Featured post

100 Trees for 100 Years: Planting the first 100 to Thrive

Planting 100 trees is the first step in a street tree succession plan– a campaign to unite the neighborhood and foster community norms and inspire individual actions that will sustain an optimal street tree canopy through time—preserving valuable existing trees, filling empty planting spaces, and replacing dead, dying, or dangerous trees.  Overall, the plan is based on best practices as defined by professional municipal arborists.  It also includes education and outreach to neighbors, and the selection and purchase of choice nursery stock.  The aim is not only to plant trees, but also to create strategies that ensure that property owners, whatever their personal preferences, now and in the future, act in the interests of the community’s canopy—making sure not only these first 100 trees but also successive hundreds thrive for their life-spans—100 years and more. 

Scope of planting campaign

The target audience is comprised of individuals who own individual properties that will change hands over the lifetime of the trees.  Since the Eastmoreland Golf Course and Reed College are expected to remain in city and college ownership, respectively, the campaign focuses on the residential portion of Eastmoreland as its geographic area.  The target tree spaces are those in non-development covered by the programmatic planting permit that Urban Forestry issues to Friends of Trees, our partner in the planting. 

Actions in the campaign—

The first planting of the 100 trees will require three main efforts leading up to the planting.

  1. Education and Outreach efforts, including, but not limited to the following mentioned by past and current board members:
    1. presentations regarding available trees
    1. 4th of July outreach
    1. newletter articles, person-to-person conversations
    1. strategies and materials to make sure maintaining the trees becomes the neighborhood norm
  2. Research and funding with which to secure the trees on the lists endorsed by the neighborhood.
  3. Tree lists, specific to the neighborhood, which are designed to change when conditions warrant based on the following organizational principles: 
    1. Diversity metric used by municipal arborists nationwide:  no more than 5% of one species, 10% of one genus, and 20% of one family in a population of trees to reduce risks, or replacement on the list when pests and diseases or a failure to thrive threatens a tree type
    1. Right tree-right place metric used to ensure that long-lived trees with as large a canopy volume as possible are planted in appropriately sized in-ground and overhead spaces 
    1. Division of the neighborhood into north-south and east-west lists that we adopted in response to the ENA board wishing to honor original planting decisions.

Addendum:  Tree Lists

Recommended Trees for East-West Streets
Common Name of Tree Genus, Species (Family) Height x Width (note)
8′ & wider strip, no high-voltage wires
Accolade Elm Ulmus japonica x Ulmus wilsoniana ‘Morton’ (Ulmaceae) 70 x 60′
Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipfera (Magnoliaceae) 80 x 40′
Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata (Cupressaceae) 100 x 30′
8′ & wider strip with high-voltage wires (same entries as 6 – 8′ strip with high-voltage wires)
American Hophornbeam Ostrya virginiana (Betulaceae) 35 x 35′
Cascara Rhamnus purshiana (Rhamnaceae) 30 x 25′
Lavelle Hawthorne Cratageous x lavallei (Rosaceae) 30 x 25′
6 – 8′ strip, no high-voltage wires
Kentucky Coffee Tree Gymnocladus dioicus ‘Espresso’ (Fabaceae) 60 x 40′ (male, no seeds)
London Plane Platanus x acerifolia ‘Columbia’ (Plantanaceae) 60 x 35′
Willow Oak Quercus phellos (Fagaceae) 50 x 35′
6 – 8′ strip with high-voltage wires
American Hophornbeam Ostrya virginiana  (Betulaceae) 35 x 35′
Cascara Rhamnus purshiana (Rhamnaceae) 30 x 25′
Lavelle Hawthorne Cratageous x lavallei (Rosaceae) 30 x 25′
4 – 5.9′ strip, no high-voltage wires
Bamboo Leaf Oak Quercus myrsinifolia (Fagaceae) 40 x 30′
Dove Tree Davidia involucrata (Cornaceae) 60 x 30′
Forest Green Oak Quercus frainetto ‘Schmidt’ (Fagaceae) 50 x 30′
4 – 5.9′ strip with high-voltage wires
American Hophornbeam Ostrya virginiana (Betulaceae) 35 x 35′
Bay Laurel Laurus nobilis (Lauraceae) 30 x 20′
Cascara Rhamnus purshiana (Rhamnaceae) 30 x 25′
3.0 – 3.9′ strip with or without high-voltage wires
Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia indica (Lythraceae) 20 x 20′
Japanese Snowbell Styrax japonicus (Syracaceae) 25 x 25′
Japanese Tree Lilac Syringa reticulata (Oleaceae) 25 x 20′
Recommended Trees for North-South Streets
Common Name of Tree Genus, Species (Family) Height x Width (note)
8′ & wider strip, no high-voltage wires
Dawn Redwood Metasequoia glyptostroboides (Cupressaceae Sequoiodeae) 75 x 30′
Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii (Pinaceae) 100 x 40′
Hogan Cedar Thuja plicata ‘Hogan’ (Cupressaceae) 100 x 20′
8′ & wider strip with high-voltage wires (same entries as 6 – 8′ strip with high-voltage wires)
Chinese Pistache Pistacia chinensis (Anacardiaceae) 30 x 30′
Persian Ironwood Parrotia persica (Hamamelidaceae) 35 x 20′
Pink Dawn Chitalpa Chitalpa tashkentensis ‘Pink Dawn’ (Bignoniaceae) 25 x 25′
Sweetbay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana ‘Jim Wilson’ (Magnoliaceae) 30 x 35′
6 – 8′ strip, no high-voltage wires
American Yellowwood Cladastrus kentuckea (Fabaceae) 45 x 40′
Heritage Birch Betula nigra ‘Heritage’ (Betulaceae) 50 x 40′
Shumard Oak Quercus shumardii (Fagaceae) 50 x 40′
6 – 8′ strip with high-voltage wires
Chinese Pistache Pistacia chinensis (Anacardiaceae) 30 x 30′
Persian Ironwood Parrotia persica (Hamamelidaceae) 35 x 20′
Pink Dawn Chitalpa Chitalpa tashkentensis ‘Pink Dawn’ (Bignoniaceae) 25 x 25′
Sweetbay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana ‘Jim Wilson’ (Magnoliaceae) 30 x 35′
4 – 5.9′ strip, no high-voltage wires
Dura-Heat River Birch Betula nigra ‘Dura-Heat’ (Betulaceae) 40 x 30′
Pacific Madrone Arbutus menziesii (Ericaceae) 40 x 35′
Turkish Filbert Corylus columa (Betulaceae) 40 x 30′
4 – 5.9′ strip with high-voltage wires
Chinese Pistache Pistacia chinensis (Anacardiaceae) 30 x 30′
Persian Ironwood Parrotia persica (Hamamelidaceae) 35 x 20′
Pink Dawn Chitalpa Chitalpa tashkentensis ‘Pink Dawn’ (Bignoniaceae) 25 x 25′
Sweetbay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana ‘Jim Wilson’ (Magnoliaceae) 30 x 35′
3.0 – 3.9′ strip with or without high-voltage wires
Butterflies Magnolia Magnolia acuminata ‘Butterflies’ (Magnoliaceae) 20 x 15′
Fragrent Snowbell Styrax obassia (Styracaceae) 35 x 35′ (flowers hidden)
Featured post

Historic District Update 7/3/2018

Dear Neighbors,

The National Park Service (NPS) issued a letter dated June 29, 2018 addressed to the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) once again returning the Eastmoreland HD nomination to the State for prejudicial error. This is the second time that the SHPO failed to provide an accurate count of owners and objectors – this time because of the failure to discover and follow state and federal law regarding the recognition of 5,000 trust entities formed by four households. These 5,000 trusts were designed to overwhelm those in the neighborhood in support of the nomination and to make a mockery of the process of forming a historic district.

To the disappointment of many, the NPS declined to override the Oregon SHPO recommendation to count the objection trusts and provide an independent count of the legitimate objections. Instead the NPS chose to highlight the failure of the SHPO to perform due diligence in determining the validity of the trusts as legitimate entities or, if legal, legitimately empowered to represent the interests of the neighborhood district. Earlier in June, Historic Eastmoreland Achieving Results Together (HEART) filed an a Petition for Judicial Review on similar grounds.

In returning the nomination, the NPS letter highlights some 300 letters of objection to the SHPO decision including legal opinions, national and regional preservation organizations, and the National Trust. The NPS reiterates that in every respect both the SHPO and the NPS support the nomination.  Further, the NPS notes that “If the five property owners at issue had not created the 5,000 trusts, and had instead been counted as five (5) owners with five (5) objections, it appears that a majority of the private property owners would not have objected to listing.” Also included is a quote from the National Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation that recognition of these trusts “threaten to make a sham of this reasonable process and jeopardize the entire underpinnings of the National Register historic district designations.”

The full text of the NPS letter may be found on the SHPO website as follows: https://www.oregon.gov/oprd/docs/eastmoreland-nps-letter-20180629.pdf

The SHPO provided a press release July 2 concluding “The Oregon SHPO will develop a plan to respond to the NPS.” There is no time stipulated either for the development of a “plan” or a time to respond. Parallel legal actions, other historic districts impacted by the SHPO decision, and the rebuke from NPS may spur a response. Proposed adoption of the Residential Infill Project is less than a year away. Until the historic district is in place, the historic character of the neighborhood remains increasingly vulnerable including speculative demolitions on larger lots and loss of Eastmoreland’s more affordable houses.

Rod Merrick, Board President
Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association

Eastmoreland Neighborhood Emergency Preparedness House Parties

Eastmoreland Neighborhood Emergency Preparedness House Parties

Last year the Eastmoreland Emergency Preparedness Committee launched an educational program aimed at teaching our neighbors how to prepare for a widespread emergency. Our neighborhood is resuming this program again this year and we are requesting volunteers from each block in Eastmoreland to host two evening “block parties”. These parties will be taught by a trained neighborhood emergency responder and will cover information on the types of disasters most likely to occur in Portland and how to prepare for these disasters for yourself, your family and as a block. The goal of these preparedness parties is for our neighborhood to achieve the most positive outcome possible when disaster strikes. It is a startling fact that if a widespread disaster were to occur, Portland’s emergency response system (police, fire and medical teams) would be overwhelmed. Most likely, during a disaster you will need to depend on yourself and your neighbors. By hosting the two block parties you will learn how to be prepared for disaster, your neighbors’ skill sets and resources and establish or strengthen neighborhood ties.

We are ready to schedule these block parties once you contact us. Again, we will bring all the educational materials and instruct the programs, you just need to invite your neighbors and open your home. Help us build a more resilient community! Please consider volunteering to be a host.  For more information or to sign up as a host send us an email at ready@eastmoreland.org

Naming Portland’s everyday houses: From bungalow to ‘Minimal-traditional’

Thomas Hubka | Special to The Oregonian by Thomas Hubka | Special to The Oregonian 

on August 29, 2014 at 8:24 AM, updated August 29, 2014 at 8:37 AM

Gable-entry house: Far more common than Victorian mansions, these small vernacular houses with doors in either the gable-end or the long-side, were some of Portland’s most numerous single-family houses before 1900. Photo by Thomas Hubka.

 

(Additional photos are at the end of the article.)

 

Portland is known for its distinctive neighborhoods and substantial housing but it’s not easy to categorize or even name most of the city’s 150,000 houses. Loose terms like ranch, Cape and bungalow are broadly used but are highly generalized and are often not very helpful.

While older “historic” homes are often identified by architectural styles such as Queen Anne, Colonial and Italianate, most common houses in a variety of modest stylistic mixtures are not so easily identified.

Yet Portland’s common houses can be named and classified. Whatever they are called: popular, common, vernacular, developer-built, everyday homes, they constitute the largest portion of Portland’s housing in any period or neighborhood of the city.

Without a means of naming and classifying them, these dwellings tend to be left out of the histories of Portland’s architecture, neglected in preservation and historic surveys and politely marginalized when considering their significant contribution to the over quality of our city’s quality of life.

In a series of articles on individual neighborhoods, we will focus on a neighborhood’s most popular types of houses that consistently give unique character to every district of the city, such as Buckman’s creative porch gables, Hilldale’s varieties of the split levels, Kerns’ working-class doubles and Eastmoreland’s  brick, corbelled-gable, storybook houses.

Rather than focusing on a neighborhood’s oldest or most ornate houses, every Portland neighborhood also has distinctive types of common houses that help to define its dominant residential character. We will examine how and why these common houses were made and the reasons they look the way they do.

Eras/Periods of Portland’s Common House Construction

In the late 19th century, most Portlanders did not reside in grand Victorian mansions usually photographed but instead lived in either multi-unit tenement and boarding houses or small, two-and-three room wooden houses and workers cottages. Most of these structures, however, have either been destroyed or remodeled beyond recognition.

In the housing boom that followed the Lewis and Clark Exposition of 1905, Portland builders produced early modern houses, like the four-square, the four-room “pyramid” and the gable-and-wing that still exist in most neighborhoods. But Portland’s most popular house of the first half of the 20th century was the common bungalow produced in many varieties but most popularly in a one-story, asymmetrical, porch and gable-to-the-street style.

Although usually recognized by its craftsman-bungalow style with large eave boards and wooden brackets, it also contained the first modern kitchens, dining rooms and baths for the working classes.

By the late 1920s, the bungalow style was gradually replaced by common houses in more historic styles, often labeled “period revivals.” It is a confusing group of styles but there were two dominant influences: American Colonial sources, like the Cape Cod house, and European sources, primarily English, often called “Tudor” and imitating English cottages.

The end of WWII began a housing boom that transformed Portland and the nation. Although the ranch house is the symbol of this era, it is difficult to precisely name Portland’s most popular mid-century houses because they typically combine elements of the ranch with more traditional features like shutters and more steeply peaked roofs.

“Minimal-traditional” is a way to describe these most common houses, which combined modern materials (like plywood) and modern aesthetics (like corner windows) with older traditions features.

During the last 20 or 30 years, new types of, as yet unnamed, popular houses have dominated the Portland housing market. We might label them wide-lot and a narrow lot suburban house types.

The houses in the photo gallery represent some of Portland’s most popular houses through successive eras. In the following weeks, will be examining Portland most common houses in different neighborhoods where variations on these standard types always provides unique residential character.

— Thomas Hubka

Thomas Hubka is a Portland-based author, architectural historian and Professor Emeritus from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who has recently taught architecture courses at the University of Oregon, Portland State University and Portland Community College and offers neighborhood tours for the Architecture Heritage Center.

© 2014 OregonLive.com. All rights reserved.

 

 

Four-square: Named for its four major ground-floor rooms in its square plan, the four-square was one of Portland’s most popular middle-upper class residences following the Lewis and Clark Expedition housing boom at the turn of the last century. Photo by Thomas Hubka.

 

Bungalow: Portland’s most popular house before WWII, the bungalow was constructed in several distinctive local variations in Portland’s neighborhoods. Photo by Thomas Hubka.

 

Cape (Cod) house: Following the Depression, this popular Cape (Cod) house, associated with the Colonial Revival, supplanted the bungalow as Portland’s most popular house type. Photo by Thomas Hubka.

 

Tudor (English cottage) house: In many local variations, these picturesque houses borrowed from an English and European vernacular, country house tradition and vied with the Cape Cod, Colonial revival houses, like the Cape Cod, in a battle of the styles for Portland popular housing market. Photo by Thomas Hubka.

 

Ranch house: America’s most popular single-family house type, the typical ranch was the first house to fully unite the garage within the structure of the house. Photo by Thomas Hubka.

 

Minimal-tradition house: There is no name for this most common, post-WWII Portland house that combined modern ranch house features with traditional historical elements of the Cape, such as steeper roofs, shutters, and historical molding and trim. Photo by Thomas Hubka.