Downtown Springfield Design Charrette

Generating ideas at Table 6 - Downtown Springfield Design Charrette (all photos mine unless otherwise noted)

The local emerging design professionals group Design|Spring produced its first community design charrette this past Saturday. The goal of the successful charrette was to offer ideas for improving a six-block stretch of Main Street between Pioneer Parkway West and 8th Street in downtown Springfield. Design|Spring believed the event could be a spark that leads to real improvements for the pedestrian experience along Main Street, which is the historic center of commercial life in the downtown.

The Southwestern Oregon chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA-SWO) sponsored the charrette, with additional support from the Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation (NEDCO).

The workshop attracted fifty business owners, community members, and design professionals, who gathered at the Academy of Arts and Academics for the three-hour-long event. Design|Spring divided the participants into six teams, each of which was tasked with developing ideas to improve the pedestrian experience for two contiguous blocks. Design|Spring assigned a design professional to each team as a facilitator. The facilitator’s responsibilities included leading a tour of the assigned focus area and fostering a thought-provoking discussion about ways to transform Main Street.

Main Street, Springfield, OR (image from Discover Downtown Springfield)

Design|Spring’s introductory report for the charrette characterized downtown Springfield as having many great qualities but being in need of “a little rejuvenation.” The report noted that the width of Main Street’s roadway has increased over the years and as a result the space between the street curb and the building faces has diminished. The reduced sidewalk width requires creative solutions to make the streetscape more pedestrian-friendly and inviting.

Forty-nine buildings line the 200-700 blocks of Main Street. These building contain 65 individual storefronts, of which approximately 80% are occupied. Five of the buildings are on the historic registry. Some of the buildings are in disrepair while others have historical features masked by unsympathetic remodels.

A majority of the buildings are not owned by the businesses that occupy them. Because many of the buildings are paid for and lease rates are depressed, the owners lack incentives for investing in their properties. Consequently, the charrette guidelines explicitly favored low-cost, incremental solutions.

This charge forced the teams to come up with façade and streetscape improvements that businesses and property owners could implement at minimal expense. These included the predictable, such as freshening up facades by repainting them, adding planters, improving signage, creating pocket parks, enlarging storefront windows, and power-washing awnings and sidewalks. However, they also included ideas I hadn’t previously considered, such as granting façade easements to the City of Springfield (empowering the city to make changes to the privately owned building fronts) or forming a Main Street advocacy group that could work on behalf of all merchants to pool resources or represent them on matters of contention (such as uneven enforcement of the sign code by the City).

Natalie Dreyer of Design|Spring introduces the charrette

Most agreed that visible success will be a key to sustaining any revitalization effort.

Of course, numerous past and ongoing efforts have likewise attempted to identify paths toward rejuvenating Main Street.(1) Design|Spring’s charrette may not have broken new ground. Nevertheless, it was a worthwhile exercise.

Lana Sadler, AIA of Robertson/Sherwood/Architects presents the results of her team's efforts.

The value of a properly organized community charrette is in bringing together a diverse group of people to share a wide range of experiences and perspectives in the service of a common goal. The potential inherent in collaboration trumps that of individuals working in isolation. There’s no doubt the Downtown Springfield Design Charrette generated more meaningful ideas in a brief amount of time than would have otherwise been possible. This was also the first charrette for many of the participants and perhaps the first time they interacted with design professionals. The workshop was as much an exercise in community education as it was a brainstorming session.

Each charrette team posted its ideas on the wall.

The charrette also served as proving ground for the emerging professionals of Design|Spring. I offer my kudos to Natalie Dreyer, Jenni Rogers, and Mariko Blessing for spearheading the group’s effort. They demonstrated their ability to produce a successful and engaging community design event. They displayed bona fide leadership and can be proud of the outcome, even if changes to Main Street don't happen right away.

I'm looking foward to the prospect of future Design|Spring projects.

(1) Recent accomplishments include the City of Springfield’s Downtown District Plan and the Oregon Main Streets program.

Aren't Kids Great?!!!!

I had the great honor last Wednesday to speak to a wonderful group of kindergarteners from the Big Little School, a nonprofit preschool here in Eugene. Lee Bramwell of the Big Little School informed me the children were fascinated by the construction activity at the site of the future Lane Community College Downtown Campus and wanted to learn more about the project. She asked me if I could answer questions from my perspective as a member of the design team. I told her I would be more than happy to do so.

I met the preschoolers and their grownup entourage at the Eugene Public Library, located directly across the street from the LCC Downtown Campus property. We trekked upstairs to the Singer Conference Room, which provided a cozily safe front-row view through an expansive window of the hustle and bustle.

  

Aerial view of the Lane Community College Downtown Campus project (photo courtesy of Lease Crutcher Lewis, LLC)

I explained what the project is all about. I pointed to the brightly colored plans I brought with me, detailing what would go where in the building. I rattled off pertinent specifications: the number of student apartments and classrooms, the elapsed time of construction, the green building strategies being implemented. Moving to the window, I waved my arms about wildly as I described what the dozens of safety vest-clad workers were up to. I talked about what it is I do every day as an architect.

I rattled through my spiel quickly, careful to leave time for what was certain to be a flurry of questions. I opened the floor, anticipating an earnestly inquisitive query. I didn’t expect what followed.

Crickets.

No questions? Not a one? Surely I had enthralled at least a few of these bright-eyed youngsters. Didn’t any of them find my presentation so interesting that he or she had to learn more about the project or about what an architect does? Wasn’t anyone paying attention?

Finally, after much prompting, Kelsey raised her hand to ask me a question.

“What’s your last name?” 

“Umm . . . Nishimura,” I replied.

“Good! I’m going to call you ‘Nishimura’ from now on! Nishimura! Hey, Nishimura!”

“This is going well . . . not” I thought to myself. It was painfully clear to me that I was out of my depth when it comes to communicating with five-year-olds.

Grant asked the next question: “What kind of wheels are those?”

Huh? Wheels? “What wheels?”

It took me a while to figure out what he was talking about. Grant mistook the trees on the site plan as wheels. After all, they were drawn as green circular things with what looked like spokes. Yeah, I could see that. The drawing was no longer a depiction of the podium level of the LCC Downtown Campus and its proposed site improvements. Instead, it was a fantastical and magical many-wheeled machine rolling through an imaginary landscape. 

I changed tactics. Maybe if I asked the questions, they’d become more engaged.

“Does anyone know how many years of school it takes to become an architect?”

“Ten thousand years,” Gavin replied. Hmmm. Exactly how old does he think I am?

So, question period was a bit of a bust. I had better luck offering each of the kids the opportunity to have his or her photo taken while wearing my hardhat. Each put the oversized lid on and grinned for the camera before passing it along. They became restive, crawling over the backs of their chairs for a better view of the action. Going with the flow, I encouraged them to press their noses against the glass as we all watched the huge crane in action. “Whoa!” Chase exclaimed. “That’s how the porta-potty got up there!” They waved at the construction workers, and the workers waved back.

  

Up, up, and away! (my photo)

Less than thirty minutes after I began my presentation, my visit with the kindergartners from the Big Little School was over. Their teacher, Lori Brodie, and the accompanying parents thanked me. The kids thanked me too. “Bye, Nishimura!”    

*  *  *  *  *  *

John Bramwell, Lee’s husband and a co-worker at Robertson/Sherwood/Architects, reported the next day that according to Lee I was a hit with the children. Apparently, commanding the interest of five-year-olds for anything beyond twenty minutes is a considerable achievement; knowing that made me feel better about my performance.

John delivered an envelope containing drawings the kids had sketched as impressions of their visit with me. The absolute lack of pretense in children’s art is its greatest appeal. Five-year-olds freely interpret what they see, often with a developed vocabulary of recognizable forms (although each child’s symbols are most often unique to the child). According to Wikipedia, their drawings are based on their understanding of what is being drawn rather than on observation.(1) Judging by the fantastic images I pulled from the envelope, I’m not so sure this is true.

For example, Chase’s drawing (at the beginning of this blog post) clearly depicts the project’s tower crane, as well as the shoring for the post-tensioned concrete deck formwork that is still in place. Grant’s rendering (below) likewise is his interpretation of the crane.

  

The subject, form, and content of Kelsey’s illustration (below) are a little harder to decipher. But look: that’s the tower crane on the left with its enormous boom extending across the top of the page. The crane operator is clearly visible in his cab at the top of the crane. Below the boom, members of the building crew are hard at work on the top level of the building.

I misread Gavin’s drawing (below) at first. I initially believed he similarly chose to represent the building under construction. Wrong! In fact, what appears to be the rising structure is actually the window of the Singer Room. And that’s not a smiling construction worker—the pointy headed guy is me speaking to the group. The tower crane does loom over my right shoulder but that’s because I was describing how it works.

  

*   *   *   *   *   *

I feel privileged to have shared time with this group of preschoolers. The potential evident in every young child is amazing. Theirs is an unfiltered, untainted view of the world. They see possibilities rather than obstacles. They’re optimistic. They’re passionately curious. Adults—certainly architects— can learn a lot from kids.

(1) In his book Creative and Mental Growth, Viktor Lowenfeld described drawing development in children as passing through various stages. Lowenfeld described the first conscious creation of form as occurring during the pre-schematic phase (ages 3 to 5). The first representational attempt is usually a person, with a circle for the head and two vertical lines for legs. Later other forms develop, clearly recognizable and often quite complex. Children continually search for new concepts so symbols constantly change.

CSI Construction Industry Classes

On ten consecutive Tuesday evenings, starting on Jan. 3, the Willamette Valley Chapter of The Construction Specifications Institute (WVC/CSI) will again offer a seminar designed to give each participant an in-depth understanding of Construction Contract Documents including specifications, the bidding process, and contract administration.

Additionally, on eight Monday evenings, starting on Jan. 16, WVC/CSI will offer a seminar designed to give each participant an in-depth understanding of Construction Contract Administration.

The courses can be of significant value to interns, clerical staff, and to the firms for whom they work. Additionally, the courses can be very helpful to architectural interns preparing to take a State Licensing Exam.

AIA Members can earn up 20 HSW-qualifying Continuing Education Learning Units (LU) which will be reported directly to AIA/CES.

For registration forms and additional information contact:

Paul Edlund, FCSI/AIA at (541) 485-1941

Design|Spring Charrette

The emerging professionals group, Design|Spring, is organizing its first design charrette! The event will bring together design professionals and active citizens to generate ideas for enhancing building facades and the corresponding streetscape in downtown Springfield, Oregon.

The target area is Main Street between Pioneer Parkway West and 8th Street in downtown. Teams will consider the existing conditions, the historic character of the street, and the goals of active community members. A possible outcome of the charrette might be specific design suggestions that Main Street merchants will find actionable and cost-effective.

Design|Spring encourages you to participate! The group will issue final details for the charrette soon, including facts and graphics related to Main Street.

To help the organizers better coordinate the event they ask that participants RSVP in advance. Please email designspringEP@gmail.com if you’re interested in taking part.

What: Design|Spring Charrette for Springfield

When: Saturday, November 12 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM

Where: Springfield Academy of Arts & Academics, 615 Main Street, Springfield, OR

October AIA-SWO Chapter Meeting Recap

The October AIA-Southwestern Oregon chapter meeting featured Mark Heizer of the State of Oregon Building Codes Division. Mark provided a comprehensive overview of the Oregon Reach Code, the latest evidence of Oregon’s nation-leading efforts to champion energy efficiency in the construction and operation of buildings.

Because I live and work in Oregon, I sometimes have to be reminded by outsiders about how far ahead of the curve we are compared with much of the nation when it comes to high performance building design. Our state can boast more LEED-certified buildings per capita than anywhere else. Designing with sustainable goals in mind is simply second nature to us now. We’re surprised when we encounter architects from other regions who continue to find buildings designed from a green perspective to be a novelty.

The fact is Oregon has been on the forefront of sustainability for many years. Visionary public policy has played a central role in this leadership. Oregon’s urban growth boundary legislation in the 1970s, carbon emissions limitations, and support for research and development of renewable energies are well-known examples. The most recent case in point is the Oregon State Legislature’s decision in 2009 to dramatically reduce energy consumption in buildings by directing the state Building Codes Division to implement the Oregon Reach Code.

The Reach Code (which became effective on July 1 of this year) is an optional set of criteria that reduces energy use in buildings well beyond the requirements of the state’s mandatory codes. The new code will act like a statewide alternate method: builders will have an optional "green" path and jurisdictions can be assured the state-of-the-art construction methods are sound.

Like its name implies, the Reach Code goes past current codes and provides an objective measurement of success for project teams who aspire to a higher standard. The Building Codes Division envisions continually ratcheting up the standard as the basic energy code becomes more stringent with every code renewal cycle. Preliminary modeling of the prescriptive path provisions of the Reach Code in their current form indicates a 15%-20% efficiency increase over the standard energy code. Ultimately, the BCD goal is set the Reach Code to achieve carbon-neutral, net-zero energy and water performance by 2030.

The Reach Code is an overlay on top of the existing Oregon Energy Efficiency Code and Oregon Structural Specialty Code; it does not supplant them. The commercial (non-residential) provisions of the code are based on the International Green Construction Code (IgCC) and incorporate measures from the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), ASHRAE 90.1-2010, and IAPMO’s Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code.

The optional standards will result in more energy efficient construction by:

• Reducing the size of the equipment needed to heat and cool a building by providing flexible paths for optimizing the building envelope
• Ensuring code-related systems, such as HVAC, operate as intended by requiring functional testing
• Verifying building performance with blower door testing
• Making it easier and cheaper to install a solar array in the future by requiring that the building is renewable-ready
• Maximizing efficiency through a variety of strategies, such as high-efficacy lighting, passive design, post-occupancy commissioning, and vegetative roofs
• Providing better information to building owners and managers on energy use after the building is occupied through sub-metering of key systems

Compliance with the Reach Code will typically occur by prescriptive means for smaller buildings (less than 50,000 s.f.). Larger, more complicated projects will most often necessitate following a “performance path” to demonstrate compliance, which would entail more extensive computer modeling and performance monitoring.

One of the benefits of the Reach Code may prove to be how it helps projects qualify for federal, state, and local incentives for energy conservation. Because the issuance of a permit under the Reach Code is validation of the measures necessary to achieve the prescribed level of performance, it may expedite approval or disbursement of grants or loans sooner than might otherwise have been possible. For commercial projects in particular, the ability to secure assured financing early may be the difference between implementing a cutting-edge, innovative design or moving forward with a project that merely complies with the standard energy code.

Oregon’s continued leadership in the green building sector is essential for the state to maintain its competitiveness in the world market. Oregon will profit from exporting this leadership while reducing the energy consumed by buildings, and developing local, more sustainable communities at home. The State of Oregon Building Codes Division has done its part by raising the bar for those who choose to reach for it.

*  *  *  *  *  *

Mark Heizer’s Reach Code presentation to AIA-SWO was the first to any of the AIA chapters in the state. We’re honored that Mark chose to offer us the initial opportunity to learn about code in its definitive form.

*  *  *  *  *  *

The October chapter meeting also featured brief presentations by Stuart Ramsing, Manager for the City of Eugene’s Building & Permit Services Division; Jenna Garmon, the City’s Green Building Analyst; and Eli Volem from the Earth Advantage Institute.

Stuart acknowledged that the increasing complexity of regulations and layers of bureaucracy is not abating. Part of this is a consequence of the City’s emphasis upon implementing its sustainability goals. In response, the City is working collaboratively with developers, builders, and architects toward a culture of “yes.” As part of this effort, Stuart described the new electronic documents review process the City hopes will expedite approvals and soon become standard operating procedure.

Jenna wants to render her position as Green Building Analyst obsolete: Her definition of success is to reach a point where green building is the norm. She described the City’s Guide2Green Program, which fosters sustainable waste prevention and green building in Eugene through education, technical assistance, and various incentives. For example, projects that achieve LEED or Earth Advantage certification are eligible for priority plan review and inspections, one-day permits, or system development charge reductions.

Eli spoke about the Energy Trust of Oregon’s Energy Performance Score (EPS) for new homes. The EPS provides a clear and quantitative way to compare a home's estimated energy use and costs. The lower the score, the better—with zero being the best. A low EPS identifies a home as energy efficient with a smaller carbon footprint and reduced utility costs. The EPS is directly analogous to the gas mileage ratings associated with cars.