Colossal. Profligate. Horrifying.

Several videos documenting the demolition of one of China’s notorious “ghost cities” have recently been racking up millions of views on Twitter and YouTube. For some reason, the videos of the event—which record the destruction of fifteen tower blocks in Kunming, China that occurred on August 27, 2021—are only now going viral, which is why I just discovered them. While the scale of the waste the videos record in Kunming is staggering, it is only the tip of a much larger iceberg. Combined, the “ghost city” phenomenon, China’s now-faltering real estate market, the recklessness of the country’s mega-developers, and the misguided policies of Chinese authorities are unimaginably profligate and injurious.

 

Many of China's other “ghost cities” sit unfinished, having never been occupied. They now either require significant ongoing investment and maintenance to keep them from falling into disrepair or are slated for razing. I read that China has adopted a “build, pause, demolish, repeat” policy as a means to both limit the building supply to prevent a precipitous drop in property values and increase economic activity through construction. Effectively, the Chinese government has sanctioned an unprecedented squandering of resources, one that is anything but sustainable.

 

The disregard for sustainability is horrifying. The embodied carbon implications are enormous. The greenhouse gas emissions arising from the manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance, and disposal of building materials associated with such massive and irresponsible developments move the planet that much further away from meeting climate action goals. Approximately 30% of global carbon emissions are attributable to the building sector. As the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, it is clear China’s development patterns are consequential. “Build, pause, demolish, repeat” is not a formula I associate with a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  

 

While China today is the world’s biggest climate offender, other developed nations are not without culpability. Though the proportion of overall global carbon emissions coming from the U.S. is less than half that of China, the American share of tons of CO2 per capita is more than double. Growth for growth’s sake as a means to ensure global economic and societal stability is not a sustainable paradigm.  

 

To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the United Nations 2022 Sustainable Development Goals Report says greenhouse gas emissions will need to peak before 2025 and then decline by 43 percent by 2030 and to net zero by 2050. Under the best of scenarios, achieving these goals is optimistic. I tend to be a pessimist on the issue of large-scale climate change, which I consider to be inevitable despite all efforts to reverse it. I believe our planet has already passed the tipping point beyond which there is no return. We thus have a duty to build with an understanding that is grounded in reality. Our way forward will be marked by a focus on flexibility, diversity, redundancy, and community and away from current trends that rely on technological fixes, unsustainable economic models of growth, and excessive globalization.

 

Notwithstanding my pessimism, I do believe it will always be in humanity’s best interest to do whatever it can to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of buildings through the entirety of their life cycles. What distresses me is seeing unmistakable evidence that many still fail to recognize the damage wrought by extravagant and unnecessary development.

Architecture is Awesome #28: Creation is a Patient Search

Notre Dame du Haut, by Le Corbusier (photo by Pino Musi, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

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.   

The moment or inspiration that ignites the design process in architecture—the creative spark—is only the beginning. It may come suddenly from a variety of sources, such as personal experiences, the site and context of the project, advances in technology, or even random thoughts. By tapping into these sources of inspiration, the best architects meet the needs of their clients and the community through designs that are thoughtful, functional, and beautiful.
 
That making architecture requires creativity is axiomatic, but the creation of architecture also demands that architects possess technical know-how, an attention to detail, problem-solving skills, the ability to communicate ideas, and a passion for the profession. Patience is another valuable trait. The process of designing and constructing a building can be lengthy, and architects must have the patience to see the project from conception through completion. Patience is also a function of time. Patience is repaid by an accumulation of life experiences and inspirations. Architects spend their entire professional careers learning, amassing an immense body of knowledge. This knowledge informs and enriches their work.  
 
The influential Swiss French architect Le Corbusier (1887-1965) memorably described creation as a “patient search.” He believed true innovation could not be rushed or forced. He maintained that a deliberate approach to the creative process was necessary, one that involved careful consideration of form as well as function, and a deep understanding of the social and cultural context in which the architect was designing. Le Corbusier wrote in a passionate and polemical style, often using metaphors and analogies to illustrate his ideas. On the matter of creativity and patience, he said:
 
“I live in an archipelago. My sea is thirty years of accumulation, variously related to intellectual and manual activities. On the ground, here and there, are groups of objects, gear, books, texts, drawings—such are my islands!” (from “Albums Nivola”)
 
The islands Le Corbusier spoke of were the inscription of his life’s experiences upon his consciousness. Placed in the “interior of memory,” they awaited concretization in the form of his buildings and art. He referred to learning as a process of “[seeing] things come to life,” and as the progressive conservation of a bank of interior memories, to be tapped later during the patient search for creativity.
 

“Totem” by Le Corbusier (1963). Painting was a source of creative inspiration for Le Corbusier throughout his life.

 
While Le Corbusier’s brilliance was evident at a young age, he evolved continuously, his work changing profoundly over the course of his long career. He learned from and built upon his previous experiences and output. Frank Lloyd Wright’s prodigious talent likewise progressed as technology and the world around him advanced by leaps and bounds. Neither great architect stood still. Each added to their bank of memories throughout their lives, drawing upon it for the creative spark most appropriate to the design problem at hand. Both understood architecture to be a beneficiary of their patience and experience.
 
Louis Kahn is a notable example of an architect who achieved success relatively late in his career. Despite working in the profession for many years, Kahn would not gain widespread recognition until he was in his 50s and 60s, when he completed a series of highly acclaimed buildings, among them the Salk Institute and the Kimbell Art Museum. Before his success, he dealt with a series of financial and personal setbacks. Despite his struggles, Kahn worked diligently to refine his notions on architecture. Ultimately, his success stemmed from ideas he formulated as a professor teaching. He found inspiration reinterpreting the fundamentals of architecture he learned during his own early studies and travels to historic sites. His personal, patient search for creativity bore its most splendid fruit when his ideas were in their most complete and mature form.
 
Creation requires dedication and perseverance. Architecture is simply not a matter of coming up with a good design concept and executing it quickly. The process is not always easy or straightforward. It requires a willingness to constantly challenge and refine one’s ideas over time. What makes a career in architecture AWESOME is that it rewards persistence and acquired experience in the pursuit of inspiration and new ideas. Learning is a constant, as are moments of frustration. Creation requires exploration, experimentation, and reflection. It truly is a patient search.   
 
Next Architecture is Awesome:  #29 Frozen Music

Hyperlocal Identity: A Strategy for Small Cities and Towns

Downtown Cottage Grove (my photo)

The appeal of life in a vibrant small city or town is clear. The slower pace, an abiding familiarity, and a homespun sense of community are among its charms. So too is an embrace of local traditions and character. We recognize that a small city or town we consider most memorable, unique, and enjoyable is often redolent of place. It is far from placeless (that feeling “there is no there, there") because it imparts a physical, emotional, and sometimes spiritual connectedness to a specific geographic area and cultural context. People who keenly understand this will do everything they can to ensure that what makes a well-loved place is enhanced, rather than diminished, by what they add to it. They capitalize upon that community’s hyperlocal identity.

I know big-city life. I was born and raised in Vancouver, British Columbia, and spent two years in Los Angeles studying and working in architecture. I have traveled to great cities around the world. I now live in mid-sized Eugene, where I thoroughly appreciate my adopted home’s blend of urban amenity and outdoor opportunities. Living here has introduced me to other communities in the southern Willamette Valley, among them Springfield, Creswell, Cottage Grove, and Pleasant Hill. These smaller cities and towns are all distinct. Each is set apart by a combination of its people, history, geography, and character. Each has a well-developed sense of place.

Built environments that exhibit a loss of place have no special relationship to where they are located—they could be anywhere. When the urban tissue is “loose” or sprawling, paths, edges, districts, and nodes lose their imageability. Unsympathetic developments fundamentally dilute the sense of place. Strip malls, big box stores, fast food outlets, and cloyingly named enclaves of speculatively built homes (with their aimlessly curved streets and cul-de-sacs) are all hallmarks of a placeless and inauthentic environment. The problem with too much of the American urban landscape is that it is so remorselessly generic and unexceptional.

Because I am an architect, my stock-in-trade is to understand the nature of a place and how to enhance its most distinctive and obliging characteristics. When planning new developments in a town or city of any size, it is important that I analyze and respond to its physical attributes, context, and opportunities. It is equally important to reveal and strengthen the spirit of the place, rather than allowing it to remain weak and undifferentiated. The stronger the hyperlocal identity is, the more likely the community will thrive and not merely survive. The future is fraught enough with change and uncertainty, so my goal is to avoid detracting from what already makes a place most unique and attractive.

The rules of the game have certainly changed in our post-pandemic world. Working from home is an attractive option for many workers, as they no longer have to live where their employers are based. Attractive smaller cities and towns stand to gain from the exodus of folks from large metro areas who struggle with high costs of living or who simply prefer a simpler lifestyle.

I do believe small cities will be more adept than large ones at developing self-reliant local economies and infrastructure systems. Dependence upon regional, national, or international resources will increasingly be unsustainable, so localizing infrastructure, diversifying community services, and increasing cooperation at the local level will be key strategies for climate adaptation and resilience. Smaller cities and towns are poised to drive the economies of the future by supporting nearby farmers, businesses, restaurants, e-commerce, and marketing, but only if they thoroughly understand themselves and their potential.

The irony of our exceedingly connected digital existence today is that many of us yearn for deep engagement with others and the real world we inhabit. The automobile-centric development patterns that predate the electronic age and persist today exacerbate our isolation and the ubiquity of placeless-ness. Preserving and augmenting a hyperlocal sense of place and identity in our smaller cities and towns is an antidote: The particularity of real places, the memories they help make or elicit, and the way they bring us together provide us with the kinds of genuine experiences we naturally crave as human beings.

What if? Part Deux

EWEB Headquarters viewed from Alton Baker Park across the Willamette River.

To my surprise, this blog’s two most recent entries on the matter of a new city hall for Eugene prompted as much feedback as any that I’ve written during the past year. Clearly, many Eugene residents want their city to be the best place it can be. Among them is Otto Poticha, FAIA, who let me know in no uncertain terms that he is disappointed with the City’s decision to purchase the former EWEB headquarters for its use as Eugene’s future City Hall. His criticism has less to do with the City buying the building than it does with what he considers will be a misuse of the property. Indeed, he supports the City’s purchase but believes a consolidated City Hall on the site will not cure what is ailing downtown and will in fact hasten its demise.

Otto and a like-minded, influential group of fellow citizens would like the City to reconsider how it proposes to use the EWEB building. Rather than exclusively repurposing it as the new City Hall, they imagine it as the core of a municipal cultural center, something many communities across the country have but Eugene lacks. Among the potential uses the Community Cultural Center Complex Group identified are a public art gallery, a “Rivers Museum,” a relocated Eugene Science Center, a national “Hippie Hall of Fame,” a childcare center, and ceremonial spaces for community use. Preceding the City’s decision to buy the property, the Cultural Center Complex Group did ask the EWEB board of directors to take the headquarters building off the market pending an opportunity to conduct a feasibility study. Instead, the board opted to proceed in discussions with the City regarding the latter's renewed interest in moving city hall functions into the building.

Otto laments what with hindsight we may all regard as yet another lost opportunity. He is frustrated by the City of Eugene’s tendency to set high goals and then reactively settle for the expedient solution. He finds no small amount of irony in the current Downtown Priorities & Projects effort given the prospect of 200 city employees vacating 100,000 square feet of downtown office space, abandoning downtown, and relocating to the riverfront.

I’ve already accepted the prospect and implications of a new City Hall on the river. As I wrote last week, downtown Eugene is destined to become something different from what many, including the City of Eugene itself, hoped it would be. Downtown transformation, rather than restoration or rejuvenation, is now the order of the day.

Below is a letter Otto recently penned (here in lightly edited form) and delivered to City officials. It is his late game “what if” plea to them to consider an alternative future for the former EWEB headquarters before its destiny as the new City Hall is cast in stone. I present it here for your consideration and welcome your continued feedback on a topic that should be of interest to everyone who lives here.    

January 20, 2023

Eugene Mayor, Council and Manager

RE: Proposed purchase of the former EWEB Administrative Site and Building.

This week I was informed that EWEB selected the City of Eugene as the purchaser and developer of their former administrative building and adjacent site. There is no question the Public must own and maintain control of this important building and site. These elements provide and can energize the needed connection with the river and the new Riverfront Park development. This is especially important since the adjacent housing developer has eliminated all commercial and retail uses except for one restaurant site from their proposal.

The recently formed Community Cultural Center Complex Group also submitted a purchase proposal. This proposal was a vision to provide needed cultural and educational support spaces for the community and region. This proposal would provide the community with a seven-day-a-week open and assessable facility that would provide real draw, support, and connection to the river and a reason to want to go there. It would also provide support to the adjacent uses and for the adjacent housing developer.

It was a surprise—knowing and participating in the history of the City Hall at EWEB idea, plus current discussions with the mayor and city manager—that the City made an offer to develop and to locate the City Hall on that site. The city council and mayor have publicly stated their community interest in the EWEB site but stated that it would not be used for the new City Hall. The City did commission an economic and feasibility study for that use. This study included very responsible public building criteria. The study proved that, using the stated criteria, the renovation of the building was not feasible. Just moving into this building with minimum repair is not a responsible solution. Leadership certainly has changed.

The City’s new City Hall purchase proposal, with little or no community interchange, suggests several questions for our leadership, some of which are listed within this letter.

The following is to note my and many other’s concerns in this recent proposal.

The citizens of Eugene and the council spent years and resources finally deciding that this [the EWEB building] is a very poor City Hall choice or solution. The City already purchased land and funded major architecture and planning efforts concluding that the City Hall should be located on the Park Blocks—aka Town Square or Government Square—in the area we call “Downtown.”

The Mayor and Council have publicly stated that City Hall must be located downtown as the necessary support and reinforcement for a rejuvenated downtown for Eugene.

The noted “consolidated City Hall” is very important and has previously been discussed. With the current and fragile nature of downtown, evacuating approximately 75-100,000 Sq. Ft. of occupied space will have serious repercussions for the current building owners and service support tenants. Increased density, careful planning and cooperation between the current and future landowners can provide those solutions. That assumes we really want to keep and support downtown in its current location. A location that is served with infrastructure adequate for much more density. Perhaps the community now considers downtown to be the 5th St. area or the Oakway Center?

We need solutions and land uses on this EWEB site the community will engage with and a connection with and to the river. Suggesting a large parking lot and/or a parking structure adjacent to the river is very shortsighted and should be discouraged. Parking must be integrated and not separated like suburban planning.

The site and building must be more than an expedient solution and a way to occupy an abandoned site. Master planning is responsible and necessary to generate a vision and should occur before a final purchase. Finding that vision and then exploring the means to augment that vision should be the process, especially in this case. Finding single-purpose solutions is not responsible planning.

• Have the Mayor and Council been involved and offered input on this new proposed purchase plan? 
• Has the City master planned, studied or tested the possible uses and connections with the adjacent developed and undeveloped parcels and how will the City’s proposed uses resolve the housing developer’s eliminated retail and commercial uses from what was in their initial proposals?
• Have the councilors seen a vision that achieves and reinforces the community’s aspirations, needs and connections?
• If the City Hall proposal doesn’t pass community support would the City purchase the building and join others to implement a refined EWEB proposal from the Community Cultural Center Complex Group?

If this transaction does occur and If the City would entertain using portions of the building and adjacent sites for the City Hall and other cultural 7-day-a-week community uses, I hope that we, the recently formed Community Cultural Center Complex Group, can form a partnership with the City and be involved in the planning and development. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity, not to be missed.

We request a meeting where we can discuss this proposed purchase, vision, and the ingredients to form and refine a master planning study. We need to explore and discuss the City’s willingness for a partnership that will benefit the community and the region. This opportunity and our combined energy and resources will provide the ingredients to make it work, gain community support, and be successful.

I and the community await your responses to these questions and expect contact before finalizing this purchase.

Sincerely,

Otto P. Poticha FAIA