Portland Architecture

Visiting "Design with the Other 90 Percent: Cities" at the MCC - and gaining perspective

Yerwanda Slum Upgrading Project, Pune, India (image courtesy Cooper-Hewitt Museum)

BY BRIAN LIBBY

My apartment has 16-year-old carpet and linoleum. The paint is chipping. The stove burner dials have faded so you can't see what temperature you're cooking at. The duct tape holding together our fridge's plastic produce drawers has failed to keep them from falling apart. Our single-pane windows are cracked in numerous spots, and our furnace dates to the early 1970s.

And you know what? I'm doing great compared to most of the world.

Today close to one billion people live in informal settlements, otherwise known as makeshift shacks. That figure is expected to double by 2030.

So the traveling exhibit now on view at the Museum of Contemporary Craft (and at the Mercy Corps headquarters) makes a much-needed reality check. "Design with the Other 90%: Cities", which originated at New York's Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum and is making its only West Coast appearance in Portland, is a reminder that our usual obsessions of weathered steel, e-coated glass and blobbing titanium are not solving the world's real problems. Even sustainability, with its focus on energy efficiency and ecologically-friendly materials, can only go so far: Global warming may be our biggest future problem, but with one-seventh of the world not even able to live inside stable architectural spaces, the most pressing issue facing architects is arguably still providing peole with basic shelter.

Nigeria Community Cooker & Indonesia Floating Community (Cooper-Hewitt Museum)

"Design with the Other 90%: Cities", which opened August 17 and continues through January 5, features design and material solutions in a variety of poverty-stricken urban areas around the world.

Some of the designs on display aren't architecture so much as designed solutions to community problems, many having to do with access to safe, sustainable food and drink. There is the Jiko ya jamii, or community cooker, in Nairobi, Kenya: a large-scale oven that uses trash as fuel to power a communal cooking facility. According to the World Health Organization, smoke from dirty stoves and fires kills almost two million people each year, most of them women and children.  There is the Garden-in-a-sack, also in Nairobi, made from inexpensive, available materials to maximize the small amount of space available for micro-agriculture.

There are also plenty of architectural solutions, both in materials and whole projects. The Floating Community Lifeboats in Bangladesh, for example, provide space for solar-powered schools, libraries, and health clinics. In Indonesia, EcoFae Brick is providing an alternative to traditional clay bricks, which are extensive to produce and damage the land.  EcoFaeBricks, made from cow dung and soil, are 20 percent lighter and 20 percent stronger, and much cheaper. The Incremental Housing project in Iquique, Chile and Monterrey, Mexico, produced half-finished houses that are completed by residents. The Bang Bua Canal project transformed the lives of over three thousand families living in twelve informal communities along an eight-mile stretch of the Canal, who were living in rickety stilt houses and half-meter bamboo planks that could not survive annual floods. And the Miraculous Hills Community Resettlement in Quezon City, Philippines, addresses the astonishing statistic of one in every 2.68 citizens living in slums by actually building housing on top of a mountain of trash that comes with drainage, roads, off-grid electricity, well water for drinking, bathing, and washing, a daycare center, and bio-intensive gardening and hog-raising ventures for income

EcoFae brick, Indonesia and Bang Bua Canal, Thailand model (photos by Brian Libby)

Viewing the exhibit, which comes to Portland from the United Nations headquarters, one feels encouraged by so many smart solutions to an avalanche of poverty and neglect. One thinks of how across every culture no matter what hemisphere or time zone, the rich get richer and the poor get the picture - yet compassion has not been completely erased either.

There was just one lingering problem I had coming out of the exhibit, which isn't the fault of the curators: that the exhibits represent enlightened Band-Aids. To truly address poverty would require moves that the world is not prepared to make, like substantial population controls. If the number of people occupying the planet just keeps skyrocketing, the have-nots will always greatly outnumber the haves. And amidst continuing recession even in the richest of countries like the United States and members of the European Union, too often our leaders propose austerity precisely when governments should be looking to New Deals.

Miraculous Hills, Philippines (image via Cooper-Hewitt Museum)

The best reason to visit "Design for the Other 90%: Cities" may not be the optimism one feels about solving the world's problems, but instead to marvel at the ingenuity that exists even when budgets are next to nothing. While most of our local and national building industry throws up drywall and tilts concrete into place from cookie-cutter designs, there are people in the developing world literally turning shit into bricks.

Without getting religious on anyone, I'd like to suggest these designers, not the aspiring next-generation Frank Gehrys, will be the ones to inherit the earth. And after viewing this exhibit, I'm all to happy to change my perspective consider my grungy Portland apartment to be a veritable Shangri-la.

 

Advertisements

The Architect's Questionnaire: Dave Otte

Dave Otte (photo by Jessica Molinar)

BY LUKE AREHART

The latest installment in our continuing look at Portland architects and their inspirations features one of the many talented designers at Holst Architecture. Dave Otte has been instrumental in a number of projects by the award-winning firm, including the AIA/Portland Center For Architecture and the Bud Clark Commons - both LEED Platinum rated and both beautiful.

Portland Architecture: When did you first become interested in architecture as a possible career?

Dave Otte: The first time it occurred to me was when I was building a tree house with my dad back in El Paso; I was only in the fourth grade, but I got a kick out of trying to form a solution around an existing tree. It ended up with a rope ladder and a dumb waiter and other features. It became my haven. This had a big impact on me. I was always interested in drawing and building with Legos; it always seemed like a foregone conclusion to become an architect. Through drafting classes in high school, it was something I wanted to focus on. I was okay at math but didn’t like it; I could do enough math to get through architecture school. It’s always felt like it has been in me, and the tree house was just one formative experience that I remember well.

Where did you study architecture and how would you rate the experience?

University of Texas at Austin, I got a five-year bachelor’s degree. I grew up in Texas, and loved my time in Austin. It was an awesome school and a great opportunity to be in a small college within a very big university; it was the best of both worlds. It was a very limited group of people that were selected for the school of architecture and then an even more limited group that actually makes it through the program because they have a serious weeding-out process. I knew everybody I graduated with like they were part of my family; but it was also a big university experience in a great town. Charles Moore passed away while I was in school, but his influence was felt so there was this contextual postmodernism that was still influencing the curriculum; at the same time modernists were coming back in as professors, so there was a postmodern/modern balance and tension that was interesting. Computers were just starting to come on in my last couple years, and so I started using the computer more; I was also bridging the gap between hand drawing and computers. They had an amazing shop and I tried to spend as much time as I could in the shop building full-scale details; the hands-on experience was great. They had a group of professors that had been at the school a long time so there was a sense of continuity and that everyone was on the same page; the experience wasn’t made up of a bunch of visiting professors, which contributed to the family-like feel.

(Center) Bud Clark Commons (photo by Sally Schoolmaster)

What is your favorite building project that you’ve worked on?

It’s a tie between two buildings with missions I believed in deeply. The first is my last project to be completed, the Bud Clark Commons, which was probably the hardest thing that I have ever done professionally. It is a comprehensive mixed-use building for the homeless and covers everything from a drop-in day center to permanent housing for our most vulnerable citizens. Programmatically it was extremely difficult because it was a large ownership group, and the first public project that we have ever done at Holst Architecture. We were working for the city and working for large groups which are a different animal than working for private developers or private businesspeople, or even single non-profits. There was a lot of client contact making sure everybody is on the same page. The program is complicated: there are three components to the building, all stacked on one another and having that fit within a tight height limit and zoning envelope required a lot of gymnastics, structurally and programmatically. The complexity makes the project so rich; this project will always be a part of me.

My other favorite project is a house that I designed with my wife for my parents and my brother in Arizona where they now live; we did that back in 2003. Being able to do this for my family meant a lot since my brother has cerebral palsy and special accessibility needs. They still live there and I’m able to go back and see it all the time, it was a cool experience.

Otte residence, Arizona (photo by Jessica Molinar)

Who has been an important mentor among your colleagues?

I learned a lot at ZGF Architects, about how to put a drawing set together, how to put buildings together, and how to work in a team.

If I had to list individual people, I would say my client for the Bud Clark Commons, Julie Livingston, who is an architect as well who worked on the owners’ side for Home Forward. She was also the owner’s representative on the AIA Center for Architecture. Julie taught me how to approach a project in a very optimistic way with high expectations, and that optimism and leadership led to better projects in the end because of the way Julie handles herself and manages the process. This has had a big impact on how I have been approaching my work lately.

My wife Jessica (COLAB Architecture + Urban Design) keeps me honest; she is an amazing designer with a great eye and has always been a helpful counterbalance to everything I am doing. Having two architects married to each other isn’t always the easiest thing, but it has made me a better architect, and I hope it has had the same effect for her.

What part of the job do you like best, and as an architect what do you think you most excel at?

I enjoy the process of getting to know a client and developing that relationship and seeing the results when the project is complete. Being able to look back on it and have a new friend and a success story and see how we were able to make their dreams become a physical reality as a meaningful place of form and beauty is everything that we try to do in architecture.

I probably excel the most at distilling complexity into singular solutions. I get creativity from constraints. The Bud Clark Commons, for example, was such a complex problem, that I felt I was able to bring my skills to distilling that problem into a cohesive whole. This has led to the other projects I am working on now that are complex problems with multiple interests and multiple client groups. My role involves navigating the program, budget, aesthetic desires of our office, and the level of craft from the program document down to the flashing details. I enjoy being able to funnel all of that into one solution. I used to work a lot individually, on big teams working on big projects, and I would just draw details and details and details and that is how I learned. Since then I have learned that while I can do it, it’s not what makes me the most happy. What does make me happy, and what I am best at, is working with people and turning relationships into results.

Belmont Lofts (photo by Lauren Coleman)

What are some Portland buildings (either new or historic) that you most admire?

The building that first comes to mind is the Belmont Lofts which was designed before I came to Holst and is why I came to Holst. I watched that building go up, and every time a new detail went up I became more and more interested. By the time it was finished, I was starting to think about going to a smaller firm from ZGF, and I thought, “I’d like to meet who did that and find out how they did that.” This had a big impact on me and I have been extremely lucky to work with the same people (Kim Wilson, John Holmes, and Jeff Stuhr) to learn from them. It has been an invaluable experience.

The Multnomah County Library by A.E. Doyle is another one, I have always loved that building and think we have a better library than Seattle; The Library makes me want to read more than I do. Now that I have a daughter, I love taking her there to have fun. Mostly, when you think about buildings in Portland, so many of them are background and contextual and bleed together to create a fabric; I always think of Portland as the space between the buildings, the open space, the parks, streets and intersections, that to me is what makes Portland remarkable. We have some of the most amazing parks in the country or even the world. The urban scale and the small blocks are what give Portland its character. Part of the reason why our buildings are so much more mundane is because we don’t have a lot of money in Portland; but the in-between spaces are truly exceptional.

Menil Collection, Houston (image courtesy Architectural Lighting)

What is your favorite building outside of Portland and besides any you’ve worked on?

One that influenced me early on in my career back when I was in school in Texas was the The Menil Collection in Houston by Renzo Piano. It’s a simple museum in the historic district of Houston that I think was ahead of its time and sublime in its execution. To take a large museum and have it fit into an old neighborhood, both modern and contextual at the same time, perfect details, clear diagram; it made me want to do something like that. The Menil blew me away because of the way it fit into its context with such amazing scale and detailing, it was beautiful.

The Kimbell Art Museum is another one in Texas by Louis Kahn that had a big impact on me as well.

Is there a local architect or firm you think is unheralded or deserves more credit?

I think architects are heralded enough. One thing I did notice when I was looking back at this series is that we haven’t interviewed any women architects; that might be one category in general that needs more credit, something to consider.

What would you like to see change about Portland’s built environment in the long term?

Our public schools are an atrocity right now and making them a priority is a necessity for the city. I’m sure having a kid has colored my thought on that; with all the talk going on about a new bond measure and taxes, I think that is an investment that we have to make.

There are a lot of unfortunate circumstances downtown where good buildings get taken down to build new buildings because of economics and who owns the properties. It kills me to see so many surface parking lots that remain; there are a couple families and entities that own those lots and don’t have much incentive to develop them right now, but I think it would be very good for the city center to be able to get away from those surface lots, it can make a big difference.

So far there has been a strong commitment to affordable housing by the city, but I think it could be stronger; without families and without a middle class in the city center, we’re not going to be able to attract the growth and the development that everybody wants to have. We have to have everybody living here in order to also be thriving and we can’t do that just with people with the most being the only ones who can afford to live close in.

How would you rate the performance of local government like the Portland Development Commission, or the development and planning bureaus?

The city and the bureaus are doing the best they can with what they have. It’s a hard job enticing and controlling development at the same time while making sure everybody is happy; it’s just a hard thing to do.

We have had good luck with the Housing Bureau and Nick Fish’s office, they have been very supportive of progressive design, of quality design, buildings that last, investments in good architecture, and it has been a good experience.

We have a lot of experience with design review. Jeff Stuhr was on the design commission for eight years, so we have insight into how that works and how best to navigate that process. We have a great track record with design review, almost all of projects are in town so we are good at getting permits and working with the bureaus, we have a strong working relationship with the city in general.

The PDC has seen a big change in the last four or five years. They used to have housing under their belt and have since split, and now PDC is more strictly economic development and the Housing Bureau is controlling all of the affordable housing. That shift has caused some inefficiencies but I think in the long run, it will be ok. The PDC is in charge of urban renewal areas and these areas are currently required to set aside 30 percent of their available funds for affordable housing; there has been discussion about whether that should continue; I think that since the PDC has changed to not control housing there may be less incentive to keep that going but I think it is essential that the city keep that as a priority.

Would you rather live in a South Waterfront condo, a craftsman bungalow in Laurelhurst, a warehouse loft in the North Mississippi district or a mid-century ranch in the West Hills?

 I live in a warehouse and I work in a warehouse, so I would have to say warehouse. I don’t really enjoy yard work and I don’t like driving; I drive more than I want to.

Kengo Kuma's Japanese Garden expansion (rendering courtesy of the Garden)

Who is a famous architect you’d like to see design a building in Portland?

Kengo Kuma is going to at the Japanese Garden. As long as we let him do something amazing, we are going to get that. We look at Kengo’s work all the time and greatly admire him; it’s an awesome opportunity for the city and I hope it is a success. Each project of Kengo’s has some amazing idea he came up with that you have never seen before. Sometimes they are odd, but most times they’re ethereal and amazing. I think he is one of the best architects working right now.

Which would you rather be responsible for: an ugly LEED platinum building or a beautiful modernist energy hog?

My last two projects were LEED Platinum and my next two projects are aiming for it, and I hope that none of them are ugly; hopefully they are both beautiful and efficient.

Name something besides architecture (sneakers, furniture, umbrellas) you love the design of.

I’ve always been a sucker for chairs; my family originally comes from Zeeland, Michigan where the Herman Miller headquarters is located. When I would go back and visit, there would always be Eames furniture everywhere in Zeeland, this little Dutch town. It’s funny because Eames was seen as very utilitarian there, and not special. I even rescued two plywood Eames chairs from my grandmother’s basement a long time ago. I’m always on the lookout and I keep thinking eventually someone is going to get one right and design the perfect chair.

What are three of your all-time favorite movies?

"Chinatown", "The Princess Bride" and "The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters".

 

Advertisements

 

Parking, density and politics: balancing vibrant urbanity with practicality

Parking lot in Southeast Portland (photo by Brian Libby)

BY BRIAN LIBBY

Today's issue of Willamette Week includes a small blurb in its Murmurs section that got me thinking about the relationship between the urban places we most want to frequent and the parking issues that can ensue. We want to be in places with no parking, it seems, as long as we can find a place to park.

The blurb was about how Southeast Portland neighbors are asking the city to freeze construction along Division Street, "hoping to halt the boom in apartment buildings without on-site parking," it explains. The neighborhood's request comes as the result of a four-story, 81-unit apartment complex at Southeast 37th Avenue and Division Street, which has already received permits to go forward. But with a succession of apartment and condo projects along Division and and other major streets, there seems to be a growing chorus of neighborhoods feeling the growing scarcity of on-street parking, much as residents of Northwest Portland's Alphabet District near 21st and 23rd Avenues have felt for the past few decades.

“Our neighborhood will be a congestion nightmare next summer and never the same after that,” Richmond neighborhood resident and novelist Richard Melo (as quoted in WW) wrote to City Commissioner Dan Saltzman, who oversees the Bureau of Development Services, calling the current course “a national case study for unchecked urban development.”

Coincidentally, just yesterday I received a form email from mayoral candidate Charlie Hales addressing parking and multifamily housing projects.

"A recent wave of new apartment projects has provoked controversy in several neighborhoods," the Hales team writes. "In our desire to support urban living and non-auto transportation, have we gone too far? When we first started trying to fit new mixed-use development into streets like Belmont, Division and Alberta, parking was a challenge, but in a very different way than today. Our struggle then was to get developers and banks to accept less parking than would be typical in suburbia. Now, the world has changed. Banks are today willing to lend on apartment projects with no parking provided. While this has resulted in affordable projects for those without cars, there are other unintended consequences impacting neighborhoods in ways that need to be carefully assessed."

So it would seem that there is growing push-back in Portland's neighborhoods about the growing scarcity of parking spots. If that's the case, it's a break from the city's reputation for progressive pedestrian and transit-oriented developments. In urban policy circles, the talk is not of disgruntlement over decreasing parking, but innovating and prospering because of such deliberate moves. In an August 7 Atlantic Cities post, Norman Garrick and Christopher McCahill of the University of Connecticut explore Zurich's approach to restricting parking while most cities in America and the west have parking minimums.

"Since the late 1980s, Zurich has developed an alternative that's worth studying because it breaks all the rules of conventional transportation planning, and yet has been vitally important to the success of that city," they write. "In contrast, the conventional approach has devastated most American cities, and many in Europe as well...Such a policy specifies the minimum amount of parking that must be provided for each square meter of floor space of new construction. The rationale of a parking minimum is to ensure that enough parking is available to meet projected demand."

In 1989, Zurich "turned this regulation on its head by adding parking maximums to their code. A parking maximum is a device for protecting the city from having too much parking that could degrade the urban character of the city....Under this new system, there is a default parking level for the whole city, which is then reduced depending on whether or not a particular location is well served by transit.

Garrick and McCahill's research at UConn found not only that cities with higher levels of automobile use generally supply more parking, but that these cities "also have a much lower density of what matters in cities, residents and jobs. American cities in our study with small numbers of parking spaces have two to four times more people per square mile. This seems to have a lot to do with the amount of space that is needed for parking. In other words, space used for parking is simply not available for more productive uses."

Granted, the Zurich example is focused more on its central core, whereas the aforementioned parking tension in Portland is taking place in close-in neighborhoods of mostly single-family homes. Yet I can't help but think of a previous Atlantic Cities post, by editor and creative-class guru Richard Florida, citing research by San Francisco real-state firm Trulia to determine which American cities have the highest concentrations of restaurants and bars. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand, it seems. The list of top ten cities for restaurants per capita, which included Portland at #10, was comprised entirely of East Coast and West Coast metropolises such as San Francisco (which took the top spot), New York, Boston and Seattle. The South and Midwest, on the other hand, dominated the list of cities with most bars per capita, including New Orleans (in first place), Toldedo, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo. The bars list also reflected more cities that have lost out in the migrations of jobs, culture and knowledge to the West. When you're amidst rust rather than silicon, it's time for another round.

Richard Florida also cites a study by Arizona State University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte that finds a connection between the creative class and levels of entrepreneurship in cities. In other words, if you are good at growing restaurants, galleries and arts facilities, you're also probably going to be successful, over time, at attracting and growing small businesses. For example, the tech industry today, particularly social media companies and startups, is increasingly locating itself in cities rather than the suburbs. As the New York Times' Norimitsu Onishi recently reported, Twitter and other big tech companies are heading from Silicon Valley to San Francisco. Portland is also seeing a proliferation of startups headquarting here rather than in Hillsboro and Beaverton.

When I think of the parking tension along Division Street that Willamette Week reported, I can sympathize with the frustration of trolling for parking in one's own neighborhood, as I used to do daily when I lived downtown in the late 1990s. I think of the trolling we all do when we go to Northwest 23rd. But 23rd is ultimately getting a parking garage - not an eyesore of multistory concrete, but one thoughtfully tucked away. I think that's a better solution than restricting apartment and condominium projects because they'll add neighborhood congestion or requiring new developments to build their own parking, as we once did. Nobody likes parking, but it's a bit of a Catch-22 situation here: the more you build parking, the less likely it is to be a place where people want to go - and park, and spend money, and contribute to a vibrant local economy. Portland has long since committed itself to density over sprawl, and we can't have it both ways. And I'd rather we be more Zurich than, say, Houston or Toledo.

 

Advertisements

When ranch goes modern: celebrating Rummer homes

A Rummer house in Beaverton (image courtesy Houseplans.co)

BY GARY HIGGINBOTHAM

Not all midcentury ranch houses display great design. Yes, there are advantages to single-story living – you don’t pay as much for heat; it’s better for age-in-place and universal design; and it makes for easy access and maintenance. But for many homeowners, the words “ranch” and “ugly” seem synonymous—unless you’re talking about a Rummer. 

Houses built by the Oregon builder Robert Rummer are known for their understated elegance, luxurious natural light, vaulted ceilings and exceptional craftsmanship. At any given time, half a dozen Rummers, as they are affectionately called, are up for sale in the Portland area – an indication of the impact left by one innovative designer’s life.

Robert Rummer had a secure position in insurance in 1959 when he had just finished building his family’s dream home. Yet when friends passed on pictures of Joe Eichler’s unusual, modernist homes in the San Francisco bay area, Rummer was inspired.

Rummer home exterior/interior (top courtesy Houseplans.co, bottom via Drew Nasto)

Eichler’s designs looked nothing like the average ranch home of the 1950s. An Eichler home used enormous posts and beams to hold up the structure, thereby allowing entire walls of windows. This, along with vaulted ceilings, made for incredible amounts of natural light. Radiant floor heat, minimalist design and low-pitch or flat roofs rounded out the Eichler approach.

Rummer saw an opportunity to bring this futuristic home approach to the Pacific Northwest. From 1959-1975, his company would build more than 750 mid-century modern-style homes in Portland, at the coast and sprinkled throughout the Willamette Valley.

How can you spot a Rummer home? Well, the single-story layout is a dead giveaway. Beyond the Eichler elements listed above, also look for generous use of glass, a central atrium, and vaulted ceilings. In a Rummer kitchen, 30-inch Formica counters sit below “flying-coffin” cabinets, with shelves that pull out when the cabinet door is opened. The living room of a Rummer home usually faces a rear garden and is often adorned with a concrete block or brick fireplace. Step-down Roman tile showers are also common in Rummer homes, as are mahogany slab interior doors.

Rummer home atrium (photo by Jack Buckwalter)

Rummer homes and the larger mid-century modern sensibilities they express are increasingly popular among design aficionados. The versatility of minimalist modern design is one reason for this; a Rummer home can as comfortably withstand a desert landscape as it can the dripping firs of Portland. And its simple, elegant lines complement many different décor styles, allowing the tastes of the homeowner to shine through.

For many property owners, however, the ultimate reason to choose a Rummer home is its inherent long-term value. The structural skeleton of a Rummer design required top-notch labor and materials; only grade-A timber could support such airy layouts. This exceptional construction allows Rummer homes to outlive their ranch counterparts – and makes for better sales figures. According to realtor Jim Demarco as quoted in The Oregonian, a typical Rummer demands $20,000 to $30,000 more than a similarly sized ranch in the same area.

Appreciation for Rummer’s style has lead several local neighborhood associations to explore national historic preservation. Oak Hills, a mid-century neighborhood in Washington County, contains 29 Rummer homes and is in the process of earning National Historic District status with the National Register of Historic Places. Oak Hills residents are pursuing this designation in part to prevent damaging projects, such as the widening of Bethany Boulevard.

To qualify for the National Register, properties must demonstrate integrity to the historic period in question. Individuals work with their state’s office, as established by the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act. In Oregon, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) decides which properties and districts should be submitted to the National Park Service for consideration in the National Register of Historic Places.

Another neighborhood, Bohmann Park in the Garden Home area, is not as far along in the preservation process as Oak Hills but could definitely earn Historic District status. Bohmann Park is the largest development of solely Rummer homes anywhere. However, neighbors in Bohmann Park are still building consensus around seeking historic preservation.

Whether or not Bohmann Park and Oak Hills end up on the National Register of Historic Places, one thing’s certain: Robert Rummer’s influence isn’t going away any time soon. If you’d like to explore local Rummers, keep up with the Historic Preservation League of Oregon, which offers tours of Rummer homes periodically.

Gary Higginbotham is the Marketing Manager for Houseplans.co, the online home of Alan Mascord Design Associates.

 

Advertisement

The Architect's Questionnaire: Sid Scott

Sid Scott (image courtesy Scott|Edwards Architecture)

BY LUKE AREHART

In this installment of our continuing interview series featuring the architects of Portland, we come to Sid Scott of Scott|Edwards Architecture. The firm, led by principals Scott and Kelly Edwards, has been responsible for a variety of projects from private residences to public buildings to offices, with a focus on sustainability. Recently, for example, Scott|Edwards has seen the grand opening of its Sunnyside Library, provided pro-bono designs for an expansion of the Oregon Children's Museum, begun work on the first commercial building in the United States designed to Passive House standards, and seen its Driftwood Library in Lincoln City receive Gold LEED certification. The firm also designed the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville, which continues to expand with an IMAX theater and a water park.

Portland Architecture: When did you first become interested in architecture as a possible career?

Sid Scott: I grew up in a small rural town in central Montana working in my family’s lumberyard and construction business. From an early age I was interested in building materials and how they were used to create space. I was intrigued by the basic off-the-shelf construction materials like plywood, dimensional lumber, raw steel, construction connectors, corrugated panels, etc.  As part of the construction business, we built houses. My favorite part was when the framing was completed. I thought the wood framed houses were beautiful works of art. Then we would cover them with siding and sheetrock and they looked like every other house. I wanted to create buildings that expressed how and what they were built with. That led me to architecture.

Where did you study architecture and how would you rate the experience?

I studied architecture at Montana State University located in Bozeman, Montana.  In addition to architecture, I was a few credits short of a degree in construction engineering technology (CET).  Double majoring provided an excellent educational experience for me. The architectural program nicely balanced intuitive and process design, and the CET program emphasized the technical skills involved in building. The relatively rural location of the school gave me a great appreciation for designing in response to the site and environment.  The skiing and fly-fishing were pretty good as well.

Scott Residence (image courtesy Scott|Edwards)

What is your favorite building project that you’ve worked on?

Every project starts with a lot of hope/enthusiasm/possibility. It is fantastic to see how that translates into creating a project. This was the case in designing my own house. The process was a great challenge and education and ultimately a very satisfying experience.  Every architect should do it once. It was an opportunity to see the project from all sides as my family was the client and I was the architect and contractor. It gave me insight into the opportunities/challenges of each. As the client you dream about what could be, manage expectations, budget, and compromise. As the architect you design a project that is a reflection of the client and the way they live. The contractor maintains a high level of quality on a limited budget.  It was a chance to explore the things that got me interested in architecture in the first place; expression of construction and using off-the-shelf materials to create an interesting place to live. The great part is living with your design and continuing to evolve the idea and learn from it.  A side benefit has been the opportunity to use the house to educate clients in this architectural idea, which has resulted in being able to do more projects in this style.

Who has been an important mentor among your colleagues?

My dad was a great mentor to me as an entrepreneur. I learned how to run a business and take the chances that led me to establishing an architectural practice. You are not taught in school how to make architecture a business, so this mentoring was invaluable.   

Now I look at my clients as important mentors.  I started my practice based on the idea of diversity of project-types, and not wanting to become a “specialist” in any particular area. Half of my work is in the private sector and half is in the public sector. As a result, I do a wide range of work with a diverse client base. I approach every project as a partnership with the client and as a team we share our expertise, skills and talents. I learn something new from every client that gives me new strategies to help the next client. They have been a very important part of my education and growth as an architect.

What part of the job do you like best, and as an architect what do you think you most excel at?

I like making projects happen and I think this is one of my strong suits. Fresh out of school, I remember how easy it was to be critical of projects. But as I started doing my own projects, I realized how hard it was to actually get a project done…any kind of project. It was surprising the number of projects that started and never finished.  I began to admire any completed project.  As an architect, I learned that I could take a bigger role in helping a client get something done. In addition to design, my interest has gone beyond the typical architect role as I routinely help clients find money and sites, develop proformas and deal with political issues.  I’ve realized that even if you have the greatest design, if you can’t help a client make it happen it just sits on the shelf. I enjoy the process of making projects happen.

Memorial Coliseum (photo by Brian Libby)

What are some Portland buildings (either new or historic) that you most admire?

I particularly admire the 1960’s Memorial Coliseum. It is such a simple elegant concept of a glass box with an arena inside. The concept is expressed equally well both inside and out. I really enjoy the striking night views of the building when the curtains at the top of the seating area are open and you can clearly see the saddle-shaped arena inside the glass box. I appreciate clear ideas in architecture. 

If I was going to send someone a postcard of quintessential Oregon architecture, it would be the Salishan Lodge.

What is your favorite building outside of Portland and besides any you’ve worked on?

My favorite building outside of Portland that I’ve visited is Le Corbusier’s Chapel at Ronchamp (Notre Dame du Haut) in France. My wife and I backpacked around Europe for a summer, and I had a checklist of architecture to visit. The Chapel absolutely blew me away. We got off at a tiny rural train stop and started ascending the hill.  The narrow winding road and the Chapel siting on the hillside created glimpses through the trees and a wonderful sequence of arrival. As we got closer, we could hear a growing beautiful sound coming from the Chapel.  The massive walls and roof form create a heroic scale for a relatively small building. Every view of the building is unique (both inside and out). When we arrived at the chapel, we found a choir practicing inside the tiny space. The acoustics were fantastic as was the interior lighting. It’s not something that I would personally design, but after experiencing the building, it was a perfect solution for its site and use. I’ve always admired it and have by far the most pictures and sketches of it compared to other buildings we visited in Europe.

Notre Dame du Haut/Ronchamp

Is there a local architect or firm you think is unheralded or deserves more credit?

There are many really good small firms in Portland that don’t get the chance to do bigger, more visible projects. I went through this struggle in the early years of my firm as we interviewed for larger projects that we were qualified to do. I knew the kinds of innovative ideas and design we could bring to the table.  In the end they went with the safe choice: the bigger firm that had done twenty-two of the same type of project. It’s hard to get the chance to do projects as a small firm. I believe that a good design firm can creatively solve any kind of project type - no matter the size. I would like to see that opportunity extended to good smaller design firms.

What would you like to see change about Portland’s built environment in the long term?

I would like to see the stretch of I-5 that runs through downtown moved east. That would be one of the single most effective things Portland could do to connect the east and west sides and create a vibrant waterfront. Imagine the opportunity to start with a clean slate on the east side of the river!  

How would you rate the performance of local government like the Portland Development Commission, or the development and planning bureaus?

Decent. I have done enough work in other cities throughout the West and around the country to get a sense of how difficult it is to find the balance between preserving good planning and letting somebody build projects. There is a fine line between those two and I think there are points when our local jurisdiction’s formula gets in the way of high quality design projects. Formula processes that dictate what can be built can make bad projects better, but can also make great projects just good. It tends to bring everything to the middle. 

Scott Residence (image courtesy Scott|Edwards Architecture)

Would you rather live in a South Waterfront condo, a craftsman bungalow in Laurelhurst, a warehouse loft in the North Mississippi district or a mid-century ranch in the West Hills?

I would take the warehouse loft.  I like open and relatively raw space that can be used in many different ways. Both my house and office have a loft feel.   

Who is a famous architect you’d like to see design a building in Portland?

I would love to see the Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava design a bridge for Portland. We are Bridgetown, and a Calatrava project combining art, design, engineering, and natural influences would become a beautiful centerpiece to our city. If Redding, California can have one, why not Portland? 

Which would you rather be responsible for: an ugly LEED platinum building or a beautiful modernist energy hog?

Beauty is subjective, and everyone will have a different opinion about the look of a building. I would want a project that is environmentally sustainable and that I consider beautiful (definitely modern). I think that we are headed down a good track with the awareness around sustainability. It is interesting that in the 70’s, as a result of the oil crisis, we went through a phase of passive design in an effort to save energy. When the crisis passed, it seemed that the industry went back to the way things were. Now it has come back in a big way with LEED, Passivhaus, the Living Building Challenge, etc. These are just more ways of promoting things that we should have been doing all along.

Name something besides architecture (sneakers, furniture, umbrellas) you love the design of.

The Porsche 911. It's an iconic design that has stood the test of time. As other car styles changed with the fads, Porsche stuck with the original concept and continued to improve upon it. The design is both aesthetic and functional.  Each part, inside and out are designed to support the simple idea of speed. 

What are three of your all-time favorite movies?

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is my favorite with a compelling story, great acting, Oregon connections and is my favorite book as well. I also really like Fargo, the best of the best Coen brothers, and Memento, a fantastic twister with two trails leading forward and backward and ending up at the same point.

 

Advertisements