The Need for Visionary Thinking

The City of Eugene mailed a multi-page brochure regarding the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project to neighbors this past February. While the brochure did a good job of providing a basic project overview, a description of its funding, and the anticipated construction timeline, it was what it did not address that concerns Otto Poticha, FAIA. The elephant in the room (or perhaps rather, not in the room) is what he perceives as another example of the City’s failure to prioritize visionary thinking in its planning processes.
 
Otto sent the following missive to Eugene’s city councilors and the city’s Public Works Department director (Matt Rodriguez) a few weeks ago following publication of the project update:
 
“This is a very important project for our city. The presented scheme is typical public works engineering and is not DESIGN; it is engineering. Have any of the special nature or special experiences within this corridor been included? One’s experience and the special qualities of being in this major urban space, even in a vehicle, have not been explored nor presented. This public works engineered solution could be dropped into any city and probably has. Engineering is an essential ingredient in any design but tends to be quantitative or measurable. A design must pair the experiences of being and using the space to be a ‘design.’
 
The presented design narrative has a paragraph called ‘placemaking,’ but this important criterion is not evident nor discussed. History says that these important elements are used to sell the plan and never considered or included. 

• Where are the principles or processes to incorporate these elements?
• How does this design recognize and provide for ‘placemaking?’
• How Is this a major introduction, statement, and entrance to our city?
• How can Judkins Point and other adjacent elements play a role as a part of this entrance?
• Should this corridor still use the term ‘boulevard’ understanding the definition of that term? (It takes more than landscaping or plant masking to be a boulevard). Boulevards are like parks or park-like corridors and should be a special place. A place one wants to occupy and use differently than a street with landscaping.
• How does this ‘design’ accommodate and promote or engage the pedestrian or bicycle users? How does this design provide a way for them to interact with the adjacent commercial uses? Do they get more than an elevated crosswalk and a painted line to designate their space?
• How does this become a real connection with the adjacent neighborhoods and downtown providing experiences and support for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and vehicle users during their journey?
• What and where is the ‘street furniture’ (lighting, benches, graphics, signals, signage, and utilities) being incorporated into this design?
• Does this design recognize or support that there is the entrance to a major university along this corridor?
• What materials and textures provide the community’s statement and define the scale and nature of this functional space?

There are more questions to be asked, many more than ‘how do we move vehicular traffic safely’ that must be expressed in this design.

I encourage the Council to delay approval until a comprehensive design is presented with a set of principles and a process developed. This project is much more than a public works street project and might even set an example of how our city could design most of our city’s public spaces and streets.”
 
Not eliciting the response he hoped for, Otto subsequently reached out to me to express his frustration, once again lamenting what he regards as the apparent inability of city leaders to understand what fully considered design solutions and real placemaking entail.
 
To a point, I do share Otto’s disillusionment. That said, if there is a fundamental problem with how the City plans and implements major public works projects, it is not due to the earnest efforts of the city administration and staff. Instead, the problem(s) may be one inherent in the structure of local governments everywhere, specifically their traditional segregation of functions into discrete silos of responsibilities. In the case of the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project, this may be an instance wherein the well-intentioned priorities of the Public Works Transportation Planning team are taking precedence over other imperatives.
 
By no means am I fully informed about the extent to which the City has addressed the complete range of considerations associated with the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project. Nonetheless, I do wonder whether the design concept the City is advancing does mesh with the S-SW Walnut Station Special Area Zone development standards (which incorporate a form-based code) and the expressed goals of the Walnut Station Specific Area Plan, which focuses on the shaping of the public realm.
 
Specifically, the images included with the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project update do not appear to depict the multiway boulevard configuration described by the Walnut Station Specific Area Plan. The multiway boulevard concept would separate through-traffic along Franklin from the adjacent land uses through the construction of planted medians, local access lanes, and on-street parking serving those uses. The concept supports the full range of transportation options and users of the street system.
 
While the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project update touts improving safety, encouraging density and development, and fully supporting multimodal transportation options, like Otto I don’t find detailed evidence in the design now moving forward about how these goals will be achieved. Notably, the 2024 project update and web page fail to refer to the Walnut Station Specific Area Plan. This telling omission speaks to my overarching concern regarding compartmentalized thinking in the City’s planning processes, and possibly reflects partial abandonment of some of the Walnut Station Specific Area Plan's guidelines. I welcome correction of any of my assumptions that are in error. 
 

Rendering of the proposed Walnut Station roundabout from last year's (2023) project report.

Rendering of a multiway boulevard per the 2010 Walnut Station Special Area Plan. Note the separated local access lane and on-street parking, which are not evident in the Walnut Station roundabout rendering above.

It’s important that we heed Otto’s plea for the fundamental consideration of placemaking principles in the future design of the Franklin Boulevard corridor.  The project certainly should address its role as a major entrance to the city, acknowledge landmark elements (such as Judkins Point, Matthew Knight Arena, and the Romania Building), emphasize the incorporation of vibrant, pedestrian-oriented elements, all while promoting engagement with adjacent commercial uses. Whether it will or not deserves our attention.
 
Otto will be an advocate for bold thinking until the day he dies. He has always wanted Eugene to be the best it can be, but he is growing weary of being a lone voice holding the community accountable for ambitious plans that enhance its livability and aesthetic appeal. The least we can do is to support his advocacy for visionary and holistic design approaches that transcend the limitations of narrowly focused and discipline-constrained problem solving.

Citizen Architect

 

The well-attended March meeting of the Eugene Section of AIA Oregon took place last Wednesday at the Ninkasi Better Living Room. The intriguing subject of the meeting was what it means to be a model “Citizen Architect.”

Simply put, the notion of the Citizen Architect relates to design professionals who engage in civic endeavors, contributing their insights, talents, and experiences towards the betterment of society. Citizen Architects regard architecture not merely as a vocation but as a conduit for social progress, leveraging their skills to address pressing issues affecting the profession and more broadly the communities of which they are a part.

Central to the spirit of the Citizen Architect is a dedication to civic activism and advocacy. Architects possess specialized knowledge of the built environment's impact on society, and thus are uniquely positioned to advocate for policies addressing urgent issues impacting everyone. Local engagement additionally serves as a cornerstone of the Citizen Architect's mission. By interfacing with grassroots organizations, attending town hall meetings, and collaborating with local stakeholders, architects forge connections that underpin community-driven development initiatives. They harness their collective influence to shape legislative agendas and advocate for policies conducive to sustainable urban growth.

The meeting featured speakers who collectively described some of the paths architects can follow toward fulfilling the role of a Citizen Architect:

AIA Oregon Leadership Summit

The Eugene Section’s representative on AIA Oregon’s Emerging Professional Committee is my colleague at Robertson/Sherwood/Architects, John Webster, AIA. John described the February 21 Oregon Leadership Summit at the State Capitol in Salem, which featured the opportunity for the 15-20 young professionals who attended to learn firsthand about how the legislative process, public policy, and governance impact the work of architects. The event also provided them with an opportunity to meet with the AIA Oregon Legislative Affairs Committee, various state representatives, and the Oregon State Board of Architect Examiners (OSBAE).

John regarded the Summit as an excellent introduction for the attendees to the responsibilities of a “Citizen Architect.” Learning how to become effective voices for the profession is a critical aspect of leadership and advocacy. Seeking change when laws or policies are contrary to the best interests of our communities or the architectural profession often means being an advocate in public spaces, a useful lesson for every emerging professional.  

Oregon House of Representatives (photo by Cacophony, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

The 2024 Oregon Legislative Session

As I mentioned above, helping to shape legislative agendas is a central function of a Citizen Architect. AIA Oregon has provided the structure and support for its members on matters of public policy, both at the State and Federal levels.

Cindy Robert, AIA Oregon’s lobbyist since 2000, reported on the outcomes of the recently adjourned 2024 Legislative Session impacting the architectural profession. Cindy said the legislators only passed 100 of 300 bills introduced, but many of those which became law portend “monumental changes” for Oregon architects. Chief among these changes are the Governor’s Housing Bill & Funding Package (allocating $376 million in funding for housing initiatives across the state), the creation of a new Housing Accountability & Production Office, a directive for the Department of Land Conservation and Development to create model ordinances that provide clear and objective standards for the development of various housing types, and the barring of design professional “duty to defend” provisions in construction contracts.

The passage of the “duty to defend” legislation (SB 1575A) is particularly welcome and overdue. I’ve seen too many public agencies throughout Oregon include contractual clauses that require architects to defend those agencies in the event of legal claims for damages even though the design professional is not responsible for them. The “duty to defend” language is legally problematic, expensive, and uninsurable by professional liability carriers. The fact such clauses became ubiquitous may in part be a consequence of many architects failing to understand their implications, or simply missing the “fine print” altogether. The new legislation will ensure fairness for architects and engineers in the public contracting process by requiring each party to a construction contract to be responsible for their own negligence or fault. This means parties will pay damages based on actual liability, rather than alleged liability once that responsibility is determined.

Mentor Madness

The definition of a Citizen Architect can also include the duty to mentor the future generation of design professionals. Evon Calabrese, Assoc. AIA and Nicole Becker, AIA, introduced Mentor Madness, which will be a fast-paced four-week program offering group and one-on-one mentorship sessions. The sessions will match experienced professionals looking to share their wisdom with aspiring architects-to-be.

Evon and Nicole, both emerging professionals themselves, organized Mentor Madness particularly for those new to the Oregon architecture community. In addition to a series of virtual meetings, the coming Oregon Design Conference will serve as a program venue. The conference (May 8-10 in Bend) will host related presentations, including an overview of the AIA and the pathways to getting involved at the chapter and national levels, an introduction to allied professional organizations, and what it means to be a Citizen Architect. Acceptance into the Mentor Madness program includes registration to the Oregon Design Conference and a $300 travel stipend. The AIA College of Fellows provided the funding necessary to make the program possible.

Unfortunately, the deadline for both mentor and mentee applications is tomorrow (Monday, March 25); I’m late in reporting about the Mentor Madness program. Act quickly if you’re interested. I expect the program may become a fixture on the AIA Oregon calendar in future years, so future opportunities to participate will undoubtedly exist.

The Architect as Mayor

Kaarin Knudson, AIA is currently one of three candidates running for mayor of Eugene. I’ve already endorsed Kaarin’s candidacy. She is nothing but the epitome of a Citizen Architect. As I first wrote last September, Kaarin brings a fresh perspective to local politics, one that combines her experience as an architect, urban designer, university educator, and community leader. She addressed the value of that perspective during her presentation and the subsequent question & answer period.

In some respects, it’s curious more architects have not taken this step. Architects do possess political agency by virtue of their training and the nature of their work, which is inherently public. I believe design excellence as a civic imperative should be a precondition for holding political office at the local level. Thomas Jefferson’s dictum that “design activity and political thought are indivisible” comes to mind here. By their nature, architects are adept at solving complex problems through design, leading project stakeholders as well as the communities they serve toward better futures.

Effective leadership from the mayor’s chair can result in constructive and responsible change. This is even true here in Eugene, which operates under the council-manager form of government. The mayor’s influence is limited or “weak” in such a system. Regardless, the mayor of Eugene can exercise leadership to build a constituency for design excellence and influence the community to confront its adaptive challenges—those gaps between a citizenry’s values and the current reality that cannot be closed by routine behavior.

I believe Kaarin has the acumen, collaborative mindset, and most importantly the vision to be the persuasive leader Eugene needs. She is most worthy of your support. Ballots for the primary election are due on May 21.   

*    *    *    *    *    *

I cannot claim the mantle of “Citizen Architect” to the extent that those who have worked tirelessly over many years on behalf of their clients, friends, neighbors, and fellow design professionals can. Yes, I did my part during my 2008-2009 stint on the AIA Oregon board, traveling to Salem and Washington D.C. to advocate for sound public policies that support livable, sustainable communities. Since then, my contributions have mostly been limited to attending public meetings and directly participating in public workshops associated with issues related to urban design, the housing affordability crisis, and the like. If anything, perhaps this blog fulfills my obligation to be a Citizen Architect, as I have used it as a public platform upon which to advocate on behalf of the broader purposes of architecture.

The Citizen Architect paradigm epitomizes the convergence of professional expertise and civic responsibility, serving as a catalyst for transformative change in the built environment. Through advocacy, activism, and community engagement, architects leverage their talents to address societal challenges, advance public welfare, and nurture inclusive, sustainable communities. As stewards of the built environment, Citizen Architects embody the ethos of service, stewardship, and social progress, shaping a more equitable and resilient future for future generations.

Eugene/Architecture/Alphabet: R

 

Romania Building, Franklin Boulevard side (my photo)

This is the next in my Eugene/Architecture/Alphabet series of blog posts, the focus of each being a landmark building here in Eugene. Many of these will be familiar to most who live here but there are likely to be a few buildings that are less so. My selection criteria for each will be threefold:

1. The building must be of architectural interest, local importance, or historically significant.
2. The building must be extant so you or I can visit it in person.
3. Each building’s name will begin with a particular letter of the alphabet, and I must select one (and only one) for each of the twenty-six letters. This is easier said than done for some letters, whereas for other characters there is a surfeit of worthy candidates (so I’ll be discriminating and explain my choice in those instances).

This entry’s selection begins with the letter R, for which my choice is the Romania Building.
 
Romania Building
The Romania Building at 2020 Franklin Boulevard is perhaps Eugene’s best-known (if not best-preserved) example of 1950s-style “Googie” architecture. Its elliptical plan, sweeping “potato chip” roof, and once expansive glass walls are characteristic of the futuristic Googie designs—many of which employed gravity-defying cantilevers, bold geometric shapes, and vibrant colors—that exuberantly celebrated the car-centric culture of the era. Located as it was and is at the east end of Franklin Boulevard, the building functioned as a gateway and symbol of the city’s rapidly expanding transportation infrastructure and commercial development upon its opening in 1960. Though its original dynamism is a thing of the past, current plans promise new life for the forlorn structure.
 
The firm of Balzhiser, Seder, and Rhodes designed the showroom, initially for the Lew Williams Chevrolet dealership. The late Grant Seder served as the building’s principal designer. Grant intended its curved form to be reminiscent of the energy of automobiles in motion, rather than as Eugene’s own faddish take on the Googie style. The design team considered various structural solutions (including a tension structure suspended from a perimeter compression ring), ultimately settling upon a relatively conventional and economical system that nevertheless managed to realize the striking aesthetic they wished for.

Photo from the National Register of Historic Places (https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalregister/6035198053/in/photostream/Lew Williams Chevrolet Dealership | Eugene, Lane County, OR … | Flickr)

Lew Williams sold the business to Joe Romania in 1969 (Joe was general manager of the dealership under Lew). What grew to become the Romania group of car dealerships was a force on the local scene when I first arrived in Eugene in 1980, and it remained so up until the time the Romania family sold the land and buildings its Chevrolet dealership occupied to the University of Oregon in 2005. Since purchasing the strategically important location, the university repurposed the 4.0-acre site for storage and parking use, with the former showroom serving for a while as studio space for its Product Design program.

 

Romania Building, east end (my photo)

As of 2011, the showroom has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. According to the listing, the display pavilion “served to attract customers driving along Franklin Boulevard with its modern, futuristic, and aerodynamic design.” Notably, the dealership was the first to be situated outside of Eugene’s downtown core, which no longer can boast any such businesses.
 
An interesting tidbit I wasn’t familiar with is that the showroom was an addition to a former Coca Cola bottling plant, as opposed to the facility entirely being purpose-built as an automobile dealership. As the NHRP listing details, Lew Williams converted the bottling plant into the dealership’s service center, later adding a paint shop, body shop, and collision repair center office in quick succession to the building. So adaptive reuse is part of the dealership’s history, and as I will address next, will be part of its future as well.
 
The UO solicited proposals from developers in 2019 for exploration of a potential public/private ground lease arrangement that would include, among many other features, the preservation of the historical integrity and Googie style of the former dealership showroom commensurate with its placement on the NRHP. The goal was to strike a balance between honoring its past and embracing future opportunities for growth.
 
The university selected the proposal presented by Project^, a Portland-based developer whose Eugene portfolio includes the nearby Skybox, Courtside, and K14 student apartment buildings. The proposal for the Romania site by Project^ aims to retain the iconic features of the Romania Building while revitalizing the surrounding area. As a development partner, the UO would lease the land to Project^. The university’s continued involvement would underscore its commitment to enhancing the campus and its neighboring communities. In this scenario, the Romania Building holds immense potential as a catalyst for the property’s transformative change. By preserving its architectural heritage and integrating it into a modern urban development, we would be able to celebrate the Romania Building’s past while embracing the future.
 

Redevelopment proposal by Project^.

I believe the Project^ proposal for the Romania site is proceeding (someone correct me if I’m mistaken, and it is instead stillborn). The rendering shown here hints at its large scope, which will entail a mixed-use development, the centerpiece of which will be the former automobile display pavilion, returned to its former glory, perhaps functioning as a restaurant. If the entire plan is realized, the project will be the type of neighborhood node improvement called for by the City of Eugene’s Walnut Station Specific Area Plan.
 
Safeguarding the Romania Building’s historical significance while embracing an opportunity for sustainable growth and development makes sense, so I’m hopeful the University of Oregon’s partnership with Project^ will move forward along the lines of the vision presented. This community hasn’t been the best when it comes to preserving its architectural heritage. With luck, the Romania Building will be fully restored and again be the captivating presence along Franklin Boulevard it once was.

Complicity and Conviction: Steps toward an Architecture of Convention

I dusted off one of the old books from my collection this weekend. I originally found Complicity and Conviction: Steps toward an Architecture of Convention by retired architect and M.I.T. professor William Hubbard a challenge to read. By the time I purchased it in 1981, both Charles W. Moore and Bill Kleinsasser, among others, had lauded Complicity and Conviction. Charles regarded it as “the most illuminating and convincing description of what architecture is really about,” while Bill directly excerpted quotes for inclusion in his textbook SYNTHESIS. So, I was determined to give it another go, but I immediately struggled with it again.

If I understand Hubbard’s thesis correctly, Complicity and Conviction was his critique of contemporary architecture at the height of the 1970s-1980s modernism vs. post-modernism debate. Specifically, he perceived a failure of nerve within both ideologies, which imposed restrictive forms on individuals, ones shaped by extra-personal forces rather than evolving from human volition. According to Hubbard, this imposition not only threatened the creative essence of architecture but also the embodiment of essential human values in built structures.

The book’s central argument revolved around the need to rescue architecture from this failure of nerve stemming from the detachment between architectural form and human values. Hubbard proposed applying the notion of conventions to architecture, positioning them not as mindless habits but as pragmatic tools for giving concrete form to shared human values.

He explored three systems of conventions—games, typography, and the law—to illustrate how structured rules and conventions can embody human values. Despite the potential for these conventions to be different, Hubbard argued that society willingly accepts and gives complicity to them, convinced of their rightness. He extended these principles to propose strategies for producing architecture that actively engages with and reflects human concerns.

The Lawn, University of Virginia (photo by Phil Roeder, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

Kresge College (photo by Ponderosapine210, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

To illustrate his point, Hubbard presented two building projects he considered successful: Thomas Jefferson's Lawn at the University of Virginia and Kresge College at the University of California at Santa Cruz by MLTW. Hubbard presented the two as tangible examples of how architecture can embody convention as a design strategy. Specifically, he analyzed how both share characteristics that embody  ideals, build upon an esteem for past works and conventions, and widen the range of ways we experience built forms.

The book’s closing chapter analyzed additional projects by renowned contemporary architects (among them Robert Venturi, Philip Johnson, Michael Graves, Richard Meier, and Peter Eisenman) revealing specific ways in which Hubbard believed their work both supported and challenged prevailing convictions about architecture.

The interdisciplinary approach of Complicity and Conviction, drawing inspiration from unconventional sources like scenographic architecture, typography, games, and laws, did nothing if not underscore the complexity of Hubbard's argument. For example, his correlation of the convention of games with architecture, emphasizing unconscious patterns in how individuals navigate built environments, was a useful and creative means to support his primary tenet.

A reason why I continue to find Complicity and Conviction challenging to read was Hubbard’s tendency toward labyrinthine prose and profound convolution; here’s a case in point:

“But in order to use buildings in this way we must open up our attitudes about unconsciously enacted patterns. We must avoid both the putatively humanistic attitude that confers esteem upon any pattern that results from human action, as well as the seemingly scientific attitude that denies the worth of any pattern that is other than the one consciously intended by the actor. For when we make such blanket judgments beforehand, we abdicate our freedom by surrendering our capacity to make decisions to a standard outside the direct control of our will. What we want is the ability to stand as free critics of our own actions, to judge our own actions on the basis of our reaction to the consequences those actions are likely to produce. To do that, we need to know the unseen connections between what we do and what eventually happens. To disclose those unseen connections is, I think, the proper role of analysis. Analysis ought to arm us with that knowledge so that we can decide which of our actions we want to keep up, which we want to stop, even which ones we might want to adopt from other circumstances. But what standard of judgment can we use to make such decisions? Quite apart from finding a standard we can agree upon, what standard of judgment could avoid that surrender of the other, “beforehand” standards?”

You get the picture.

Complicity and Conviction is a difficult read, but it offers rewards to those who are willing to invest the necessary time and effort. It most definitely demanded my careful attention and multiple readings to fully grasp. Would I prefer that Hubbard’s writing style was simpler and more accessible? Yes, but perhaps having to actively participate in the process of understanding and interpreting the text was the point. Perhaps Hubbard wanted his readers to engage more thoroughly, rather than compromising the depth of his philosophical exploration.

On balance, Complicity and Conviction is a significant work because at the time of its publishing it did help prompt a reconsideration of the intersection between architectural ideologies and human values. Hubbard's dispassionate analysis of modernism and postmodernism's impact on architecture served as a valuable contribution to the ongoing discourse in the field. The book's exploration of unconventional perspectives, coupled with an emphasis on the influence of external domains, positioned it as a thought-provoking work within the realm of architectural criticism and theory.

Urban Growth Strategies: Homes & Jobs for 2045

I participated this past Thursday in the kickoff meeting for the City of Eugene’s Urban Growth Strategies project. The goal of the project is to identify the essential tools, actions, policies, and land required over the next two decades to support housing and living wage jobs in our community. Given the number of ongoing projects related to housing and economic development, City staff reached out to a broad list of housing and development experts, employers, and business owners to help inform the Urban Growth Strategies project’s priorities and outcomes. They saw fit to include me among those they invited to be a member of the project’s Housing and Development Working Group.

Our homes are essential for providing us with shelter, safety, gathering, and comfort. They are the foundation upon which any stable, livable community is built. As we know all too well, securing affordable housing in Eugene has become progressively challenging. The simple fact is an insufficient number of new homes have been added to Eugene’s residential stock in recent decades, which in turn has spurred a crisis of affordability. A comprehensive understanding of the problem is essential, and in turn the crafting of efficient strategies and policies that will optimize land use and address the desperate need for more and diverse types of housing.

The kickoff meeting introduced the Urban Growth Strategies project and its components. The meeting included the presentation of some eye-opening data regarding housing needs and the barriers to the provision of affordable housing in Eugene and Lane County.(1) Additionally, we reviewed the various statewide mandates related to urban growth, as well as recent policy work directed by the City Council.

Beth Goodman of ECOnorthwest explains the City's role in housing development.

The State of Oregon requires municipalities to provide enough buildable land within their urban growth boundaries to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. Moreover, House Bill 2003 requires cities with populations greater than 10,000 to update their housing needs and capacity analysis every eight years, while HB 2001, known as the Oregon Housing Needs Analysis (OHNA), directed the Department of Land Conservation and Development to implement rules to increase housing production, affordability, and choice. On top of this, the Department established the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Program, which requires Oregon cities to comply with requirements for the establishment of compact, walkable development standards.   

Crucial to the Urban Growth Strategies project is an evaluation of whether Eugene's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) will require expansion to meet land needs over the next two decades. The City’s technical analysis will provide insights into the current adequacy of land within the UGB and explore additional tools to address any unmet land needs. The project will help identify a supply of land for residential use for the next twenty years by integrating housing capacity analyses, residential efficiency measures, and the current inventory of buildable lands. Importantly, it will also help establish a 20-year supply of land for non-residential use, incorporating data from an economic opportunities analysis, employment efficiency measures, and urban land needs.

Each Oregon municipality has its own unique challenges when it comes to the provision of an adequate inventory of affordable housing. These include constraints on how accessible federal funding is, infrastructure and site development needs, the lack of development-ready tracts, neighborhood resistance and the threat of delayed processes and appeals, and of course national market factors (high costs for labor, land, materials, and financing). The City of Eugene’s role in housing development is restricted to public policy matters related to the use of land and infrastructure, as its influence on market feasibility is limited. Nevertheless, the development of favorable city policies is crucial to helping address the housing crisis.

The desired policy outcome is revisions to the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan (EECP) and draft amendments to the Eugene Code, including creation of new parcel-specific land use designation maps and new chapters dedicated to housing, compact development & urban design, community health, and community engagement. The revisions to the plan—that the Working Group will influence—will provide Eugene with a roadmap toward market stability and long-term systemic change.

I found the kickoff meeting encouraging. In addition to the valuable background information that provided me with a much-needed contextual understanding, the opportunity to discuss current barriers to housing production in breakout groups was very welcome. How can the City support production of more housing affordable to households with incomes at 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or below? What about incomes in the 60%-120% range?

Two connected Point Access Blocks, showing unit diversity and typical vertical circulation. Source: Point-access block policy brief by Michael Eliason (Larch-Lab-PAB_Policy-Brief.pdf )

I am by no means an expert on affordable housing, but from my perspective as an architect, I see the building typology limitations baked into the current version of the International Building Code as a significant barrier to the production of more and varied types of housing. Specifically, the code does not allow multi-story “point access blocks” of more than three stories in height. Taller point-access block buildings—such as those up to six stories in height now allowed by the City of Seattle in its modified version of the IBC—are organized as compact plans around a single stairway and elevator core, as opposed to the dual-stairway and double-loaded corridor layouts typical of all new multifamily developments in Eugene. The benefits of point-block developments include the fact that they minimize the need for parcel assemblage, a process which increases costs and the time of development.(2) Whether the City of Eugene (or the State of Oregon) will implement similar code revisions to those adopted by Seattle remains to be seen, but doing so would undoubtedly improve the odds of meeting the housing affordability challenge.   

I plan to attend the full series of Housing and Development Working Group meetings. Future events will address gaps in existing housing policies, discuss potential strategies for housing production, and review draft revisions to the EECP. By prioritizing community input, technical analysis, and policy integration, the Urban Growth Strategies project aspires to shape a future for Eugene that is not only resilient but also responsive to the diverse needs of its residents. For your own opportunities to engage and contribute to this transformative endeavor, be sure to follow the project on Engage Eugene.

(1)    Among the more shocking statistics are that at 60% of the AMI ($53,460 per year), a family in Eugene can afford a monthly rent of only $1,340 or a home priced in the $134,000 to $160,000 range; however, the average monthly rent is $1,829 and the median home sale price is $479,500. Even households at 120% of the AMI are priced out of the Eugene market. The source for these figures is the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and are correct as of December 2023. 

(2)    Michael Eliason, an architect and urbanist based in Seattle, is the leading evangelist for and proponent of point-block housing in the U.S. In recent years, he has written extensively on the topic, as well as penning pointed critiques about the current state of multifamily housing development in North America. In response to a piece I wrote a few years back regarding 5-over-1 construction, he unleashed a flurry of tweets on Twitter (now “X”).