Crafting Community Through Art

Lane Community College Health Professions Building nearing completion. The violet-blue stucco panels are where the intended murals will be located.

It is my privilege to be a member of the selection jury tasked with identifying the artist or team of artists who will create large-scale murals for the new Lane Community College Health Professions Building (HPB). The selection process, now underway, is both exhilarating and challenging. Fundamentally, the process for selecting the right muralist(s) for the building is about choosing work that will resonate with both the college and the greater community, tell a story, and enhance the campus in a meaningful way.

The 11-member jury includes representatives from the Health Professions Division, the Visual Arts Department, the Performing Arts Department, and the Facilities Management & Planning office, bringing together a wealth of perspectives to the table.

For my part, as the project manager for the building’s design team I will help ensure the architectural concept is fully realized. From the very beginning, the incorporation of large murals has been central to our design—integrated art that is both site-specific and holistic. Particularly for the exterior installations, which will be up to 30 feet tall, we envision work that will captivate viewers from a distance (such as drivers on 30th Avenue) and invite closer inspection. We want the future murals to serve both spatial and symbolic roles, inseparable from the building’s architecture and drawing people into their narrative. Unlike "plop art," which is often autonomous and detached from its surroundings, the murals will be conceived for, dependent upon, and inseparable from the building and its context. They will engage viewers, drawing them into the building's spatial narrative and creating a dialogue between the artwork and the architecture. The murals will be essential components of the building and a vital part of the structure’s identity.

Rendering of the building depicting the concept of mural art in the north portico.

The call for applications, detailing a $110,000 budget inclusive of all costs, emphasized the need for unity, a sense of welcome to the campus, and a representation of diversity, equity, and inclusion. These criteria ensure that the selected murals will not only beautify the HPB but also embody the values of Lane Community College.

The jury’s task began with a flood of creativity: 139 artists (or teams of artists) submitted portfolios through the art call management tool, CaFÉ. Despite its occasional clunkiness, CaFÉ is invaluable for its consistency and fairness, ensuring that every artist has an equal opportunity to present their work and that our reviews are standardized.

One of the most rewarding aspects of this process has been seeing the diversity and quality of the submitted portfolios. Each is a window into an artist’s world, showcasing their unique style, vision, and interpretation of what the murals could bring to the LCC campus. The initial review stage, in which we scored each submission with a simple “yes,” “no,” or “maybe,” allowed us to sift through this vast array of talent and creativity. Each "yes" or "maybe" represents a piece of art that could potentially transform the building and impact the community.

Examples from the submitted artists' portfolios:

As of this writing, we have successfully winnowed down the number of candidates from 139 to twenty-two. Discriminating between higher and lower-ranked submissions among the semi-finalists will require plenty of deliberation. The subjective nature of art means that what resonates with me might not with my fellow jurors. This is where the scoring system, now ranging from one to seven (seven being the most preferred), comes into play. While it will help in quantifying our preferences, it will also bring to light the nuanced differences in our perceptions and priorities.

We are meeting again next week to further reduce the list to three or four finalists, who we will then ask to present site-specific design proposals. This next phase is particularly exciting because it will involve seeing the artists’ visions come to life in the context of our building’s design. To support this, LCC will provide stipends to the shortlisted candidates, recognizing the time and effort required to develop their concepts. Our schedule will require delivery of the finalists’ proposals for our review sometime in September. If all goes to plan, the installation of the murals will occur a year from now during the 2025 summer break.

The final choice of the project’s muralist(s) will be a culmination of thorough review and collective deliberation. Personally, I find it incredibly rewarding to further contribute to a project that will leave a lasting mark on the LCC campus and beyond to the broader community. The murals that will eventually grace the HPB will be a testament to the diverse voices and visions that came together to make the building possible.

The goal of LCC’s public art selection process has been clear from the get-go: to use a credible methodology that emphasizes inclusion, community development, and consensus building. This is not just about choosing a muralist; it’s about engaging the community in a meaningful dialogue about art and its role in public spaces. It is a journey of discovery, collaboration, and celebration. It’s about finding art that will not only enhance the Health Professions Building but also enrich the lives of those who encounter it. As a member of the jury, I’m proud to be part of this journey.

Sweets Catalog

 

While cleaning out my office space at Robertson/Sherwood/Architects, I came across a well-preserved first edition of the Sweets Catalog. Comprised of a single, albeit hefty, volume, the Architectural Record Co. published the inaugural release of the catalog in 1906. My guess is the RSA copy is a reprint, though I could not find evidence within its covers that it is; if it is part of the original printing, that is remarkable. Discovering it prompted me to reflect on the evolution of construction practices and the enduring legacy of industry standards.
 
For more than a century, the print edition of the Sweets Catalog was a construction industry staple, providing architects, engineers, and contractors with comprehensive information on building products and materials. Its original aim was to centralize product details and serve as a critical industry resource. Beyond its role as a product directory, the Sweets Catalog facilitated direct communication between manufacturers and professionals, supporting informed decision-making. Editorial content provided additional insights into industry trends, technological advancements, and regulatory changes, enriching its utility beyond mere listings.
 

The "List of Classifications" in the 1906 version of the Sweets Catalog.

Crucially, the catalog would eventually adopt the Construction Specifications Institute’s MasterFormat standard to streamline product classification and enhance usability across construction documentation. Before MasterFormat, products were categorized broadly by function, lacking the structured clarity that later defined its organization.
 
By the time of its acquisition by McGraw-Hill Construction in 1998, the Sweets Catalog had expanded significantly, comprising 22 volumes totaling more than 5,000 pages. This growth reflected advancements in building materials and technologies, ensuring each edition included the latest innovations. The growth of the Sweets Catalog mirrored the broader expansion of the construction industry itself—from a modest start to a comprehensive industry resource.
 
My fascination with the Sweets Catalog began early on. For some reason, my local public library branch retained an annually renewed subscription to the Canadian edition of the catalog. I remember occasionally passing lazy Saturday afternoons when I was a child paging through the multiple volumes, familiarizing myself with their organization and the sheer breadth of available construction products. Later, upon assuming my employment with Bing Thom Architects in 1983, I acquired a complete set for my personal library, inheriting it upon delivery of the latest issue of the Sweets Catalog to the firm. If you needed further proof of how much of a nerd I was, simply picture me reading reams of arcane product data for “fun.” Ultimately, I discarded that set upon my permanent move to Eugene in 1988.

 

Cover of Volume 7 of the 2007 version of the Sweets Catalog.

Following the advent of the Internet, the format of the Sweets Catalog evolved from print to include digital versions, offering enhanced features such as searchable databases and downloadable CAD drawings. The shift towards digital tools led in due course to McGraw-Hill discontinuing the print edition in 2012, marking a transition in how users accessed and managed the information offered by the Sweets Catalog. McGraw-Hill relinquished its ownership in 2014, the service now under the banner of The Dodge Construction Network.
 
While the physical presence of the Sweets Catalog has faded, its impact endures through digital tools and standards that continue to shape the construction industry. It set benchmarks for comprehensive and accessible information, influencing how professionals continue to source and specify building products today.
 

Pages from the 1906 Sweets Catalog:

In essence, the Sweets Catalog typifies the evolution of construction documentation—adapting to technological advancements while maintaining a commitment to industry standards and best practices. Its transition from print to digital signifies broader shifts in information management, reflecting a dynamic industry that continues to innovate and evolve.
 
Discovering the RSA copy of the very first edition of the Sweets Catalog reminded me of its foundational role early in my career. An exemplary and historic resource, it stands as a testament to the value of organized, accessible information in the construction of our built environment—a legacy that resonates in our digital age.

17 Rules

A necessary rite of my transition into retirement has been to sort through a sizable collection of career-related personal documents I amassed during my 36 years with Robertson/Sherwood/Architects. I now wonder why I chose to save many of these and have no problem parting with them. Others are certainly worthy of preservation. One such document—a paper I suspect I acquired during a visit to the University of Oregon many years ago—follows here.

Written by former UO faculty member Mike Pease and dating to 1993, 17 Rules was his framework for a holistic approach to developing sustainable urban environments. Today, more than three decades on, the framework remains aspirational rather than fully realized, as most North American cities persist in their reliance on a car-centric infrastructure, fragmented public transportation systems, and their inability to adequately realize high-density, mixed-use developments. The enduring relevance of these guidelines underscores the still too often unmet need for innovative and committed efforts to transform our urban environments.

Mike: If you read this, my hope is you take no exception to me publishing your 17 Rules for online consumption. Saving my paper copy of your treatise was a no-brainer. Likewise, my decision to share it here with others was easy. Your words remain cogent and no less timely as when you first wrote them. 

   
17 Rules
 
Premise:
A good city is one that provides a wide range of amenities—jobs, friends, goods, services, cultural events, places to live—for all its citizens; a good sustainable city does this while using resources in a way that allows all others in the world, now and in the future, to enjoy these amenities too.
 
This project describes a path to follow toward the restructuring of our cities, to make them both good and sustainable.
 
Principles to define sustainable urban structure, and to serve as criteria for development:
 
1. Primarily Walking
Focus on walking as the primary means of getting around between the activities of daily life. Provide vehicular access only for service and emergency vehicles, and for public transit, but when these overlap with pedestrian paths, walking is the higher priority (except in emergencies).
 

EmX station (photo by Oregon Department of Transportation, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

 
2.  Nearby Transit
Encourage walking and biking for longer trips, but be sure that there is also an efficient, comfortable public transit system within easy walking distance of all dwellings and businesses. Connect the local transit system to regional systems. Two things about the transit system to bear in mind:

• The location of transit stops has an important impact on community physical structure, especially when people are going to and from the transit system on foot. Use transit stops to reinforce important activity centers; avoid putting transit stops where they will siphon people away from activity centers.
• The permanence of the transit system also has an important impact on the community’s physical structure. A subway or elevated system, especially but even a streetcar, special paving for buses, or permanent shelters at stops represent long-term commitment to the transit systemin general, and to specific routes, thus providing a level of security for the transit-dependent investments that a more flexible system cannot.

3.  Access to Cars
Provide safe, protected car storage, easily accessible via public transit, and connecting with the regional road network. Include a convenient rent-a-car service, with vehicles of all kinds, in the car storage system.
 
4.  Delivery System
Provide a community-wide delivery system connecting all dwellings, businesses, and institutions, with connections to regional transit and the car storage system.
 
5.  Small Dwellings
Keep dwellings small but maximize the potential for individuation within the dwelling space. Make effective provision for privacy—within dwellings, but also in relation to neighbors and public.
 
6.  Shared Uses
Provide for many ways of using space and equipment jointly—privately, publicly, commercially—with a flexible, responsive support system that allows people to experiment with such arrangements.
 
7.  Common Land
Provide easy access to common land for both active and passive recreation.
 

Market Alley, Eugene (my photo)

8.  Local Economy
Support the development of a local economy, especially:

• By providing appropriate space with the community for permanent businesses and temporary markets, including low-cost spaces for start-up businesses—subsidized if necessary—and by allowing businesses to operate within dwellings.
• By creating a community employment service that connects local residents with local jobs and facilitates job training, including training and other support for new businesses.
• By providing a local information system, accessible in all homes and businesses, with current information about local goods and services.
• By providing land for agricultural production.

9.  Resourceful Construction
In all construction:

• Use local construction materials whenever possible.
• Minimize mechanical heating and cooling demands.
• Maximize use of natural light.

10.  Recycle
Provide a local system for recycling and reprocessing wastes, with provision for feeding recycled materials into local manufacturing enterprises. Design for potential reuse of space, materials, and equipment. Collect roof and site drainage for agricultural/landscape uses. Collect and reuse wastewater when safe to do so.
 
11.  Local Landscape
In landscaping, work with local materials—plants, soils, water, animal life—and local climate conditions.
 

Chicago Riverwalk (my photo)

These two are more subtle considerations that need to be kept in mind in all aspects of design:
 
12.  Good Places
Invest in making high quality public places. If the walks and plazas and parks and other public places are pleasant and comfortable, and if the investment in them clearly indicates that they are important places, this will help people to feel good about the time they spend there, and it will increase the use of those places.
 
13.  Visible Connections
Make environmental connections apparent. If people can see the way the rain is collected, then sent to feed the plants; if they can see the food they eat being grown, harvested, brought to market; if they can see the mining of the gravel that makes their concrete, or the felling and milling of the timber in their roofs, and the way those timbers support weight and send it to the ground; these connections help people understand their own relationship to the whole physical world. And that understanding helps to support the urge to live in an environmentally healthy way.
 

Bryant Park, New York City (my photo)

Finally, the places we’re talking about here should be desirable to a wide range of people—residents must not be required, or even pressured, to have a certain set of values as a precondition for membership. Toward that end:
 
14.  Open Society
Residents should feel free to associate with whomever they please, or with no one, at every scale of community. While the physical structure should support public social gatherings at many scales, it should not do so in ways that suggest that certain people are necessarily included in or excluded from being part. At the scale of individual buildings, residents should be free to make the boundary between public and private as hard or soft as they wish, but in the larger public domain physical or visual boundaries should be avoided that make distinctions between certain people and certain other people—at any scale.
 
15.   Personal Visions
At every scale, the community should create only those constraints that are essential to guarantee the city’s effectiveness as a good and sustainable place. Within those essential constraints residents should have as much freedom as possible to shape their own lives, and their environments, to fit their own visions.

 

Vancouver, B.C. (my photo)

16.   High Density
The more people there are in a community, the more complex that community is likely to be—in value systems, ethnic backgrounds, ages, interests, personalities—and the more likely any one person is to find kindred spirits, enjoyable activities, useful goods and services, satisfying work. Thus, within the constraints established above, find places for as many people as possible.
 
17.   Structure, Not Behavior
The primary focus for conservation of resources should be the structure and operation of the community as a whole. The community’s success in this regard should not be dependent on individual residents’ behavior.

 

*    *    *    *    *    *

 
These rules are often connected in long strings of vital links. For example, 5. Small Dwellings, will not work without 6. Shared Uses, but Shared Uses won’t work unless the movement system is 1. Primarily Walking, which in turn depends on 2. Nearby Transit, 3. Access to Cars, 4. Delivery System, and several others (including 5. Small Dwellings). The 17 rules should be seen as a whole, interdependent set, not a cafeteria of choices.
 
The rules are deliberately broad, requiring interpretation, allowing adaptation to differing physical and cultural contexts and differing visions. Yet any interpretation, if it takes all 17 rules seriously, will lead to development of a community that will be a good place to live, and one that will be far more efficient in its use of resources than are car-based settlements.

Mike Pease 1993 

Pearls of Wisdom

 
The Good Advice (original title: Le bon conseil), by Jean-Baptiste Madou.

 
I enjoyed a lengthy lunch this past Friday with my friend and fellow architect, Eric Hall. In addition to celebrating my retirement milestone, Eric asked me to reflect on my career and the lessons I learned during my four decades-plus in the architectural profession. Specifically, he challenged me to dispense five “pearls of wisdom” that architects who are at the helm of small firms today might find useful.
 
Whether I possess genuine sagacity about professional practice is questionable. Regardless, I gave it my best shot. Here’s what I came up with:
 

1. Work smarter, not harder.

Easier said than done, but finding ways to use one’s energy and time more efficiently should be a priority. Focus on tasks that yield the highest value. Distinguish between what is urgent and important and what is not. Understand the strengths of your staff and delegate tasks accordingly, thereby lightening your load while empowering your team. Likewise, know when outsourcing expertise makes the most sense. Regularly review processes and seek ways to improve. Most importantly, take regular breaks to help maintain high levels of focus and energy.

 

I tried to instill “work smarter, not harder” as a mantra for Robertson/Sherwood/ Architects, especially during the past few years as Scott Stolarczyk, Lana Sadler, and Becky Thomas increasingly assumed the mantle of firm leadership. I want to see them not only succeed, but also thrive while doing so. Key to that will be avoiding burnout and always deriving joy and fulfillment from their work.

 

2. Be decisive.

Aphorism #1: Perfection is the enemy of good. While high standards are important, aiming for perfection can lead to procrastination and missed opportunities. Excessive focus on perfection can be counterproductive. Aim for “good enough” and iterate as needed. Not every decision will be perfect, but that’s okay.

Aphorism #2: Avoid paralysis by analysis. Overthinking decisions can lead to inaction. Don’t let the fear of making the wrong decision prevent you from making any decision at all. Embrace calculated risks. If anything, identify which decisions are critical and which are less important. Focus your energy on the former and streamline the latter.

 

Being decisive is a corollary to working smarter and not harder. Over the years, I learned to trust my intuition and rely upon my gut feelings to avoid endless deliberation on a problem. I approached decision-making intuitively, leaning on my preferences, knowledge, and experience during analysis to quickly come to the best decisions possible.  

 

3. Don’t reinvent the wheel.

I wrote a piece two years back about what I regard as commonsense architecture. As I said then, there’s no reason to reinvent the wheel for every project. Using tried-and-true, proven methods of building—as opposed to always looking to exploit what is trending or new—is a pragmatic and responsible approach to design. An overabundance of creative imagination is not always a good thing if it flies in the face of commonsense, practical, and time-tested strategies for keeping water out, controlling how daylight comes in, holding the building up, or minimizing our carbon footprint.

 

The definition of common sense is the application of sound and prudent judgment in practical matters based on a simple perception of a given situation or facts. In my opinion its application should be a default condition for most design professionals. Of course, there are exceptions. We need architects devoted to groundbreaking research on the building sciences and more. Outstanding practitioners who push the conceptual boundaries will always be critical to the advancement of architecture. That said, there’s a reason why the wheel in its fundamental form has remained unchanged over millennia—it works simply and beautifully. Build upon the learned experience and wisdom of the many architects and builders who have come before you. Don’t reinvent the wheel.  

 

4. Fundamentally understand alternative project delivery methods.

When I first entered the architectural profession back in the late 1970s-early 1980s, the dominant project delivery method was the straightforward Design-Bid-Build model. Since then, the proliferation of alternative project delivery methods, such as Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Design-Build (D-B), has reshaped the architect's role by increasing the need for collaboration and integration across project lifecycles.

 

Young architects need to thoroughly understand the concept of alternative project delivery. They need to grasp the pros & cons and the nuances of the various methods to best know where they fit within each. Only with such knowledge will they appreciate what it is they must bring to the table for every project. They will need to embrace being a part of a team that is comprised of diverse and complementary skill sets. To drive innovative and successful project outcomes, they will need to demonstrate their value beyond traditional design roles. Above all, they will need to possess humility and a willingness to work with others toward shared goals.

 

5. Embrace Artificial Intelligence.

There’s a lot of hype these days about artificial intelligence and how it is poised to radically transform architectural practice. While today’s AI tools remain narrowly focused, I am confident we will soon see exponentially more powerful apps providing a comprehensive suite of abilities that will radically change how architects work.

 

What we’re seeing today in real time is not the reinvention of a tried-and-true way of business, but rather the invention of an altogether new and radical paradigm—AI is the new wheel. A failure to embrace the technology is not a recipe for long-term success. Organizations that aggressively leverage AI will outcompete their peers by being more efficient, innovative, and responsive to market changes. In the professional ecosystem, only the fittest and most able to adapt will survive.

None of these pearls is particularly insightful, original, or interesting. “Work smarter, not harder” and “don’t reinvent the wheel” are nothing if not well-worn clichés. Are they worthy of consideration as unique wisdom, metaphorically as precious as pearls? Maybe. At a minimum, Eric’s prompting was reason for me to begin the process of reflecting upon my life as an architect.

Eric assiduously took notes as I enumerated my five pearls. He did say I affirmed some of what he likewise believes, which I found reassuring. It may be that I have acquired some wisdom worth passing on.