LEED v4 Launch Update

 

The US Green Building Council continuously engages in a process of revising and improving its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating systems. The USGBC will launch LEEDv4, its latest major overhaul of the system, this month at Greenbuild in Philadelphia. LEEDv4 represents the biggest change in the history of LEED. 

The Eugene Branch of the Cascadia Green Building Council invites everyone to a discussion about this latest iteration of LEED, and how it will affect the green building community. The event will take place on Tuesday, November 19 (in advance of Greenbuild) in the Tykeson Room at the Eugene Public Library, and is free to everyone. Gabe Cross, chair of the Eugene Branch of the Cascadia Green Building Council, will introduce the changes to LEED, which include updated technical content, an improved user interface, simplified LEED Online forms, and easier to read Reference Guides.

Gabe is a founding member and principal at New Axiom, LLC. He oversees LEED documentation for construction projects and acts as a sustainability consultant for business operations and building projects. In addition to his work for New Axiom, Gabe is an instructor for the Northwest Energy Education Institute, a program of Lane Community College, where he teaches courses on LEED, Energy Efficiency Methods, and Alternative Energy Technology. In addition to being Chair of the Cascadia Green Building Council’s Eugene Branch, Gabe is Facilitator of the Living Building Collaborative Eugene. Gabe also serves on the Board of Directors of BRING Recycling, sitting on the planning committee.

What:  LEEDv4 Launch Update 

When:  Tuesday, November 19, 2013 – 12 PM noon 

Where:  Tykeson Room, Eugene Public Library, 100 West 10th Avenue, Eugene 

RSVP: Please RSVP at Eventbrite – space is limited! http://leedv4launchupdate.eventbrite.com/

Cost:  Free of Charge

Please walk, bike, carpool or take a bus

Sea Change – Part 2: Transitions

One of downtown Vancouver's multimodal streets (photos by me). 

This is the second of two posts about the 2013 American Institute of Architects Northwest & Pacific Region Conference, which took place this past October 23-26 in Vancouver, British Columbia. 

A number of AIA-Southwestern Oregon members made the trek north to attend the 2013 AIA Northwest & Pacific Region conference in Vancouver. Of course, as one of the Region directors, Bill Seider, FAIA did much to ensure its success. AIA-SWO president Will Dixon and president-elect Scott Clarke represented the chapter as voting delegates at the Region board and general meetings. Jonathan Stafford, Paul Dustrud, Jyoti Naik, and Jim Robertson were among the others rounding out the AIA-SWO entourage. 

Outside of the convention center, spectacular October weather ensured everyone’s visit to Vancouver was exceedingly pleasant and kept my explorations of the city by foot dry and comfortable. I do make a point of taking stock of the latest developments every time I’m in the city. I found plenty of construction activity on the downtown peninsula, including more of the tall, glassy condominium towers for which Vancouver has become synonymous. 

I’ve said it before: Vancouver is a living case study for high-density, transit-oriented urban design. Vancouver is North America’s poster child in this regard, albeit the continent’s least affordable city to live in. Worldwide, only Hong Kong surpasses Vancouver when it comes to the cost of housing. Regardless, the tower-plus-podium morphology that is characteristic of Vancouver has proven an effective instrument for achieving compact city development. 

My parents live in the Buchanan tower atop the Madison Centre shopping mall in the Vancouver suburb of Burnaby, B.C.

Speaking of housing and transit-oriented development, my aging parents recently sold their house in Vancouver to take up residency in one of those tall condo towers. Their new home is actually located in the Vancouver suburb of Burnaby, right on top of the Madison Centre shopping mall and just a block away from the Brentwood Skytrain station. Skytrain is the Vancouver area’s heavily used rapid transit system, part of an extensive multimodal public transit network. More than once during my stay, my father made the short journey by elevator to the Sav-On-Foods supermarket downstairs to pick up groceries. Sure beats driving to do one’s shopping. 

I used Skytrain to commute to and from the Convention Centre on the downtown waterfront (I spent nights during my stay on my parents’ living room couch), much more quickly and at less cost than if I had traveled by car. It’s noteworthy that Vancouver’s investment in public transit and emphasis upon densification has resulted in a 10% decrease in vehicle trips and a 4% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions despite a 22% increase in population since 1990.  

I had the pleasure of speaking with numerous AIBC members who said how much they welcomed the opportunity to interact with their AIA counterparts. They expressed the hope we could enjoy further joint conferences in the future. Ironically, this first joint AIBC/AIA-NW&PR conference may also be the last. 

While I haven’t been a member of the NW&PR board since 2010, I attended both the Region board meeting and the general member meeting while in Vancouver. The Region has assumed primary responsibility for producing future NW&PR conferences, assisting local components who alone would find the burden overwhelming. Southwest Washington was scheduled to host the 2014 Region Conference in Tacoma, but the Region board elected to not proceed with a flow-blown event next year (there may be a reduced-scope leadership conference instead). Indeed, whether there is another NW&PR conference along the lines of those we’re familiar with in following years is an open question. 

Additionally, I was surprised to learn that AIA Washington Council will no longer handle administrative duties for the Region, a role it held for many years. The board discussed options for delivery of Region services but left the conference with no definitive plan in place. My understanding is the decision to part ways was a mutual one, considered to be in the best interest of both the Washington Council and the Region. 

Bill Seider and his fellow Region Director Greg Kessler, FAIA, did provide us with an update on AIA’s “repositioning,” the changes to the Institute’s overall governance structure. The Region director positions will remain but the directors will no longer hold fiduciary responsibilities. Those duties will fall to the members of the Institute board, who will be elected at large nationally. The new structure is analogous to the bicameral organization of the U.S. congress. 

The members in attendance at the Region Business Meeting did elect a new College of Fellows Region Representative (Butch Reifert, FAIA), and also a new Region Director (Donald King, FAIA, who will succeed Greg Kessler). Bill and Greg announced the new Young Architects Fellow (Shannon Peterson, AIA) and the new Region Associate Director (Lucas Gray, Assoc. AIA).  

Surrey City Centre Library, by Bing Thom Architects

 

Attending the conference provided me with a reunion of sorts with my former employer Bing Thom, AIA, FRAIC of Bing Thom Architects (BTA), and several of my BTA colleagues, including Arno Matis, MAIBC, Dean Paterson, MAIBC, and Scott Kemp, MAIBC, who happens to be the current AIBC Council President. It was great to reconnect with each of them. I will have more to say in a forthcoming blog post about Bing, who is arguably the most highly regarded Canadian architect in current practice. 

*    *    *    *    *    *

I attend conferences because they’re energizing. This year, it was the AIA Northwest & Pacific Region Conference in Vancouver; next year, it may be the Oregon Design Conference at Salishan, the AIA National Convention in Chicago or CSI’s CONSTRUCT in Baltimore. It’s more than just continuing education and collegiality that draws me to these gatherings; it’s also the opportunities to address issues larger than those I regularly encounter in everyday practice. It’s the ability to see the big picture that sets architects apart, and it’s at conferences where that picture comes into focus.

Sea Change – Part 1: Architecture on the Crest

Interior of the Vancouver Convention Center (all photos by me)

 

This is the first of two posts about the 2013 American Institute of Architects Northwest & Pacific Region Conference, which took place this past October 23-26 in Vancouver, British Columbia.

It’d been a few years since I attended an American Institute of Architects region conference; in fact, the last one I did take in was the 2010 edition hosted by AIA-Southwestern Oregon here in Eugene. The fact this year’s conference took place in Vancouver, B.C.—the city in which I was born, raised, and spent the formative years of my professional career—made my decision to attend an easy one. 

Dubbed “Sea Change: Architecture on the Crest,” the conference reflected a unique, cross-border connection. It was the result of a joint effort between the Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC) and the AIA Northwest & Pacific Region, the first time the two organizations have collaborated in this way. With a geographic proximity that brings shared influences, familiar cultures, and common ground on so many levels, one has to wonder why this obvious partnership hadn’t previously been forged. 

“Sea Change” presented an opportunity for those on hand to reconsider the role of the architect as a wave of environmental change reshapes our planet and our profession. This change is taking place irrespective of borders such as the one that separates Canada and the United States. A joint conference for architects from both sides of this boundary was a logical outcome and a welcome occasion to come together and discuss issues of common concern. 

The conference featured a wide variety of continuing education offerings. Here are some of plenary sessions and programs I attended: 

The Personality of Architects
Dr. Brian Little – Distinguished Scholar, Department of Psychology, Cambridge University 

Our first plenary speaker, Dr. Brian Little, described how personality differences play a pivotal role in the profession of architecture. Some architects are highly creative architects, while others of us are less so. Why is this? What are the personality traits that are markers for creativity? Dr. Little expounded on the myth of the creative hero and the diverse personalities of real-world architects. 

He asked everyone in the audience ten questions. We assigned a score between one and ten to represent the extent to which the personality trait expressed in each question matched our perception of ourselves (the scores I gave myself are in parentheses): 

1. Are you outgoing or reserved? (5) 
2. Are you easily bored? (5) 
3. Are you optimistic? (7) 
4. Are you thick-skinned? (3) 
5. Are you blunt and straightforward? (4) 
6. Do have a high need for excitement? (3) 
7. Are you fast-paced? (10) 
8. Do you have a high need for social contact? (5) 
9. Are you spontaneous? (3) 
10. Are you extraverted?  (5)

My total score was 50, which according to Dr. Little means I’m an “ambivert,” someone who is essentially an introvert but can cross lines and become extraverted when I need to be (I have an “ambidextrous” personality). The scores for others revealed they were either more decidedly extraverts or introverts, or ambiverts like me. 

According to Dr. Little, being open to new experiences is the biggest differentiator of the creative class. You’d think creativity would favor extraverts, but the key is actually personality and the state of arousal required to perform creatively. Extraverts require a high degree of arousal (through new and exciting challenges), more than is necessary for introverts (who can find inspiration in reflection and quieter moments). The bottom line is that we shouldn’t act out of character, delight in our differences, and design in ways that are true to our first natures. 

Rising Tides
Moderator: Jean-Pierre Mahe, AIBC, AAA, MRAIC, LEED AP BD+C – Architect, Morrison Hershfield Ltd.
Panelists:
Gene Duvernoy, JD, MBA – President & CEO, Forterra
Nicole Faghin, JD, LEED AP
Sadhu Johnston, LEED AP 

As a coastal region, the Pacific Northwest is directly impacted by the threat of rising sea levels and related environmental impacts. This in turn has a significant impact on the way architects design buildings, including the need for future innovation that addresses issues of energy, sustainability, livability, and population growth. It touches upon how we build our communities, interact with our environment, and live in harmony with proper care and consideration for our natural resources. The Rising Tides panelists discussed the lead role architects can and should play in matters that are reshaping our communities and threatening our quality of life. 

The facts associated with the coming crisis are sobering: 50% of the world’s population lives near a coastline. Scientists predict a 0.5 meter sea level rise by 2050, and a 1.0 meter rise by 2100. Accompanying this will be increasingly chaotic weather, and with it violent storms, flooding, and coastline erosion. Associated storm surges and high tides magnify the risk. The impact upon people around the world is almost unimaginable. 

What are our options? We can protect, accommodate, or retreat. We will have to adapt to climate change by changing our cultures and creating climate-resilient regions. The Pacific Northwest will inevitably experience significant in-migration as people abandon areas more severely impacted by rising temperatures and sea levels. Preserving our great landscapes, agricultural land, and communities will be the pressing challenges as we confront the rising tides. What would Robert Moses, Jane Jacobs, or Fredrick Law Olmstead do to if they were here with us today? 

Toward a Culture of Wood Architecture
Jim Taggart, FRAIC 

With its availability throughout the Pacific Northwest, its adaptability to local circumstances, and the development of new applications, wood offers unique possibilities for dispersing social, economic, and environmental benefits. 

Today, the use of wood in architecture is fostering a revival of regional architecture in our region. Jim Taggart imagines a revitalized wood culture based on enterprise, innovation, and stewardship. The ethos of sustainability has invigorated regionalism, and architects are exploiting the aesthetic potential of a “constructive environmentalism.”  Additionally, the wood products industry is learning how to use wood fiber more efficiently. He believes wood can contribute significantly to mitigating climate change (greenhouse gas emissions associated with wood buildings are 6 to 8 times less than those involved with the production of non-wood buildings). Jim is optimistic about how the wood products industry can provide widespread decentralized economic and social benefits, and help reaffirm our regional and cultural identity. 

Return to Commonsense – A Cure for Confusion
Florian Maurer, Architect AIBC, MRAIC, LEED AP 

The architect’s role has always been to understand enough about a lot of things to bring them together in a product everybody can comprehend; to have the “big picture.” Unfortunately, fragmentation and the complexity of humanity’s body of knowledge have distracted us. We silo information and favor linear solutions. A system based on greed causes some to panic, concentrated power corrupts, and we tend to forget our strengths and duties. 

Florian Maurer believes architects need to redirect their perspective to find remedies. We tend to find comfort in detail and breaking down our problems into small fragments, but by doing so we silo information and settle for simplistic, linear solutions. He says the key lies in the commonsense, in an integrative view of the world. The whole may be inexplicable and intimidating, but it is the whole that we must seek and embrace. 

Interestingly, Florian does not like the manner in which sustainability is commonly practiced, believing it to be further evidence of our reflexive need to categorize, itemize, and compartmentalize architecture and our views of the world. Sustainable architecture misses the point if it fails to bring us joy. Ultimately, Florian wants us to design with comfort and love in mind. If we’re not doing this, are we really fulfilling our duty as architects? Are we truly seeing the big picture? 

Recently built condominium towers crowd downtown Vancouver's Coal Harbor neighborhood.

Non-Identical Twins: Seattle & Vancouver
Trevor Boddy, Hon. AIA, MRAIC 

I’ve always found Trevor Boddy’s architectural musings and criticisms spot on. His writing is flamboyant, opinionated, and provocative. Seattle and Vancouver are his most frequent haunts, and it’s clear he has a deep affection for both cities. Though the two Northwest metropolises are about the same age, share a similar climate and bio-region, and boast comparable social features, Trevor nonetheless can delineate their surprisingly different approaches to city building and architecture. 

In a nutshell, Trevor asserts that Vancouver is primarily a maker of memes whereas Seattle is a maker of corporations. 

Most people are likely unaware that such global ideas and movements as “Generation X,” Greenpeace, “cyberspace,” and the Occupy Movement originated in Vancouver. The city is a meme itself—“Vancouverism”—an urban planning and architectural technique characterized by mixed-use developments featuring a medium-height, commercial podium coupled with narrow, high-density residential towers designed to preserve view corridors. The residential population downtown has become so great that it may soon overtake the number of daytime employees who work there (with a net outflow of workers rather than an influx each morning). 

Seattle, on the other hand, is an economic powerhouse, a nexus for some of biggest names in the new economy: Costco, Starbucks, Microsoft, Amazon, and Expedia among them. The presence of these corporations, and the wealth they’ve generated, stand in stark contrast to the virtual absence of comparable counterparts headquartered in Vancouver. Seattle is a city open for business whereas unaffordable Vancouver has (unwittingly) become an urban-scaled resort for the wealthy. 

I love Vancouver but also fear its current trajectory is economically unsustainable. 

The Future of the Profession
Moderator: David Zach – Futurist, member of the AIA Board
Panelists:
Scott Kemp, Architect, AIBC
Daniel Friedman, PhD, FAIA
Anne Schopf, FAIA – Mahlum 

The Friday plenary session tackled the future of the profession as its subject matter. The distinguished panelists gamely attempted to answer the looming questions. Can architecture be vital again? What does the future hold for the next generation of practitioners? Might global trends and regional issues that are undermining the traditional role of architecture in our communities actually be opportunities for an architectural resurgence? 

The tenor of the session overall was introspective, as each panelist spoke candidly about their hopes and fears for architecture in the years to come. As moderator, futurist David Zach set the tone by shining a spotlight on what he suspects the years immediately ahead of us augur. We know the cost of complexity is dropping rapidly. Because 80% of what we used to do as architects is now better done by machines, it’s incumbent upon us to improve the 20% human beings continue to excel at. We cannot succumb to our fear of risk or failure, only seeking succor in the slow tyranny of comfortable fear. Why can’t we print buildings? Grow buildings? Redistribute manufacturing? Bypass our objections? 

The common thread connecting the thoughts of Scott Kemp, Daniel Friedman, and Anne Schopf was the role of architects as leaders and why we must demand a great deal from ourselves. Our work is no longer necessarily top-down or linear. We’re as apt to find ourselves having to lead from the center as well as from the front, a function of the increasing complexity of our projects and the roles we assume as architects. As a profession we’re in an adaptive phase, and our world feels slippery and unstable. A corollary to this is that our careers are no longer ladders; instead they’re more like jungle gyms. We’re apt to take unexpected twists and turns while hanging on for dear life. 

How do we remain relevant in such an uncertain world? The panelists seemed to agree thinking outside of the box wasn’t enough—we’ll need to think into other boxes as well. We’ll need to understand and exploit our skills but also recognize where the gaps in those skills are. 

Making Chaos Work for You: Strategies for Post-Recession Success
Rena Klein, FAIA 

A frequent speaker at AIA events, Rena Klein is both an architect and a practice management consultant to architectural firms nationwide. She firmly believes small firms have to find their position in the “new normal” of 21st century architectural practice in order to survive.

Even as they have the potential to maximize creativity and enthusiasm, small firms are challenged by unpredictable workloads, uneven productivity, a lack of resources, and constant change. Quoting United States Secretary of Veteran Affairs Eric Shinseki, Rena stressed the need for us to “learn to like change because if we don’t, we’ll like irrelevancy even less.” We need to identify our core competencies, do what we do best, and set ourselves apart from our competition. 

Rena offered examples of several small firms who have found what they are best at and are exploiting niches in the architectural marketplace. Finding a niche (such as becoming known as the go-to local partner for out-of-town firms on large, prestigious projects) is a clear strategy for post-recession success. Another is for individual architects to become more project-related, rather than firm-related, by offering contract services to larger, more established offices. 

Whole Life Sustainability
Dr. Ian Ellingham, PhD, OAA, FRAIC – Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd.

Dr. Ellingham’s goal is help architects become more effective, independent decision-makers. Toward this objective, he introduced the notion of utilizing qualitative and quantitative tools based on the concept of whole-life sustainability. The key concept is that of making decisions to achieve balance, neither overinvesting nor under-investing capital and physical resources toward achieving an optimal outcome. A classic example is spending lavishly on cutting-edge energy-conserving technologies that offer no net return on that investment during the useful life of the building. More often than not, the real cost of exotic systems (including embodied energy) exceeds their benefits. Understanding this fact is a prerequisite to informed decision-making. 

Dr. Ellingham pointed out traditional techniques for whole-life costing fail to take into account future uncertainty; thus, another key take-away from his presentation is the need for considering a diversity of possible futures. Ideally, architects would not design buildings that obstruct options for future decision-makers. 

*    *    *    *    *    *

It would have been great to have taken in additional sessions but I could only be in one room at a time. Because our profession is constantly evolving, there is always so much to learn. It’s our professional duty to assure our professional competence and relevance, and continuing education is crucial in this regard. The need to cultivate our skill sets and knowledge is one reason I’ve found a career in architecture so rewarding. It is also why conferences and the wealth of education they typically provide are invaluable, convenient, and worthwhile for all of us. 

Next: Sea Change – Part 2: Transitions

Leading by Example

Maurice Cox, FAIA (right) delivers the keynote presentation at the inaugural Making Great Cities forum (photo by Michael Soraci, Assoc. AIA)

 

A diverse audience packed the Center for Meeting and Learning at Lane Community College’s new downtown campus on Friday, October 19 to attend the first of the Making Great Cities series of community-wide forums about design excellence at the building, urban, and metro scales. Produced by a new and creative partnership(1), Making Great Cities promises timely, meaningful, and defining dialogue about how to improve our built environment. 

Design Excellence Committee program coordinator Kaarin Knudsen, Assoc. AIA, set the evening’s table by citing Eugene’s recent progress on the urban design front. She noted how most of us today recognize it’s less about if change will happen downtown and more about what this change is, how it is occurring, and the impetus it is building. 

The successes of recent developments in our city’s core hint at the possibilities. The sidewalks are bustling with pedestrians for the first time in decades. Recently vacant storefronts are filled once more. New businesses are choosing to make downtown their home. Happily, the notorious “pits” are filled in and a fading memory. As Kaarin observed, now is a propitious time to broaden the discussion about what it will take to make certain downtown Eugene’s future as our metropolitan area’s vibrant urban core is assured. 

Michael Fifield, FAIA expounded on the role design excellence plays in the making of a great city and introduced the inimitable Bob Hastings, FAIA, who in turn introduced the evening’s keynote speaker, Maurice Cox, FAIA. 

Maurice is the former mayor of Charlottesville, VA, a past member of the faculty at the University of Virginia, co-founder of the national SEED (Social, Economic, Environmental, Design) Network, and is now director of Tulane University’s City Center Initiative. During his fruitful appointment as Director of Design at the National Endowment for the Arts, Maurice oversaw the Mayors’ Institute on City Design, the Governors’ Institute on Community Design, and Your Town: The Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design. At the NEA, he helped to provide professional leadership in architecture and design at many levels of government for a diverse collection of communities. Maurice’s history of forging real ties between design education, the political realm, and the public has garnered him broad respect as a community designer and leader of the public interest design movement. 

The primary message Maurice delivered in Eugene was that architects must act as leaders to ensure design excellence is at the center of any discussion about the future of our cities. He quoted Thomas Jefferson, who famously declared that “design activity and political thought are indivisible.” Fundamentally, it is Maurice’s belief that exercising leadership is the way to build a constituency for design excellence and influence a community to confront its adaptive challenges—those gaps between a community’s values and the current reality that cannot be closed by routine behavior. 

Perhaps the most significant of these adaptive challenges is identifying who needs to be at the table during deliberations about the future of our cities. The people who most need to be there are perhaps not the first we would think of. Maurice pointed out it is precisely those whose behavior and beliefs must be changed that would benefit the most by being a part of the discussion. Engendering a culture that values design excellence does not happen in an echo chamber. 

Translating a vocabulary foreign to most people requires leaders committed to that task, designers who enjoy the process of engagement. A designer in the public arena—as Maurice has been—has an opportunity to engage and bring together everyone who has a stake in the future of a city. This creates a dialogue that can touch on the benefits and not just the risks of change. 

Maurice enjoyed 17 years in Charlottesville, both in academia and the political arena, plenty of time during which he would make his mark. During his tenure as mayor, he advanced a platform premised upon developing a public appreciation for design excellence. Maurice’s measure of success is the extent to which citizens come to understand design excellence is synonymous with quality of life and a basic democratic right as opposed to something that should only be available to those that can afford it.

How did he do this? Maurice created more venues for design leadership in Charlottesville and then exploited those to the fullest extent possible. He worked to change his city’s values structure such that more people than before view design as a public issue and believe design excellence makes good fiscal sense. 

Maurice described 10 strategies he backed to promote this agenda: 

1.  Pace change and the community will make courageous choices

• Use public process to build a community’s capacity to accept change
• Take the necessary time to build trust
• Establish a constituency for design excellence

2.  Encourage elected leaders to be visionary and think long-term

• Educate elected officials about the art and design of cities

3.  Lead with public investment and private investment will follow

• Raise the bar 
• Serve the public interest 
• Award young, fresh-thinking design firms (less than five years) with public commissions

4.  Change the rules of development

• Implement new zoning ordinances 
• Allow high density to happen

5.  Foster neighborhoods’ unique identities

• Engage neighbors in the rewriting of the rules for development

6.  Make a place for designers in the civic life of your community

• Encourage architects to serve on planning commissions, design review panels, or pursue political office (during his administration, Maurice appointed 24 Charlottesville designers to boards and commissions) 
• Use public art to delight and provoke thought. If you use public art to delight and provoke thought, citizens will reengage in public life. 
• Provide a “neutral ground” away from City Hall and city departments to serve as a forum for community discussions and education about design excellence

7.  Engage young people in solving problems & design the best places for them

• Build a youthful enthusiasm and expectation for design excellence

8.  Lead by example

• Embody the best design thoughts in the development of public spaces

9.  Hold design competitions

• Engender a culture of design excellence 
• Use student design competitions as testing grounds for new ideas

10.  Design according to your community’s values

• Enlarge the community’s capacity to accept change

The results in Charlottesville have been remarkable. Among the successful projects the city developed over a period of years (not overnight) are the central Charlottesville transit hub, and a vibrant pedestrian mall boasting highly patronized performance venues, shops, and restaurants at street level with residences above.

 

Maurice drew comparisons between Charlottesville and Eugene. Like others in the audience, I found the urge to make such comparisons irresistible. Both cities are college towns of not dissimilar sizes, but it is the differences between the two that are more noteworthy. 

 

Unlike Eugene, Charlottesville’s development is not constrained by an urban growth boundary. Oregon’s enlightened land use legislation serves to preserve irreplaceable natural and agricultural areas in the vicinity of its towns and cities. The absence of similar UGB regulations in Virginia could result in uncontrolled sprawl but Charlottesville’s emphasis upon growing up, growing better and the virtues of urban density counter the lure of spreading outward. 

 

Charlottesville formed a “Design Task Force” comprised of respected architects, academics, and citizens to vet the design of key public projects. Eugene has yet to take this step; a sea change will be necessary before I can imagine there will enough support for such a concept in our community. 

 

Local architects established the Charlottesville Community Design Center, which elevated the status of design and served as a common ground for progressive ideas about how to improve the city from physical, policy, and social perspectives. The Center successfully bridged the gap between aspirations and reality while building the public’s trust in the power of good design. It emphasized the inclusionary aspect of design processes and promotes designers as facilitators, problem solvers, activists, and advocates. AIA-SWO objectives for its nascent design center, the Octagon, are similar. Charlottesville’s experience serves as an example for Eugene’s design community to emulate. 

 

The late U.S. senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan greatly influenced Maurice’s thinking. Moynihan was a champion of the GSA’s Design Excellence Program for federal architecture. He believed the quality of design is a public issue and a political fact. Maurice cited Moynihan to remind us that good design for all people has far-reaching ramifications. He is sustaining Moynihan’s legacy while also doing his part to advance public architecture and urban design. 

 

Charlottesville’s Freedom of Speech Wall, the result of an open competition for a public art piece. Photo by Daniel Rothamel [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Without a doubt in my mind, the AIA-SWO Design Excellence Committee absolutely made the correct choice in selecting Maurice as its speaker for the inaugural Making Great Cities forum. Broadening the discussion about design excellence and its value to Eugeneans is precisely the message the audience gathered needed to hear. Our city may be on the verge of viewing design excellence as a political imperative. If the Making Great Cities series continues to present speakers of the caliber of Maurice Cox, I’m confident we’ll cross this threshold sooner rather than later.  

(1)  Led by the AIA/SWO Design Excellence Committee and including the City Club of Eugene, the University of Oregon, local community groups, Lane Transit District, and the City of Eugene.

Blog Action Day 2013

Volunteers assembling dwellings for Opportunity Village Eugene (photo from OVE's Facebook site)

 

Blog Action Day is an annual event that unites the world's bloggers in posting about an issue of global importance on the same day (Monday, October 15). It’s an opportunity to witness the power of participatory journalism marshaled toward a common cause. The aim is to raise awareness and trigger a worldwide discussion. 

This is my fifth Blog Action Day:  For 2012 the theme was “The Power of We.” In 2011 the issue was Food; in 2010 it was Water; in 2009 it was Climate Change. 

The theme this year is Human Rights. As an architect, someone who likes to think of himself as dedicated to the betterment of our built environment for the benefit of all, I must admit a measure of discomfiture about what architects should be doing to help address the variety of human rights issues confronting our population. Certainly, one pressing issue is homelessness. 

Most everyone considers the right to shelter as fundamental, regardless of whether individuals have the wherewithal to provide for themselves or not. Humans cannot survive for long without protection from the elements. It’s incumbent upon a civilized society to care for those among its numbers who, through misfortune rather than choice, are without a place to lay their heads each night. 

This past April, the Southwestern Oregon chapter of the American Institute of Architects turned the light upon homelessness, a social problem that has resisted simple solutions for decades in America. Specifically, a panel of speakers described the valiant local effort to create Opportunity Village Eugene (OVE), a new transitional village for homeless individuals and couples in west Eugene. 

Architects know how profoundly a living or work environment can shape the imaginations of the people inside them. “We shape buildings and then buildings shape us.” But what about those who are doing without? When people lack the security, the predictability, the comfort, and the definition of a place to call their own, what are we asking them to live without? 

Dan Bryant, pastor at First Christian Church and OVE board president, outlined the breadth of the challenge here in Eugene. A staggering 1,400 people may go without shelter on any given night. Caregivers like the Eugene Mission and Shelter Care have no choice but to turn away as many as 95% of those looking for a roof over their heads. The common stereotypes about the homeless—that they are predominantly drug addicts, winos, criminals, lazy, or mentally ill—are giving way to an understanding about how diverse their population really is. 

The homeless are often well-educated. Many are caring parents with children. Others are victims of domestic abuse, or burdened with physical disabilities, or unemployable for reasons beyond their control. The vast majority have roots in our community. Most are not transients; they are our neighbors. The reasons for homelessness are as different as each person is. 

Dan explained how Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy charged the Opportunity Eugene Task Force with recommending new and innovative solutions to the issue of homelessness in Eugene. The group concluded establishing a safe and secure place for those currently without housing should be the first priority. Acting upon this recommendation, the City of Eugene approved OVE as a pilot project through October 1, 2014. 

After examining potential sites for several months, the City Council picked a vacant lot at 111 North Garfield Street near Roose­velt Boulevard as the future site for OVE. It was one five sites the council considered. The lot used to be a trailer park, so there are utilities on hand that can be repurposed. The immediate neighborhood doesn’t have a lot of residences, so the likelihood of resistance to establishing a transitional homeless community there is minimized. 

On the opposite side of the ledger, the lot is not conveniently located near basic services, such as a grocery store. However, in this regard it is nowhere as poorly sited as Dignity Village in Portland, which is located near the Portland International Airport, many miles away from everything. Perhaps the North Garfield site’s biggest shortcoming is that the City of Eugene bought the property eight years ago with the intention of using it to construct a 40,000-square-foot maintenance garage for city vehicles. Ultimately, OVE’s days are numbered because the City will one day construct its garage. 

Opportunity Village Eugene welcomed its first residents last month. What does it look like and how does it work? It’s a transitional village of around 30 people who have collaborated with skilled architects and builders to construct simple, efficient micro-houses and shared common spaces. OVE provides its residents with opportunities to build a human-scaled community while developing skills and relationships that allow them to transition to a more sustainable lifestyle. OVE’s foundation rests upon the notion that self-governance will provide residents with autonomy, responsibility, and respect. 

The building blocks of the village are compact, simple, safe, secure, and transportable dwelling structures, clustered together to encourage community cohesion and security. Panelists Alex Daniell and Andrew Heben described the various types of structures, which include Conestoga huts, deluxe and budget bungalows, roundhouses, and conic shells. The dwellings, none larger than about 100 square feet, provide basic shelter only. Kitchen and food storage, a dining area, bathrooms, bike parking, and personal storage lockers are communal. 

OVE also provides a gathering space for meetings, and opportunities for gardens and micro-businesses. Overall, the village offers a stable, safe, and sanitary environment where basic needs— food, shelter, medical care, a sense of dignity and belonging in place and community— are met. 

Mark Hubble, himself a homeless member of our community, discussed how meaningful it is to him to have an alternative to being on the streets. For Mark, simply having a lockable front door is huge. He was the first person to move into a Conestoga hut as part of Eugene’s car camping program, which allows huts to be placed on sites around the city hosted by local churches or businesses. He believes Opportunity Village Eugene provides the stability and a foundation people without houses need, as well as a sense of purpose, place, and belonging. 

Mark detailed how the ongoing success of OVE is predicated upon several core values. These include a village committed to horizontal organization and self-governance. They require resident participation to the greatest extent possible in the assembly of the structures. Additionally, the core values dictate an application and intake process based upon relationship building, and adherence to five basic, non-negotiable rules listed in the Community Agreement. 

The five rules for the Village are:

1. No violence to yourselves or others

2. No theft

3. No alcohol, illegal drugs, or drug paraphernalia

4. No constant, disruptive behavior

5. Everyone must contribute to the operation and maintenance of the Village.

Residents self-manage the village with oversight provided by the non-profit, Opportunity Village Eugene (OVE). Residents make decisions about how the village is managed and directly deal with minor disputes. The non-profit ensures that the five basic rules are being upheld. OVE also screens all potential residents and conducts criminal background checks. 

All of the panelists who spoke to local architects as panelists at our meeting last April enriched our understanding of the struggles that accompany homelessness, and provided us with a little inspiration that can shape the work we do for clients who are much more fortunate. It’s all too easy for us to overlook how architects contribute powerfully to a larger, invisible structure that builds equity and compassion into our society. 

So what can we do to help? For one, we can volunteer our time and skills. We can also contribute construction materials to OVE’s building partner, Community Supported Shelters. CSS receives donations at the Tine Hive located at 1160 Grant Street in Eugene. And of course, OVE would welcome any monetary assistance. OVE is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, so all contributions are tax-deductible.

If Opportunity Village Eugene is viewed by the broader community as a success, the nonprofit hopes it will eventually see a network of several villages throughout the city. Everyone benefits when those who are homeless are offered the opportunity afforded by needed shelter to renew their life goals and aspirations.