Christmas
this year was particularly mellow, absent the normal stress of travelling to
and fro to be with family. Instead, my wife and I spent a quiet day by
ourselves at home, preparing our own turkey dinner and relaxing and reflecting
upon the meaning of the holiday. We also spared ourselves the pressure of
having to select gifts for each other, treating ourselves instead to ones of
our own choosing. For my wife, this meant selecting two pieces of whimsical art by Rosie Nice (Robertson/Sherwood/Architects’ longtime office manager,
now retired and enjoying life as a successful artist), whereas I ordered a
couple of books from Amazon, which I’ll briefly describe in a moment. We really don’t need any more stuff. Neither of us had a Christmas gift
wish list. I don’t think we’ve ever felt compelled to acquire many things for
their own sake, particularly newer and “better” ones. Our habit has been to
only purchase what we need and then only replace them when they’re old and worn
out. And yet our house seems overwhelmed with clutter, mostly because we’re so reluctant
to throw anything away. Perhaps 2020 will be the year when we overcome our hoarding
tendencies and unleash our inner Marie Kondo
and furiously purge, neaten, and clean. One can dream. Things
we do “need” should be things we use frequently, actively improve our lives, or
bring us joy. My burgeoning collection of books on architecture and urban
design is something I truly value and take pleasure in but is also a source of
considerable clutter. I’ve consistently added to it since my college years, so it
now approaches a couple hundred volumes in size (not including my accumulation
of magazines from 40-plus years of subscriptions
to Architectural Record, Architect, and other periodicals). Together with my wife’s
eclectic assortment, we own so many books we’ve run out of shelf space in our
home. E-books
aren’t the solution. My wife and I both prefer real books to e-books. E-books may
be functional—they take up no space and you can easily carry many at one time
on a single e-reader, which is great if you’re traveling—but they can’t provide
the concrete experience of physical books. Real books offer haptic and tactile
pleasure: they have texture, weight, and require physical interaction. They invite
deep and focused reading. Books work just fine without batteries—their power is
lasting. Books also have aesthetic appeal, decorating our walls, coffee tables,
and nightstands. The
two latest additions to my library are Sir John Soane’s Museum: A Complete Description (13thedition,
2018) by Bruce Boucher, and Louis Sullivan: Creating a New American Architecture (2011) by Patrick Cannon.
I first
became aware of Soane’s museum many years ago when I read Robert Venturi’s seminal book Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture.
Soane’s idiosyncratically mannerist design served as a rich case in point for
Venturi’s manifesto in favor of non-straightforward architecture. The early 19th
century design would subsequently prove profoundly influential to the Postmodern
movement in architecture during its 1970s and 80s heyday. Boucher’s book about
the museum is richly illustrated, if short on analysis. (1)
I’ve been
fascinated by the work of Louis Sullivan for some time, but Creating a New American
Architecture is the first book in my collection devoted entirely to his oeuvre.
It is a visual treat, with excellent color photos of Sullivan’s surviving designs
complemented by historical images of those buildings that sadly are no longer
standing. On the opposite side of the ledger, Creating a New American
Architecture did not delve as deeply into how Sullivan developed his distinctive
and original vocabulary of ornamentation as I hoped for. Despite
their shortcomings, I’ve completed reading both books and am happy I acquired them.
I tend to reread my books repeatedly, valuing them as references and sources of
inspiration. I’ve caught up on my reading, so I’m looking forward to my birthday in April as
an excuse to again treat myself by purchasing another book (or two). My
wife and I need our books because they are sources of joy in our lives. The
downside is they do take up considerable room. Even though I’m an architect, I haven’t
invested any effort since we bought our home in 1989 in plans to expand or
improve it to help address our book storage problem. We currently have an
assortment of bookcases scattered around our house, with a good share of our collections
additionally monopolizing two closets. More occupy boxes in our attic and
garage. I have
fantasized about converting our third bedroom into the “perfect” home library.
Maybe it will happen someday, perhaps once I retire from practicing architecture
fulltime. In my mind’s eye, that library would feature sturdy floor-to-ceiling shelves
lining the walls, and balanced, controlled daylight from both a generous window
and a skylight or dormer. At its center would be a special chair to read in,
accompanied by a stylish side table and lamp. I would pour my heart and soul
into the design of that library.
Library in the home of the late Arthur Erickson, one of my architectural influences (photo by Simon Scott).
As Marie
Kondo advises, we should only keep items that spark joy in us. Our books do
this . They help us remain mindful, introspective, and forward-looking. If we
must own stuff forever, I’d rather it be the books we chose to make ours, and the
art we have collected too. We realistically could do without most everything
else we presently have: our cars, the clothes we no longer wear, our other
materialistic trappings. Decluttering and only keeping what we truly value is also
a constructive mindset to help realize joyful architecture, particularly in a
world beset by excess, over-consumption, and resource-depletion. (1)I
do regret not visiting the museum in person during either of my two visits to
London (in 1979 and 2001).
It’s the
weekend before Christmas, a joyful time filled with gatherings of friends and
family, exchanges of gifts and well-wishes, and reflections upon the meaning of
the holiday season. It’s also a time overflowing with to-do lists and deadlines
as the end of another calendar year looms. In my case, it means devoting a
considerable share of this weekend to fulfilling my professional continuing
education requirements for 2019. Bah! Humbug!
Architecture
is a rapidly changing field. Continuing education is required for architects to
stay current with the latest advancements, skills, and technologies impacting
their work. Continuing education is also necessary to satisfy State of Oregon professional
licensure requirements. And for members of the American Institute of Architects
(AIA), completing a minimum number of learning units (LUs) is mandatory for
retaining membership in good standing. Overall, continuing education is a way
for architects to fulfill their obligation to stay abreast of critical developments
in the profession.
The
Oregon Board of Architect Examiners (OBAE) stipulates architects must acquire a
minimum of 24 Health, Safety, and Welfare (HSW) learning units within each biennial
renewal cycle, while the AIA requires members to
complete eighteen (18) Learning Units (LUs) of continuing educationevery year to
retain their membership. Of these, twelve (12) must be on the topics of Health,
Safety & Welfare (HSW). One hour of continuing education equals 1 LU.
Because
architects have a duty to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare, HSW
topics address each category:
Health: Those
aspects of professional practice that improve the physical, emotional, and
social wellbeing of occupants, users, and any others affected by buildings and
sites.
Safety: Those
aspects of professional practice that protect occupants, users, and any others
affected by buildings or sites from harm.
Welfare: Those
aspects of professional practice that enable equitable access, elevate the human
experience, encourage social interaction, and benefit the environment.
I find
myself in this predicament because I failed to take advantage of continuing
education opportunities spread throughout the past 12 months. Coming into this
weekend I had only acquired 5 of the 18 learning units (and only 4 of the 12
HSW credits) required by the AIA for 2019. Cramming most of my CE studies into a
single, late December weekend reflects neither good judgment nor thoughtful
planning. Thank goodness there are online continuing education centers, such as
that provided by BNP Media,
which touts itself as the “#1 provider of FREE AIA continuing education.”
The
courses offered by BNP’s Continuing Education Center cover an impressively broad
range of topics. Each is accompanied by a quiz, which you must take and pass in
order receive the associated learning unit(s). BNP offers some of its offerings
as live webinars, while others are simply read-learn-quiz format. The courses I’ve
taken so far this weekend included the following:
Sustainable
Metal Buildings
The
Evolution of Parking
Selecting
Rigid Cover Boards in Commercial Roofing Systems
Cool
Roofing for Cool Climates
Continuous
Insulation in Framed Exterior Walls
A More
Transparent Shade of Green: PCRs Drive Restrooms to the Lead in Green Design
Wood
Structures: An Impressive Renewable Resource
Breaking
Old Rules for Air-Barrier Installation
Gypsum
Wallboard: Specifying Levels of Finish
Controlling
Moisture in Masonry
I could
have made my life easier by attending one of the major design or construction
industry conferences, such as the 2019 editions of the AIA Conference on
Architecture or CONSTRUCT Show (which is affiliated with the Construction
Specifications Institute). These conferences typically offer dozens of continuing
education opportunities in the form of seminars, tours, or forums. I’ve had no
trouble completely fulfilling my CE requirements by attending just one such
conference a year, as I did by going to the 2018 AIA Conference on
Architecture in New York. The thing is, I didn’t find the 2019 destinations, which
were Las Vegas and National Harbor, MD for AIA and CONSTRUCT respectively,
particularly appealing.(1)Next year, the AIA Conference will head to Los Angeles and
CONSTRUCT will take place in Grapevine, TX (in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex),
neither of which is calling to me—we’ll see if I go to one or the other. I may
be slogging through the online CE courses this weekend, but I’m happy they’re
conveniently available in that form. I appreciate the importance of continuing
education and being a member of a profession that works to remain relevant in a
rapidly changing world. So rather than be dour and Scrooge-like, I’m grateful to
be an architect always with much to learn, one able to enjoy the warmth and
comfort of this most wonderful time of the year. Happy
Holidays everyone! (1)I attended the AIA Conference on
Architecture in Las Vegas in 2005 (besides having visited the city on two
previous occasions), and the principal attractions in the vicinity of National
Harbor are those in Washington D.C., which I’ve been to on two occasions. Because
my opportunities to take time away from the office are limited, I tend to be picky
about which conferences I choose to go to.
The 2020 editions of the Construction
Specifications Institute-Willamette Valley Chapter certification classes are
rapidly approaching. As I described previously, while the principal
purpose of the courses is to assist those planning to take one or more of the
CSI-sponsored certification examinations, they’re also beneficial
to anyone in the AEC industry seeking foundational training in the preparation
and use of construction documents.
As the saying
goes, knowledge is power. Knowledge provides a competitive edge. Architecture
and construction are increasingly dependent upon the effective conveyance of
design intent. They are likewise dependent upon the clear definition of project
responsibilities and roles detailed by the forms of agreement most widely used in
construction projects. It’s important and necessary for everyone—owners,
architects, engineers, specifiers, general contractors, subcontractors,
construction materials suppliers, and others—to understand project delivery
options, standard forms of agreement, means for organizing drawings and
specifications, etc.
Knowledgeable
employers highly value those who understand the language of construction, its
underlying principles and terminology, and the critical relationships between
all the participants in any design and construction undertaking. Employees who
thoroughly understand this language not only survive but are more likely to
thrive. They are the winners in today’s challenging and constantly changing
environment.
So, if you haven’t already done so,
sign up now for either the Construction Documents or the Construction Contract
Administration series of classes, both of which start in January. The deadline
for the discounted early bird registration fees is this Friday, so act fast to
lock in those savings!
As
I mentioned in a previous post, Oregon governor Kate Brown signed HB 2001
into law this past August. The bill—which enjoyed support from both sides of
the aisle—requires all cities with a population greater than 10,000 to open up
single-family zoned neighborhoods to the construction of duplexes, while cities
of 25,000 people or more must allow triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and
cottage clusters in addition to duplexes. Backers of HB 2001 believe by
encouraging a broader set of housing options, it will foster the development of
more connected, climate-resilient neighborhoods of greater economic and
demographic diversity.
To
conform with HB 2001, Eugene must amend its code for its R-1 single-family
residential zone by June 30, 2022 to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and
cottage clusters on individual lots. HB 2001 does exempt areas with restrictive
covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs).
Adding
to the mix of housing types within established residential neighborhoods is a central
tenet of planners working today to increase housing choice while discouraging
urban sprawl. Expanding the urban growth boundary to avoid density hasn’t been
tenable since Senate Bill 100 took effect back in 1973. Relieving the pressures
of population growth does require densification. Predictably though, there has
been consistent opposition from longtime residents within established
neighborhoods who fear the changes that are sure to come with increased
density. The discussion between advocates for densification and defenders of
the status quo has been contentious and uncompromising.
The
fact is many households today simply do not fit the mold of those for which the
single-family house paradigm evolved during the 20th century. The middle-class
nuclear family comprised of married parents with 2.5 children no longer
dominates the social landscape. Households comprised of solely of elderly retirees, couples
without kids, and individuals are ubiquitous. As the cost of housing rises, the
numbers of those seeking the most affordable housing options increases as well.
Meeting their need is the challenge the authors of HB 2001 believe they are
helping to address.
The
problem with HB 2001 is that it doesn’t include any direct or indirect
provisions requiring developers to create housing that is affordable to
households that are “housing-cost burdened.” The bill merely mandates the
possible inclusion of missing-middle types in neighborhoods presently zoned
exclusively for single-family homes.
There
is a large deficit in Eugene of affordable housing for very-low income
households (those defined as having incomes below $25,000 per year). Market-rate
projects will not meet the needs of VLI households. Such developments are
simply beyond their reach. Faith in a “trickle-down” effect—that inserting a
mix of missing middle types into R-1 neighborhoods will relieve the downward
pressure on the most affordable properties—may not be rewarded because the
upzoned land becomes most valuable and attractive to developers who are looking
to maximize its profit potential.
The
unintended consequence of HB 2001 may be the exact opposite of its envisioned
purpose: increased rent for lower-range rentals and increased purchase price
for lower-cost homes. If this occurs, the result will be displacement of
lower-income households.
Portland
is facing the same challenges as it comes to grips with the repercussions of HB
2001. The chair of that city’s Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC), Andre Baugh, is concerned its proposed Residential Infill Project will
displace certain populations (read: those most vulnerable at the lower end of
the socioeconomic spectrum, which historically have been racial and ethnic
minorities) faster than others in pursuit of the greater good. Even if more
housing is created under Portland’s proposed program, it will most likely not
be affordable. The displaced households will have no place in the city at all. The
benefits associated with compact urban development will not be shared equally.
I found Commissioner Baugh’s commentary during a February 12, 2019 PSC briefing
very compelling.
The
challenge of providing affordable housing options while also meeting goals for
affordability and sustainability goals is vexing. I firmly believe increasing
choice makes sense simply because our demographics are changing and our housing
stock should evolve to address that change. Moreover, our community must do a better
job of addressing the needs of the most vulnerable—those who require affordable
housing or are at greatest risk of being displaced. This means providing a
range of housing options but also providing it in a way that best addresses the
affordability crisis.
It’s
possible the only viable solution for creating truly affordable housing is with
the assistance of government subsidies, such as Eugene’s Multiple-Unit
Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE), that help balance the equation. Without
such subsidies, the marketplace alone is unlikely to step up and take on the
housing affordability challenge. Additionally, the City needs to intelligently
plan where best to encourage the creation of that housing while fulfilling the
compact urban development and neighborhood livability pillars of Envision Eugene. Capitalizing
upon the investments in the EmX bus rapid transit network by concentrating new housing along its corridors should be central to the Eugene and Springfield
city governments’ broader strategy of managing future growth and fostering
transit-oriented development.
Brentwood Town Centre in the
Vancouver suburb of Burnaby, developed around two stations along the Millennium
Line of the Skytrain regional rapid transit system. My parents live in the
building with the arrow.
Vancouver,
B.C. (the place where I was born and raised) is the poster child in North
America for encouraging growth around and along transit centers and corridors.
The results are the fulfillment of a vision for Vancouver that began in the
1970s. Its success is unquestioned and has served as a model for other cities to emulate. Vancouver has absorbed considerable population growth
while reducing reliance upon the automobile and protecting iconic single-family
neighborhoods. At the same time, the city’s desirability as a place to live
pushed housing costs to stratospheric elevations (as of June 2019, the average
sale price of a detached, single-family home was $1,486,620 CDN, which is
actually down more than 11% from 2018). To help address the crisis-level need,
governments at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels have all provided
funding and incentives for below-market housing. Without these subsidies, the
institutionalized social inequities would be entirely indefensible.
Eugene
needs to comply with HB 2001. I’m enough of a realist to know the legislation
by itself is not the panacea. Truly providing affordable housing options requires
a holistic approach, one in which concerns associated with community
livability, sustainability, economic health, containing pressures to expand the
urban growth boundary, and housing choice are all factors. This is not the time
for siloed thinking. The problem is broader than the implications of HB 2001 in
isolation.
Roosevelt Middle School – An example
of a celebrated and eloquent stairway (design by Mahlum Architects with
Robertson/Sherwood/Architects)
The following excerpt from Bill Kleinsasser’s 1981 edition of
his self-published textbook Synthesis further illustrates the emphasis he
placed upon how people experience architecture. Beyond merely attending to the
important task of addressing functional needs, he wanted his students to
appreciate the potential of places to dramatize peoples’ lives. Connections
between places and spaces were of particular interest to him. Like his
Princeton classmate Charles Moore, Bill recognized the promise
inherent in movement through spaces, so elements such as stairs, doors, and
passageways became means to intensify the significance of entry, arrival, and
departure. Additionally, he taught us to regard the act of building itself as
rife with meaning and worthy of celebration.
Though brief, this passage is packed with substance, a useful
reminder for architects today who sometimes forget people actually live in,
work in, and experience the buildings and places they design. Architecture is not
an abstract pursuit.
Making Things that Are “More"
When
places are arranged precisely in regard to the intentions they embody, we are
apt to understand those intentions. That precise arrangement may be called
celebration or eloquent expression. It communicates essential information about
places: the ideas, purposes, priorities, and relationships with and among those
places.
Celebration
and eloquent expression in the making of places expands experience, clarifying and
intensifying it. In so doing, it gives people a better chance to understand the
opportunities and supports that have been provided.
Celebrated,
eloquent spaces are always vivid. Their parts are strong in themselves and
precisely juxtaposed. In this sense, celebration and eloquent expression as a
frame of reference is more inclusive than the frame of reference, CLEAR SUB-PARTS.
Conversely,
it is likely that connected spaces will become a celebration. Our feelings and
senses depend upon deliberately and clearly established links with contextual
characteristics; upon reinforcement, celebration, and dramatization of those
characteristics. Without these responsive links, a supportive space is apt to
lack the expressive eloquence that would cause it to be powerful, meaningful,
and poetic.
It is
possible to develop elements of the built-environment to be more than they need
to be in the most utilitarian sense. The result is that those elements will be
more useful over time and, because of the extra concerns that went into their
making, more meaningful.
Dark-eyed Junco female at one of
our backyard feeders (my photo)
All
work and no play makes Jack (or Randy) a dull boy. I’m most decidedly dull but
I do take time away from work to refresh when I can. Besides taiko drumming,
blogging, occasionally golfing and fishing, cheering on my Oregon Ducks, and reading,
I also share one of my wife’s avocations: bird watching.
We’re
hardly serious birders. Mostly, we’re casual backyard observers. We delight in
seeing so many different species at our feeders, which have included the
following:
Acorn Woodpecker
American
Crow
American
Robin
Anna’s
Hummingbird
Berwick’s
Wren
Black-Capped
Chickadee
Bushtit
California
Scrub Jay
Chestnut-Backed
Chickadee
Dark-Eyed
Junco
Downy Woodpecker
European
Starling
Evening
Grosbeak
Golden-Crowned
Kinglet
House Finch
House
Sparrow
Lesser
Goldfinch
Mourning
Dove
Northern
Flicker
Orange-Crowned
Warbler
Pine
Siskin
Rufous
Hummingbird
Song Sparrow
Spotted
(Rufous-Sided) Towhee
Stellar’s
Jay
Varied
Thrush
White-Crowned
Sparrow
Yellow-Rumped
Warbler
The variety
of birds we see in our yard is remarkable. Of these, the Evening Grosbeak has
perhaps been the most enigmatic. Supposedly a common sight throughout Oregon,
we haven’t seen any since one season many years ago when large flocks dominated
our backyard for several days. We don’t know why they appeared that one year
and haven’t returned since.
To
attract birds, my wife tends several feeders: some are platform-types, others
are suet-feeders, seed cylinder feeders, seed tubes, and nectar (hummingbird)
feeders. She also applies bark butter (a spreadable suet) in the collar of
branches. She’s particularly diligent during the colder months in providing for
the benefit of our resident and winter visitors. Annually, we spend a small
fortune on bird food, but it’s been a worthwhile investment because of the joy
our pastime brings us. We’re especially thrilled when we see a species new to
us partaking from our backyard buffet.
Wintering House Finches outside
our bedroom window (my photo)
Central
to birding is its aesthetic appeal. The diversity of forms, colorations, and proportions
is astounding. It’s no wonder birds have long been a favorite subject of
artists. We happen to own several antique engravings or lithographs depicting
birds from all over the earth. Beyond their original value as accurate
renderings of species most people would never otherwise have been aware of, these
ornithological illustrations are simply beautiful works of art.
Summer Redbird (engraving after a watercolor by John James Audubon, circa
1820, from our collection).
Many birders
are accomplished photographers, something I most definitely am not (as the photos
here that I’ve taken prove). Nature photography requires considerable patience
and care, which I lack in abundance. I certainly admire and appreciate the work
of skillful shutterbugs.
An example of excellent avian photography:
Golden-tailed Sapphire Hummingbird (by Marcial4 [CC BY-SA 3.0
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)])
I’m also
no woodworker but I do think about one day designing and building our own bird
feeders and houses for installation in our yard—a seemingly obvious pursuit for
a bird-loving architect. What style might be most appropriate for such follies?
Something along the lines of an Arts & Crafts home by Greene & Greene? Or perhaps something wholly original yet functional?
Our enthusiasm
for birding is tinged with some sadness. Though the number of individuals we
see remains sizeable, recent studies indicate the populations of migratory
songbirds are rapidly declining. Researchers estimate North America has lost
more than 1 in 4 birds just in the last 50 years (nearly three billion fewer
today compared to 1970). Apparently, there isn’t one single factor that
accounts for the pervasive losses. Habitat degradation is a likely driver, but
so too may be pesticide use, climate change, and parallel declines in insect
populations. The disappearance of billions of birds due to human activity
should be alarming to everyone. I find it utterly frightening this has occurred
within my lifetime. It isn’t just canaries dying in the coal mines anymore.
My
wife and I support organizations whose missions include protecting native
Oregon wildlife and their habitats. One of these groups is the Cascades Raptor Center here in
Eugene, which provides a hospital for sick or injured birds of prey (which
ideally are rehabilitated and released back to the wild). In addition to
nursing birds back to health, the Center provides public education designed to “enhance
the awareness, respect, appreciation, and care of the earth and all its
inhabitants so critical for a balanced and healthy planet.”
We
share our backyard birding hobby with many others. Its popularity is at an
all-time high. I like to think all birders are conservationists, people
dedicated to the protection and preservation of the environment and wildlife. Though
it seems there’s little we can do to halt our planet’s ruinous trajectory, simply
appreciating the nature around us is a positive step forward. Birdwatching is a
highly accessible activity, and a particularly excellent means to engage
children with the natural world. People who acquire firsthand experience with nature
and wildlife at a young age learn to care for nature and wildlife. We can never
have enough advocates for the environment, people willing to assume
responsibility for our failures as a species. There’s hopefulness in that
thought, something I cling to and can make peace with.
