Laladyblog, I'm afraid we have a huge misunderstanding. I am not in any way, shape or form advocating that the existing St. Mary's be torn down. I only felt that restoring the Francis & Hopkins building would give St. Mary's a wonderful midcentury-modern building to occupy along with their existing structure. What's more, I'm not at all advocating that only midcentury modern architecture be preserved. Of course not! Boy, I really must not have done a proper job of expressing myself in this post. None of what you're picking up is a point that I made. Sorry for the confusion.

Zef, Thanks for your comments and thanks for reading the post. It's completely understandable if you dislike the aesthetics of the Francis and Hopkins building. However, I like it very much. More importantly, I want to make clear that I am NOT arguing that we should preserve entire eras of architecture. Of course not all architecture is worth preserving. I'm sure that over 90 percent of the architecture built in the 1940s and 1950s is now gone, and that is okay. But just as we should not try preserve entire eras, as you say, we also should not rush to make sweeping generalizations about whole eras or dismiss them altogether. As it happens, the late 1940s was an exceptional time in the history of modern architecture, when architects trained in traditional Beaux Artes style were applying their skills to a new modern era with new materials. Maybe the Francis and Hopkins building is not a masterpiece, but I would argue that it is a modestly exceptional work of local modern style from the 1940s. Whether one likes this particular building or not doesn't matter very much. The important thing is that we agree on mid-20th century modernism's validity and importance, like any historic style. The world will go on if this building is demolished. It's not a black and white issue regarding whether this is a great work, a good one or a bad one. But great cities are collections of architecture from every era, and I believe exceptional 1940s modernism has just as much validity and beauty as any other style. Maybe Richard Sundeleaf wasn't Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe, but Mies Van Der Rohe is just as great as Christopher Wren, or Palladio, or any architect in any time.

D and Randy, Taste is a subjective thing, and I appreciate both of you sharing your opinions here. I happen to like the piece. The idea of creating in sculpture the traces of an old warehouse on the site is to me an interesting and compelling fusion of art and history. It's celebrating Portland's Central Eastside industry and tradition. I'm not saying you have to agree with this. But I reject any kind of indignation and supposed community consensus that this is a waste or that it was the result of some kind of uninclusive backroom conniving. The public art submission process here is very transparent, and Lead Pencil Studio is a very highly respected art/design firm. The fact that they've created an artwork of such a large scale means that the piece is going to stand out and, as a result, have its detractors. That's fine! Honestly, I strongly dislike LOTS of public art, so I can sympathize with your coming out against "Inversion." Just don't try and make this a case of the big bad elitist government picking art that the community universally hates. Because that's an exaggeration bigger than this artwork. And if you want to argue that public art shouldn't be part of new transit lines, or that the city shouldn't have a "1% for Art" program, I can't even dignify that with a response.

Great point, D. Which is why I have expressed regret about the comment. My point is being lost here, it seems, because I used an unfair term. I honestly don't think it's as simple as being for one's neighborhood and its interests or being against it. I think density is like anything else: it's good up to a certain point. There's some kind of threshold that's hard to pinpoint precisely but at which a neighborhood can feel overrun with cars and people. But that threshold is much higher than the density accomplished with single-family houses alone. Division Street is better in general, I think, for having most of the new development there. But I can also understand feeling overwhelmed if one lives within a few blocks and had been used to parking in front of the street. I'm just saying, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I like these projects mentioned in the post, but the higher-density project without parking that was halted by the city may have been not so good.

To "pdxFTW" - I regret using the NIMBY neighbors tag. Sometimes I find it frustrating that people in single-family houses within historic neighborhoods are overly hostile to higher-density development, but I completely agree that not all development is not created equally. There are SOME projects happening in Portland with no parking and substantial density that are not good for the surrounding neighborhood. I'm just sensitive because there are also times when neighborhoods seem to protest good high-density projects as well as bad one. Incidentally, I would have greatly more respect for your point of view if you were willing to identify yourself rather than hiding behind an anonymous screen name. What do you have to hide?

Thanks for pointing out the typo, Eric. It's now been fixed.

T.A., honestly you probably have a good point. I'm sorry if my going rhetorically overboard has pushed you away from the side of preserving West Hayden. I'd urge you to consider the issue and the side you come down on in a way that ultimately is not influenced by my hot-headedness.

I'm sorry, "D", if my joke about Republicans offended your earnest sensibilities enough to be distracted from the rest of the post. I made the joke because Republicans are generally thought to be the party favoring business, economics, trade and commerce interests. I also would like to emphasize it was a joke. You mentioned my acting "pitiful," and I'm not going to participate in any reciprocal name-calling. For all I know, you're a brilliant, friendly person. But if so, why not identify yourself instead of writing your comment anonymously? Is there something you don't want us to know about you, or about your motivations in making these accusations? Feel free to come out of hiding - we'll promise to play nice, even though we're only pitiful Democrats.

A comment from reader Jeff Joslin sent via email: I’m so glad to see a discussion of the Garden’s contribution to the City. As one who had the honor of participating in the Garden’s design and construction, it’s a place of profound meaning to me. I did want to correct one fact, and take issue with one observation. The depth of the pond in vicinity of certain elements was a result of a desire to maintain traditional rail heights and not add other non-authentic protective elements. However the pond depth overall was born of the desire to remove and remediate as little material as possible from the pond area. As an additional pond footnote, the river rock placed on the bed was a Lan Su specific innovation. The designers’ first desire was to maintain deeper murky water of a particular color. Given the shallower pond, our inability to ensure consistent murkiness, and the inevitability of viewing the bottom; the stone was agreed to as a visually appropriate alternative. And now for the difference of opinion. At the time our garden was being designed, there were no gardens in Suzhou with treatments along the street edge such as Lan Su provides. The ancient gardens were private urban enclaves, with stark walls and nondescript entries. Such a treatment would have clearly been in conflict with Portland’s aspirations for a quality pedestrian environment. After touring all other projects by Suzhou in North America, I noted that some had made use of “leek windows” such as those in your Everett Street photo in discrete exterior locations. This notion was – in turn – delicately proposed to our Suzhou masters, and accepted. Each of the windows is a unique, hand crafted (400 person hours) design. Other pedestrian-enhancing innovations included the Everett and 3rd entry plaza, and other landscaped areas at the Garden’s other three corners (which Mr. Kuang and Ms. He immediately embraced for their “borrowed landscape” potential). These elements, along with the decorative tile and granite base, in my estimation (and the Portland Design Commission’s, who ultimately approved the project) resulted in an approach that was highly and fittingly additive to our streetscape, hardly “a big blank stone wall”. The windows provide a diversity of form and pattern and craft unlike any other streetwall, afford glass-free views into the garden, but also allow the Garden scents (and sounds, when there’s music or activity within) to weep out into the surrounding streets. The design masters found all these innovations appropriate for such a garden in modern times and cities, and have since employed them similarly in projects both outside of China and within. Jeff Joslin Director of Current Planning San Francisco, CA

Good points, Barry - so much so that I amended my original post a little bit to incorporate them.

Thanks for your comment, "Eye Eyeball". I completely understand your feelings about keeping the Powell's Technical Bookstore building, and I too feel at the very least conflicted about its demolition. However, I don't think Thomas Robinson's comments constitute blabber or nonsense at all. He's clearly one of the finest architects in town, and I think the new PNCA building would be quite compelling. It would be easier for all of us if Thomas or the proposed building were nonsense like you described. But it's more ambiguous than that. What's more, we can't save every building. I wish we could. We'll see what happens here, but I sympathize with your preservation concerns even as I see through some of your rhetoric.

Good idea, Doug!

That's a great point, Tanya - so much so that I added an extra paragraph at the end of the post. You're right - it would have been great to really make this development an essential part of the city by having essential things there, like schools and community centers.

A comment emailed from Jeff Joslin: As one who oversaw the Design Review process over 15 years, I also participated in the expansion of Design Review throughout the City, and the ongoing fee discussion. I thought I’d offer a little more history and perspective During the early days of the process, there was little attention given to specific fees for various permitting activities. This was true for three reasons: 1) little was happening, 2) fees were modest and largely subsidized by the general fund, and 3) the both land use and long range planning existed in the same bureau. This latter aspect deserves a paragraph unto its own. Having all planning functions within the same bureau and budget had a number of advantages. Generally, when fee-generating activities were low, staffing and budgets could migrate towards other planning activities. Similarly, during otherwise budgetarily constrained periods, there was more internal flexibility in how banked funds could be applied. For examples: reserves from land use fees could support other planning activities, and unstipulated funds could move fluidly between functions as best served the economy and the bureau needs. This was particularly important as the City – and its bureaucracy – grew: political pressures on the general fund could leave any bureau short in a particular moment. Layoffs were not a desirable first-choice, as re-hiring and re-training is expensive and lengthy. A generally stabilized planning staff provided maximum flexibility and efficiency. In the meantime, the City – and its expectations – grew. Design Review was expanded greatly. When I inherited the process in the early 90’s, it was the most general fund subsidized function in the City. When I left in 2008, it was self-supporting. While this unquestionably added to the cost of construction, it had one huge benefit: it decoupled the process from the budgetary politics of the City. As for other districts and process elsewhere: this is a complex and slippery slope. Other processes elsewhere function very differently. We recently completed a survey of historic regulation and processes across Oregon as part of our work with the Historic Preservation League of Oregon to develop infill principles for National Register Historic Districts statewide. Let me assure you, not all review and regulations are created equal. Many of the processes and regulations elsewhere are minimal, and in no way resemble the effort, and the results, associated with Portland’s process. If Portland were still just applying design review to downtown, we could afford to wildly subsidize it. Because neighborhoods have consistently included it in their community plans, the cost of subsidization would be unbearable. Even if neighborhoods demanded more subsidy, it’s also no longer the subsidy-darling it once was: all bureaus and regulations today have complex constituencies, particularly when fighting for highly competitive funding. All programs that are general fund supported are vulnerable. For better or worse, the statutorily-driven timelines and associated effort are an unavoidable part of the expense. And for those in this time giving voice to the 99%, state law does not allow projects to be charged more for a review than it costs to administer it; therefore it’s also not possible to charge larger projects more in order to minimize fees for smaller ones. I’d also add that; with the advent of sophisticated tracking mechanisms, cost-recovery analysis occurs annually. You get what you pay for. I absolutely concur, along with the consistent bellowing voice of the Landmarks Commission during each legislative opportunity, that the fee associated with designating individual landmarks is unusual and unfortunate. We were never able to find a Council champion to bring this fee-recovery exception forward. I believe this to be an essential element does in particular that the preservation community could and should focus on. The argument has been that the incentives afforded landmarks balances this cost. This is obviously incomplete logic, as it only applies if the incentives are the reason owners are voluntarily subjecting their properties to protections and restrictions. It fails to account for the majority of historic property owners who are choosing to place limits on their property – and in many cases reducing remarket value in the process – because of their commitment to historic preservation. The public and environmental benefit of preservation is unassailable, and property owners should not be penalized for advancing that public purpose. There are ways to minimize cost impacts for minor projects. The two-track system - allowing prescriptive standards instead of design review - is provided in all the areas that state statute allows. Numerous exemptions have been crafted to allow modest or prescribed improvements to be exempt from review. As there’s clearly support for the necessity and benefits of historic district, perhaps attention might focus on the potential for additional district-specific exemptions as a means to lessen the burden and minimize compliance disincentives?