Debate and Discourse: Hallmarks of a Healthy Community

Eugene City Hall (my photo)

As its appointment with the wrecking ball nears, Eugene’s vacated, mid-century modern city hall finds itself at the center of a fervent debate. Its principal protagonists have been members of the local design community, and its primary forum has been the opinion pages of The Register-Guard and Eugene Weekly.

I suspect many who have read the starkly contrasting points of view expressed in the published comments are variously: a) baffled by the affection some of the writers have for a building many citizens consider ugly and uninviting; b) exasperated by detractors who fail to share their appreciation of city hall’s fashionable Mad Men-era design; or c) confounded by the disparate opinions articulated by architects who presumably spring from similar wells of education, experience, and perspective.

The readers may also be puzzled by the eleventh hour appeals to save the building. Didn’t this ship sail months ago? Ask Otto Poticha, FAIA, this question and his answer is a resolute “NO.”

Otto, like a dog with a bone, refuses to let go of the building. His crusade to save it from demolition includes his proposal to locate the new city hall on the city-owned quarter-block immediately to the south, across Eighth Avenue. Doing so would spare the old city hall so that it could be “mothballed” pending identification of an appropriate new use or set of uses. Others—including Chuck Bailey, AIA, Eric Hall, AIA, and Marston Morgan, AIA—have rallied to Otto’s side, penning their own letters favoring retention and resuscitation of the old building.

In the March 6 edition of Eugene Weekly, Jerry Diethelm offered another intriguing idea: constructing a “new stately City Hall along 7th Avenue on the north end of the North Park Block . . . one that opens to the south on a market square for the Saturday Market and Farmers Market and gives us the two-for-one of a restored park block and a City Hall that is as good as we are.” Jerry’s proposal would likewise spare the existing building, postponing the question of its ultimate fate until a later day.

What is it about our vacant and forlorn city hall that these seasoned architects believe merits its preservation?

Eugene’s city hall was the widely published winner of a prestigious architectural design competition juried by a group of distinguished regional architects. Completed in 1964, the design by Stafford, Morin, and Longwood Architects is a noteworthy example of the mid-century modern architectural movement and a valuable part of local civic history. Its informal and democratic organization of a plaza surrounding a central council chamber is decidedly anti-monumental, as befits our community.

While Eugene city staff cited the building's abysmal energy performance as one reason to move on, it’s also true that the most sustainable version of city hall may be the one that already exists. Advocates of city hall’s architecture can convincingly enumerate the dollars the city could save by reusing the existing structure, as opposed to building a totally new facility.

They also rightly argue that we are at risk of repeating the past in a bad way by ignoring it. Thanks to well-intended but misguided urban renewal, Eugene now laments the loss of much of its irreplaceable architectural heritage (such as the previous city hall and county courthouse). By condemning city hall to the dustbin of history, are we making the same mistake?

On the opposite side of the ledger, John Reynolds, FAIA, pulled no punches in his July 29 letter to the R-G. For John, city hall is an oppressive one-story box on stilts decorated with heavy wooden slats, a product of a bygone era that set important buildings atop pedestals, aloof from the surrounding sidewalks. He noted how city hall confronts pedestrians with an “oversized fence looming over a vertical moat in the form of a dark view into a sunken parking lot.” He acknowledged the pleasant central courtyard, but correctly observed that it is neither visible nor readily accessible from the street.

The old building is too standoffish for how we think about government today and our "Great Street” aspirations. Some argue the building should go not because we don’t care about our past, but because it impedes our way to another, richer, older part of our history—a return to a time before we abdicated so much of our urban landscape to the automobile.

I could blink my eyes and imagine this same conversation happened around the Skinner Butte cross. It’s a valued (some would say “revered”) part of our community’s history, but what it stands for is not in step with our values and identity today.

I share John’s belief that correcting city hall’s failings may be too great a challenge to realistically overcome. I can’t imagine any way to ameliorate city hall’s shortcomings without fundamentally erasing the very essence of the original design that Otto and the others are so vociferously defending.

Eugene City Hall, High Street facade (my photo)

The absence of unanimity among architects about city hall may be perplexing to some, but the very fact it is so elusive is also why I find the debate and discourse so encouraging. We may not all agree about what should be done with the building, but that’s really beside the point. 

Vigorous debate and discourse about what’s best for the built environment are hallmarks of a healthy community. Cajoled by Otto, the Local Affairs Committee of the American Institute of Architects – Southwestern Oregon Chapter recently convened to tackle the subject of city hall. Otto challenged us to exercise our know-how and take a stand. He wanted us to be participants and not merely spectators.

The committee wrestled with finding a common message about city hall to share publicly. The fact is we’re a diverse group. You can’t paint architects with the same brush. Not all of our views are commonly held, as our divergent opinions about city hall will attest. Speaking out on controversial issues doesn’t always come naturally to us. We struggled to arrive at an accord, ultimately settling upon acknowledging our respect for history and the pain of removing a building that shaped our civic life.

What we could agree upon is that we want city hall to again thrive as Eugene’s civic heart. We want the new building to be an expression of what matters to our community. We hope the design by Rowell Brokaw Architects (with Miller Hull) will become something every Eugenean will point to proudly as “our city hall.” We want it to reflect our aspirations for downtown. We also expect our new seat of civic government to be nothing less than a model of sustainability, “radically accessible,” and welcoming. We want to love our city hall again.

New City Hall rendering by Rowell Brokaw Architects (view from Eighth & Pearl)

This essay is the committee’s contribution to the conversation. We’ve concluded consensus—speaking with one voice—is neither necessary nor always desirable. More important is publicly discussing issues and presenting the considered views of AIA members who have lived and worked for many years here in Eugene and Springfield. Our pledge is to continue to bring our expertise to bear upon contentious topics associated with the built environment. If our ongoing dialogue contributes positively to enlightened policy-making and greater public appreciation for the value of good design, we’ll have done our job well.