What If? The Emerald Canal

Emerald Canal model between Oak & Pearl to the Amazon channel (image source: pages.uoregon.edu/diethelm/CanalImages.html)
 

During my University of Oregon days, I became aware of a visionary plan to create an eleven-block-long canal through the heart of Eugene that would connect the eastern end of the old Millrace that courses along the backside of the fraternity and sorority houses north of 11th Avenue to the concrete drainage channel extension of Amazon Creek at 17th and Oak. This plan proposed, in the words of its champions, “a rich, local blend of historic millrace and San Antonio Riverwalk.” If realized, the project, which they dubbed “The Emerald Canal,” would be a 35’–40’ wide waterway with broad promenades on both sides meandering beneath native trees within an urban garden.
 
A related but formally separate proposal from the same era envisioned restoring the Millrace’s own downtown dead end near Ferry Street as the anchor for a new riverside district.(1) 
 
I thought the Emerald Canal concept was brilliant. Portions of the Millrace as it existed were navigable by canoe. How great would it be if my friends and I could row further through the city, perhaps pulling ashore along the way at a canal-side café for lattes? How much would such a linear water park and urban village add to Eugene’s identity and sense of place? I found the prospect of the project being realized someday incredibly attractive.
 
Chief among the plan’s proponents was Jerry Diethelm, now Professor Emeritus of Landscape Architecture & Community Service at the University of Oregon and both a registered architect and a registered landscape architect. The Emerald Canal was his decades-long personal campaign. Its origin story dates back to a 1977 graduate studio he taught called “The Amazon Corridor.” Community interest soon led to the formation in 1982 of a joint City of Eugene/Lane County Emerald Canal Feasibility Task Force, chaired by state senator Margie Hendriksen, with Jerry serving as the principal planning consultant. The task force studied the project for six months and determined it was feasible. The estimated cost back then to make it a reality? $22 million.(2) 
 
After I returned to settle in Eugene in 1988, I was excited to read further news about the Emerald Canal concept. Jerry continued to build the case for the project through the mid-1990s, teaching new design studios around the concept and conducting a series of associated planning studies for the City of Eugene and EWEB, which featured a restored millrace and a Millrace Park at the river confluence. Along with Charlie Porter and Jerry Rust, he formed the Emerald Waterways Citizens Committee, Inc. They had two large, elaborate models built to show around town, garnering support for the project. The wealthy Gloria Teichert became an enthusiastic patron, primed to invest in a water-related project after helping bankroll water-conservation work in Africa. With her backing, the committee rented a storefront space on West Broadway to show off their Emerald Canal models.(3) Then, in what Jerry called his favorite near-miss, Teichert and her brother fell seriously ill and moved to Canada, and the funding vanished with them.

 

Reversing the Canal for Amazon flood release (image source: pages.uoregon.edu/diethelm/reversible.html)

The pitch for the Emerald Canal was never just aesthetic; it promised hydrological benefits as a small but critical link in a regional water circuit: Willamette into the Millrace, through the Emerald Canal to the Amazon, past the Fairgrounds to Fern Ridge Lake, over the dam into the Long Tom River, and back into the Willamette north of Monroe. This circuit would be important for area farming, wetland habitat, and recreational boating access to Fern Ridge. The relatively short in-town connection would create a very large waterway system with benefits for the community everywhere along its course. That’s a testament to how comprehensive Jerry’s vision was.

 
The flood-control argument was the most concrete of the bunch, and probably the one that came closest to actually unlocking money. During a major flood in the Amazon Basin, when an overwhelmed Amazon Creek would back up into the city, a reversible Emerald Canal could carry the excess directly to the Willamette. Engineers at the time argued it was a cheaper fix than building dams upstream.(4) That argument has since been overtaken by events. Since the 1990s, the Amazon Basin’s flood-storage problem has largely been addressed a different way, through the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and the ongoing naturalization of sections of Amazon Creek, including the stretch between 19th and 24th avenues. The federal dollars that might once have built a canal went to restoring wetlands instead.
 
During the years that followed the initial bloom of public enthusiasm, Jerry wrote several pieces for The Register-Guard and Eugene Weekly about the concept. Undaunted but increasingly wry, these included a jab at the City of Eugene, calling it the “Home of the Historic Eugene Millrace Cover-Up,” and later, sardonically ranking the Emerald Canal and Millrace restoration as “No. 8” on the city’s perpetual to-do list.
 
Jerry’s doggedness has gone unrewarded. The Emerald Waterways Citizens Committee is no more, and there’s no next-generation advocate to reopen the conversation. In 2026, he is the plan’s sole institutional memory.
 
The disappointing part of this story, besides the fact that the Emerald Canal is not a reality today, is what it says about ambition and its limitations in Eugene. I want to believe that imaginative, farsighted people can, with popular support, still make dreams come true. That this is increasingly difficult goes without saying. Regardless, I can lament the shrinking of our ambitions while still retaining hope that realizing them remains possible.
 
Chicago architect Daniel Burnham (1846–1912) famously said the following about visionary ideas:

“Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood, and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty. Think big.”(5)

Burnham wished to inspire large-scale civic planning and bold thinking. This was more attainable in his day than it is now. The reality is that grand visions and big projects aren’t financed the Burnham way anymore, through a single civic will imposing itself on private land. The post-war urban renewal era caused real damage, including here in Eugene. That era’s legacy fueled the apparatus of environmental review, historic preservation law, mandatory public comment, and eminent domain restrictions. This apparatus is necessary, but it has handcuffed those community leaders who have harbored ambitious dreams.

San Antonio's Riverwalk (image source: Library of Congress - public domain)

 

The city can still build big things, but typically only on ground it already controls, with private-sector partners. The Downtown Riverfront development is the case in point. That site was a vacant industrial brownfield: one owner, EWEB, and no other properties to buy out. The Emerald Canal, by contrast, would have run through built-up urban fabric. Digging an open waterway through eleven or twelve blocks of the West University neighborhood would have meant acquiring dozens of parcels, relocating infrastructure, and disrupting a part of town that’s only gotten denser and more expensive since Jerry first proposed the project nearly fifty years ago. Lacking an overwhelming public mandate, the city can no longer draw a diagram through occupied city blocks and proclaim eminent domain. And, tellingly, the Downtown Riverfront’s own master plan, for all its ambition, includes no reopened millrace, no daylighted canal, no flowing water at all beyond the river’s own edge.  
 
Money was and is always an issue, too. The Emerald Canal’s funding path largely depended on passage of a countywide general obligation bond measure, which never occurred. Tax-increment financing wasn’t an option, either, since much of the proposed route lay outside the Downtown Urban Renewal District.
 
The one piece of Jerry’s vision still alive today is the University of Oregon’s own millrace restoration, a concept plan for a bio-habitat-focused Millrace Natural Area, with implementation still in the planning and incremental restoration stage rather than full construction. It’s a worthy project on its own terms. It is also, unmistakably, the shrunken remnant of something much larger: campus-bound, ecological rather than civic, with no ambition to reconnect to downtown at all.
 
Eugene once had the imagination for a project like the Emerald Canal but lacked the means. Today, it is a case study that reads less like a missed chance than a measure of how far Eugene’s civic capacities have contracted. Jerry’s idea was sound, its benefits clear, and his advocacy persisted for nearly fifty years. The problem is that the machinery that might once have carried a project of its scale no longer exists here. My “what if” isn’t a prompt for nostalgia so much as a note on the distance between the Eugene some could imagine and the Eugene that could never build it.

(1) The Emerald Canal plan proper ran from the Millrace’s blunted end near 10th and Ferry to Amazon Creek at 17th and Oak. The separate Millrace Park / lower-Millrace restoration idea, tied to the mid-1990s Ferry Street Corridor and South Bank planning process, would have daylighted the Millrace down to the Willamette on EWEB-owned land, the same parcel now redeveloped as Eugene’s Downtown Riverfront district.

(2) Figure and task force account per Jerry's own 1998 Register-Guard commentary, “Millrace for the Millennium.” Accounting for inflation alone, $22 million is about $70 million today. This understates the current reality, as urban construction and right-of-way costs in a dense, developed corridor have outpaced general inflation for decades. A 2026 estimate that prices in property acquisition would probably run into hundreds of millions.

(3) Sourced to Jerry's own retelling in “Emerald Canal Diary,” Eugene Weekly, June 30, 2005 (reprinted June 27, 2013).

(4) The hydrology was run by LCOG and confirmed by the Army Corps of Engineers at the time, per Jerry's own account.

(5) The quote’s own provenance is shakier than its fame suggests. It first appeared in print nine years after Burnham’s death, in a 1921 biography, with no citation, and historians long suspected an associate had assembled it from letters and speeches rather than recorded it verbatim. A 1910 Chicago newspaper account of a Burnham speech, unearthed in 2019, closes with nearly the same words, which is generally taken as confirming he really did say something close to this.  

Looking Back: Architecture Career Advice

A design studio review at the University of Oregon (my photo)

This post is another outcome of my ongoing efforts to sort through and purge the mountains of old paperwork I’ve retained over the years—much of it for reasons I struggle to remember or justify now that I’m retired. I recently discovered a box containing materials from my time as an adjunct instructor at the University of Oregon’s Department of Architecture, where I helped teach the Context of the Professions class during the 2012 and 2013 academic years. Among the contents was a set of questions submitted by students as part of a class assignment. Their questions—posed to me and my fellow instructors—asked for our opinions about entry into the profession and reflections on our early experiences as fledgling employees.
 
Rather than responding in writing, we answered these questions in a freewheeling discussion before the assembled class. While I don’t have an exact record of what we said, the questions themselves remain a treasure. Below is a sampling, along with answers I composed today. I’m not sure how much my responses differ from those I gave in 2012 and 2013, but I like to think they carry a bit more perspective, reflecting an additional decade-plus of experience and insight.
 
1. If employers are concerned with hiring individuals with experience, then what makes them likely to hire a recent graduate at all?
Employers look for potential, not just experience. Recent graduates bring fresh perspectives, technical skills (especially in software), and a willingness to learn. Firms value enthusiasm, adaptability, and the ability to work collaboratively.
 
2. How can I (a presumed graduate) make myself a more desirable applicant than someone with real-world experience?
Demonstrate robust design and technical skills, proficiency in industry-standard software (Revit, Rhino, Grasshopper, Adobe Creative Suite, Bluebeam Revu, etc.), and critical thinking ability. A well-curated portfolio, professional communication, and relevant internship experience can help compensate for a lack of full-time experience.
 
3. If you were hiring a summer intern, what qualities would you look for first?
Initiative, curiosity, and a strong work ethic. A good intern asks questions, learns quickly, and contributes meaningfully. Proficiency in digital tools and a willingness to take on varied tasks are also key.
 
4. What steps should we take while still in school to help us find a job later?
Seek internships and part-time positions in architecture firms. Build relationships with professors and professionals. Develop a strong portfolio showcasing a range of skills. Learn both design and technical software. Attend networking events and join professional organizations like AIA, CSI, or NCARB.
 
5. In interviews, is it better to admit weaknesses and areas for improvement, or just focus on strengths?
A balance is best. Confidence in strengths is key, but firms also value self-awareness and a willingness to improve.
 
6. How much of your career success do you attribute to talent and effort, versus being in the right place at the right time?
Success is a mix of skill, hard work, and luck. Talent and perseverance set the foundation, but networking and timing often influence career trajectory. Many professionals recommend making your own luck by being proactive and engaged in the industry.
 
7. Would your friends and family say you’ve effectively balanced work and social life?
Many architects struggle with work-life balance, especially early in their careers. Setting boundaries and working for firms that value employee well-being can help, but long hours are often a reality in the field.
 
8. How influential is the portfolio in the application process? Can strong management and organizational skills balance out middle-of-the-road design skills?
The portfolio is crucial, but firms also consider communication, teamwork, and organizational skills. Those who are strong in project management, client relations, and technical execution can be just as valuable as pure design talents.
 
9. Is it better to take an undesirable position at a firm you like or a desirable position at a firm you don’t like?
It's generally better to work at a firm that aligns with your values, even if the role isn’t ideal. Culture, mentorship, and opportunities for growth matter more in the long run than immediate job duties.
 
10. Do you prefer working in a big firm or a small one, and why?
Preferences vary. Big firms offer large projects, specialization, resources, and stability. Small firms provide diverse experience, close mentorship, and more direct involvement in design decisions. I spent my career in small-to-medium-sized firms (ranging from 9 to 18 employees), where I enjoyed a blend of benefits associated with both large and small offices.
 
11. How does the high-pressure architecture school studio culture compare to firm work?
Working in an architecture firm is demanding but typically more structured. Deadlines are real, but projects unfold over months or years, allowing for deeper refinement. The all-nighter culture is less common, though long hours can persist depending on firm culture and project deadlines.
 
12. What do you most regret about your career? What would you have done differently?
I have no regrets. My career was fulfilling and met my expectations in every way. That said, I know much of my good fortune was due to luck and being in the right place at the right time. Other architects might wish they had networked earlier, gained better business knowledge, pursued licensure sooner, or maintained a better work-life balance.
 
13. How does one establish themselves in a firm and move into leadership?
Leadership is built through reliability, problem-solving, and initiative. Key steps include becoming indispensable on projects, building client and team relationships, learning about firm operations, and expressing interest in leadership roles.
 
14. Is it better to start my career in a small city or a large one?
There are trade-offs to both. Large cities offer exposure to high-profile projects, diverse firms, and more structured career paths, but they come with higher costs and competition. Smaller cities often provide more hands-on experience, greater project responsibility, and a lower cost of living, but fewer large-scale opportunities. Many architects start in one and transition to the other. I worked in large cities (Vancouver and Los Angeles) but spent most of my career in Eugene, which, despite being a smaller market, offered me many meaningful opportunities.
 
15. How important is getting licensed early in my career?
While gaining experience is essential, licensure opens more career opportunities, including leadership roles, higher salaries, and the ability to stamp drawings. Many professionals recommend working toward licensure as soon as possible while balancing practical experience. That was certainly my goal. I first became licensed in 1985, two years following my graduation from the University of Oregon in 1983.

*    *    *    *    *    *

Looking back at these questions, I realize how much of what I’ve learned wasn’t just about architecture itself, but about navigating a career—understanding what really matters, what lasts, and what fades with time. There’s no single path to success in this profession, but curiosity, adaptability, and persistence go a long way. If emerging professionals stay engaged, keep learning, and surround themselves with people who challenge and support them, the rest tends to fall into place. Of course, this is easy for me to say from where I stand today. The architectural profession is changing rapidly, and my advice may soon feel outdated, but the fundamentals of curiosity, adaptability, and persistence will always matter.

Eugene Civic Park – Phase 2 Update and a Project Interview

Civic Park, Phase 2 under construction, September 7, 2024 (drone photography by Levi Connelly, Chambers Construction)

Travel along Willamette Street past Civic Park and you’re certain to notice the flurry of recent construction activity occurring there. Rapidly taking shape is the second and final phase for Civic Park. As they did for project’s initial phase, Chambers Construction is leading the construction effort for Phase 2, which will see the completion of the facility’s stadium seating, spectator concourse, press box, public restrooms, and more. Chambers anticipates wrapping everything up before the turn of the calendar to 2025.

As I described back in 2017, Skylab Architecture of Portland led the design effort for Civic Park, while Robertson/Sherwood/Architects (RSA) served as the architect-of-record. The key members of the talented Skylab team were Design Principal Jeff Kovel, AIA, and Senior Associate Jamin AAsum, AIA. I enjoyed the privilege of working alongside them as RSA’s project manager.

Following is a terrific interview with Jamin, conducted in-house this past spring by Skylab’s marketing team. In it, he recalls the project’s genesis, his key role in assisting the Eugene Civic Alliance and KIDSPORTS with the development of the earliest concepts for the project, and subsequently helping to resurrect it in the aftermath of the June 2015 fire that reduced the old Civic Stadium to ashes. Skylab regards this transcript of the interview as source material for use in their future proposals and marketing efforts. I thank them for kindly allowing me to publish it here on my blog.

PROJECT INTERVIEW CIVIC PARK 

Interview with Jamin AAsum, Senior Associate
5 April 2024
 

Jamin AAsum, AIA

How did the project come to us?
So, it all started with my wife. She's involved with a non-profit back in Eugene, where she lived for two decades, and that's where this whole project unfolded. There was an iconic old wood baseball stadium from the 1930s, a true landmark in the city. It had been a community effort back in the Depression, a place with a rich history. People remember going there for Fourth of July celebrations and local baseball games for decades. All the high schools even held graduations there. But by the time I got involved, things were rough. The Eugene Emeralds, a Minor League team, had left a couple years prior, and the stadium itself was in disuse and disrepair. The city even wanted to tear it down. There were other proposals on the table, like selling it to Fred Meyer for a new store.
 
That's when I got connected with a local non-profit called KIDSPORTS. They had allied with a local group that wanted to preserve the stadium they idea was to build a new fieldhouse next to the stadium and keep using the field and the stadium itself for community events. They asked me to help design it pro bono. For a year, I did just that—designing the fieldhouse, creating renderings, and even helping them put together proposals for the city.
 
Out of all that effort, a new non-profit called Eugene Civic Alliance (ECA) was formed. They raised enough money to buy the stadium, which was fantastic news. We were just getting ready to move forward with the design and construction when disaster struck. Five or six kids playing with matches accidentally started a fire in the fieldhouse. It was all wood, and, although the fire station was just a few blocks away by the time they arrived, the place was a complete loss.
 
This huge setback called for a quick response. They called me right away, asking if I could come down the next day to help them re-imagine the whole project. So, over that weekend, I basically sketched out a whole new plan on the fly—a new stadium and a new fieldhouse. It actually turned out to be a better solution in the end.
 
That's when things really took off. Skylab was invited to submit a proposal for the design work, and I already had a history with the project. We teamed up with a local architect and a landscape company that I'd been doing pro bono work with—basically the perfect team already in place. I already knew all the key players, so it was a natural fit. That's how we landed the job.
 

Jeff Kovel (left) and Jamin AAsum (seated) of Skylab Architecture, and Matt Scheibe of Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture & Planning during a Civic Park design charrette at Skylab's office in Portland.

Do you remember what year that was? And what was the scope?
I want to say that it burned down in 2015, and the first phase was constructed in 2018. The whole project was a massive undertaking—around $35 million. It was a huge fundraising effort for a non-profit in Eugene. They couldn't raise everything at once, so they prioritized the fieldhouse and the field itself. Building the field was a challenge in itself—the ground turned out to be a swamp, requiring expensive dewatering work. They secured federal funding from a local congressman who got them federal money, and they secured $6 million from Oregon lottery funds. The plan was always to raise the rest for the stadium in a second phase, but that proved difficult. However, a seemingly small detail proved crucial—the permits for the entire project had to be obtained all at once. This meant they had to do some minor construction along the way, every year, just to keep the permits valid. This turned out to be a lifesaver, as it essentially kept the project alive over the course of several years. They never lost sight of the ultimate goal, and remarkably, they're building the second phase of the project exactly according to the design we originally created.

 
So, what are they building now?
Construction of the stadium itself is underway. It's built into the side of a hill, with major streets flanking both sides of the site. The fieldhouse is already up on the east side. On the west side, the ground slopes to meet the west side street and the stadium's concourse level. The stadium will seat just under 3,000 fans, and construction is progressing. The field level area will house locker rooms, referee rooms, storage, laundry facilities, and the like. Up on the concourse level, we have restrooms that cater to the stadium crowd and a press box. They're also planning concession areas that could potentially host food trucks and other vendors.
 
Who's going to use this facility in addition to them?
The key thing to remember is that this is a community facility. But it's also designed to be self-sustaining for the Eugene Civic Alliance non-profit. Their financial projections showed that renting the stadium out for various events would be a viable income source that might make them self-sustaining. This includes all the things that used to happen there – high school games, for example. There's even a local semi-pro soccer team that will call it their home field. So, it'll be a multi-use space, accommodating both soccer and football, allowing the high schools to continue their football tradition there as well. Why did they feel Skylab was the right fit for them? Nancy Webber(1), who had managed Obama's presidential campaign in Oregon, played a pivotal role in the project. Her political experience made her a shrewd fundraiser and negotiator, and she was determined to achieve a top-notch design. Nonprofits often operate with limited resources and settle for what they can afford. But Nancy believed KIDSPORTS, a remarkable organization serving 16,000 kids annually through after-school programs, deserved the best design. She knew my work and Skylab's reputation for design excellence, and she championed our involvement. There were additional connections: the builder of both our houses in Eugene and Portland also built hers. Nancy's familiarity with me spanned various aspects of our lives and created a strong foundation for collaboration. She actively sought Skylab's participation and advocated for us throughout the process.
 
What else can you tell us about their goals? For the project? What did the client do other than just the programming you have already mentioned? What did they need this project to do?
The name "Civic Alliance" reflects the project's focus on serving the community. While KIDSPORTS is the primary tenant, acting as the flagship program, the park's vision extends beyond youth athletics. Once the stadium is complete, it will cater to a broader range of users, transforming the perception of the space.
 
The location is truly prime real estate. Situated directly across from South Eugene High School—the largest, oldest, and arguably most esteemed high school in Eugene—Civic Park sits at the heart of a recreational hub. The surrounding area boasts a city pool, miles of bark dust jogging trails, softball fields, tennis courts, community pools and a YMCA. This central location ensures the project's high visibility, making it a landmark recognized by everyone in Eugene.
 

Aerial view looking southwest. Visible in the foreground are the footings for the yet-to-be-installed aluminum & steel grandstand. Team locker rooms/showers, mechanical & electrical rooms, and storage facilities are located below the concourse.

From a design perspective was there anything that this project needed to do, or was dictated as part of the creative brief from the client?
There was definitely an initial element of surprise about the process of designing. I believe everyone involved gradually became design enthusiasts as the project progressed. Once construction was complete, their appreciation for design truly solidified.
 
Nancy Webber played a crucial role advocating for design excellence. She functioned as our voice throughout discussions, emphasizing the importance of exceptional design. Our Eugene-based partner architect, Robertson/Sherwood/Architects, while serving as the Architect-of-Record, also championed our design vision. Although we were the design architects, they fiercely protected our work and meticulously guided all design aspects through the project. Their dedication continues even now, as they still reach out for our input on details like color choices and implementation methods.
 
Skylab values Narrative, Strategy and Regeneration. What inspired the design that we ended up proposing to them?
Chambers Construction, a major Eugene firm and strong supporter of Civic Alliance and KIDSPORTS, was chosen as the general contractor (GC) for the project. We collaborated closely with them throughout the process.
 
Budget was a significant concern, especially for such a large building with four basketball courts requiring a vast open space. Chambers Construction initially proposed a pre-engineered metal building system from Butler, a common choice for cost-effectiveness. While hesitant about aesthetics, we saw an opportunity. We proposed a plan to "tweak" Butler's system while still reaping the cost benefits. The exposed structural elements inside became a unique feature. Unlike typical hot rolled steel beams, the Butler system consisted of steel plates assembled together to make beams and columns. This ended up creating a more substantial and almost athletic feel, and really reflecting the building's purpose.
 
A primary focus was the building's "skin"—its exterior. We utilized a commonly used box-ribbed metal panel system, but with a twist. We employed two different scales of the panels and strategically divided the building, creating a zipper-like effect that visually suggests movement. Additionally, we incorporated splashes of silver metal panels throughout, originally intended as windows but ultimately transformed into design elements that echoed the green accents in the glass.
 
The green theme continued inside. We opted for a fully immersive green color palette, incorporating over 20 different shades. Even the wooden gym floor received a green wash treatment. This extensive use of green, combined with the natural light filtering through the green-tinted glass, creates a cathedral-like atmosphere.
 
Finally, we addressed the conference room located on the second floor. My vision was to make it feel like the occupants of the room were a watchful presence overlooking the entire facility. This room, filled with portraits of donors and key figures, cantilevers over the entrance and out towards the field at an angle. Gesturing towards the youth. This unique element further enhances the dynamic interplay between functionality and design.

View from directly above Phase 2.

 
What were the challenges we encountered while designing the project?
The project wasn't without its challenges. Nonprofits are led by volunteer boards, and ours required regular presentations to ensure financial stewardship. Convincing them of the value of the design and keeping them on board throughout the process demanded a concerted effort.
 
To address these challenges, I started commuting to the architect's office in downtown Eugene by train with my bike. This fostered a strong personal connection with both the architect and the landscape architect. Weekly owner-architect-contractor meetings further solidified these relationships. This frequent and open communication proved invaluable in guiding our design vision through the construction phase.
 
Chambers Construction, thankfully, proved to be a respectful partner who understood our design intent. Notably, in collaboration with the landscape architect, Jeff played a key role in designing a cohesive system around the field. This system seamlessly integrated the building with the stadium and the surrounding site, which sits nestled into a hillside.
 
Can you say more about how we did that? How do we integrate it?
The landscape design incorporated the "Skylab touch"—where various angles harmonize to create a cohesive aesthetic. Originally, berms with trees were planned around the field, but this concept was rejected due to concerns about encroaching on playing space. Another alteration involved extending the artificial turf to the edges, eliminating the berms entirely.
 
Despite these changes, the overall landscape plan remains a prominent feature. The building's integration into the hillside is evident in stadium photos and construction updates. A significant expense was the massive retaining wall, stretching the length of a football field or even longer. This two-foot-thick wall with a complex drainage system was necessary due to the slope behind it, which previously channeled water into a nearby swamp.
 
To address this water challenge and contribute to ecological regeneration, a 150-foot swale was constructed along the building's east side. This swale collects and purifies water before it re-enters the ecosystem via Amazon Creek, which ultimately flows into the river.
 
Water management was considered a crucial aspect of the project, not just a challenge to overcome. The natural drainage system swales and restored habitat are key features. The field's layered drainage system, designed by the landscape architect with technical expertise, ensures the field remains consistently perfect in wettest winters.
 

View of the concourse, looking north. The restrooms building is to the left, and the press box is on the right.

What other hidden opportunity or moment did we uncover?
To achieve cost-efficiency and facilitate phased construction, the stadium design utilized a unique approach. Instead of traditional concrete construction for seating areas, a framework was built. This elevated the concourse 20-25 feet above the field, allowing for programmatic space below. We then adapted an off-the-shelf aluminum bleacher system to seamlessly integrate within this framework.
 
As with any Skylab project, we creatively treated these standard components. Additionally, a separate system incorporated flags, signage, and other graphic elements to unify the visual experience and connect it to the game atmosphere. For example, the exit passageways from the field to the underside of the stadium, sometimes referred to as "vomitoria," were incorporated with color and graphics.
 
Previously, KIDSPORTS and the stadium had minimal graphic elements. I collaborated with Nancy Weber to bring Downstream on board. Their task was to develop a comprehensive graphic identity for both the project and KIDSPORTS. Essentially, Nancy was urging KIDSPORTS to embrace a modern approach with a professional branding strategy, including fonts, colors, and a thematic look that would integrate with the architecture.
 
Amy DeVall, Interior Designer at Skylab, created a striking green color scheme with a tonal range. Initially, it was a challenging sell to the client and the board. Eugene has a certain aesthetic, and some people worried the design would be too similar to the University of Oregon's branding. There was a concern about straying too far from a perceived "Eugene identity." We argued that KIDSPORTS could have its own unique identity while maintaining consistency across its messaging and marketing materials. Thankfully, the green scheme has been very well-received, and even Skylab, with some initial reservations about the extensive green, now recognizes how effectively it unifies the entire space. The overall experience is one of complete cohesion, and I'm excited to see how the stadium integrates into this visual landscape.
 
What did you think was the coolest design solution that was kind of offered?
I'm particularly impressed by how Jeff's landscape design iterations introduced a sense of movement; what Nike might call "kineticism." The diagonal lines he incorporated became a recurring motif throughout the project. This is evident in everything from the signage to the monument street signs.
 
One of my personal favorites is the entry signage. It resembles a lightning bolt and serves multiple purposes. It prominently displays the building's main signage but also integrates the donor wall, a timeline, and some graphics silkscreened by Downstream. Multiple panels stretch roughly 60 feet, and guide visitors entering the building. As you pass the stairs, you transition into the main building area.
 
The project was completed a few months before the pandemic. During that challenging time, I received a call from Bev Smith, who had recently succeeded Nancy Weber as the leader of the Civic Alliance. Bev, a two-time Canadian Olympic basketball player and former UO coach, expressed her immense gratitude. She called our design "genius" and credited it with saving KIDSPORTS as an organization by allowing them to function during the covid lockdown.
 
Previously, KIDSPORTS relied on after-school programs delivered directly at various schools. Coaches would transport equipment from a central location, creating logistical challenges. With school closures and restricted access to fields during COVID, KIDSPORTS' entire operation was at risk.
 
Fortunately, the new facility, with its design and multiple entrances, proved to be a lifesaver. Separate entry points from the field, originally planned for coaches, kids and injured players, and a clear front entrance allowed for program segregation and safe operation outdoors and indoors. Bev couldn't contain her enthusiasm, calling me multiple times during COVID to express how perfectly the design functioned. It met all their needs and exceeded expectations.
 
Personally, this project ranks among the most fulfilling of my career. The positive feedback, the beautiful and innovative design, the sustainability aspects—it truly checks all the boxes. Most importantly, it serves as a valuable and cherished community resource.
 

Rendering showing the completed Phase 2.

Anything more you'd like to say about the sustainability strategies that we used on this?
Daylighting was a major consideration for the courts, but budget constraints ultimately led to a compromise. We utilized a daylighting model tested at the UO's daylighting lab to optimize natural light penetration. While initial plans included skylights for complete daylight operation, they were removed due to cost. However, the current design allows for play during the day using only natural light from the east wall, especially during early mornings when the sun doesn't hit the opposing side. This aligns perfectly with after-school program schedules.
 
The offices on the west side of the second floor have deep sunscreens integrated into the window system to manage afternoon sun exposure.
 

We previously discussed how the natural landscape influenced the stadium's nestled design. Here's another interesting detail: On the north side of the property, there was an existing pathway connecting the neighborhood on the hilltop to the high school. The city facilitated negotiations with Civic Lions Club, who donated a small triangular parcel of land for a park. This donation included a landscaped pathway dedicated to a local female cyclist, athlete, and youth advocate who tragically passed away. The pathway has a special name that I can't recall at the moment, but it holds significant meaning to the community. This Z-shaped path winds down the north side, separate from the fenced area around the field and stadium, creating a peaceful community space that beautifully integrates giving back to the community. An additional safety measure implemented was a stoplight to assist children crossing the busy Amazon Parkway. 

(1)  Sadly, Nancy passed away recently. She would have been so happy to see Phase 2 fully realized. 

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.

Cracking the Housing Affordability Nut

It is no secret that the absence of affordable housing is a crisis here in Lane County. According to Better Housing Together, the Eugene area is among the most-constrained housing markets in the nation, second only to Seattle. Eugene also holds the dishonorable distinction of possessing the highest per capita rate of homelessness found anywhere. I’m no housing affordability expert, but I am deeply concerned about how inaccessible the local housing market has become in recent years. As baby boomers, my wife and I enjoy the good fortune of having purchased our home when costs were reasonable (back in the 1980s). That’s hardly the case today.

Cracking the housing affordability nut has proven to be an enormously vexing problem. There are several reasons for this. For one, Euclidean land-use regulations historically downzoned urban areas, effectively banning multifamily housing while promoting suburban sprawl. On another front, North American building codes effectively (if unintentionally) erected barriers to the creation of affordable housing typologies, typically mandating multiple egress routes for large multifamily buildings. Also contributing to the dilemma has been the intransigence of many to change of any kind, especially when such change holds the potential to impact their neighborhoods.

Point-Access Blocks

Re-legalizing single-stair apartment buildings, or "point-access blocks," offers one promising solution. This typology, once common in the U.S. and still prevalent in Europe, could, when paired with zoning reform, enable the cost-effective construction of attractive, light-filled multifamily housing on urban sites currently zoned for single-family homes. Michael Eliason, founder and principal of Larch Lab in Seattle, is perhaps the most ardent evangelist for single-stair apartments, tirelessly working with policymakers, advocacy groups, and jurisdictions to introduce and pass legislation allowing point access blocks. The type is a compelling alternative to the “5-over-1” model so prevalent for multifamily developments in the U.S. today.(1)   

Double-loaded corridor configuration, showing poor unit mix and multiple stairs (source: Larch Lab) 

5-over-1 apartment buildings are typically constructed using light wood framing up to five stories built over a single-story fireproof podium, and feature double-loaded corridors with stairs at each end. The downside is that the type too often results in long, windowless corridors slicing through deep floor plates, with non-corner units having windows on only one side, opposite the entry door, thus favoring studio and one-bedroom layouts.

Connected point access block, showing unit diversity and typical vertical circulation (source: Larch Lab)

In contrast, point-access blocks have shallower floor plates, allowing "floor-through" light on at least two sides of each unit and often featuring shared central courtyards. This not only enhances natural light and airflow but also provides acoustic privacy akin to that of detached single-family homes. Additionally, point-access blocks facilitate community building, as smaller complexes with units arranged around a single stair are more conducive to neighborly interactions.

Single-stair buildings also enable economically feasible multifamily development on small infill lots, whereas the space taken up by two interior stairwells and a corridor render the typical 5-over-1 multifamily buildings infeasible unless the developer aggregates multiple properties. Point-access blocks are inherently more efficient and cost-effective, and hold the potential to comprise a substantial portion of the desired future “missing middle” housing stock.

Seattle revised its building code a few years ago to legalize the point-access block type. The Oregon legislature has followed suit, passing SB 847-4 and subsequently HB 3395 Section 8, which Gov. Tina Kotek signed into law last June. The legislation directs the Building Codes Division to revise the state's building code to allow single-exit apartment buildings by October 1, 2025. The proposed standards include prescribing no more than six stories and four units per floor, limiting distances to the exit stair from any apartment, and requiring application of NFPA 13 sprinkler standards (rather than NFPA 13R). The legislative initiatives apparently passed with overwhelming support, paving the way for new building regulations that may help address the housing affordability crisis while simultaneously promoting compact, sustainable growth.

Lessons from Japan?

Japan possesses an abundance of relatively affordable housing in compact, low-carbon neighborhoods. When conducting research for this blog post, I found this surprising. Apparently, a reason for Japan's success lies in its unusual degree of national control over zoning and building rules, which overrides local housing obstructionism. While this level of centralization would never gain traction here due to the deep-rooted American preference for local regulation, there still may be valuable lessons to be learned from Japan’s experience.

American cities could adapt some Japanese principles without requiring a complete shift to centralized governance of property development. These principles include encouraging rapid housing turnover, promoting compact and efficient land use, and maintaining a regulatory environment that supports diverse housing types.

Firstly, Japan’s regulatory environment welcomes a variety of housing types and sizes. American cities could emulate this flexibility by revising building codes to accommodate different housing typologies, including point-access block designs. As I mentioned above, this is now occurring here in Oregon.

Tokyo (photo by Morio, CC BY-SA 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>, via Wikimedia Commons)

Secondly, a significant contributor is Japan’s “disposable house” culture, wherein small homes depreciate completely in about 30 years and are replaced soon thereafter. This rapid turnover, driven by rigorous and frequently updated earthquake-safety laws and a cultural preference for newness, allows Japan to continually replace small homes with larger buildings. American cities could adopt a similar approach by incentivizing the redevelopment of aging housing stock, thus creating opportunities to increase density and improve housing quality, through the implementation of tax incentives, streamlined permitting processes, and subsidies for redevelopment projects.

The notion of a “disposable house” culture does prompt important questions about sustainability. This ingrained practice seems at odds with the ethos of sustainability, which typically emphasizes durability and the conservation of resources. Critics argue that frequent demolition and reconstruction generate significant waste and consume substantial resources; however, this rapid turnover also offers opportunities to incorporate the latest advancements in energy efficiency, materials, and building technologies. Each new construction can integrate greener technologies and higher standards of energy performance, potentially resulting in a housing stock that, on average, is more sustainable than older buildings retrofitted over time. Moreover, continuous redevelopment supports compact urban growth, reducing urban sprawl and its associated environmental impacts.

The “disposable house” model also raises concerns about the potential loss of historic continuity and neighborhood character. Americans cherish the few historic buildings and neighborhoods that exist for their architectural heritage and the sense of identity they provide. The constant replacement of homes, as seen in Japan, could erode this cultural and historical fabric. To strike a balance, American cities should continue to preserve historically and architecturally significant structures while encouraging redevelopment in areas that lack such value. Preservation incentives, such as tax credits for rehabilitating historic buildings, can encourage property owners to maintain and improve these structures.

The NIMBY Challenge

The American mindset is fundamentally predisposed to individualism, localism, property rights, skepticism of government, and a fear of change. Eugene is most decidedly not Tokyo. Local resistance to land use changes—such as the introduction of middle housing types like point-access block housing—is a persistent obstacle, particularly from well-organized neighborhood groups. That resistance has proven effective in impeding even the most suitable new developments, especially in R-1 zoned neighborhoods. The opposition to change often stems from a desire to preserve the perceived tranquility and exclusivity of single-family neighborhoods, coupled with concerns about increased traffic, parking shortages, and strain on local infrastructure.

The recent passage of progressive legislation mandating the introduction of new housing types and compact development will shift the dynamic and potentially help alleviate Eugene’s housing affordability crisis. This shift will take time and the change will be incremental.

Local governments will need to allay the fears of established property owners. Would creating “opt-in” zoning overlays that allow neighborhoods to choose increased density and mixed-use development be a possibility? I don’t know. Such an approach would respect local control while providing a pathway for those willing to embrace change. I believe framing the conversation around the broader community benefits of housing reform will be a key. Addressing the housing crisis requires a multifaceted approach that includes education, community engagement, and strategic policy changes. Advocates can highlight how increased housing supply can stabilize or reduce housing costs, prevent displacement, and create more inclusive, vibrant communities.

*    *    *    *    *    *

Transforming American housing policy is by necessity a multifaceted challenge. The mandate to revise the building code is one step. The U.S. may not embrace centralized control over land use to as great an extent as in Japan, but local governments can still implement significant reforms to encourage housing turnover, promote compact land use, and support diverse housing types. I’m hoping the reforms will result in the accelerating development of affordable, attractive, and sustainable housing here in Eugene, drawing on successful models from Europe and Japan, while working within our unique cultural and regulatory landscape.

(1)   I wrote a contrarian’s blog post back in 2019 extolling what I regarded as the virtues of 5-over-1 construction. Both ArchDaily and Common Edge subsequently picked up the piece. Michael Eliason responded on Twitter (now X), not so much to take exception with what I had written, but rather to note that 5-over-1 developments and the point-block morphology should not be mutually exclusive.