Kevin Cavenaugh Plans 14-Unit Housing Development By 13 Designers

Over the last several months, one of Portland’s most accomplished designer-developers, Kevin Cavenaugh, has been at Harvard University as part of a Loeb Fellowship, just as then-Oregonian architecture critic Randy Gragg did the prior academic year.

In the past, Cavenaugh has been responsible for the Rocket building on Burnside (the red one with the sunscreen panels featuring individual artworks and Rocket restaurant on top), the Ode to Rose’s mixed use building on Northeast Fremont (a local AIA award winner, with Fife restaurant on the ground floor), and another very successful mixed use project at Southeast 28th and Ankeny housing Noble Rot wine bar. Trained as an architect and previously employed at Fletcher Farr Ayotte, Kevin is not a registered architect and thus it is never his name listed as the architect of record on the documents, but they are definitely his buildings.

I wrote about Kevin a few years ago for a Metropolis magazine story about architects who develop their own projects. “Architects: Looking for the Perfect Client?” the headline asked. “Hire yourself!”

Recently I got a call from Kevin, still back in Cambridge until later this spring. His new project, or projects, would easily be his most ambitious yet.

On a site in Southwest Portland just south of downtown at the corner of Water Avenue and Arthur Street, an ideal location but with difficult hilly terrain, virtually no parking and limited access, Kevin is envisioning having built 14 different housing units – almost all of them by different designers. The details have changed a little bit over the few times we’ve talked and emailed, but I believe the latest would be to have Kevin design two himself, then divide the remaining 12 units equally between six Harvard Graduate School of Design students and six more established architects.

The Harvard students, as I understand it, would be graduating this spring and would probably consist largely of those with whom Kevin has already formed relationships with in lecturing about his plan as part of his Loeb Fellowship presentations. This is the text of a flyer he sent out at Harvard:

...1-WAY TICKET to PORTLAND. I am a Loeb Fellow at Harvard's GSD seeking a few select graduating designers to DESIGN AND BUILD fourteen small parcels with me in downtown Portland, OR. The project will showcase the finest in contemporary urban architecture from the nation's most promising young designers. Starting this summer, each participant will take full control over his/her development. I will help line up bank financing and construction services, but you ultimately you will need YOUR OWN MONEY to secure a loan. I will mentor you through the design and development process, but you will take on both the risks and rewards associated with your project. THIS IS NOT A JOB! 

As for the six established architects, I think that idea is still being hammered out. Kevin and I both agreed that it would be nice to bring in some admired out-of-town designers. Much talent as there is in Portland, I don’t think our design community is challenged much by work in town by out-of-town firms. However, I’d also love to see at least one of those spots reserved for a local. It’s Kevin’s decision, obviously, but I have imagined it being someone with demonstrated high quality residential experience, yet also someone for whom this project would represent a serious opportunity.

Kevin would surely appreciate more ideas about how to shape this process and the ultimate product. What advice might we give this onetime FFA intern who metamorphosed into the most interesting DIY designer-developer in a place already known for just that kind of maverick spirit?

Oh, and is it overly naive to wonder about a bigger developer ever taking on this kind of riskier but potentially far more appealing development?

Comments

[eileen]

Where's Angry Neighbor when we need him?

[a]

I'd love to see PSU Architecture and/or UofO Architecture do parallel studio projects for this site. It would be an interesting way to inquire about what ought to be done. Or maybe Brian or Cityscope can sponsor an open weekend charette with this premise.

The images shown above sure look nifty. Any commentary here on urbanity, domesticity, or Portland's version of either?

[Monforts]

This is great news! It seems that this idea has a lot of similarities to Borneo Sporenburg in Amsterdam, one of the best contemporary developments around (though on a much larger scale).

http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature90.htm

It hinges on two very simple rules: rigid volume massing (all projects are 4 meters wide by 3 stories tall-approximating traditional Amsterdam housing), and 30%-50% void. After that, they choose excellent young designers and let them have at it. The result is architectural diversity while preserving urban continuity.

As Adriaane Geuze (the urban designer) admits, however, choosing the best designers was probably the most important aspect. Let's hope Cavenaugh finds the right ones for this project.

[a]

“...testament to the fact that the most successful urban designs emerge when there is collaboration between the planners and architects.” from www.archnewsnow.com/
features/Feature90.htm

So, is Cavanaugh the planner?

Borneo Sporenburg Residential Waterfront sure does look nifty. It also sounds like a thorough exercise in collaboration. We can assume the "rigid volume massing" was carefully allocated by the planners. I wonder how Cavanaugh's platting unfolded.

As for "riskier but potentially far more appealing". I think this kind of experiment is far LESS risky for the city/community. I'll accept urban experiments/errors on this scale. The bigger projects with bigger money and much greater embodied scare me. And, alas, those are often left to the architecture factories.

Proforma+novelty=Developer Work.

[Robert]

The site plan is a bit uninspiring, especially when you consider the back edge is an on-ramp.
The preliminary massings also seem to be trying to be too different from eachother; "shed form here, round form there, gable form over there, etc" Is the pyramid form next in line?
I'd like to see something more akin to the courtyard competition where there are several cohesive units, complementing instead of competing, and creating a unique outdoor space.

[Robert]

Kevin's Box+One does this more successfully on a slightly smaller scale. Why not start from there? Establish a palette or language that will pull it all together, even if it is by different designers.
Otherwise you will get "olympic village syndrome" where each buiding is doing its own thing at the cost of the whole.

[a]

Box+One isn't trying to do much (is it?), or ask tough questions.

I don't buy into "the whole" as a desirable proposition for this kind of development... at least not on the "shed form here, oval form there," issue. Why does this site need to be a macro development. Why not a neighborhood with distinct houses. My street contains no two homes that look exactly alike...hip roof here, two-story farmhouse there, a front porch, no front porch, etc. Is a cape code next? Well, yes, actually.

[Aneeda]

I agree. The architecture can be all over the map as far as I'm concerned as long as the overall forms are responding to the street and outdoor spaces in a meaningful way.

[a]

Yes, and that meaningful response to the outdoor space looks specious (at best?) in the images above. Granted, there is much work to be done, but that wiggly winding way betwixt the houses has my brow deeply furrowed. Hopefully the commons will be well considered as the houses develop.

I see nothing in Cavanaugh's premise statement about how the design process(es) itself will unfold. And, if 1, 2, 3, 4?...5,?...WTF... Well, three of the houses appear to be designed. So much for collaboration.

[Greg]

Yes, we must stick to the strait line of the grid. Please don't try to complement nature with all its winding ways. Architecture should stamp its dominance over nature at every turn. All kneel before the clean simple strait lines of our betters!

[A]

a mere winding way is no complement to nature. No, it's an insult, in fact. The magic of nature is not its aloofness (because it's not aloof) nor its winding way (nature is ill cast as a wanderer). And no, the 'structure' of nature is not the grid, either. Who brought up the grid? That was you, Greg Quixote.

As I stated before. I suggest the commons be carefully considered. It looks carelessly considered at present.

[kyle]

i think this could be a very interesting proposition. it could be improved by an overlay of massing and setbacks associated with heights - a vision - an overarching concept. Similar to what was laid out for great neighborhoods such as Ladd's addition and Laurelhurst for instance. A strong "zoning" or massing concept can create a lot of complexity by the intervention or interpretation by other architects. it does seem a shoe horned into the site, so i wonder if a more linear site would be better suited. As well the open space seems more residual than integrated.

[a]

(massing + setbacks)*overlay =vision?

I submit that the overarching vision is not necessary...and maybe contra-indicated. I am more interested in how a group of brilliants (presumed) might negotiate a well considered, dynamic, engaged commons space despite (or because of) a lack of dictated constraints. What if good judgement and congenial cooperation makes an even better, and non conforming, whole.

[a]

I'll add here that the plats on the west side facing the on-ramp really are right in traffic. Yikes. I suggest soot-eating concrete.

[a]

(massing + setbacks)*overlay =vision?

I submit that the overarching vision is not necessary...and maybe contra-indicated. I am more interested in how a group of brilliants (presumed) might negotiate a well considered, dynamic, engaged commons space despite (or because of) a lack of dictated constraints. What if good judgement and congenial cooperation makes an even better, and non conforming, whole.

[Aneeda]

I just hope they can also grab a good landscape architect to develop the open space. I've learned never to put that in the hands of an architect.

[kyle]

sorry "a" but i completely disagree. i think it is okay not agree to not agree on this one. i think that for such a site to be successful it requires some micro-urban design approach as opposed to just plating the property. not to create a "design" vision in some suburban way, but some order that cannot perceived, but rather holds the pieces together to create a bigger solution. that is why i mention Ladd's Addition and Laurelhurst - those actually have/had strict guidelines - and believe it or not it actually worked and yet supported diversity while not creating tract housing. chaos will certainly find its way, but you might find it in the smaller parts.

[a]

For a development of the scale of Ladd's addition or LH Park I can see your point, kyle. Those are sections of the city. And they're 5k to 7500sf lots. Huge plots by comparison.

Cav's scope is about a half block with what may be 2k sf plats. So, what kind of progressive setbacks do you propose? 5' sides at level one, 5'-6" at level 2 and 6' at the upper floor?

I say take this proposal as a true experiment in public process. The risk is very low for the community at large and the potential outcame very instructive.

True, this maybe be just enough rope for these harvard punks to hang themselves. Your guidelines amount to micromanagement in the extreme.

I suspect hat the group of designers will come to a negotiated set of guidelines and restrictions by virtual of the play of ideas between them. THAT seems like a purer form of public process. One that arises from a true 'common sense'.

[kyle]

good point about the lot sizes. i was thinking more about massing in respects to frontage, rather than side yards. and true - good designers in their own right will certainly play well of each other and the result could be very interesting. if they are all playing together that makes more sense than making something for incremental growth.

[jeff]

I am curious - are the designers also being asked to purchase the individual parcels and fund the individual houses as owners / developers? What will be the ownership structure of the units and the common space?

[a]

Aneeda,
Why not 14 Lscrapers?

[Matt]

I wonder about the reality of how this project comes together. That is, if we do look at the Borneo in Amsterdam as some sort of precedent with regards to Cavenaugh’s project (granted, the Borneo is a completely different scalar animal), it seems logical that there needs to be some sort of master planning process whereby ‘rules’ are engaged and set in place around which the designers operate. There are a number of comments contained here which address the nature of the site, or lack of nature as it turns out to be. This is an extremely difficult site to develop. No one knows this more than Cavenaugh, who has been sitting on it for years now.
Not really knowing where the current layout came from, it might seem logical for Cavenaugh to run a studio, or charette of some sort, whereby the ‘zoning’ and guidelines (need to be kept loose to allow freedom of design process) are set in place. For example, with a site such as this, there might be a focus away from the street, or Naito Parkway in this case, towards some sort of shared internal space. One does wonder about the ownership of this common space as Kyle asked. As well, how does that space come about? Is it individual backyards? Is it shared common space? Is there connectivity through that space? One would hope that the “meandering line of nature” is not set in place, but merely a place holder for something still to come. I would assume Cavenaugh has engaged many of these questions. It would be interesting to see and hear more.
In either case, as engaging as some of Cavenaugh’s project’s have been in the past (not necessarily as architectural andeavors, but more as social and process oriented expressions), this is truly a bold move. How many developers do you know willing to open up their own land for development with nothing in it for themselves other than to say “look what we were able to accomplish”? i.e. from my understanding and conversations with Kevin there is no financial incentives for him this time around. (Not that there really was much in the way of financial incentives in his last three developments.)
I think we are again seeing his years of Peace Corps showing up in his “business” decisions. Good man.

[a]

"(not necessarily as architectural endeavors, but more as social and process oriented expressions)"
ah, the 400# gorilla in the room.

[a]

"how does that space come about? Is it individual backyards? Is it shared common space? Is there connectivity through that space? One would hope that the “meandering line of nature” is not set in place, but merely a place holder for something still to come."
These are great questions. Though your "meandering line of nature" is your own phrase. So, don't frame it in quotes.

The design guidelines don't need to be kept loose to allow freedom of design process. That's a naive idea. All processes happen within a frame of reference. eg...the ultimate frames here on earth are (arguably) gravity, diurnal and seasonal rhythms, money, etc. Design without constraint is akin to providing an answer that lacks a question. Where do you begin? And why?

Still, I strongly urge that the design rules of the game be allowed to emerge during the design process (guided by respect, community, discourse, negotiation, conflict) If this is to be an experiment (which I advocate) then put those zoning questions on the table...or off of it...depending on how you look at it.

[Matt]

"a", I guess the "need to be kept loose to allow freedom" comment was in reference to some of the standard language one might come across in zoning codes we see nowadays. For example, a certain close in Portland Suburb mandating that buildings along the waterfront adhere to a pre-defined 'style' and look. I totally agree, allow the "design rules of the game" to do just what you suggested through a design process that involves all the players involved.