Whither City Hall?

Eugene City Hall (all photos by me)

We all knew the day was coming. The City of Eugene has abandoned and shuttered its City Hall, the event passing with little fanfare or sadness. A victim of institutional neglect and community indifference, the once celebrated building suffered a protracted decline.(1) It now sits vacant and forlorn, its fate all but sealed. 

City of Eugene administrators and politicians have pondered that fate for the better part of the past two decades. Something needed (and still needs) to be done. While the realities of City Hall’s physical shortcomings and the costs to remediate them took precedence in the discussions, its critical role as a symbol of civic government and community identity also figured prominently. The abandonment of City Hall leaves Eugene wanting for a new building emblematic of its citizenry and culture. It would be a shame if Eugene’s residents found themselves in future years without a city hall they could readily identify and point to with pride. 

It’s unlikely the now abandoned City Hall will ever be revived in a form that adequately preserves the qualities that made it an important example of mid-century public architecture.(2) As for a completely new building worthy of serving as the visible seat of municipal government for Eugene, I’m afraid the writing is on the wall. City officials realized taxpayers would not support the estimated $174 million boondoggle envisioned in 2008 by THA Architecture. The modestly scaled scenarios painted more recently by Rowell Brokaw Architects would do little to adequately consolidate the city’s far-flung administrative functions or ensure a structure befitting the civic stature that is associated with the institution of city halls. 

 

Not surprisingly, there’s been plenty of community debate about what Eugene can afford and deserves when it comes to a new city hall. Two individuals I know well and greatly respect recently contributed their voices to the conversation, both sharing their thoughts about converting the current Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) headquarters into Eugene’s next City Hall. 

Tom Santee wrote a guest commentary in the August 19 edition of the Register-Guard in which he championed the idea of adapting the EWEB headquarters as City Hall. Tom served as EWEB’s public relations professional during the late 1980s when its current headquarters was designed and built.(3) He believes the highly visible landmark’s prime riverfront location and iconic form are ideally suited for repurposing as the city’s symbolic seat of government.(4) 

In last Friday’s edition of his weekly column for the Register-Guard, AIA-SWO executive director Don Kahle countered (indirectly) Tom Santee’s enthusiasm for consolidating city services in the EWEB building. Don’s principal objection to Tom’s plan is that the EWEB headquarters isn’t where a city hall should be. In Don’s mind, the building is literally and figuratively on the wrong side of the tracks, outside of Eugene’s downtown core. He also believes that, while attractive, the EWEB headquarters blocks views and access to the river. 

What do I think? With only mild reservations, I find myself in the camp of those who advocate transforming the EWEB headquarters into Eugene’s next City Hall. If EWEB is looking to relocate its administrative functions, I can’t think of a better and more sustainable outcome for its current home than to extend its life in civic service. 

By virtue of its physical prominence, visibility, and architectural quality, the dominant reading of the EWEB headquarters is of an important public facility. The community-inspired master plan for the redevelopment of EWEB’s riverfront property and Willamette River Greenway restrictions effectively would guarantee its distinction as the only major building near downtown to be located so close to the river. Its future within a park-like setting along the river’s edge is assured. Contrary to Don’s assertions, the EWEB headquarters does not block access to the riverfront but rather marks a point of access and extends the urban grid to it. The headquarters is one of the few buildings in the city that overtly acknowledge the river and its importance to Eugene. 

The headquarters is admittedly smaller than necessary to house all of City Hall’s functions. However, it could accommodate the majority of those associated with citizen contact, providing one-stop convenience for as many services as possible. Departments with less of a need for direct contact with patrons could remain located elsewhere.(5) The EWEB building already does feature generously proportioned public meeting facilities, an attractive atrium, and convenient parking. 

EWEB Headquarters viewed from Alton Baker Park across the Willamette River.

Some functions might necessitate construction of new spaces. For example the municipal court requires facilities tailored to security and other functional demands associated with the judiciary; I imagine these would be difficult to create from within the current fabric of the EWEB headquarters. Likewise, it might be desirable to construct a grand new council chamber, perhaps similar in character to the old one. Any new addition to the EWEB headquarters could occur as an annex to the west, away from river, in keeping with the riverfront redevelopment master plan.  

Don’s criticism of the EWEB headquarters being too far removed from the center of downtown is valid. Yes, it will forever be separated from what should be our community’s center of gravity by the Southern Pacific rail lines. Then again, the nearby Federal Courthouse is similarly isolated from downtown by the Franklin Boulevard/Mill Street approach to the Ferry Street Bridge. Eugene’s downtown is lamentably diffuse but shouldn’t be circumscribed to exclude EWEB or the Federal Courthouse. If anything, we should embrace connecting downtown with the Willamette River and restoring historic ties between the city and the waterway it was founded upon. 

Like Tom Santee, I believe converting the EWEB headquarters into Eugene’s new city hall can be a win-win scenario. EWEB could entrust its prominent, uniquely situated, structurally sound, and energy-efficient building to the City of Eugene rather than to a private enterprise that might permanently remove it and its riverfront prospect from the public realm. The City would secure an attractive new home for itself at a considerable discount compared to the cost of constructing equivalent space from scratch. Moreover, it would demonstrate its commitment to sustainability by highly valuing the energy embodied in the original construction of the EWEB headquarters. Rather than expending increasingly scarce resources and funds on a new building, the City would walk the talk and lead by example. 

I suspect I might be missing an important point here, a shortcoming which would bring into question the very underpinning of this concept. I have not studied the entire issue in detail. Perhaps Tom and I are mistaken and the idea of converting the EWEB headquarters into City Hall is a terrible one. 

What are your thoughts? What form should a new city hall for Eugene assume?
 

(1) The 1960 design by Stafford, Morin & Longwood was a winner of a juried, two-stage design competition. Regardless, murmurs about replacing the facility would begin all too soon as its deficiencies became apparent. These deficiencies include its vulnerability to collapse in an earthquake, and reliance upon an antiquated steam heating infrastructure, which the Eugene Water & Electric Board terminated this summer. 

 

(2) Otto Poticha is a fan of Eugene’s former City Hall. "With its unpretentious look and courtyard design, the building” he has said (it) "has a warm, friendly and inviting atmosphere... Our City Hall is a very special and unique architectural achievement... It is unique in the world as a city hall." 

 

(3) WEGroup Architects & Planners designed the EWEB’s headquarters. The cost of construction totaled $23.8 million in 1988. The headquarters is comprised of a four-story building with an open, atrium-style lobby that is connected by a skywalk to a two-story building to the north. EWEB’s plaza and fountain are well known to residents who walk or bike along the riverbank path between the buildings and the river. 

 

(4) City Council member Mike Clark also is a strong proponent in favor of converting the EWEB headquarters to become Eugene City Hall. 

 

(5) It needn’t include the Eugene Police Department, which recently moved its offices to a building on Country Club Road, across the river from downtown.

What if? Part Deux

EWEB Headquarters viewed from Alton Baker Park across the Willamette River.

To my surprise, this blog’s two most recent entries on the matter of a new city hall for Eugene prompted as much feedback as any that I’ve written during the past year. Clearly, many Eugene residents want their city to be the best place it can be. Among them is Otto Poticha, FAIA, who let me know in no uncertain terms that he is disappointed with the City’s decision to purchase the former EWEB headquarters for its use as Eugene’s future City Hall. His criticism has less to do with the City buying the building than it does with what he considers will be a misuse of the property. Indeed, he supports the City’s purchase but believes a consolidated City Hall on the site will not cure what is ailing downtown and will in fact hasten its demise.

Otto and a like-minded, influential group of fellow citizens would like the City to reconsider how it proposes to use the EWEB building. Rather than exclusively repurposing it as the new City Hall, they imagine it as the core of a municipal cultural center, something many communities across the country have but Eugene lacks. Among the potential uses the Community Cultural Center Complex Group identified are a public art gallery, a “Rivers Museum,” a relocated Eugene Science Center, a national “Hippie Hall of Fame,” a childcare center, and ceremonial spaces for community use. Preceding the City’s decision to buy the property, the Cultural Center Complex Group did ask the EWEB board of directors to take the headquarters building off the market pending an opportunity to conduct a feasibility study. Instead, the board opted to proceed in discussions with the City regarding the latter's renewed interest in moving city hall functions into the building.

Otto laments what with hindsight we may all regard as yet another lost opportunity. He is frustrated by the City of Eugene’s tendency to set high goals and then reactively settle for the expedient solution. He finds no small amount of irony in the current Downtown Priorities & Projects effort given the prospect of 200 city employees vacating 100,000 square feet of downtown office space, abandoning downtown, and relocating to the riverfront.

I’ve already accepted the prospect and implications of a new City Hall on the river. As I wrote last week, downtown Eugene is destined to become something different from what many, including the City of Eugene itself, hoped it would be. Downtown transformation, rather than restoration or rejuvenation, is now the order of the day.

Below is a letter Otto recently penned (here in lightly edited form) and delivered to City officials. It is his late game “what if” plea to them to consider an alternative future for the former EWEB headquarters before its destiny as the new City Hall is cast in stone. I present it here for your consideration and welcome your continued feedback on a topic that should be of interest to everyone who lives here.    

January 20, 2023

Eugene Mayor, Council and Manager

RE: Proposed purchase of the former EWEB Administrative Site and Building.

This week I was informed that EWEB selected the City of Eugene as the purchaser and developer of their former administrative building and adjacent site. There is no question the Public must own and maintain control of this important building and site. These elements provide and can energize the needed connection with the river and the new Riverfront Park development. This is especially important since the adjacent housing developer has eliminated all commercial and retail uses except for one restaurant site from their proposal.

The recently formed Community Cultural Center Complex Group also submitted a purchase proposal. This proposal was a vision to provide needed cultural and educational support spaces for the community and region. This proposal would provide the community with a seven-day-a-week open and assessable facility that would provide real draw, support, and connection to the river and a reason to want to go there. It would also provide support to the adjacent uses and for the adjacent housing developer.

It was a surprise—knowing and participating in the history of the City Hall at EWEB idea, plus current discussions with the mayor and city manager—that the City made an offer to develop and to locate the City Hall on that site. The city council and mayor have publicly stated their community interest in the EWEB site but stated that it would not be used for the new City Hall. The City did commission an economic and feasibility study for that use. This study included very responsible public building criteria. The study proved that, using the stated criteria, the renovation of the building was not feasible. Just moving into this building with minimum repair is not a responsible solution. Leadership certainly has changed.

The City’s new City Hall purchase proposal, with little or no community interchange, suggests several questions for our leadership, some of which are listed within this letter.

The following is to note my and many other’s concerns in this recent proposal.

The citizens of Eugene and the council spent years and resources finally deciding that this [the EWEB building] is a very poor City Hall choice or solution. The City already purchased land and funded major architecture and planning efforts concluding that the City Hall should be located on the Park Blocks—aka Town Square or Government Square—in the area we call “Downtown.”

The Mayor and Council have publicly stated that City Hall must be located downtown as the necessary support and reinforcement for a rejuvenated downtown for Eugene.

The noted “consolidated City Hall” is very important and has previously been discussed. With the current and fragile nature of downtown, evacuating approximately 75-100,000 Sq. Ft. of occupied space will have serious repercussions for the current building owners and service support tenants. Increased density, careful planning and cooperation between the current and future landowners can provide those solutions. That assumes we really want to keep and support downtown in its current location. A location that is served with infrastructure adequate for much more density. Perhaps the community now considers downtown to be the 5th St. area or the Oakway Center?

We need solutions and land uses on this EWEB site the community will engage with and a connection with and to the river. Suggesting a large parking lot and/or a parking structure adjacent to the river is very shortsighted and should be discouraged. Parking must be integrated and not separated like suburban planning.

The site and building must be more than an expedient solution and a way to occupy an abandoned site. Master planning is responsible and necessary to generate a vision and should occur before a final purchase. Finding that vision and then exploring the means to augment that vision should be the process, especially in this case. Finding single-purpose solutions is not responsible planning.

• Have the Mayor and Council been involved and offered input on this new proposed purchase plan? 
• Has the City master planned, studied or tested the possible uses and connections with the adjacent developed and undeveloped parcels and how will the City’s proposed uses resolve the housing developer’s eliminated retail and commercial uses from what was in their initial proposals?
• Have the councilors seen a vision that achieves and reinforces the community’s aspirations, needs and connections?
• If the City Hall proposal doesn’t pass community support would the City purchase the building and join others to implement a refined EWEB proposal from the Community Cultural Center Complex Group?

If this transaction does occur and If the City would entertain using portions of the building and adjacent sites for the City Hall and other cultural 7-day-a-week community uses, I hope that we, the recently formed Community Cultural Center Complex Group, can form a partnership with the City and be involved in the planning and development. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity, not to be missed.

We request a meeting where we can discuss this proposed purchase, vision, and the ingredients to form and refine a master planning study. We need to explore and discuss the City’s willingness for a partnership that will benefit the community and the region. This opportunity and our combined energy and resources will provide the ingredients to make it work, gain community support, and be successful.

I and the community await your responses to these questions and expect contact before finalizing this purchase.

Sincerely,

Otto P. Poticha FAIA

Eugene’s Town Square

Aerial view of the future Eugene Town Square: North is to the left; the yellow rectangle is the existing "butterfly" parking lot owned by the County (base image © 2018 Google) 

In a decidedly snarky editorial last week, the Register-Guard threw shade upon the City of Eugene’s latest bid to provide our community with a physical seat for its civic government. The paper likened the City’s proposed bundling of a new Eugene City Hall on the county-owned “butterfly” parking lot along with a year-round Lane County Farmers’ Market and Parks Blocks improvements in a combined project it dubbed Eugene’s “Town Square” to a self-interested marketing ploy worthy of fictional Mad Men ad agency Sterling Cooper. While the City’s culpability for the City Hall debacle is not subject to debate, I do know the folks in COE Planning & Development are genuinely earnest and sincere in their efforts to improve downtown and make the best of its leaders’ botched handling of the City Hall replacement project. The R-G piece likely inflamed cynicism among its readers, which is unfortunate and unhelpful. 

The Town Square concept is not Madison Avenue packaging. It is instead an organic outcome of a multiplicity of factors stemming from historical and contemporary roots, many of which were and are beyond the control of COE planners. That we’ve arrived at this point is due in equal parts to dumb luck and serendipity. Thanks to the prospect of a proposed land swap with Lane County, the City can now consider three previously separate projects to be a singular opportunity to generate what Christopher Alexander refers to as “wholeness” in the built environment. The City and County are not always known for thinking outside the box or cooperatively(1), so this cross-agency collaboration is commendable. We owe thanks to the elected representatives and members of the joint coordinated downtown development task force who recognized the opportunities inherent in developing an equitably beneficial and collaborative vision for downtown Eugene.(2) 

Any functioning city is a complex adaptive system, much more than the sum of its parts alone. Rather than separately regarding a new City Hall, a covered Farmers’ Market, and the Parks Blocks, designers will be able to approach the three elements with coherence and a compelling vision in mind. The goal now is to create something so intertwined and whole that it is difficult to imagine how it can be considered or function well as discrete elements. Combining the three projects magnifies the prospect of a generative design process that emphasizes the interrelatedness of the projects and ensures every building increment will form a greater whole, which is both larger and more significant than itself (this is Alexander’s Rule #2: The Growth of Larger Wholes, from his 1987 book A New Theory of Urban Design). 

From both morphological and symbolic perspectives, a recognizable city hall is necessary and important because it is an expression of municipal authority and democracy in the spatial order of our urban fabric. Its symbolism resonates with people because civic ritual and ceremony encourage participation in the collective life of the community. If anything, the concept of shared ritual is necessary now more than ever because of the increasingly fragmented and digital nature of our interactions. Properly handled, a city hall and its architecture, along with that of a permanent Farmers’ Market structure and the refurbished Park Blocks, will enhance literal and conceptual perceptions of centeredness, wholeness, and urban order. 

In the past, city halls often bordered or occupied a town square in the historical heart of the community. Functional town squares offer a gathering spot for people and social, cultural, and political activities. According to Project for Public Spaces, public squares bring diverse benefits to a city. They can nurture identity, draw a diverse population, serve as a city’s “common ground,” and catalyze private investment. PPS’s principles for successful squares include image and identity, attractions and amenities, access, and management plans that promote ways to keep them safe and lively. As presently envisioned by COE planners—bounded in part by an attractive and welcoming new City Hall—Eugene’s Town Square would be a place even more inseparable from our civic identity than the current Park Blocks are today. 

City Hall needn’t be a palace, and the City’s currently proposed funding is certainly insufficient to realize anything remotely close to one. The same is true for the relatively modest amount of urban renewal district dollars earmarked for the Farmers’ Market and Parks Blocks. The key will be leveraging the limited resources to maximize bang for the buck. For example, a covered Farmer’s Market might double as a venue for large town hall gatherings or entertainment events. Perhaps there are other functions or activities that might benefit from the synergies inherent in a combined project. Certainly, a primary role for a new City Hall to perform will be as a backdrop for the activities occurring on the Town Square. The City should otherwise scale back its expectations for what its new City Hall will be. A pragmatic strategy will be to continue to limit its scope to that of a symbolic seat for city government, housing at most the ceremonial council chamber and offices for the mayor, city councilors, and the City Manager. Other COE offices would remain in leased space distributed throughout downtown. 

The 40 acre parcel donated by Eugene and Mary Skinner to Lane County in 1856. 

Of course, as the Register-Guard pointed out, still unanswered is whether the proposed land swap between the City and the County will be allowed to proceed. I’m presuming the court ruling will favor the transaction. Even if it does not, the community founders’ original vision of a public square would still be attainable, the difference being the County’s new courthouse might rise on the “butterfly” lot parcel instead of a new City Hall. I do know in terms of programmatic fit, a new courthouse—which will be many times larger than a ceremonial City Hall—is much better suited to the former City Hall site, and vice versa. In my opinion, a scenario wherein the City Hall occupies the Town Square would fulfill the founders’ vision in spirit if not the letter of the original deed restrictions. I don’t see a problem as long as the property is kept under public ownership. 

If the land swap falls through, I’m inclined to favor moving City Hall to the riverfront EWEB headquarters building rather than once again attempting to rebuild on the former city hall site. If newly constructed on the old city hall site, the building would look oddly diminutive and the remainder of the block would by necessity remain fallow if it is to be reserved for future consolidation of COE offices.(3) 

The City of Eugene’s self-inflicted wounds have not helped its efforts to develop a new City Hall. The narrative today would be much different if the City and the County brokered the land swap and the Town Square concept from the outset. If they had, chances are the City of Eugene would have been spared much of the controversy and bad press that has accompanied more than a decade of poor decisions, false starts, and equivocation. Hindsight is always 20/20. The fact is we are where we are today. 

In a scene from what is now part of pop culture lore, Mad Men protagonist and Sterling Cooper creative director Dan Draper memorably declared “If you don’t like what’s being said, change the conversation.” The City of Eugene has changed the conversation, but this isn’t a marketing gambit. This is a laudably deep reset, one that might achieve the best outcome we can reasonably hope for.

(1) A written history of the site by Dan Armstrong is particularly informative. The use and conditions of use of the “public square in Eugene City” have been issues of debate multiple times in the one hundred and sixty-plus years since the square’s creation.

(2) Full disclosure: In 2016 the City of Eugene and Lane County retained Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture & Planning and my firm—Robertson/Sherwood/Architects—to explore the opportunities inherent in three development scenarios for publicly owned properties in downtown.

Scenario A: City Hall and Farmers Market on the Site of Former City Hall and the Courthouse on the Butterfly Lot

Scenario B: City Hall and the Courthouse on the Site of Former City Hall and the Farmers Market on the Butterfly Lot

Scenario C: City Hall and the Farmers Market on the Butterfly Lot and the Courthouse on the Site of the Former City Hall.

(3)  If the City does need to lower its sights for City Hall, it could do much worse than purchasing and repurposing the EWEB headquarters. As I wrote six years ago, converting the EWEB headquarters into Eugene’s new city hall can be a win-win scenario. EWEB could entrust its prominent, uniquely situated, structurally sound, and energy-efficient building to the City of Eugene rather than to a private enterprise that might permanently remove it and its riverfront prospect from the public realm. The City would secure an attractive new home for itself at a considerable discount compared to the cost of constructing equivalent space from scratch. The downside, of course, would be the distance between that location and the historic center of Eugene.

Happenings

The former EWEB headquarters (my photo).

This past week was an eventful one on the Eugene scene, at least from my perspective as someone interested in matters related to architecture and urbanism. The week was equally busy and eventful for me on both the work and home fronts, so I’ll keep things brief and breezy with today’s blog post. I simply feel compelled to acknowledge these developments and offer my thoughts on each.

City Hall = The Former EWEB Headquarters
I’ve chronicled the interminable and almost comically tragic saga of a new, yet-to-be-realized Eugene City Hall for more than a decade now on this blog. City of Eugene administrators first signaled their wish to abandon the former award-winning City Hall back in the 1990s, barely halfway through the building’s too-short existence, before unceremoniously razing it in 2014. The City did so with the intent of building a new city hall but ultimately lacked sufficient funding or public support to accomplish such a project. An early (circa 2005), overly ambitious design by Thomas Hacker Architects totaling 300,000 gsf in program area was clearly unaffordable and never progressed beyond the conceptual stage. The 2014 plans for a replacement city hall on the former building’s site also failed to materialize due to rapidly escalating construction cost estimates. Without a place to call home, the City leased space to conduct city council meetings and house its administration, first from Lane County in the County’s Public Service Building and later (and currently) from Lane Community College at its Mary Spilde Center across the street from the Eugene Public Library. Throughout this period, the City explored its options, which included a long-term lease or purchase of the Mary Spilde Center, siting a totally new city hall on the NW Park Block along 7th Avenue, and leasing or buying the former EWEB headquarters.
 
As reported by several outlets, the EWEB board announced last Wednesday that it will enter negotiations with the City of Eugene to sell its riverfront property. The news of the pending purchase came as a surprise because it was only the previous week that Eugene School District 4J announced it planned to buy the property. What happened?  
 
I found this news additionally surprising because the City previously passed on the EWEB headquarters option. The City commissioned a 2016 study of the building to determine its suitability for use as the new city hall. The study—conducted by a team led by my firm, Robertson/Sherwood/Architects—evaluated the building in accordance with a comprehensive set of criteria. We assessed the condition of the building and its systems, identified opportunities and constraints to converting it to city hall use, considered its potential for possible expansion, and estimated the potential costs. The price tag, which reflected the suite of improvements necessary to entirely satisfy the City’s strict criteria, was steep. With that information in hand, the City decided not to proceed with further consideration of a purchase, instead choosing to build a new city hall at the Park Blocks (Eugene’s “Town Square”); this ultimately also proved cost prohibitive.
 
Given my familiarity with our evaluation of the EWEB headquarters, I assume the city leadership relaxed its criteria and is now prepared to occupy the building without implementing extensive, costly improvements.  
 
Back in 2012, I expressed my belief that the EWEB headquarters was the best choice for a new Eugene City Hall. I said that by virtue of its physical prominence, visibility, and architectural quality, the dominant reading of the EWEB headquarters is of an important public facility. The Downtown Riverfront master plan effectively guarantees its distinction as the only major building near downtown to be located so close to the Willamette River, its future within a parklike setting along the river’s edge assured. I stated the headquarters is one of the few buildings in the city that overtly acknowledges the river and its importance to Eugene, and that we should embrace connecting downtown with the Willamette River and restoring ties between the city and the waterway it was founded upon. Moreover, I wrote that by converting the EWEB headquarters into Eugene’s new city hall, the city leadership would demonstrate its commitment to sustainability by highly valuing the energy embodied in its original construction and thereby partially atone for its hasty decision to demolish the old city hall building. Rather than expending increasingly scarce resources and funds on a new city hall, the City can walk the talk and lead by example.
 
I won’t hold my breath until it actually happens, but I believe citizens of Eugene may soon be able to point with pride toward a building that is their City Hall, while also closing a lengthy chapter in Eugene's municipal history.  
 
Skinner Butte Height Limitation Area
The Eugene city council met in a work session last Tuesday to discuss a proposed amendment to the Eugene Code regarding the Skinner Butte Height Limitation Area. The council will vote on the amendment during a meeting on February 13 that, if passed, would allow taller buildings to be constructed on six parcels along Fifth Avenue between Willamette and Pearl Streets. The Skinner Butte Height Limitation Area encompasses the subject parcels. The Obie Companies requested the change so that it can add two mixed-use buildings to its Market District portfolio that would exceed the current allowable heights. 

 

An "artist's rendering" of the development proposed by the Obie Companies for its property on the north side of Fifth Avenue between the Oregon Electric Station and Station Square.

The requested land use change prompted comment from both proponents and critics. The arguments on both sides are familiar. Those supporting the amendment cite the benefits of increased density near the downtown core, including the construction of more residential units, increased vibrancy, and a concomitant boost to the property tax rolls (notwithstanding any tax exemptions necessary to help the development pencil out). Opponents argue that tall buildings will block sightlines toward Skinner Butte and the Shelton McMurphey Johnson House. The most histrionic contend that an increase in the height limit will lead to a “Manhattan-like canyon of concrete and steel.”
 
I am originally from Vancouver, British Columbia. Vancouver’s notorious “view cone” policy aims to preserve iconic vistas of the city, primarily from south of False Creek toward the downtown skyline and the North Shore mountains beyond. Like Eugene’s Height Limitation Areas policy, Vancouver’s view cones are defined by certain geographical landmarks possessing scenic attributes that are of value to the “community as a whole.” Criticism of the Vancouver policy largely stems from the fact that those who most enjoy its benefits are the wealthy homeowners whose views (and thus property values) are protected by it, rather than the average community member. Another con of the view cone policy is that it limits the development potential of certain properties, especially on the downtown peninsula where dense, tall buildings otherwise make the most sense.

View looking north on Oak Street toward Skinner Butte (my photo).

Protecting views toward Skinner Butte and the Shelton McMurphey Johnson House is important. That said, will increasing the height limits as requested by the Obie Companies eliminate some currently available vistas toward these landmarks? The reality is any new buildings on the vacant parcels they own along Fifth Avenue will obstruct views, whether they are two stories or seven stories in height. These parcels are now mostly surface parking lots, contributing nothing beyond acres of asphalt and far from being scenic. The proposed developments will include street-level retail, which will enliven the pedestrian experience, not to mention welcome density and eyes on the street, while relegating off-street parking to concealed garages. The key will be to ensure the most crucial views do remain. I contend the most important vista is the one looking northward along Willamette Street toward Skinner Butte. It’s arguable that a narrow view corridor along the Oak Street axis north to the Butte should be maintained but restricting taller construction on either side of that corridor would provide no discernable benefit from the standpoint of access to desired views.

Arcimoto Woes
Perhaps the most surprising news I learned of was word that Arcimoto shut down production at its west Eugene factory and is facing bankruptcy. I wasn’t aware of the depth of the company’s troubles, including the fact that it had cut jobs and furloughed workers as early as last September as the value of its stock plunged. It was only seven months before in February of 2022 that Arcimoto opened its new 250,000 sf manufacturing facility. Apparently, supply chain bottlenecks were part of the problem, but also dwindling cash reserves and poor sales (Arcimoto only sold 41 of its vehicles during the second quarter of 2022).  

FUV promotional photo, from the Arcimoto website.

 
I had high hopes for Arcimoto and its everyday electric transport, the FUV (Fun Utility Vehicle). Yes, its price is on the high side (in the $20k range), especially when compared to those of conventional automobiles at the lower end of the market spectrum; however, cost was never Arcimoto’s principal selling point. Instead, the promise of the lightweight, high-performing, three-wheeled, tandem-seat FUV rests in its potential as a truly sensible means for getting from Point A to Point B. We need to transition away from our reliance upon oversized cars and trucks and the demands they make upon the urban landscape. The all-too common instance of a lone driver slogging about on short hops in a massive, gas-guzzling, 7-passenger SUV reflects misplaced priorities in a world beset by environmental crises and social inequity.   
 
I really thought Arcimoto was on the cusp of something great, and that the potential market worldwide for its FUV would be immense. I still believe the infrastructure of American transportation and energy systems must be radically altered to accommodate new, healthier types of transportation and vehicle use. We still need to reassess what it is we truly need for personal transportation. If the Arcimoto experiment is destined to failure, the loss will not only be Eugene’s but also that of advocates for change everywhere.

*    *    *   *    *    *

So, a busy and consequential week in Eugene with respect to topics of interest to me. I welcome any comments you may have about them, so please let me know what you think. 

Coordinated Downtown Development

AIA-SWO mini-charrette during the October 19, 2016 chapter meeting (my photo)

 

AIA-Southwestern Oregon members gathered last Wednesday at the FertiLab Thinkubator to learn more about efforts by the City of Eugene and Lane County to coordinate future downtown development of public facilities they own and operate. Currently under consideration are the fate of the new City Hall, a new and larger Lane County Courthouse, and a year-round farmers’ market. The two agencies recently formed a joint task force to evaluate options for siting these major downtown facilities and public spaces. 

The task force composed a charter statement to guide its efforts: 

“The City of Eugene and Lane County share a common value to provide the best possible service to our communities in ways that make efficient use of public resources. We have before us the opportunity to collaborate on the creation of a truly great civic center that serves Eugene and Lane County for decades to come.” 

The City and County jointly selected Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture and Planning as the consultant for the coordinated downtown development study. Cameron McCarthy’s mandate is to identify and evaluate options to help the City and County determine which strategy will best address their separate and mutual needs while working toward their shared goal of creating a “truly great civic center.” 

Larry Gilbert, ASLA, principal at Cameron McCarthy, leads the consultant team, which also includes Jim Robertson, FAIA, FCSI of Robertson/Sherwood/Architects (the firm I work for). Larry began his presentation at the AIA-SWO meeting by providing background information about the study. The new Eugene City Hall saga is well-known by most. That project’s spiraling costs no doubt prompted City Council’s willingness to work with the County to look at possibly more cost-effective alternatives. The existing, aging Lane County Courthouse suffers from numerous deficiencies relative to present-day standards, notably with respect to space, security, and efficiency, and requires either substantial modernization or replacement. The future of the farmer’s market is in play because its current location, the county-owned “butterfly” parking lot is one of the parcels involved in the study. 

Larry described the program areas for each of the study components; they are as follows: 

Eugene City Hall – Phase 1: 35,000 GSF

• Council Chambers
• Council Work Session Room
• Mayor and Council Offices
• City Manager’s Office 

Parking, Secure: 7,000 GSF (20 Spaces) 

Eugene City Hall – Phase 2: 115,000 GSF 

• Public Works 
• Planning & Development 
• Information Services 
• Human Resources & Risk Services 
• Finance & Central Services 

Parking, Secure: None 

Eugene Municipal /Community Court:  20,000 GSF 

• Municipal Court 

Parking, Secure:  8,400 GSF (24 Spaces) 

Lane County Courthouse: 240,034 GSF 

• Courts 
• Courts Administration 
• Sherriff Transport & Holding 
• Sheriff Main Offices 
• Parole & Probation 
• District Attorney Offices 
• State Offices 

Parking, Secure:  24,500 GSF (70 Spaces) 

Lane County Farmers Market (covered area):  9,000 GSF 

• Vending Spaces: 30 
• Restrooms 
• Storage 

Lane County Farmers Market (outdoor space):  39,000 GSF 

• Vending Spaces: 90 
• Bike Parking 
• Landscaping 

Based on the programmatic needs, Larry’s team initially developed twelve different options or models. It subsequently distilled the number of siting options for City Hall, the County Courthouse, and the Farmers’ Market down to six possible configurations, which the public (including AIA-SWO) have been asked to comment upon. The Register-Guard provided a detailed summary of the configurations, which I’ve simply repeated here: 

Option A1:
Remodel the existing courthouse for use by the district attorney’s and sheriff’s offices and build a new courthouse on the county-owned “butterfly” parking lot across Oak Street. A skybridge would connect the two buildings. On the vacant City Hall block at Eighth Avenue and Pearl Street, the Phase 2 City Hall would take up its northern half, the Phase 1 City Hall would be built on the empty lot’s southwest corner, and the farmer’s market would be constructed on the southeast corner. 

 

Option A2:
Consolidate the courthouse, district attorney’s and sheriff’s offices in one new nine-story building—it would be the tallest in downtown—on the butterfly lot. The existing courthouse would be preserved for county government operations. On the vacant City Hall block, the Phase 2 City Hall would be two buildings constructed on the northern half of the lot, and the Phase 1 City Hall and farmers’ market would swap places on the lot’s southern half.

 

Option B1:
Build the county courthouse and Phase 1 City Hall on the vacant City Hall block. The district attorney’s and sheriff’s offices take up the entire existing courthouse, and a very long skybridge would connect it to the new courthouse. Phase 2 City Hall would be constructed south of Eighth Avenue along Pearl Street. On the butterfly lot, the farmer’s market would operate on its southern half, and a new mixed-use building would be built on its northern half. 

 

Option B2:
The county courthouse with sheriff and district attorney functions would be built on the vacant City Hall block, wrapping around Phase 1 City Hall. The Phase 2 City Hall would be divided between two buildings by renovating the existing courthouse and constructing a second building across Oak from it on the northern half of the butterfly lot. The farmers’ market would occupy the lot’s second half. 

 

Option C1:
The new county courthouse and all associated functions would take up the entire vacant City Hall block. Phase 1 City Hall would be built on the butterfly lot’s northern half with the farmers’ market occupying the southern half. (The city and county are seeking an expedited court ruling on whether city founder Eugene Skinner’s 1855 deed to the county prevents a City Hall from being constructed on the butterfly lot.) Phase 2 City Hall would be divided between a renovated existing courthouse and the Wells Fargo building, where the city currently leases office space, so city services would be spread out in a campus environment with the Park Blocks at its center. 

 

Option C2:
The new county courthouse and all associated functions would take up the entire vacant City Hall block. The farmers’ market would be built on the southern half of the butterfly lot. In another variation of a city campus concept, Phase 1 City Hall would be built on the butterfly lot’s northern half with another floor—the fifth—added for Phase 2 offices. A new Phase 2 city office building would be constructed on the location of the existing courthouse. 

 

Each of these scenarios is still preliminary in nature, which is why input from groups like AIA-SWO remains important. Larry facilitated a mini-charrette during Wednesday’s meeting to ensure that ideas, or problems with ideas, are not overlooked before presenting a final slate of options to the elected officials and the public. The charrette was energetic and enjoyable, and did generate some inspired concepts for the consultant team to consider. 

The joint task force directed the consultant team to ultimately settle upon three concepts, so the six versions Larry presented will further be narrowed by half. He did say the final coordinated downtown development study will not single out a preferred option. Instead, the point of the study is to provide the joint task force with the information it needs to identify the concept it prefers to see implemented. Toward this end, the study will ultimately address questions about cost, context, transportation impact, and additional work required. 

Which option do I prefer? I have a preference but I’ll defer saying anything until after the report is finalized. 

Of course, notably absent from the scope of the study is the renewed possibility of EWEB offering its current administrative headquarters building on the Willamette riverfront to the City of Eugene for adaptation as a new City Hall. The City is not ignoring that possibility but is simply also exploring the potential of a collaboration and possible land swap with Lane County. 

Notably, some city council members have expressed reluctance with the prospect of delaying construction of the new, ceremonial City Hall as most recently planned. They would rather proceed with that design as soon as possible despite the opportunities inherent in a collaboration with the county or a purchase from EWEB of its building. I personally believe not considering all options on the table (especially when they’ve presented themselves so serendipitously) would be shortsighted, so I wholeheartedly support taking this step back. 

 

There will be one more opportunity for the public to comment upon the six coordinated development options before Larry’s team reduces that number to the three the joint task force will deliberate upon. The City and County are hosting a community open house on Wednesday, November 2 from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM at Harris Hall, 125 East Eighth Avenue. For more meeting information, or if you don’t think you’ll be able to attend the open house, provide your comments online at www.downtownplanning.org. 

Big thanks to Larry for providing such an informative presentation. Thanks too to the elected representatives and members of the joint task force who recognize the opportunities inherent in developing an equitably beneficial and collaborative vision. This is a momentous time for downtown Eugene. The decisions that will be made now are critical. They require considerable thoughtfulness and imagination. There is simply too much at stake that will impact the future of Eugene for too many years to come.