45 Years of Patterns at the University of Oregon

Volcanology Building (left) and Willamette Hall (right), University of Oregon (my photo)

I attended a talk last Friday by Chris Ramey, AIA on the subject of The Oregon Experiment and the University of Oregon’s integration of its lessons and principles into the university’s Campus Plan. His presentation was an abbreviated version of the one he gave this past October at the Portland Urban Architecture Research Lab (PUARL) 10-Year Anniversary Conference, at which scholars and practitioners from around the world convened to discuss the future of pattern languages and their application to architecture, urban design, and other fields. 

Chris was formerly the university’s Associate Vice President for Campus Planning / Design & Construction and held the title of University Architect. During his 28 years at Oregon, he guided the university through its largest-ever building boom—more than $1 billion of construction projects representing nearly 4 million square feet of space. As a consequence, he is perhaps the one person most qualified to comment on the successes and shortcomings of the user-centric, process-based design approach described by The Oregon Experiment and pioneered by Christopher Alexander and his colleagues at the Center for Environmental Structure (CES). 

I previously described the significance and influence of The Oregon Experiment so I won’t recount it extensively here. Chris likewise limited his accounting of how CES intended it to be a means to democratize the design process and challenge the entrenched paradigm of centralized, top-down planning. What Chris did do was to place The Oregon Experiment in the university’s historical context. 

Before its advent, the university had developed a series of campus master plans, each of which belied the supposed benefits of “fixed image” plans. Rather than enduring, each in turn would quickly become obsolete as the university’s needs and circumstances changed. The 1962 plan even proposed constructing new buildings on the site of the Pioneer Cemetery, which prompted swift opposition. By 1970, the university decided it needed to change its management of campus planning processes and retained CES with the goal of democratizing the design process. The Oregon Experiment was the revolutionary outcome of that decision. 

A fundamental principle of The Oregon Experiment is that a whole emerges gradually from separate actions and that the joining of these actions into a cohesive design comes not from a predetermined map, but from the application of a process. In other words, there is no dominating fixed image for the campus of the kind that preceded the adoption of The Oregon Experiment. This concept acknowledges the fact that although change will occur, the exact nature and magnitude of that change cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. Planning at the University of Oregon was thus intended to be a continual process and not based on a static document that is dusted off periodically only to become obsolete soon after it is updated. 

Looking back, Chris noted the dearth of construction activity on the UO campus following the 1975 publication of The Oregon Experiment. The first real products of the approach espoused by The Oregon Experiment would be the College of Education additions (designed by Will Martin) and the School of Music's additions (by BOORA) in the late 1970s. As the Eighties dawned the country, and particularly Oregon, was mired in a deep recession so very little work occurred. Things picked up again in the 1990s with the renovation and expansion of the Knight Library (designed by TBG with Shepley Bulfinch) and the development of the Science complex by Charles W. Moore and Ratcliff Associates. For all of these projects, users developed their own unique patterns modeled after those found in the 1977 classic volume A Pattern Language. 

The users for the College of Education project believed their south campus location marginalized the college such that it did not feel like an integral part of the university, so they developed a pattern intended to rectify that condition. The Knight Library stakeholders found the facility’s numerous renovations and additions had resulted in an accretion of confusing spaces and circulation paths. They developed the “one building” and “no maps needed” patterns in response. 

In 1995, the university codified the integration of users into the design process for building projects, providing a framework within which user-directed planning could take place. The university’s current Campus Plan (adopted in 2005) incorporates the usage of patterns to articulate commonly held values to achieve effective and meaningful dialog about important campus design issues. Consistent with the precepts of The Oregon Experiment, the Campus Plan favors process over image, honors the university’s tradition of meaningful consultation with students, faculty, and staff, and provides for continuous adjustment of campus facilities in response to changing educational policies and programs. 

As mentioned above, Chris oversaw an unprecedented construction boom during his tenure at the helm of Campus Planning/Design & Construction. On balance, he believes the products of the process-oriented approach are uniformly superior to the 1950s-1970s generation of projects that preceded them. Of the many projects he was involved with, Chris singled out the HEDCO Building by Hacker Architects in 2009 as being particularly successful. Hacker’s design executed the “hearth” pattern quite literally, incorporating a residential-style fireplace in a generously proportioned lounge space. The fireplace has become an immensely popular spot, so much so that it is sought-after by Education majors and non-majors alike as a site for quiet study and conversations. 

On the flip side, Chris did acknowledge the user-centric approach to campus planning and building design has its limits and suffered its share of critics. A proverbial “fight over the steering wheel” exists if design professionals fail to embrace dialogue with and participation by the end users. There are those who insist the process-heavy approach discourages bold, award-winning designs, while others decry it as inefficient and time-consuming. 

The university does have special interests that must be accounted for, and coordination of separate development activities is essential if they are to result in a cohesive campus. To the detriment of its Campus Plan, the institution acknowledges it must maintain a “balanced” perspective when it comes to the physical development of the campus. The University is often compelled to respond quickly and unquestioningly to opportunities for facilities improvements as they emerge. For example, the university did not anticipate the Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact until Phil and Penny Knight announced their generous support for the project. Funding approvals from the Oregon State Legislature tend to favor larger building projects even though smaller projects might be more desirable. Small projects are still accomplished, but not to the extent originally envisioned by the principle of incremental, piecemeal growth in The Oregon Experiment. 

So, what will the future be for the application of patterns à la The Oregon Experiment? The university is already shifting toward a paradigm that melds conventional campus planning with dispersed decision-making. This paradigm embraces what is historically significant about the UO campus, including the established open space framework (which The Oregon Experiment and its patterns did not expressly do). It retains The Oregon Experiment’s emphasis upon process, but also embodies the distinctive, utopian social visions, and visionary planning characteristic of the most memorable university campuses. 

Besides me and David Edrington (who served as a research assistant in the Office of Campus Planning during the mid-seventies implementation of The Oregon Experiment), Chris’ audience was comprised exclusively of staff from the university’s office of Campus Planning & Facilities Management. I certainly felt privileged to be there. Chris said he invited me because he believed I would find his topic interesting, and he was right. Thanks for thinking of me Chris!