The World’s Finest Theater for Track & Field

 

I joined a group of fellow AIA Oregon members last week for an exclusive, behind-the-scenes tour of the “renovated” Hayward Field on the University of Oregon campus. It was my first opportunity to see it from within. While the exterior is certainly striking, I found the inside peek of the new facilities to be even more impressive and jaw-dropping. I have no doubt the lavish and commodious design further cements Eugene’s status as the Mecca for track & field in the United States.
 
Plenty of media outlets—among them Architect magazine, Metropolis, Athletics Weekly, and Athletic Business have already hailed Hayward Field’s rejuvenation as a world-class venue. Additionally, both the SRG Partnership and Hoffman Construction—the lead members of the project’s design-build team—provide excellent insights to its design and construction on their respective websites. There’s little reason for me to duplicate others’ accounting of the stadium’s unique and groundbreaking design features. Instead, I will focus on my own observations.
 

Hayward Field at the University of Oregon (all photos by me except as noted).

 
This Sucker is Huge
The new Hayward Field is obviously big. It dominates its immediate surroundings. Its scaleless exterior is not entirely sympathetic to the neighboring buildings it crowds. I previously commented on the design’s elephantine proportions and questioned whether the break from its past form would be too abrupt; however, now that it is complete, I am reconsidering my initial assessment. A city needs its landmarks. The physical dominance of the curving ETFE (ethylene tetrafluoroethylene) clad shell that wraps the stadium, and the nine-story Bowerman Tower—which provides the design with a needed vertical counterpoint—are instantly recognizable. The new Hayward Field is without a doubt a landmark you cannot help but notice.
 

Detail view of the roof.

Inside, I found the stadium bowl, while necessarily large, to feel remarkably intimate. This is in part due to the proximity of the spectator seating to the athletes, but also attributable to the sense of enclosure afforded by the continuous geometry of the seating and overhanging roof (more on this in a bit). Previously, the combination of the old east grandstand, west grandstand, and the Bowerman Building presented nothing approaching a unified architectural experience. Consequently, the old Hayward Field never felt whole or complete. The new stadium is architecturally consistent and at once both grand and cozy.

 

Asymmetry
I am not sure why I had not noticed how pronounced the asymmetry of the stadium’s wrap-around ETFE shell is until I attended the tour. The smoothly formed lopsidedness is related to the layout of the seating, which maximizes the number of people sitting near the start and finish line at the southwest corner of the track. Likewise, the rhythmic wood bents grow to support the form of the roof as it swells toward the southwest corner of the stadium. The asymmetry adds a dynamism to the overall form that suggests the speed, strength, and motion of the showcased athletes.
 

(University of Oregon press kit image)

Comfort
The level of comfort and amenities spectators can enjoy at the new Hayward Field are light-years removed from the old facilities. The sightlines from anywhere in the stadium are unobstructed. You no longer risk inflicting your bottom to splinters, as was a distinct possibility when seated on the wood benches of the former east grandstand. Every seat in the house is now fully padded and a generous 22-inches wide. I was impressed by how comfortable the chair I tried sitting in was. Fantastic.
 

Hayward Field seating (University of Oregon press kit image).

As is now the norm in sports venues, the new Hayward Field incorporates LED video boards to display live action, replays, and statistics. Upon completion of the “renovation” in 2020, the stadium featured two small (by today’s standards) trapezoidal boards, one each at the southeast and northwest corners. Currently being installed at the north end of the field is a significantly larger “Visual Experience Board,” which will be sixty feet tall and 160 feet long and provide 5,080 square feet of screen area. Like the asymmetric form of the bowl, the new board’s swooping shape is meant to convey speed and fluidity. Together, the three video boards will greatly enhance the spectator experience.

The Visual Experience Board and the Bowerman Tower.

 
Certainly, a distinct improvement over the old Hayward Field is the provision of full accessibility for mobility-impaired persons, generous restroom facilities, an assortment of food concessions (including the ability to accommodate food trucks and carts), and the incorporation of Hayward Hall, an informative and entertaining 8,600 SF museum commemorating the many memorable, historic, and record-breaking moments at Hayward Field.
 

Hayward Hall

Exhibit in Hayward Hall

Display with Bill Bowerman's infamous waffle iron.

Hayward Hall theater. The seats are salvaged examples from the old Hayward Field. 

On the negative side of the ledger, the signature roof only provides nominal cover from rain, wind, and sun for some and nowhere near all. Those seated on the east side of the track are particularly vulnerable to glare and heat from the late afternoon sun. Spectators who braved last summer’s US Olympic trials during the hottest week ever in Eugene undoubtedly avoided sitting under the direct sun if possible. Could SRG have shaped the design of the roof to provide greater protection? Perhaps, but doing so may have detracted from the coherence of its form.
 

Extending the Brand
If I were a star high school track & field athlete, why would I not want to compete as a University of Oregon Duck? The level of amenities dedicated to training and recovery are second-to-none among collegiate facilities. The new Hayward Field provides everything student athletes need to realize their full potential, most notably indoor practice areas, which include a six-lane, 140-meter straightaway running track and the “Vault,” a two-story interior space for long jump, triple jump, throws, and pole vault training.

The indoor, six-lane, 140-meter running track

 

The Vault.

Custom-designed exit sign.

Nike has its mark all over the new Hayward Field. Like the earlier Matthew Knight Arena, Jane Sanders Stadium, and Hatfield Dowlin Complex projects, the overall vibe is one of brand positioning. The message is “Oregon is built different.” This consistently conveyed message appeals to the emotions of the student athletes and their aspirations to greatness. The design achieves this by incorporating recognizably Oregon-brand elements at all scales.
 
Of course, historic Hayward Field figures large in Eugene’s deserved reputation as “Track Town USA.” The new building honors its history in numerous ways. These include the aforementioned Hayward Hall. They also include inspirational, integrated graphics, such as original sketches and notes from the legendary coach Bill Bowerman etched into the metal mesh that wraps the underside of the seating bowl. Images of Oregon icons Steve Prefontaine, Ashton Eaton, and Raevyn Rogers adorn the Bowerman Tower; likewise, the backside of the Visual Experience Board will feature the likeness of the stadium’s namesake, Bill Hayward.
 

West concourse. Note the greatly enlarged images of Bill Bowerman's sketches and notes on the underside of the upper seating bowl above.

The University of Oregon (and more specifically Phil Knight and Nike) founded the Oregon athletics brand on newness and state-of-the-art innovation. How will Hayward Field (and Oregon’s other sports venues) evolve as time passes? Will they age gracefully? Oregon has been the beneficiary of a wealthy donor’s generosity during an era of collegiate athletics unbounded by fiscal considerations. That level of generosity is not assured in the future. The new Hayward Field may be presaging a shift in that branding, from one focused on flash and newness, to one emphasizing history and tradition.

Statue of Bill Bowerman and the Bowerman Tower.

 
Upholding a Legacy
Hayward Field’s storied past is unparalleled, and yet the best may be yet to come. It will be the site of this year’s NCAA Outdoor Track & Field Championships (as well as consecutively from 2024 through 2027, with only 2023’s event occurring elsewhere), the 2022 USATF Outdoor Championship, and the 2022 World Athletics Championships (the first time ever on U.S. soil), and the 2024 US Olympic Team trials. Additionally, the facility remains the home of the annual Nike Prefontaine Classic, one of the Diamond League’s series of elite track & field events.
 
I look forward to soon attending a meet. I buy the hype: The new Hayward Field truly is the finest theater for track & field in the world.

College Hill 607

 

College Hill 607 reservoir, Lincoln Street side (my photo)

A guest column in The Register-Guard this past week by local writer Bob Warren reminded me of the imminent decommissioning and replacement of EWEB’s water storage tank atop College Hill in Eugene. Designated by EWEB as the 607 reservoir, the 15-million-gallon tank originated as a Public Works Administration (PWA) project. When it was completed in 1939, it greatly augmented the capacity of its earlier (1916) neighbor, the 603 reservoir. The 703 reservoir—a steel water tower just up the hill from and completed at the same time as 607—and a pump house (1927) complete the ensemble. Only the College Hill 607 tank continues to provide drinking water for Eugene, but its days are numbered. Due to water quality and structural issues, the Oregon Health Authority Drinking Water Program is requiring that EWEB drain the tank by the end of 2023.
 
EWEB plans to demolish both 603 and 607 and replace them with two new round tanks. These new tanks will each have a capacity of 7.5 million gallons, be between 183 and 195 feet in diameter and 38 feet tall (though only about 15 feet will be exposed to view above grade). EWEB does intend to maintain the site as a publicly accessible park, but the unique character of the old, flat-topped reservoirs will be lost. EWEB says relandscaping portions of the site for public use and erecting interpretive signage to educate visitors and celebrate the site’s history are possible; however, to meet current state regulations for security around public drinking water facilities, the new tank structures will be secured behind a fence.
 

The roof of College Hill 607 (foreground) and 603 beyond, looking north (my photo).

 
College Hill 607’s unique character is what I’ll miss most. I first discovered the structure when I arrived in Eugene in 1980 to attend the University of Oregon. I initially had no idea what I’d stumbled upon. Its moss and lichen-clad walls resembled an abandoned defensive fortification or an ancient, Machu Picchu-like citadel, neither of which made historical or contextual sense to me. I only later realized what the mysterious edifice was, and that anyone could climb on the top of it to take in views of the city and the sky.
 
In his RG piece, Bob Warren reminisced about how College Hill 607 has always been more than just a water tank. It is a singularly unique public space. Rollerbladers, kids on bikes, Tai Chi practitioners, and neighbors simply enjoying a scenic stroll commonly frequent Its expansive, 2½ acres of flat pavement. So too do stargazers. My wife and I visited 607 one clear night in July of 2020 to catch a glimpse of Comet Neowise, which we did using binoculars; we likewise have watched the International Space Station traverse the night sky from horizon to horizon. College Hill 607 was also a place to be on the Fourth of July. Hundreds would gather atop the tank to watch and set off fireworks; alas, EWEB began restricting access to the reservoir’s roof on the holiday to protect its rubberized coating from fireworks damage.
 

Section detail by Stevens & Koon Consulting Engineers, 1938.

 

College Hill 607 during construction, 1939.

 

The completed College Hill 607 reservoir, 1940. Note the water tower (College Hill 703 reservoir), built at the same time, in the background. (EWEB historical photographs)

 
Beyond the memories many people have of College Hill 607, what of its historic significance or design merit? In 2020, EWEB commissioned Historical Research Associates, Inc. (HRA) to update a determination of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places prepared in 2002 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. HRA determined 607 is an eligible property, but 603, 703, and the pump house are not because they do not retain sufficient integrity to convey historic significance. In its report, which you can download from EWEB’s project website, HRA deems College Hill 607 noteworthy as a product of a PWA program to provide funding in support of local construction of public works projects during the Great Depression. Additionally, HRA cited the reservoir’s monumental scale and “funicular shaped curve” of its buttressing exterior walls as architecturally “significant.” Certainly, while simply executed, the design by the Portland firm of Stevens & Koon Consulting Engineers includes enough flourishes to hint at the Art Deco stylings common to many public works projects of its era.   
 

Looking south on a rainy Eugene day across the vast roof of College Hill 607 (my photo).

Nothing lasts forever. Change is inevitable and life is fleeting. The deficiencies College Hill 607 has accumulated over time have conspired toward its necessary replacement. It will soon be gone but will be fondly regarded by those who consider the neighborhood landmark part of their lives. Happy memories are enduring, so we all cherish gathering them while we can. Sometime soon on a warm, clear summer night, my wife and I will take our lawn chairs to scan the heavens from the top of the old reservoir one memorable last time.

An Unfolding Cultural Catastrophe

 
Damage to buildings in Chernigiv, Ukraine (photo by Mvs.gov.ua, CC BY 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

 
Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine is the largest military attack in Europe since World War II. Predictably, Russian forces have targeted Ukraine’s cities, and it is those cities that stand to bear the greatest costs of the conflict, both in terms of lives lost and the devastation wrought by the Russian onslaught. Kyiv, Irpin, Okhtyrka, Kharkiv, Mariupol, Kherson, and Mykolaiv have already sustained heavy damage. Indiscriminate bombing and shelling have razed schools, hospitals, and entire neighborhoods. More destruction and loss of lives are inevitable as the Russian military, having encountered an unexpectedly fierce defense, resorts to siege tactics. To the west, Odessa and L’viv await their turn in the crosshairs.
 
I’ve never visited Ukraine. I cannot number any Ukrainian citizens among my close friends, nor for that matter any Russians. And yet like many others, I fear for the lives of innocent Ukrainians and the combatants on both sides. Regardless of Vladimir Putin’s proclaimed justifications for invading Ukraine, the senselessness of his voluntary war of aggression is laid bare for all to see. Rarely can we view a tragedy unfold in real time with such moral clarity. Unlike the protracted conflicts and humanitarian crises in Yemen, Myanmar, or Ethiopia—which are deeply rooted in complex, poorly understood, and underreported (at least by Western media) multifactional, ethnic, and regional politics—the Russian assault prompted our immediate condemnation. We’re paying attention because superpowers are taking sides. We’re watching because what happens in Ukraine has global implications. We fear the war may dangerously escalate.
 
Wars do not often go to plan. It is a war crime to deliberately destroy heritage sites. Putin may claim respect for Ukraine’s heritage, but many culturally significant sites throughout the country are clearly at risk. Already, the Ivankiv Museum north of Kyiv, which was home to precious examples of Ukranian folk art, has been reduced to ashes. According to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, warring entities are supposed to “take all possible steps to protect cultural property,” including “monuments of architecture, art, or history, whether religious or secular.”
 
I lacked a previous appreciation for noteworthy buildings in Ukraine, but since the start of the Russian invasion, I’ve tried to learn more about them. Ukraine has more than its share of important architecture. There are distinctive strains of architectural influence dating back to medieval times, among them Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Polish-Lithuanian, and indigenous sources. The country is home to seven UNESCO world heritage sites, including St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv and the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, the Residence of Bukovinian and Dalmation Metropolitans, and L’viv’s historic center.

 

Saint-Sophia Cathedral (photo by Rbrechko, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

 
According to UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention website, Saint-Sophia Cathedral, located in the historic centre of Kyiv, is one of the major monuments representing Ukraine’s architectural and monumental art of the early 11th century. The Cathedral was built with the participation of local builders and Byzantine masters during the reign of the Great Prince of Kyiv, Yaroslav the Wise, as the main Christian Church of the Kyivan Rus’ capital. The Cathedral has preserved its ancient interiors and the collection of mosaics and frescoes of the 11th century is unique for its integrity.

Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra (photo by Falin, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

 
The Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra is an architectural ensemble of monastic buildings situated on a plateau overlooking the right bank of the Dnieper River. The ensemble was formed over many centuries in organic combination with the landscape. With its relics of saints buried in caves, Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra is one of the most important Christian pilgrimage centers in the world.

 

Residence of Bukovinian and Dalmation Metropolitans (photo by Oleksandr Malyon, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

 
The Residence of Bukovinian and Dalmation Metropolitans is “a masterful synergy of architectural styles” designed by the Czech architect Josef Hlavka between 1864 and 1882. The property also includes a seminary and monastery, and is dominated by the domed, cruciform Seminary Church and its garden and park. Hlavka’s design betrays various influences from the Byzantine period onward. The dramatic fusion of architectural references expresses the 19th century cultural identity of the Orthodox Church within the Austro-Hungarian Empire during a period of religious and cultural tolerance.

 

L'viv (photo by Konstantin Brizhnichenko, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

 
During the Middle Ages, the city of L’viv was a flourishing administrative, religious, and commercial center. Its medieval urban morphology is preserved virtually intact, along with many fine Baroque and later buildings. It is an outstanding example of the fusion of architectural and artistic traditions of Eastern Europe with those of Italy and Germany.
 
Other examples of Ukrainian architecture worth mentioning include the Golden Gate in Kyiv, St. Andrew’s Church in Kyiv, the Trinity Cathedral in Chrenihiv, and the Mariinskyi Palace in Kyiv. Due to their remote locations, the wooden tserkvas (churches) of the Carpathian region of Ukraine may be less at jeopardy but are worth noting here for the distinctiveness of their designs, which are characteristic of the symbolic references and cultural traditions of the resident communities.

 

The Golden Gate (photo by Håkan Henriksson (Narking), CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

 

Mariinskyi Palace (photo by Roman Naumov, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

 

An example of wooden tserkvas (photo by Neovitaha777, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

 
There is no such thing as a perfect war. Armies may consider some targets off-limits, but history has too often rendered such honorable intentions impractical. The fact is innumerable cultural landmarks have been destroyed in far too many wars; tragic recent examples include the Temple of Bel (Palmyra, Syria), the Gates of Nineveh (Iraq), the Great Mosque of Aleppo (Syria), the historic district of Sana’a (Yemen), and the National Library of Bosnia.
 
As of this writing, much of Ukraine’s built cultural heritage stands at considerable danger of being erased. If it is destroyed, everyone worldwide loses. The cultural legacy of Ukraine—and of every other nation--is part of the common heritage shared by all of humanity.
 
 

Stepping in It

 

As I suspect many other homeowners residing in one of Eugene’s R-1 low-density neighborhoods did, my wife and I received a mailer from Housing-Facts.org this past week beseeching us to learn more about the City of Eugene’s pending Middle Housing code amendments. The City of Eugene must implement amendments to the City Code by June 30 of this year to conform with Oregon House Bill 2001. Enacted into law by the 2019 Oregon Legislature, HB 2001 requires that large cities (defined as cities with a population of 25,000 or more) must allow “middle housing” types in areas zoned R-1. Eugene City councilors are scheduled to review and discuss the proposed amendments in a work session this coming Wednesday, March 9, at noon.
 
HB 2001 defines middle housing as duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouses. The professed goal of the legislation is to encourage a broader set of housing options, while fostering the development of more connected, climate-resilient neighborhoods of greater economic and demographic diversity.
 
Proponents assert existing zoning too often presents barriers to the development of demographically appropriate and desirable living options. Many additionally say missing middle housing can help address the pressing need for affordable housing. With the implementation of its provisions, HB 2001 opens the door to missing middle developments in neighborhoods previously restricted to detached, single-family residences.
 
Under the new law, cities retain the responsibility to regulate the siting and design of middle housing, provided that the regulations do not discourage middle housing development through unreasonable costs or delay. Therein lies the rub. The forces behind Housing-Facts.org—which include neighborhood advocate and firebrand Paul Conte—argue the sweeping code amendments proposed by City of Eugene planners go too far. Specifically, they believe the changes would incentivize demolition of older, relatively inexpensive homes in favor of developments that first and foremost maximize the allowable residential density and profit potential, at odds with the professed goal of increasing access to affordable housing for low-income individuals and families.
 
Housing-Facts.org can cite compelling sources who state, contrary to the aims of HB 2001, that building new (and inevitably, expensive) missing middle types will not minimize housing prices and rents for lower-income households. Instead, studies indicate upzoning unleashes speculative investment in the redevelopment of older properties, resulting in higher prices and fewer inexpensive housing options.
 
HB 2001 didn’t include any direct or indirect provisions requiring developers to create housing that is affordable to households that are “housing-cost burdened.” There is a large deficit in Eugene of affordable housing for very low-income households. Absent subsidies, 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 R-1 land becomes most valuable and attractive to developers who are looking to maximize its profit potential. It would be a shame if the consequence of Eugene’s proposed code amendments is the exact opposite of their envisioned purpose: increased rent for lower-range rentals and increased purchase prices for the lowest-cost homes. If this occurs, the result will be displacement of lower-income households.
 
Affordability is certainly a huge issue. Housing costs in Eugene during just the past five years have increased by 45%. Household incomes have not kept pace, growing only 16% on average over the same period. Clearly, if a city is to remain a sustainable community it must have an inventory of “workforce housing” targeting households ranging between 60% and 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The problem may not be so much a matter of missing middle housing types as it is missing middle economics.  
 
Housing-Facts.org additionally criticizes the absence of provisions within the City planners’ proposed amendments to ensure sufficient infrastructure to support the increased densities, claims the Willamette Greenway protections will be “eviscerated,” and accuses City planners of disseminating misleading missing middle “propaganda.”   
 
I do not believe the City of Eugene planners are deliberately misrepresenting their proposed code amendments, nor do I believe they are in cahoots with development interests, as Housing-Facts.org insinuates. I do believe the planners’ motivations are sincere and well-intentioned; however, it’s a fair question to ask whether aspects of their proposal are ill-considered. That said, I would prefer that Housing-Facts.org refrain from lobbing ad hominem fusillades at City of Eugene planners, the mayor, and those city councilors the group disagrees with; instead, rather than working at cross-purposes, perhaps they can actually work with City staff, set aside prejudicial preconceptions, and rein in the use of off-putting rhetoric. I know there is common ground to build upon.
 
So now that I’ve stepped into the conversation, where do I stand on all of this? The bottom line is HB 2001 is law. The incorporation of middle housing types in R-1 neighborhoods will occur. I think these are good things.
 
Here are my additional thoughts: 

• Ensure incorporation of code standards that mitigate some possible negative outcomes (these standards will mostly be associated with the control of form and density, which can be prescribed within the code). 
• Take a measured approach: Initially satisfy the minimum requirements of HB 2001. Over time, gauge the receptiveness of neighborhoods to the introduction of additional middle housing city-wide, perhaps at higher densities than first allowed; incrementally implement further code amendments. Fine-tune the initial amendments as required.
• Incentivize the development of lower-income and workforce housing as part of medium to high-density mixed-use projects outside of R-1 zones along the current and proposed EmX routes (I’m in full agreement with Housing-Facts.org on this count). Leverage our community’s investment in the BRT system. Introduce financial incentives to promote the construction of projects in general along the EmX alignments, such as density bonuses, tax abatements, reduced parking requirements, and streamlined development approval processes.

Is truly viable missing middle housing simply a fantasy? I for one don’t want to discount the possibility that such a unicorn is a reality. It isn’t necessary to introduce all the missing middle housing types in and about any given R-1 neighborhood. For example, what’s wrong with encouraging the insertion of alleyway ADUs in Eugene’s south and west university districts, targeting occupancy by individual college students? Triplexes, quadplexes, or cottage clusters may variously be more appropriate in other neighborhoods. As a rule of thumb, middle housing should be context sensitive.
 
All neighborhoods change over time. The recipe for success includes sustaining the patterns that make older enclaves unique, but also demands creative, inspired new designs. This may be the reason why acceptance of change is elusive: the making of good, deferential architecture that respects its context isn’t always assured. Regardless, it’s clear our housing stock needs diversification to adequately address underserved needs. Certainly, managing change by densifying established neighborhoods will only work if it is the outcome of a community and neighbors-driven process that dives deeply into issues of building form, market demand, affordability, and traffic impact. Lacking such a process, the inevitable results will be continued resistance. 
 
The housing affordability puzzle is enormously complex and certainly one a jiggering of our land use codes alone will not solve. Cities by themselves cannot attend to the deep structural issues responsible for a globally confounding problem. That said, we know fostering innovation in our housing rather than stifling it is necessary. The affordability crisis demands a ladder of housing opportunities. Introducing new housing types within the fabric of R-1 districts won’t eliminate the problem but they can help address a range of issues beyond affordability. This is change we should not fear.