In Praise of 5-over-1 Construction

An example of 5-over-1 construction: Titan Court, Eugene

(photography: Christian Columbres)

A recent spate of articles bemoaning the proliferation of 5-over-1 apartment buildings caught my attention. Outlets such as Bloomberg, Common Edge, Crosscut, and Curbed have all commented on the building type, the common thread being a reproach for their ubiquity, sameness, and inexpensive construction. Some of the critique rightfully points to the confluence of multiple factors—evolving building codes, a lack of developable land, rising construction costs, and an acute lack of affordable housing—that have given rise to countless examples of the type across the country. The same dynamics are in play here in Eugene, so we naturally have our share of 5-over-1 developments. 

I happen to believe there’s nothing wrong with the type in principle and accept its widespread use in Eugene. In my mind, achieving near-high-rise densities at a wood-frame price is a winning formula. 5-over-1 construction—so called because it frequently combines up to five floors of inexpensive wood-framed construction over a concrete podium—is popular primarily because it is a cost-effective means to build, especially here in timber-rich Oregon. Beyond its economy and ease of construction, the wood industry also touts the sustainability benefits of multi-story wood construction, most notably the fact that wood products sequester carbon and their processing emits fewer greenhouse gases than other building materials. 

The density associated with four, five, or even six floors of housing above a street-level commercial podium contributes toward the kind of vitality associated with good urbanism. More and more people, including many Baby Boomers like myself, are downsizing and opting for homes close to urban cores where diversity, public transit, and cultural amenities are immediately at hand, and where established zoning most often allows 5-over-1 construction. Building densely and compactly is also consistent with the growth management policies embodied by Oregon’s Urban Growth Boundary legislation and the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan. 

So why do some regard 5-over-1 projects as tantamount to a metastasizing cancer in our cities? Part of the reason is because they’re everywhere and yet too often look like they could be anywhere. It’s because the formula has been so consistently and prodigiously propagated. It’s also because their rise has been so sudden, an outcome of changing codes, improved economic fortunes, and pent-up demand in the wake of the Great Recession a decade ago. And it is true they sometimes tend towards being architecturally bland or downright ugly. 

As I said, I have no problem with their abundance. The type is meeting a current need in a manner the marketplace supports. I also take no issue with how similar many of the projects appear to be, as long as they are responsive to the specifics of their immediate context (culture, topography, orientation, views, other site features). In fact, I see no reason why any single 5-over-1 project should have to be an architectural standout. Every city needs “background” buildings that comprise the urban fabric, shape the public realm, and collectively define the character of a community. One reasonable expectation is that they make a positive contribution to the urban life of the neighborhoods in which they arise. 

In his book The Architecture of Happiness, Alain de Botton likewise expressed his appreciation for “graceful but predominantly unoriginal boxes:” 

“Though we tend to believe, in architecture as in literature, that an important work should be complicated, many appealing buildings are surprisingly simple, even repetitive in their design. The beguiling terraced houses of Bloomsbury or the apartment buildings of central Paris are assembled according to an unvarying and singularly basic pattern once laid down in forceful municipal codes. Over generations, these codes prevented architects from using their imaginations; they hand-cuffed them to a narrow palette of acceptable materials and forms, and, like the institution of marriage, restricted choice in the name of delivering the satisfactions of restraint. 

“That building codes have disappeared in many cities, and the modest ordered but satisfying edifices along with them, can be traced back to a perverse dogma which overtook the architectural profession in the Romantic period: a faith in a necessary connection between architectural greatness and originality. Over the nineteenth century, architects came to be rewarded according to the uniqueness of their work, so that constructing a new house or office in a familiar form grew no less contemptible than plagiarizing a novel or poem. 

“The emphasis on individual genius had the unintended effect of tearing apart the carefully woven fabric of cities. ‘A day never passes without hearing our architects called upon to be original and to invent a new style,’ observed John Ruskin in 1849, bewildered by the sudden loss of visual harmony. 

“Few architects have listened. A commission for a house or an office remains an opportunity to reconsider from first principles the design of a window frame or front door. But an architect intent on being different may in the end prove as troubling as an over-imaginative pilot or doctor . . . The architects who benefits us most may be those generous enough to lay aside their claims to genius in order to devote themselves to assembling graceful but predominantly unoriginal boxes. Architecture should have the confidence and the kindness to be a little boring.” 

5-over-1, Parisian style: Apartment buildings along the Rue de Rivoli 

(photo by Anyul Rivas from Los Teques, Venezuela [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)]

Being “a little boring” favors simplicity and plainness, but at the same time we should build to last. With wood-framed construction this requires care. Excessive complexity (i.e. lots of joints and corners) is a recipe for water infiltration, so embracing simplicity and plainness can be strategic. As the project type matures, we should see associated breakthroughs in ever more effective yet inexpensive thermal and moisture barrier technologies. Ultimately, we may see an advancement of the typology such that while remaining “boring” the best projects also possess a pleasing materiality and visual texture, collectively shaping memorable places and streetscapes. 

Eugene may never be a high-rise city but it can aspire to be the best mid-rise city possible. We should welcome the 5-over-1 construction type and enlist its use toward promoting compact urban development, providing affordable housing for all income levels, and protecting, repairing, and enhancing neighborhood livability. They may be “stumpies,” “blandmarks,” “SketchUp contemporary,” or “McUrbanism” elsewhere, but here in Eugene they may be just right.  

Cracking the Housing Affordability Nut

It is no secret that the absence of affordable housing is a crisis here in Lane County. According to Better Housing Together, the Eugene area is among the most-constrained housing markets in the nation, second only to Seattle. Eugene also holds the dishonorable distinction of possessing the highest per capita rate of homelessness found anywhere. I’m no housing affordability expert, but I am deeply concerned about how inaccessible the local housing market has become in recent years. As baby boomers, my wife and I enjoy the good fortune of having purchased our home when costs were reasonable (back in the 1980s). That’s hardly the case today.

Cracking the housing affordability nut has proven to be an enormously vexing problem. There are several reasons for this. For one, Euclidean land-use regulations historically downzoned urban areas, effectively banning multifamily housing while promoting suburban sprawl. On another front, North American building codes effectively (if unintentionally) erected barriers to the creation of affordable housing typologies, typically mandating multiple egress routes for large multifamily buildings. Also contributing to the dilemma has been the intransigence of many to change of any kind, especially when such change holds the potential to impact their neighborhoods.

Point-Access Blocks

Re-legalizing single-stair apartment buildings, or "point-access blocks," offers one promising solution. This typology, once common in the U.S. and still prevalent in Europe, could, when paired with zoning reform, enable the cost-effective construction of attractive, light-filled multifamily housing on urban sites currently zoned for single-family homes. Michael Eliason, founder and principal of Larch Lab in Seattle, is perhaps the most ardent evangelist for single-stair apartments, tirelessly working with policymakers, advocacy groups, and jurisdictions to introduce and pass legislation allowing point access blocks. The type is a compelling alternative to the “5-over-1” model so prevalent for multifamily developments in the U.S. today.(1)   

Double-loaded corridor configuration, showing poor unit mix and multiple stairs (source: Larch Lab) 

5-over-1 apartment buildings are typically constructed using light wood framing up to five stories built over a single-story fireproof podium, and feature double-loaded corridors with stairs at each end. The downside is that the type too often results in long, windowless corridors slicing through deep floor plates, with non-corner units having windows on only one side, opposite the entry door, thus favoring studio and one-bedroom layouts.

Connected point access block, showing unit diversity and typical vertical circulation (source: Larch Lab)

In contrast, point-access blocks have shallower floor plates, allowing "floor-through" light on at least two sides of each unit and often featuring shared central courtyards. This not only enhances natural light and airflow but also provides acoustic privacy akin to that of detached single-family homes. Additionally, point-access blocks facilitate community building, as smaller complexes with units arranged around a single stair are more conducive to neighborly interactions.

Single-stair buildings also enable economically feasible multifamily development on small infill lots, whereas the space taken up by two interior stairwells and a corridor render the typical 5-over-1 multifamily buildings infeasible unless the developer aggregates multiple properties. Point-access blocks are inherently more efficient and cost-effective, and hold the potential to comprise a substantial portion of the desired future “missing middle” housing stock.

Seattle revised its building code a few years ago to legalize the point-access block type. The Oregon legislature has followed suit, passing SB 847-4 and subsequently HB 3395 Section 8, which Gov. Tina Kotek signed into law last June. The legislation directs the Building Codes Division to revise the state's building code to allow single-exit apartment buildings by October 1, 2025. The proposed standards include prescribing no more than six stories and four units per floor, limiting distances to the exit stair from any apartment, and requiring application of NFPA 13 sprinkler standards (rather than NFPA 13R). The legislative initiatives apparently passed with overwhelming support, paving the way for new building regulations that may help address the housing affordability crisis while simultaneously promoting compact, sustainable growth.

Lessons from Japan?

Japan possesses an abundance of relatively affordable housing in compact, low-carbon neighborhoods. When conducting research for this blog post, I found this surprising. Apparently, a reason for Japan's success lies in its unusual degree of national control over zoning and building rules, which overrides local housing obstructionism. While this level of centralization would never gain traction here due to the deep-rooted American preference for local regulation, there still may be valuable lessons to be learned from Japan’s experience.

American cities could adapt some Japanese principles without requiring a complete shift to centralized governance of property development. These principles include encouraging rapid housing turnover, promoting compact and efficient land use, and maintaining a regulatory environment that supports diverse housing types.

Firstly, Japan’s regulatory environment welcomes a variety of housing types and sizes. American cities could emulate this flexibility by revising building codes to accommodate different housing typologies, including point-access block designs. As I mentioned above, this is now occurring here in Oregon.

Tokyo (photo by Morio, CC BY-SA 3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>, via Wikimedia Commons)

Secondly, a significant contributor is Japan’s “disposable house” culture, wherein small homes depreciate completely in about 30 years and are replaced soon thereafter. This rapid turnover, driven by rigorous and frequently updated earthquake-safety laws and a cultural preference for newness, allows Japan to continually replace small homes with larger buildings. American cities could adopt a similar approach by incentivizing the redevelopment of aging housing stock, thus creating opportunities to increase density and improve housing quality, through the implementation of tax incentives, streamlined permitting processes, and subsidies for redevelopment projects.

The notion of a “disposable house” culture does prompt important questions about sustainability. This ingrained practice seems at odds with the ethos of sustainability, which typically emphasizes durability and the conservation of resources. Critics argue that frequent demolition and reconstruction generate significant waste and consume substantial resources; however, this rapid turnover also offers opportunities to incorporate the latest advancements in energy efficiency, materials, and building technologies. Each new construction can integrate greener technologies and higher standards of energy performance, potentially resulting in a housing stock that, on average, is more sustainable than older buildings retrofitted over time. Moreover, continuous redevelopment supports compact urban growth, reducing urban sprawl and its associated environmental impacts.

The “disposable house” model also raises concerns about the potential loss of historic continuity and neighborhood character. Americans cherish the few historic buildings and neighborhoods that exist for their architectural heritage and the sense of identity they provide. The constant replacement of homes, as seen in Japan, could erode this cultural and historical fabric. To strike a balance, American cities should continue to preserve historically and architecturally significant structures while encouraging redevelopment in areas that lack such value. Preservation incentives, such as tax credits for rehabilitating historic buildings, can encourage property owners to maintain and improve these structures.

The NIMBY Challenge

The American mindset is fundamentally predisposed to individualism, localism, property rights, skepticism of government, and a fear of change. Eugene is most decidedly not Tokyo. Local resistance to land use changes—such as the introduction of middle housing types like point-access block housing—is a persistent obstacle, particularly from well-organized neighborhood groups. That resistance has proven effective in impeding even the most suitable new developments, especially in R-1 zoned neighborhoods. The opposition to change often stems from a desire to preserve the perceived tranquility and exclusivity of single-family neighborhoods, coupled with concerns about increased traffic, parking shortages, and strain on local infrastructure.

The recent passage of progressive legislation mandating the introduction of new housing types and compact development will shift the dynamic and potentially help alleviate Eugene’s housing affordability crisis. This shift will take time and the change will be incremental.

Local governments will need to allay the fears of established property owners. Would creating “opt-in” zoning overlays that allow neighborhoods to choose increased density and mixed-use development be a possibility? I don’t know. Such an approach would respect local control while providing a pathway for those willing to embrace change. I believe framing the conversation around the broader community benefits of housing reform will be a key. Addressing the housing crisis requires a multifaceted approach that includes education, community engagement, and strategic policy changes. Advocates can highlight how increased housing supply can stabilize or reduce housing costs, prevent displacement, and create more inclusive, vibrant communities.

*    *    *    *    *    *

Transforming American housing policy is by necessity a multifaceted challenge. The mandate to revise the building code is one step. The U.S. may not embrace centralized control over land use to as great an extent as in Japan, but local governments can still implement significant reforms to encourage housing turnover, promote compact land use, and support diverse housing types. I’m hoping the reforms will result in the accelerating development of affordable, attractive, and sustainable housing here in Eugene, drawing on successful models from Europe and Japan, while working within our unique cultural and regulatory landscape.

(1)   I wrote a contrarian’s blog post back in 2019 extolling what I regarded as the virtues of 5-over-1 construction. Both ArchDaily and Common Edge subsequently picked up the piece. Michael Eliason responded on Twitter (now X), not so much to take exception with what I had written, but rather to note that 5-over-1 developments and the point-block morphology should not be mutually exclusive.   

Willamette Crossing

The "deck-arch" I-5 bridge scheme

The Local Affairs Committee of the American Institute of Architects-Southwestern Oregon Chapter had historically seen its level of activity rise and fall as “hot-button” issues grabbed local headlines and then faded. The goal of the erstwhile committee had been to work with public agencies to review and participate on public planning initiatives, and to initiate or respond to architectural issues affecting the local community. Today, the role of a de facto Local Affairs Committee is fulfilled by the monthly assemblage of our past AIA-SWO presidents (aka the “Dead Presidents”). This august and capable group recently took a very public stance about the design process for the proposed new I-5 bridge that would span the Willamette River at Eugene.

Eric Gunderson, AIA-SWO president in 2007, championed the “Willamette Crossing” issue because of its once-in-a-generation aspect and the Oregon Department of Transportation’s own promise to construct a “signature” bridge that would be the beneficiary of input from community-minded and aesthetically inclined advisory groups. Eric was a member of the Citizens’ Advisory Group organized by ODOT and thus experienced ODOT’s design input process and the resultant frustration firsthand when the popular “through-arch” bridge configuration was passed over in favor of the less costly “deck-arch” design. Following a spirited exchange of e-mails among the Dead Presidents, Eric penned an opinion piece that was printed in The Register-Guard on September 24, 2008. The following is an excerpt:

“The I-5 Bridge over the Willamette River began with great promise. It was funded as part of Oregon’s goal to revitalize crumbling bridges. Most bridges built today are flat decks, rarely seen from below, and barely noticeable from above. The railings are often positioned so we cannot even see the water we are crossing. But out of many projects across the state, $10 million was added specifically to make Willamette Crossing a signature structure. This was the promise . . .

“Some feel spending money on 'design features' is frivolous. Yet we choose to live in the Northwest because of its beauty. As a community, that is our greatest common value. What we build should complement the rivers, mountains and valleys we are blessed with. Building structures we care about is among the most important investments we can make. We call upon ODOT to offer a vision that will re-energize the public and advisory committees. A hard look at the budget and images of a clear concept should be the next step. Let’s keep the promise.”

The ODOT decision was particularly galling not only because it appeared that budget once again had trumped other concerns, but also because ODOT chose to defend the selection of the deck-arch design as that favored by the most first and second choice votes. Note that the deck-arch scheme did not receive the most first place votes alone: the through-arch design was broadly preferred by a 2-to-1 margin over the deck-arch. AIA-SWO Executive Director Don Kahle weighed in with his own Register-Guard editorial about ODOT’s “new math” and its rationalization of the I-5 bridge selection. Don would pull no punches:

“State officials gave 'careful consideration' to public input. 'Careful' in this case means 'crafty,' 'contrived' and 'Orwellian.' The state tells us the deck arch received more votes for first or second choice than any of the others. It also had the fewest last-place votes. Corvallis may have more math majors, but come on — we can count! Adding first and second choices adds insult to injury. The state is giving us the bridge we hate the least. We were promised a 'signature bridge.' We were promised uncharacteristic transparency. In the end — if this is the end — we got neither.”

Of course, attention to the budget should be an important issue. As architects, we confront the challenge of balancing available project funds with functional requirements and aesthetic concerns everyday. We’re skilled at creatively planning and developing design ideas to maximize the full potential of a project within the limitations of its budget. The new I-5 Willamette Crossing bridge project is no different.

My sense is that ODOT’s announcement of the selection of the deck-arch design was premature and based reflexively upon very raw cost estimates, ones that the Community Advisory Group (CAG) and Project Delivery Team (PDT) were not given an opportunity to adequately review. I also doubt that the bridge design team was sufficiently challenged by ODOT to seek the most creative solutions for optimizing the project budget in light of the clear preference for a signature bridge. Indeed, ODOT Project Liaison Tim Dodson expressed his regret to Eric about ODOT’s failure to provide sufficient time for the CAG and PDT to ask the hard questions about the relative costs of the through-arch and deck-arch configurations. Upon reading Eric’s piece in The Register-Guard, Tim relayed his appreciation for AIA-SWO’s call for continued partnership with ODOT despite initial disappointment, and his belief that architects and the community can exert significant influence on the final visual character of the project. Rather than stubbornly retrench, or worse, ignore the criticism surrounding the selection process, ODOT appears willing to take a step back and further examine the design options.

Yaquina Bay Bridge (1936) designed by Conde B. McCullough

So the key to moving forward will be to explore what can be incorporated into the I-5 span to truly ensure that it is a signature bridge, one that marks the southern entry to the Willamette Valley and the first crossing of its namesake river (1). As Eric pointed out in The Register-Guard on behalf of the Dead Presidents, there is danger in design by accessories. The addition of applied ornamentation, merely pasted on the surface, was strongly opposed by the Citizens’ Advisory Group. Ideally, the signature bridge would be born of an integrated concept in which art and engineering are one, a product of right- and left-brained thinking that would enhance its setting (2). This is the quality of the most memorable spans, such as the widely admired bridges designed by Conde B. McCullough and constructed across river estuaries along the Oregon Coast Highway during the 1920s and '30s. It is the same quality (albeit articulated with a very different vocabulary) for which Santiago Calatrava’s designs are so highly regarded. It is why creativity of the highest order is necessary now to ensure that the result is a beautiful Willamette Crossing that would be both elegant and economical of means. Let’s see how far ODOT’s renewed commitment to working with its community partners will go toward realizing a bridge that our community will wholeheartedly embrace.

It was important that architects weigh in on this topic (3). We rightly should be regarded by the public as leading voices on issues related to the built environment. The I-5 bridge project is too important for the AIA-SWO to not have formulated an opinion about; our silence would have been conspicuous. The Dead Presidents not only took a constructive stance on the issue, but also ensured that our profession presented a consensus view derived from the diversity of opinions that reflects the breadth of our membership. This has always been the goal of the Local Affairs Committee and (in Eric Gunderson’s view) stands as an example of the AIA-SWO at its best.


(1) Carl Sherwood (1990 AIA-SWO president) argues that the new bridge should be regarded as a landmark for the southern entrance to Willamette Valley as opposed to being a gateway to the Eugene/Springfield metro area, which it effectively would not be with no connection planned to Franklin Boulevard.

(2) Current AIA-SWO president Jody Heady takes the contrarian’s view with respect to the proposed bridge. His belief is that the deck-arch design is the most aesthetically (as well as fiscally) responsible because it would be less likely than a through-arch structure to self-consciously call attention to itself and possibly detract from the natural beauty of the river.

(3) UO professor emeritus of architecture and landscape architecture Jerry Diethelm also editorialized about the I-5 bridge project. Check out his May 15, 2008 article in the Eugene Weekly.

1,000 Blog Posts!

Yes, it’s true! This post marks my one thousandth entry since I started SW Oregon Architect back in 2008. Though the accomplishment hardly ranks up there with the greatest of human achievements, I will pat myself on the back for my dedication to writing on a regular basis.

I embarked on my blogging journey with only modest goals. Initially, SW Oregon Architect primarily served as a means for me to communicate with the membership of the Southwestern Oregon Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (now the Eugene Section of AIA Oregon) on chapter matters during my tenure on the SWO board of directors. Since then, I have turned to a broad range of topics related to architecture and urban design, while maintaining a weekly writing cadence.

It seems many of the prolific architecture-oriented blogs that flourished during blogging’s heyday (roughly the mid-2000s to the early 2010s) have become inactive, including several of those listed here on my sidebar. With the rise of social media and a concomitant reduction in attention spans, long-form blogging lost its appeal for some audiences, prompting many bloggers to abandon the platform in favor of alternative outlets for their content.

For me, blogging is not about garnering followers and page views, but rather about being an enjoyable and satisfying hobby. I do not intend to give it up anytime soon, especially now that I am on the glide slope toward retirement. Writing is good exercise for my brain. Regular blogging will support my cognitive health as I age, so I figure the more words I write, the better.

Assuming an average of 600 words per post, my cumulative word count has now reached approximately 600,000.(1) For some perspective, that is more than such prodigious works of literature as Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace (587,287 words), Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (561,996 words), and the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien (481,103 words). If I continue blogging as I plan to, my word count will one day surpass that of the King James version of The Bible (783,137 words), if it hasn’t already.

While my musings across 1,000 posts do not rise anywhere close to the profundity of renowned authors, I occasionally surprise myself by generating a piece I’m particularly pleased with. This is mostly the case when I avoid being too guarded about expressing my thoughts on a subject. It has been good to stick my neck out on occasion.

To commemorate achieving this milestone, I offer the following selection of posts because they offer a sampling of my views on architecture and urban design. Consider this an immodest list of SW Oregon Architect’s “greatest hits." I invite you to randomly read a few of them if you have some time and missed the opportunity to do so when they first appeared (click on the title you select, which will appear in a new window): 

1.  Architecture and the Culture Wars
2.  The Timelessness of Libraries
3.  Hyperlocal Identity:  A Strategy for Small Cities and Towns
4.  Commonsense Architecture
5.  The Worrying Absence of Housing Choice
6.  Challenging Our Biases
7.  Philosophy and the Metaphysics of Architecture
8.  The Better Angels of our Nature
9.  Oregon is Burning
10.  Corner Stores
11.  A Moral Obligation
12.  Eugene and the Menace of the Black Swan
13.  Architecture on the Frontline of the Culture War
14.  Private Good and Public Space
15.  Does Eugene really have an affordable housing crisis? Yes, but . . .
16.  Light
17.  Restoring the Related Wholeness of Notre-Dame de Paris
18.  In Praise of 5-over-1 Construction
19.  Looking Beyond 2019 (Way, Way Beyond)
20.  We Shouldn’t Fear the Change Diverse Housing Types Herald
21.  Riding the Rails
22.  Morality and Architecture
23.  Sunlight is a Powerful Healer
24.  The Fine Grain of Cultural Diversity
25.  The Obama Presidential Center
26.  Architectural Record’s Top 125 Buildings
27.  R.I.P. Zaha Hadid
28.  Architecture is Awesome: #11 Sense of Place
29.  The Pritzker Prize and Neural Nostalgia
30.  The Future of Architectural Craft
31.  Architecture is Awesome #6: Space
32.  Debate and Discourse: Hallmarks of a Healthy Community
33.  The Perils of Building Cheaply
34.  Self-Actualization
35.  Revenge of the Specifiers
36.  Awe, Wonder, and Curiosity
37.  The Pitfalls of Public Planning Process
38.  Incremental Growth
39.  Progress
40.  Revitalization + Reinvention
41.  Automobiles and Architecture
42.  Monarchy and Architecture
43.  Influences: Christopher Alexander & Peter Eisenman
44.  What is Architecture?
45.  San Francisco Walkabout
46.  Influences: Frank Lloyd Wright
47.  Ecopolis and the American Dream
48.  Utopianism, Cynicism, and Sincerity
49.  Authenticity
50.  Eugene, Genius Loci, and the Butterfly Effect

The ride SW Oregon Architect has taken me on has been both humbling and invigorating. What began as a channel for communication with the local architectural community is now increasingly a repository for my personal thoughts, topical insights, and occasionally whimsical digressions. I look forward to continuing this adventure, exploring new topics, and—with good luck and health—reflecting again upon reaching the 2,000-posts mark.

(1)    I am not going to bother to accurately tally my total word count. I may not make the most of my free time, but I do value it enough not to undertake the task. A 600-word per post average is a fair guess; if anything, this number might be on the low side.

Silver Linings

It may take us some time to fully assess the socioeconomic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Many sectors of the economy have clearly suffered—the virus has been particularly cruel to the personal services, restaurant, tourism, and entertainment industries—but others have fared remarkably well.  Based more on my own observations and anecdotal experience than facts I can point to, it does seem design & construction activity in Lane County has been surprisingly robust. Indeed, if the shortages of skilled construction labor and high levels of bidding activity we are seeing are any indication, a combination of restarting and new projects continue to push a hot market to its limits. 

Much of the activity is associated with developments that were already in the pipeline when the COVID-19 outbreak first occurred. Last summer, I wrote about some of these “essential” projects and how things were continuing to plug along despite an overriding fear and uncertainty about the future. Since that post, I reported on the completion of The Market Expansion and the Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact. Today, I’ll provide an update on another recently completed one of those projects, plus describe the current status of two of the new Eugene School District 4J schools funded by the 2018 school bond measure. 

The Midtown

The Midtown (still from Eugene Ballet Building Tour video)

One of the spacious new dance studios (still from Eugene Ballet Building Tour video)

The Midtown is newly finished, and stands as an outstanding example of a creative, mixed-use development. Maybe it’s just me, but the elapsed time from its inception though completion seemed much longer than might normally be expected for a project of this type. No matter, the wait certainly appears to have been worth it. In its completed form, The Midtown fulfills the vision of the developer (a team that included ADH Development, LLC, Paradigm Properties, and the Eugene Ballet) and its designers (Dustrud Architecture) Its presence injects vibrancy and will attract complementary developments to Eugene’s blossoming “Midtown” district. 

Despite being 7-stories in height (the residences on the upper floors commanding some outstanding views) and built to fill the entirety of its quarter-block site, I don’t find The Midtown to be an oppressive presence when viewed from Pearl Street or 16^th Avenue. Admirably simple in form, it possesses just the right amount of variation in color, scale, and detail. It is a background building, belying its importance as a hub for nonprofit arts groups. As I declared a couple of years ago, Eugene can well afford more buildings of its type, ones that comprise the urban fabric, shape the public realm, and collectively define the character of the community.(1)

Check out the Eugene Ballet Building tour below. The new home for the EB and the Eugene Ballet Academy is a dream come true for both groups: large, lofty studio spaces, capacious storage and set preparation rooms, and state-of-the-art video teleconferencing and recording facilities (permitting “visiting” choreographers to work with the dancers virtually) will allow them to fully realize their potential. 

Eugene Ballet Building Tour (experienceballet.org)

North Eugene High School

Aerial view of the proposed North Eugene High School

View of proposed Commons

Construction of the new North Eugene High School will soon be underway in earnest on the site of the former Corridor Elementary/Yujin Gakuen Elementary School. The design by Rowell Brokaw Architects and Opsis Architecture features a centralized building layout intended to strengthen the sense of school community and aid in wayfinding and security, while also providing quality usable outdoor spaces. Overall, the 2-story scheme seems remarkably compact for a facility capable of accommodating an enrollment of up to 1,200 students. As is the trend today with the design of high schools, the architects were attentive not only to creating an efficient and cost-effective solution, but also to developing a positive community asset that minimizes impacts upon neighbors, features clear site circulation, and provides a safe, inclusive, and sustainable setting for education. Additionally, the new school will be capable of serving as an emergency shelter in the event of a natural disaster, with key areas built to an upgraded seismic standard among other resiliency upgrades. 

Lease Crutcher Lewis is the construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) for the project. The new North Eugene High School will be ready to open its doors in fall 2023. 

Virtual Tour of North Eugene High School on Vimeo 

Camas Ridge Elementary School 

Aerial view of the proposed Camas Ridge Elementary School

Site Plan

I attended a virtual open house this past Wednesday evening to learn about the design of the new Camas Ridge Elementary School. Organized by District 4J and presented by members of the PIVOT Architecture deign team, the well-attended event presented both an update on the project’s progress and breakout sessions allowing participants to ask questions and provide feedback. 

This update was the second opportunity for the public to help inform the design effort. I did not attend the earlier design meeting, so I was eager to learn about the new Camas Ridge and compare its public engagement process with that employed by the Edison Elementary School project (which I was thoroughly familiar with as a part of the Edison design team). 

Presently, the Camas Ridge project is in the Design Development phase. PIVOT’s response to the specifics of the project—the educational specifications, its site, and the available budget—appears straightforward. The building will straddle its full block from north to south, while the associated outdoor spaces will terrace downward from the namesake ridge planted with camas along University Street to the school’s parking lot fronting the building, then to a zone of hardscape play areas on the west side of the proposed building, and finally to a level, grass-covered field accessed through a planted berm on its east flank. 29th Avenue will accommodate school bus drop-off and pick-up, segregating this traffic from parents’ vehicles. The two-story plan organizes classroom clusters, the cafeteria, gymnasium, media center, administrative offices in eminently logical fashion.

Construction work at the Camas Ridge site will begin in summer 2022 and the new building will open in fall 2024.  

 *     *     *     *    *

The pandemic has been devastating, but for those of us in the design & construction industries there have been silver linings. Architects, engineers, and builders have been busy. Will our good fortune continue? Perhaps. Many factors are in play, including pent-up demand, continued low interest rates, and the infrastructure stimulus plan. We’re not likely to entirely return to life as we knew it B.C. (before COVID). Undoubtedly, the success of future projects will rely in part upon a recalibration of what the marketplace and our communities demand. Possible trends may include an increased desire for flexible environments, more space for people (facilitating social distancing when necessary), repurposing of surplus office space for new uses that add value to our communities (think affordable and alternative housing options), and the development of pedestrian, parklet, and patio experiences in our outdoor public spaces.

Like we have in the past, we have learned and evolved when confronted by unexpected challenges, and we will do so again.   

(1)    The subject of my 2019 post was 5-over-1 buildings, whereas The Midtown is creatively comprised of 5 stories of wood-framed construction over a 2-story concrete podium.

 

Urban Growth Strategies: Homes & Jobs for 2045

I participated this past Thursday in the kickoff meeting for the City of Eugene’s Urban Growth Strategies project. The goal of the project is to identify the essential tools, actions, policies, and land required over the next two decades to support housing and living wage jobs in our community. Given the number of ongoing projects related to housing and economic development, City staff reached out to a broad list of housing and development experts, employers, and business owners to help inform the Urban Growth Strategies project’s priorities and outcomes. They saw fit to include me among those they invited to be a member of the project’s Housing and Development Working Group.

Our homes are essential for providing us with shelter, safety, gathering, and comfort. They are the foundation upon which any stable, livable community is built. As we know all too well, securing affordable housing in Eugene has become progressively challenging. The simple fact is an insufficient number of new homes have been added to Eugene’s residential stock in recent decades, which in turn has spurred a crisis of affordability. A comprehensive understanding of the problem is essential, and in turn the crafting of efficient strategies and policies that will optimize land use and address the desperate need for more and diverse types of housing.

The kickoff meeting introduced the Urban Growth Strategies project and its components. The meeting included the presentation of some eye-opening data regarding housing needs and the barriers to the provision of affordable housing in Eugene and Lane County.(1) Additionally, we reviewed the various statewide mandates related to urban growth, as well as recent policy work directed by the City Council.

Beth Goodman of ECOnorthwest explains the City's role in housing development.

The State of Oregon requires municipalities to provide enough buildable land within their urban growth boundaries to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years. Moreover, House Bill 2003 requires cities with populations greater than 10,000 to update their housing needs and capacity analysis every eight years, while HB 2001, known as the Oregon Housing Needs Analysis (OHNA), directed the Department of Land Conservation and Development to implement rules to increase housing production, affordability, and choice. On top of this, the Department established the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Program, which requires Oregon cities to comply with requirements for the establishment of compact, walkable development standards.   

Crucial to the Urban Growth Strategies project is an evaluation of whether Eugene's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) will require expansion to meet land needs over the next two decades. The City’s technical analysis will provide insights into the current adequacy of land within the UGB and explore additional tools to address any unmet land needs. The project will help identify a supply of land for residential use for the next twenty years by integrating housing capacity analyses, residential efficiency measures, and the current inventory of buildable lands. Importantly, it will also help establish a 20-year supply of land for non-residential use, incorporating data from an economic opportunities analysis, employment efficiency measures, and urban land needs.

Each Oregon municipality has its own unique challenges when it comes to the provision of an adequate inventory of affordable housing. These include constraints on how accessible federal funding is, infrastructure and site development needs, the lack of development-ready tracts, neighborhood resistance and the threat of delayed processes and appeals, and of course national market factors (high costs for labor, land, materials, and financing). The City of Eugene’s role in housing development is restricted to public policy matters related to the use of land and infrastructure, as its influence on market feasibility is limited. Nevertheless, the development of favorable city policies is crucial to helping address the housing crisis.

The desired policy outcome is revisions to the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan (EECP) and draft amendments to the Eugene Code, including creation of new parcel-specific land use designation maps and new chapters dedicated to housing, compact development & urban design, community health, and community engagement. The revisions to the plan—that the Working Group will influence—will provide Eugene with a roadmap toward market stability and long-term systemic change.

I found the kickoff meeting encouraging. In addition to the valuable background information that provided me with a much-needed contextual understanding, the opportunity to discuss current barriers to housing production in breakout groups was very welcome. How can the City support production of more housing affordable to households with incomes at 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or below? What about incomes in the 60%-120% range?

Two connected Point Access Blocks, showing unit diversity and typical vertical circulation. Source: Point-access block policy brief by Michael Eliason (Larch-Lab-PAB_Policy-Brief.pdf )

I am by no means an expert on affordable housing, but from my perspective as an architect, I see the building typology limitations baked into the current version of the International Building Code as a significant barrier to the production of more and varied types of housing. Specifically, the code does not allow multi-story “point access blocks” of more than three stories in height. Taller point-access block buildings—such as those up to six stories in height now allowed by the City of Seattle in its modified version of the IBC—are organized as compact plans around a single stairway and elevator core, as opposed to the dual-stairway and double-loaded corridor layouts typical of all new multifamily developments in Eugene. The benefits of point-block developments include the fact that they minimize the need for parcel assemblage, a process which increases costs and the time of development.(2) Whether the City of Eugene (or the State of Oregon) will implement similar code revisions to those adopted by Seattle remains to be seen, but doing so would undoubtedly improve the odds of meeting the housing affordability challenge.   

I plan to attend the full series of Housing and Development Working Group meetings. Future events will address gaps in existing housing policies, discuss potential strategies for housing production, and review draft revisions to the EECP. By prioritizing community input, technical analysis, and policy integration, the Urban Growth Strategies project aspires to shape a future for Eugene that is not only resilient but also responsive to the diverse needs of its residents. For your own opportunities to engage and contribute to this transformative endeavor, be sure to follow the project on Engage Eugene.

(1)    Among the more shocking statistics are that at 60% of the AMI ($53,460 per year), a family in Eugene can afford a monthly rent of only $1,340 or a home priced in the $134,000 to $160,000 range; however, the average monthly rent is $1,829 and the median home sale price is $479,500. Even households at 120% of the AMI are priced out of the Eugene market. The source for these figures is the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and are correct as of December 2023. 

(2)    Michael Eliason, an architect and urbanist based in Seattle, is the leading evangelist for and proponent of point-block housing in the U.S. In recent years, he has written extensively on the topic, as well as penning pointed critiques about the current state of multifamily housing development in North America. In response to a piece I wrote a few years back regarding 5-over-1 construction, he unleashed a flurry of tweets on Twitter (now “X”).

So Much to Do, So Little Time

If you try to stay abreast of the latest architectural happenings in our little corner of the world, the coming week will keep you busy. On Wednesday alone, there are three concurrent events, an absolute surfeit of possibilities to consider. Here’s a rundown of just some of what’s on tap over the next few days:

Hutong to High Rise - An Introduction to China's Rapid Urbanization by Gary Reddick
Monday, April 18 – 5:30 PM
115 Lawrence Hall
University of Oregon

Urban population growth is one of the greatest stories of modern life, one that is unfolding all across the world. As a result, for the first time in history, the majority of human beings live in urban areas. Nowhere has this migration and transformation of human settlement been more profound than China. In just two decades, China's urban population has grown by over 300 million people. This lecture will begin a series of discussions, to look at the images and implications of urban models unlike anything we have seen before.

Gary Reddick, AIA, is president of V3 Studio, an award-winning northwest architecture firm. In addition to many other endeavors, Gary leads the firm’s work overseas in China, Vietnam and Dubai, where he has traveled extensively since early 2005 on a wide variety of urban design and master planning projects. An Oregon native and University of Oregon graduate, Gary has been active in Portland as a civic leader, artist and architect for over 30 years.

A recognized expert in urban planning and smart growth, Gary has dedicated his career to helping build quality architecture and increase the livability of communities throughout the western United States. He has been a featured speaker at the International Making Cities Livable conference, at the Congress for New Urbanism, and at the Oregon Livability Conference.

AIA-SWO April Chapter Meeting – LEED 2012 update by Summer Gorder of eco:REAL LLC
Wednesday, April 20 – 5:30 PM
The Actors Cabaret
996 Willamette Street, Eugene

Summer Gorder, eco:REAL LLC

AIA-SWO’s April chapter meeting features Summer Gorder, who will present the latest updates in LEED version 3.0, including changes to the rating systems, new eligibility requirements, and the tools to meet the prescriptive Credential Maintenance Program requirements in the most cost effective way. She’ll also discuss the latest trends in the sustainable building industry, including AIA's adoption of the 2030 Challenge, the International Green Construction Code, and what the USGBC has in store for LEED Rating Systems in 2012.

ecoREAL is part of design collective 202, a collaborative group of architects, interior designers, engineers, and contractors that bridge disciplines to provide integrated building solutions.

Building Modern Eugene
Wednesday, April 20 – 6:30 PM
Shelton McMurphey Johnson House
303 Willamette Street, Eugene

Interior of Cliff May-designed home (photo from Doug Kramer's Rancho Style website)

The Building Modern Eugene lecture series explores how Eugene became the city it is today and where it will go in the future. I’ve already reported about two of the talks: one by Dick Williams with Grant Seder, and another by Otto Poticha. The next lecture in the Building Modern Eugene series at the Shelton McMurphey Johnson House will feature Joe Barthlow. He will present a “hands-on” look at the restoration of his Cliff May-designed mid-century modern home.

NAWIC Joint Construction Association Meeting

Wednesday, April 20 – 5:30 PM

The Boulevard Grill
2117 Franklin Boulevard, Eugene

The Eugene chapter of the National Association of Women in Construction is hosting a joint construction association meeting, inviting all members of NAWIC, CSI, AGC, AIA-SWO, CFMA, OSN, HBA, ASLA, and ASHRAE to celebrate NAWIC-Eugene’s 48th anniversary. The meeting will feature Carrie Fortier, CPA and Senior Manager with Jones & Roth, who will lead an evening full of networking and discussion on the topic of building communication skills.

Dinner & Program is $18.00 for NAWIC members and $20.00 for non-members (to pre-pay by credit card go to http://nawiceugene.com/events.shtml#1). RSVP by Monday, April 18 by emailing Twylla Tatum at ttatum@deltasg.com.

Architalks

Eugene City Brewery – Rogue Ales

Thursday, April 21, 2011

5:30 PM drinks/networking

6:00 PM presentation/informal discussion

Seven Directions Affordable Housing & Health Clinic by Pyatok Architects, Inc.

From my vantage as a post-post-post emerging professional, DesignSpring appears to be active and creative, providing the up-and-coming generation with a forum for networking, education, and collegiality. This is no doubt a testament to the group’s leadership and bodes well for the future of the design professions in Eugene-Springfield.

Architalks is DesignSpring’s lecture series, intended to provide its membership with the opportunity to hear from and interact with prominent practitioners. This week’s Architalk features Michael Pyatok, FAIA. Mike is currently a Distinguished Visiting Professor of Architecture at the University of Oregon. He has been an architect and professor of architectural design for more than 40 years. At the heart of Mike’s work is the participatory design process he uses to deeply involve residents, community members, and stakeholders in the revitalization of low-income communities.

I can tell you from personal experience that Mike is passionate about his work. He’s a captivating speaker, unafraid to tackle the politics of design as he advocates on behalf of inclusive, sustainable communities.

Mike will be giving a short presentation of his work followed by an informal group discussion open to questions and comments.