What if?

The Obie Companies' 5th Street Market Expansion. (my photo)

Multiple online articles regarding the future of the downtowns of U.S. cities piqued my interest this past week. The thread common to all is whether we should attribute the weakening of the nation’s most important urban centers to the persistence of work-from-home practices, the concomitant increases in office and storefront vacancies, and an attendant decline in property tax revenues. Despite their focus upon much larger cities (among them New York, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle) these articles offered considerable food for thought here in Eugene.

One of the pieces, by architecture critic Aaron Betsky for ARCHITECTURE magazine, questions whether empty downtowns are here to stay. He goes on to argue that rather than worrying about how to reanimate the corpse of the central city, we should accept the realities of the American landscape—the downtowns as well as the suburbs. In promoting his thesis, Betsky cites another article by New York Times opinion writer Thomas Edsall. Edsall’s provocative supposition is that the downtowns of major cities are facing an “urban doom loop” because of now-entrenched WFH habits and office spaces not operating at full capacity. A resultant and accelerating disinvestment in those areas exacerbates the downward spiral.

The fact of the matter is that downtown Eugene’s woes are far from unique. As countless sources report, shuttered storefronts, an absence of people, sparsely populated offices, hobbled restaurants, and concerns about public safety are common across the country.(1)  City officials work with local business leaders in a search for solutions, but many of the ideas they pose fail to yield appreciable gains. The emptier downtowns reflect broader economic and demographic changes that were in play before the pandemic accelerated the trend of remote work and e-commerce. That said, the fate of each city’s downtown area is influenced by a unique combination of local factors.

I reported last week on recent developments here in Eugene, two of which have implications of consequence for our downtown. For the sake of this blog entry, assume that negotiations between the City and the Eugene Water and Electric Board for the purchase of the former EWEB headquarters and its conversion to become the new city hall will be fruitful. Also assume the City of Eugene will amend the Skinner Butte Height Limitation Area, thereby allowing the Obie Companies to build taller on the parcels they own. Additionally, factor in the Riverfront Development project. Absent a magic bullet, you can picture that either a further deterioration or transformation of the historical urban core (the area roughly defined by the current boundaries of the Downtown Urban Renewal District) has been set in motion. Together, these actions may irretrievably shift Eugene’s de facto core northward toward the river and deal a mortal blow to downtown’s critical mass and stature as the city's center of gravity.  

But what if we accept this fate for downtown Eugene and instead reframe its future differently? What if we abandon efforts to resurrect downtown founded upon a flawed vision of what it should and is destined to be? What if we accept reality and stop worrying about reanimating the corpse as Aaron Betsky suggests we should? Conversely, does the post-COVID condition present a once-in-a-generation chance to revive our downtown? Is downtown Eugene’s fate further deterioration or transformation?

Rather than attempt to fully resurrect our downtown core along the lines of what it once was—a center for commerce, government, and culture—I believe we should emphasize the development of housing of all types at various levels, both market-rate and subsidized, at mid-to-high levels of density. With such a focus, housing would supplant investments in commercial office or retail space, which have not materialized and increasingly do not appear likely to in the foreseeable future. Downtown would never be what it once was, but it could become a vibrant neighborhood of a different, evolved type. If housing becomes a dominant building form, supporting services and vibrant streets will follow.

According to City staff, at only 8.2 units per acre, Eugene’s downtown current housing density is discouragingly low relative to its peers around the country. This drops even lower to only 2.4 units per acre in the immediate, 16-block vicinity of the Broadway and Willamette Street intersection (within the green square in the diagram above), perhaps downtown’s most troubled area. For comparison, this density is exceeded by the areas of the Bethel, Friendly, and River Road neighborhoods zoned R-1. Increasing the population housed downtown can help lessen crime (more eyes on the street), vagrancy (if housing options for the most disenfranchised are developed), and pollution (fewer trips by car).  

Critically, the City of Eugene’s Downtown Urban Renewal District has reached a crossroads. The Downtown Renewal Plan does not prescribe a specific sunset date for the District, but rather the District’s division of tax will stop when the total maximum indebtedness (i.e. the spending limit) for the District has been issued and paid. Currently, the Downtown Urban Renewal District is expected to have sufficient tax revenues to reach its spending limit this coming December, meaning it would cease the collection of tax increment funds at that time and effectively expire.

To help guide the future of the city core, staff compiled a draft list of downtown priorities and projects organized into six categories:  Housing, Public Safety, Social Services, Community Activity & Development, Public Spaces & Mobility, and Events & Culture. They compiled the possible projects following input from the community, their own work, and existing plans. An interdepartmental team is evaluating criteria such as cost, potential funding sources, feasibility, effectiveness, and alignment with City policies. The Urban Renewal Agency (comprised of the members of the Eugene City Council) discussed the list of priorities and projects this past Wednesday in a work session. The Agency voted at the conclusion of the session to have staff proceed with drafting a proposal to amend the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan.

Moving forward, a key decision for the Urban Renewal Agency to make is whether to expand the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan’s financial capacity and add additional projects. If they choose to do so, a measure may appear as soon as on the November 2023 ballot. If passed, taxes collected within the District would continue to be used on eligible capital projects.  

Assuming voters approve continuation of the collection of taxes for urban renewal purposes in the Downtown District, I first and foremost believe the additional funds should be applied toward acquiring properties for offer at reduced cost to developers to build housing or to otherwise help make housing projects pencil out. Assisting social service providers and increasing public safety and cleanliness will also be important.

The relocation of City Hall to the former EWEB headquarters building, the growth of the Obie Companies Market District, and the Riverfront Development mark a tipping point for the future of Eugene’s downtown. City Hall will not occupy the Town Square on the historic Park Blocks. The retail segment south of 7th Avenue will further fade. Focusing upon the creation of new housing and greatly increasing the downtown population will move our urban center away from what it once was and what up until recently we hoped it could again become. This shift will take time but carries with it the possibility for a positive transformation. What downtown Eugene means to everyone will be different. It can become the new home and neighborhood for many people, in addition to being a place to work, access government services, and share in community.

(1)  These reports may be overstated and politically motivated in some instances, purposely suggesting a more dire situation than exists. Nevertheless, perception is reality, and a negative perception can amplify the effect by having an influence on the process that gave rise to it—a positive feedback mechanism that contributes to the “urban doom loop.”

**2-22-23 edit** Eric Brown, the City of Eugene's Downtown Manager with Planning and Development, reached out to me to clarify one point I made: City Council can vote to extend the Downtown Urban Renewal District without referring it to the ballot. The City is leaving enough time for that to occur, but it is not legally required. 

 

Happenings

The former EWEB headquarters (my photo).

This past week was an eventful one on the Eugene scene, at least from my perspective as someone interested in matters related to architecture and urbanism. The week was equally busy and eventful for me on both the work and home fronts, so I’ll keep things brief and breezy with today’s blog post. I simply feel compelled to acknowledge these developments and offer my thoughts on each.

City Hall = The Former EWEB Headquarters
I’ve chronicled the interminable and almost comically tragic saga of a new, yet-to-be-realized Eugene City Hall for more than a decade now on this blog. City of Eugene administrators first signaled their wish to abandon the former award-winning City Hall back in the 1990s, barely halfway through the building’s too-short existence, before unceremoniously razing it in 2014. The City did so with the intent of building a new city hall but ultimately lacked sufficient funding or public support to accomplish such a project. An early (circa 2005), overly ambitious design by Thomas Hacker Architects totaling 300,000 gsf in program area was clearly unaffordable and never progressed beyond the conceptual stage. The 2014 plans for a replacement city hall on the former building’s site also failed to materialize due to rapidly escalating construction cost estimates. Without a place to call home, the City leased space to conduct city council meetings and house its administration, first from Lane County in the County’s Public Service Building and later (and currently) from Lane Community College at its Mary Spilde Center across the street from the Eugene Public Library. Throughout this period, the City explored its options, which included a long-term lease or purchase of the Mary Spilde Center, siting a totally new city hall on the NW Park Block along 7th Avenue, and leasing or buying the former EWEB headquarters.
 
As reported by several outlets, the EWEB board announced last Wednesday that it will enter negotiations with the City of Eugene to sell its riverfront property. The news of the pending purchase came as a surprise because it was only the previous week that Eugene School District 4J announced it planned to buy the property. What happened?  
 
I found this news additionally surprising because the City previously passed on the EWEB headquarters option. The City commissioned a 2016 study of the building to determine its suitability for use as the new city hall. The study—conducted by a team led by my firm, Robertson/Sherwood/Architects—evaluated the building in accordance with a comprehensive set of criteria. We assessed the condition of the building and its systems, identified opportunities and constraints to converting it to city hall use, considered its potential for possible expansion, and estimated the potential costs. The price tag, which reflected the suite of improvements necessary to entirely satisfy the City’s strict criteria, was steep. With that information in hand, the City decided not to proceed with further consideration of a purchase, instead choosing to build a new city hall at the Park Blocks (Eugene’s “Town Square”); this ultimately also proved cost prohibitive.
 
Given my familiarity with our evaluation of the EWEB headquarters, I assume the city leadership relaxed its criteria and is now prepared to occupy the building without implementing extensive, costly improvements.  
 
Back in 2012, I expressed my belief that the EWEB headquarters was the best choice for a new Eugene City Hall. I said that by virtue of its physical prominence, visibility, and architectural quality, the dominant reading of the EWEB headquarters is of an important public facility. The Downtown Riverfront master plan effectively guarantees its distinction as the only major building near downtown to be located so close to the Willamette River, its future within a parklike setting along the river’s edge assured. I stated the headquarters is one of the few buildings in the city that overtly acknowledges the river and its importance to Eugene, and that we should embrace connecting downtown with the Willamette River and restoring ties between the city and the waterway it was founded upon. Moreover, I wrote that by converting the EWEB headquarters into Eugene’s new city hall, the city leadership would demonstrate its commitment to sustainability by highly valuing the energy embodied in its original construction and thereby partially atone for its hasty decision to demolish the old city hall building. Rather than expending increasingly scarce resources and funds on a new city hall, the City can walk the talk and lead by example.
 
I won’t hold my breath until it actually happens, but I believe citizens of Eugene may soon be able to point with pride toward a building that is their City Hall, while also closing a lengthy chapter in Eugene's municipal history.  
 
Skinner Butte Height Limitation Area
The Eugene city council met in a work session last Tuesday to discuss a proposed amendment to the Eugene Code regarding the Skinner Butte Height Limitation Area. The council will vote on the amendment during a meeting on February 13 that, if passed, would allow taller buildings to be constructed on six parcels along Fifth Avenue between Willamette and Pearl Streets. The Skinner Butte Height Limitation Area encompasses the subject parcels. The Obie Companies requested the change so that it can add two mixed-use buildings to its Market District portfolio that would exceed the current allowable heights. 

 

An "artist's rendering" of the development proposed by the Obie Companies for its property on the north side of Fifth Avenue between the Oregon Electric Station and Station Square.

The requested land use change prompted comment from both proponents and critics. The arguments on both sides are familiar. Those supporting the amendment cite the benefits of increased density near the downtown core, including the construction of more residential units, increased vibrancy, and a concomitant boost to the property tax rolls (notwithstanding any tax exemptions necessary to help the development pencil out). Opponents argue that tall buildings will block sightlines toward Skinner Butte and the Shelton McMurphey Johnson House. The most histrionic contend that an increase in the height limit will lead to a “Manhattan-like canyon of concrete and steel.”
 
I am originally from Vancouver, British Columbia. Vancouver’s notorious “view cone” policy aims to preserve iconic vistas of the city, primarily from south of False Creek toward the downtown skyline and the North Shore mountains beyond. Like Eugene’s Height Limitation Areas policy, Vancouver’s view cones are defined by certain geographical landmarks possessing scenic attributes that are of value to the “community as a whole.” Criticism of the Vancouver policy largely stems from the fact that those who most enjoy its benefits are the wealthy homeowners whose views (and thus property values) are protected by it, rather than the average community member. Another con of the view cone policy is that it limits the development potential of certain properties, especially on the downtown peninsula where dense, tall buildings otherwise make the most sense.

View looking north on Oak Street toward Skinner Butte (my photo).

Protecting views toward Skinner Butte and the Shelton McMurphey Johnson House is important. That said, will increasing the height limits as requested by the Obie Companies eliminate some currently available vistas toward these landmarks? The reality is any new buildings on the vacant parcels they own along Fifth Avenue will obstruct views, whether they are two stories or seven stories in height. These parcels are now mostly surface parking lots, contributing nothing beyond acres of asphalt and far from being scenic. The proposed developments will include street-level retail, which will enliven the pedestrian experience, not to mention welcome density and eyes on the street, while relegating off-street parking to concealed garages. The key will be to ensure the most crucial views do remain. I contend the most important vista is the one looking northward along Willamette Street toward Skinner Butte. It’s arguable that a narrow view corridor along the Oak Street axis north to the Butte should be maintained but restricting taller construction on either side of that corridor would provide no discernable benefit from the standpoint of access to desired views.

Arcimoto Woes
Perhaps the most surprising news I learned of was word that Arcimoto shut down production at its west Eugene factory and is facing bankruptcy. I wasn’t aware of the depth of the company’s troubles, including the fact that it had cut jobs and furloughed workers as early as last September as the value of its stock plunged. It was only seven months before in February of 2022 that Arcimoto opened its new 250,000 sf manufacturing facility. Apparently, supply chain bottlenecks were part of the problem, but also dwindling cash reserves and poor sales (Arcimoto only sold 41 of its vehicles during the second quarter of 2022).  

FUV promotional photo, from the Arcimoto website.

 
I had high hopes for Arcimoto and its everyday electric transport, the FUV (Fun Utility Vehicle). Yes, its price is on the high side (in the $20k range), especially when compared to those of conventional automobiles at the lower end of the market spectrum; however, cost was never Arcimoto’s principal selling point. Instead, the promise of the lightweight, high-performing, three-wheeled, tandem-seat FUV rests in its potential as a truly sensible means for getting from Point A to Point B. We need to transition away from our reliance upon oversized cars and trucks and the demands they make upon the urban landscape. The all-too common instance of a lone driver slogging about on short hops in a massive, gas-guzzling, 7-passenger SUV reflects misplaced priorities in a world beset by environmental crises and social inequity.   
 
I really thought Arcimoto was on the cusp of something great, and that the potential market worldwide for its FUV would be immense. I still believe the infrastructure of American transportation and energy systems must be radically altered to accommodate new, healthier types of transportation and vehicle use. We still need to reassess what it is we truly need for personal transportation. If the Arcimoto experiment is destined to failure, the loss will not only be Eugene’s but also that of advocates for change everywhere.

*    *    *   *    *    *

So, a busy and consequential week in Eugene with respect to topics of interest to me. I welcome any comments you may have about them, so please let me know what you think. 

Miguel McKelvey: From UO Architecture to WeWork IPO

 

The WeWork saga—the company’s meteorically epic rise and precipitous downfall—has become the stuff of legend: a cautionary tale about the pursuit of unrealistic financial gains, overly rapid expansion, personal greed, and an indifference for the bottom line. Adam Neumann, WeWork’s charismatic and reckless former CEO, is the individual most associate with the company’s volatile trajectory. He pitched a starry-eyed vision of WeWork as a paradigm-busting, disruptive start-up that would change the culture of office work. That vision attracted tens of billions in investment capital, but ultimately succumbed to Neumann’s excesses and failure to reward WeWork’s investors.

 

What many with only a casual familiarity with the story may not be aware of was the key role played by WeWork cofounder and Chief Culture Officer Miguel McKelvey. Miguel shared his entrepreneurial journey with an in-person and online audience last Wednesday as part of the UO School of Architecture & Environment 2022-23 Lecture Series.

 

Miguel was born and raised in Eugene. His mother, Lucia McKelvey is one of the cofounders of the Eugene Weekly, Eugene’s alternative newspaper.(1) Miguel graduated with a degree in architecture from the University of Oregon (Class of 1999) and was a member of the UO men’s basketball team while at the school.(2) After graduation, he went to Japan and helped create a social networking site for English-learners, but returned to the U.S. to get back into architecture. Upon his return, Miguel worked for a firm in New York designing stores for the clothing retailer American Apparel, where he learned how design can empower a business. It was while he was in New York that he met Adam Neumann at a party in 2008. Being like-minded, he and Adam became friends and business partners. They recognized that property owners did not like leasing buildings for spaces used by small startups but instead preferred large tenants who signed long-term leases. The two soon developed the concept of an eco-friendly, semi-communal, coworking space business. This led to WeWork, which they established in 2010. While Adam was the hustler at WeWork, courting venture capitalists and spending lavishly, Miguel largely worked behind the scenes, using his background in architecture to develop what became the company blueprint for its coworking spaces around the globe.

Miguel McKelvey (all images here are screenshots from Miguel's presentation).

The WeWork model was and is based upon the idea of a community-driven work environment that provides small business owners and entrepreneurs with an affordable alternative to traditional offices. Miguel oversaw the design of all WeWork spaces, building upon the notion that such environments can “foster a network of people who come together to create something greater than themselves.” WeWork locations became well-known for their trendy aesthetic and identity as a lifestyle brand that promoted community, creativity, and connection. That distinct branding would be synonymous with WeWork and attract a cult-like devotion among its members, employees, and investors. WeWork prided itself on its ability to enhance business performance and employee engagement in collaborative work environments—to provide people with something to belong to.

 

Miguel recounted how aggressively and ambitiously he and Adam grew WeWork. From the beginning, they saw it as a global opportunity. After opening sites in New York and San Francisco, the company expanded to Tel Aviv, then Shanghai, and ultimately worldwide, growing to a peak of 850 locations in 23 countries, 14,500 employees, and $47 billion in valuation. At one point, WeWork was the largest single holder of real estate in Manhattan, with over 5.3 million square feet of space to rent out.

 

Much of the company’s early success was due to its ability to attract capital, which it leveraged to great advantage, such as when purchasing bespoke furnishings in large volume. Miguel described how his team built its own BIM software to conduct test fits of WeWork’s “modules,” the term the company used for its combination of individual offices, meeting rooms of assorted sizes, sound-isolated “phonebooths,” and shared communal amenities. They also designed offices using machine learning. Artificial intelligence analyzed data and neural networking to predict how frequently members booked specific meeting room types. The analyses found some rooms were perpetual favorites, always booked and always highly rated by members. This knowledge informed the design of subsequent WeWork spaces.

 

Though the WeWork model primarily relied upon acquiring existing vacant offices in prime locations, the company also developed its own properties from the ground up. Miguel seemed especially proud of the design of WeWork’s entirely new building located at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Completed in 2017, the $380 million building accommodates 675,000 square feet of workspace.

 

Dock 72, WeWork's outpost at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.

A significant outcome of the WeWork phenomenon was the “multiplier effect” it created in the vicinity of its locations. Miguel said that for every 10,000 members, an additional 12,000 jobs were created through direct and indirect spending. Typically, each WeWork location brought new people, businesses, and economic activity to neighborhoods, and one in ten members moved closer to their WeWork location after joining. This meant more business for neighboring shops, cafes, and restaurants—a boon in tax revenue to local and state governments.

Even as WeWork grew rapidly, Miguel still actively participated in the hiring and onboarding of all new employees. It was important for him that everyone understood the power of “we.” He encouraged new hires to regard being part of the WeWork experience as more than employment. Instead, he told them they should view it as an opportunity to gain experience and grow as a person and be part of a community.

 

Of course, it all proved too good to be true. As WeWork made plans to go public in 2019, financial disclosures and revelations about how the investors’ money was being spent led to the company’s board of directors pushing for Adam’s ouster as CEO and delaying WeWork’s initial public offering. Miguel would stay on longer, eventually leaving WeWork in 2020. The company survives today, but no longer commands the dominant position it once held in the coworking real estate arena.

 

Not surprisingly, the WeWork story, and particularly Adam Neumann’s mercurial role in it (as well as that of his influential wife Rebekah Paltrow Neumann) received the Hollywood treatment. A 2022 Apple TV+ mini-series stars Jared Leto as Adam and Anne Hathaway as Rebekah. Miguel is portrayed by the actor Kyle Marvin, of whom Miguel said the producers did a rather good job of casting (“he looks like me”). Purely by chance, Miguel bumped into Jared Lehto at a London art gallery after the series debuted. He sheepishly approached Lehto but found him to be friendly and engaging. Miguel thanked him for his time, to which the actor responded by saying “thanks for living an interesting life.”

Still from the Apple TV+ mini-series WeCrashed. Jared Lehto (right) portrays Adam Neumann, while Kyle Marvin (left) is Miguel McKelvey. 

Miguel now lives in London. Since leaving WeWork, he has kept a low-profile. I expected him to talk in detail about his current interests, but he did not in any detail (he is involved with NAYAH, a venture capital and private equity firm that “invests in the growth and development of people and companies that align with our vision to build true community power, shared wealth, and holistic well-being for minoritized people”). He instead focused upon his WeWork journey and how it impacted him personally. He loved what he accomplished with the company but quoted the journalist Walter Winchell: “Nothing recedes like success,” meaning how fleeting success can be. Miguel lamented the compromises running a business demanded, and their psychological toll if held too tightly. He talked about now “being in the moment” and “living life at a different tempo.” I sensed he has not entirely moved on yet, and that he misses being part of something big.

WeWork certainly was big. In years to come, historians will look back upon the company as a cultural phenomenon that helped to define the 2010s. The parable is fascinating—WeWork is now synonymous with hubris and overreach—a moral fable that played out in real time before our eyes. Like the mythical character Icarus of Greek legend, WeWork simply flew too high, too quickly, falling victim to excessive ambition.

 

Though Miguel has flown higher than I can ever imagine, as a fellow graduate of the University of Oregon school of architecture and resident of Eugene, I cannot help but feel a kinship. My thanks to him for sharing his story.

 

 

(1)  My wife worked alongside Lucia at Eugene Weekly for several years.

(2)  My firm provided Miguel with an office practicum for one academic quarter while he was in architecture school.

Architecture is Awesome #27: Asymmetry

 

Fallingwater (photo by Sxenko via Wikimedia used under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2)

 
This is another in my series of posts inspired by 1000 Awesome Things, the Webby Award-winning blog written by Neil Pasricha. The series is my meditation on the awesome reasons why I was and continue to be attracted to the art of architecture. 
 
Most consider asymmetry to be the absence of formal symmetry within a composition or whole. While it may suggest the opposite of symmetry—that is, the quality of being made up of similar parts facing each other on or around an axis—in fact asymmetry may itself be comprised of localized symmetries and strong centers, balanced with complementary weighting across axes that may not be evident straight away. In architectural usage, asymmetry evokes dynamism and movement, but also acknowledges the real-life nature of buildings—the multiplicity of functions they accommodate and the specifics of the physical settings of which they are a part.
 
When designing a building, architects typically strive to achieve order and balance within its overall composition. Whereas large symmetry offers a simple means to attain a classical, structured sense of order, the use of asymmetry as a compositional device requires greater skill and a more sophisticated understanding of wholeness and balance. Executed well, asymmetrical buildings display a harmony of contrasts that signify both a balance and a free-flowing tension between competing forces.
 
Architects strategically use compositional counterpoints to achieve balance within their asymmetric designs. When viewed from different perspectives, the visual weighting may vary significantly and at first appear unbalanced. For example, a building may feature a large, solid form at one side and many smaller, transparent components on another; however, a successful asymmetric design coheres seemingly unbalanced elements into a pleasing whole.
 
Both the Katsura Imperial Villa in Kyoto and the Sydney Opera House are examples of asymmetrical designs. Katsura is noteworthy because you cannot appreciate the whole of its built form from a single vantage point; instead, its asymmetric composition requires viewing from multiple vistas and active participation with its beautiful garden, and yet its wholeness is not in question. The Opera House exhibits numerous local symmetries within an overall geometry that is asymmetric. The local symmetries occur through a broad range of scales, displaying a correspondence between them by means of analogous forms and patterns that express a common origin.
 

Katsura Imperial Villa (photo by KimonBerlin, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

 

Sydney Opera House (photo byLenny K Photography from Sydney, Australia, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

 
Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater is another excellent example of asymmetry in architecture. Like the Katsura Villa, it is incomplete without its physical setting. We consider Fallingwater a masterpiece in part for its exquisite balance between the asymmetrical forms of the house and the site that envelops it.
 
Robert Venturi argued that an architecture of complexity and accommodation does not forsake the whole. Instead, the whole is dependent on the position, number, and inherent characteristics of the parts. When designing buildings, architects most often must consider a host of complex, asymmetrical forces demanding accommodation of a multiplicity of functions. Ideally, the whole that results from their efforts is more than the sum of its parts. A successful design favors a difficult unity through inclusion (asymmetry) rather than an easy unity through exclusion (thoughtless symmetry).
 
At the most cosmic and consequential level, the thermodynamic arrow of time itself is asymmetrical. In a sense, architecture that is expressively asymmetric is more representative of life and the laws of nature than that which is strictly symmetrical. Symmetry abounds in nature, but upon close inspection it also reveals asymmetry at all scales. As Christopher Alexander posited, perfect symmetry is often a mark of death in things rather than life. In complex wholes, there are nearly always asymmetrical forces at work that require symmetry to be broken.
 
In a nutshell, the successful application of asymmetry in architecture boils down to balance and a harmonious relationship of parts to the whole. It may be counterintuitive to think of asymmetry and symmetry as two sides of the same coin, but they can be. Rather than being a mark of inequality or a lack of equivalence between parts, architects can utilize asymmetry with AWESOME effect, to design buildings and places that are balanced, visually dynamic, and expressive of wholeness and life.
 
 
Next Architecture is Awesome:  #28 Creation is a Patient Search

Precise-General Frames

 

Jeune homme à la fenêtre (1876 painting by Gustave Caillebotte, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

Bill Kleinsasser was fundamentally a humanist, someone who believed in everyone’s inherent value, agency, and dignity. In architectural terms, he espoused the creation of buildings and spaces that are not only functional, but also responsive, welcoming, warm, and inviting. Bill believed we should design architecture with a person’s comfort and well-being in mind, in harmony with the surrounding environment. A phenomenological focus on the human experience was additionally central to his design philosophy. Like his Princeton University classmate Charles Moore, and others including Peter Zumthor and Juhani Pallasmaa, Bill understood the power of architecture to shape and influence our feelings, emotions, and behavior.  

Bill wrote the following in 1972, specifically about designing multifamily housing. His description of precise-general frames acknowledges an essential nature of our humanness and being in this world. Each of us is uniquely individual, and yet we share traits and behaviors in common. Now more than a half-century on, his words remind us today that we design for the physical, emotional, social, cultural, and spiritual aspects of the human condition.  

Precise-General Frames

In designing housing, it is very hard to know for whom we design . . . conditions and circumstances change, people change, they leave, others come, and it is necessary to avoid determining or designating too much as we try to be as responsive s possible. It is necessary to make environmental conditions that are somewhat GENERAL.

At the same time, we obviously must support certain recurring actions (such as going in and out, preparing and consuming food, resting and sleeping, retreating and coming together) and we must respond to certain decisive and highly particular circumstances (such as the immobility and dependency of old people and children, or the qualities of different lifestyles and social systems). Also, people need environments where they can be themselves, find themselves—where they can achieve their own potentialities as human beings. It seems that, as well as making general environmental conditions, we must also make conditions that are supportive, inviting, evocative, PRECISE.

As we try to understand the nature of making PRECISE-GENERAL places we must study particular, real places and situations:

• To find out what exists there (at all scales) and why.
• To identify patterns of use, of human circumstances, and of conditions, actions, activities.
• To assess how long those patterns have been and will be valid.

We must also study general, shared, or comprehensive design theory:

• To learn about universal or shared human needs.
• To identify universal or recurring reference frames.
• To track situational variations in the needs and frames.

The action of design can be used as a primary method in this study, if design probes are made early and frequently, if each probe is analyzed using broadly based criteria, if new criteria is sought out and allowed to redirect or affect the designers’ thinking, if a wide variety of design study media are used to inspect and test response to various considerations.

The result of our work should be spaces and places that are more supportive for more people, and therefore more significant.

WK / 1972