THE OLD FIRE STATION passed out of existence without much fanfare, but with stunning speed.
It was late 2013, and the 89-year-old building near NE MLK and Alberta was at the end of its utility to a booming market. It was time, its owner had decided, for demolition.
Less than three months later, a proposal to build a Trader Joeâs nearby would spark a citywide crisis of conscience as to how Portland should grow and change [âHall Monitor,â News, Feb 5, 2014]. But the 1924 firehouse garnered little notice when the backhoe came.
On November 15, 2013, the buildingâs owner, James Adamson, informed city officials he no longer wanted the property at 4867 NE MLK listed on the cityâs Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), a guiding document that holds some of Portlandâs best old buildings. And by virtue of that de-listing, the city could issue a demolition permit the same day, rather than waiting 120 days as required for most HRI properties.
By November 27, the Portland Observer had run a four-paragraph item about the demolition, under a photograph of the building in ruins. Today, nearly three years later, a gravel lot is all that remains.
Nothingâs special or especially tragic about the loss of the squat fire station, admired for its Tuscan columns and pedimented gables. Scant protections for old buildings have been a gripe of the cityâs historically minded advocates for a long while.
More than any big city in the country, advocates say Portlandâs historic structures are susceptible to developers looking to swap them out. Thatâs because of a quirky law the state passed in 1995, giving owners unprecedented sway in whether their properties are considered historically significant.
âEvery other state in the country and every other major city in the country designates historic buildings and protects them whether the owner agrees or not,â says Brandon Spencer-Hartle, a city planner with the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS). âAs far as big cities go, we are handicapped.â
That might be about to change.
Last week, the Oregon Supreme Court took a bite out of the âowner-consentâ law that history buffs say causes trouble in Portland and beyond. The court ruled that a Lake Oswego ownership trust couldnât lift the historical designation from that cityâs oldest homeâa large 1857 farmhouse known as the Carman House thatâs given way to rodents and disrepair.
Instead, in a ruling that advocates expect will have ramifications around the state, justices found that only an owner who controlled a property at the time it was designated as historic can opt to reverse that designation. Subsequent owners are powerless.
In the case of the Carman House, that means demolition is prohibited. The Mary Cadwell Wilmot Trust, which owns the property and had sought to have historical protections removed, will have to find another option.
What it might mean for places like that old Portland firehouseâor the thousands of potentially historic Portland properties subject to their ownersâ whimsâremains to be seen.
âPeople are mulling through the consequences, particularly in our city attorneyâs office,â says Al Burns, a senior city planner with BPS. âItâs just too soon to come to conclusions that would change city instructions.â
One big question the cityâs lawyers will want to ask: Whether or not the ruling has bearing on the HRI, the list of roughly 5,000 properties city officials began cataloguing in 1984 as a guidepost for buildings that might have historical import.
Properties on the inventory are ranked by order of perceived significance (with some left unranked). But though many of the higher-ranked sites carry federal or local protections, lots of lower-ranked buildings do not. Thatâs a problem for some advocates, because the HRI itself provides scant safeguards.
While owners of a ranked HRI-listed property face at least a mandatory 120-day delay before getting a demolition permitâa period designed to foster discussion about possibilities besides demolitionâthat 1995 state law mentioned above means property owners can easily get their building snatched off the list.
What happens next is a matter of heated contention in Portland.
For months now, city officials have said local laws include a âloopholeâ that allows demolition permits to be issued right away once a property is taken off the HRI [âSay Goodbye to Two Pieces of Portland History,â News, Dec 2, 2015]âthe same thing that happened with the old firehouse.
Others say that shouldnât be the case. A group calling itself the Close the Loophole Coalition sent out a release last week, pointing out that state administrative rules actually require a 120-day delay for demolition of properties if an owner has recently removed a âhistoric resource designation.â They say the cityâs illegally flouted those rules again and again over the years.
The difference of opinion comes down to semantics. The city maintains simply being listed on the HRI doesnât amount to a âdesignationâ as required in the law, so the four-month wait isnât required.
âThe cityâs position is that the HRI is a document that tells people when things are suitable for designation and not that they are designated,â says Carrie Richter, a Portland land-use attorney.
Richterâs in a position to know. She filed a brief in the recent Supreme Court case on behalf of the advocacy group Restore Oregon, the City of Portland, and six other entities (including the cities of Pendleton and the Dalles). Now that the groupâs opinion has prevailed, and properties statewide are less susceptible to having their protections removed, Richter says Oregonâs far better off.
âItâs not just about Portland,â she says. âThere are thousands of resources statewide that are designated.â
But itâs also true that Portlandâs resources are under greater pressure. Peggy Moretti, executive director of Restore Oregon, talks about the âhuge economic forces that are definitely weighing toward demolitionâ in the city. Itâs not that every demolition is bad, Moretti says, but it rankles her to see some of the cityâs most unique old buildings on the chopping block.
There are at least three salient (and contentious) examples of this playing out right now:
Downtownâs 124-year-old Ancient Order of United Workmen Temple and the adjacent Hotel Albion (home to the Lotus Cardroom and CafĂ©, at SW 2nd and Taylor) are slated to be torn down to make way for a new boutique hotel.
Northeast Portlandâs stately, moldering Ocobock Mansion, at 5128 NE Rodney, might face demolition at the hands of developer Vic Remmers. The buildingâs HRI designation was removed in May, and Remmers reportedly has plans to build at least five new homes in its place.
And in Southeast Portland, Sunnyside neighborhood groups have been railing against the planned demolition of a storefront property at SE 34th and Belmont.
âNot all historic buildings need to be preserved, certainly,â Moretti says. âBut our unique character is in large part due to the historic buildings that populate our city.â
Hereâs the thing, though: Itâs unclear whether the state Supreme Courtâs decision will have much effect on any of that. At most, advocates say, it could spur the city to make it difficult (or impossible) for owners to have their properties taken off the HRI. Those properties would still be eligible for demolition after a four-month delay.
The 120-day window âallows for a dialogue and for considering demolition of historic properties as a last resort rather than a first resort,â says Close the Loophole Coalitionâs Meg Hanson.
But more often than not, the delay doesnât change anything.
As BPSâ Spencer-Hartle puts it: âIn todayâs super-hot real estate market, a 120-day waiting period is oftentimes not enough to save a building.â
Which is why people are pushing for bigger change.
Moretti, for instance, advocates new financial incentives for developers to leave old buildings in place. And in June, members of Portlandâs Historic Landmarks Commission, which advises the city on maintaining historic properties, wrote a letter [PDF] pushing for something far stronger. They want city officials to make revoking the 1995 owner-consent law part of its lobbying agenda in Salem.
âThe ease and frequency in which historic properties are being âde-listedâ and demolished,â the letter said, âhas never been greater.â