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 

Guest Viewpoint: Nicolai Kruger

Nicolai Kruger, AIA is a licensed architect and illustrator. I’ve known Nicolai since her husband Yasu Yanagisawa, AIA, CDT, JIA worked with me at Robertson/Sherwood/Architects back in 2004-2006. Nicolai and Yasu have enjoyed a diversity of rich professional experiences since then, including opportunities to work in Yasu’s native Japan, ultimately returning to Oregon a few years back. They presently live with their two children and work in Portland, Yasu with McKenzie, while Nicolai provides illustration services to architects, designers, developers, and public agencies through her business Nicolai Kruger Studio. Nicolai is also an adjunct assistant professor at Portland State University, where she teaches visual communications.  

It was during their period in Japan that Nicolai worked at Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects’ Tokyo office. There, she enjoyed the good fortune of working with the firm’s renowned founder, AIA Gold Medal recipient Cesar Pelli, FAIA, RIBA, JIA. Pelli passed away in July at the age of 92, immediately prompting countless remembrances from all corners in honor of the immensely influential designer of projects like the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, the MoMA Museum Tower in New York, and the Pacific Design Center in Los Angeles. Nicolai penned her own tribute to her former colleague, which I’m pleased to reprint below:

Cesar Pelli (1926-2019)

Remembering Cesar Pelli 

 “Society is the ultimate recipient of all buildings… Citizens have the right to expect that every new building will contribute to a better city and a more humane world.” -  Cesar Pelli

Last month I reunited with former colleagues at Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects to remember the firm’s founder, Cesar Pelli. I spent nine years working in the Japan branch of PCPA. Whenever I visited the main office in New Haven, Connecticut, Cesar would ask about my family and our mutual friends back in Tokyo. He revered the Japanese culture and building tradition. He had worked on countless projects in Japan, starting with the US Embassy in 1972, and had made a lasting imprint on the Osaka and Tokyo skylines.

On the few occasions that Cesar came to Tokyo, I was assigned to be his “handler” in Japan. I would meet him at Narita Airport and see to it that he got where he needed to be: meetings and dinners with important clients; occasionally I translated for him during his stay. While working together on the Tokyo American Club project, I noticed that Cesar often acknowledged the influence of his contemporaries and collaborators. He always gave due credit to junior staff and asked for their input.
 
“My love for teaching is older than my love for architecture.”  -  Cesar Pelli

Pelli projects on the Tokyo skyline: Atago Green Hills and Forest Tower. Image (c) Jun Mitusi & Associates Inc. Architects / Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects Japan, Inc.

Now that I am running my own studio and teaching courses at Portland State University, I am more aware of the positive influence Cesar had on me and on our profession. The experience of teaching as a professional, helps one see things anew, which is invaluable. To read more about Cesar Pelli’s life and learn about the academic scholarship set up in his name, see the tribute page here. 日本語のペリの訃報 詳細について.

Nicolai Kruger

Does Eugene really have an affordable housing crisis? Yes, but . . .

Image from the City of Eugene's Missing Middle Housing Types Handbook

Paul Conte—former chair of the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood Association—is a well-known opponent to upzoning of single-family residential zones and a persistent and formidable thorn in the side of advocates for more diverse housing choice within well-established, historically stable neighborhoods. Paul’s aggressive defense on behalf of the homeowners he chooses to represent has garnered him considerable notoriety and animus within the local planning and development community.

This past June, the Oregon Legislature passed HB 2001, which requires upzoning of single-family neighborhoods by June 30, 2022 to allow a greater diversity of housing options and increase density through the introduction of “missing middle” types. HB 2001 applies to Eugene and Springfield, but excludes nearby commuter towns with a population of 10,000 or fewer, including Coburg, Junction City, Veneta, Creswell, Pleasant Hill, Harrisburg, Monroe, Lowell, and Oakridge. The bill also exempts all existing subdivisions with applicable Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (thus, residents of many wealthier and newer developments would not be required to bear their share of the burden of increased density, which is unfair to other neighborhoods that do not have CC&Rs).

Paul emailed me a couple of messages with the hope I would share them with my fellow local architects. Fundamentally, he believes most architects and advocates for densification of R-1 zones (such as WE CAN) don’t understand the real nature of the housing crisis and why mandating the introduction of missing middle typologies within R-1 neighborhoods may be misguided. I found the points he made in his messages persuasive but also deserving of our skeptical examination, so I am happy to share them here.

One of his emails included the following letter to Eugene mayor Lucy Vinis and the members of the city council on August 13:

Dear Mayor and Councilors,

While you have time to catch your breath on break, you may want to take a calm look at a question for which there seems to be little debate regarding the answer:

Does Eugene really have an "affordable housing" crisis? 

The "conventional wisdom" from some quarters seems to be "Yes! And we need more ADUs, more 'Missing Middle Housing' and fewer 'barriers' in the code."

Well, the first part of the answer is valid—Yes, we do have an affordable housing crisis. 

But what follows in the conventional wisdom is patently wrong. The chart below (also attached as a larger PDF page), using the City staff's own data drawn from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (see attached), shows that there is no shortage of "affordable" housing in Eugene, except for low-income households.

Lest anyone is skeptical of this chart, I created it using the exact method used for the following chart in the National Low Income Housing Coalition in their March 2019 report: The GAP -- A Shortage of Affordable Homes. 

So, to the councilors who want to do more than support a "feel good" attack on decent, single-family homeowners, stop the current staff nonsense and focus all your energy on subsidized apartments on major transit corridors. Start by taking the steps to "activate" MUPTE on the W. 6th and 7th Ave. segment of EmX.

The very simple fact is that above the Very Low Income (VLI) and Extremely Low Income (ELI) categories, there is no shortage of affordable housing either nationally or in Eugene. (Not surprisingly, the city planning staff's slick handout obscures the central fact and gives the false impression that the "housing crisis" affects a wide range of household incomes.)

The second simple fact is this: The discrepancy between income and the price—not cost—of market-rate housing is what causes VLI and ELI households to be severely housing cost burdened. Market-rate "middle housing," including market-rate fake "ADUs" (i.e., with no owner occupancy) is no solution at all for the real housing crisis in Eugene. These "YIMBY" diversions aren't even a so-called "one tool in the toolbox"—as market-rate housing, ADUs and plexes do not provide the truly "missing" dwellings, which are subsidized apartments, but instead will cause harm from redevelopment and price increases arising from speculation.

Thank you.

Paul Conte

Given the passage of HB 2001, Paul may be tilting at windmills by lobbying the mayor and city councilors; nevertheless, the issue is whether his arguments carry merit and therefore worthy of our consideration.

His second email to me related a cautionary question & answer with a senior planning commissioner (Alissa Luepke Pier) in Minneapolis reflecting upon that city’s historic zoning reform, which upzones its single-family neighborhoods to allow diversification of housing types within them. Paul views the commissioner’s comments as a “damning critique” of legislation that Oregon’s HB 2001 emulates:

“The policy took as its starting point that more units automatically equals more affordability, and there wasn’t any interest in delving into whether or not that was actually a factual equation on which to base major decisions. The policy does not cite any research to support its assertion, nor does it even lay out any aspirational goals regarding the extent of the impact they hope to achieve (such as in anticipated added units, or even in theoretical decreases to housing costs). Without any sort of concrete metric, it is impossible to analyze the policy's effectiveness in achieving its goal of improved housing affordability. That is convenient when what one is proposing is a vague, one-size-fits-all solution with no real statistical support linking it to its presupposed conclusion.

“We don’t have any safeguards for this proposed policy, and once we enact these rights, they’re grandfathered in forever. There is no contingency plan, no method to test effectiveness, and no metrics for success. The consequences of a policy like this on a community like mine are far too harmful to be glossed over in the name of innovation. Let me be clear: Adoption of this policy without adequate safeguards will cause great, long-term harm to low income families and communities of color, and there is no way to undo the damage once Pandora’s box has been opened.

“We’re seeing investors come in, run the housing stock into the ground, treat the tenants like garbage, and immediately take all their rental income—money that could be invested in the community—out of the neighborhood. This is an immediate capital flight from the community, leaving local residents without the expendable income to invest in local opportunities or support local businesses.

“To summarize: In an effort to alleviate the affordable housing crisis, the city is offering my community smaller, crappier housing for no less money, with the added insult to injury of making it harder for them to buy a house and build generational wealth within their own community. It’s shocking to me that we’re patting ourselves on the back for this.

“Question: As of the last few years, the largest residential real estate owner in metropolitan California is the global equity firm Blackstone. Are similar changes in residential ownership happening in Minneapolis?

“Yes. I’ve heard from realtors specializing in North Minneapolis that they are being contacted by firms on the West Coast, in Florida, Missouri, Texas, and elsewhere who are looking to buy up multiple parcels at a time, sight unseen. Those interests are chomping at the bit for this policy to pass. It saddens me that we would take ownership opportunities away, not only from the immediate community, but from the region as a whole, in favor of global investors.

“If you are enacting change in the name of others, it seems morally irresponsible not to examine that change from every possible angle and study its impact on those same communities before pushing it through. We can brand it with whatever buzzword we want, but if the end result is just a perpetuation and exacerbation of housing and economic inequities, should it really be lauded as “innovative?””

So if not in established R-1 neighborhoods, where can we provide expanded housing opportunities while fulfilling the affordability, compact urban development, and neighborhood livability pillars of Envision Eugene, not to mention HB 2001? The recalcitrance of concerned owners of single-family homes has proven to be a considerable obstacle. Is overcoming that obstacle necessary to responsibly address our community’s growth and change? If we do nothing will we effectively be accepting financially gated neighborhoods in our midst, contrary to our better natures?

I previously asserted the recipe for success includes sustaining the patterns that make older neighborhoods unique, but also demands creative, inspired design. This may be the reason why it is elusive: the making of good, deferential architecture that respects its context isn’t always assured, and resistance to change is human nature. Regardless, it’s clear our housing stock needs diversification to adequately address the myriad ways Eugene is changing. Certainly, managing change by densifying established neighborhoods will only work if it is the outcome of a community and neighbors-driven process that dives deeply into issues of structural form, market demand, affordability, and traffic impact. Lacking such a process, the inevitable results will be continued resistance. 

One argues with Paul at their own peril, because he is always well-armed with selected facts to back his position. If you’re not likewise prepared and able to riposte effectively, scoring points is difficult. I don’t entirely understand what makes Paul tick and what his motivations are but I know well-enough to avoid taking him head-on because, as a preternaturally skilled debater, he is capable of talking circles around me and most everyone else.

My guess is Paul considers me a useful fool, which is why he asked me to forward his thoughts on this subject. The bottom line is everyone acknowledges the affordable housing crisis is real. Where folks differ is on how to address the problem—whether the solution includes upzoning of R-1 zones or providing MUPTE-like incentives outside those neighborhoods along major transportation corridors instead, or both. I’m sure Paul would appreciate hearing your opinions.  

Guest Viewpoint: Geoff Larsen

Thickened aggregate working pad.

My schedule this weekend is particularly full, so in lieu of an original blog post, the following is reprint of an article written by current Construction Specifications Institute - Willamette Valley Chapter president Geoff Larsen, PE, CSI that appeared in the August issue of The Documentor. Geoff is an Associate and Senior Civil Engineer with Mazzetti/BHEGroup’s Eugene office. His article provides an excellent summary about the critical issue of soil conditions, particularly here in the Willamette Valley where clayey, silty soils and the significant concerns that come with them predominate.

The topics of soil conditions and earthwork are far from central to an architect’s education, but my own experience has taught me they can have an outsized impact on a project if not properly anticipated during the design phases. For this reason, it’s important for architects to possess a basic understanding about the issues they present and how they may be addressed in Division 31 of the Project Manual.

Division 31 - Soil Conditions and Earthwork in the Willamette Valley

By Geoff Larsen, President WVC/CSI

At the midpoint of the dry summer construction season, I am reminded of the varied soil conditions that are exposed with excavation and earthwork for projects throughout the Willamette Valley. Although soil conditions are different for each project site, there are some common issues that crop up during earthwork construction for each project. I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on some of those common issues and share some notes and lessons learned related to the Division 31 Earthwork specifications.

 

Division 31 Earthwork Specifications and the Geotechnical Report:

Project earthwork specifications are found in Division 31 and may include multiple sections (i.e. Aggregates, Site Clearing, Grading, Excavation, Fill, Compaction) or may be consolidated into fewer sections (i.e. Earthwork or Earth Moving). The technical details of the earthwork specifications are a subject for another discussion. However, in a nutshell, the earthwork specifications should reflect the recommendations of the geotechnical report and should establish a framework for working with the existing onsite soils (excavation, protective measures, stabilization, etc.) and for placement of imported soils (base rock, drainage aggregate, backfill, etc.). Since the approach to earthwork can change as a result of weather conditions, concealed conditions, and construction methods, it is also beneficial for the Division 31 specifications (in coordination with Division 1) to set a framework for dealing with potential changes to contract time and contract amount.

Sensitive Soils and Protection from Damage:

Soils in the Willamette Valley are often clayey, silty soils that are easily disturbed when excessively moist and are often susceptible to damage from construction equipment. Within the footprint of new building or pavement areas, soils that are excessively soft or that have been damaged by construction equipment will need to be excavated and removed (referred to as “over-excavation”) to reach a firm bearing surface. This over-excavation is then backfilled with stable material (typically imported aggregate). Conducting earthwork during the dry season can help limit the risk of damaging the underlying soils (subgrade) but some soils may be slow to dry out, even during the dry season, which can be problematic for accelerated construction schedules. To address this issue, it is common to provide a thickened rock working pad or cement treatment (see below for further discussion) to protect or stabilize the underlying soils in areas where construction vehicles will operate. For large projects, the cost of protective or stabilization measures may be significant, and the Owner may choose to reduce protective measures to save cost, understanding that there is increased risk of additional cost and time to deal with over-excavation and repair if damage to the subgrade occurs. Regardless of the approach, it is important to establish a structure for subgrade protection within the Division 31 specifications and to communicate the alternatives with the stakeholders. The following are important questions to consider: 

• Is subgrade protection/stabilization (rock pads / cement treatment) defined/required by the specifications? 
• Who is responsible for the cost of repairing damaged subgrade soils when protective measures are not in place (contractor or owner)?
• How is the contract adjusted when unsuitable soil is encountered or when protective measures are followed but the subgrade still becomes damaged and requires repair? Are unit prices utilized?
• How is construction monitored to determine when unsuitable soils are encountered or when the subgrade is damaged and requires repair? When will geotechnical inspections occur?
• How is the extent of subgrade repair (over-excavation) monitored and measured?
• Are there different requirements for wet-weather construction?

Subgrade Stabilization – Cement Treatment:

Cement treatment of native soils involves mixing cement with the upper layer of soil (12” depth is common) and then compacting. Once cured, the cement-soil mixture provides a stabilized surface. Cement treatment can be a cost-effective solution for sites with particularly poor/unpredictable soils, sites with large paved or building areas, or sites where construction will occur during the wet season. Cement treatment can also provide a higher level of cost certainty than conventional aggregate base stabilization due to lower risk of over-excavation and damage from construction equipment. Excavation for footings or utility trenches through cement-treated subgrade can be more challenging, so construction sequencing should be considered carefully.

Unit Prices:

Unit prices can be an effective way to control costs if subsurface conditions are highly unknown or highly variable and the quantity of over-excavation is unknown. The cost of rock excavation is significantly higher than typical soils, so unit prices can also be a good strategy when rock excavation is anticipated. When evaluating unit price bids, it is important to consider the anticipated probable range of excavation quantities when comparing bids. For example, a bid with a low base bid and high over-excavation unit price may result in a higher overall price.

Measurement and Payment:

Measuring soil quantities for repairing unsuitable or damaged subgrade soils can be a point of contention if not properly defined in the contract documents. It is particularly important to be diligent about units of measurement if utilizing Unit Prices for contract adjustments. Typical units of measurement include in-place volume (bank cubic yards) or in-truck volume (loose cubic yards).  Although in-truck quantities seem like a simple way to measure quantities, in-place quantities provide a more definitive and verifiable basis of measurement. Soil changes volume (increases) when excavated, so there is always a difference between in-place and in-truck quantities. For large projects with potentially large areas of unsuitable soil removal (over-excavation), it may be necessary to verify in-place quantities using survey equipment.

Geotechnical Construction Administration Services:

As projects move toward the construction phase, it is important to have the appropriate geotechnical and testing services in place to monitor earthwork once construction is underway. The native soil directly below building foundations is a critically important interface and it benefits all parties to ensure proper subgrade inspection by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to pouring foundations. The contract documents should be clear about who is responsible for procuring the testing and inspection services.

Proactively thinking about these issues has helped me on past projects to set expectations, provide cost control, and has led to successful projects. If you are a Specifier, Architect, Contractor, or Engineer, I hope these notes can help you bypass predicaments related to earthwork and set your projects up for success.

Geoff Larsen, PE, CSI

Enjoy the rest of your summer (and the dry construction season)!

Who the hell is Elliott Jaques?

The following is a summary of a presentation to the Emerald Executive Association (of which I’m a member) written by EEA executive director Lindy Moore. As Lindy recounts below, the presentation was by Charley Coury of 9Wood, which makes it relevant to readers of this blog. 9Wood is well-known to architects because the company engineers and manufactures high-quality, custom suspended wood ceiling systems. 9Wood is a home-grown success story. Based in Springfield, it more than holds its own competing with such heavy hitters as Armstrong Ceilings and Rulon International. 9Wood’s portfolio boasts award-winning installations throughout the United States and Canada. The company is a favorite among architects because it makes a point of being involved as early as possible in the design process. 9Wood treats every project as unique and truly engineers to-order. The end result are wood ceiling systems that fulfill the architect’s design intent in every respect. 

A deficit of free time continues to hamper my blogging, so I’m thankful I can share Lindy’s writeup. Among other things, she’ll help explain what the title of this blog post has to do with Charley Coury and 9Wood. Read on: 

Emerald Executive Association Meeting 3-14-19

We had a really fascinating program this morning from Charley Coury, President and General Manager of 9Wood. 9Wood is a wood ceiling manufacturer of custom, suspended wood ceilings. Charley told us that rather than talk about 9Wood, he was going to answer the question, “Who the hell is Elliott Jaques?” But first he thought we might want to know who the hell Charley Coury is. 

Charley has a degree in anthropology but really wanted to be a missionary. He did missionary work in Africa for seven years and when he returned home to Oregon he realized he needed a job. He had roots in the wine making/microbrewery enterprise because his father was a pioneer in both industries, but Charley ended up in the ceiling business instead. 9Wood has a wonderful history. The company’s products can be seen at the ceilings of the Hult Center and the Eugene Airport, to name just two local projects. 

After a time, Charley took on management of Human Resources for 9Wood. He found it a challenge to motivate his employees, to make their lives better, more productive, happier, and still keep control of the expenses. He found the answer about ten years ago on his way back from a business trip to Qatar. Charley began reading a book (Requisite Organization) written by a man named Elliott Jaques (b.1917 d. 2003) and was immediately impressed. Many think Jaques was one of the most brilliant and innovative management philosophers of our time. Jaques devoted his life to organizational management. 

Charley Coury

Jaques sought to answer the question of why people get paid different wages. Why does the production worker on the floor get paid so much less than the supervisor? Jaques came up with the answer: There are two ways of thinking about the nature of work. All work has “prescription” (not breaking the law, making money for the company and the shareholders, etc.) There is also “discretion,” the ability to make wise decisions on your own. Every job has prescription and some level of discretion. Every employee makes decisions, solves problems, and provides feedback to his or her company in some form or another. 

Jaques came up with the idea of time and the “time span of discretion.” This is the longest time horizon a person can effectively work into the future, without direction, using their own discretionary judgment to achieve a specific goal. 

Charley provided an example to illustrate this principle. He gave one of 9Wood’s supervisors the job of improving the accuracy of their wood staining information. Every once in a while, there was a problem with staining, which led to the use of the incorrect color. The result was the client rejecting the work, necessitating re-staining of the wood. Charley made the assignment very clear. He and the supervisor talked about it, reiterating goals. Charley directed him to solve this information problem. In other words, he told the supervisor to take the ball and run with it. 

It’s typical for employees to come to Charley for advice and for Charley to check in on them. Such an assignment can take several months to execute. It may involve going outside one’s own department: meeting with engineers, the sales department, design personnel, production workers, and department managers to influence their behavior, to show leadership and to figure everything out. The tasks are not always simple, but Charley will not take the ball back unless it becomes clear the job is too big for the supervisor. If the supervisor does get everything accomplished and solves the problem, he or she will have carried the ball over the line (Charley’s words). 

Elliott Jaques also developed theories about Differential Pay and Felt Fair Pay, to wit: Those paid fairly at their level feel satisfied. Those paid below their level feel frustrated. Those paid above their level, privately feel insecurely favored. 

Charley said that if an employee at 9Wood wants to advance in the company he or she can go to Charley and tell him they want to go up one level. He can tell them unequivocally what is expected of them at that higher level and what the pay would be if they achieve it. It’s the same information he gives to any employee seeking advancement. He admits it becomes much more freeing and hopeful to offer clarity to the individuals and a fair and equitable way to conduct business. He gives the same speech to everyone, no matter what the level they start at may be. 

This was a truly inspirational morning. One of the reasons Charley was so passionate about Jaques’ book is that he learned that if you want to lead, you have to read. With Jaques’ books, he believes he hit the jackpot. Charley confessed he was not a very good reader but he’s taught himself to improve his reading “muscle” and he now compares reading to inhaling a beautiful perfume. Not unlike the atmosphere at the Steelhead this morning. Our sincere thanks to Charley Coury! 

About Elliott Jaques

Born in Toronto, Ontario, Elliott Jaques was educated at the University of Toronto and studied medicine at Johns Hopkins University before receiving his Ph.D. in social relations from Harvard University, and then qualification as a psychoanalyst at the British Psychoanalytical Society. He was a founding fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Britain and was a Visiting Professor at George Washington University in Washington, DC, and Honorary Professor of the University of Buenos Aires. 

During the Second World War, Jaques served as a Major in the Canadian Army where in collaboration with Henry Murray of Harvard University used his education and training to establish the Canadian War Office Selection Boards. He was assigned as liaison to the British Army War Office Psychiatry Division, which in turn developed its own War Office Selection Boards. 

After the war Jaques remained in England and qualified under Austrian-British psychoanalyst Melanie Klein. She highly appreciated his help in preparation for the publication of her book, Narrative of a Child Analysis (1961). Jaques also helped Klein to edit the manuscript of Envy and Gratitude (1957), evidence suggests that it was Jaques who suggested that the word "gratitude" should be included in the title of the book. He was a founding member, in 1946, of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. In 1964, he founded the School of Social Sciences at Brunel University London and served as its Professor and Head of School.

Dr. Jaques moved from London to Gloucester, Massachusetts in 1991. He became a research professor at George Washington University. In 1999 Jaques established Requisite Organization International Institute, operating as an educational and research group. 

As a result of his work with different corporations, governments and U.S. Army, Jaques developed scientific process that allows to evaluate potential capability of individuals in the context of time-span of discretion, instrument which measures work complexity in each role within the organization. This approach has been used by US armed services and large public and private organizations around the world. In 1965 Dr. Jaques published an essay on working patterns of creative geniuses in which he coined the phrase “midlife crisis.” 

His development approach to organizational development makes him one of the early contributors to positive adult development.

Guest Viewpoint: Ujjval Vyas

Ujjval Vyas, Ph.D., J.D.

Ujjval K. Vyas, Ph.D., J.D. is the principal of Alberti Group, a consultancy specializing in matters related to sustainability, risk management, and emerging technologies and new product development in the built environment. Prior to founding Alberti Group, he was an attorney representing contractors, design professionals, and other in the construction process (he remains a licensed attorney in the State of Ilinois). He has also taught architectural history, theory, design, and ethics at the graduate and undergraduate levels in the United States and Canada. He received his J.D. with honors from the Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology, and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago’s interdisciplinary Committee on the History of Culture.

I don’t know if I’ve ever encountered anyone before who has so thoroughly challenged my understanding of the proper role of the architect as a design professional, the necessity of critical thinking, and the objective analysis of facts. Even though Ujjval and I have yet to meet in person, we have frequently engaged in spirited debates via Twitter and email correspondence. His intellect, reasoning, and perspective are unassailable. He is quick to point out when I have failed to overcome biases and when those biases are potentially to the detriment of my professional duties, particularly when it comes to the concept of a client’s informed consent. First and foremost, he believes architects must confront difficult decisions with “as much objective, credible, and transparent information as possible.” In his mind to do otherwise is to fail to act ethically.

What Ujjval believes is necessary of architects is akin to the medical profession’s transition from a field of generalists to a disaggregated world where the general practitioner acts as a useful gatekeeper to more specialized and advanced professionals with relevant knowledge. In his analogy, the architectural profession must experience a similar shift to serve its clients in a manner more consistent with its responsibility to decrease risks. This shift contributes toward ensuring the formation of more robust design teams with the capacity, knowledge, objectivity, and judgment to allow clients to make informed decisions in their best interest.(1)

A licensed member of a learned profession must provide the benefit of his or her objective judgment in the service of the client’s wishes, but can never substitute the professional’s own judgment for that of the client in any material way. As Ujjval attempts to explain in the piece below (which dates to 2009), advocacy-driven activity in architecture is a deep problem, especially when it comes to the subject of sustainability. Our challenge is to avoid capitulating to confirmation biases bred into us by way of our training, those that prejudice us toward inadequately examined and unchallenged beliefs. How do we know what we think we know? If we cannot answer this question, have we merely adopted positions because they are easy, convenient, and self-inflating? Read on:

Hard Sustainability
The era of easy sustainability is over. Until now, easy sustainability has been the norm mostly because of our laziness, and because we have succumbed to the Siren song of simplifications. Green washing, green hype, green marketing machines, and green greed are all tempting us with their songs, but what is at stake is too important to leave to easy solutions. It is time to acknowledge that meaningful sustainability will require hard work, both in thinking and in action. But this is as it should be; ill-defined as it is, sustainability is the current watchword to call ourselves and others to create a more equitable and environmentally responsible future. It is first and foremost a proxy word for ethical action in the current state of the world.

Acting ethically is difficult. Just examining our own day-to-day existence tells us so if we are honest in our reflections. The difficulty of ethics arises not from the lack of recognition of the correct position or even from a lack of willpower. Rather, as the historian of ideas Sir Isaiah Berlin cogently pointed out, the difficulty with ethics is that by its very nature it arises out of a conflict of values, both within cultures and between cultures. When we strive to act ethically in the world, we can’t just follow some easy set of rules or oft-repeated slogans. Instead we must recognize that a choice has to be made under difficult circumstances. Equality may be a worthwhile ideal, but what happens when it meets the problem of merit? Equality before the law may lead to injustice. Freedom is a cherished ideal, but it has its limits as any parent knows. Deciding where to draw the line between equality and reward for the meritorious, or between freedom and necessary control over others puts us into the hard world of ethical choices. Sloganeering about freedom, equality, merit, and paternalism does not provide meaningful guidance when hard choices must be made between competing values.

Examples of values in conflict are easy to conjure. Are the recent wars in the Middle East the result of American addiction to fossil fuels and the resultant geopolitics, or are they the result of a moratorium on pursuing nuclear power that removed a viable option to help break that addiction? A similar argument could be made that nuclear power could significantly decrease CO2 emissions and reduce our need for coal-powered electrical generation plants. On the other hand, the drawbacks of nuclear power must be accounted for in these public policy debates. These are not easy choices and simplistic answers from either the pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear lobbying interests provide little help. When it comes to sustainability, we need open-minded, thoughtful, and intelligent arguments that engage in the difficult task of a risk adjusted cost-benefit analysis which accounts for both the import of human equity and environmental value.

As human beings, we are limited in our capacities. Therefore, when faced with making the difficult choices, it is useful to have before us as much objective, credible, and transparent information as possible. Science is the name given to the aspiration to acquire such information about the empirical world and there is no reason why this same standard shouldn’t apply to ethical choice-making. For example, if we know through sound methodological techniques and full data transparency that solar thermal provides a better return on investment than photovoltaics, this may productively guide public policy. Without this approach, public policy in sustainability remains blind guesswork or, even worse, falls victim to the lobbying efforts of vested interests.

Hard sustainability recognizes that even with the desire to act ethically and to acquire information to properly validate our choices, it is crucial to remember that as individuals and as groups, we may still be very wrong. Our own personal experience shows us this in spades. What we once thought was absolutely beyond doubt at the age of twenty seems thoroughly absurd at fifty. History gives us far too many examples of groups and cultures that caused great harm even as they tried to do the right thing.  Enthusiasms and certitude are the stuff of the Siren song. Hard work and an avowal of human limitations are the context for the difficult voyage ahead. It is best, then, to maintain some level of skepticism to protect against ourselves. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once remarked, one should not confuse certitude for certainty.

Sustainability requires the best in us as human beings and this means wrestling with difficult questions, conflicting values, inadequate understanding of the empirical realm, and accepting the potential for mistakes both grand and small. Sustainability requires that we ask deeper questions and fight against the easy answers—persuasion should be the watchword, not consciousness-raising. It is a call to arms to think more critically and dare to go against the grain of cultural shibboleths and personal sentimentality. To paraphrase the great music critic Charles Rosen, hard sustainability is not for everyone but for anyone. 

(1)  Refer to the chapter Ujjval wrote entitled “Matching Owner and Architect Expectations: Green Advocacy and the Necessity for Informed Consent” in Green Building and the Construction Lawyer: A Practical Guide to Transactional and Litigation Issues, ABA Forum on Construction Law, 2014, p. 126.