West Broadway Advisory Committee Final Report

New Search

i t ~ Significant Fabric/Features Lost or Altered • Original storefront windows and transoms _ - • Entry doors and arched windows above ' ,k • Significant modification and loss of building fabric at the corner of r Broadway and Charnelton. ~ r`' • Addition of large curvilinear window on Charnelton _ • The curved, stepped pazapets above the main arched entries (including their finials and other ornamentation) were removed to make the parapet line straight. The scalloped terra cotta at the parapet as well as other terra cotta Figure 3. Top of interior column capital partially decoration was removed or significantly damaged in the remodel. obscured by drywall partition. Interior features and decoration of the Spanish/Mission style were removed. ~ 4 Conclusions . The Shaw Med/Tango Center Building has lost its most important character- ~ =`°A"" defining features and therefore has insufficient azchitectural integrity to be ~t. eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, even if the stucco fagade was removed. , National standards aside, the loss of critical character-defining features ,u, Ry. makes it difficult to convey the building's local significance through its ~ ~ I architecture in a historically authentic fashion. By that i mean, significant 1`~~~=~ t'~~°k'=~x~~°`^-`~~~y"ok~~~,~ .~r~ reconstruction {rather than restoration or rehabilitation) would need to occur aLdiSw ~`~'~~"~t in order to bring it back to its original look and feel. (See Appendix A for definitions of these treatment options.) - ~ moo. Options. 'a 4 ~ } - Below I list some options for how the redevelopment of this site might ~ ~ F include or pay homage to the historic public market building. i ~ One option is to remove the stucco exterior and reconstruct the facade. The Secretary of the Interior's Standazds for the Treatment of Historic Properties. defines reconstruction as a treatment that "re-creates vanished or non- ~ _ ` ~ surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes." There are several 'i° problems with this option: 1) it will be very. costly; 2) it does not accomplish ~ Figure 5. Parapet revealed under flashing shows that density goals; 3) it may not be a public goal to recreate this building to aid in ornamentation was removed and top of stepped the interpretation of West Broadway; 4) certain desired uses maybe parapet was cut off. incompatible with the reconstructed building; and 5) reconstruction requires ~ accurate duplication of historic features substantiated by documentary or physical evidence (of which an insufficient amount may exist) rather than on conjectural design. _ ~1~ A second option is to incorporate the building's original facade into a new, { i multi-storied structure. Figures 11 and 12 are examples of buildings in s northwest Portland where an entirely new structure was built within an older building's original walls. However, it should be noted that these buildings both retained much of their historic architectural character (hence the reason , u the developer chose to save the facades). For the Shaw-Med building, this ~ k ' does not appear to be the case. It is not recommended that a historically- - accurate reconstruction of the facade be considered if the building is to ~ ~ M1 become part of a larger structure. In the case of an adaptive reuse, the lost A ' , features from the historic facade could be repaired/replaced with modem Figure 6. Greg Bryant putting flashing back on parapet. Arch shown in fig. 2 is directly below, elements that are suggestive of the historic features, but that do not create a concealed corder stucco faFade. false- sense of history. The condition of the original building and the economic feasibility of adaptive reuse will need to be cazefully considered. i 9 l ~ , ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ - .