How Company Alters the Measure of a Walk

View from the top of Mt. Baldy, along the Ridgeline Trail, Eugene (my photo).

I’ve been walking a lot lately, often in the company of two colleagues from my architectural life, fellow retirees Dave Guadagni and J.F. Alberson. We make the rounds of the usual places, including the Mt. Pisgah Arboretum, Dorris Ranch, Delta Ponds, the Ridgeline Trail, and the Amazon corridor. Most excursions cover four or five miles. These are familiar routes, ones we return to regularly. 

What I’ve noticed is how differently those same distances register depending on whether I’m alone or with company. On my own, I’m more aware of the length of things, be it the stretch between landmarks, the grade of a hill, or the time it will take to loop back. When it’s the three of us, the distance feels shorter. Conversation, a shared pace, and the occasional stop to look more closely at something alter the measure of the route. The walk becomes less about getting from one point to another and more about the ground between them. The end arrives sooner than expected. It isn’t only the miles that compress, but what we notice shifts as well. 

J.F. brings birding into the mix, which changes what comes into view. Avian species I’ve apparently been sharing space with for years—Belted Kingfishers, Pied-Billed Grebes, Brown Creepers, Ruby-crowned Kinglets, and more—suddenly register. He’ll pause and point out something I would have passed without a second thought. Nothing about the setting has changed, but my perception has. 

Retirement makes this rhythm possible. The days are more open, and the walks don’t have to be fitted into narrow margins of time. Familiar places can be revisited without urgency, simply to see them again. Repetition reveals small shifts: light striking the same bend of trail differently in winter than in summer, foliage thickening or thinning from week to week, and bird patterns subtly changing. The routes themselves are unchanged, but their reading is not. I’ve yet to see a beaver, an otter, or a fox along these paths, though I know they’re present, a reminder that there is still more to notice.

A Shift in the Civic Landscape

The former Wells Fargo building in downtown Eugene (Google Streetview).

The County’s recent purchase from Eugene School District 4J of the former Wells Fargo building at 99 E. Broadway marks a significant pivot. It signals the end of Lane County’s plan to site a new courthouse on the former Eugene City Hall block and the beginning of a more incremental approach to meeting the needs of the courts, the Sheriff’s Office, and the District Attorney. It also raises a larger question: what becomes of the City Hall block now that its intended purpose has evaporated?

Before considering that question, it’s worth recalling why the County pursued a new courthouse in the first place. The existing building (designed by the firm of Wilmsen & Endicott and completed in 1959) is a structure stretched far beyond its intended capacity. By the time the County undertook a scoping study in 2018–2019, several issues had become impossible to ignore.(1) The most pressing was security and circulation. Modern courthouses rely on three fully separated circulation systems: public, private (judges and staff), and secure (in‑custody defendants). The current building cannot provide this separation. Judges, jurors, victims, witnesses, attorneys, and in-custody defendants routinely cross paths in public corridors, compromising safety and dignity every day.

The structure and building systems also lag contemporary expectations. Mechanical, electrical, and life‑safety components have reached the end of their useful life. The building cannot support modern technology loads, accessibility standards, or seismic requirements. Courtrooms remain undersized and inflexible, unable to accommodate modern jury boxes, ADA-compliant circulation, or the spatial needs of today’s legal practice. Support spaces fall short. And the courthouse cannot expand. Streets and the Public Service Building hem it in, leaving no flexibility for comprehensive modernization.

The Oregon Judicial Department documented these issues, the presiding judge echoed them, and the 2018–2019 scoping process confirmed them. The accompanying conceptual design attempted to address these deficiencies comprehensively and propose a courthouse that met contemporary standards for safety, functionality, and civic presence. Voters rejected the bond measure, state funding disappeared, and the project stalled. The underlying needs remain.

With the failure of the bond measure and the loss of state funding, the County had little choice but to change course. Instead of pursuing a single, transformative project, it has now shifted toward a three-building strategy: 1) keep the existing courthouse; 2) expand justice‑system functions into the Public Service Building; and 3) move other operations into the Wells Fargo building.

Blocking diagram of one of the 2018 Lane County Justice Center development scenarios (Robertson/Sherwood/Architects w/DLR Group).

The Wells Fargo building is not a courthouse-ready structure. It lacks the floor-to-floor heights, structural grid, circulation patterns, and security zoning that modern courthouses require. But it can relieve pressure. By moving a mix of administrative and selected justice‑system functions into the building, including portions of the District Attorney’s Office or the Sheriff’s Office, the County frees space in the Public Service Building for the functions that most directly support the courthouse next door. The Wells Fargo building is a way to buy time and improve conditions without taking on the cost or political risk of a massive new construction project.(2)

The County says it will fund the early phases of this three‑building strategy with existing capital reserves and general‑fund allocations. These will inevitably be modest, phased investments rather than a single large capital outlay. The County will proceed without waiting for new revenue sources.

Given that funding approach, it is reasonable to ask whether selling the former City Hall block could help pay for later improvements. The short answer is yes in principle, but not in a way that changes the County’s immediate capital picture. The block holds real market value, but Eugene’s land economics remain modest. Even a full‑block sale would likely generate only a few million dollars, helpful but not transformative.

Once the County completes the Wells Fargo move, reconfigures the PSB, and outlines a long-term renovation plan for the courthouse, the narrative becomes cleaner: the block no longer serves a justice function and can return to productive private use. The most plausible scenario is that the County eventually sells or ground‑leases the block, and that the proceeds support later phases of courthouse renovation rather than the immediate work that will likely start soon.

The implications of this shift extend beyond courthouse logistics. They also reshape the civic geography of downtown Eugene. The three‑building strategy, in an unintended way, brings the County back into alignment with the city’s earliest civic geometry. When Eugene’s early trustees platted the Park Blocks in the 1850s, they imagined them as the civic heart of the town, framed by public institutions and anchored by the courthouse. That geometry has persisted for more than a century and a half. By choosing to retain the courthouse on its current site rather than construct a new facility on the former City Hall block, the County has, perhaps unwittingly, honored that original civic logic. The Park Blocks remain the symbolic center of the justice system, and the courthouse remains essentially where the founders placed the original building. With that continuity intact, the City Hall block no longer carries any inherited obligation to remain civic land.

Civic uses evolve. Land use is not a sacred inheritance. The City’s move into the former EWEB headquarters, a far better outcome than any of the City Hall schemes pursued over the past two decades, effectively freed the block from its symbolic burden. Today, the County has no program for the site, no funding to develop it, and no political narrative that would support a new civic building there. In that context, private redevelopment offers the most responsible path forward.

Google Earth view of the existing courthouse (left), Lane County Public Services Building (center), and the former City Hall block, now a parking lot owned by the County (right).

A dense mixed-use project, whether housing, hotel, retail, or office, would not reshape the Park Blocks directly. But it would repair a missing piece of the streetscape along 8th Avenue, which the City once envisioned as a “Great Street.” Today, that sequence runs from the Park Blocks to the courthouse and Public Service Building, and then simply stops. Filling the old City Hall block with active, inhabited uses would stitch the urban fabric back together. In place of a void, there could be a more continuous, coherent civic corridor. Dense mixed-use redevelopment would bring residents, visitors, and daily activity to a part of downtown that has long felt underbuilt and unresolved. In that sense, private development would strengthen the district more effectively than any modest civic use the County could plausibly afford.

Lane County’s new three‑building strategy reflects fiscal reality and political constraints. Once fully implemented, it will improve conditions for the courts, the Sheriff, and the District Attorney, even if it falls short of the comprehensive solution envisioned in 2019. The County now owes the public a clear articulation of its long-term intentions, not just for the courthouse and the Public Service Building but for the former City Hall block. Downtown Eugene deserves decisions grounded in reality rather than nostalgia. It also deserves a plan that recognizes that even modest, well-considered choices can strengthen the civic core. If the County provides that clarity, this pivot, while less ambitious than many of us once hoped for, can still move the civic district in a constructive direction.

(1) My former firm, Robertson/Sherwood/Architects, with the assistance of DLR Group’s Justice+Civic studio, prepared the study.

(2) For readers who want the underlying numbers, recent reporting in the Register‑Guard and Lookout Eugene‑Springfield covers the purchase price, building size, and early renovation estimates.

Hope Is . . .

A desktop tableau: at the office, late at night, circa 2015.

Hope feels like a scarce resource right now. The world is carrying more than its share of upheaval, and the daily news makes it hard to imagine a future that’s coherent, let alone better. In moments like this, I find myself returning to the realm I understand best, that of the drawing, the detail, and the site. While the scale of events feels ungraspable, the scale of a plan or section still makes sense to me.

Architecture does not solve the larger forces shaping our time. It never has. But it does insist on a steady belief that the future is still worth shaping. Over the course of my working life, I learned to recognize certain decisions that embody that belief. They are small, specific choices, repeated often enough to become habits of mind.

Hope is . . .

• Hope is keeping the existing structure because it still has stories left to tell.
• Hope is protecting the one tree on the site that anchors memory and shade.
• Hope is refusing to overbuild the ground, letting the earth breathe.
• Hope is leaving traces of earlier lives visible because they speak truthfully.
• Hope is turning the building toward the sun and prevailing breeze rather than the surveyor’s grid.
• Hope is opening the building to natural ventilation when the season permits.
• Hope is holding the window where light and view demand it, even when the plan protests.
• Hope is redrawing the section until the space feels right in the body.
• Hope is crafting a stair generous enough that people choose to walk it.
• Hope is shaping the threshold so arrival becomes a quiet ceremony.
• Hope is designing pathways wide and smooth enough for wheelchairs, strollers, and slow walkers alike.
• Hope is placing handrails and tactile cues where intuition might falter.
• Hope is designing restrooms that welcome every body without apology.
• Hope is carving out a small, unprogrammed room for solitude or spontaneous gathering.
• Hope is shrinking the lobby to what welcomes, not what impresses.
• Hope is orienting rooms to foster connection, not isolation.
• Hope is selecting the material that patinas gracefully over decades, not the one that shines in renderings.
• Hope is drawing the joint that reveals how the wall is made, honestly.
• Hope is insisting on flashing done right, even if buried forever.
• Hope is choosing connections that forgive time and allow repair without destruction.
• Hope is detailing the back-of-house with the same care as the public face.
• Hope is resisting the cheap shortcut that burdens someone else later.
• Hope is designing the building so it can be maintained without heroics.
• Hope is building in modularity so the next generation can adapt without demolition.
• Hope is choosing acoustics that let voices carry gently, not harshly.
• Hope is integrating shade, water, and greenery to temper heat and lift the spirit.
• Hope is leaving space—literal and figurative—for unforeseen uses and future lives.

None of this solves the larger problems we’re facing. It isn’t meant to. These habits of mind point to a way of working that refuses to give in to the noise and the speed of the moment. Taken together, they form an open-ended litany—an accumulation of decisions that take the future seriously even when the future feels uncertain.

In uncertain times, that is work worth doing.