Influences: Bing Thom

Bing Thom (1940-2016)

 

An earlier blog entry of mine, “Genealogy of Influence,” promised a series of posts about the architects and theorists who influenced my architectural world view. This is the latest post in the series. 

 

Canadian architect Bing Thom, CM, LLD (Hon.), AIBC, FRAIC, AIA passed away last Tuesday at the age of 75. Although his name may not be a familiar one to many here in Oregon, he enjoyed a growing global reputation not only as a talented architect but also as a dedicated city-builder. It isn’t hyperbole to say he was perhaps Canada’s preeminent architect at the time of his death, his impact upon the nation’s architectural heritage rivaling that of his former teacher and employer, Arthur Erickson. 

 

Like Erickson, Bing fundamentally believed in the transformative power of great architecture to uplift not only the physical but also the economic and social conditions of a community. His belief in this power became the grounding philosophy of his career, resulting in memorable architecture that consistently tapped into something beyond aesthetics. 

 

Perhaps even more significant than the individual buildings he designed was his shaping of opinions regarding urban design, particularly when it came to his home city of Vancouver, British Columbia. He never shied away from speaking his mind. He called things as he saw them, including sounding alarm bells early on regarding the city’s troubling shift toward being a playground for the wealthy, one lacking a broad and sustainable economic foundation. 

 

It was his sage acumen and undeniable talent that attracted commissions from around the globe. His work spanned continents, and so would his firm (now with offices in Vancouver, Hong Kong, and Washington, DC). Notable projects worldwide include Vancouver’s Chan Centre for the Performing Arts, Guilford Aquatic Centre, and Surrey Centre in British Columbia; the Arena Stage in Washington; Tarrant County College in Fort Worth, TX; and the Xiqu Center in Hong Kong (now under construction). 

 

Surrey City Centre Library (my photo; all other photos and renderings by Bing Thom Architects)

 

Xiqu Centre, Hong Kong

 

Arena Stage, Washington D.C.

 

Guilford Aquatic Centre, Surrey, B.C.

 

Canadian Canoe Museum, Peterborough, ON

 

Chan Centre for the Performing Arts, Vancouver, B.C.

 

The impact of his work has been undeniable. In recognition of his contributions to an appreciative nation, the Governor General of Canada, on behalf of her majesty Queen Elizabeth II, years ago bestowed the Order of Canada upon Bing. Bing also was the recipient of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada Gold Medal, the highest honor given to a Canadian architect. 
 

 

His untimely death was immediately noted by a number of news outlets, including the New York Times, Architect Magazine, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Washington Post, CityLab, The Globe & Mail, and The Huffington Post. 

 

On a personal note, I was terribly saddened when I learned of Bing’s passing. In my mind, he was still vital and evolving, still young and forceful. It never occurred to me he could possibly leave us so soon. It was my honor to work for Bing during the early years of Bing Thom Architects (BTA) back in the 1980s.(1)  He was a true mentor and influence, helping set me on my way as an architect. 

 

False Creek Yacht Club, Vancouver, BC

 

Northwest Territories Pavilion, Expo 86, Vancouver, BC

 

In retrospect, what I most admire about Bing was his belief in all possibilities when most others would opt to take the easy path toward facile solutions. As many others have already said since the news of his death broke, he was a true visionary. He was a big thinker of the highest order. I know he’s left an admirable legacy for his firm, one which his colleagues will sustain for many years to come. 

 

I am grateful I had the relatively recent opportunity to chat and catch up with Bing during the joint AIA/Architectural Institute of British Columbia regional conference held in Vancouver in 2013. He was the same old Bing, always smiling, always a teacher, one whose words commanded everyone’s attention. He was obviously very comfortable in his own shoes then, a confident and sought-after elder statesman who trusted his imagination and a wealth of inspiration endowed by a lifetime of experiences. 

 

Bing had a tremendous impact upon many, many people during his life. He will be missed dearly by all who count themselves among his extended family. 

 

The following is Bing Thom Architect’s official news release acknowledging the passing of the firm’s founder and leader: 

 

October 4, 2016

 

It is with deep sadness that we announce the death of our Founding Principal, Bing Thom. Bing suffered a brain aneurism while on a recent trip in Hong Kong and passed away in that city on the afternoon of October 4th. His wife, Bonnie Thom, who shared his life for over 50 years, was by his side. 

 

Bing Thom was one of Canada’s most admired and accomplished architects, a dedicated and artful city-builder whose global reputation was closely tied to metro Vancouver, a region he cared for deeply and did much to protect and to improve. Bing’s commitment to using architecture to improve the urban environment was recognized by a range of honors including the Order of Canada, the Golden Jubilee Medal, honorary degrees from Simon Fraser University and the University of British Columbia, the Margolese Prize, an honorary professorship from Tongji University in Shanghai, and the RAIC Gold Medal, the highest honour given to a Canadian architect. 

 

Born in Hong Kong and immigrating to Canada as a child, Bing received his Bachelor of Architecture degree from the University of British Columbia and his Master of Architecture degree from the University of California at Berkeley. A student of the 60’s, Bing helped pioneer one of the first academic programs in Ethnic Studies in North America during his time in Berkeley. His career began in the offices of Fumihiko Maki and Arthur Erickson before he started his own firm, Bing Thom Architects (BTA), in 1982. 

 

His firm’s commissions cover the globe, from the Expo’ 92 Canada Pavilion in Seville, Spain, to Arena Stage Theater in Washington DC, Tarrant County College Trinity River East Campus in Fort Worth, Texas, to the current Xiqu Centre Opera House at the West Kowloon Cultural District in Hong Kong, the University of Chicago Center in Hong Kong, the Binhai Cultural District of Tianjin, the Shijiazhuang Performing Arts Center, and Shenyang Kerry Centre in central Shenyang. 

 

BTA’s local portfolio of projects include the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts at the University of British Columbia, Central City Surrey, Sunset Community Centre, Surrey City Centre Library, the Guildford Aquatic Centre, and currently Simon Fraser University’s Sustainable Energy and Environmental Engineering Building and First Baptist Church Redevelopment. 

 

Bing Thom was a mentor to so many architects young and old, sharing his values and passion for creating beautiful spaces and places that better communities. He was never afraid to speak his mind. He saw himself first as a public servant and held a fundamental belief in the transformative power of great architecture to uplift not only the physical, but also the economic and social conditions of a community. 

 

He demanded the best from everyone and inspired each of us to achieve it. His positive impact will continue to be felt both in the communities in which our projects are built and in the profound influence he had on his many colleagues and so many others.  

(1)  I joined BTA in 1983, immediately following my graduation from the University of Oregon and just after the firm opened its doors the year before in the midst of a deep economic recession. I spent two enormously formative years there, assisting Bing on several notable projects including the Northwest Territories pavilion at Expo 86 and the Point Grey Road Condominiums, and culminating in my achieving professional licensure in 1985. I left that year to pursue a graduate degree at UCLA, ultimately returning to BTA in 1987 for a second satisfying stint during which I worked on the False Creek Yacht Club, among other projects. I left BTA in 1988 to relocate to Eugene, marry my wife Lynne, and embark on my career with Robertson/Sherwood/Architects.   

Moving Forward

 

AIA-Southwestern Oregon’s Committee on Local Affairs (CoLA), of which I’m a member, penned the following letter to the mayor, city council, and city manager regarding the future of the South Willamette Area in advance of next Monday's council work session on the topic. Our stance is that the process by which planning moves forward must be as inclusive as possible and retain a big-picture, city-wide perspective. We hope our suggestions will be heeded. Read on: 

 

October 5, 2016

  

Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager

℅ City Manager’s Office

125 East 8th Avenue

Eugene, OR 97401 

 

Re:  South Willamette Area Planning

 

Dear Mayor, City Councilors and City Manager: 

 

The 2016 election cycle serves as a parable for much of what passes for public discourse today. Perhaps more so than any other time in recent history, our society has gravitated toward divisiveness and a polarization of its views. We see this not only in the political arena, but also in the discussion around any controversial topic. There are clearly lessons to be learned and gulfs to be bridged. 

 

Here locally, few recent issues have been as contentious as the City of Eugene’s effort to implement the South Willamette Special Area Zone (SW-SAZ). It’s easy for people to characterize the SW-SAZ controversy as a chasm between opposing viewpoints: those of the urbanists who favor well-intentioned (but often resented) “top-down” planning on the one hand, and the grassroots (albeit self-interested) neighborhood preservationists on the other. Not unlike those at each end of the political spectrum, the players on both sides of the SW-SAZ debate hold steadfastly to their beliefs. Each side cloaks their statements about moving forward in mostly agreeable rhetoric, but ultimately they remain suspicious of the other group’s motivations. 

 

The Walkable Eugene Citizens Advisory Network (WE CAN) stands firmly within the “urbanists” camp. WE CAN is promoting a plan entitled Collaborative Community Objective Setting. The group characterizes its plan as complementary to possible neighbor-driven planning efforts, but if it is, how would the results of its goal-setting process be reconciled in a non-contentious manner with a refinement plan authored by those neighbors? Working separately and in parallel with other efforts does not sound like a recipe for success. 

 

The well-organized South Willamette Neighbors occupy the “preservationists” side. The organization strongly favors putting residents and property owners in charge of developing a neighborhood refinement plan. This approach is supported by city councilors George Brown and Mike Clark, who together have drafted a neighbors-supported South Willamette Street Initiative. 

 

A shortcoming of the Brown/Clark proposal is its recommendation to remove from consideration the possibility of reevaluating the current R-1 zoning of existing single-family residential areas. This would effectively preclude the creative and compatible infill development necessary in single-family neighborhoods to help achieve citywide goals for compact growth. 

 

The fact is the current proportion of single-family residential zoning is unsustainable. Valuable urban land is in short supply, so single-family homes on large lots are ever more expensive. Our better nature recognizes the need to expand and diversify our housing stock by developing a variety of options—apartments, duplexes, accessory dwelling units, townhouses, and other types—but our resistance and fear of change perpetuates exclusionary zoning and de facto segregation.(1)  Doing nothing will progressively exacerbate economic disparities between the haves and have nots, and increasingly work at odds against efforts to ensure Eugene is an equitable and affordable city. Doing something is what compelled the City of Eugene to embark upon creating the SW-SAZ in the first place. 

 

The suspicion, lack of trust, and polarization of the discussion inevitably led to the failure of the SW-SAZ process.(2)  To everyone's credit, you've acknowledged this failure and hit the reset button. Nevertheless, there still appears to be an absence of clear consensus on how to proceed. A neighborhood refinement plan process led by area residents and business owners may indeed be the best means to engender the support of the people who most actively opposed the initial SW-SAZ plan. Then again, the affected neighbors’ understandable resistance to the uncertainties of change may bar the possibility they’ll embrace the compact infill development and densification necessary to address the growing need to house everyone who wishes to live, work, and raise a family in our city. 

 

A significant problem with the processes used to date is that they have excluded some important stakeholders. Among those most in need of representation at the various public meetings and forums are many who, due to personal circumstances, simply do not have the time or resources to become engaged in a substantive way. These are individuals who by necessity may have multiple jobs, lack convenient transportation, are not fluent English-speakers, or cannot afford to pay for child care—factors discouraging or precluding their participation. We wish it wasn’t so but “all-comers” forums seldom truly are. 

 

The stakes involved are too high to not develop an effective South Willamette Area Plan, one that can serve as a model for planning along other key transit corridors in Eugene. The challenge now is to bridge between Envision Eugene’s broad goals and the specific strategies needed to realize those goals, while also ensuring the planning is truly inclusive of those who are too often disenfranchised by circumstances or lack of social standing. Entrusting the plan exclusively to a socioeconomically homogenous group of homeowners would lead to a predictable outcome. Eugene is comprised of unique neighborhoods, but each neighborhood has an obligation to work in the best interests of the entire community. 

 

Ideally, the eventual plan and others that follow would be realized in as incremental a manner as possible, in small chunks, so that development is easier to absorb, richer, and more likely to be the result of local investment, design, and ownership. Incremental development would allow adjustments on the fly, encourage greater diversity, and result in a finer-grained, more human scale. 

 

We’ve met with individuals representing the opposing factions. We’ve attended the public forums and neighborhood association meetings during which SW-SAZ occupied the agenda. We want to be part of the solution and have a seat at the table. We’re neighbors and stakeholders in the community too and we bear a responsibility to be active participants in its future, particularly when it comes to the physical character of the urban environment. We also understand a process involving too many voices will be cumbersome and most likely ineffective. 

 

Accordingly, we support a variation of the South Willamette Street Initiative, one which involves a small and nimble planning team as advocated by the Brown/Clark proposal but also includes a minimum of two “at-large” members entrusted with upholding citywide goals first and foremost. Ideally, these individuals would represent a diversity of interests and be highly conversant about the myriad issues at hand. 

 

Additionally, we’re advocates for compatible infill development on and adjacent to properties presently designated as R-1, so long as it preserves the stability, quality, character, and livability of the encompassed residential areas. A new South Willamette Area Plan will need to provide a variety of options for households of diverse incomes and compositions as one strategy toward accommodating Eugene’s population growth. 

 

In the wake of this political season, we see the SW-SAZ issue as a referendum as much about the kind of people we want to be as it is about what Eugene should become. As architects, we pledge to work assiduously toward finding common ground to build upon. We know our fellow citizens want the best for our community. We want the same. Let’s move forward together to develop consensus about a future that is full of inclusive and affordable housing options, all while retaining the livability and qualities we have come to love about Eugene. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Austin Bailey, Scott Clarke, Eric Gunderson, Randy Nishimura, and Travis Sheridan

Members, American Institute of Architects – Southwestern Oregon Chapter Committee on Local Affairs. (The opinions expressed above are solely those of the members of CoLA, though we do believe our perspective is shared by a preponderance of AIA-SWO members).

(1)   The current single-family residential zoning and restrictive covenants of certain neighborhoods have their roots in racially motivated and class-centric exclusion. Times have changed, in most ways for the better; however, the restrictive zoning remains a pervasive barrier, limiting the production of new affordable housing and pricing many prospective homeowners out of the market.

 

(2)   City planners did not help their cause by leaping opaquely from a widely supported set of goals (Envision Eugene) to a wholesale plan for up-zoning a large tract of south Eugene. Conversely, the vitriol circulated by the plan’s opponents served its purpose by stopping SW-SAZ, but it also sullied the prospect of achieving respectful agreement with the plan's champions.    

CLT Road Trip

Photo source: http://www.apawood.org/cross-laminated-timber

Save the afternoon and early evening of October 12 for a chartered bus trip to the D.R. Johnson Lumber Co. cross-laminated timber (CLT) plant in Riddle. The bus will leave Eugene at about noon and return by 8 PM. The tour will be comprised of a lecture en route by a special guest, a guided tour of the D.R. Johnson plant (including the opportunity to see actual production of CLT panels), a stop on the way back at an Umpqua Valley winery, and a concluding lecture during the return trip to Eugene. University of Oregon architecture students enrolled in a studio focused on CLT will accompany the AIA-Southwestern Oregon chapter members who make the trip to Riddle.

 

I must admit I know little about CLT and am eager to learn as much as I can, so, work commitments permitting, I hope to take advantage of this opportunity. Is the hype about the technology warranted? My understanding is that the carbon footprint of a building structure primarily comprised of CLT is as little as a quarter that of a similar-sized building constructed of steel or concrete. Also, CLT buildings can be assembled in much less time than conventional steel or concrete ones. The tallest timber building in the world—the 18-story Brock Commons on the campus of the University of British Columbia—took a mere 70 days to reach its full height after the first CLT components arrived on site. Equally significant, CLT manufacture can take advantage of thin, “junk” trees that otherwise have little commercial value. And of course, the ability to showcase the beauty of wood by exposing the structure is always appealing to architects.

 

AIA-SWO expects the tour to provide up to 4.0 CEUs at a likely cost of $50 or less. The chapter has yet to post an invitation to sign up for the tour but expects to do so this week. Look for it because availability is on a first come, first served basis. Space will be limited! 

 

What: Tour of the D.R. Johnson CLT plant 

 

When: Wednesday, October 12, 2016, noon to 8:00 PM 

 

Where: Riddle, OR (round-trip bus tour from Eugene) 

 

CEU: 4.0 (anticipated)

 

RSVP: Sign-up pending 

 

Cost: TBD but probably less than $50

 

Community Design Handbook

Back in 2013, I wrote a blog post about the City of Eugene’s effort to develop a broad set of non-regulatory design principles and guidelines with the intent of setting expectations for design excellence in Eugene and achieving the community’s vision for the built environment. Christened as the Community Design Guide, the city planners have since redubbed the document as a “handbook.” 

Fast-forward to 2016 and the Community Design Handbook (CDH) remains in draft form and very much a work in progress. The City’s primary goal continues to be its desire to represent best practices related to design espousing the “seven pillars” of Envision Eugene. Despite the express statement that the CDH will not be a regulatory document, the City clearly intends it to form the basis for consensus about what the future of our built environment should look like. What the City wants is to ensure that development occurs in a manner consistent with the seven pillars as the challenges posed by Eugene’s growing population continue to mount. 

Here’s a link to a digital version of the current draft document: 

https://issuu.com/planningdivision/docs/cdh_open_house_version_singles/21?e=0/31252339 

Since the original draft of the guide/handbook first appeared three years ago, the City’s Planning Division has invited comment from the general public as well as specific community stakeholders. You can see a summary of past community input here. The city continues to welcome feedback. Earlier this summer, senior city planner Zach Galloway directly solicited the opinion of AIA-Southwestern Oregon’s Committee on Local Affairs (CoLA), of which I’m a member. CoLA will convene later this month to compare notes. Our goal is to forward a single set of comments and recommendations for improving the CDH to the Planning Division. 

Here are my initial thoughts about the current draft of the handbook: 

I believe the current draft of the CDH uses plain language in an engaging way. It is well-illustrated using colorful photographs, mostly of local scenes. Fellow CoLA member Scott Clarke questioned whether the graphic style à la Sunset Magazine is appropriate, but I think it suits the current sensibilities and short attention spans of our digital society. 

My biggest issue with the document is its frequent reliance upon “motherhood and apple pie” statements that fail to rise high enough above a shallow rhetoric to be truly meaningful. For example, the design guidelines for the creation of successful public spaces include statements like the following: 

“CONFIGURE the size and shape of public spaces for human comfort, proportions, and intended uses.” 

"MAXIMIZE natural, everyday observation and experience of public and semi-public spaces through high visibility and open connections.” 

Sound good, right? The problem is there are no metrics cited by which to gauge the extent to which a proposed development complies with or successfully fulfills the design guidelines. Will it be important to somehow objectively measure this? Does it need to be codified in some way? Is this what the City of Eugene intends to do? As I mentioned above, my understanding is the City has no plans to formalize the CDH as a regulatory document; however, I’m pretty certain aspirational statements alone won’t ensure good design. 

Some community members who have reviewed the various previous iterations of the guide/handbook share my concern. They likewise fear it will fail to be beneficial without implementation of critical development standards in the Eugene Code. Lacking “teeth,” how can the CDH be a practical tool that effectively influences design in Eugene? If it is not codified, will well-meaning developers, architects, and designers interpret its underlying principles in contradictory and conflicting ways? 

At the other end of the spectrum, some people believe the CDH will eventually become an overly prescriptive albatross regardless of the City’s statements to the contrary—yet another regulatory burden discouraging desirable and productive development. These commenters fear the guidelines would not stand up to the eyeball test of clear and objective standards. In their opinion, the City should leave architecture to architects and site planning to landscape architects and engineers. 

The City wants the CDH to be an all-encompassing, comprehensive document but it also wants it to be easy and fun to read. I don’t think the CDH will be successful if it is overly encumbered by countless pages detailing the means to execute designs that would help comply with each of the guidelines. I can imagine an electronic version of the document copiously hyper-linked making it easy to go down whatever rabbit hole you need to in order to find concrete strategies for how to “shape public spaces for human comfort, proportions, and intended uses” among the many design goals; however, this isn’t an option for a hard-copy of the handbook. 

Again, the City’s primary goal for the CDH is that it become the basis for an inspired, shared vision for future development in Eugene. Given this is its principal purpose, the CDH must serve as effectively as possible as an educational and communications tool providing citizens who lack a design vocabulary a primer about what is commonly regarded as good community design. In this regard, I think the current draft version does a pretty good job. 

Ultimately, the trick will be getting the CDH in front of as many eyes as possible. If it does not ultimately serve as the basis for new form-based codes, it will only be useful and valued if the community widely embraces and implements its design principles on its own accord. Perhaps it will become required reading for every high school student, developer, community activist, and politician in Eugene. In order for this to occur, I believe the City of Eugene will need to vigorously promote the CDH without equivocation and with the support of as many stakeholder groups as possible (CoLA included). 

*     *     *     *     *     * 

Interested in sharing your thoughts about the Community Design Handbook? The City of Eugene’s Planning Division would love to hear from you. Review the latest draft version and then participate in the City’s online survey by clicking the link below: 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/J3FJCDF

 

Cascadia Green Building Council – Eugene Branch Survey

Formed in 2006, the Cascadia Green Building Council – Eugene Branch’s mission is to generate momentum toward a sustainable built environment by facilitating education, fostering connections, and celebrating our community. The Eugene branch spreads awareness of practices that enhance the sustainable built environment and encourages adoption of the Living Building Challenge. The organization is composed of green building professionals and advocates from the greater Eugene-Springfield area. Presently, the Eugene Branch hosts monthly lunchtime presentations, tours of noteworthy projects, and quarterly evening events on the latest green building topics.

Please help the Eugene Branch by taking this survey, which will allow the group to gain an understanding of our community’s interests in its offerings and shape its planning efforts over the next 1-2 years. It only takes 5-10 minutes to participate, and the information will inform how the Eugene Branch shapes its future programs to support your needs.

I’m not a CGBC member (I should be!) but I did complete the survey and you should too. Click HERE to participate. If you prefer to fill out a paper copy, contact: eugene@cascadiagbc.org 

The survey will close on September 23 at 4:45 PM, so participate today!