Electrification & Decarbonization of Buildings

 

Photo by Doris Morgan on Unsplash

Jan Filinger of Studio.e Architecture brought to my attention the advocacy efforts of many in our community to transition away from the built environment’s reliance upon fossil fuels. The impacts of climate change—including catastrophic drought and wildfires here in the western United States—are increasingly evident and intensifying exponentially. We cannot stop climate change, but we can attempt to slow its inexorable progress. Jan’s entreaty to his fellow professionals in the building sector was to add their names to a letter addressed to the mayor and city council that supports policies to transition structures from polluting fossil fuels to renewable electricity.

Electrification is a prevalent building decarbonization strategy. Switching space and water heating from natural gas-powered systems to electric alternatives (such as electric heat pumps) can slash carbon emissions and provide an effective path toward net zero (balancing the amount of greenhouse gases produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere).

According to the Community Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory, natural gas—which is predominantly comprised of methane, a potent greenhouse gas and major contributor to global warming—accounts for 40 percent of Eugene’s fossil fuel use, while homes and buildings consume nearly 43 percent of all energy in Oregon. Building energy accounts for 32 percent of local emissions. Remarkably, merely swapping out gas appliances for electric ones would reduce the average household’s climate footprint by 50 percent. 

Building energy accounts for 32 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Eugene.

Fossil Free Eugene—a coalition of grassroots organizations calling on the City of Eugene to take immediate action reduce our reliance on natural gas—points out our electrical grid is already very clean, largely reliant upon renewable energy sources (as much as 77 percent coming from hydroelectric generation). Fossil Free Eugene argues the obstacles toward total electrification of our new and existing building inventory, while substantial, are not so great that we should not immediately move toward that goal.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, NW Natural—the primary distributor of natural gas in western Oregon—is actively countering the evidence of climate risks through misleading advertising promoting continued consumption of their product. 

The letter Jan asked everyone to sign strongly encourages the City of Eugene to follow through with its climate commitments by reducing dependence on fossil fuels in our buildings and homes. The technology to build high-performance all-electric homes and buildings already exists, and innovation is driving even more advanced technology. To its credit, the City of Eugene passed its Climate Recovery Ordinance (CRO) in 2014, which set bold targets to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. Toward meeting these targets, the City is drafting ordinances prohibiting fossil fuel infrastructure in new low-rise residential buildings after June 1, 2023; in turn, new commercial construction will be required to do likewise. In 2021, the City Council directed the City Manager to formalize Eugene’s Climate Action Plan commitment to completely decarbonizing the entire existing stock of residential and commercial buildings by 2045. 

The council’s work session last week focused upon the development of a plan for community engagement in consideration of building electrification and decarbonization initiatives. I tuned in to the work session and was impressed by the depth and breadth of the discussion and the obvious appreciation by the mayor, the city councilors, and city staff of the significant charge they have assumed. Kudos to all for their commitment and dedication to realizing the CRO goals. 

Below is the letter Jan asked us to sign to demonstrate our support for policies intended to expedite the electrification and decarbonization of buildings here in Eugene. I added my signature today.

Mayor Vinis and Eugene City Council:
 
We, the undersigned Eugene and Oregon-based building industry professionals, urge you to adopt policies to transition homes and buildings in Eugene from polluting fossil fuels to renewable electricity as a proactive measure to address the climate crisis. We especially support programs to encourage the adoption of high efficiency heat pump systems in new construction, as well as in existing homes and buildings.
 
Homes and buildings represent approximately 32% of Eugene’s greenhouse gas emissions and are one of the fastest growing sources of emissions in the City. Since Eugene’s Climate Recovery Ordinance (CRO), initiated in 2014, calls for an average annual emissions reduction of 7.6% across sectors and a 50% reduction in fossil fuel use of 2010 levels by 2030, the City is far from achieving its goals. 

To achieve our ambitious climate targets, protect our residents, and build a viable future for coming generations, we must utilize the best building techniques and technologies that are currently fully adopted in the marketplace, readily available, affordable, and environmentally preferable. That is why we support the policies currently being considered by the City of Eugene to transition our city to renewable electricity by requiring that new commercial and residential buildings be constructed with all electric heating and water heating, and to create a program to transition existing residential and commercial buildings to all-electric systems for heating and water heating by 2035. In the Eugene Climate Action Plan 2.0 Gap Analysis, policies similar to those that the City is currently considering were suggested by City staff as a means of achieving our CRO goals, goals which the city is quickly falling behind on. 

These policies will strongly increase the rate of adoption of heat pumps, which is critical both to reducing emissions in the City, as well as increasing our community’s resilience to climate-driven heat waves, wildfires, cold spells, and reducing strain on the local electrical grid. 

In addition to being all-electric, the immediately tangible benefits of heat pump systems are multifold: 

• Heat pump air conditioners provide both cooling in summer and heat in winter, offering increased resilience in climate-driven extreme weather conditions
• Heat pump air conditioners are between 300% and 500% more efficient than traditional gas furnaces
• Heat pump air conditioners and some heat pump water heaters are effective even when outdoor temperatures are as low as negative 25 F
• Heat pump water heaters are between 300% and 500% more efficient than gas water heater
• Heat pumps can be scaled to any project – from residential and educational to large scale commercial and industrial buildings

Furthermore, new electric construction has significant benefits for health and safety, and the climate, including:

• Reduced indoor and outdoor air pollution and the associated health risks caused by unhealthy air quality from gas appliances 
• Reduced upfront construction costs and consumer utility expenses, thanks to the elimination of gas plumbing and necessary exhaust ductwork and to the great energy-efficiency of heat pumps and heat pump hot water heaters
• Reduced risk of consumers being stuck with stranded assets as the local, state and federal government pass policies to transition off of gas infrastructure 

It is time to signal to the market that we need to move away from fossil fuels in our homes and buildings. In our professional practices we have found that building all-electric new homes and buildings is a proven, robust, efficient, and economically viable solution already adopted across the marketplace. The market for electric-only HVAC and hot water equipment is mature and poses very little risk to developers and engineers alike. In Eugene alone, a significant number of new housing developments have been successful in adopting all-electric energy strategies including St. Vincent DePaul’s Iris Place, St. Vincent DePaul’s Stellar Apartments, and Square One Villages’ Opportunity Village. 

All-electric new construction will contribute to Eugene’s stated climate goals and will protect its citizens and future generations from the accelerating physical and economic impacts of climate change. Given this fact, we can no longer justify prolonging the use of gas in new construction when there are more viable, more sustainable, more profitable, and healthier alternatives readily available today. This is especially true as Eugene’s electrical grid is already one of the cleanest in the nation, and, with the implementation of Oregon House Bill 2021, Oregon’s electricity will be increasingly generated by renewable technology. 

A recent analysis from the highly respected non-partisan, non-profit think-tank RMI, demonstrated the significant economic and climate benefits of all-electric residential construction in Eugene. Specifically, RMI’s Eugene-specific analysis shows that: 

• All-electric homes constructed with an Energy Star-rated heat pump cost $3,446 less to build than a similar mixed-fuel home. 
• Because of low electricity rates and a mild climate, heat pumps in Eugene were also found to significantly lower annual utility bills, saving rate payers up to $390 a year in utilities compared to a mixed-fuel home. 
• All-electric homes in Eugene emit 70% less carbon over a 15-year period than a mixed-fuel home. 

The technology to build high-performance all-electric homes and buildings already exists in the market today and innovation is driving more advanced products. Concrete policies like the ones that the City of Eugene is considering meet a triple bottom line of benefiting our climate, our economy, and our community. 

Detailed research has shown that such policies are not only critical to meeting the City’s carbon reduction goals but will save Eugene residents money, particularly low-income and historically marginalized populations who suffer disproportionate energy burdens and harms from the health effects of gas in the home. 

The feasibility of successfully realizing such an ordinance is demonstrated by the ever-growing list of cities and states implementing electrification policies, including: 

• New York City, NY
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Denver, CO
• Los Angeles, CA
• Washington D.C.
• Boston, MA
• Berkeley, CA
• Brookline, MA

In 2010, when Eugene created its first Community Climate and Energy Action Plan, it joined a growing list of forward-thinking cities around the world that are addressing climate change and energy challenges through dedicated planning efforts. Eugene’s CRO continues to include some of the strongest greenhouse gas emission reduction goals in the nation. 

Thanks to these strong commitments, Eugene is already a national leader in climate policy. At this critical point in time we, the architects, designers, builders, engineers, and suppliers at work in our community, urge you to uphold the bold commitments that you made a decade ago and have reaffirmed countless times since, and to push forward in taking this important step to effectively address the climate crisis. Let’s create a better future for our community by transitioning our homes and buildings from polluting fossil-fuel to clean, renewable electricity. 

Sincerely,

• Jan Fillinger, AIA, LEED ap, Principal, Studio.e Architecture PC
• Kaley Fought, AIA, AIA Oregon President 2022-2023, American Institute of Architects (AIA) Oregon
• David Heslam, Executive Director, Earth Advantage
• Alexi Miller, Acting Director of Building Innovation, New Buildings Institute
• Joe Emerson, Founder, The Zero Energy Project
• Jeff Bissonnette, Policy & Legislative Consultant, NW Energy Coalition
• Josh Salinger, Founder & CEO, Passive House Northwest, Founder & CEO, Birdsmouth
• Mike Steffen, Director of Innovation, Walsh Construction
• Alex Boetzel, Director of Operations and Sustainability, Green Hammer
• Cameo Konfrst, Communications & Development Director, Community Energy Project
• Mark Perepelitza, Principal, SERA Architects
• Neil Baunsgard, Transportation and Climate Advocacy Manager, The Environmental Center
• Mike Ardeljan, Owner, Dream Home Building and Design
• Peter Grube, Founder, NorthWest AeroBarrier
• Heather DeGrella, Sustainable Design Director, Opsis Architecture
• Angela Crowley-Koch, Executive Director, Oregon Solar + Storage Industries Association
• Pat Schellerup, Director of Operations, Imagine Energy
• Ashley Haight, ZERO Coalition Manager, ZERO Coalition
• Alain Rebeyrol, Architect, Composite Architecture LLC
• Carl Christianson, Owner, G. Christianson Construction
• James McDonald, Green Home Builder, Ecobuilding Collaborative of Oregon 
• Anita Van Asperdt, Landscape Architect, LandCurrent landscape architects
• Nir Pearlson, Architect, Aligned Architecture
• Teri Reifer, Manager, Covision LLC
• Quince A Sterry, Architect, Q Sterry - Inspired Architecture, LLC
• Dylan Lamar, Architect, Passive House Consultant, Cultivate, Inc.
• Jeremiah Chavez, Solar Installation Contractor-Project Manager, Energy Design Co.
• Rick Robertson, Builder-Owner, Six Degrees Construction 
• Rob Cellini, Owner, Home Rehab PDX
• Win Swafford, Owner/Member, Domestic Tranquility
• Jesse Elliott, Architecture, Voussoir Architecture, Inc.
• Eric Corey Freed, Architect, Director of Sustainability
• Mia Kalatzes, Architectural Design Associate
• Dean Lamoureux, Residential Design + Build construction
• Colin Dean, AIA, Architect
• Cameron Murray Ewing, Designer
• Gene Johnson, Professional Engineering / Principal
• Jocelyn Reynolds, Architecture/Associate Designer
• Justen Stiles, Architectural Designer, CPHC
• Nancy Yen-wen Chen, Associate Professor of Architecture
• Eli Nafziger, Architect
• Matthew Bokar, Architect
• Anne DeLaney, Architect
• Mark Young, Architect
• Alison Kwok, PhD., FAIA
• Gene Mowery, Owner's Representative/Project Manager
• Alec Dakers, Lead Designer and Partner, Rainbow Valley Design and Construction
• Tobin Newburgh, Lead Designer and Partner, Rainbow Valley Design and Construction
• Howard A Houseknecht, Residential builder
• Scott Stolarczyk, AIA, Architect
• Randy Nishimura, AIA, Architect

 

Clash Detection

Screenshot of the coordinated Navisworks model for the Lane Community College Health Professions Building, now under construction.

In the parlance of the construction industry a “clash” is the result of two elements in the design of a building unintentionally occupying the same space. An example may be a conflict between a duct and a beam, which both optimally would occur where their respective designers initially intend them to be but cannot. Clash detection is the process of identifying where such conflicts occur and how the systems interfere with one another. Ideally, the project team resolves these clashes before they become an issue in the field.

According to a McKinsey report, almost 30% of the overall construction cost on a typical project is attributable to inefficiencies in productivity and the need to resolve conflicts between the myriad systems that comprise a building. The design and construction processes are inherently complex undertakings, ever more so with each passing year. The probability of conflicts between building systems is only increasing as their complexity grows. Clash detection tools like Navisworks have thus become invaluable: the ability to compile data in a single platform greatly enhances overall coordination of a building’s design, reducing costs in the long run by flagging errors before they become an issue in the field.   

The Sheffield, UK company Lightwork Design Ltd. developed Navisworks back in 1997, eventually selling it to industry giant AutoDesk in 2007. Since then, Navisworks has become a de facto standard in the construction industry. AutoDesk’s Revit software has likewise dominated the Building Information Modeling (BIM) marketplace; the seamless interoperability of Navisworks and Revit has mutually enhanced their wholesale adoption by all members of the project team. I fully expect the two platforms will further converge into a single offering, additionally streamlining already available cloud-based, QA/QC, design collaboration, and integration processes.

In the past, clash detection too often occurred during construction rather than during the design or pre-construction processes. The result was the urgent need for design changes on the spot, inevitably leading to cessation and sometime scrapping of the involved work, with concomitant schedule delays. As you can imagine, such an occurrence comes with significant expense.

There are “hard” clashes and “soft” clashes. A hard clash occurs when two or more components are occupying the same space or otherwise interfering with one another. A soft clash indicates that an object lacks sufficient geometric tolerances; an example is an absence of sufficient space for maintenance purposes around an above-ceiling fan-coil unit. If the building design lacks such space, it triggers a soft clash. Geometry- and rule-based algorithms embedded with the BIM object provide the basis for detecting hard and soft clashes.

 

Clashes also occur in time. For example, failing to coordinate the required installation sequence of various building systems can lead to unnecessary removal and reinstallation of components, consequent wastage, and inevitable delays and cost overruns. Clash detection of this type relies upon the time data project stakeholders embed within the shared model (i.e., when deliveries of critical systems and components to the jobsite will occur).

Clash detection tools work by combining and coordinating many independently generated BIM models, such as those created by the architect, the structural engineer, the mechanical and electrical engineers, and the contractor’s design partners. In my experience, it is primarily the general contractor who coordinates and manages the combined model. Because of this, its use often occurs after the initial design work is complete but before shovels hit the ground. Ideally, all the members of a project team would share a single, federated BIM model as soon as detailed design begins; however, this remains more the exception than the rule (again, in my experience). With the increased proliferation of “non-traditional” project delivery methods (such as Design-Build, Construction Manager/General Contractor, and Integrated Project Delivery), this is changing, and quickly. The upshot is reliance on electronic collaboration and coordination tools, of which clash detection software is prominent, is increasing by leaps and bounds.

Another screenshot from a construction coordination session for the LCC Health Professions Building project. Note the large number of meeting participants. 

As I touched on earlier this year, the future of clash detection will inextricably be tied to developments in artificial intelligence. AI will lead to generative design tools that automatically route ductwork and piping to avoid conflicts with the building structure and other MEP elements. The AI algorithms will save enormous amounts of time. Though Navisworks presently allows stakeholders to comprehensively visualize project data in a coordinated 3D model, they still must resolve any identified conflicts manually. AI will largely obviate this burden by avoiding clashes from the get-go, while optimizing cost, embodied energy, energy performance, code compliance, etc. in the form of immediate and actionable feedback during all stages of design.

My point in writing this post is to offer readers not involved in design and construction a glimpse into one of the activities critical to the success of a building project today. In a nutshell, clash detection is essential to more efficient and error-free construction processes. Clash detection is synonymous with the prompt and seamless transfer of knowledge, design coordination, and team collaboration.

Architecture is Awesome #26: Details

 

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. 
 
Good architecture demands the many components that comprise a building work together to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Skilled architects plan every detail with care and an eye toward its role in achieving an overall design intent. They consider both the technical and aesthetic qualities of a detail.
 
On the technical side, a building fundamentally must perform many jobs well. It must protect its inhabitants by keeping them comfortable. This means protecting them from the elements: controlling temperature, humidity, light, and such. It also means supporting often complex and diverse functional needs. A good building does so efficiently if it is not to be wasteful. Even small, outwardly simple structures are comprised of countless details, each of which is crucial to the building’s overall performance.
 
Proper construction detailing requires a comprehensive understanding of the buildings sciences: the properties of building materials (their qualities, strengths & weaknesses, etc.), the interrelatedness of various systems, and a working knowledge of best detailing practices. First-rate details—grounded in proven science and experience—are typically elegant, economical, and effective. Invariably, most architects only acquire the necessary know-how to achieve such details through extensive study and/or research and real-world experience. Today’s rapid pace of technological innovation heightens the importance of continued education and expansion of the architect’s technical knowledgebase.
 
Preparing details takes time. Architects earn their keep in no small part through their ability to efficiently convey their design intent to builders by means of many carefully crafted detail drawings. The amount of effort necessary to consider and produce these drawings consumes a substantial portion of an architect’s fee, but in the big picture this is money well-spent. Good details help ensure more precise bids, fewer change orders, and limited cost overruns.
 
The aesthetic aspect of preparing details is of equal importance to achieving a complete work of architecture. Details take many forms, but those that address transitions in material have often presented the most fertile design opportunities.
 
The 20th century Italian architect Carlo Scarpa was renowned for how he mastered the detailing of materials through his unmatched appreciation for a level of craft down to the smallest of elements. Good details marry form and function in harmony. Scarpa—whose oeuvre mostly consisted of interventions within or about existing structures in his native Veneto region—was as much an artisan in spirit as he was an architect. His idiosyncratic details combined Venetian glass, concrete, mosaics, wood, brass, and water as architectural elements. He indulged in the haptic and aural qualities of architecture as much as he did the visual. His approach to architecture was largely informed by his detailing of varied building materials and their sensory properties.
 

Wood detailing by Carlo Scarpa in the Aula Mario Baratto Room within the Ca’Foscari, University of Venice (photo by Cafoscaritour, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

 
Many other famous architects have likewise obsessed over details. Among them, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe infamously proclaimed that “God is in the details.” Peter Zumthor said of details “. . . when they are successful, [they] are not mere decoration. They do not distract or entertain. They lead to an understanding of the whole of which they are an inherent part.” Curtis Fentress averred “A bold architectural statement turns a public building into a landmark, but it is in the details where the architect becomes the real storyteller.” And Charles Eames succinctly stated “The details are not the details. They make the design.”
 
Another famous architect, Arthur Erickson, lamented that “. . . details are the very source of expression in architecture. But we are caught in a vise between art and the bottom line.” That vise is omnipresent, but it is incumbent upon architects to do their best with the resources at hand. Using an economy of means to develop details that are both expressive and efficacious is a Holy Grail of architectural design.
 
Architectural details are at their AWESOME best when they support a project’s overall design intent, considerately express the concept of craft, and excel at fulfilling their functional mandate. When architects pay details their due respect, the overall results are designs that seamlessly blend technology and aesthetics in the service of real architecture.
 
Next Architecture is Awesome:  #27 Asymmetry

America ByDesign: Architecture

 

The Elm, one of the projects featured on America ByDesign: Architecture (screenshot from the video).

America ByDesign: Architecture is a primetime television series viewable on the CBS News Streaming Network consisting of six episodes filled with “energy, creativity, and architectural design.” The series premise is a search for America’s best recent architectural design among numerous projects submitted for consideration by an international jury of award-winning designers, industry leaders, and esteemed educators. Each episode showcases a few of these projects and features interviews with their architects. Along the way, American ByDesign will also shine a spotlight on architectural luminaries Robert Stern, Francis Kéré, Lakisha Ann Woods, and Thomas Wong. The series will crown the season’s winner in the sixth and final installment.
 
Though broadcast on the CBS News Streaming Network, America ByDesign is a franchise of the Australian media company MWC Productions. The Australia ByDesign: Architecture series is in its fifth season, whereas this is the first for its U.S. counterpart. Additionally, MWC Productions includes separate series in its Australian lineup devoted to innovations, interiors, and landscapes.
 
I watched the first episode this morning, which premiered yesterday. It’s not clear if the network will release each episode on a weekly or another basis as part of its regular broadcast schedule. Regardless, you can watch the series on-demand as I did by simply visiting the America ByDesign website. The production values are high, with excellent videography documenting the submitted projects.
 
Episode 1 features the following projects:

• The Elm (Shalom Baranes Associates)
• Harbor Hideaway (Up Studio)
• The School of the Art Institute of Chicago’s Sustainable Future (two projects by Cannon Design and Eastlake Studio, respectively).  

Based on their presentation by the architects and the series hosts, I personally find all the Episode 1 designs to be outstanding and worthy of recognition. Each presents valuable lessons for architects, architecture students, and the public alike. Regardless, I do have my reservations about the series.
 
Ostensibly, the goal of America ByDesign: Architecture is to reach out to a broader public and make it more aware of the built environment. To do so, its format capitalizes upon a hackneyed, albeit accessible, trope: the reality-based competition show. Though none of the projects are “voted off the island” at the end of each episode, the jury decides which projects advance to be one of the final ten entries. The implication is the season’s winning project will be the last one standing by virtue of its superiority over the others. This distorts what should be the overriding message (that good design comes in many forms) and fails to encourage a broader point of view.

 

The monochromatically attired members of the America ByDesign: Architecture jury (screenshot from the video).

Fourteen projects will be featured throughout the series. Of these, three are in New York and three more are in Chicago. Only one west coast project will be included. It would have been nice to see greater regional diversity among the projects. On the positive side of the ledger, the featured submissions do include a welcome variety and scale of project types.
 
The series “partners” include Marvin, Porcelanosa, Keim, Lendlease, and Lumion. While these companies undoubtedly helped underwrite the costs of production, I already sense the series will not fail to reciprocate by highlighting product placement in the featured projects.
 
Notwithstanding these misgivings, I do expect to take in the remaining America ByDesign: Architecture episodes. It’s never a bad thing to see good architecture take center stage in such an accessible and informative manner. If you can spare a half-hour each week, I suspect you’ll find watching the series to be well worth your valuable time.

Downtown Eugene: Brainstorming Solutions

 

Screenshot from the October 25, 2022 Downtown Priorities and Projects brainstorm session.

At the invitation of the City of Eugene, I participated last month in a group conversation intended to brainstorm solutions to some of downtown Eugene’s most vexing challenges. The conversation was part of an ongoing effort to develop a list of priorities to guide future improvements in the city center. The Eugene city council will consider this list and identify the most pressing among them. Ultimately, the goal is to develop a practicable strategy and implement impactful projects to address the myriad problems afflicting downtown.
 
A council work session back in June kicked off the Downtown Priorities and Projects process. Since then, city staff conducted a series of interviews with a representative cross-section of downtown stakeholders, before proceeding with online and in-person focus group brainstorming sessions (I opted for the online meeting). Next is a public open-house event scheduled to take place on Tuesday, November 15 from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, at the Farmers Market Pavilion. This will be an opportunity for all community members to help inform the prioritization process. The City of Eugene also intends to launch an online survey to collect additional input.
 
Downtown Eugene’s problems have proven intractable; if anything, they have worsened in recent years despite the City’s best efforts to make the area more attractive and accessible to all Eugene residents. The vision has always been a downtown that is safe, clean, vibrant, diverse, and filled with activity 24/7. The problem is people perceive it as unsafe, dirty, and largely deserted. Those who do visit often fail to see a reason to go back, as what they find too readily affirms their negative preconceptions and biases. News of downtown shooting incidents, the visibility of the tragically indigent, the unpredictable behavior of individuals in need of mental health care, and vacant storefronts reinforce their prejudices. The pandemic did not help things as it further reduced downtown foot traffic, prompting the shuttering of some businesses (most recently, Sizzle Pie closed its doors in September and Crumb Together called it quits just last week).
 
The City of Eugene wants downtown to become the community gathering place it once was many years ago. Toward this objective, it has commissioned numerous studies over the years and adopted successive plans. Unfortunately, the scope of the numerous challenges facing downtown exceeds the ability of local government to address alone. The plight of the homeless—exacerbated by the affordable housing crisis—is a case in point.
 
The City can only do so much to tackle the problem of homelessness as a means to cure the extent to which it ails downtown. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has promoted, and some local governments (including Lane County) have mandated, a “Housing First” policy. This policy seeks to immediately house anyone without preconditions (such as sobriety). Advocates argue providing housing first arms people with the best odds to successfully attend to their serious physical or mental health conditions, battle their additions, or find steady employment because they are not simultaneously dealing with homelessness.
 
Critics of Housing First contend such programs have largely failed to reduce drug addiction, address mental illness, and improve general well-being, and have not reduced overall rates of homelessness. They instead exclusively favor a “Continuum of Care” approach, wherein there is a communitywide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness by promoting access to a coordinated series of services intended to help individuals address their unique needs.
 
Both purely Housing First and Continuum of Care models have their downsides, including their relative effectiveness at increasing housing stability and cost.
 
Downtown Eugene’s problems are complex. Many of these problems are rooted in issues that are fundamentally global in nature, such as the impact of remote working, the commodification of housing, rising inflation, demographic trends, and political gridlock. As I said, there is only so much a municipal government can do. Additionally, we should be wary of relying too heavily upon imperfect planning tools shaped by imperfect, albeit well-intentioned, human beings. The dynamics of development and the factors that contribute to achieving a vibrant downtown citizens will point to with pride are multifaceted and systemic in nature.
 
Eugene has too often lacked popular consensus on what its downtown should be. Investing intellectual and monetary capital in downtown Eugene is crucial, but how the city expends that capital will be critical. When it comes to prioritizing issues and identifying a set of projects in response to them, I believe incentivizing the type of development we want for our downtown—as opposed to doing nothing at all—is one means to achieve the best possible outcomes. The key will be identifying exactly what this development should be.
 
I plan to attend the November 15 open house at the Farmers Market Pavilion and further offer my input. If you are a Eugene resident and care about your downtown, I hope you will do the same.