Portland needs continued investment, and I don’t think historic preservation should automatically outweigh every new development. There are legitimate cases where replacing an older building allows a property to better serve current needs.
There is also a practical financing issue. The state bond authorization is specifically for new student housing, so this is not simply a choice between spending $85 million on a new building or spending less to renovate the existing ones. A preservation alternative would require PSU to find a different financing path while also limiting how much new housing capacity could be created on the site.
PSU also needs to attract students from across Oregon. Its strategic plan specifically calls for recruiting students from Oregon high schools, community colleges and rural areas, while the university is trying to reverse a substantial decline in enrollment. Many Portland-area students may be able to live at home, but students coming from places like Bend, Pendleton or Medford need housing. If PSU wants to compete successfully for those students, the quality, capacity and cost of its housing matter. PSU has a responsibility to consider not just preservation, but also cost per bed, capacity and the long-term value of the investment.
That said, A.E. Doyle is a major figure in Oregon architecture, and the Martha Washington Hotel for Self-Supporting Women has an important history of its own. Even if PSU concluded that the buildings could not reasonably be preserved, that doesn’t mean the history has to disappear with them.
One reasonable compromise would be to name the new residence hall Doyle Hall and incorporate a permanent exhibit or display explaining both Doyle’s contribution to Portland architecture and the history of the Martha Washington Hotel and the women it served. That would allow PSU to move forward while still acknowledging what was lost.
When PSU announced its plans last year to replace Blackstone and Montgomery Halls with a new dorm, it stated:
"Careful deconstruction of Blackstone and Montgomery will start late in 2026. Construction of the new housing building that will unite both lots will follow. During deconstruction, PSU will recycle as many materials from the old buildings as possible and is committed to preserving the history of Blackstone and Montgomery by carrying forward themes of the buildings into the new development." https://www.pdx.edu/news/psu-announces-plans-modern-accessible-student-housing-portlands-park-blocks?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Opting for deconstruction would be voluntary, since Portland's code requiring the dismantling of certain types of old buildings applies to one- and two-family dwellings only.
Let's hope PSU is true to its word. The piles of rubble and splintered timbers in the photos accompanying this piece point to demolition not deconstruction, but perhaps they don't depict the whole story.
Vandals.
Portland needs continued investment, and I don’t think historic preservation should automatically outweigh every new development. There are legitimate cases where replacing an older building allows a property to better serve current needs.
There is also a practical financing issue. The state bond authorization is specifically for new student housing, so this is not simply a choice between spending $85 million on a new building or spending less to renovate the existing ones. A preservation alternative would require PSU to find a different financing path while also limiting how much new housing capacity could be created on the site.
PSU also needs to attract students from across Oregon. Its strategic plan specifically calls for recruiting students from Oregon high schools, community colleges and rural areas, while the university is trying to reverse a substantial decline in enrollment. Many Portland-area students may be able to live at home, but students coming from places like Bend, Pendleton or Medford need housing. If PSU wants to compete successfully for those students, the quality, capacity and cost of its housing matter. PSU has a responsibility to consider not just preservation, but also cost per bed, capacity and the long-term value of the investment.
That said, A.E. Doyle is a major figure in Oregon architecture, and the Martha Washington Hotel for Self-Supporting Women has an important history of its own. Even if PSU concluded that the buildings could not reasonably be preserved, that doesn’t mean the history has to disappear with them.
One reasonable compromise would be to name the new residence hall Doyle Hall and incorporate a permanent exhibit or display explaining both Doyle’s contribution to Portland architecture and the history of the Martha Washington Hotel and the women it served. That would allow PSU to move forward while still acknowledging what was lost.
When PSU announced its plans last year to replace Blackstone and Montgomery Halls with a new dorm, it stated:
"Careful deconstruction of Blackstone and Montgomery will start late in 2026. Construction of the new housing building that will unite both lots will follow. During deconstruction, PSU will recycle as many materials from the old buildings as possible and is committed to preserving the history of Blackstone and Montgomery by carrying forward themes of the buildings into the new development." https://www.pdx.edu/news/psu-announces-plans-modern-accessible-student-housing-portlands-park-blocks?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Opting for deconstruction would be voluntary, since Portland's code requiring the dismantling of certain types of old buildings applies to one- and two-family dwellings only.
Let's hope PSU is true to its word. The piles of rubble and splintered timbers in the photos accompanying this piece point to demolition not deconstruction, but perhaps they don't depict the whole story.