Generally Supportive Housing

Rosenbaum House, Florence, AL. Frank Lloyd Wright, Architect (Photo by Courtney Pickens on Unsplash)

Bill Kleinsasser’s interest in housing was a constant throughout his teaching career. That said, he did not focus upon housing typologies, such as the different categories or styles of dwellings (whether single-family residences, apartments, or condominiums). Instead, his goal was to ensure his students generally understood how to design settings for living that are precise, generous, and evocative—liberating and inspiring, as well as accommodating. For Bill, this meant providing supportive conditions and important opportunities for people—especially in their homes—so they may enjoy life within genuinely good places.   

The following excerpt from an early iteration of Bill’s self-published textbook SYNTHESIS concisely enumerates the qualities Bill believed are characteristic of generally supportive housing:

Generally Supportive Housing

Significant, lastingly meaningful, generally supportive places contain, in their uninhabited state, the following (usually extra-programmatic) qualities:

1. Sensory richness.
2. Many parts (complexity).
3. Evocativeness and suggestiveness (they are, in themselves, precisely incomplete).
4. Many levels of meaning and many interpretive possibilities (they are precisely ambiguous). 
5. Surprise (novelty or humor, or both). 
6. Perplexity (contradiction or conflict, or both). 
7. Eccentricity and strangeness (the inexplicable). 
8. Re-discoverability (ever-changing qualities). 
9. Symbolic associations (remembrance and allegory). 
10. Evidence of sincere effort. 
11. Precision and the sense of inevitability. 
12. Simplicity (complete integration of parts into a whole). 
13. Poetic impact (tension generated by the extraordinary and transcendent).

Many barns have these qualities, as do Henry Mercer’s buildings most of Corbusier’s buildings, some of Kahn’s and Aalto’s buildings, Scott Wylie’s old house in Eugene (now demolished), and some other houses in Eugene. 

The qualities may be understood as consequences of the following sequence of actions (recycled many times by designers before construction or users over time):
 
Contextual Responses:

1. Preserve old traces and old elements (but not necessarily all) and add on to them or build within them. 
2. Identify the universal values that may have been embodied in the old place and preserve and strengthen them. 
3. Know why the context is the way it is and respect this, building accordingly. 
4. Try to identify the essential spirit of the context and embody it. 
5. Respond to and dramatize the outstanding features and natural phenomena of the context (the views, the geography and topography, the wind, water, sky, and light).
6. Protect the life that already exists and try and improve the place.

Responses to Present Purposes and Needs 

(especially designated actions and spaces for designated actions): 

1. Determine necessary spaces and develop them. 
2. Determine patterns of activity and space use and provide for them. 
3. Determine priorities and provide for them.

Response to Future Needs 

(establishing future opportunities by means of organizational structure): 

1. Establish a broad range of space types and spatial qualities (choices of paths to take, places to be, and combinations of places) using dualities (especially the dualities designated/undesignated, public/private, large/small, stop in/pass through, etc.—those which form the multiple whole) to define and recall spatial ranges. 
2. Make the place clear and make it vivid (to enlist the enthusiasm and imaginations of future users; to make the place undisguised, unconfused, forthright, and lucid; to show the care and spirit of the effort. 
3. Develop and express subspaces and sub-elements (large and small). 
4. Develop unity, that is, integrate the parts (dominance, hierarchies, answerability, appropriate gestalt. 
5. Make the construction and the construction process evident. 
6. Celebrate certain elements (make them memorable). 
7. Clarify movement systems. 
8. Establish previews, multi-views, and reinforcing views. 
9. Develop and express spatiality (celebrated three-dimensionality). 
10. Establish layering and axial overlapping of events, spaces, parts. 
11. Establish imprintability and changeability (opportunity for continuous acts of personalization). 
12. Make many kinds of movable (and removable) parts. 
13. Create an abundance of area and space (but not wastefulness). 
14. Make surfaces that are receptive to adjustment and change. 
15. Let in an abundance of natural light but make it controllable. 
16. Establish acoustical separation, but controllable separation. 
17. Make many opportunities for the collection and display of possessions and symbols.
18. Make precisely incomplete spaces that invite completion by the users.

(WK/1975)

Celebrating Unthank Seder Poticha

Mark your calendars: The evening of September 17, 2024, will bring the local design community together to celebrate the work of one of Eugene’s most notable 20th century architectural practices: Unthank Seder Poticha Architects. Presented by the nascent Northwest Center for Architecture, the event promises to be a joyous occasion, not only because it will acknowledge the firm’s outsized impact on the local architectural scene, but also because it will mark Otto Poticha, FAIA’s ninetieth birthday.

The Northwest Center for Architecture is the brainchild of Abraham Kelso, principal with Marinbow Design Services and an adjunct instructor at the University of Oregon’s School of Architecture & Environment. I had the pleasure of learning more from Abe about the Center while meeting over coffee at Vero Espresso this past Friday. His vision for the institution is for it to become akin to the internationally renowned Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA) in Montreal, likewise producing original exhibitions and publications, albeit with an Oregon focus and a far more modest mandate. Abe’s secondary goal is that the Northwest Center for Architecture will one day have its own brick & mortar home as a venue for exhibits and repository for archival-quality drawings and documents.

Abe is currently preparing his manuscript for a monograph documenting the work of Unthank Seder Poticha. Rather than primarily photo-documenting the constructed projects, Abe’s added focus is upon the genesis and design process for each. As an architect, I always find learning the inside story—the who, what, when, where, why, and how—fascinating and informative. Being pretty alone does not make a successful project; good architecture is much more. It is functional, durable, contextual, sustainable, as well as aesthetically pleasing. My hope is Abe will emphasize all these aspects in his assessments of the Unthank Seder Poticha projects he chooses to present.

Alas, I will miss the September 17 celebration as coincidentally I will be in Montreal on a trip I have had planned for months (one that includes a visit to the CCA). There is no way I would otherwise not be on hand to honor Otto’s milestone birthday and to listen to him recount his successful partnership with De and Grant, a legacy that is unrivaled here in Lane County. I truly wish I could be in two places at the same time.

Following is the Northwest Center for Architecture’s announcement for the event:

Celebrating Unthank Seder Poticha

You are cordially invited to celebrate the life and work of three architects who helped shape the Eugene we know and love today: DeNorval Unthank, Grant Seder, and Otto Poticha, who from 1968-1986 practiced together as Unthank Seder Poticha Architects. 

They designed, either individually or collaboratively, many iconic campus buildings: McKenzie Hall, the Clinical Services Building, the Health Services Building, and the Lew Romania dealership "potato chip" building, as well as the Handball and Tennis Courts, which received a national energy award. On top of that, their many years of teaching and reviewing student work left an incalculable impact on the strength of our graduates.

In Eugene at-large, they were single-handedly responsible for creating the 5th Avenue Special Area Zone, which dramatically reshaped civic and commercial life in downtown Eugene. They designed or renovated many buildings in the downtown core and developed successful experiments in dense urban living (High Street Rowhouses, Lincoln Terrace). They designed the Lane County Public Service Building (also the recipient of a national energy award), notable professional services buildings (the Bus Barn, the High Street Office Building, the Forum Building, among others), and the surrounding hills are dotted with their innovative residential structures. 

High Street Rowhouses (Google Street View)

Lincoln Terrace (Google Street View)

Lane County Public Service Building (Google Street View)

In Portland, they designed the magnet performing arts educational facility, Harriet Tubman Middle School, as well as adapted an aging firehouse into the beloved Interstate Firehouse Cultural Center, among other civic and residential projects.

The Albany Public Library, The Local Government Center in Salem, the list goes on! The Willamette Valley is richer for their work . . . not to mention the coast, the mountains, and the high plains to the east.

We will be gathering for a night of celebration and stories about some truly incredible practitioners, whose work made Oregon a better place, as well as fundraising to support a permanent home for the Unthank Seder Poticha archive and the publication of a comprehensive monograph of their work. 

Please join us. 

The Very Little Theatre, Eugene, OR

Doors at 6pm, Event at 7pm

September 17th, 2024

The Houses of Louis Kahn

 

I revisited another of the books in my collection this weekend: The Houses of Louis Kahn, cowritten by George H. Marcus and William Whitaker, and published in 2013, explores an often-overlooked aspect of Louis Kahn’s architectural legacy: his residential designs. The focus of Marcus’ and Witaker’s excellent book is the nine private homes Kahn completed and the other designs that never saw construction. These houses, most located in the Philadelphia area, reveal the more intimate side of Kahn’s architectural philosophy.(1)
 
While I’ve long admired Kahn for his monumental works (among them, the Kimbell Art Museum and the Salk Institute), I haven’t been as big a fan of his residential designs, so a deep dive into them is exactly what was necessary for me.
 
Marcus and Whitaker document Kahn’s design process for each of the nine houses, providing readers with a detailed look at an aspect of his architectural evolution from mid-career until his death in 1974. Through photographs, Kahn’s own sketches, and original drawings, along with previously unpublished materials from interviews and archives, the book paints a comprehensive picture of Kahn’s residential work. The authors examine Kahn’s evolving relationship with Modernism, his philosophical inquiries into the nature of domestic space, and his close collaborations with clients, which often resulted in homes that were both innovative and deeply personal.
 
Marcus and Whitaker challenge the common belief (one I long held) that Kahn’s architectural identity only fully emerged with his public commissions. They argue that his early residential projects, which predate his iconic works like the Yale University Art Gallery, already displayed significant architectural ambition and were foundational in his development as an architect. This notion invites a reevaluation of Kahn's trajectory and suggests that his exploration of essential ideas in architecture was present even in these intimate settings.
 
At the same time, Marcus and Whitaker claim Kahn's approach to residential architecture was not driven by a desire to make grand architectural statements but rather by a deep respect for the specific circumstances surrounding each project. They write that Kahn’s houses were not experimental prototypes but rather thoughtful responses to the unique requirements of the site, program, budget, and client. I suspect the truth is Kahn did regard his residential work to be opportunities to realize his evolving design philosophy and as test beds for ideas he would then apply to his monumental projects.

 

Margaret Esherick House (photo by JERRYE & ROY KLOTZ MD, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

A strength of the book is its exploration of Kahn’s attention to detail, particularly in the realm of interiors. He believed in creating cohesive, harmonious living environments tailored to the individual needs of his clients, prioritizing the experience of the inhabitant over the mere aesthetic of the structure.
 
I contend Kahn’s focus on universal architectural ideas held precedence for him over the specific characteristics of the sites themselves. Contrast that with the work of architects like Frank Lloyd Wright or Arthur Erickson, whose signature residential projects are memorable for being inseparable from the sites upon which they are built. Wright’s Fallingwater and Erickson’s Graham House are two cases in point. Certainly, Kahn’s projects were not always blessed by a spectacular setting, so perhaps I should temper my criticism. Marcus and Whitaker contend that his designs supported a dialogue with their environments through their materiality and light, showing that context and abstraction can coexist. While Kahn’s fascination with materiality and light are evident in his houses, I do not regard them as being of their sites; rather, they are placed on them.
 
Until I see one or more of Kahn’s residential projects with my own eyes, I only have photographs and drawings on which to base this judgment. The Houses of Louis Kahn is richly illustrated, with both period and new photos commissioned for the book, so that is helpful. Based upon these alone, I find the Margaret Esherick House and the Norman and Doris Fisher House most interesting. This may be because of their relatively modest size, which amplifies the extent to which they illustrate some of Kahn’s foundational principles. These include the division of buildings between served and servant spaces, and his fascination with how daylight is shaped and invited indoors.

 

Norman and Doris Fisher House (photo by JERRYE & ROY KLOTZ MD, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

I did appreciate Marcus’ and Whitaker’s acknowledgement of the influence of others on Kahn’s evolving design philosophy, particularly that of Anne Tyng. Tyng was Kahn’s romantic partner, muse, and associate, whose contributions to his acclaim would not receive their due largely until after Kahn’s passing. Tyng’s deep interest in mathematics and geometry was most evident in the Fred and Elaine Clever House.
 
The Houses of Louis Kahn is a significant contribution to the scholarship on one of the 20th century’s most influential architects. The book is essential reading for anyone interested in understanding the full scope of Kahn’s work, offering fresh insights into his approach to architecture on a more intimate, human scale. It captures the essence of Kahn’s unique ability to create spaces that, while often not tied to dramatic landscapes, foster a deep connection between the inhabitants and their environment.
 
I found The Houses of Louis Kahn particularly enlightening given how much Kahn’s philosophy has influenced my own views on architecture. The book provided me with a deeper appreciation of his residential works and their place within his architectural legacy.
 
(1)    I’m planning an architectural pilgrimage to Pennsylvania sometime in 2025, during which I hope to see some of Kahn’s projects, perhaps including one or more of his houses.

Eugene/Architecture/Alphabet: T

Tiffany Building, view from the southwest (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.

1. The building must be extant so you or I can visit it in person.

1. 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 T, for which my choice is the Tiffany Building. I gleaned much of the information that follows from its March2, 1989 listing on the National Register of Historic Places (under its historic name, the McMorran and Washburne Department Store Building).
 
Tiffany Building
The mixed-use Tiffany Building (known previously as the McMorran and Washburne Department Store Building, and before that as the McClung Building) is a significant historic structure in downtown Eugene. Following Eugene’s urban renewal misadventures of the 1970s, it stands as an all too rare example of its type. The four-story commercial building, located at 795 Willamette Street, began its life as a two-story dry goods store in 1902, built by Nels Roney for former Eugene mayor J. H. McClung. The architect was the Portland firm of McNaughton and Raymond. Their design featured elements of the Chicago Commercial Style, including its characteristically large display windows and minimal ornamentation.
 

Tiffany Building, in its pre-1913 form as the two-story McClung Building (photographer unknown).

In 1913, George H. McMorran and Carl G. Washburne purchased and renovated the McClung Building, adding two more stories to accommodate their growing business. Their store became Eugene's premiere dry goods retailer until 1927, when they moved to a larger location at Broadway and Willamette Streets. After they left, drugstore owners Albert Tiffany and George Davis acquired the property and renamed it the Tiffany Building.
 
In its current form, the wood-framed masonry structure measures 55 by 114 feet in plan, occupying the southern one-third of its block. It features three commercial elevations: the west façade fronting Willamette Street, the south facing Eighth Street, and the east facing West Park Street. Each façade features symmetrical fenestration, simple moldings, and a projecting cornice.
 
The building’s south elevation divides horizontally by three continuous belt courses and vertically into seven bays, each with two single-lite, vertically sliding windows. The second-level windows are slightly larger than those on the upper stories. The east and west elevations also have three continuous belt courses but divide into three bays, each containing three windows per floor. Originally adorned with terra cotta trim, various modifications removed much of the ornamentation over time, though molding at the mezzanine level and modillions and dentils at the cornice line remain.

 

Tiffany Building, view from the southeast (my photo).

Though it survived the urban renewal era in Eugene, the Tiffany Building has experienced significant changes throughout its life, including the aforementioned addition of two floors, as well as major storefront modifications and repairs necessitated by a 1980 fire. If I recall correctly, it was Nagao Pacific Architectural who designed the renovations following the conflagration, rehabilitating the storefronts based on historic photos and plans, and converting internal spaces for office and retail use. The restoration efforts ensured the iconic structure’s continued contribution to Eugene's architectural heritage. Today, the building houses Jazzy Sammies, Sushi Ya, and Eugene’s Alternative Realtors on the ground floor, while the upper three stories contain apartments.
 
By virtue of its mixed-use, proportions, and architectural character, the Tiffany Building provides us with a template for future development in Eugene’s core. In particular, the desirable inclusion of new housing is consistent with the City’s vision of a vibrant downtown boasting a significant resident population. Downtown can become the home and neighborhood for many new residents, in addition to being a place to work, access government services, and share in the community.