Fire and Ice – Landscapes of a Changing Planet

Eric Gunderson, former principal and owner with PIVOT Architecture, most definitely hasn’t been short of things to keep himself busy with during his retirement. Besides being an avid traveler, Eric is and has always been a prolific and keenly talented artist. Painting and drawing are his powerful and joyous means for describing and understanding the physical world. Eric studied art at both the University of Oregon and the Sutton School of Art in London, honing skills his peers in architecture have long admired and appreciated.

The Lobby Gallery at the Broadway Commerce Center in downtown Eugene will soon feature a collection of Eric’s paintings and drawings on the theme of Fire and Ice – Landscapes of a Changing Planet. Among the pieces will be a smoky watercolor depicting a fire raging through the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness. Others include a study in oil paint and colored pencil portraying a forest killed by fire and insects on the slopes of Davis Lake Basin, and images of ice on the retreat across the planet. Without having asked Eric directly, I suspect this compilation of his paintings and drawings is tinged with some sadness about our planet’s present trajectory.

Art may be a window into the artist’s soul, but it also reveals much about what he or she is seeing and attempting to comment upon. I’m looking forward to visiting Eric’s exhibit to not only appreciate his art but also to view the world through his eyes. Make a point to do the same and visit the display anytime during its month-long run in December.

What:  An exhibit of painting and drawings on the theme of Fire and Ice – Landscapes of a Changing Planet

Where:  Broadway Commerce Center Lobby, 44 W. Broadway, Eugene, OR

When:  December 1 through December 31, 2017

Opening:  First Friday Artwalk, December 1, 2017 – 5:30 PM to 8:00 PM 

Experience Mapping

The four steps to making an experience map (from Adaptive Path's Guide to Experience Mapping). 

My colleagues and I like to think our firm (Robertson/Sherwood/Architects) is particularly good at helping the clients we serve develop a clear vision for their projects. In our minds this has always meant guiding the course of discovery and design, along which we very much expect our clients to be dedicated participants. Since our firm’s inception, we’ve unquestionably believed in the value of design processes aimed at engaging as many stakeholders as possible, particularly during the earliest stage of each project. We regard our aptitude for architectural programming and attention to the needs of building owners, occupants, and operation & maintenance personnel as a strong suit.

William Pena’s classic programming guide Problem Seeking defined the simple, yet comprehensive, process for developing an effective architectural program. Almost a half-century since it was first published, Problem Seeking remains a touchstone for our firm. Its underlying principles are timeless. Fundamentally, they distinguish between programming—which is problem seeking—and design, which is problem solving. The process outlined by Pena involves an organized method of inquiry consisting of a five-step process (establish goals, collect and analyze facts, uncover and test concepts, determine needs, and state the problem) interacting with four considerations (function, form, economy, and time). This process has served countless architects and their clients very, very well.

As relevant as the methodology propounded by Problem Seeking remains, there’s no doubt a set of emerging issues impacting the discipline of architectural programming. Chief among these is the acceleration of broad cultural and technological changes changing how we work, learn, play, and live. It’s difficult to predict with any certainty what the coming years will bring, and consequently defining the design problem with precision is increasingly difficult. The proliferation and perpetuation of standards and guidelines that may quickly become obsolete work at cross-purposes with the challenge of identifying future needs. The increasing complexity of our world is pushing us toward a threshold whereupon it may become impossible to adequately state in easily understood terms the nature of the problems to be solved.

Is there a “magic bullet” providing an effective solution to the challenges posed by the emerging issues? Probably not; however, learning and borrowing from other disciplines is an essential means for coping with rapid change. One relevant specialty that immediately comes to mind is the marketing industry and particularly consultancies focusing on the development of user experiences (UX). The work of these specialists often parallels what we do as architects in the process of defining design problems related to enhancing user satisfaction with products and services. These professionals are adept at identifying emergent trends in highly competitive markets, generating insights into how their clients operate, supporting new initiatives, and building stronger futures for the organizations they partner with. They understand the necessity of managing a myriad of touchpoints to differentiate customer experiences, in much the same way architects differentiate and particularize the experiences of users in all sorts of physical environments.

Of course, a huge segment of the architectural profession (especially that involved in the design of retail facilities) already understands how the quality of experiences influences peoples’ choices of products and services; however, my guess is many other architects may not be fully aware of the sophisticated tools available for capturing and presenting key insights about the complex interactions that occur across any ecosystem. One such tool developed by UX designers is the experience map.

Adaptive Path is a San Francisco-based design and user experience consultancy that pioneered user experience design strategies during the early years of this century (the firm was acquired in 2014 by the financial firm Capital One but continues to publicly share ideas through its adaptivepath.org site, pro bono engagements, and annual UX events). The firm prepared a useful guide to experience mapping, which I’ll draw from extensively to validate the applicability of the technique as an architectural programming tool. Many of the concepts have direct parallels in the programming and design of buildings. I certainly see experience mapping as a useful adjunct to the process defined by William Pena in Problem Seeking but by no means a replacement.

Experience mapping is a collaborative, iterative process for synthesizing and visualizing the holistic user experience. Experience mapping builds knowledge and consensus. The activity results in an artifact—an experience map. The experience map presents, with richness and depth, key insights into the complete experience of users. Once developed, it becomes a tool that supports charting new courses of action. The quality of an experience map is directly tied to the quality of insights it communicates. That said, as with problem seeking, it is the process that is most important. Experiencing mapping brings teams together, builds empathy for the users (customers), clarifies the big picture, and identifies areas of opportunity. No two maps will be alike because the needs of each client and each project are unique.

The key building blocks of experience mapping are Doing (what actions are users taking to meet their needs), Thinking (how do people frame and evaluate their experiences), and Feeling (what emotions do people have along their journey). Additionally, Place, Time, Devices, Relationships, Touchpoints(1) , and Channels(2) provide a framework for the experience map. The methodology used involves conversations with user groups to gain insights, as well as individual interviews and observations. It often employs a directed story-telling technique to guide conversations and paint vivid pictures.

The anatomy of an experience map includes the following:

The Lens
The lens is an overriding filter through which you view the journey, such as a persona, more general experience principles, or a value proposition.

The User Journey Model
The journey model depicts the range of interactions customers have across channels, touchpoints, time, and space in pursuit of satisfying one or more needs.

The Takeaways
The takeaways summarize key findings from the experience mapping process. Takeaways could include strategic insights, recommendations, and design principles. They’re typically added to the map late in the process, once you have begun to pivot from understanding the current state of needs to envisioning a future state. 

An example of an experience map: An excerpt from the Rail Europe customer journey.

At its core, an experience map is a visual narrative of the users’ “journey.” The goal is to bring the collected data to life through a visually engaging infographic that is easy to comprehend. It should include the key building blocks—Doing, Thinking, and Feeling—but should also emphasize the guiding design principles that emerge upon understanding the journey. The map is organized on the fly over the course of several iterations. Visually, it should convey the essence of a story immediately. The experience map should present a compelling point of view, work on multiple levels (organizing hierarchically is important), and be designed for maximum impact. If it is done well, the map helps stakeholders break free of the nearsightedness of their individual roles to look at the organizational capabilities needed to achieve their goals.

Ultimately, like problem seeking, the experience map is a catalyst, not a conclusion. An experience map is a means to something actionable—ideally something to design around—and not an end in and of itself. It may not be a magic bullet but is a tool architects can master to improve the likelihood their designs for buildings will be as well-adapted, flexible, and responsive to future needs as possible. Because architects are visually oriented, preparing graphically effective experience maps should come naturally.

The applicability of experience mapping to architecture does come as a personal “aha” moment. While Robertson/Sherwood/Architects hasn’t yet developed a true experience map with one of our clients, we intend to do so soon. We’re already employing other elements characteristic of UX design, including mood boards, personas, and user narratives to supplement more conventional architectural programming means. Clearly, there’s much we can learn from other disciplines to help us cope with the increasingly complex and rapidly changing challenge of defining the problems we’re tasked to solve. As user-centered designers, we’re enthusiastic about the potential inherent in broadening our approach to architectural programming.

(1) A touchpoint is a point of interaction between a person and any agent or artifact of an organization. These interactions take place at a certain point in time, in a certain context, and with the intention of meeting specific needs.

(2) A channel is a medium of interaction with users. A channel defines the opportunities or constraints of a touchpoint.

Accelerating a Campus Vision

The Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact (all rendering views provided by the University of Oregon)

The University of Oregon unveiled the design this past Friday for the $225 million, 160,000-square-foot first phase of what will become the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact. In the university’s own words, the Knight Campus “will work to reshape the state’s public higher education landscape by training new generations of scientists, engaging in new interdisciplinary research, forging tighter ties with industry and entrepreneurs, and creating new educational opportunities for graduate and undergraduate students.” It will also dramatically reshape the stretch of Franklin Boulevard it will front and herald the future transformation of the university’s presence along that heavily-traveled corridor.

If the design by the team of Ennead Architects of New York and Bora Architects of Portland is at all a harbinger, we can look forward to a bolder, forward-looking, and less self-effacing crop of academic buildings at the University of Oregon. There will be no mistaking Ennead/Bora’s design for one dating from a much earlier time in the campus’ history. The design as rendered clearly reflects a desire to project a cutting-edge image, which the university undoubtedly views as essential to attracting world-class scientists to Eugene. Though it will appear novel and modern, it is a product of the UO’s longstanding interdisciplinary tradition and its commitment to user involvement in the design process. Notably, the scheme is also entirely consistent with the North Campus Area design recommendations as outlined by the Campus Physical Framework Vision.

The university’s Campus Physical Framework Vision document, prepared over a 14-month period spanning from 2014 to 2016, describes a comprehensive physical structure for the campus. It provides specificity to inform decisions to accommodate growth and change. The university does not intend for the Framework Vision to replace the Campus Plan (the Plan’s most recent edition dates to 2014) but rather looks to the Vision to provide recommendations for updates to it. These updates will be subject to the standard amendment process as detailed in the Campus Plan.

View from the north

The Framework Vision imagines creating a cohesive campus as the university expands north of Franklin Boulevard. This vision is consistent with how the overall campus is organized as a system of quadrangles, malls, pathways, and other open spaces and their landscapes. Think of how key those open spaces, the heritage trees, the memorable paths and edges, and the spaces shaped by the buildings are to our image of the University of Oregon campus. The open-space framework is central to the university’s physical character and identity. The Knight Campus is intended to build upon this framework by extending it across Franklin Boulevard.

Aside from the preservation and extension of the university’s open-space framework, the Framework Vision does imply significant deviations from the long-established Campus Plan, including the plan’s fundamental premise that development of the campus should be a process rather than a fixed-image map. The Framework Vision is in many ways exactly that, prescribing where and how development should occur. I don’t know enough about how the university reconciles the underlying principles of the Campus Plan with the findings of the Framework Vision project, so perhaps the Vision and any consequent updates to the Plan will continue to preserve the university’s dedication to all six of the basic principles first enumerated during the 1970s by The Oregon Experiment:

1. Organic Order
2. Incremental Growth
3. Patterns
4. Diagnosis
5. Participation
6. Coordination

Of these principles, the use of patterns to guide the design process has perhaps been the one most associated with the University of Oregon’s unique approach to campus planning. It has also proven to be the one principle whose precepts have sometimes been abandoned in favor of exigencies associated with specific projects, the Jaqua Center perhaps being the poster child in this regard. The Knight Campus design likewise appears to not respect several key patterns, which the Campus Plan suggests “must” be considered for every project. These include the following:

Architectural Style: Make the design of new buildings compatible and harmonious with the design of adjacent buildings (on and off campus) though they need not (and in some cases should not) mimic them.

We should give the university a pass on this one because the Knight Campus is expressly intended to present a rebranding of sorts, and the North Design Area is set apart from the historical center of the University of Oregon campus. It is less critical the Knight Campus be responsive to the character and vocabulary of historic UO buildings (i.e. the composition of the facades and the extensive use of brick during the Ellis Lawrence era). It is important that it emphasize high quality, human scale, and careful detailing. Time will eventually tell if the design becomes as treasured as many of the older campus buildings are today.

Existing Uses/Replacement: All plans for new development shall keep existing uses intact by developing plans and identifying funding for their replacement.

The Knight Campus will displace several private businesses, among them Evergreen Indian Cuisine, one of my favorite places for an enjoyable lunch. I trust the university is fairly treating those affected by the proposed development and providing them with all necessary assistance (especially the Shaik family, owners of Evergreen, for whom the news of the Knight Campus came as a complete shock after signing a 5-year lease with the UO foundation and completing a $100,000 remodel just before the 2016 announcement of the Knight’s largesse). The new project may also have lasting impacts upon the Urban Farm, located immediately north of the project site, across the Millrace. Will the new buildings damagingly shade the garden?

Operable Windows: In the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, all exterior windows of university buildings must be able to be opened wholly or in part.

Relying solely upon the published renderings, it doesn’t appear the exterior windows are intended to be operable, at least by individual users. Many laboratory functions require precise control of temperatures, humidity, and contaminants, but the labs can be isolated from less-demanding building areas. I would not be surprised at all to learn some windows will open and close as part of an automated natural ventilation scheme.

Another pattern, Arcades, also appears to be absent from the Knight Campus design. Wherever possible to implement, this pattern mandates the creation of arcades along the sides of buildings to provide a semi-covered system of paths throughout the campus. It’s not clear why Ennead/Bora appears to have given short shrift to this pattern.

View of the proposed bridge crossing Franklin Boulevard

What other thoughts do I have about the proposed design? It’s risky at best to speculate about how it will turn out and the architects’ intentions in the absence of more information (for example, I haven’t seen detailed plan drawings); however, I do find the way the bridge connects the proposed buildings to the existing Lewis Integrated Sciences Building (LISB) across Franklin Boulevard to be under-developed; the dramatic bridge slams unceremoniously into the side of the Knight Campus building without articulation. I also think the design has an overly diagrammatic quality about it, appearing to be an almost direct translation of the Campus Physical Framework Vision’s prescription for the site; that being said, it appears it will be welcomingly transparent and visually active.

Courtyard 

Lab interior

Ultimately, the design of the Knight Campus is more than just about its architecture. As the promotional literature says, it is a blueprint for transforming the university, so that it becomes a “regional hub of discovery.” Along with the key aspects of the Campus Physical Framework Vision that may be assimilated within the existing Campus Plan, the Knight Campus points toward an optimistic future for the University of Oregon, a future in which it is increasingly relevant on the local, national, and world levels. Beyond being part of the Knight’s significant endowment, it will also establish a precedent for how the overall campus will continue to grow and mature, which may prove to be its greatest legacy as a project.

October AIA-SWO Chapter Meeting Recap

Richard Shugar presents 2fORM Architecture’s Timberidge project at the October 18, 2017 AIA-SWO chapter meeting (my photo).

The October 2017 AIA-SWO chapter meeting last Wednesday featured fast-paced, PechaKucha-style presentations of this year’s submissions for the People’s Choice/Colleague’s Choice awards. Notwithstanding the gremlins that conspired to delay the show (big props to Jenna Fribley for fighting the good fight and coming through in the clutch!), the well-attended event was great fun. The venue for the evening was the DEN in the recently renovated Wayward Lamb bar in downtown Eugene.

The PechaKucha format is ideal for the quick sharing of images and ideas. In the case of last Wednesday’s event, this meant no more than six slides per project at 20 seconds apiece. Consequently, each presenter was limited to introducing only the key concepts that shaped their designs, essential given the time constraint but also a brilliant means to distill their essence.

Jenna Fribley (seated) works assiduously to get the presentations up and running while Frank Visconti, Katie Hall, and Stan Honn offer moral support (photo by Katie).

If my count is correct, there are a total of 53 entrants in this year’s People’s Choice/Colleague’s Choice program, which must be a record. Granted, thirteen of these are the submissions to the Parklet Competition earlier this year; regardless, both the number and quality of the projects are impressive. I have my favorites (I won’t divulge which ones they are!) but all the submissions reflect a thoughtfulness and uniformly high level of design that are increasingly characteristic of AIA-SWO member firms.

The People’s Choice boards on display at the Broadway Commerce Center.

Voting continues through the end of October. If you haven’t already, visit the display at the Broadway Commerce Center at 44 W. Broadway in Eugene or click on the link below to see the projects and vote for your favorite submissions:

https://aiaswo-pcavote2017.weebly.com/

Look for the winners of both the People’s Choice and Colleague’s Choice balloting to be announced in the forthcoming 2017 Design Annual appearing next month as an insert in The Register-Guard. 

Architecture is Awesome #15: Building a Legacy

The Acropolis, by Leo von Klenze [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

This is another in my series of posts inspired by 1000 Awesome Things, the Webby Award winning blog written by Neil Pasricha. The series is my meditation on the awesome reasons why I was and continue to be attracted to the art of architecture.

If architects do their jobs well, the buildings they design will be sturdy, functional, and beautiful. If they are, the buildings will be well-used, cared for, and lasting. And if the buildings are lasting, they will outlive their authors, setting the stage for many lifetimes beyond those of the original players involved in their conception. The most-cherished, most-useful, and long-lived buildings are bequests from one generation to those that follow. They comprise the legacy their original owners, builders, and architects leave behind for others to enjoy.

Architects bear a responsibility to pour their lives into the making of places and buildings that will have repercussions for many years. This responsibility is not unlike the tremendous one parents bear when raising their children; each child must be cherished and nurtured to become loving, valued members of the family and society. Parents pass on their thoughts and beliefs to their children, and they in turn to future generations, so they live on as a tradition and culture. In this sense, children are a continuation of the lives of their parents, a biologic and symbolic form of immortality. Buildings likewise provide architects with a creative symbolic immortality, as buildings have the capacity to change the lives of others long after their designers have passed on.(1)

Ultimately, only the greatest of edifices are spared from turning to dust, and their enduring permanence sometimes comes at the cost of losing the vitality spurred by their initial purposes. Whether they will last for fifty years or a thousand, the buildings we design tell as much about ourselves as they do the place, time, and culture of their origin. What we make reveals, in some measure, who we are and were. To paraphrase the Athenian statesman Pericles, what we leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others. The important thing is to envision the profound and positive impacts our buildings will have upon those who will use and encounter them.

Life, as we all know, is a precious thing. We all have so much potential for good. It’s incumbent upon us to do something meaningful and beneficial with the short time each of us has on this planet. The responsibility is humbling. The legacy every architect builds during his or her lifetime should be important, respectful, and of help to the lives of the generations it will touch. If it is, that legacy becomes a significant part of humankind’s epic, wondrous, and AWESOME heritage.

Next Architecture is Awesome: #16 Skyscrapers 

(1) Read more about symbolic immortality here.