Riding the Rails

Journey’s start: Eugene’s Amtrak Station (photo by Pi 1415926535, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)

As I write this, I’m sitting in Seat 16, Car 7 of Amtrak Cascades Train 500 on its way from Eugene to Seattle. Upon arrival in Seattle, I’ll transfer to Bus 8900 and complete my journey to Vancouver, B.C. The purpose of my trip is to visit my parents and siblings but also, sadly, to attend a funeral service for my aunt (my father’s sister), who passed away a week ago.

There are plenty of reasons why more North Americans do not travel by train, including underinvestment in the rail infrastructure, the low population density (relative to Europe or Asia), the fact most of the tracks are owned by freight companies (meaning passenger trains have to defer to and are delayed by freight services), the extensive network of domestic airline routes, and of course our love affair with the automobile. These facts won’t change significantly anytime soon.

It’s not my intent to make this blog post a bookish essay about the virtues of passenger rail service. I will simply say I’ve come to prefer riding the rails rather than either flying or driving for my visits to and from Canada.

Flying isn’t that much more expensive, but the hassles associated with a limited schedule of flights between Eugene and Vancouver (typically involving layovers in Portland or Seattle), the TSA security gantlet, the cramped seating (in coach), etc. combine to make traveling by air less than pleasant. I’m old enough to remember an era when people considered flying glamorous and exciting, an occasion to celebrate. No more; flying is now tedious and stressful. The fact my elapsed time from door-to-door isn’t significantly reduced when I fly only reinforces my preference for train travel.

The problem with driving between Eugene and Vancouver—which like flying can admittedly be accomplished in fewer hours than taking the train—is that I can’t take a moment off while doing so. I can’t afford to daydream, be distracted, or—god forbid—nod off while behind the wheel. I certainly cannot compose a blog post, at least not until I own a self-driving vehicle. Statistically, driving is a much riskier mode of travel. Last year’s spectacular and tragic Amtrak Cascades derailment notwithstanding, I’m much more likely to end up in the hospital or in a morgue as a driver or passenger in an automobile than I am as a rail passenger.

Traveling by train is convenient. I can arrive at the station just minutes before the scheduled departure time and simply board the train and find myself a seat of my choosing. Contrast that with the need to be at the airport a recommended two hours before takeoff to ensure enough time to check-in and endure the indignity of the security screening procedure. I can visit the bistro car on the train at any time at my convenience to purchase a snack or meal. My seat comes with ample knee-space, outlets to plug my phone or laptop into, and wireless Internet access (well, sometimes). You can sleep on the train (which I find next to impossible to do while seated in Coach class on a plane). Trains are seldom, if ever, delayed due to weather.

Rail travel is the most sustainable and green form of long-distance transportation. Flying results in the largest carbon footprint per mile traveled, by far. On average, a trip by car can emit several times as much CO₂ per passenger as one taken by train (depending upon how fully occupied the train is). If you worry about the climate impacts of your travel habits, going by train is a responsible choice.

All the stations along the Amtrak Cascades route—from Eugene’s depot at the foot of Skinner’s Butte, to Portland’s Union Station, and Seattle’s King Street Station—are older and architecturally interesting. Indeed, these three (among many others nationwide) are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Vancouver’s Pacific Central Station (the Amtrak and Via Rail terminus) and Waterfront Station (the end of the line for the Canadian Pacific Railway’s transcontinental passenger service) are likewise historic, landmark structures. All are situated in the heart of their respective cities, as opposed to being located miles away in a placeless, exurban landscape as most airports are.

Now for an airing of just a few grievances: Wireless connectivity while on the Amtrak Cascades is iffy at best. Why can’t Amtrak provide a more reliable, faster Internet service on its trains? The aforementioned deference to freight trains can result in frustrating delays. And, of course, why can’t the U.S. provide Amtrak with better funding and better equipment, perhaps a high-tech, high-speed intercity rail network to rival those already in regular use throughout Europe and Japan? We treat our nation’s highways as a public good by shifting the burden of paying for them from drivers to society at large, so why not likewise support our rail system? It’s disingenuous and hypocritical to suggest a truly comprehensive and reliable passenger rail network will never exist because Amtrak (or an entirely privatized operator) cannot succeed without public subsidies.

Notwithstanding my grievances, I simply prefer traveling by rail when I visit my family. I’m enjoying a particularly scenic view at the moment of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge from the comfort of my seat aboard Amtrak Cascades Train 500, something that would be unavailable to me if I were driving a parallel route several miles away from Puget Sound along I-5 in bumper-to-bumper traffic. I’ll take the view of a placid Puget Sound any day.

Journey’s end: Vancouver’s Pacific Central Station

The New Hayward Field

View of Hayward Field's east grandstand (at left) from outside the Powell Plaza entry (my photo)

I know my initial reaction to the unveiling of the plans this past week for an altogether new Hayward Field complex mirrored that of many others: awe and amazement, tinged with some sadness at what the news heralded. When completed in 2020, the completely rebuilt facility (designed by SRG Partnership of Portland) will most certainly be the finest track and field venue in the country, if not the entire world. Thanks to the incredible generosity of Phil and Penny Knight and fifty other principal donors, Eugene will possess a spectacular showcase during its turn on the world stage as home for the 2021 IAAF World Championships.

Construction of the project (rumored budget: $200 million) will begin this summer. Beyond meeting the requirements of a host facility for the IAAF championships (which include accommodating 30,000 spectators), the design objectives include creating a “theater” for viewing track & field events, within an open and airy wood and glass structure set atop a stone base symbolizing Oregon’s natural features. Among the significant upgrades are state-of-the-art locker rooms, an indoor practice arena (featuring dedicated space for throwers and jumpers, as well as a 140-meter track with a curve), spacious spectator seating, private donor suites, classroom and lab space for the Department of Human Physiology and the Bowerman Sports Science Clinic, and of course fully accessible restrooms and expanded concessions. Most conspicuous will be a 165-foot tall tower to be named in honor of Bill Bowerman and situated at the new stadium’s northeast corner within a rebuilt Powell Plaza. 

Bird's-eye view of the new Hayward Field (all renderings furnished by the University of Oregon)

As a dedicated follower of the Oregon Ducks, I’ve mostly welcomed the vast upgrade in facilities now enjoyed by a majority of the Department of Athletics programs.(1) Likewise, as a resident of “Track Town USA,” I’ve enjoyed Eugene’s preeminence within the world of track & field competition at all levels. That renown is in no small part attributable to historic Hayward Field itself. It is the nation’s most storied ground for track & field competition, having hosted seven USATF championships, six Olympic trials, numerous NCAA championships, the 2014 World Junior Championships, and the annual Nike Prefontaine Classic. The century-old timber structure of Hayward Field’s east grandstand is inextricably tied to that history. The roars of passionate fans that lifted legendary athletes like Steve Prefontaine along the track’s backstretch still echo there. The old structure is a track & field icon, instantly recognized by fans of the sport.

15th Avenue view (the street will be closed to vehicular traffic to allow for the larger Hayward complex and to create a new park-like entry plaza)

It comes as no surprise more than a few of those fans object to the proposed design. Several have penned passionate pleas to preserve the east grandstand. Others simply have lamented its pending demise, acknowledging that its time has passed, and change is due. Among the more eloquent have been Zach Silva, writing for the Cottage Grove Sentinel, and Bob Penny in a guest viewpoint piece for the Register-Guard.

For Zach, Hayward Field was “perfect . . . because it was ours.” Stepping into the historic site was “less like walking into a sporting event and more like walking into grandma’s house. There is a comforting smell that greets you at the door; it’s a place filled with memories of your own and from those before you; you know each and every corner of it. It’s a place you revere and under no circumstances [can] be replicated.”

Like me, Bob attended the University of Oregon’s School of Architecture and Allied Arts (now the College of Design). In his piece, he asserts “Preserving historic meaning is inseparable from preserving the built environment. Removing all traces of the past and erecting an alternative structure would sever the continuity of the site’s historic legacy. Instead, preserving the building where history was made, and kept, is the real way to bring history into the future. It isn’t about a fear of letting go of our past. It’s about a community’s resolve to care about people who will come after us.”

Another commentator worth mentioning is Otto Poticha, FAIA. In an April 21 letter to the RG, he leveled his criticism at the project’s scale rather than its proposed razing of the old grandstand. Never one to mince words, Otto railed against SRG’s design, characterizing it as the “caterpillar that ate Agate Street” while ironically stamping it as a “great design” and a “brilliant idea” at the same time. Surprisingly, I agree with Otto. The project may indeed prove to be out of scale with its surroundings, and the Bowerman Tower an overly boastful monument for an understated man.

View from inside the renovated Hayward Field. The nine-story tall Bowerman Tower looms over the northeast corner of the stadium.

I do question whether the new stadium’s capacity will be excessive, even in its base configuration (which will incorporate fewer seats than will be the case in its IAAF World Championships form but more than Hayward Field presently contains). Part of Hayward Field’s current appeal stems from its atmosphere on the day of a meet, the stands filled with knowledgeable, cheering spectators within an intimate setting. What will it look and feel like during a more routine dual-meet against a Pac-12 foe? It’s hard to tell from SRG’s renderings exactly how the stadium’s bowl will be arrayed with fewer seats, especially given the large disparity between the projected standard capacity of 12,900 spectators and the 30,000-seat IAAF arrangement.

The question of historical continuity is more challenging for me to address. The loss of Eugene’s old Civic Stadium still stings for many, but in my opinion that pain has much less to do with that old wooden structure’s architectural merit (which, aside from its provenance, was nonexistent) as it did the memories of many generations who attended events there. Eugene’s late, great City Hall was an outstanding example of mid-century modern design that over time revealed the shortcomings of its pedestrian-unfriendly and energy-profligate configuration. I suspect we’ll soon hear McArthur Court is destined for the wrecking ball, but there’s no debate about the superiority of its replacement—Matthew Knight Arena—as a modern venue for sporting and entertainment events. Eugene’s record when it comes to preserving its architectural heritage has been far from stellar but has offered us lessons to learn from.

Hayward Field’s east grandstand isn’t particularly noteworthy, architecturally speaking. Like Civic Stadium, it was constructed plainly from materials readily at hand in timber-rich western Oregon. Were it not for its fabled past, I might likewise describe the current Hayward Field as lacking architectural distinction, devoid as it is of pretense. On the other hand, its history makes it hallowed ground and the first place that comes to mind for most people when they think of Eugene as a mecca for runners and the sport of track & field. 

Two views of SRG's earlier proposal for a renovated Hayward Field. Note the preserved East Grandstand and Powell Plaza in the lower image.

I’m not entirely sure why Phil Knight and other supporters chose to abandon an earlier (2015) proposal for the project, also designed by SRG. That scheme would have retained and improved the east grandstand while knocking down the west side of the stadium and replacing it with a swooping, ultra-modern structure, which presumably would have contained most of the same program elements found in the newly debuted design. I found the 2015 plan more than sufficiently impressive. One of its strengths would have been the powerful contrast between the new and the old, in shorthand form speaking at once to the remarkable legacy of Hayward Field as well as its forward-thinking and continued evolution. I also believe that design would have better connected with and have been more sympathetic to the adjacent campus, preserving the existing field’s relationships to its immediate context.

Time will tell whether the new Hayward Field will prove itself worthy of the historic bequest it inherits. My hope is it will do so. If it does, Eugene’s Track Town USA identity and sense of place will be assured.  

  

(1)  Among these are PK Park, the Jon Jaqua Academic Center for Student Athletes, Matthew Knight Arena, the Hatfield-Dowlin Football Operations Center, and Jane Sanders Stadium.

Attend and Comment at Public Forum

Bill Randall of Arbor South Architecture built a LEED Platinum accessory dwelling unit (cottage) to accompany his primary residence on an R-1 zoned lot near downtown Eugene (photo from Arbor South's website)

I previously mentioned the work of Better Housing Together, a coalition of community leaders working to address the local housing affordability crisis. Better Housing Together has issued a call to arms, asking for all who support the development of affordable housing types within established single-family residential neighborhoods to attend and comment at a public forum this coming Monday, April 16 at Harris Hall.

The current form of Eugene’s R-1 zoning functionally excludes a large percentage of our population at any price point by not offering the type of housing needed. Oregon Senate Bill 1051 mandates the expedition of affordable housing permits. My understanding is the City of Eugene requirements for permitting of secondary or accessory dwelling units presently fail to adequately comply with SB 1051, and accordingly the City is obliged to revise them to make the path toward the development of ADUs less onerous. Some of the existing obstacles that confront those wishing to build ADUs include minimum lot size requirements, special restrictions in particular neighborhoods, height and roof slope limitations, and deed restrictions mandating owner-occupancy of one of the two units on the property.

Here’s the notice from Better Housing Together:

City of Eugene SB 1051 Public Forum: Monday, April 16 @ 7:30pm

On Monday, April 16, City Council will be holding a Public Forum on SB 1051—the new State Law that a bill that requires cities to comply with standards that promote affordable housing and allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on property zoned for single-family residential.

It is important that Councilors see faces and hear your organization’s voice. Your presence and testimony are needed. Please arrive at Harris Hall (125 E. 8th Avenue) by 7:15pm to sign-up for public comment. We will also have stickers for coalition partners and supporters.

Better Housing Together has provided a list of possible talking points for your testimony (see below), and they are encouraging all partners to identify their organization/business and mission in this community, as well as their partnership with Better Housing Together.

TALKING POINTS

We are encouraging all partners to identify their organization/business and mission in this community, as well as your partnership with Better Housing Together. Please feel free to use any of the points below in your testimony.

As an organization and a partner in the Better Housing Together effort, we encourage City Council to:

• Comply with state law. Demonstrate our community’s commitment to affordability and diversity by removing barriers to age-friendly, inclusive housing.
• Recognize that our community needs smaller and more affordable housing options for all residents of all ages and income levels. Take immediate steps to encourage “missing middle” and more affordable housing types—like ADUs.
• Make this simple and direct. The proposed “two-phased” path to implementation is unfunded and unscheduled. SB 1051 requires compliance by July 1, 2018. If implementation is to be “phased,” all phases should be complete by July 1, 2018.
• Adopt code regulations and permitting fees for ADUs that facilitate the construction of this smaller housing type. It should not be easier to build a large garage than it is to build a small cottage. It should not cost as much to permit a 600sf cottage as it does to permit a 3,000sf house.
• Remember that housing + transportation = affordability. By locating new housing in places with nearby amenities like parks, transportation options, and grocery stores, we support overall affordability. This is what matters to working families and individuals living on fixed incomes.
• Understand housing is at the center of livability—accessibility, availability and affordability. Where certain residents can live is determined by what housing is available. The most equitable communities have a diversity of housing options available throughout.
• Increase quality of life, support families and workers, advance our climate goals, and support local economic opportunity by supporting housing diversity—like ADUs.
• Show leadership. ADUs are an important step toward BUILDING a more affordable, resilient, age-friendly, inclusive community. This is the community we want. Please take steps that make it easier—not harder—to build the community we want.

Architectural Study Media

As imagined virtually (left) and the reality (right) - The VA Roseburg Healthcare System Protective Care Unit by Robertson/Sherwood/Architects pc

Bill Kleinsasser was an advocate for the informed, skillful use of various types of architectural media to facilitate the study of places, activities and spatial components, the organization of those components into unified compositions, and evaluative analyses. He believed these included not only the customary diagrams, drawings, and scale models but also written essays about and illustrated case studies of place-response and activity-support.

The following excerpt from the fifth edition of Bill’s self-published textbook Synthesis serves as a useful reminder that the purposes of study media extend well beyond merely depicting design intent. It’s important for us to understand the capabilities and limitations of the media we employ to avoid being victimized by them on the one hand, or unable to read them on the other. As our designs progress, the focus shifts across an increasing field of ideas, all in need of externalization for study. The “badly needed” kinds of study media Bill advocated for are as much about achieving a deeper understanding of the problem being solved as they are means for producing tangible surrogates for building. He wanted us to not allow the media we use to set their own agenda for our concerns—a topical consideration today as we increasingly abdicate our design processes to virtual reality software. Read on:
   

Architectural Study Media: Some badly needed kinds:

Media that depict and remind us of the multitude of actions and events that will happen (or that we hope will happen) in the places we propose.

All built places need to support many events and actions. Every built place should present many opportunities rather than few. This can only happen when places are made in sufficient response to the dimensional, proportional, and locational requirements of a broad range of anticipated actions and events (but this doesn’t mean that we try to make every place accommodate all actions and events; that is impossible). We could begin by considering the most obvious and demanding actions and events and then add consideration of as many more as we can (activity overlays are media for this).

Media to remind us of considerations that tend to be overlooked or avoided because they are difficult.

We need categories that we can focus on or tend to in each design problem. The several experiential categories from my course are of this kind. Bob Harris’ “modes of inquiry” are of this kind. Alexander’s patterns, while being much more explicit in regard to what they suggest, are of this kind. And the suggestions of Vitruvius, Palladio, Ruskin, Le Corbusier, and Kahn are all of this kind.

Media that help us respond to a great quantity of considerations.

A typical house embodies responses to several hundred separate considerations.

Media that invite or simplify consideration of recurring objectives such as spatial diversity, essential three-dimensionality, sensorial richness, suggestiveness of spaces, spatial layering, etc.

Of course, if these objectives are absent in the first place the problem is not limited to study media types, but conventional media (plans, sections, small scale models, and the several kinds of projection) do not focus on these objectives very well, especially when used separately. We need media that deliberately focus on the objectives above.

Media that present a direct and detailed description of the experience of places by the people who live there—their description and explanation of the most important conditions, characteristics, and aspects of those places.

My media class is attempting to provide itself with such information by visiting several houses and recording long interviews with their occupants about their experiences there. We will also transcribe and categorize the occupants’ comments so that we can cross-reference them.

Media that help us generate design ideas.

Media that recall and retain for us the gestalt of existing places, that recall and retain the overall impact of those places.

There is no reason to assume that such places will not have similar and significant (while certainly not the same) meaning if recreated within new situations. People have always built upon previously existing models and images, and with meaning.

Media that recall and retain for us the purposefulness and meaning of the parts and various characteristics of places—parts and characteristics that have had obvious success or significance.

While the particular circumstances surrounding those parts and characteristics will not be the same as in new situations, the situational variation may be taken into account and the examples still used as a source of valuable insight.

Media that help us identify significant qualities, opportunities, and problems in existing places (sub-places, undeveloped relationships, dependencies, fragility, dominant characteristics, existing patterns of use, etc.).

Media that help us check the appropriateness or precision of what we have proposed, and this under circumstances that simulate reality.

Media that permit the observation of proposed places under real lighting conditions, and this during different times of day and during different seasons.

Media that permit the observation of proposed places within their actual physical context, and this in scale (a gross simulation is only misleading).

Media that allow ordinary people to understand and evaluate (rehearse) proposed places, especially how places would be for individuals with differing needs and how they would be over time. This is important because those people must be able to make wise decisions about proposed ideas. If they are confused or fooled then they will be greatly disappointed with the built places they have decided upon.

WK / 1975