Architecture is Awesome #29: Frozen Music

Photo by Julio Rionaldo on Unsplash

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.   
 
The German poet, philosopher, and statesman Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said “Music is liquid architecture; architecture is frozen music.” There are several reasons why he compared architecture to music. Both are forms of art with the power to evoke emotions, create a mood, and convey meaning. Just as music uses rhythm, harmony, and melody to create a sense of order and structure, architecture uses form, space, and proportion to similar effect. Both can transcend language and cultural barriers. People from all backgrounds can enjoy and appreciate quality music of all forms and points of origin. Likewise, they can admire a well-designed building regardless of its particular style or provenance.   
 
Goethe cited the ancient Greek myths of Orpheus and Amphion, in which music is said to revive dead stones and tame wild beasts. Allegorically, music was the foundation for civilization and for building.
 
Though architecture may be frozen music, it is also dynamic. Buildings come alive under the play of light and shadows. They engage our senses visually, aurally, and haptically. Importantly, buildings interact with the people who use and move through them. Talented designers fully appreciate the power of architecture to enhance the full range of human experience.
 
In a way, architecture is like frozen music in that both can endure over time. Music is preserved through written notation, recordings, and live performances. A building remains a symbol of a culture and its history for many generations through the diligence of dedicated caretakers. People admire great music and architecture because both tell stories about themselves and the values they esteem. Great music and architecture are legacies of human expression that resonate through the ages. That both music and architecture touch upon the deepest aspects of being human is nothing less than AWESOME.
 
Next Architecture is Awesome:  #30 Connecting with Others

The Vexing Line

 

Photo by Evgeniy Surzhan on Unsplash

One of my good friends is another local architect, Eric Hall. Eric and I worked together for a brief time after I first started at Robertson/Sherwood/Architects back in 1988. Since then, we’ve maintained an ongoing dialog about the nature of our work (albeit sporadically, especially of late). We most recently connected via email after both attending this month's Construction Specifications Institute tour of the Huestis Hall renovation project.

The following is our latest exchange, which addresses Eric’s belief there is a divide between theorists and practical people. The article he cites is by Jeffrey Tucker, who is a staunch libertarian and anarcho-capitalist. Entitled The Eggheads vs. the Doers, the article betrays Tucker’s disdain for “academics, bureaucrats, modelers, and other highly credentialed experts.” Notwithstanding his questionable rejection of scientific consensus, Tucker correctly asserts that theory unchecked by practical experience can be catastrophic.
 
Eric’s message to me comes first, after which is my response:
 
RANDY:
 
Great to see you the other evening . . . it has become clear that you and I are becoming the new sage members of our local profession. Our elders are retiring around us, leaving us as the senior members that are wise beyond our years, or so some might believe. . . It made me think of perhaps a new more focused mission for CSI. [The organization] has languished of late in my mind, because it lacks relevancy, at least IMHO.
 
I found this in my email box, and for some reason you came to mind as I was reading it. I think mostly because it used architecture as a delivery vehicle for the parable of the vexing line between theorist and practitioner. I think I remember you saying once that you really just wanted to do good buildings that worked. You were right of course, and that is a constant challenge. I find myself having the most conversations with staff as to what is the best way to detail and construct an element, followed only by what is the best way to communicate those desires. And it truly amazes me how much more, with every passing year, that we detail, and delineate, as seemingly the world of construction either gets more ignorant, or more savvy to the invariable downside to taking on any construction detailing decision. It is both strangely rewarding, while being simultaneously daunting. I increasingly feel like we deserve every bit of the fees that we earn.
 
In any event, hope you had a good St. Paddy’s, as you ready yourself for March Madness and all the joy I know it brings you.
 
Take good care.
 
Eric

*    *    *    *    *    * 

 
ERIC:
 
Good to see at the Huestis Hall tour as well. I don’t know about being a “sage” member of the local architecture community! I’ve always felt like an imposter. My hope is to reach retirement without breaking anything before then.
 
CSI is far from lacking in relevancy. The need for effective construction communications will always be relevant. What it does lack is the kind of messaging that resonates with emerging professionals. I’m not sure what the solution is.
 
Regarding the “vexing line between theorist and practitioner,” I’m not sure you saw this blog post I wrote last fall: SW Oregon Architect: Commonsense Architecture. I’m not inclined to blame theorists. This has little to do theory, which involves thinking, discussing, and writing about architecture. It encompasses critical commentary, which we’re engaging in here. Academicians are not the issue; instead, I think it is a misdirected (and sometimes ego-driven) need to be different, challenging, or attention-grabbing.
 
A growing problem is the increasing complexity of building science and the sheer breadth of issues architects must consider on every project. We’d be better served if we focused on doing buildings right, employing tried and true principles of construction. This is increasingly difficult given how much we’re expected to know and the associated risk we’re expected to bear. One remedy may be to accept an increase in specialization and a proliferation of discrete expertise. Two examples of this focused expertise are building envelope consultants and accessibility consultants. Each of us alone can only know so much; we can’t be experts about everything. Architects will continue to relinquish more and more control over the design of buildings. In the future, only a few architects will retain responsibility for overseeing the big picture. The rest will have careers that take them down much more focused tracks. An analog is the medical profession, wherein there are primary care providers but also highly compensated specialists.
 
I’m going to retire at the right time for me. Beside the personal reasons for doing so, I’m beginning to think the profession requires more of architects than we’re equipped to deliver (absent the intense specialization I mention above)—this isn’t what drew me to a career in architecture. In some respects, you and I have lived and worked through a “golden age.” We’ve seen plenty of change, progress, and enlightenment over the past four decades. The way forward always seemed clear. Today it is far less so, which I guess mirrors much of what is happening around us in the world.
 
Randy

UO Huestis Hall Tour

 

The March meeting of the Construction Specifications Institute-Willamette Valley Chapter featured a fascinating tour of the $90 million renovation project in progress at Huestis Hall on the campus of the University of Oregon. While the extensive renovation will result in a comprehensive overhaul of all the building’s major systems—including exterior envelope improvements, removal of barriers to accessibility, M/E/P upgrades, replacement of its elevators, and more—the primary focus of the presentation by Nick Pritchard of Lease Crutcher Lewis (the project’s Construction Manager/General Contractor) was the application of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) to address Huestis Hall’s structural deficiencies.
 
Constructed during the early 1970s, Huestis Hall’s brutalist aesthetic imparts a strong, yet simple, presence that is warmed with its brick veneer accents and large expanses of glazing. As was the case with most buildings built in Oregon before 1984, the original design of its lateral force resisting system lacked an awareness of the local seismicity exposure’s magnitude. Without necessary improvements, the 3-story concrete structure would sustain significant damage during a major earthquake. Wishing to secure its long-term future, the University prioritized upgrading Huestis Hall’s ability to resist seismic forces.(1)  
 
Before describing the extensive use of FRP, Nick summarized the overall project scope:

• Targeting of LEED Gold (with aspirations for Platinum)
• Comprehensive demolition of the building interiors down to the structure at the levels above-grade
• Addition of a new west elevator tower
• Thickening and infilling of the existing concrete cores as necessary to supplement the FRP reinforcing
• Tying of the existing concrete cores to the floor diaphragms by means of collector rods
• Construction of a new mechanical penthouse
• Installation of new M/E/P systems
• Restoration of the existing brick
• Window replacement
• Installation of new architectural finishes and laboratory casework
• Site improvements

Once completed sometime during 2024, the University’s Institute of Neuroscience (IoN) home in Huestis Hall will be fully refurbished, seismically safe, and state-of-the-art. It will provide IoN researchers with a supportive work environment that promotes collaboration and enhances their ability to tackle fundamental questions in neuroscience.

 

Installed FRP strips within the existing elevator shaft.

The use of FRP products for seismic reinforcing is common today.(2) FRP is a composite material that typically consists of strong fibers embedded in a resin matrix. The fibers provide strength and stiffness to the composite and generally carry most of the applied loads. The most common fiber types are glass, carbon, or synthetics. They are nonconductive, noncorrosive, and lightweight. Such reinforcement is particularly useful for seismic upgrades because it is relatively easy to install, an important consideration when it comes to retrofitting existing concrete structures that were not originally designed to withstand earthquakes. FRP is applied in the form of strips or sheets, which are bonded to the surface of the concrete using epoxy or other adhesive materials. The FRP resists tensile forces by enhancing the flexural and shear strength of the structure.
 
Overall, FRP materials provide an effective and practical solution for seismic retrofitting and strengthening of buildings. They can significantly enhance the performance of structures during earthquakes, reducing damage and increasing safety.
 
Nick described the process associated with the design, delivery, and installation of the FRP system for Huestis Hall. Though Catena Consulting Engineers furnished the initial design analysis of the existing structure and prepared the basis-of-design drawings. the detailed engineering of the FRP system was a delegated design responsibility, assigned to a specialized subcontractor possessing the requisite expertise. Simpson Strong-Tie is that subcontractor, a vertically integrated, full-solution partner for the FRP composite strengthening systems. Simpson and its subsidiary companies (Structural Technologies and Pullman Services) are providing turnkey, end-to-end services for Huestis Hall, from engineering through installation.

 

View looking up to the underside of the one of the floor structures adjacent to a concrete core to which it will be structurally tied. Collector rods will bridge the original seismic joint separating the components and tie them together once the infilling concrete between the original concrete joists is poured.

As Nick explained, Huestis Hall has presented more than its share of surprises and challenges. The building proved difficult to fully assess and document as record documents were incomplete or unreliable. Every existing penetration through structurally important walls needed to be documented. In one instance, a huge opening accommodating the passage of ductwork and piping existed where it wasn’t expected, triggering an expensive reconfiguration of the HVAC and fire protection systems. The existing elevator had to be removed in its entirety to facilitate the application of the FRP within the concrete shaft, a process that additionally necessitated the cutting of larger openings to facilitate the removal and eventual reinstallation of the elevator. The existing egress stairways barely exceeded the code-minimum width requirements, so Lease Crutcher Lewis is carefully monitoring the addition of the FRP strips to ensure the stairs remain code-compliant. On top of all this, the basement of Huestis Hall is home to a highly vibration and noise-sensitive Zebrafish facility, which is remaining in place and operation throughout the project’s duration.
 
The lessons learned that are applicable to any project involving the use of FRP include the following:

• Plan sequencing of the work very early on.
• Don’t rely entirely upon the design team’s ability to fully capture the scope of demolition necessary to provide access to the concrete surfaces involving FRP reinforcement.
• Carefully inspect all concrete surfaces scheduled to receive FRP; perform investigative demolition as necessary.
• Fully document all existing penetrations.
• Thoroughly analyze the access and control requirements associated with installing FRP in areas of the building occupied during the work.
• Consider how the build-up of materials (FRP, concealing finishes) may encroach upon required egress paths or accessible paths of travel.
• Avoid welding near or on top of the FRP.
• Anticipate temperatures unfavorable to the application of FRP (minimum required temperature is 45 degrees F).

Though costly, the renovation of Huestis Hall—as opposed to its complete demolition and replacement—was the right course of action taken by the University of Oregon. Renovating the building is the eco-friendly option, with fewer environmental impacts than new construction. Viewed through the sustainability lens, the carbon debt incurred will be smaller over Huestis Hall’s remaining (and considerably extended) lifespan.
 
Big thanks to Nick Pritchard for leading such an informative and transparent tour. And kudos too to Kayla Bundy (current WVC/CSI president) and Sydney Mills (president-elect) for arranging yet another successful chapter meeting. I’m looking forward to more!
 
(1)  A team led by my firm, Robertson/Sherwood/Architects, prepared a 2017 renovation feasibility study that provided the basis for the current renovation project. Alas, the University did not select us to subsequently execute the project, instead choosing TVA Architects.
 
(2) I have direct experience with the use of FRP on another seismic upgrade project. In many ways, the Olive Plaza Seismic Upgrade & Exterior Improvements project was similar to the Huestis Hall project. Both jobs involve the use of FRP, but also share in common the challenging logistics associated with the extensive renovation of an existing building.

Franklin Boulevard Transformation: 2023 Update

  

 Rendering of the proposed design at the Walnut Street EmX station. The potential redevelopment of the University of Oregon-owned Joe Romania property is seen in the background (All images in this blog post from the January 27, 2023 Franklin Boulevard Corridor Analysis and Recommendations Report)

 
Better Eugene-Springfield Transportation (BEST)(1) issued an e-blast last week encouraging everyone to learn about the City of Eugene’s latest, preferred design for the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project. I’m derelict in posting this announcement regarding the opportunity to provide online feedback as the City is closing the comment period today (Sunday, March 5). Regardless, I thought I could do my part to spread word about the project, which has been in the works since 2019. I did first report on its far-reaching implications back then, noting the Franklin corridor is a significant public space that deserves to be planned with purpose.
 
Franklin Boulevard is the principal arterial street and an essential transit spine connecting downtown Eugene to the University of Oregon and Springfield. In its present form, it looks and operates like a state highway rather than as “complete street” that is safe and practical for everyone, whether one drives, rides the bus, bikes, rolls, walks, or uses a mobility assistive device. The current configuration—comprised of six automobile-dominated lanes sandwiching a single EmX track—promotes unsafe speeds and driver behavior, while becoming increasingly inefficient.(2) The streetscape is uninviting, lacking buffering between narrow sidewalks and the adjacent roadway, and far from pedestrian-friendly. Fundamentally, Franklin Boulevard is a divider, separating uses north of the corridor from those south of it.

 

Sidewalks without a buffer and substandard bike facilities are not comfortable places for people to walk and bike on Franklin Boulevard while motor vehicles are speeding by them. Most sections of Franklin Boulevard lack bike facilities altogether.

From the start, the City of Eugene envisioned transforming Franklin Boulevard from a place that people travel through to a place that people travel to, complete with protected and connected bikeways, sidewalks, intersections, and dual EmX lanes. It would encourage future developments along the length of the corridor that further enhance the attractiveness of multimodal transportation to people of all abilities. It would be a comfortable connector of places, safer and more welcoming, in stark contrast to its present condition.
 

This drawing shows a proposed typical cross section through a transformed Franklin Boulevard. The concept includes two EmX lanes in the middle, two general purpose lanes in each direction, and generous bikeways and sidewalks buffered from the vehicular traffic.

The City has invited public input throughout the project’s history, most recently at a well-attended in-person open house event on February 2 of this year, and now during an online comment period. Check out the Franklin Boulevard Transformation website for the latest project news. It includes a project overview, the Draft Corridor Analysis Report, the project timeline, and a fascinating corridor simulation video. The website describes the steps the City took to identify a preferred design alternative, and how the project is now transitioning from the planning phase to detailed engineering.
 
The City selected the preferred alternative from among three distinct design approaches:

• Alternative A, which explored a series of roundabouts along the entire corridor
• Alternative B, which explored signalized intersections with one gateway roundabout at the eastern end.
• Alternative C, which explored a hybrid concept of roundabouts and signals with gateway roundabouts at each end.

A modified version of the Alternative C hybrid design emerged as the preferred concept in March of 2020. In general, this alternative will include:

• Connected and continuous facilities for people walking and biking. Protected bikeways will be located on the north side, with a shared-use path on the south.
• Two exclusive EmX lanes (one each direction) to provide the capacity to meet planned bus frequency.
• Four general purpose travel lanes for vehicles (two in each direction).
• Roundabouts at Onyx Street, 13th Avenue/Moss Street, Walnut Street, and at an “East Gateway.”
• Signalized intersections at Villard and Agate Streets to reduce ROW and business impacts.
• Intersection improvements at 11th Avenue, Agate Street, Villard Street, and the I-5 off-ramp terminus.
• Speed limits on the urban portions of Franklin Boulevard reduced from 35 to 25 mph (speed control through the corridor would be achieved with modifications to the roadway geometrics, speed cushions at crosswalk locations, and landscape treatments).

A portion of the preferred Alternative C hybrid design, shown here between Onyx Street and Walnut Street (click to enlarge).

Some people don’t like roundabouts. They do have their pros and cons.
 
Pros:

• Improved traffic flow: Roundabouts can help to reduce traffic congestion by improving traffic flow. They can handle more traffic than traditional intersections and are more efficient at keeping traffic moving. A byproduct is less air and noise pollution, and less fuel used.
• Reduced collisions: Roundabouts can reduce the number and severity of collisions. By forcing traffic to slow down and enter the intersection at an angle, the likelihood of high-speed crashes is decreased. Research has revealed a 35% reduction in the number of collisions, 90% fewer fatalities, and 75% fewer injuries.  
• Improved pedestrian safety: Roundabouts can improve pedestrian safety by reducing the number of potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
• Lower maintenance costs: Roundabouts typically require less maintenance than traditional intersections because do entirely rely upon traffic signals and are less likely to require repairs.
• Landscaping/art potential: A precedent is the City of Bend, which is well-known for incorporating art as part of its many roundabouts.

Cons:

• High construction costs: Roundabouts can be more expensive to construct than traditional intersections because they require larger land area and often necessitate the relocation of utilities.
• Learning curve for drivers: Drivers may need time to adjust to the new traffic patterns and rules of roundabouts, especially if they are unfamiliar with them.
• Possible confusion for some drivers: Some drivers may find roundabouts confusing, especially if they encounter multiple lanes or if there are multiple exits.
• Not suitable for high-volume, high-speed traffic: Roundabouts may not be suitable for intersections with high volumes of high-speed traffic, such as on major arterials.

Count me among those who have experienced a learning curve with the proper use of roundabouts. Now that I’ve become more comfortable navigating them, I’m supportive of their use. Overall, the benefits of roundabouts outweigh the drawbacks. Additionally, roundabouts can be memorable place-makers and markers, a multivalent and useful element of a complete urban design palette.

 

Back in 2019 at the outset of the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project, I did suggest broadening its scope to account for a greater range of considerations that extend well beyond the corridor’s immediate vicinity. I now believe the City’s plans are in fact inclusive of that broader set of concerns and am satisfied the planning and design process is holistic and far-reaching.
 
Refinement of the preferred design alternative continues. Design engineering will begin this year and be finalized in 2025. The City foresees reconstruction of Franklin Boulevard being completed by 2028.
 
Do you have comments or questions regarding the preferred design for the Franklin Boulevard Transformation?  As I mentioned, the opportunity to share your feedback online is closing today. I suspect the City may offer another opportunity to furnish input in the future. Failing that, you can email your comments to Karen Mason, Transportation Planner with the City of Eugene, at KMason@eugene-or.gov.
 
(1)  BEST is a nonprofit organization that since its founding in 2012 has advocated on behalf of better public transit, safe streets, walkable neighborhoods, accessible bicycle infrastructure, and more. BEST supports the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project.
 
(2)  Ironically, as development intensifies along Franklin and use of controlled signals at pedestrian crossings increases, the elapsed travel times between the west and east ends of the corridor are most often lengthier than the average vehicle speed between stops would suggest. The “Franklin Boulevard Time Warp” is real.   

Colossal. Profligate. Horrifying.

Several videos documenting the demolition of one of China’s notorious “ghost cities” have recently been racking up millions of views on Twitter and YouTube. For some reason, the videos of the event—which record the destruction of fifteen tower blocks in Kunming, China that occurred on August 27, 2021—are only now going viral, which is why I just discovered them. While the scale of the waste the videos record in Kunming is staggering, it is only the tip of a much larger iceberg. Combined, the “ghost city” phenomenon, China’s now-faltering real estate market, the recklessness of the country’s mega-developers, and the misguided policies of Chinese authorities are unimaginably profligate and injurious.

 

Many of China's other “ghost cities” sit unfinished, having never been occupied. They now either require significant ongoing investment and maintenance to keep them from falling into disrepair or are slated for razing. I read that China has adopted a “build, pause, demolish, repeat” policy as a means to both limit the building supply to prevent a precipitous drop in property values and increase economic activity through construction. Effectively, the Chinese government has sanctioned an unprecedented squandering of resources, one that is anything but sustainable.

 

The disregard for sustainability is horrifying. The embodied carbon implications are enormous. The greenhouse gas emissions arising from the manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance, and disposal of building materials associated with such massive and irresponsible developments move the planet that much further away from meeting climate action goals. Approximately 30% of global carbon emissions are attributable to the building sector. As the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, it is clear China’s development patterns are consequential. “Build, pause, demolish, repeat” is not a formula I associate with a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  

 

While China today is the world’s biggest climate offender, other developed nations are not without culpability. Though the proportion of overall global carbon emissions coming from the U.S. is less than half that of China, the American share of tons of CO2 per capita is more than double. Growth for growth’s sake as a means to ensure global economic and societal stability is not a sustainable paradigm.  

 

To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the United Nations 2022 Sustainable Development Goals Report says greenhouse gas emissions will need to peak before 2025 and then decline by 43 percent by 2030 and to net zero by 2050. Under the best of scenarios, achieving these goals is optimistic. I tend to be a pessimist on the issue of large-scale climate change, which I consider to be inevitable despite all efforts to reverse it. I believe our planet has already passed the tipping point beyond which there is no return. We thus have a duty to build with an understanding that is grounded in reality. Our way forward will be marked by a focus on flexibility, diversity, redundancy, and community and away from current trends that rely on technological fixes, unsustainable economic models of growth, and excessive globalization.

 

Notwithstanding my pessimism, I do believe it will always be in humanity’s best interest to do whatever it can to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of buildings through the entirety of their life cycles. What distresses me is seeing unmistakable evidence that many still fail to recognize the damage wrought by extravagant and unnecessary development.