the city has no choice but to condemn them. It's a pretty common loophole.
@@Megabean Yes, I am. It's not a blanket thing; there are some that ARE worth preserving, but I would estimate that the vast, vast majority are not. When you put that in the context of "all the buildings ever built", most have been demolished... So which ones do we preserve? The best, most beautiful and/or functional. This is not per se an attack on Brutalism, it's just that Brutalism is hitting that point where the rot is showing and some refuse to allow what we're always done - preserve the best and clear the rest, in an effort to make something better.
@@edwardcullen1739 I kinda agree but if you're North American you'll probably know that when we replace buildings here its pretty rare for us to put something better in its place. You get those superstores that are made out of fake stucco foam, or you get a highrise that looks identical to every other highrise, oversized floors with nothing but glass. Our buildings haven't improved whatsoever except for the edge cases.
Also, I'm very leery of modern construction techniques - overuse of concrete, for example. Victoria Gate (Leeds, England) is a good example. It's all concrete and glass (with tactical red brick so that it fits better with the surrounding red brick and limestone). Externally, it's ugly; when you see the concrete next to the limestone, it just looks cheap. Internally, the arcade (mall) is awful - the proportions are terrible, with very narrow lanes compared to the height. This is in stark contrast to Victoria Quarter, which has almost perfect proportions. VQ's main acrade is wide and tall, but actually opens wider at the 1st floor (um, 2nd to US readers...) This creates a wonderful space, which is why it is no surprise that it is so popular. I'm not saying they should have cloned the Victorian styling of VQ in VG, but they could a taken some hints!!!
It was doing some work in the Netherlands that I realized that in order to have historic old buildings, we have to accept that they’re going to look old & a bit rundown for awhile. One of the buildings i did work in was built in the 1970s & looked like all the awful choices made back then. But we have to accept that tastes change, & the next subsequent generations may regard that tackiness as kitsch, then cool, then classic.
I've watched a few of your videos lately, and this one is the one that really sold me on subscribing, before the content needs renovation. You're a fantastic presenter.
I love your videos. You provide a lot to think about. You comment on likability of a building. Disliking a building because you think it is ugly is one thing. Disliking a building because it doesn't work is another. One feature of Brutalism is large, cold concrete liminal spaces, such as outdoor plazas. No one wants to assemble there, or have lunch, or relax. Yet, this has to be a feature of some buildings in order for them to "work". so, they should be changed, imho.
It’s so important to keep in mind that the buildings you may love, that you consider “real architecture” and think are beautiful were at some point just as trendy and “tacky” as modern architecture is today. Victorians didn’t have some special skill at creating objectively beautiful art, the generations which succeeded them created a material culture which aggressively reacted to and in many cases replaced it. Some day, a person will look at the Portland building and marvel that people once hated and attempted to demolish it the way we wonder at the foolishness of previous generations for destroying the beautiful architecture they inherited.
Do you have evidence that people generally hated their architecture in the past? Except for a few famous examples like the Eiffel Tower, I don't think it was common. Even in the case of the Eiffel Tower, it was quickly beloved and adopted by the peopoe. Moreover, there are many more buildings that look like the Portland building and some are still being constructed in the same style. And they still look ugly.
@@_blank-_ still checks out the older generation can really be stubborn to liking the creations of newer generations. Though another example of a critized building was the book tower in Detroit. There probably plenty examples, you need to really research it though.
@@_blank-_ look up why gothic architecture is called "gothic", people of it's time associated it with the middle ages and barbarism. Barroque and Rococo suffered critique in their time for being more hubris than homage. The revivalist movent started as a critique of the "new" 17th and 18th century styles in favor of "the good older ones". These themselves were later criticized for exagerating in form-over-function. Even the earlier modernist movements that are beloved nowadays used to suffer the same critics post-modernist architecture suffers today. You don't have to research much to find this.
Something id like to know is why 70s design has been so looked down upon, i put in the year - 50 and it said 1971 and for a moment i thought yeah that checks out but then i thought... wait thats been that way about as long as i remember(mind you i was born in 1995). Personally im quite fond of it in photos, the interiors at least, i find it kindof comfy.
I used to walk by the Portland Building everyday on my way to PSU. Man, this building is one of those that deserve to be demolished ASAP. My apologies to the designer, but the only place where this should be preseved is via drawings in museums or videos like this one. 😂
My thing as an engineer who maintains buildings, is that a lot of the focus is on the aesthetics as opposed to how well the building does what it was supposed to do, and how easily it is maintained. I always emphasize in my disagreements with architects, that they should look at the ww2 jeep as inspiration for how buildings should work. Simple structures, simple geometries, large maintenance/utility spaces to facilitate future remodels/growth, etc. I see way too many buildings put up now that maybe look good, but cost way too much to build, and are expensive to maintain. Not every building needs to be beautiful, but they all should be fundamentally effective and useful as buildings.
The 50 year curse applies to a lot more than architecture. It applies to fashion, paintings, sculpture, industrial design, music, everything. 50 (or 40) years ago is your grandparent's time. Art Nouveau, John Singer Sargeant, art Deco, Tiffany Lamps, all had to fight for their lives at their 50 year point. By the way, I think the Portland Building is utterly beautiful.
And yet, buildings exist which have been useful, adaptable, beloved and cared for throughout their entire history. What if we tried harder to build things like that?
Great videos! I'm on a little binge rn lol. One tiny suggestion, when you give a date of something, can you include the year. It gets annoying having to look when the video came out to know if you're talking about 2021 or 2022. Keep up the great work tho!
I think brutalism has such a bad rep, and the age has reinforced this unfairly. I live in Newcastle, and a lot of the Brutalist buildings are being renovated, they end up looking superb- and people forget that the spaces within brutalist buildings are open, airy and very light !
Thing is they need upkeep. A fresh new brutalist structure with fresh concrete looks decent. A 40 year old one with heavily blackened concrete due to pollution and large chunks falling off?
In about 2007, I drove around the Midwest with my then-girlfriend photographing threatened buildings for the National Historic Trust. The 40-year rule was correct. A building built in 1982 was usually found intact, while many of those from the late 50s-70s we often found "recently upgraded", or most signs of their architecture uniqueness removed. The saddest was a 1960s high school that we found had just undergone a renovation. Only the loading dock outside the gymnasium retained a hint of what it once was.
The problem with some landmarking / historical designations is that it take use rights away from the owner. With the example of the hospital, it was abandoned as a hospital and was unfit for the owner's use. If preservation was a top priority, money should have been raised to purchase the building and land. Use the power of imminent domain if one must, but curtailing an owner's property rights has to come with compensation.
Why do people hate the building? I'll take a stab: * It barely acknowledges the street. * It has all that balcony space that apparently no one can access. * _Because_ of the flat nature of the exterior, the decorative scheme seems completely arbitrary to Graves' personal tastes. This isn't architecture. It isn't even sculpture, which is my usual characterization of post-WWII buildings (though many of Graves' early buildings fall into that). No, this is a giant sketchbook. It's a painting. And it's a painting of the post-_WWI_ variety, which means you need a catalog to find out what the artist was up to. It doesn't stand on its own - it's an illustration. But I agree that buildings worth saving are not always "beautiful" or "likeable." No, sometimes you keep a building around so you can say to young architects, "You see that building over there? Don't do that."
Hey Stewart. Landmark status does not actually hinder renovations are demolition on the federal level (unless it is federally owned). States or local municipalities have to have separate laws to enforce those types of restrictions. Alterations can affect federal funding, but the feds can’t actually stop you from making changes.
I remember Michael Graves responding to a contemporary criticism of his Portland Building that when the painted exterior started peeling and would then need maintenance, he stated, “I want it to look old.” That was when I accepted and liked his perspective and that building
I don't think it's merely about saving a building because it's architecturally significant. Beauty outside affects a person's inner mindset. People scoop up Lloyd-Wright's work and preserve it because it's beautiful. It was beautiful when it was made, and it's still true today. That's the problem with many movements in design. They're not about something beautiful, they're about the creator making a name by doing something new. That's not a basis for beauty, but people can be convinced, for a time, that something ugly is attractive because it is novel. That's the entire basis of a trend.
Yikes! At the age of 65 I can well remember when Grave's Portland building was new. Things have gone from cutting edge to irrelevant in my lifetime. I suspect that part of the problem is the very high cost of land in city centers. It often just doesn't make financial sense to preserve these buildings.
But that land isn't wasted by keeping the old building! It's a building, you can use it. I don't see how tearing it down and building a new structure in its place makes more economical sense (especially if you factor in the environmental costs of new construction, which are huge)
@@Friek555 If land values escalate rapidly you might very well have to put up a much larger building that can generate more rent to justify the land costs. It's unfortunate but that's the economic reality.
I have a standing rule on such things I call The Ruins Rule. Ask yourself if, when the building falls into ruin, it will still be interesting to have around, or will it be something to scraped into a landfill as quickly as possible.
Hi, I just came across your channel and want to say how much I enjoy your work. I was trained during the post modern age and I really disliked the pastiche and throw away quality. My first great love was Ando and Aalto. Quality of light and material. Maybe the Portland building stands as an example of a time but I don’t think it represents good architecture.
1) Loved that you included that California Stucco TH-camr. He is so helpful. 2) Do you think there is an unwritten rule with regards to "location"? You mentioned the city being embarassed in Portland because the building is so unavoidably in-your-face (being located smack dab in a city block), but I think something like Rudolph's recently demolished Burroughs Wellcome facility being tucked away may have prevented it from being saved due to an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. I guess what I am getting at is, "If a building of architectural significance falls in the woods, does it still make a sound?"
I used to live in Portland. I always liked the Portland Building. I heard that the Eiffel Tower was once hated by Parisians. Now it is the Number One Parisian landmark.
Interesting video. I think it illustrates how architects exist in an aesthetic bubble insulated from the general population, and hints at the tension between the architect's artistic impulse and the practical nature of buildings as lived-in structures. A building can be well-designed piece of avant garde art that's incredibly interesting as a set of blueprints while also being something few sane people would want to work/reside in.
Always amazing! 100% agree with the case you presented, there are a lot of buildings that we hate with all of our gut that can be completely filled with architectural significance. An old master, talking about fine art in general, once told: "A deep sign of artistic maturity is the ability to value and respect work that you aesthetically despise or reject but you know are genuine and bring something else to the table." There's nothing wrong in not liking it, that's ok and natural in a creative space so diffuse and large such as this of our day and age. But we need to know how to separate not liking it and not giving it the objective merit it deserves.
I think I thought earlier as a kid that it looked absolutely disgusting, but in context it actually gives the cityscape a sort of playfulness, and there actually is a lot of balance in it. A lot of the pieces of the façade if taken on their own or if developed into their own idea would look really imposing and unsettling and depending on *what* idea would look either very brutalist or modernist or even like fascist looking. Like what it really reminds me of is Art Deco with a lot of the direct cultural appropriation from Mayan and ancient Inca architecture stripped out. There might also be another thing going on, like if there's a 40 year mark for what's considered tacky and dated, there's another for what is considered antique, beautiful, traditional, and charming. There's a *bunch* of factors, not this exclusively, including like classism and racial segregation, and gentrification, but the walk up apartments in NYC also kind of fit too. A lot of them were built around the 20's-30's, were demolished in favor of 'towers-in-the-park' style tenements in the 60's and 70's, and are now seen as integral to the architecture and identity of New York. I think, ugly or not, if you can use it to tell people where you are without knowing what street you're on, it should be spared for demolition. Like nobody is going to know what you're talking about when you say, "I'm next to that 60 storey office building that looks like a Mies van deh Rohe rip-off" unless all your friends are pretentious and also all modernist office buildings basically look pretty much like that. But when you say, "I'm at that ugly building with the giant brown V and the ribbons on it" people can generally find it pretty easily.
Idk jack about anything in this video and yet I subbed very interesting and well made amd straight to the point and yet not lacking personality. Thank u
The ~50 year timeline is something I'd noticed myself, and its interesting to hear it validated as something that's more widely recognized. An example I see often is the Fleming Administration Building at the University of Michigan. Designed by Albert Dow in the 1960's, the building has long drawn criticism for its slit windows and overhangs giving it the reputation of being designed as a fortress to shut out student protests. This assumption is unfounded, I believe I read somewhere that Mr. Dow was quite hurt by the insinuation. The building is set to be demolished in 2022, citing safety concerns, but I believe the actual reason is that its ill fit for purpose these days, and instead of figuring how to reuse a building many deem ugly and isolating, they'd rather tear it down and find something new. I think its an unfortunate decision. I geometry of the building makes me think of De Stijl paintings, but in a very different way as say the Schröder House in Utrecht. Fleming feels informed by the two dimensional work and mixed with other ideas, instead of being truly of De Stijl as Schröder house is. Regardless it feels like a loss to me and I'm hoping to get out and photograph the building before its torn down.
Part of the problem is those mid century designs don't always upgrade well, especially in terms of energy efficiency. Slit windows force greater reliance on electricity for lighting, instead of letting natural light flood in, for example. And while the Fleming building looks interesting, at least from the exterior, I can't imagine it's particularly pleasant inside. Spending time in those kinds of buildings always feels drab and alienating, like a dystopian sci-fi film. Interesting, but not something you wanna actually live with everyday.
@@claudiadarling9441 Agreed although, I don't find the Flemming Admin building too offensive. In Toronto we have Robarts Library at U of Toronto and I describe it as having a face that only a mother could love. During long, dreary winters, Robart's is prone to be the precipitating trigger of a year long depressive episode. Architects (mothers) will defend it and take the most flattering pictures they can cough up but it doesn't change how the building is experienced by students and locals alike.
@@claudiadarling9441, I'll agree with you there. I've been in the building for several meetings, and talking to people who work in that building, it certainly could be a better experience, folks complain about "sick building syndrome," most likely stemming from bad/insufficient airflow. There are accessibility issues, none of the bathrooms to my knowledge can accommodate a wheelchair user. The IT infrastructure is hard to maintain or expand, as the building was not designed with an affordance for it. Its designed for a 60's idea of how to organize the office, and limited on space on each floor so it certainly has downsides. and it is not the most exciting and energetic on the interior. I can certainly believe that its not economically feasible looking at the scope of renovations needed, but if it were, I'm still a big fan of adaptive reuse. We would never build this building today, which is part of why it intrigues me, I love trying to peel back the layers of use to unveil the original intent of the buildings design, but I will be the first to admit that history does nothing to make the building more usable for its current purpose. It would certainly not be my first choice if I was offered to have my office in any building on campus, so I can't blame the Administration for wanting something more in tune with their current way of working.
Isn't that one of the inherent problems of working with reinforced concrete? You get a design and you can't modify it without a ton of money and time. It's part of the reason traditional architecture lasts longer it's easy to change purpose.
FYI the whole "designed to shut out student protests" is actually a huge myth around Brutalist architecture. It is not true at all. Brutalism developed out of an interest to portray extreme abstract ideas, and concrete expressionism which was first inspired by Le Corbusier's late works.
I hated that Northwestern Hospital tore down the Prentice Women's Hospital. Bertrand Goldberg Brutalism, if my tour guide knowledge is still correct, yeah? Worth a video all it's own (If you haven't already made one) and glad you referenced Maxwell Street. I thought that was where you were standing. And I once bought a felt fedora from the hat shop in Monadnock. Love your vids, buddy. Keep up the good work
Great video as usual! There is a similar debate going on in Berlin to save the Mäusebunker which is quite an unique example of prestigious architecture made to show superiority towards the east side of the city.
Great video. Im an engineer working in buildings, and I feel something that is often overlooked is the carbon cost of demolition and replacement of old buildings. The science is clear, we need to stop emitting carbon NOW, and therefore I belive we can not afford to tear down and replace buildings because we don't like the look of them, or the current layout is not ideal. About half of the lifetime carbon emissions of a building are from the materials and constriction of that building, with the other half coming from operating the building over its lifespan (assume 60 years) One issue is my company has 1000s of experts in designing and building new buildings, but very few know how to heavily retrofit existing ones. We need to build the skills to rework our buildings, rather than replace them.
I was so sad to learn that the women's hospital in chicago was torn down. It holds a special place in our familys heart as it is where both me and my brother were born.
Stewart, do you see similarities between postmodernism and Art Deco? I see a lot of similarities in the overly flamboyant styling and simplified forms. It took until the 70s for deco to be appreciated, and I wonder if postmodernism will be the same? I have a tea kettle from Graves’ target collection that I’ve used continuously for the last 20 years. My opinion of it has come full circle, from fun and cute, to tacky and over-styled (and kept only due to inertia), and back to a good object.
Nice to have Jason Sudeikis' brother pop in to say a few words. The statue of Portlandia is the building's best feature. Made by sculptor Raymond Kaskey. He was paid $228,000 in public funds and reportedly an additional $100,000 in private donations.
I've always liked the Portland building. It captures the fun factor of Po-Mo to the hilt. I can't actually see anything wrong with it? What is the problem people have with it?
Thanks for the video. I was always under the impression that one day he stumbled into work of Joze Plecnik, Slovenian architect, from many decades ago and "discovered" his style.
This is one of the most thought provoking videos I have seen on architecture in a very long time. Alas, the issues you raise merit a much lengthier discussion. Perhaps you can revisit landmark designation criteria and the problems presented by the Portland Building restoration videos in separate videos. That 40-year rule certainly resonates. I’ve long been mindful of how keen property owners are to update lobbies and facades of such buildings with little regard to maintaining any design integrity. The first sad example I witnessed was the lobby at Jahn’s 55 W. Monroe. The recent lobby “upgrade” at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange also comes to mind. That one is doubly painful because the original lobby functioned well both visually and programmatically, and I am otherwise a fan of K&S’s work. I suspect if these buildings make it another 40 years, a future owner will undo these renovations at considerable expense.
I think Graves designs, by having no structural justification for their features, make them appear cheap. I think we intuitively know the features on the outside are a facade, skin deep, and superficial. I think novelty or originality isn't a reason enough to keep buildings preserved. If everyone hates the look of a building, you don't need to torture the skyline with it just because it's the last remaining specimens of a set of novel but equally torturous buildings. Honestly, the Portland building screams "I was under budget" and I doubt Graves, like many a creative in the post modern era, would even be respected or noteworthy in a time where something other than the bottom line was given serious consideration. His style in general just disgusts me, it's a textbook illustration of the worst parts of post modernism in a Capitalist society. It "references" older, respected, sought after, principled high culture elements by reproducing them in a shallow superficial and cheap way for mass consumption, a post modernist classic. Except here we are lead believe this corruption or degeneration is a feature because now the "referenced" elements can be rearranged without any material or principled justification other than the architect's whims. And then we are surprised people hate this arbitrary design.
PoMo always looks cheap. My first exposure to PoMo architecture was back in the 1980s, when the Eastern Hills Mall near Buffalo was remodeled- the logo was changed to a paint-splash 'E' (so we just called it "E" from that point on) and not stucco, but literal foam coating over the columns to make this phony Egyptian-style entrance, and all this fluorescent purple paint.. it was awful. All PoMo architecture is just like that- like the perfume section in a store in a mall- covered in tasteless glitz, with garbage underneath.
One could say the same about Turn of the Century or Gilded age buildings in terms of being monuments to capitalism, or whatever. While I disagree with the materials and context of the material, this video makes an excellent point about a 40- year old blind spot. I wonder if I will come to appreciate the design choices in 20 years or so.
If postmodernism is a temple of capitalism, then ancient Roman architecture is a temple of imperialism and slavery, Gothic architecture is a temple of Theocracy, Baroque architecture is a temple of absolute monarchy and extreme wealth and so on.
"Completed on time and under budget"
That miracle alone makes it a building of such historical significance that it needs to be preserved
The only building that ever fit into these two categories
except that the budget turned out to be $200m - around 950% - higher than the original cost, as a function of the inferior materials that allowed the original $29m price tag to be met.
Except that the City then spent many times more the budget fixing it because it was so poorly built. And then they did it again a few years ago. Then the pandemic hit and no one wants to go into the office anymore at the city. Oh, and it's even darker inside than it was before. You get what you pay for.
I worked in the Portland Building for 5 years starting about 10 years ago. During the end of my time in that building there were engineers evaluating the structure to determine what upgrades it would need to meet modern earthquake codes and the resulting report (not sure if it was released to the public) identified some unsurprisingly significant problems. Once being briefed on the structural issues, I really did not enjoy being there. It wasn't a pleasant place to work (though it wasn't as bad as some may make it out) and now we knew it was built poorly. There were some critical errors made during construction that badly compromised the integrity of the building (I believe at the behest of the city to save money). It was a ticking time bomb; an earthquake of even moderate magnitude for the area could easily destroy the building.
So, that said, I do find it interesting that much of the discussion and hand wringing comes down to aesthetics when the most important need was safety. Incidentally, I recall the estimate for just structural upgrades (in 2014) was $93M. I'm also glad they saved the ecoroof...I worked on that :).
Very interesting. Thank you for the insider scoop.
The city of Portland is built on a massive silt bed. I am glad I no longer work in downtown Portland as I would guess the majority of the city will be rubble in the event of an earthquake due to liquefaction of the silt it is built upon.
@@blurboards1 So... what happens if someone decided to bomb the building? Of course, without the people inside.
I must confess, I am not a big fan of the Portland Building and most other Post-Modern buildings. Given my age, I guess that's because I slip into that 40-year-old trap. I was already an adult when it was built, but still very young, and Post Modern buildings struck me then (and now) as superficial and "kitschy". That being said, I think the recent renovation of the Portland Building was very well done. The exterior is not much changed in appearance but the technical issues that led to its quick deterioration have been corrected. Since the appearance of the building was what was important to Michael Graves, not the materials of which it was made, I see no problem with the new skin. In addition, I saw an interview with Michael Graves several years back in which he said he wanted lighter glass from the start but that the city insisted on the original dark glass for budgetary reason, so it could fairly be said that the current appearance is closer to what Graves intended than the building as originally constructed. The interior is a vast improvement over what was there before and a much more pleasant place to work.
On landmark laws, I think it's worth mentioning that local laws can often be far more strict than Federal laws. New York City has some of the strictest laws on the books, although how they're interpreted varies depending on who the current mayor is and who is on the Landmarks Commission. The same could be said for Boston, Charleston, SC, and New Orleans. I don't know if Portland has local laws or how they are enforced, but generally government buildings are exempt from this kind of review.
wow
I'm a lot younger than you (30's) and I think post modern buildings are kitchy too. I don't think that will go away.
But it's still a significant example of a time when people though kitchy was great. Sort of like preserving the world's biggest building shaped like a tea kettle. We need to keep them as a warning to others.
Very well stated! (And I'm glad to know that my dislike of the style is not merely due to my age.) I would add that I think it is irresponsible to tear these buildings down, especially for profit, when they are still serviceable, whatever their aesthetic appeal. It is a misuse of resources to see buildings as merely disposable consumer goods. Too much time, effort, and money go into their construction for them to be disposed of lightly.
Hear hear so we can learn from what to do or don't do cheers!
I wasn't familiar with the Portland building, but looking at it here, my first reaction was that it was quint-essential post-modern. That says something to me in terms of preservation.
Great vid, I work as a conservation officer in the UK for a local authority. I don't know how familiar you are with heritage protection here in the UK but it couldn't be more different. The level of protection for those 2,500 landmark buildings in the US is extended to every listed building in the UK, of which there are around 400,000. Very insightful to finally have a better grasp of the US system.
Can I ask why many grade 2/3 listed buildings have been torn down and replaced with horrendous new builds in the last ten years?
Partially conditions for example the Chepstow railway bridge is extremely rusty as it is cast iron which could become extremely dangerous though I'm not sure exactly that's my guess
I actually really like how the Portland Building looks. I’m honestly kinda confused why people dislike it. It has impeccable vibes and I wish there were more buildings like it
literally same
I see something that feels really american about the building also if they removed all the buildings around it and put up spotlights it could be so intimidating.
Looks really pretty to me :]
Impeccable vibes is a perfect way to put it. It's going for a look, and it's hitting it. Even if we don't like the style, we can't deny it's a good execution.
Indeed, hell it gives me Gotham City (the city from Batman!) vibes and I always liked that city's design...strange what some people consider ugly, but then again it is a good thing we don't all like the same things, as that would lead to a rather bland world!
That idea of "Facadism" is an interesting one, but I feel like a very modern one. As in the past, people weren't all too concerned with historic preservation. If I look at least where I live, the facades of many of the buildings downtown are a mismatch of different eras and styles, but behind the facade, many of the buildings are 500+ years old. The facade was changed whenever a wealthy owner felt like it was "outdated". in fact, historical preservation was so much not in the mindset of politicians, that even after WWII, in my city they wanted to demo the oldest brick house in the country to make room for a road. This building remains to this day, but it apparently had a sister building that did not.
Now due to all the laws of historical preservation, these different facades are frozen in place and time, while the interiors get adapted and modernized. For example, a building collapsed on the city market during renovations, and instead of building a modern building, they will construct something with a facade "in keeping with the historic nature of the city center", but of course it'll have all modern construction behind that facade.
The main reason why this wasn't a concern in the past is mostly due to the fact that not a lot of stuff got built so unless there was some sort of natural disaster you never saw wast swathes of cities get torn down in one go, instead they naturally evolved over time and always maintained some of their older character. But with industrialization suddenly building became way cheaper and there was a much greater demand for new construction and after some time people slowly got worried about completely losing historical architecture and buildings and they were worried that a city might completely lose it's character in the blink of an eye to make way for new construction. That's why historical preservation really started to take off, this mostly happened in the post WWII period where there was a construction boom and especially in Europe people got really worried that the cities they loved might get destroyed to make way for a high way. The difference perhaps was that in Europe these historical districts were tied closely to people's cultural identity, since European countries trace their history centuries into the past it's all part of that history and destroying it would feel like destroying part of yourself. In America this didn't happen to nearly the same degree, probably because America is a settler colonial nation and as such the majority white population don't have much of a connection with the history past the founding of their own country and are often directly antagonistic to the indigenous people who do have a connection to that history.
_"As in the past, people weren't all too concerned with historic preservation."_
Which is, of course, why Venice has its core idea of "As it was, where it was." Or Japan, where they rebuild traditional buildings every century or so, but if you ask, they'll tell you the structure is 1400 years old.
Fellow Portland area person--I've found any time I visit downtown to just appreciate the weird or fun architecture. It's the mix match of different architectures that help give the city its unique feel, in my opinion. That being said, I lived 20 mins away in a suburb so I can see portlanders proper having other ideas
As an architecture student, I find my course on historic preservation specially helpful as it gives an interesting framework to view architecture, historiclly but also for future practice. The distinction between different values of preservation by Alois Riegl (historic, age, artistic, newness, use, ...) and also Gabi Dolff-Bonekämper's "value to dispute" (Streitwert) helps to frame discussions around different values then just our subjective view of what is worth preserving. Even a small, nondescript building could have values hidden underneath the facade worth preserving.
Thanks for your great videos, greetings from Vienna.
I worked in the Portland Building (before the "renovation"). The reason it was completed "under budget" was it was a shoddily built POS. It had all the construction quality of a movie set structure - built for looks on the outside/nothing worthy inside. It should be "delisted" as it should never been listed in the first place.
On another note - Information on Portlandia, the large bronze statue facing 5th Street, suggests it was originally to be placed overlooking the park on Fourth Street. It is not hard to imagine - the builder probably read the blueprints upside down ...
My experience in the construction trades was that the developer wanted to spend as little money as possible. This often meant that they would hire out of state non union companies to do the work. One interesting consistency I found was that they often used companies out of California and Arizona, much warmer and drier climates than that of Portland Oregon. Many of these buildings have severe leak issues that once they get past the envelope (exterior) of the building, cause severe problems that can’t simply be repaired because of the way they were constructed. If I had to guess that was probably the case with this building.
I see no difference in the construction of this and a regular run of the mill shitbox condo, it uses the same quality of materials.
Anyone remember one of Donald's mottos back in 2016 "Under budget and ahead of schedule"? The first time I heard it, I thought a few red flags were raised. It's almost like the billboard gag the first episode after the Simpsons Movie that read something like "Building cheaply, costing dearly" and had a picture of Mr. Burns on it.
@@blurboards1 Bogus. PLANS were drawn, submitted AND approved. Inspections WERE made. Has NOTHING to do with the contactor(s) you personally do not like.
@@billhosko7723 Plans and drawings are submitted for every job, by state law they are all inspected too. Clearly the inspectors catch everything right? considering how many leaks, defects and deficiencies I encountered when working in the high rise industry, your logic is what’s bogus.
I had been wondering about how that feeling of datedness work, and when it begins to fade again. Looking at some notable areas in my home city, there are perfect examples of this, like large scale neighbourhoods built in the same architectural style that were universally hated until a few years ago when they began to creep over that magical limit and started to become appreciated once again. And there are any number of areas facing the same issue, although it is often difficult to say when you're dealing with that blind spot or simply looking at bad architecture.
Mid-century homes of Palm Springs (and elsewhere) one could not give away in 70's worth premium today. Now the town is beautifully preserved time capsule of bygone era.
Original work cubicles designed by Eams, thrown into dumpsters during office renovation worth $10,000 in semi-decent condition.
After second round of approval appreciation is more likely to stay.
Some of those big, long 1950's/60's/70's mid century ranch houses have really come back into style here in middle Tennessee. The ones with big plate glass windows, that deliberately eschew that colonial aesthetic, that has been a trendy look here. You can see some of these elements from these old ranch houses in newer ones, with the wood/stone/plate glass.
It's just old not that the look is dated. Many houses that my mother thinks are ugly wind up being very cute once they are restored. Yes restored to look more like they did when they were made.
There’s a bunch of ugly brutalist buildings in my city. I wonder when their day will come that makes them easy to appreciate.
Points taken. The Portland building ALWAYS looked tacky to me, even when I had to study it in the 90s; just like all of Graves' Target collection. Not everything NEEDS to be saved. Ostensibly everything interesting about the building can be experienced in pictures. They CAN save the statue, tho. 🤷🏾♂️ Thank you for your videos!
I've kinda came around to Graves' designs, but I think things like that Target collection being so mass market tied his aesthetic to fashion and its fast turnover rate, burned me out on his ideas for a long while. Now I feel like I can approach it again, with the benefit of time and his aesthetic being less ubiquitous, I feel like its playful charm can kind of come through more. I understand tacky as a descriptor, but that whole postmodern playfulness with forms and scale disconnected from usefulness feels like something that still has merit to me. The Portland and other of Graves' buildings are the overplayed pop song of architecture, not everyones cup of tea to begin with, easy to get burnt out on, but still capable of being enjoyed through the lens of nostalgia.
Scott Heinowski I think AT&T 550 Madison Ave in Manhattan was a better example.
it can serve as an example
Carlos Leon It can do that in a book. The formalized vocation of Architecture has always had a certain arrogance about it and is very self-congratulatory as a profession; sorta like the entertainment industry. But these behemoths take up space and it is questionable how much they cost to maintain as opposed to building something more modern, efficient and purposeful; not just to work out some theoretical ideas or prove an egoistic point. It is a building, not a sculpture. The community has to live with it. Besides, there are MANY more and better examples that WERE built to last. Thank god not everything survived from antiquity. I can only imagine if people back then were so reverential to EVERYTHING they produced.
This is exactly what I was thinking.
I am just a tourist but this building was cool enough for me to photograph it. We enjoyed Portland in 2021 & architecture was part of it.
I despise the metal plate cladding which seems to get slapped on every high rise building these days, but this is the best example of it I think I have seen, and I still love the building. That statue is beautiful.
That’s my favourite part of buildings! Especially when the plates are large and tiled rectangular, but offset sorta like the alternating lengthwise brick pattern, but in like a semi irregular way!
I always loved this building because as a kid my dad worked there and I would sometimes get to come visit him there, and every time I see it I think of him. I didn’t realize other people don’t like it.
I’m old enough to remember when the Portland Building was new and drawing much unfriendly comment from the architectural community as well the public. I guess I was part of that public; it looked so contrived, almost silly to me. The years have matured both my perception and appreciation of the building. When in Portland, I sought it out to see it in person. They could have put up a generic, steel and glass tower that would’ve soon disappeared unnoticed into the city scape. Instead they took a chance and built something that people actually come to Portland to see. I’m so happy the city saw fit to preserve this unique, dare I say, beautiful, building.
Agreed
the building is hideous. tear it down
@@digitalrandomart3049 .. here in Winnipeg, they completed a “Gingerbread” City Hall in 1886 and stood for 75 years … demolished in the early 1960’s to be replaced by architecture .. well, let’s say .. it could have been any east bloc capital ..
Now … I wish they had never tore that building down …
It's funny how people complain that if you build something out of glass that doesn't stand out then it's boring and soulless but if you try to build something that actually has decoration and character then it's ugly and needs to go as well. I think these people are just impossible and are basically the architecture version of people who think games and movies from their childhood were better and never stop to ask why they might think that.
Funny, seeing it for the first time, it looks fairly interesting to me...
I don't get why people dislike it. It looks beautiful! It reminds me of what I thought buildings in cities looked like when I was a kid, and had only seen cities in movies. It's really cool!
This is a super interesting topic. I'm from the UK and weirdly, a similar phenomenon exists here with the 40 years thing. I'm not sure if it's exactly 40 years, but I've definitely noticed that buildings start off new and trendy, then after a while fashions and tastes change and buildings from that period/era start getting demolished, while at the same time certain architects and critics start speaking out about preserving certain examples, then after a while, once those ones do get "listed" (as we say here) people start to appreciate their architectural merit and they become more popular again. At the moment I'm seeing this happening mainly with brutalist buildings, but it's also happening with post modern buildings in London. We recently lost a big brutalist building (Sampson House) near the Tate Modern that I used to walk past every day. It was big and many would say ugly, but it had a certain kind of beauty to it, and I think it's a bit of a shame it's gone. The project going in its place does look better from an urbanism/walkability/street activation perspective, and is definitely less controversial, but It's a shame we had to lose quite a good example of brutalism.
That's sad, looking at the pictures it seems quite nice.
You do raise another issue about urbanism. The neighborhood has needs beyond aesthetics, and the primary function of an urban environment isn't to serve as a museum gallery of buildings.
That isn't to say that this particular demolition was a good one - I have no knowledge of the issues at play there - but if a building is dangerous or harmful to its inhabitants or community, that also has to be weighed against its significance. Harm isn't always about health or earthquake codes, but could be something more subtle, like how it affects the flow of pedestrians or traffic.
@@briankirkpatrick8888 Yes true. I dont think that was a big issue here though. I mean, perhaps it could be an issue like asbestos though. Not really sure. I believe it was an IBM office.
@@mdhazeldine Probably just people being tired of brutalism then. A shame. I think it was great.
Maybe those renovations where they cover something in trendy cladding would have been good a compromise. They can always remove it later.
@@briankirkpatrick8888 Re-cladding it would be just as bad as tearing down, because the facade is a massive part of what makes a brutalist building brutalist. I think re-configuring the inside, and perhaps the street level part would have been a better direction to go in.
Brutalism is definitely an interesting era. There's a brutalist building on my university campus. The exterior looks like a Soviet era hospital but the interior is very well laid out including concrete cast furniture.
I find the idea of how buildings become reavaluated very interesting. For instance NYC's world famous Chrysler building quite quickly became dated(within a decade or so) and a 1950s guidebook to the city described it as "the less said the better"!
Idk, for me Art Deco buildings like the Chrysler are just timeless. Certain architectural styles are pleasing to look at and stand the test of time. I just can´t see some 1960s commie blocks would ever get the same love and appreciation as a medieval half timbered house.
@@Horus4302 well, I guess the original comment just proves that the idea of "timeless" style is socially constructed and completely subjective. Anything can become a classic, if given time. Those 'commie blocks' you talk about would be an example of brutalist architecture--something that's very loved in many architectural circles. Much of modernist design (including art deco) was at its time continuously critiqued as regressive, yet has now created a lot of architecture that many would consider "timeless." You can appreciate both brutalism and medieval styles, and both are valid opinions.
The guidebook is a fashionista complaining about style.
@@evilshoemaker Yes! In fact there were quite a few negative reviews of the Chrysler building when it was brand new as well! Comments such as: that it was “an automobile ad in the form of a skyscraper,”, and had “no significance as serious design.”
@@evilshoemaker brutalist architecture deserves to be demolished and defecated on.
that brick building in chicago, i cant believe they removed the marble and oak.. replaced it with 'modern' rubber mats??. WTF
they probably pawned those off?
Don't be too harsh in your judgement .. we have no idea what the condition of those materials were 45 years after initial construction, and 1938 wasn't the year of spending freely, if you look at your history books. The remodel saved it from destruction, so it served a purpose.
Excellent presentations and commentaries on Architecture!
Thank you for your enlightening presentations!
Excellent. Preservation nuts and bolts are rarely addressed, but essential to confront the "40 year likeability blind spot" of the people who rush to judgement with demolition usually just for profit. I like that phrase. Good observation.
"Keep in mind that being likeable by the public is not the same as significant, and that beauty is not he same as exceptional." Such a lovely phrase that can relate to so many parts of our lives 11:05
First time I have seen it and it's beauty stuns me. I love it and that giant beckoning statue blows me away.
one of my favorite buildings of all time! portland born and raised, i had to recreate this building in the 2nd grade during my tech class!
I am actually happy that the Portland Building was preserved. I am not a fan of it or Post Modernism but I understand its significance from an architectural historical point of view. As an architect I am always in favor of preserving buildings as they represent a snapshot of the era and like anything we tend to swing back and forth in what we find important and time passes. By the way I first heard of the Portland Building while I was taking my Arch History Class in College.
A photograph/video is enough if that monstrosity. Some things are just not worth saving.
When compared to the Humana Building in Louisville, KY also by Graves, the Portland Building looks like a flat decorated box. It is important to consider the budget issues as well as the design issues.
There is an ongoing case in Wroclaw, Poland about the Solpol building, probably most iconic postmodernist architecture piece in whole country.
Stewart, since I subscribed after the cantilever video I have never failed to be entertained and thoroughly stimulated. Thank you for what you do!
It’s Vaporwave.
I am very confused as to why people dislike it so much. It has minor kitschy elements, but even they are nothing particularly defacing.
It's so interesting hearing this from an American perspective, a building 40-50 years old would be considered relatively recent over here in the UK as we have many buildings that are several hundreds of years old, even a a thousand. Saying a building feels dated seems so odd as many of ours date back so far, I could likely walk around nearly any town in the UK and find a building older than the US itself haha. Great video tho !!
It isn’t just about the actual age. “Dated” means that fashions have changed. Classics eschew fashion and strive for a timeless look. The Portland Building is fixed in the Postmodern Era because of its square windows.
Everybody will love that building in 20 years. I promise.
Yep. Kind of like Googie is now. Heralded at first, then reviled, and now *almost* universally lauded. And, like those atomic-age buildings, most will be torn down by people represented in a lot of the comments here.
Thats what they told me about Brutalist architecture. I didn't like it as a child in the 1970s and I still think its ugly today 😅
I have said for a while that like people, buildings at 40 years seem dated and old but if they can make it to 80, they become venerable.
Yep, if we tore it down architecture enthusiasts in 40 years would be cursing our generation
@@Gford912 I think this is one of the few exceptions where the future would appreciate us getting rid of this poor excuse of a building.
Man you’re a brilliant speaker and teacher. Really nail all the main points and descriptions to for great discussion
Honestly just because it won awards from architects doesn't mean it's necessarily good architecture. That's like saying all movies that earned awards are actually good movies. Not necessarily.
Architecture is not a popularity contest!!!!!
Super interesting! On the matter of reaching 50 years, next year marks the 50th anniversary of the completion of Kisho Kurokawa's Nakagin Capsule building in Tokyo. But sadly, it has been decided to demolish it, albeit that they are selling off individual capsules to museums and other interested bodies.
One of the problems with most modern buildings is that they are not built to last due to a number of reasonable reasons. Within a few decades the maintenance costs become prohibitive. This will exclude most except the exceptional and lucky from preservation.
I would look also at the energy cost of renovating vs the energy cost of demolition and building new, as well as the operational energy cost of the two options.
Good grief. NO comparison to reuse versus destroy for what... PORTLAND"s business center has been harm for decades now.
@@billhosko7723 i would like to react, but i haven't got a clue what you are trying to say.
Should be preserved on the grounds that it came in under budget. Now THAT is an architectural accomplishment.
In my first year in Urban Planning my professors stressed the need to appreciate the historical context of buildings and not just their aesthetic value.
_However_ the Portland Building isn't just ugly, it's built like fortress, a bunker. It looks like a citadel. And such a building communicates to the public that it doesn't trust them, it's need to ward off people rather than embrace them. I believe that a building designed like this can have a negative psychological effect on people and their attitudes towards society. If it was placed in the middle of nowhere it would be fine. But it's got too much of a prominent position in Portland which might play a role, albeit a minor one, in the atttitudes of Portlanders.
I understand what you mean with the “fortress” with the shapes used, but I feel the colors and accents pull it towards a playful grandeur. I’ve lived in pdx for 11 years and worked downtown for 5, and I delight in its appearance as it reciprocates my motivations to moving to pdx/pnw. For further context, as a child some of my earliest favorite works were the 1992 movie Toys starring Robin Williams, PeeWee’s Playhouse, and pdx’s own NuShooz’s “I Can’t Wait”, and I was infatuated with The Space Needle. I love the bold confidence in expression of whimsical playfulness found in all these works.
Totally agree. Inside is like a bunker.
It looks like it belongs in a "1984" world.
I've lived here all my life, I've been inside that building many times, and I had no idea it looked like that.
I think preserving history is a very important thing, it can show how society has progressed, grown, shrank and moved over time. I think we should preserve a piece of every architectural movement in a city even the bad ones. I absolutely hate that building but in a enduring kind of way.
I strongly disagree.
Buildings, like cities, are living things - more akin to trees than anything else. Just as we don't cut down an old tree for the sake of it, when one is full of rot and no longer sprouts leaves in Spring, we cut it down to allow another tree to take its place.
Some buildings are mistakes. Some buildings are not of a lasting (materially) construction. Some buildings are beyond renovation and repurposing.
This is a particular problem with a lot of the Brutalist buildings of the 60s and 70s, where the materials were not understood and were driven by political ideology, rather than other "normal" architectural considerations. They are often preserved for political reasons - often in spite of all practical considerations.
High-rise housing is a particular issue, as, in many cases, their density is LOWER than traditional housing (due to building regulations), yet they come with a whole host of additional social problems.
@@edwardcullen1739 When you say buildings from the 60s and 70s are you talking about brutalist designs? Because I kinda love them, of course if a building is beyond repair you gotta take it down, however often builders will buy historic buildings years in advance and leave them to rot until the city has no choice but to condemn them. It's a pretty common loophole.
@@Megabean Yes, I am.
It's not a blanket thing; there are some that ARE worth preserving, but I would estimate that the vast, vast majority are not.
When you put that in the context of "all the buildings ever built", most have been demolished... So which ones do we preserve? The best, most beautiful and/or functional.
This is not per se an attack on Brutalism, it's just that Brutalism is hitting that point where the rot is showing and some refuse to allow what we're always done - preserve the best and clear the rest, in an effort to make something better.
@@edwardcullen1739 I kinda agree but if you're North American you'll probably know that when we replace buildings here its pretty rare for us to put something better in its place. You get those superstores that are made out of fake stucco foam, or you get a highrise that looks identical to every other highrise, oversized floors with nothing but glass. Our buildings haven't improved whatsoever except for the edge cases.
Also, I'm very leery of modern construction techniques - overuse of concrete, for example.
Victoria Gate (Leeds, England) is a good example. It's all concrete and glass (with tactical red brick so that it fits better with the surrounding red brick and limestone). Externally, it's ugly; when you see the concrete next to the limestone, it just looks cheap.
Internally, the arcade (mall) is awful - the proportions are terrible, with very narrow lanes compared to the height. This is in stark contrast to Victoria Quarter, which has almost perfect proportions.
VQ's main acrade is wide and tall, but actually opens wider at the 1st floor (um, 2nd to US readers...) This creates a wonderful space, which is why it is no surprise that it is so popular.
I'm not saying they should have cloned the Victorian styling of VQ in VG, but they could a taken some hints!!!
This building is a masterpiece. Such an over the top block!
It was doing some work in the Netherlands that I realized that in order to have historic old buildings, we have to accept that they’re going to look old & a bit rundown for awhile. One of the buildings i did work in was built in the 1970s & looked like all the awful choices made back then. But we have to accept that tastes change, & the next subsequent generations may regard that tackiness as kitsch, then cool, then classic.
I've watched a few of your videos lately, and this one is the one that really sold me on subscribing, before the content needs renovation.
You're a fantastic presenter.
MONADNOCK is such a beautiful building.
*NOT sure* why people do not like the cube building. It totally has an actual design, unlike most buildings built.
I love your videos. You provide a lot to think about.
You comment on likability of a building. Disliking a building because you think it is ugly is one thing. Disliking a building because it doesn't work is another. One feature of Brutalism is large, cold concrete liminal spaces, such as outdoor plazas. No one wants to assemble there, or have lunch, or relax. Yet, this has to be a feature of some buildings in order for them to "work". so, they should be changed, imho.
Great format, and I'm glad you went outside. Best video yet - every single word you spoke was something new to me!
It’s so important to keep in mind that the buildings you may love, that you consider “real architecture” and think are beautiful were at some point just as trendy and “tacky” as modern architecture is today. Victorians didn’t have some special skill at creating objectively beautiful art, the generations which succeeded them created a material culture which aggressively reacted to and in many cases replaced it. Some day, a person will look at the Portland building and marvel that people once hated and attempted to demolish it the way we wonder at the foolishness of previous generations for destroying the beautiful architecture they inherited.
No…. People back then very much loved their architecture…
Do you have evidence that people generally hated their architecture in the past? Except for a few famous examples like the Eiffel Tower, I don't think it was common. Even in the case of the Eiffel Tower, it was quickly beloved and adopted by the peopoe.
Moreover, there are many more buildings that look like the Portland building and some are still being constructed in the same style. And they still look ugly.
@@_blank-_ still checks out the older generation can really be stubborn to liking the creations of newer generations.
Though another example of a critized building was the book tower in Detroit. There probably plenty examples, you need to really research it though.
@@_blank-_ look up why gothic architecture is called "gothic", people of it's time associated it with the middle ages and barbarism. Barroque and Rococo suffered critique in their time for being more hubris than homage. The revivalist movent started as a critique of the "new" 17th and 18th century styles in favor of "the good older ones". These themselves were later criticized for exagerating in form-over-function. Even the earlier modernist movements that are beloved nowadays used to suffer the same critics post-modernist architecture suffers today.
You don't have to research much to find this.
Depends, communist buildings just look like shit
Something id like to know is why 70s design has been so looked down upon, i put in the year - 50 and it said 1971 and for a moment i thought yeah that checks out but then i thought... wait thats been that way about as long as i remember(mind you i was born in 1995). Personally im quite fond of it in photos, the interiors at least, i find it kindof comfy.
I used to walk by the Portland Building everyday on my way to PSU. Man, this building is one of those that deserve to be demolished ASAP. My apologies to the designer, but the only place where this should be preseved is via drawings in museums or videos like this one. 😂
I didn’t know people DISLIKED the Portland building….I like Micheal Graves’ stuff
I think the "50 year mark" holds true for cars at 20 years and for tech at 10 years
My thing as an engineer who maintains buildings, is that a lot of the focus is on the aesthetics as opposed to how well the building does what it was supposed to do, and how easily it is maintained. I always emphasize in my disagreements with architects, that they should look at the ww2 jeep as inspiration for how buildings should work. Simple structures, simple geometries, large maintenance/utility spaces to facilitate future remodels/growth, etc. I see way too many buildings put up now that maybe look good, but cost way too much to build, and are expensive to maintain. Not every building needs to be beautiful, but they all should be fundamentally effective and useful as buildings.
The 50 year curse applies to a lot more than architecture. It applies to fashion, paintings, sculpture, industrial design, music, everything. 50 (or 40) years ago is your grandparent's time. Art Nouveau, John Singer Sargeant, art Deco, Tiffany Lamps, all had to fight for their lives at their 50 year point. By the way, I think the Portland Building is utterly beautiful.
I'm just here to say I adore how it looks and idk why
And yet, buildings exist which have been useful, adaptable, beloved and cared for throughout their entire history. What if we tried harder to build things like that?
Great videos! I'm on a little binge rn lol. One tiny suggestion, when you give a date of something, can you include the year. It gets annoying having to look when the video came out to know if you're talking about 2021 or 2022. Keep up the great work tho!
In Europe we have similar issues with brutalism, especially in city centers.
I think brutalism has such a bad rep, and the age has reinforced this unfairly. I live in Newcastle, and a lot of the Brutalist buildings are being renovated, they end up looking superb- and people forget that the spaces within brutalist buildings are open, airy and very light !
Thing is they need upkeep. A fresh new brutalist structure with fresh concrete looks decent. A 40 year old one with heavily blackened concrete due to pollution and large chunks falling off?
Getting rid of the marble and covering mosaic floors? Why?!
In about 2007, I drove around the Midwest with my then-girlfriend photographing threatened buildings for the National Historic Trust. The 40-year rule was correct. A building built in 1982 was usually found intact, while many of those from the late 50s-70s we often found "recently upgraded", or most signs of their architecture uniqueness removed. The saddest was a 1960s high school that we found had just undergone a renovation. Only the loading dock outside the gymnasium retained a hint of what it once was.
The problem with some landmarking / historical designations is that it take use rights away from the owner. With the example of the hospital, it was abandoned as a hospital and was unfit for the owner's use. If preservation was a top priority, money should have been raised to purchase the building and land. Use the power of imminent domain if one must, but curtailing an owner's property rights has to come with compensation.
Why do people hate the building? I'll take a stab:
* It barely acknowledges the street.
* It has all that balcony space that apparently no one can access.
* _Because_ of the flat nature of the exterior, the decorative scheme seems completely arbitrary to Graves' personal tastes.
This isn't architecture. It isn't even sculpture, which is my usual characterization of post-WWII buildings (though many of Graves' early buildings fall into that).
No, this is a giant sketchbook. It's a painting. And it's a painting of the post-_WWI_ variety, which means you need a catalog to find out what the artist was up to. It doesn't stand on its own - it's an illustration.
But I agree that buildings worth saving are not always "beautiful" or "likeable." No, sometimes you keep a building around so you can say to young architects, "You see that building over there? Don't do that."
One of the icons of post modern design.
Hey Stewart. Landmark status does not actually hinder renovations are demolition on the federal level (unless it is federally owned). States or local municipalities have to have separate laws to enforce those types of restrictions. Alterations can affect federal funding, but the feds can’t actually stop you from making changes.
As soon as you described the building as ugly I thought “it must be postmodern.”
This video has made me ponder a bit deeper the renovations I have planned for my 50-ish year old house.
I remember Michael Graves responding to a contemporary criticism of his Portland Building that when the painted exterior started peeling and would then need maintenance, he stated, “I want it to look old.”
That was when I accepted and liked his perspective and that building
BS
I don't think it's merely about saving a building because it's architecturally significant. Beauty outside affects a person's inner mindset. People scoop up Lloyd-Wright's work and preserve it because it's beautiful. It was beautiful when it was made, and it's still true today. That's the problem with many movements in design. They're not about something beautiful, they're about the creator making a name by doing something new. That's not a basis for beauty, but people can be convinced, for a time, that something ugly is attractive because it is novel. That's the entire basis of a trend.
Yikes! At the age of 65 I can well remember when Grave's Portland building was new. Things have gone from cutting edge to irrelevant in my lifetime. I suspect that part of the problem is the very high cost of land in city centers. It often just doesn't make financial sense to preserve these buildings.
But that land isn't wasted by keeping the old building! It's a building, you can use it. I don't see how tearing it down and building a new structure in its place makes more economical sense (especially if you factor in the environmental costs of new construction, which are huge)
@@Friek555 If land values escalate rapidly you might very well have to put up a much larger building that can generate more rent to justify the land costs. It's unfortunate but that's the economic reality.
I have a standing rule on such things I call The Ruins Rule. Ask yourself if, when the building falls into ruin, it will still be interesting to have around, or will it be something to scraped into a landfill as quickly as possible.
Hi, I just came across your channel and want to say how much I enjoy your work. I was trained during the post modern age and I really disliked the pastiche and throw away quality. My first great love was Ando and Aalto. Quality of light and material. Maybe the Portland building stands as an example of a time but I don’t think it represents good architecture.
Aesthetically, this building looks great in my opinion! I can't really understand the criticism.
I think the Portland building is beautiful and really interesting, worth saving, and I would like to see it in person soon hopefully.
I agree I actually like it, although I'm sure it's just my shite taste lol
Look at the office floor interiors and see if that changes your impression of the building.
1) Loved that you included that California Stucco TH-camr. He is so helpful.
2) Do you think there is an unwritten rule with regards to "location"? You mentioned the city being embarassed in Portland because the building is so unavoidably in-your-face (being located smack dab in a city block), but I think something like Rudolph's recently demolished Burroughs Wellcome facility being tucked away may have prevented it from being saved due to an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality.
I guess what I am getting at is, "If a building of architectural significance falls in the woods, does it still make a sound?"
Kirk Giordano!
I used to live in Portland. I always liked the Portland Building. I heard that the Eiffel Tower was once hated by Parisians. Now it is the Number One Parisian landmark.
It’s still hated by Parisians
@@Cyano174 BS Karen.
@B Babbich Correct.
Interesting video. I think it illustrates how architects exist in an aesthetic bubble insulated from the general population, and hints at the tension between the architect's artistic impulse and the practical nature of buildings as lived-in structures. A building can be well-designed piece of avant garde art that's incredibly interesting as a set of blueprints while also being something few sane people would want to work/reside in.
Always amazing! 100% agree with the case you presented, there are a lot of buildings that we hate with all of our gut that can be completely filled with architectural significance. An old master, talking about fine art in general, once told: "A deep sign of artistic maturity is the ability to value and respect work that you aesthetically despise or reject but you know are genuine and bring something else to the table."
There's nothing wrong in not liking it, that's ok and natural in a creative space so diffuse and large such as this of our day and age. But we need to know how to separate not liking it and not giving it the objective merit it deserves.
“Its not ugly, its just 40 years old”
I think I thought earlier as a kid that it looked absolutely disgusting, but in context it actually gives the cityscape a sort of playfulness, and there actually is a lot of balance in it. A lot of the pieces of the façade if taken on their own or if developed into their own idea would look really imposing and unsettling and depending on *what* idea would look either very brutalist or modernist or even like fascist looking. Like what it really reminds me of is Art Deco with a lot of the direct cultural appropriation from Mayan and ancient Inca architecture stripped out.
There might also be another thing going on, like if there's a 40 year mark for what's considered tacky and dated, there's another for what is considered antique, beautiful, traditional, and charming. There's a *bunch* of factors, not this exclusively, including like classism and racial segregation, and gentrification, but the walk up apartments in NYC also kind of fit too. A lot of them were built around the 20's-30's, were demolished in favor of 'towers-in-the-park' style tenements in the 60's and 70's, and are now seen as integral to the architecture and identity of New York.
I think, ugly or not, if you can use it to tell people where you are without knowing what street you're on, it should be spared for demolition. Like nobody is going to know what you're talking about when you say, "I'm next to that 60 storey office building that looks like a Mies van deh Rohe rip-off" unless all your friends are pretentious and also all modernist office buildings basically look pretty much like that. But when you say, "I'm at that ugly building with the giant brown V and the ribbons on it" people can generally find it pretty easily.
Idk jack about anything in this video and yet I subbed very interesting and well made amd straight to the point and yet not lacking personality. Thank u
The ~50 year timeline is something I'd noticed myself, and its interesting to hear it validated as something that's more widely recognized. An example I see often is the Fleming Administration Building at the University of Michigan. Designed by Albert Dow in the 1960's, the building has long drawn criticism for its slit windows and overhangs giving it the reputation of being designed as a fortress to shut out student protests. This assumption is unfounded, I believe I read somewhere that Mr. Dow was quite hurt by the insinuation. The building is set to be demolished in 2022, citing safety concerns, but I believe the actual reason is that its ill fit for purpose these days, and instead of figuring how to reuse a building many deem ugly and isolating, they'd rather tear it down and find something new. I think its an unfortunate decision. I geometry of the building makes me think of De Stijl paintings, but in a very different way as say the Schröder House in Utrecht. Fleming feels informed by the two dimensional work and mixed with other ideas, instead of being truly of De Stijl as Schröder house is. Regardless it feels like a loss to me and I'm hoping to get out and photograph the building before its torn down.
Part of the problem is those mid century designs don't always upgrade well, especially in terms of energy efficiency. Slit windows force greater reliance on electricity for lighting, instead of letting natural light flood in, for example. And while the Fleming building looks interesting, at least from the exterior, I can't imagine it's particularly pleasant inside. Spending time in those kinds of buildings always feels drab and alienating, like a dystopian sci-fi film. Interesting, but not something you wanna actually live with everyday.
@@claudiadarling9441 Agreed although, I don't find the Flemming Admin building too offensive. In Toronto we have Robarts Library at U of Toronto and I describe it as having a face that only a mother could love. During long, dreary winters, Robart's is prone to be the precipitating trigger of a year long depressive episode. Architects (mothers) will defend it and take the most flattering pictures they can cough up but it doesn't change how the building is experienced by students and locals alike.
@@claudiadarling9441, I'll agree with you there. I've been in the building for several meetings, and talking to people who work in that building, it certainly could be a better experience, folks complain about "sick building syndrome," most likely stemming from bad/insufficient airflow. There are accessibility issues, none of the bathrooms to my knowledge can accommodate a wheelchair user. The IT infrastructure is hard to maintain or expand, as the building was not designed with an affordance for it. Its designed for a 60's idea of how to organize the office, and limited on space on each floor so it certainly has downsides. and it is not the most exciting and energetic on the interior. I can certainly believe that its not economically feasible looking at the scope of renovations needed, but if it were, I'm still a big fan of adaptive reuse. We would never build this building today, which is part of why it intrigues me, I love trying to peel back the layers of use to unveil the original intent of the buildings design, but I will be the first to admit that history does nothing to make the building more usable for its current purpose. It would certainly not be my first choice if I was offered to have my office in any building on campus, so I can't blame the Administration for wanting something more in tune with their current way of working.
Isn't that one of the inherent problems of working with reinforced concrete? You get a design and you can't modify it without a ton of money and time. It's part of the reason traditional architecture lasts longer it's easy to change purpose.
FYI the whole "designed to shut out student protests" is actually a huge myth around Brutalist architecture. It is not true at all. Brutalism developed out of an interest to portray extreme abstract ideas, and concrete expressionism which was first inspired by Le Corbusier's late works.
I hated that Northwestern Hospital tore down the Prentice Women's Hospital. Bertrand Goldberg Brutalism, if my tour guide knowledge is still correct, yeah? Worth a video all it's own (If you haven't already made one) and glad you referenced Maxwell Street. I thought that was where you were standing. And I once bought a felt fedora from the hat shop in Monadnock. Love your vids, buddy. Keep up the good work
Postmodern architecture suffers most from the failure to understand that a building is not a sculpture, but a place for people to live and work.
Great video as usual! There is a similar debate going on in Berlin to save the Mäusebunker which is quite an unique example of prestigious architecture made to show superiority towards the east side of the city.
Great video. Im an engineer working in buildings, and I feel something that is often overlooked is the carbon cost of demolition and replacement of old buildings. The science is clear, we need to stop emitting carbon NOW, and therefore I belive we can not afford to tear down and replace buildings because we don't like the look of them, or the current layout is not ideal. About half of the lifetime carbon emissions of a building are from the materials and constriction of that building, with the other half coming from operating the building over its lifespan (assume 60 years)
One issue is my company has 1000s of experts in designing and building new buildings, but very few know how to heavily retrofit existing ones. We need to build the skills to rework our buildings, rather than replace them.
I was so sad to learn that the women's hospital in chicago was torn down. It holds a special place in our familys heart as it is where both me and my brother were born.
Are people kidding? The Portland building is sexy af…
The most vaporwave building ever! Seapunk in a jazz-wave cup. Keep it Portland, keep it, or you have no soul.
Stewart, do you see similarities between postmodernism and Art Deco? I see a lot of similarities in the overly flamboyant styling and simplified forms. It took until the 70s for deco to be appreciated, and I wonder if postmodernism will be the same?
I have a tea kettle from Graves’ target collection that I’ve used continuously for the last 20 years. My opinion of it has come full circle, from fun and cute, to tacky and over-styled (and kept only due to inertia), and back to a good object.
Nice to have Jason Sudeikis' brother pop in to say a few words.
The statue of Portlandia is the building's best feature. Made by sculptor Raymond Kaskey. He was paid $228,000 in public funds and reportedly an additional $100,000 in private donations.
I've always liked the Portland building. It captures the fun factor of Po-Mo to the hilt. I can't actually see anything wrong with it? What is the problem people have with it?
Thanks for the video.
I was always under the impression that one day he stumbled into work of Joze Plecnik, Slovenian architect, from many decades ago and "discovered" his style.
This is one of the most thought provoking videos I have seen on architecture in a very long time. Alas, the issues you raise merit a much lengthier discussion. Perhaps you can revisit landmark designation criteria and the problems presented by the Portland Building restoration videos in separate videos.
That 40-year rule certainly resonates. I’ve long been mindful of how keen property owners are to update lobbies and facades of such buildings with little regard to maintaining any design integrity. The first sad example I witnessed was the lobby at Jahn’s 55 W. Monroe. The recent lobby “upgrade” at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange also comes to mind. That one is doubly painful because the original lobby functioned well both visually and programmatically, and I am otherwise a fan of K&S’s work. I suspect if these buildings make it another 40 years, a future owner will undo these renovations at considerable expense.
nice video as always Stewart. I was just writing an essay about the Monadnock
its like a costume that building is.. the building is dressing up as other buildings, for holloween.
Wish this video came out when Julian and I were there. Such a great dive.
I think Graves designs, by having no structural justification for their features, make them appear cheap. I think we intuitively know the features on the outside are a facade, skin deep, and superficial. I think novelty or originality isn't a reason enough to keep buildings preserved. If everyone hates the look of a building, you don't need to torture the skyline with it just because it's the last remaining specimens of a set of novel but equally torturous buildings.
Honestly, the Portland building screams "I was under budget" and I doubt Graves, like many a creative in the post modern era, would even be respected or noteworthy in a time where something other than the bottom line was given serious consideration. His style in general just disgusts me, it's a textbook illustration of the worst parts of post modernism in a Capitalist society. It "references" older, respected, sought after, principled high culture elements by reproducing them in a shallow superficial and cheap way for mass consumption, a post modernist classic. Except here we are lead believe this corruption or degeneration is a feature because now the "referenced" elements can be rearranged without any material or principled justification other than the architect's whims. And then we are surprised people hate this arbitrary design.
Having to experience a variety of aesthetic forms in one's life is not torture. It is, in fact, as they say, the spice of life.
PoMo always looks cheap. My first exposure to PoMo architecture was back in the 1980s, when the Eastern Hills Mall near Buffalo was remodeled- the logo was changed to a paint-splash 'E' (so we just called it "E" from that point on) and not stucco, but literal foam coating over the columns to make this phony Egyptian-style entrance, and all this fluorescent purple paint.. it was awful. All PoMo architecture is just like that- like the perfume section in a store in a mall- covered in tasteless glitz, with garbage underneath.
One could say the same about Turn of the Century or Gilded age buildings in terms of being monuments to capitalism, or whatever. While I disagree with the materials and context of the material, this video makes an excellent point about a 40- year old blind spot. I wonder if I will come to appreciate the design choices in 20 years or so.
@@jpdillon2832 That, plus they're just plain ugly.
If postmodernism is a temple of capitalism, then ancient Roman architecture is a temple of imperialism and slavery, Gothic architecture is a temple of Theocracy, Baroque architecture is a temple of absolute monarchy and extreme wealth and so on.