Committing to Long-Term Success

Photo by Michael Krahn on Unsplash

As the American Institute of Architects website emphasizes, the practice of architecture is an intensely personal undertaking. My firm—Robertson/Sherwood/Architects—is no exception. Since 1986, RSA’s identity has inextricably been tied to its current senior partners, Jim Robertson, FAIA, FCSI and Carl Sherwood, AIA. Thanks to their exemplary leadership and commitment to always doing what is in the best interest of the projects we undertake, the communities and clients we serve have rewarded us with their unwavering confidence. The time has come to likewise consider what is in RSA’s best interest as Jim and Carl look forward to transitioning ownership in the coming years to a new generation of firm leaders.(1)

First among this new leadership is Scott Stolarczyk, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, who joins Jim, Carl, and me as a principal and shareholder in the firm. It has been my pleasure to work alongside Scott since 1999. He has amply demonstrated his immense design talent on many notable projects, among them the headquarters for Lone Rock Resources, the ongoing execution of the master plan for The Shedd Institute for the Arts, numerous recreation and aquatic facilities, and Planned Parenthood’s Regional Health & Education Center. Our clients unreservedly trust Scott because they know his follow-through is assured and his judgment is beyond reproach. Scott’s vision and guidance will largely shape the future of the firm.

Additionally, we have promoted both Lana Sadler, AIA, LEED Green Associate, and Becky Thomas, AIA to Associate status to acknowledge their significant contributions. Both joined RSA as freshly minted graduates from architecture school; since then, they have grown professionally and more than proven their mettle in managing some of our most challenging recent projects. Their readiness and capacity to assume greater and greater levels of responsibility bodes well for RSA. By promoting Lana and Becky, we believe we have placed them in the best position to continue to succeed and pursue firm ownership if they choose to.

One benefit of contemplating ownership transition is that it does prompt reconsideration of old paradigms, especially if they are overdue for reexamination. I expect Robertson/Sherwood/Architects will always retain elements of the successful culture and attributes instilled by Jim and Carl. That said, I also envision exciting changes ahead. I look forward to seeing Scott, Lana, and Becky blossom in their new roles and boldly position our firm for continued success in the decades ahead.

It is my pleasure to present this news as my final blog post of 2020, a most unprecedented and challenging year for everyone. I have been and will always be abundantly grateful for the opportunity to work with my RSA colleagues through thick and thin. Here’s to 2021, to new beginnings, and with them the opportunities and promise they bring!

(1)    Even though I only became a shareholder in 2017, I don’t consider myself to be part of the “new generation.” The fact is as a fellow baby-boomer, I anticipate relinquishing my portion of ownership at the same time as or shortly following when Jim and Carl do. One of my roles in the coming years will be to help ensure the success of the transition process.

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Robertson/Sherwood/Architects Announces New Promotions

Eugene architectural firm Robertson/Sherwood/Architects PC (RSA) is pleased to announce the promotion of three of its key professional staff.

Scott Stolarczyk, AIA, LEED AP BC+C is the firm’s newest principal and shareholder. A University of Oregon graduate, Mr. Stolarczyk joined RSA in 1999. Since then, he has demonstrated superior design and project management abilities for the firm’s most longstanding clients. He is RSA’s designated sustainability specialist in the office, providing leadership in the incorporation of green design principles and serving as a repository of knowledge on sustainable and resilient design solution.

Lana Sadler, AIA, LEED Green Associate, has been promoted to Associate, acknowledging her significant contributions to many of the firm’s largest projects. A 2002 graduate from Kansas State University, her outstanding technical skills, broad knowledge base, and aptitude for managing design teams have been critical to sustaining the firm’s legacy of service excellence.

Becky Thomas, AIA, has been promoted to Associate. Ms. Thomas joined RSA in 2005 upon graduation from the University of Oregon. Since then, she has worked on a wide range of building types, with an emphasis on public and institutional projects. She is particularly skilled in helping diverse user groups move their projects forward toward the best possible outcomes.

“Scott, Lana, and Becky have been essential players in our ability to provide the highest levels of design and project management in service to our clients. We are thrilled to announce their promotion to positions of leadership in the firm,” said RSA president Jim Robertson, FAIA, FCSI.

About Robertson/Sherwood/Architects PC (www.robertsonsherwood.com)

Robertson/Sherwood/Architects PC (RSA) is a general architectural practice offering comprehensive services to clients throughout Oregon. The firm’s success is a result of its commitment to quality architectural design, personal service to its clients, and user involvement in the planning process. RSA’s projects range from modest remodels to prominent and award-winning institutional and public facilities.

Silver Linings: Reasons for Optimism

As 2020 (good riddance!) winds down, our thoughts naturally turn to prognostications for the coming year. COVID-19 will be with us for a while longer but, fingers-crossed, the tide is now turning as effective vaccines increasingly become available. Though construction in the Eugene/Springfield marketplace during the pandemic proved to be remarkably robust, many economists do expect the volume of work will decline during 2021. They cite the tendency of construction spending to lag the overall economy by as much as two years. Nevertheless, there is also hope the far-sightedness of those whose job it is to boldly imagine the future will pay dividends as the dark clouds of 2020 dissipate.

A significant example of prescient thinking may prove to be the City of Eugene’s investment in the transformation of the former EWEB operations property fronting the south bank of the Willamette River. I have not taken the opportunity recently to see the progress in person, so I was pleasantly surprised when I received an update from the City of Eugene about the transformations currently underway. The report (link here) documented a December 10 riverfront tour led by COE project managers Emily Proudfoot and Scott Gillespie for the benefit of Oregon legislative Representative Nancy Nathanson. The photos from the tour depict the significant changes since work started in 2019.

The City anticipates completion of the initial phase of site improvements—including the Riverfront Park elements—will occur sometime next spring or early summer. At the time of this writing, the underground utilities are installed, the riverbank’s steepness has been lessened, removal of non-native invasive plants and replanting with native species is largely complete, concrete work for the river overlooks is in place, and curbs & gutters defining the 5^th Avenue extension, Annie Mims Lane, Wiley Griffon Way, and Nak Nak Avenue are set. Many of these improvements are evident in the photograph above. Looking ahead, the Downtown Riverfront will continue to hum once construction of the proposed mixed-use development begins in earnest.

I previously mentioned my faith in Eugene’s resilience, provident positioning, and its stature as a mid-sized city as reasons for optimism. I also predicted people will value access to parks and open spaces more than ever. I now fully anticipate Eugene’s Downtown Riverfront will become a treasured centerpiece of our urban experience, more than justifying the City of Eugene’s investment in its development. Similarly, I expect the City’s plans for the Eugene Town Square project will provide the community with an enhanced center for public gatherings. I believe these investments will prove themselves critical to the health of our urban core in the wake of the lasting changes to how we work, live, and play wrought by the pandemic.

I am hopeful that from the turmoil, travails, and toxic polarization of the cursed year we have just endured we will emerge chastened. The only tenable course forward is to act with wisdom and in the best interests of our fellow citizens and the planet we all share. 2020’s silver lining may be the catharsis its traumas induced. If we are fortunate, the outcomes will be greater openness to constructive change, a waning of reactionary behavior, reconsideration of what it is we truly value, increased appreciation for our interdependency, and restoration of public respect for science, critical thinking, and logic. 2020 be damned. I’m bullish on Eugene’s long-term future.

Philosophy and the Metaphysics of Architecture

The School of Athens, by Raphael

During the past nine months of COVID-induced isolation, a friend and I have continued our regular series of biweekly conversations on a wide-ranging assortment of topics. During normal times, we’d meet over breakfast at The Original Pancake House here in Eugene, but we now do so virtually. We don’t always know where our tête-à-têtes will lead us, but that is one reason why we find them so appealing. Additionally, both of us are very catholic in our interests. It is far from unusual for our discussions to begin with our thoughts about the latest from the world of sports and effortlessly shift to nattering on about politics, science, world history, religion, culture—or as we did yesterday—the nature of philosophy.

Examining the general and fundamental questions humans have asked for millennia is fascinating. That said, I have never been a diligent student of philosophy. As an undergraduate at the University of Oregon I did enroll in an introductory course about 20th century existential thought and literature, but my primary motivation for doing so was the fact my girlfriend at the time (now my wife) was taking the class. Since then, bafflement is most often the outcome whenever I have tried to learn more about any of the various branches of philosophy.

Inscrutability is the common thread that binds most philosophical treatises. Until the day the perpetual fog my brain resides in lifts, I suspect I will have difficulty truly grasping the principles underlying how humans study the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Studying philosophy requires more mental focus and assiduousness than I have so far been able to exercise.

I have always believed certain bases of belief underlie how humans experience and appreciate architecture, regardless of whether the factors prompting the development of our built environment were backed by intentionality. After all, architecture shapes much about our here and now and how it is ordered, and architects do design buildings purposefully to address needs and solve problems. What I am curious about though is the extent to which architecture reflects deep-seated ontologies and the meaning of being.

Proving I have retained a smidgeon of what I learned in PHIL 211: Existentialism, I recall it was the German philosopher Martin Heidegger who distinguished human being as existence from the being of things in the world. For Heidegger, being-in-the-world was a phenomenological construct, so it was the study of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view that mattered to him. The study of phenomenology has been an influential strain within architecture due in no small part to Heidegger’s famous 1951 essay Building Dwelling Thinking. In it, he posed the question of what it means to dwell, and how a building “belongs” to dwelling. He regarded our “being-in-the-world” as essentially a problem of dwelling, and that dwelling goes beyond merely providing shelter or satisfying another functional need. Instead, dwelling is tied to place and situated in a relationship with existence. For Heidegger, dwelling also necessitated an understanding of the aesthetics of public spaces and buildings, and how aesthetics can open our thinking about place and the nature of dwelling on this earth, under the sky, and how it impacts our relations with one another. Heidegger argued architecture’s defining role is to structure how we experience the world around us. Architects loosely grouped under the banner of phenomenology have included Juhani Pallasmaa, Peter Zumthor, Steven Holl, and Charles W. Moore.

Another German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, enthusiastically regarded architecture as an expression of the progressive development of history and a metaphorical communication of spirit. In this regard, Hegel anticipated the early modernists, who upheld the primacy of designs reflecting the spirt of the times.

Before Heidegger and Hegel, Immanuel Kant claimed aesthetic judgments of form should be universal, unequivocally categorizing architecture as art. Kant distinguished the functional, social, and other benefits of architecture from consideration of its formal beauty; however, he also asserted that there should be no large disassociation between a building’s form and function because if there were, we would not find it beautiful. Kant also believed it is important for architecture to express profound ideas and possess a deeper meaning.

Like Heidegger, the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre focused upon a phenomenological ontology to explain how architecture is experienced beyond mere perception or recollection from memory. For Sartre, imagination is a critical dimension of architecture—that is, he believed the extent to which a building or place triggers a consciousness of imagination influences how we perceive it, especially if our experience upon encountering it goes beyond its material qualities. In this sense, architecture may address our immaterial needs, giving meaning to our experiences through the application of our imaginations.

More recently, the concept of language as an analogue for architecture held some sway among philosophers, linguists, and contemporary architecture theorists. I learned from my early exposure to the work of Peter Eisenman and Michael Graves and their respective application of the linguistic constructs of syntax (the rules, principles, and processes which determine sentence structure in human languages) and semantics (the relationships between words, phrases, or sentences and what these elements mean or stand for) that how architecture may be understood has parallels in systems of communication. Similarly, the work of Christopher Alexander and his colleagues and the application of an evolved vocabulary of culturally adaptive building and design patterns serves as a model for a philosophy of architecture. The use of language distinguishes humans from most other animals. Architecture likewise sets us apart in its use of systems demonstrating a syntactic rigor that are elaborated through the application of meaning and symbolism.

My appreciation of philosophy is far too limited by my education and upbringing, which was heavily prejudiced by a predominantly Western perspective. Being of Japanese descent there is no small amount of irony in this. I do owe it to myself to learn much more about how other, very different cultures perceive their world—how those cultures have studied or explained basic principles about reality and the essential nature of our existence, and in turn applied those principles to the creation of their architecture.

Though I most likely approach architecture from a phenomenological perspective, I would like to further distill my philosophy about what architecture is and what its role should be. I want to be able to question and answer the bases of my beliefs, and then apply that understanding to both my work and my appreciation of everything I encounter. Architects are distracted by a myriad of considerations—sustainability & resilience, social justice & equity, constructability, rapid developments in building technology, and much more—but we should not lose sight of a primary duty of architecture, which is to help us understand our place in the world and the societies of which we are a part.  

Early-Bird Rates for the 2021 CSI Certification Classes end this Thursday!

The 2021 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 coming Thursday, December 17. This year’s registration fees—having been reduced to acknowledge the limitations of virtual rather than in-person classes—are already a bargain but why not save a few dollars more?

Click on the following links to locate detailed information about the classes, dates, fees, and registration: 

Construction Contract Documents (CDT) Classes:

https://app.box.com/s/6e7aa92vlwt9c2g71ekxetbe306o8sxm

Construction Contract Administration (CCA) Classes:   

https://app.box.com/s/1ztg67o1gzfxsiq815a1e4f6aktupagy

If you have any questions, please send me an email at rnishimura@robertsonsherwood.com.  

Opening the Doors (Virtually!)

The much-anticipated grand opening of the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact took place this past Thursday evening. Of course, given the health risks posed by COVID-19, the celebration was primarily virtual in nature. Undaunted, the University of Oregon presented a very well-produced video celebrating the completion of the ambitious project’s first phase. This grand opening showcase is accompanied by a series of six breakout discussions that each focus in greater detail upon how a particular aspect of the Knight Campus contributes toward the goal of elevating the University of Oregon’s stature as a major research institution.

The new facility clearly signals the university’s ambitions. Additionally, it reflects the Knight’s unapologetic penchant for a contemporary architectural expression, as the products of their largesse for the Athletics Department bear witness to. Fundamentally, the Knight Campus is a manifest symbol of the university’s forward-thinking and determined mission to tackle some of society’s toughest challenges. A more unassuming design by the architects—the team of Ennead Architects of New York with Bora Architects of Portland—would not have symbolized these ambitions as well. As I mentioned upon the unveiling of the design in 2017, the Knight Campus is expressly intended to be part of a rebranding for the university and an asset for use in attracting world-class scientists. 

As completed, the design appears very much true to its initial renderings by Ennead/Bora. It retains its diagrammatic quality, which is relieved by the meticulousness and precision of its detailing. Gathering from the videos, the interiors appear agreeably bright, open, and conducive to collaboration. With luck, I’ll get an opportunity to experience the building firsthand one day. We’ll see whether the building’s aesthetic wears well over the years and continues to serve effectively as an emblem for cutting-edge research. And time will tell if the design becomes as treasured as many of the older campus buildings are today or if it will eventually lose its luster and appeal. 

Importantly, the completed first phase of the Knight Campus is a precedent for how the University of Oregon’s physical facilities will grow and mature in the future—a future that is more uncertain and unpredictable than anyone may have envisioned when the project was first announced a few short years ago. 2020 may have forever changed how universities operate, just as it has affected all our daily lives and sense of security and community. Regardless, the opening of the Knight Campus is undeniably an occasion to celebrate. This addition of what promises to be a truly impactful asset is poised to offer incalculable returns on the substantial investments by the University of Oregon, Phil and Penny Knight, and its many other generous supporters.

The World’s Best Architecture, Interiors, and Design

I use Microsoft Edge as the web browser on my laptop. I could just as easily have set up Google Chrome as my web browser, but Edge was the default offering with Windows 10 so that’s what I roll with. Upon launching, Edge presents me with Microsoft’s live news feed. I typically enjoy my morning cup of coffee scanning what Microsoft thinks is of daily curiosity to me. I do find it more than mildly unsettling content-based algorithms so effectively interpret my digital footprints and assess my interests, but that’s a topic for another blog post. The upshot is the Internet knows me well enough to have brought the 2020 Dezeen Awards results to my attention.

First launched in 2006, Dezeen is now one of the leading online architecture, interiors, and design magazines. Its annual awards program, now in its third year, attracts thousands of entries from around the world. A huge jury—the 2020 panel included 75 leading architecture and design luminaries—picked the winners across a broad assortment of categories. I must admit I haven’t been the greatest fan of other media platforms who have made their mark as self-proclaimed arbiters of cutting-edge design—I’m looking at you Dwell—but I found the judging criteria Dezeen asked its jurors to consider and the projects the members of the jury selected truly encouraging.

I’m encouraged because for too long awards juries and Dezeen’s architecture and design media peers have prioritized aesthetics above other concerns, and seemingly mandated conformance with a strictly modernist orthodoxy.(1) In my opinion, style should not be a prerequisite for consideration of a project’s full complement of virtues. Additionally, too many of the privileged projects appear affordable only to the very well-heeled or have ignored architecture’s duty to minimize and mitigate humankind’s harmful impacts upon our planet. Dezeen rightly prioritized benefitting users and the environment in addition to beauty for its awards program, directing its jurors to consider social impact and sustainability and look for projects incorporating positive thinking in these areas. Specifically, the judging criteria included whether a design fulfils the following:

Beauty: Does it look amazing? Beauty is subjective but the jurors favor aesthetic rigor, good detailing, and a good use of materials.

Innovation: Does it incorporate original thinking or address a problem in a new way? Every entry does not have to reinvent the wheel but should provide evidence of fresh approaches and new ideas.

Benefits: Is it useful and considerate to both people and planet? A project doesn't have to set out to save the world, but it should show respect and consideration for users and the environment.

Many of the winning projects are stunning. Granted, passing judgment on them solely on written narratives and two-dimensional images is fraught with pitfalls. All the jurors cannot have visited and experienced each of the submitted projects in person. Certainly, most could not have walked through the buildings, observed how they are used, or spoken with the users. They could not have truly engaged them as works of architecture, and that’s a problem. Nevertheless, I like to believe the best projects do jump off the page (or screen), with their thoughtfulness and tectonic, three-dimensional brilliance shining through.  

Which of the 2020 award winners did I find most worthy? Here is my list; click on the links to open a new window for Dezeen’s complete set of project photos and accompanying description (I'm using images from the Dezeen Awards site; I do hope this is okay):

Capsule Hotel and Library, Zhejiang Province, China – Atelier Tao+C 

The Capsule Hotel and Library melds monastic cells devoted to retreat & respite with a triple-height atrium cum temple for reading inside the repurposed shell of an old rammed-earth structure nestled deep in the mountains. The project’s asceticism and serenity are palpable.

https://www.dezeen.com/2019/12/27/capsule-hotel-atelier-taoc-bamboo-bookshelves-china/

MuseumLab, Pittsburgh, PA – Koning Eizenberg Architecture

Originally commissioned in 1886 as the very first Carnegie Free Library in the country, the impressive neo-Romanesque edifice is now the home to MuseumLab, a makerspace on steroids dedicated to experimental art and technology programs for children. The extensive renovation preserves the original building’s architecture in the wake of a 2006 lightning strike and subsequent disrepair in the form of a “beautiful ruin.”

https://www.dezeen.com/2020/05/06/museumlab-carnegie-free-library-childrens-museum-of-pittsburgh-koning-eizenberg-architecture/  The museum’s own website boasts an even more impressive set of photos of the project.

Lasvit Headquarters, Novy Bor, Czech Republic – Ov-a Architeckti
Lasvit is a designer and manufacturer of glass for architecture, part of a long glassmaking history in the Northern Bohemia region of the Czech Republic. The company’s headquarters is comprised of two 19th century houses of a traditional style, now paired with two new structures of similar form and scale: one a translucent white “house” accommodating an employees’ café and meeting room, and the other a black counterpart containing studio spaces for the presentation of bespoke glass samples. The interventions preserve the historical character of what appears to be an established residential neighborhood. Simply brilliant.
https://www.dezeen.com/awards/2020/winners/lasvit-headquarters/

Smart Zendo, Hong Kong – Sim-Plex Studio
Smart Zendo does more with less, elegantly providing flexible, smart accommodations for four in what previously was a two-bedroom flat. The project is a model for minimizing one’s carbon footprint while living in a future world beset with resource scarcity.
https://www.dezeen.com/awards/2020/winners/smart-zendo/

Party and Public Service Center, Yuanheguan, China – LUO Studio

Another project from China, the design for this new community center transformed the concrete foundations of an abandoned residential project into a warm, light-filled series of spaces given form by salvaged timbers and other recycled materials. 
https://www.dezeen.com/2020/03/17/party-and-public-service-centre-luo-studio-architecture-china/

The Red Roof, Quang Ngai, Vietnam – TAA Design
The Red Roof heralds a project typology that empowers people at the local level to change their environments and become self-sufficient. Perhaps the gesture is more rhetorical than practical, though its modest scale and humble bearing suggest otherwise. The is precisely the kind of development we need more of now, whether it be in Vietnam, Oregon, or elsewhere. 
https://www.dezeen.com/awards/2020/winners/the-red-roof/

The various threads running through the projects I found most impressive are a repurposing or reimagining of existing structures (as opposed to unnecessarily razing them and starting from scratch), a respect for the physical and cultural context (vernacular and traditional, time-tested construction techniques), and their relative modesty. Also notable is the geographic diversity of the award-winners. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that each of the projects do look amazing too. Design excellence is a universal constant.

Kudos to Dezeen for raising the bar for design awards programs. Rather than merely stoking the vanity of designers in the thrall of appearance, style, and ego, Dezeen has earned its accolades by orchestrating a thoughtful means to honor projects presenting the design profession in its best light.

What will my Internet newsfeed bring me tomorrow? I don’t know but if there is more like what Dezeen brought me today, I’m looking forward to it.

(1) Read Duo Dickinson’s intelligent essay on this topic.

Travel

The Piazza San Marco - painting by Canaletto, circa 1725-27, one of his Grand Tour vedutas (view paintings) from the Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Architects are well-known for their wanderlust. Travel means seeing new places, immersing oneself in unfamiliar settings and cultures, finding inspiration, being awed by the limitlessness of human potential and creativity, and much more. Many of my peers are inveterate explorers, always looking toward the next opportunity to vacation in another world city or exotic destination. Certainly, a broad perspective and a diverse bank of experiences are valuable assets for any designer.

“The Grand Tour”—a cultural circuit of Europe undertaken by privileged young men popular during the 17th and 18th centuries—would later serve as the model for the itineraries of many students of architecture, including myself. The latter half of 1979 and the first part of 1980 was my “gap year,” during which I worked in the Office of Facilities and Campus Development at the British Columbia Institute of Technology (following my two years of study there in the Architectural and Building Technology program and prior to transferring to the University of Oregon), but also embarked on an eye-opening backpacking journey throughout the UK, France, Switzerland, and Italy. Those 3-1/2 months of travel remain among the richest of my entire life. Every single day rewarded me with amazing and unforgettable experiences I will forever look upon fondly.

I have no doubt I am a better architect today because I chose to travel when I did as an impressionable student. Before my old-world tour, I hardly knew about or cared for architecture predating the advent of Modernism, so I was shocked and awe-struck by the splendor of so many older buildings I had been entirely unfamiliar with. The scale, character, and complex fabric of the historic cityscapes were likewise revelations. Having exposed myself to so much that was new to me, I immediately grasped there was an enormous body of work to study beyond the limits of what I had known or thought I had known. I recognized how insular my worldview had been. Most of all, I was humbled to realize how much more I had to learn about our big, beautiful, and fragile globe. These are lessons every young person should be fortunate enough to learn. 

My sketch (1979) of the Pazzi Chapel in Florence

I’ve traveled far too little during the forty-one years since my life-changing adventures in Europe.(1) My wife and I did enjoy a two-week vacation in England in 2001 and we visited Mexico a few times, most recently in 2002. But that’s pretty much been it as far as our non-domestic travels together are concerned (I consider our vacations in Canada to be “domestic” even though technically a visit to Canada is traveling abroad). We’ve not been to any destination outside of North America beyond Europe, aside from a few sojourns to the Hawaiian islands (once each on Kauai, Maui, and Oahu). In recent years, the majority of my vacation time has been spent visiting my aging parents in Vancouver or attending professional conferences around the country.

Knowing myself, it may be difficult for me to enjoy traveling extensively again until after I retire, which is still a few years away. I don’t think I would be able to truly relax and appreciate the places I might visit before then. I do have my bucket list of destinations to address, so it will happen one day.

Of course, contemplating overseas travel today is wishful thinking until the deadly threat posed by COVID-19 is reduced significantly. Airlines have slashed their flight schedules, and many borders are closed in any event. My risk-averse side is most definitely calling the shots. Traveling is stressful enough as it is even without a pandemic to worry about. We’re not going anywhere anytime soon.

In the meantime, one can dream. Since this past March when all our lives were first impacted by the coronavirus shutdowns, I’ve agreeably passed some of my free time discovering various YouTube channels (something I never imagined I would do much of beforehand). One of the more interesting channels is produced by Kara and Nate Buchanan, a young married couple from Nashville, TN. They’ve built their travel vlog channel to the point it now boasts a remarkable 1.9 million subscribers, which has afforded them the opportunity to lucratively tour the world full-time. Watching their videos, vicariously experiencing and enjoying where life has taken them, has been a treat. Since 2016 they’ve visited 100 countries, entertainingly documenting the ups and downs (mostly ups) of their peripatetic lifestyle. Like the rest of us though, Kara and Nate’s plans have been upended by the virus, forcing them to abandon their goal of driving the entire length of the Pacific Coast Highway. This is due to the recently decreed Washington/Oregon/California COVID travel advisory necessitating quarantining for 14 days upon arrival from another state.

Being an architect has blessed me with the lifelong gift of curiosity and a thirst for learning new things. I am a homebody, but I also know how rewarding exploring everything our beautiful planet has to offer can be.

(1) So, my tally of countries visited includes England, Scotland, France, Switzerland, Italy, and Mexico. In the United States, I’ve been to Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Utah, Washington, and the District of Columbia. Surprisingly, the only Canadian provinces I’ve spent any real time in are British Columbia and Alberta.

Whole Spirit and Mood

Henry Mercer's Moravian Pottery and Tile Works, Doylestown, PA (photo credit: CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1300580

It’s been my pleasure to periodically share excerpts from SYNTHESIS, the self-published textbook written by the late Bill Kleinsasser, one of the significant teachers and architects who shaped my architectural worldview. In the following passage from his book, Bill’s understanding of the idiosyncratic work of Henry Chapman Mercer illustrates a specific design principle, in this case the nature of an appropriate response to place. In turn, Bill drew a parallel between the memorable landscape of Bucks County, Pennsylvania (which he was as thoroughly familiar with as Mercer was) and John Ruskin’s influential writings about how places are experienced. The spirit and mood evoked by this piece perfectly suits my contemplative frame of mind on this gray mid-November morning in Eugene. 

Whole Spirit and Mood 

When Mercer lived this Bucks County countryside was partly wild, partly cultivated, partly inhabited, partly empty of human life. It was variegated, challenging, mysterious, and evocative of previous life. Mercer studied this land all his life and knew it well. He travelled through it again and again, searched it for its archaeological secrets, and found in it many inspirations. John Ruskin, whose works Mercer undoubtedly knew very well, probably would have called this land “woody green country,” a kind of country especially suited for habitation by industrious, conservative, but romantic people, and Mercer was all of these. He often revealed his strong feelings and romanticism about Bucks County. He loved to tell about the place, and he did it well.  

As if guiding Mercer’s response to this rich woody green Bucks County countryside, John Ruskin’s words in 1838 had been:

“. . . be it observed that anything which is apparently enduring and unchangeable gives us the impression rather of future than of past, duration of existence, but anything which being perishable and from its nature subject to change has yet existed to great age, gives us an impression of antiquity though of course none of stability. A very old forest tree is a thing subject to the same laws of nature as ourselves. It is an energetic being, liable to an approaching death. Its age is written on every spray, and because we see that it is subject of life and annihilation like our own, we imagine it must be capable of the same feelings and possess the same faculties, and above all others, memory. It is always telling us about the past, never pointing to the future. We appeal to it, as to a thing which has seen and felt during a life similar to our own though of ten times its duration and therefore receive from it a perpetual impression of antiquity.

“This being the case, it is evident that the chief feeling induced by woody country is one of reverence for its antiquity. There is a quiet melancholy about the decay of the patriarchal trunks, which is enhanced by the green and elastic vigor of the young saplings. The noble form of the forest aisles and the subdued light that penetrates their entangled boughs combine to aid the impression, and the whole character of the scene is calculated to excite conservative feeling. The man who could remain a radical in a woody country is a disgrace to his species.

“Now, this feeling of mixed melancholy and veneration is the one of all others which (a building in this land) must not be allowed to violate. It may be fantastic or rich in detail, for the one character will make it look old fashioned and the other will assimilate with the intertwining of leaf and bough around it, but it must not be spruce, or natty, or very bright in color, and the older it looks the better.

"A little grotesqueness in form is the more allowable because the imagination is naturally alive in the obscure and indefinite daylight of wood scenery. [It] conjures up innumerable beings—of every size and shape—to people its alleys and smile through its thickets.”  

Henry Chapman Mercer

Mercer must have understood Ruskin. His buildings embody just the qualities Ruskin recommended for the “woody, green country,” especially Fonthill with its “fantastic and rich detail,” its “grotesqueness of form,” and the fact that it “assimilates with the intertwining of leaf and bough around it.” All three buildings are “old fashioned” in appearance, “not spruce, or natty, or very bright in color.” All three have been developed to take advantage of the fact that “the imagination is naturally alive” in a woody green setting. To anyone who has felt the haunting serenity and mystery of the countryside of Bucks County, these qualities seem exactly right.

But these are responses to the character of the larger place. Mercer’s buildings also embody response to smaller contextual scales. All three contributed to the cultural place: the Museum with its evocative and informative collection of tools; Fonthill with its arboretum, preserve, and tiles; the Tileworks with its preservation of one of the unique crafts of the community; and all three buildings with their epical addition to community symbolism and richness as long-lasting sources of amazement, pleasure, and wonder.

The buildings also contain the results of many other contextual responses: towers from which one may see the surrounding place in all directions; numerous terraces and balconies upon which the variation of sunlight, wind, and weather may be felt; and spaces that collect and dramatize the daily and seasonal changes of atmosphere and light.

Even minor details, both inside and out, call attention to the sun’s position, the time of day, the season, the weather, and the place. Colored tiles on columns and walls become sparkling, independent sources of light. Dark surfaces and planar intersections tend to be obscured and mysterious as daylight diminishes. Other edges and planes catch light as it comes and goes, defining places, boundaries, and layers of space. Subtle colors and textures reflect and absorb light, become brighter or subdued, and change from sandy brown to bluish gray, to olive gray, to green and grayish gold. At certain times the buildings float across the fields like ships or suddenly appear like ghosts among the trees.

The buildings also address the most ordinary problems of building within an existing place. At Fonthill, a colonial farmhouse was in the way of the new place. Rather than destroy it, Mercer built around it and over it, giving it renewed and new life. At the Tileworks, the property boundaries and access route forced development to the south and west. The building was adapted to take full advantage of this. At the Museum, opportunities were restricted by the existing museum on the north and a street on the east. Mercer connected the new Museum to the old, accepted the tight boundary on the east, and freely extended the new building south, west, and up. In each building, ordinary stie problems generated unusual, useful, and often wonderful ideas.

By embodying as many responses to their surrounding places, Mercer’s buildings become vivid. Not only are they clearer and stronger in themselves, but they also establish a powerful source of appropriateness regarding the dynamics and nature of the places joined. Our consciousness is heightened by these links with place—by its reinforcement, dramatization, and celebration. Without these responsive links, an otherwise good place remains ordinary and fails to be what it might have been.

Otto Poticha Wins 2020 AIA Oregon President’s Award

Amid 2020’s incessant stream and fast pace of breathless news on all fronts, it was refreshing to see AIA Oregon recognize one of Eugene’s own, the inimitable Otto Poticha, FAIA as this year’s recipient of the prestigious President’s Award.

 

AIA Oregon presents the President’s Award to an individual AIA member in recognition of significant contributions to the architecture profession through distinguished leadership and service over an extended period of time. These contributions must have advanced the cause of the profession and provided an inspiration to the recipient’s fellow practitioners.

 

I can’t think of anyone else more deserving than Otto Poticha. Since arriving in Eugene in 1962—attracted by the Pacific Northwest’s reputation for a new brand of regionally-specific modernish inspired by the endlessly varied natural landscape—he has demonstrated unwavering boldness in his thinking. I’ve known Otto since my student days at the University of Oregon during the early 1980s. He was irascible back then and remains as ornery as ever today, much to the benefit of all who call Eugene or Springfield home. Never one to hold his tongue, Otto’s has continually kept me and my colleagues accountable for the work we do, especially if it is worthy of reproach. Years ago, he famously characterized Eugene as “butt ugly,” making it his mission to hold not only his fellow design professionals but our entire community to task. His perennial hope has been that we all may overcome our distaste for risk and change and demonstrate a courage of conviction to realize ambitious plans. He truly cares about his adopted home.

 

In addition to a decorated career as a talented architect at the helm of a series of successful partnerships and as a sole practitioner, Otto has taught for the better part of six decades in the Department of Architecture at the University of Oregon. By his own account, Otto enriched the lives and shaped the thinking of more than 3,500 architects (and counting), including yours truly. As an instructor Otto was and remains a notoriously cantankerous taskmaster, seldom reluctant to fail an underperforming student. There’s no doubting the significance of his influence upon generations of architects and in turn their built legacy.

 

On a personal note, I owe Otto a debt of gratitude for not only being a friend, colleague, and collaborator over many years, but also for suggesting during my job search upon my return to Eugene in 1988 that I approach Robertson/Sherwood/Architects, a recommendation for which I will always be grateful.

 

AIA Oregon conferred the 2020 President’s Award to Otto at its virtual Architecture Awards event on October 23. Click on the link below to watch the video celebrating the award. It features clips of his daughter Shelley Poticha and John Reynolds, FAIA, the 2019 recipient of the President’s Award, in addition to Otto himself.

 

https://vimeo.com/472761857

 

Movie Review: The Architect (2016)

My wife and I decided to enjoy a movie night together earlier this week, something we haven’t done in quite some time. Thanks to the YouTube algorithm—through machine learning YouTube knows I’m an architect—the trailer for the 2016 indie film The Architect popped up as recommendation to watch. I previously saw the trailer (in a real movie theater) upon its initial release but never got around to seeing the movie until now.

The IMDb synopsis for The Architect succinctly captures the entire gist of the screenplay by Catherine DiNapoli and Jonathan Parker, so I’ll simply regurgitate it here:

“When a couple sets out to build their dream house, they enlist the services of a visionary modernist architect, whose soaring ideas are matched only by his ego. The woman is swept away by this uncompromising creative artist whose personality provides a stark contrast to her practical husband’s. She is so taken she hardly notices the architect is building HIS dream house.”

In addition to co-writing the screenplay, Jonathan Parker directed the movie. Parker Posey and Eric McCormack play the married couple, Drew and Colin, respectively. She is an impetuous, aspiring ceramics artist, while he is a pragmatically minded financial planner. The characters appear to be 40-somethings: Knowing her clock is ticking, Drew wants to have a baby, but suffering from low libido Colin pointedly avoids sex. They seem well-to-do, though not so much so that their marriage is not threatened by (among other matters) the spiraling costs of the custom home designed by the architect Miles Moss, portrayed by actor James Frain.

 

Parker Posey, Eric McCormack, and James Frain in a still from the movie The Architect.

Spoiler alert: No one will mistake The Architect for one of cinematic history’s great masterpieces. Citizen Kane this is not. The Architect trots out well-worn tropes such as—in the words of two reviewers—the architect as “a vain, imperious, pseudo-intellectual, budget-busting, [scarf] wearing, wife stealer in the classic Frank Lloyd Wright mode,” and the wife and husband as “a pair of prosperous married suburbanites [who] try to paper over their differences” by commissioning the pompous avant-garde architect. The plot line is entirely predictable. The characters are very thinly drawn. The Architect clearly aspired to be at once both funny and serious but fails by most measures as either a comedy or a drama. The fact it did not enjoy a long run in theaters comes as no surprise. Nevertheless, I did find The Architect entertaining and worth a viewing for reasons I’ll now discuss.

Firstly, The Architect is different and noteworthy precisely because a principal protagonist is an architect. His character is not an architect only because the trappings of the occupation provide a stylish set of backdrops the movie’s producers liked. There’s an overabundance of architects as characters in movies (i.e. Keanu Reeves in The Lake House, Wesley Snipes in Jungle Fever, Liam Neeson in Love Actually, Tom Hanks in Sleepless in Seattle—Hollywood likes the idea of what they think an architect is) but most often the fact they are architects is secondary to the movie’s storyline. I like seeing a movie that features an architect being an architect, whose work figures prominently in the telling of the story.

Additionally, though many will undoubtedly regard Miles Moss to be an over-the-top caricature, there’s more than enough that is recognizably true-to-life. The real world has more than its share of Miles Moss analogues. In addition to Frank Lloyd Wright, the ego-driven pretensions and affectations of Daniel Libeskind, Bjarke Ingels, and Patrik Schumacher immediately come to mind. More than a few of Miles’ supercilious, cliched utterances sound too much like words spoken by actual architects. Here’s a compilation: 

• “There will never be a great architect without a great client.”
• “Never let yourself be overwhelmed by a rational analysis. When we’re talking about a house, a room, a space, it’s not something that you think, it’s something that you feel.”
• “A house shouldn’t be on the hill . . . it should be of the hill. Hill and house living, each the happier for the other.”
• “Rationalism is the enemy of art but is necessary as a basis for architecture.”
• “I believe it is just as important to design a chicken coop as it is a cathedral."
• “I don’t know why people hire architects and then tell them what to do. With a painter or a sculptor, you wouldn’t dare suggest alternatives, but an architect has to put up with anything! Often the opinion of the client must be disregarded for his own good. Less is only more when more is no good.”

My profession deserves its occasional comeuppance, especially when too many practitioners are guilty of the same exaggerated self-importance and arrogance expressed by Miles Moss. In this respect, The Architect successfully parodies the egocentric archetype personified by Gary Cooper’s portrayal of the megalomaniacal architect Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. For what it’s worth, I regard The Fountainhead as bombastic, pretentious, and quite unintentionally humorous as any movie I’ve ever seen. 

Finally, though many reviewers did not, I found The Architect consistently funny when it wanted to be. This is mostly because I simply enjoy seeing moviemakers lampoon architects, so my amusement threshold is admittedly low. Perhaps it’s telling that as a Canadian I likewise revel in movies that satirize Canada and Canadian-ness. Self-deprecation and being able to laugh at oneself is a virtue all of us should cultivate.

Do I recommend The Architect? Sure, if decidedly lightweight fare and a breezy way to pass a couple of idle hours is what you’re looking for. As I said, it’s by no means a great movie but I found it worth my time. I give it a solid three out of five stars.

One of the IMBd reviewers suggested the 1948 film Mr. Blandings Builds his Dream House (starring Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas) as a better, funnier alternative to The Architect. I’ll have to check it out.

And the Winners of the 2020 AIA Eugene People’s Choice Awards are . . .

This past Wednesday evening, the American Institute of Architects, Oregon Chapter/Eugene Section (AIA Eugene), in collaboration with the Willamette Valley Section of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), announced the winners of the 2020 edition of the venerable and popular People’s Choice Awards for Architecture program.

Due to the ongoing pandemic, the organizing committee conferred this year’s eleven People’s Choice Awards and three Colleague’s Choice Awards by means of a well-attended Zoom meeting. Kudos to committee members Colin Dean, AIA, Rex Prater, AIA, and Alexis Griffin for hosting the show and ensuring the proceedings were enjoyable and briskly paced. And big thanks to this year’s program sponsors: Arbor South Architecture, KPFF Consulting Engineers, Rubenstein’s, and Central Print & Reprographic Services.

Without further ado, here is the list of this year’s People’s Choice Award recipients:

Commercial: Homes for Good (PIVOT Architecture)

Landscape: Civic Park Phase 1 (Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture & Planning)

Multi-Family Residential: Sponsors Tiny Home Village: Jeffrey Commons (Aligned Architecture)

Public/Institutional: Lyllye Reynolds-Parker Black Cultural Center (Architecture Building Culture in collaboration with Maxine Studio)

Single-Family Residential: Mercer Lake Cabin (Campfire Collaborative)

Student/Emerging Professional: Springfield Public Library (Aizeder Iriondo Jayo) 

Unbuilt Landscape: Eugene Town Square (Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture & Planning)

Unbuilt Projects: Campbell Community Center (PIVOT Architecture)

And here are the 2020 Colleague’s Choice winners:

Arcadia Townhouse Community (studio.e architecure)

Lyyle Reynolds-Parker Black Cultural Center (Architecture Building Culture in collaboration with Maxine Studio)

Sponsors Tiny Home Village: Jeffrey Commons (Aligned Architecture)

You can still view all the submitted projects at the 2020 AIA Eugene PCAs Gallery.

AIA Salem and AIA Southern Oregon are likewise conducting online voting for their respective People’s Choice programs, so be sure to check out all their entrants as well (voting for AIA Salem is open now—the deadline is November 4—while voting for AIA Southern Oregon will occur between November 16 and December 4).

Congratulations to all of this year’s People’s Choice and Colleagues’ Choice award winners!