Portland Architecture

NY Times looks at DaVinci daylighting scheme and its "halo" / "donut"

The online version of today's New York Times includes on its 'Green Inc.' blog a post by Libby Tucker about a prototype classroom at DaVinci Arts Middle School that may indicate a future design path as Portland and the nation renovate and retrofit schools sustainably over the coming decades.

The prototype green classroom addition, which is under construction at Da Vinci, utilizes natural daylighting, passive heating and cooling systems, solar roof tiles and other features that achieve energy efficiency 70 percent over Oregon building code requirements. The 1,500-square foot music classroom, designed by SRG Partnership with the University of Oregon’s Energy Studies in Buildings Lab, is set to earn a LEED-platinum rating and net-zero energy use.

The space can be amply lit with daylight year-round and even in the grayest overcast conditions thanks to what's called “the halo,” a kind of high-tech chandelier conceived by G.Z. "Charlie" Brown that distributes natural light even throughout the space from a large central skylight. It's so effective that there’s no need to flip on a switch at all during the school day.

I previously blogged about the halo - or as Brown originally called it, "the donut" - in January of 2006 when it was part of a mock classroom prototype at Mt. Angel Abbey. (SRG's Kent Duffy spearheaded its use in a project there.) And I've long written about Brown's efforts, including a 2003 New York Times feature called "Beyond the Bulbs: In Praise of Natural Light".

I was very glad to see Libby Tucker's post, because if more people had a chance to experience the halo/donut, I'm sure this thing would become standard in practically every single-story architectural space where people spend any amount of time. Windows on the walls are great, especially in providing a view. But in lots of spaces, the light they distribute is uneven, bringing bright light near the window and making interior spaces away from the window seem all the more dark. Skylights are great, but they are essentially still just directing light straight down. Brown's halo/donut does for natural light what a ceiling fan does for air.

Meanwhile, all this talk of donuts has me hungry for a Hostess old fashioned glazed. No wonder they changed the name to halo.

Willamette bridge: examining the options, and estimating the estimates (UPDATED)

The Willamette River Bridge Advisory Committee meets Thursday to look at the three bridge finalists: a cable-stay, a refined cable-stay, and the Miguel Rosales hybrid concept. Actually, you could call it four finalists: the cable-stay has a 2-pier option and a 4-pier option.

Let's break things down from there.

First, height: the two traditional cable-stay options (pictured below) would produce bridges of either 277 feet or 254 feet (for the 4 pier or the 2-pier option). The refined cable-stay option and the hybrid (pictured above) would each, on the other hand, be 180 feet tall. And we want this bridge to be not so tall.

To be fair to TriMet, which seems interested in using a version of the traditional cable-stay bridge for its greater track record and familiarity, has found an option in the refined cable-stay that achieves the same lower height as the hybrid that gained favor with the public, city leaders and design community.

In terms of aesthetics beside height, the refined cable-stay would also have a different, arguably more contemporary look from the other two cable-stay options, with open-ended V-shaped columns. However, the V shape is common in bridge design today, evidenced by projects around the world with that look. The V look might be attractive to many, but it's not unique.

The refined cable stayed bridge is mainly a bad copy of the hybrid bridge with the added problem of the inclined towers, which are very inefficient and counterintuitive.  Why would you incline the tower toward the walkways and encroach into the space of pedestrians and bicyclists which is already at a premium?

Some readers have taken issue with my frequent use of the phrase "cookie-cutter" to describe the cable-stay options. After all, if a cable-stay type can be built for this Willamette crossing without any more unwanted height than the Rosales hybrid, why be so against it? And indeed it's true: you can make an excellent bridge out of a common type.

But the hybrid is actually different in that it was designed specifically for this site, for this crossing. It takes the forms of the other bridges into account, such as the geometry of the adjacent Ross Island and Marquam. It's rare in this era to get a bridge uniquely tailored for the site, but the hybrid is it.

One can't easily discern the differences between the hybrid and the cable stay in small JPEG photos like those posted here. It's a matter of nuance. But ask most people in the design community and they'll tell you the hybrid is a better fit. The Portland Design Commission wrote a letter of support for Rosales' hybrid concept.

Now, let's look at cost. TriMet will soon announce the following estimates for the three main bridge types:

cable-stay (4-pier): $82.66 million

refined cable-stay: $89.23 million

hybrid: $112.78 million

The transit agency's numbers for the first two, the cable-stay and refined cable-stay, are probably sound. As noted by TriMet in previous releases, they used the National Constructors Group (NCG) for an independent cost estimate to build the wave frame and cable-stayed bridge type. The NCG  has been used by government agencies throughout the U.S. to do independent analysis on the cost to build major infrastructure, including bridges. What's more, they are familiar with cable-stay bridges. But perhaps I shouldn't say "they," becuase the NCG estimates are really only done by one self-employed guy in San Francisco, who is also reportedly a good friend of the Willamette bridge's main engineer from HNTB, a retired engineer who works out of his house and doesn't even have a website.

Conflict of interest? I'm just asking.

The hybrid funding estimate is also (or maybe I should say "therefore") very debatable. According to a source I spoke with on the condition of anonymity, TriMet is estimating 25 percent greater cost for the hybrid when in reality it's probably something more like 10 percent. And as previously mentioned, Miguel Rosales and his team told Portland Spaces they have not been contacted for any detailed info on the hybrid.

When the Rosales and Partners/Schlaich Bergermann und Partner team estimated the costs of their own hybrid proposal, they came up with $93 million. That's a BIG difference from the $112 or even $119 million estimates given by people outside the design group, all of whom have not contacted Rosales or Schlaich Bergermann for cost info.

Let's put it this way: In this stage of the design process, no matter who is doing the cost estimating, you can create a cost estimate for this bridge that is somewhere between 80 percent and 120 percent of what the actual cost will be. It's all just guesswork, but within that lies the opportunity to fudge the "estimate" in whichever direction fits the choice you already want to make.

To give this process real integrity, the city should hire a completely independent cost estimator.

What's more, the source points out that the refined cable-stay's V-shaped form could easily wind up taller than the estimated 180 feet. The incline of the spires reduces the stiffness of the cables and therefore their ability to provide structural support. That means more  steel cable is required to achieve the same stiffness as there would be with vertical towers.

I'd be happy to offer TriMet a chance to refute this. But instead of refuting the info I'm passing on, they might want to start by checking their numbers on the hybrid with the hybrid's designers.

Ultimately, though, I worry it's just not in the cards for Portland to get a uniquely tailored bridge as long as TriMet is in charge of the process. These are not bad people. TriMet does a lot of good things in Portland. More than practically any of our buildings, the city's design emblem is its mass transit system, particularly MAX and the streetcar. But TriMet is a transit agency. They are not seekers of great bridges for the city often called "Bridgetown". Their task is to build a bridge for MAX across the Willamette with as little risk and surprise as possible.

Perhaps t do something great, we need leadership at the City level and from a constituency of citizens demanding that design excellence be a priority.

More thoughts and info on the Willamette bridge process

Understanding the process for the Willamette River bridge has been difficult.

In the last few days since TriMet announced its selection of Donald MacDonald as the bridge's designer (his cable-stay Ravenel Bridge in South Carolina is pictured above), it has seemed that Miguel Rosales's popular "Hybrid" concept was being unfairly and unfortunately discarded. That may still hold to be true, but it's not necessarily a done deal yet.

As it happens, bridges are a little different from buildings in terms of how they separate the selection of a bridge type and then the architect/designer who designs them. So if Donald MacDonald were to design a bridge based on Rosales's hybrid concept, it wouldn't necessarily be abnormal for this sort of structure.

In the industry, I'm told, designers who are charged with creating a bridge's concept aren’t necessarily always the ones who design them. In fact, this happens somewhat frequently. Having Miguel Rosales design the hybrid would still be best, but MacDonald's firm is certainly capable of making it happen and creating a quality bridge.

The Willamette River Bridge Advisory Committee will be holding a meeting this Thursday, May 28, and this is actually the first time the committee has met since February. The committee, headed by former mayor Vera Katz, previously recommended a cable-stay bridge, but that was only when the choice was between a cable-stay and the wave-form design.

Rosales's hybrid was a late addition to the process, so much so that it doesn't seem completely clear if TriMet has given it strong consideration. Insiders at the agency seem to have wanted a more traditional cable-stay bridge all along, and now they have an official recommendation for that type from the WRBAC signed by Katz. When the WRBAC meets on Thursday, I'm not sure if it will be considered.

Meanwhile, here is a statement from TriMet:

As we did in the first phase when we were evaluating various bridge types, TriMet utilized management best practices and relied upon the National Constructors Group (NCG) for an independent cost estimate to build the wave frame and cable-stayed bridge type. NCG is an industry leader and a firm of retired bridge engineers and contractors who have been hired by government agencies throughout the U.S. to do independent analysis on the cost to build major infrastructure, including bridges.

When we began detailed estimates back in December on the wave frame and the cable-stayed, they provided the cost estimate for how much it would cost from a contractor's perspective. Based on NCG's estimates, WRBAC selected the cable-stayed design type because the wave frame was more expensive and with a lot of unknowns and risks associated with it. NCG is an objective third party that has no investment in the design.

The process starts with the engineering team developing a computer model of the bridge and then applying load scenarios (how it will be used) to the model to determine how big structural members need to be. After the structural member sizes are known, the engineering team develops a list of quantities for each material such as concrete, cables, etc. This information is then given to the NCG who uses it to develop a full workup of labor, equipment, material costs and production rates to generate an independent cost estimate. 

NCG did not ask the architect for cost estimates as they have experience providing full cost estimates from the ground up for both cable stayed and suspension bridges since they have built these bridge types around the US. This methodology provides a more accurate estimate compared to engineers and architects who typically develop estimates by square footage.

Admittedly, I was wrong about some of this. There's a learning curve when it comes to understanding bridge selection process versus buildings.

In my previous post, I wrote, "If Rosales is correct that Trimet never contacted his team, that to me means that Trimet has misled the citizens of Portland by pretending to conduct a reasonable and open minded, public-influenced process that really never was." Not to split hairs, but I was never accusing TriMet - just raising a concern. It now seems there was no deliberate misleading, which I'm glad to see. And I apologize to TriMet if this seemed like an attack.

That said, it still would have been much better for Rosales to be selected, and choosing MacDonald as designer may be a precursor for TriMet choosing the standard cable-stay design. If so, that would bring us to the same terribly, wrong decision on TriMet's part - just done through a proper process.

Both MacDonald and Rosales have experience with significant bridge designs, but from what I've seen of the MacDonald resume, there is only one completely new bridge, the previously mentioned Arthur Ravenel Bridge in South Carolina. It's a handsome enough cable-stay bridge with a triangular pattern, although similar to other cable-stay bridge patterns you'd find being built recently in China, Jordan, New York, Egypt and Dubai, and similar to what would be built in Portland. I and others worry, however, that this more common off-the-shelf type wound't  relate in any way to the city's other bridges, and it would likely be taller and fatter than the hybrid.

Look, I'm sure TriMet is trying to do the right thing, and these are people who live here too. But the agency still may be too willfully cheapskate and overly conservative in picking a design that Portland will live with for a century or more, and right in the center of the city.

In the weeks ahead, there may be a case made that the hybrid is more expensive. And to an extent, that may be true. But Portland needs the best designed bridge possible.

Rising at Daybreak

Daybreak is a new, 30-unit cohousing community set to opens this fall near Portland's Overlook neighborhood. Residents will live in compact flats and townhouses and share the use of many community amenities like a kids' playroom and a commercial kitchen and dining room for group meals. The buildings will be two, three and four stories, all connected with exterior walkways.

The Daybreak development is actively seeking members and will hold a public tour at the Daybreak site, at 2525 North Killingsworth Street, on Saturday, June 6 from 1–4PM. Other socials and tours will be held throughout the summer including on-site tours on July 5 and August 2.

The project was designed through a collaborative process involving those residents who pursued the initial development, accomplished with the help of Seattle firm schemata Workshop as well as Portland landscape architects Lando & Associates. (I promise I won't make any Lando Calrissian jokes this time.)

A team of residents, the Daybreak website explains, “makes the design decisions or determines how to bring design decisions to the rest of the community. Our primary development goal is to execute our community vision and represent our values where appropriate in our physical space. We are striving to create a physical environment that enhances our experience of community. We wish to live in a place that values multi-generational living, namely, being kid and aging-in-place friendly. We wish to incorporate sustainable materials and systems to the extent our budget allows. We are working to integrate with and welcome our neighbors to our community through our design."

A guiding principle, say those envisioning Daybreak, is “quality over image. We are designing for high quality infrastructure and systems with insulation, moisture protection, radiant floors, and other features. The individual units are designed to be highly standardized and simple to reduce cost and provide for easy customization later.”

Rigged to fail? Rosales says TriMet never contacted his team for cost info, even though cost was supposedly the reason his design lost

In an update to their original post, Portland Spaces' Tim DuRoche and Randy Gragg have a new interview with bridge designer Miguel Rosales that offers a strong case that the fix was in from the start in TriMet's bridge selection process.

Next Thursday, they report, TriMet will unveil its budget estimates on the hybrid design by Rosales and his engineering-team partner. According to the post, "Rumors are floating that the price tag will kill the design and clear the way for Trimet to build what agency insiders wanted all along: an off-the-shelf cable-stay."

The agency has already chosen San Francisco architect Donald MacDonald for the cookie-cutter bridge. To his credit, MacDonald has decades of bridge-design experience and is a respectable designer. But TriMet's apparent financial reason for going with MacDonald (independent of his firm's qualities - no offense to them) may suggest a mentality akin to choosing McDonald's. Maybe we could just build the bridge with golden arches.

Most importantly, Rosales confirmed to Spaces that Trimet and the bridge cost estimator never contacted him or his engineer with any questions about the design at all. “In my experience, that’s never happened,” he said. “I don’t know how you estimate the cost of the design without talking to the architect or engineer.”

As Sarah Mirk reported in the Portland Mercury, TriMet spokeswoman Mary Fetsch says Rosales was selected to do the bridge study and help determine a bridge type. "That work is complete and we're now moving into a more advanced and detailed design phase with a different architect." Fetsch promised Mirk the bridge will not be a "cookie cutter" design. Only two bridge designs are currently on the table, the hybrid one above and the existing cable-stay template.

So if this info is correct, the hybrid could still be on the table, but not with Rosales designing it. Wait, what? This doesn't make sense to me either. Either Rosales designs his design or McDonald designs his, right? How can the Rosales hybrid still be on the table if he's not?

If the hybrid is indeed not going to happen, it seems TriMet killed the concept out of fear it will cost too much. Instead of conducting further research looking to confirm or deny that suspicion, they simply have gone ahead with dismissing the hybrid as too expensive.

If Rosales is correct that Trimet never contacted his team, that to me means that Trimet has misled the citizens of Portland by pretending to conduct a reasonable and open minded, public-influenced process that really never was.

For argument's sake, let us imagine that Trimet is correct and the hybrid is more expensive. We're talking about a bridge that could be here for another 100 years. It's worth a little extra cost to do the right thing.

You can download a copy of Trimet's official memo about the decision here. Also, you can go here, to TriMet's comment page on the agency's website. If you feel as disappointed and frustrated as I do about the agency's Bill Buckner-like folly, please consider writing them to say so.

Beyond the issue of the bridge itself, Portland needs to take a look in the mirror as it relates to public process. Too often in this city, big public projects have advisory committees or other public involvement only to see a decision that goes against these people's recommendations. It's not a real public process unless the will of the public carries weight.

Rosales is leaving, and we're stuck with a cookie cutter bridge. Did Trimet just make the flub of the century?

Tim DuRoche is reporting on the Portland Spaces Burnside Blog that Trimet has decided against pursuing the Hybrid bridge design (pictured above) for the new Willamette River MAX and pedestrian proposed by acclaimed Boston architect Miguel Rosales.

Instead, it seems, the agency is pursuing the cheaper, off-the-shelf option that the entire Portland design community and public at large have unequivocally said will not be the right fit. 

What's more, Rosales will not be involved in the design of this cookie-cutter bridge. Duroche quotes Trimet saying Rosales' joint proposal with German firm Schlaich Bergermann and Partner “was not the highest ranked proposal. . .[and thanked him] for the time and effort.”

I have not yet confirmed any of this or talked with both sides. So this is just a preliminary post about this. More to come later. But if this news is true, Trimet should anticipate an avalanche of anger, disappointment, and a coming battle.

Portland should not stand for its transit agency willfully pushing out the superior design to save money or for any other reason. The Hybrid bridge was a slam dunk for Portland. 

Admittedly, I also got excited about the wave form prototype that was also proposed by Rosales, and concerned when the wave seemed to be misrepresented by added costs that weren't true. Even so, it was clear the city wasn't going to choose the wave, and the hybrid was an excellent, refined solution by a talented architect and design group. 

Choosing a lesser bridge and showing a talented designer like Rosales the door is not okay. And this is not the end of this story.

We have enough ludicrous plans to fight in this city with Memorial Coliseum being threatened with demolition. Do we really have to take Trimet to school and fight them for months too, just to do what is right and reasonable, and a fair legacy for our grandchildren?

DuRoche also reported a rumor that architect Thomas Hacker has quit the Vera Katz-led Willamette Bridge Advisory Committee. (Note: a later confirmation call with Hacker found this to not be the case. He's staying on the committee to try and see through a better outcome now than is planned.) And Katz ought to think about doing the same. I had tremendous admiration for our ex-mayor when she left office, but between allegedly being on Merritt Paulson's payroll as a consultant for the Rose Quarter and now letting Trimet take the cheapskate route with the bridge, I'm pretty disappointed.

109 and young again: visiting the restored Claire Apartments

Looking at this decade's apparently now-completed economic boom times, it's easy to focus on big buildings by big developers: the tall condo towers, the industrial neighborhoods transformed into dense urban enclaves, or the companies like Gerding Edlen, Williams + Dame and Hoyt Street that made them happen.

But another trend during these boom years has been people from outside traditional design and construction or development and real estate communities trying their hand at building, or people who had heretofore only dabbed their toes in development by flipping single-family houses escalating their efforts to create larger multifamily condo or apartment projects.

Frederic Dupeyroux falls in the latter category. Originally he emigrated from France to Oregon to be a program manager at Intel. But over the years he began remodeling houses on the side. Then came a significantly bigger opportunity: the chance to renovate a circa-1900 apartment building in Southeast Portland.

"I’m a big fan of modern architecture myself," Dupeyroux told me. "But I also believe that when rehabilitating a structure, one must allow the building to speak for itself, so to speak. This building was built in 1900 and had suffered a rather ghastly 'modernization' at some point that involved encasing the whole thing in stucco. We felt that restoring the original design and balcony structure and exposing the original siding and trim was most fair to the building and the surrounding neighborhood."

The building, at 13th and Taylor between Hawthorne Boulevard and Belmont Street, was restored from plans by Communitecture, the Portland firm headed by longtime architect and community activist Mark Lakeman that specilizes in sustainable, community-oriented design.

 

What is community-oriented design? According to the firm's website, Communitectur's work "often includes public processes to involve communities in design and decision-making for public place-making projects and individual buildings. This process can often involve public presentations and educational workshops."

 

Lakeman's firm has been instrumental in bringing the annual Village Building Convergence here each year, and has also put its design stamp on the city with projects like Rejuvenation The Rebuilding Center on Mississippi Avenue (pictured below), which is in its own way a kid of present-day architectural icon that epitomizes the dusty do-it-yourself spirit of place. The firm is also responsible for the traveling 'tea horse' that hosts neighborhood gatherings all over the city. Communitecture is also about to unveil its first net-zero-energy home.

In the past, although I have always had a healthy respect or Communitecture, I have occasionally referred to Mark Lakeman, Patrick Donaldson and their colleagues there in a flippant way as 'hippies'. This is not at all fair to these talented architects and planners doing good work. So I'm sorry for that. It's not 1967, and these people are not unshowered, tie-die-wearing flakes merely building communes and naming their kids after solar systems. Perhaps Mark Lakeman was right when he said recently by email that the term hippy "...reminds me of the Roman use of 'pagani' to marginalize all things not of the empire." If these guys are barbarians or Gauls, I'll take them over the Romans anytime.

One finds in the Claire building, which holds 20 single bedroom, studio, and two-bedroom apartments, the kinds of materials here that would never be found in a new building, such as the Ionic columns in the foyer made with hundreds-of-years-old Douglas fir. Inside, the building's historical accuracy has been thoughtfully maintained. I especially like the claw-foot bathtubs and FSC-certified red oak floors.

Although the Claire Apartments did not seek LEED certification (because of the estimated $5,000-7,000 extra cost), it is an admirably green project. The money saved from not seeking LEED went to things like added insulation, zero-VOC (volatile organic compound) paint, ultra-efficient windows, dual-flush toilets, and forced-air heat. Water usage is metered to each unit, which studies show can cut consumption by almost half.

Congratulations to Monsieur Dupeyroux and Communitecture on an excellent project. And hopefully the new economic reality will not dissuade the more enlightened non-developers out there from trying their hand at architecture.

 

Latest Designs on Portland discussion: Memorial Coliseum - past, present and future

Have you followed the controversy over Memorial Coliseum in the last few weeks and wondered, "What's the hubbub?"

Memorial Coliseum is unique to Portland architecture in more ways than one. It's one of the most prestigious and acclaimed designs ever created here, yet most people - even those who have visited the arena numerous times - haven't been able to see the building's best features. It's the older, smaller, less-well-kept stepsister of the bigger, newer Rose Garden next door. And why would we need two arenas? But here's the thing: the Coliseum is your grandma's diamond necklace and the Rose Garden is the big hunk of cubic zirconium. If you uncover this arena from the curtain almost permanently shrouding it, Memorial Coliseum becomes an interior space that can feel like the outdoors.

To share and celebrate the Coliseum and its greatness (however covered in dust), we've made it the topic of this week's Designs on Portland talk.

Every two months Designs on Portland, which I host at Design Within Reach in the Pearl District's landmark Wieden + Kennedy headquarters (1200 NW Everett), brings a new guest to discuss the city we share and how the best designs bring it alive. In the past we've talked with architects like Thomas Hacker, Jeff Kovel, Carrie Schilling and Bill Neburka. We've talked with urban designers like Arun Jain, magazine editors like Randy Gragg, even the occasional roboticist like Daniel Wilson.

The latest talk, scheduled for this Thursday (May 21) at 6:15PM, will look at Memorial Coliseum, the aging arena that quickly went from neglected to hotly debated this year when the city announced a plan to demolish the building in favor of a minor-league baseball stadium.

Memorial Coliseum's future has been looked at in political, financial and programmatic contexts since its future was put in doubt by the baseball proposal. A mayor under heavy scandal-induced fire saw the Rose Quarter plan as a way to jump-start an under-performing area of town. The building has been compared and contrasted with its newer, larger neighbor next door, the Rose Garden arena, and subjected to discussions about how having two arenas could be economically viable. Will an entertainment district be the solution, or something else?

But this discussion will seek to look at the design itself: what makes Memorial Coliseum unique among the world's arenas and concert halls, why its design represents the very best of Portland and post-World War II modern architecture, how it and other modernism represents the unofficial birth of sustainability, and what the building needs to be restored to its former glory.

Skeptics have said things like, "Memorial Coliseum isn't the Taj Mahal." It's not designed by Mies Van Der Rohe, Le Corbusier, or other of 20th century modernism's superstars, they say. But Skidmore, Owings & Merrill is as prestigious and historic a 20th Century American Architecture firm as they come. And regardless of the name attached to the design, Memorial Coliseum's formal purity -- the teacup inside the glass box -- gives it enduring value: the kind of architecture that transcends function with poetic form, even as it functions beautifully. After all, the building's transparency also makes it easy to navigate.

As always, I will be moderating the discussion, and joining me will be some of the designers and preservationists who have worked to save the Coliseum, such as Stuart Emmons of Emmons Architects, Rick Potestio, and Randy Higgins of Vizwerks. We also hope to have a special guest or two from the original Memorial Coliseum design team drop by.

We also would love to hear at the talk from those of you with Coliseum memories of your own. My mom saw The Beatles in the arena in 1965. My beloved Trail Blazers became world champions there in 1977. I saw Clyde Drexler dunk on most of the NBA's best players numerous times there throughout the 1980s. I also saw several cheesy concerts there like Rush, Van Halen, (gulp) Bryan Adams, Billy Joel, and Sting. (Hey, I grew up in a small town. I have better taste now!) But more importantly, what are your Coliseum memories? Were you there for the Dalai Lama or Barack Obama? (Hey, that rhymes!) Led Zeppelin or Luciano Pavarotti? Come be part of remembering the past, living for the present, and securing the future of this Rose City and modernist landmark.

Thanks also to Design Within Reach (a Portland Architecture sponsor) and studio proprietor Kathleen Nash, as well as the DWR staff, for their help making this talk and the broader Designs on Portland series a reality.

The event is free and refreshments will be served. Design Within Reach is located at 1200 NW Everett. Doors open at 6PM and the talk will begin shortly after 6:15PM.

Sustainability Center design team studies options, seeks feedback

Kyle Andersen of GBD Architects wrote recently with an intriguing invitation.

His team at GBD, along with colleagues from SERA Architects, Gerding Edlen Development, Green Building Services and others, have been working on a design for the Sustainability Center for Excellence for the past several weeks after winning the commission from the City of Portland. Anderson is lead designer for the project along with SERA's Kurt Schultz. The building seeks to follow the strictures of the Living Building Challenge.

Normally architects and designers can be reticent about showing a design while it's still in progress, but Anderson and company are instead seeking public input.

"It has been a very dynamic process beyond any previous work we have done to date," he said via email. (And that's a bold statement given that GBD has been responsible for numerous LEED Platinum-rated buildings.) "So many variables play into solving the Living Building Challenge puzzle.  Collecting all of your water needs, and treating all of your waste on site seem rather rudimentary now given the struggle we have had trying to solve the net zero on site energy component.  This in the end has been one of the largest challenges to give 'form' to the concept thus far."

"We believe in the end that we will be able to demonstrate to others a path to get there.  The exciting news for all of us involved in this project, is that it is looking more and more like it is a feasible concept.  A large urban building that meets all the needs on site under the Living Building Challenge.  With a precedent such as this, it is exciting to think of all the possibilities this opens to how we build and live within the built environment we create."

The process got going in April with a charette at GBD's offices designed to generate ideas. From that came five key concepts, with the accompanying text taken from the Sustainability Center blog:

(1) Appropriately scale systems for optimal performance.

"As we consider systems that may be incorporated into the OSC, we need to determine the scale or size of the system that will provide the most cost- and resource-efficient delivery of services. Some systems make sense when applied at a building scale, while other systems may make more sense at a district scale, providing services to many buildings." 

(2) Make less do more

"One way to significantly reduce the environmental impact of the OSC will be to reduce the total amount of materials used in the project, thereby reducing the resource investment in the manufacture, transport, installation and maintenance of those materials.  For this to be successful, those materials that are incorporated into the building must provide as many functions as possible."

(3) Design for resource equity.

"As we evaluate resource budgets for the building, and in order to meet the Living Building Challenge, we must not only consider our own needs for resource use, but also ensure that we consider the needs of other species.  For instance, the Living Building Challenge requires that the building use only the water that falls on the site.  This can be used to provide the water budget for the building, to meet the needs of the occupants and equipment.  However, when we consider “water equity”, this begs the question: Is it fair to other species if we use all of the water that falls on the site, and what if every building did this?"

(4) Integrate natural systems to benefit all species.

"Inclusion of natural systems is essential to the success of the OSC. Ongoing work clearly shows the value of incorporating biophilic design approaches into the workplace environment.  Literal, facsimile or representative systems from nature provide psychological as well as performance enhancements for humans.  At the same time, natural treatment systems for stormwater, wastewater and air quality provide an ecosystem service without significant chemical inputs and energy use.  Through thoughtful design, these systems can also provide habitat for other species and further enhance the local ecosystem."

(5) Recognize that people are the life in a living building.

"The Living Building Challenge represents a dramatic paradigm shift in the way that buildings are designed, built and occupied.  A vacant building can exist without any resource inputs, but once occupied, a building requires resources to support the health and wellbeing of the occupants.  The existing building stock does not provide occupants with information on building performance so that they can make informed decisions about resource use.  A Living Building provides occupants with a feedback loop on individual resource use and overall building performance as well as providing appropriate choices to support occupant comfort and well-being.  This approach necessitates the active participation of the people in the building to ensure that resource budgets are met for energy and water use in order to meet the net-zero energy and water prerequisites.  With this new approach, occupants become part of the essential functions of the building."

Last week, the design teams presented their work to the OSC working group, including Alice Wiewel, director of capital planning for the Oregon University System; Christine Theodoropolous, head of the University of Oregon School of Architecture; and Sergio Palleroni, fellow and professor at Portland State University’s Center for Sustainable Practices and Processes. Much like a standard academic design review, the session was informal, emphasizing candid feedback and dialog.

According to the OSC blog, "The earliest models were a study in 'bracketing the extremes' of biophilic form, designing from the most pure (a raindrop) to the most abstract (the “torque”). With the exception of the Courtyard scheme (described below), all early designs were for a 250 foot tall building. This included three schemes shown here: the "raindrop", "nautilus" and "kidney bean" schemes, seen here.

The raindrop, Nautilus, and Kidney Bean schemes each included an atrium that punched light all the way through the building, tying, in the design team’s view, the entire building together. Later analysis revealed that a top-to-bottom opening would not effectively achieve the daylighting the team was after, and also posed structural (mechanical pressure/comfort) and safety concerns.

Then there is the Torque scheme. It pushed the building-as-metaphor idea one step further, mimicking in its upper levels the behavior of a sunflower as it unfurls and tracks the sun across the sky. For the building, such a twist, or torque, gradually changes the building orientation from the urban form of the block toward a solar-friendly orientation.

Then design team also looked at a courtyard configuration with a shorter, squattier building, but ultimately feedback led them to look at a hybrid of the kidney and nautilus concepts. "At play in these designs," the OSC blog says, "is the push and pull between the building’s program, which at last check called for 250,000 to 260,000 square feet, and the total surface area necessary on the site to house all of the photovoltaic panels required for the building’s energy production. The grid-like panels in these models represent those PV panels." 

Last week, the core project team agreed to pursue a design that achieved net zero energy, first, and fit the program, second. This decision, combined with revisions to the Nautilus-Torque hybrid, led to the latest 220,000 square foot design. The picture at the top of this posts represents their very latest model.

“Whatever design we end up with in the feasibility study is purely a vehicle to demonstrate the feasibility of the project, it is not necessarily the final design,” Kyle Andersen said. “It is one of many potential designs. But the bigger picture is that it demonstrates that a Living Building of this scale can be done. It could look like this, it could be square, it could be rectangle, it could be tall and skinny…But we’ve also found that there are parameters, how much PV do you have, so how long is the building facing south, and so on…it’s a balancing act. But [this is] definitely not the final design.”

Architects, friends "All In" to fight cancer

A group of local architects and their friends - including Matt Loosemore of SUM Design Studio, Matt Janssen of Ankrom Moisan, Chris Maycut of V3 Studio and Jason Jones of Mahlum Architects - are holding an event this Saturday to raise money in the fight against cancer.

"All In 4 Cancer" is a one-day event, planned to be held annually, to generate funds for one patient's ongoing battle. The recipient this year will be Kris Shewczyk, a husband and father that has battled a malignant brain tumor since 2005. Previous years' All In 4 Cancer event proceeds have gone to Marc Maycut (Chris's brother), who is now cancer free after battling stage 5 colon cancer for five years.

The event, set for this Saturday starting at noon, will be held at the Olympic Mills Commerce Center (107 SE Washington Street). Acting as masters of ceremonies will be Isaac & Suke, who host sports radio station 1080's afternoon drive-time show. Later in the evening will be a succession of DJs and music. There will be a poker tournament and a silent auction as well as three prize giveways: trips to Hawaii, the Oregon coast, and a camping/fishing excursion in the Deschutes River.

Thanks to these architects and other good people involved in a very admirable community event. Personally, I've lost two relatives to cancer in the last few years, not to mention a friend or two, and I'm sure most people reading this can recall something similar. So let's all plan to make a contribution, even if your plans tomorrow take you somewhere else.

Re-imagined ranch: Architecture W's Stump House

The April issue of Dwell magazine has an article about the Stump House in Portland's Alberta Street area, designed by local firm Architecture W.

I wrote the article (photos here, and in the article, are by John Clark), and it's actually the second time I've covered the firm's work for the magazine. The other project (a small apartment building) was in Japan, so this house is among the first projects in Portland to bring Architecture W some attention. It's a small firm, with one partner - Brian White - working in Portland while a small office headed by his partner - Michel Weenick - is headquartered in Nagoya, Japan. But these guys are talented.

The Stump House, renovated and expanded from a run-down 1940s ranch home, was developed by a progressive local builder, Darryl Erlandson, who sought to make it as green as possible. Insulation is made from recycled blue jeans. The house utilizes a thermal solar heating system that provides hot water and warms the radiant floor, using a set of roof-mounted tubes rather than the more common flat panels. “Compared to photovoltaic panels, solar thermal achieves around 70 percent efficiency,” Erlandson told me in the article. “It’s not giving you electricity, but you get more bang 
for your buck because it’s already 
what you want it to be: heat. If you generate electricity and turn it back  into heat, there’s some loss there in 
the transition.”

White and Erlandson also decided to remove two fireplaces in the house, so to create a similar sense of a hearth they replaced them with a light well extending from a rooftop skylight through 
the second floor down to the ground. 
The well is clad in handmade ceramic 
tiles that make it resemble a chimney. Interior walls were removed between the kitchen, living room and dining area to further distribute the natural light. Most windows and public areas are also located on the north side of the home for optimal diffuse daylight. On the roof is the thermal solar heating system, as well as a green roof with plants and, on the lower portion of the roof, a vegetable garden and small seating area.

Architecture W doesn't just design houses and small residential projects, although I also once wrote a piece on White's own home, very similar in concept to the Stump House, for Western Interiors magazine. A year or two ago, the firm was a finalist for a major baseball stadium in Japan. But White and Weenick certainly have a flair for transforming homes with sensitivity, efficiency and flair.

Oregonian reports Coliseum restoration is cheapest option, Cordish Kansas City district a "tourist trap" that "will not work" here

Last week's announcement that the City of Portland would not seek to build a baseball stadium on the Memorial Coliseum site at the Rose Quarter gave Portland's grand dame of international-stye modernism a reprieve from the guillotine. But the arena is still anything but safe, both as it relates to the power brokers determining its fate and the media trying to shape the narrative with mixed results.

Two major articles this week from The Oregonian have given the Rose Quarter deal and Memorial Coliseum's preservation a longer look, although in some cases you have to turn to the end of the article to get the complicating factors.

In Monday's paper, Helen Jung wrote a front-page cover story with a headline asking, "Save the coliseum, but for what?" Helen is a quality reporter, and her story ultimately had a good mix of argument from both sides. But that's not necessarily the impression one gets if you just read the headline and the first few paragraphs or the big graph on Page 1 showing the Coliseum's declining revenues over the past five years (a $42,000 loss is projected for 2008-2009). It seems like Helen had a fair-minded approach but her headline-writing editors may have viewed the Coliseum preservation with greater skepticism.

"It has struggled for more than a decade to just break even," Jung writes early in the story. "The coliseum needs millions of dollars in fixes, from overhauling its half-century-old electrical system to replacing the roof. Its egalitarian seating arrangement, with no luxury boxes or club seats, makes the coliseum feel more like a high school gym than a venue out to make a profit."

Only when one gets to the end of the story does the financial argument include both sides. Jung cites William Macht's research proving that the Memorial Coliseum management agreement gives Oregon Arena Corporation incentive to fill the Rose Garden with events instead of the Coliseum after the Coliseum reaches break-even point.

But she also lets Blazers Vice President dispute that without a rebuttal from Macht. Isaac says there's no conspiracy about deliberate neglect on the team's part. Rather, it's the customers seeking to fill events that prefer the Jumbotron screen and newer facilities that the Rose Garden can offer, Isaac explains. But if the Coliseum were renovated properly like it should have been years ago, or if it had a renovated Rose Quarter as part of the puzzle with surrounding entertainment or amateur athletic facilities invigorating the existing 50,000 square foot Coliseum exhibition hall, the older arena would be much more attractive.

Also, Jung's point about the Coliseum seeming more like a venue for high school sports than a profit-making major arena actually points to a brand identity for the MC.

Naturally the Rose Garden arena will always be the place for major league sports and the biggest concerts. But Memorial Coliseum could supplement that by being a more amateur and local-oriented arena. Put Cordish's planned entertainment zone and Doug Obletz's MARC amateur recreation complex in the exhibition hall, add Louvre-style light wells (a la IM Pei's pyramid), and suddenly you've got the stuff the Blazers and Cordish want to add without taking away a viable extra venue with special architectural qualities.

The most important part of Jung's story may be its "Ideas for Memorial Coliseum" sidebar. Here is where the different plans are presented side by side with accompanying costs:

Entertainment district: "The project could run as much as $100 million and the team would seek some amount of public investment." And this doesn't even figure in the cost of replacing Memorial Coliseum, which the community will need in the future as the city doubles in size over the next generation.

Recreation center: "The city had shelved the project [first proposed in 2002] when backers couldn't secure grant money to cover part of the $80-$102 million cost."

Veterans Memorial Arts and Athletic Center: "The price tag would be similar to the Memorial Athletic and Recreation Center proposal's $80 million to $102 million estimate."

Updated Memorial Coliseum: "This option, identified in 2002, would have dedicated about $13 million to capital expenditures and basic building system upgrades."

Granted the Coliseum, if renovated as an arena, would ultimately take more than $13 million, especially if it were paired with a MARC or Cordish entertainment proposal in (or both) in the exhibition hall. Even so, for all the talk of how expensive a Coliseum arena renovation would be, it's a lot cheaper than building anything else.

Meanwhile, in today's Oregonian Ted Sickinger has a cover story looking at Cordish's Kansas City Power & Light District. When Sickinger visited, there were plenty of people visiting the P&L on a Friday night. And it's full of youngsters and suburbanites enthusiastically trumpeting the area's greatness. "'Any place should have a place like this,' gushes Shawn Burkhardt, a 22-year-old from Topeka, eyes wide and beer in hand. 'Definitely in Kansas City this is the spot to be on Friday and Saturday night. I guarantee it."

Notice that the young inebriated fella from outside Kansas City mentioned Friday and Saturday nights. How often is he there on a Tuesday?

Sickinger also queried another passer-by, "a tattooed 25-year-old" named Christopher Nichols, who was more skeptical. On this visit, his third, Nichols said he was giving the Power & Light District one last chance. "Everything looks the same," he told the reporter. "'The Kansas City crowd is over there,' he said, pointing south to the Crossroads District, a more Portland-style mix of art galleries, bars, restaurants and condos. 'And the Johnson County (suburban Kansas) people are here. They come from outside Kansas City and want a very sheltered environment. It's a tourist trap."

Sickinger also reports at the very end of the article on Cordish's racist policies. Initially the Power & Light district had a restrictive dress coade banning hoodies, white T-shirts and baggy pants. "The African American community took that as a slap in the face," one visitor to P&L told the reporter.

When Mayor Sam Adams's chief of staff, Tom Miller, visited the P&L site in Kansas City, he told Cordish, according to Sickinger's story, "...If you want to cooke cutter it [the P&L] and drop it into Portland, it will fail."

All this points strongly to the need for a legitimate public process. Regardless of whether you appreciate Memorial Coliseum's history and architecture, the Rose Quarter is too important a district in Portland to be planned in a smoke-filled room without public involvement.

Time for regime change? Riverdale preservation may hinge on this month's School Board election

When Portlanders vote on May 19, the battle to preserve the historic A.E. Doyle and Pietro Belluschi-designed Riverdale Grade School may effectively be decided.

The Riverdale School Board is the entity that chose to demolish the building and build a newer, much bigger, and eerily similar-looking school in its place. Nevermind research showing voters may have been misled by the Board's bond measure into thinking they were voting for a renovation instead of demolition. Or that a majority in the community do not favor razing the building. Full speed ahead with the bulldozers next month!

But three Board members on the Riverdale School Board are up for re-election. If the community were to elect members less zealous about demolishing history, Doyle's Riverdale building might still have a chance to survive.

The election also gives a chance to learn more about the incumbents who did the deed.

The incumbent for Riverdale board Position 1 is Ron Penner-Ash, a winery owner. He's being challenged by Thomas Hatch, a physician who also coaches a girls basketball team at Riverdale.

Position 2 has financial adviser Christoper Hall as the incumbent. To his credit, Hall said in a recent Oregonian article, "We need to heal the community and move forward with the spirit that has been the hallmark of the Riverdale district for over a hundred years." To play devil's advocate, though, the need for healing comes from the controversy caused by Hall and other board members. The demo campaign is the knife in this wound.

The incumbent in Position 5 is Steven Klein, a educational researcher and policy analyst. He's being challenged by Douglas McCaslin, a financial adviser.

The three incumbents have their own website, where you'll find a statement saying, "Riverdale is flourishing under the leadership of our current Board. The District’s excellence is contributing to enrollment growth, attracting new resident families and increasing numbers of transfer and tuition students."

You'd almost think by reading the campaign literature these guys hadn't taken the school they've pledged to serve and protect to the brink of outright destruction, using bonds procured in a confusing demo-versus-reno measure and dividing an otherwise tranquil, cooperative community.

Admittedly, I've never met any of these candidates, incumbent or challenger. And elections should not normally be decided by a single issue. But if someone's trying to push you over a cliff, should you really ask them for more?

Alfred Staehli: 1929-2009

The Portland architecture and historic preservation communities lost one of their most accomplished members this week when Alfred M. Staehli passed away on Monday, May 4, six months shy of his 80th birthday.

Born in Pasadena to an immigrant Swiss woodcarver but a Portlander singe the age of 2, Staehli graduated from Lincoln High School, then received an architecture degree from the University of Oregon. After serving in the Air Force in the early 1950s, he worked for ten years at Broome, Selig and Oringdulph, which would later morph into a firm still around today, BOORA.

However, it's after Staehli went back to school for a master's degree in history from Portland State University and in Rome at the International Centre for Conservation that the architect found his calling as a historic preservationist.

Staehli would go on to play a key role in saving such Oregon landmarks as Crater Lake Lodge, the Pittock Mansion, and the Kam Wah Chung building in John Day. He was a consultant for restorations of the Capitol dome in Salem as well as for the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission. He also served on the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation for two terms.

"Not only was Al an incredible resource for historic preservation issues, but more important to my relationship with him was his wry sense of humor and always challenging assumptions!  I guess as an educator he never feared asking  'Why not reinvent the wheel?” on any particular issue," said Henry Kunowski, a former colleague of Staehli's, by email.

Staehli was inducted into the American Institute of Architects' College of Fellows (the profession's highest honor, a quasi-hall of fame) in 1992. He also acted as an archivist. The photos you see here of the Lewis & Clark Exposition in Portland were part of his collection.

It's through his involvement with the Fellows that I got to know Staehli in 1999 and 2000 while I worked for the AIA. I used to take notes for the monthly Fellows committee meetings he attended, and it was fun to sit in a conference room and listen to some of the most accomplished architects in the city alternately chitchat, talk shop, tell stories about the city's architectural past, or target some kind of do-gooding action like trying to help Portland State get accreditation for its architecture school.

I got to know Al better when the Frank Lloyd Wright-designed Gordon House was threatened with demolition in late 2000. He and I spent a day together down in suburban Charbonneau along the banks of the Willamette near Wilsonville, where the house was originally located. The compromise for the Gordon House was that it got preserved but had to be disassembled and moved to a different location. It was a better solution than outright demolition, but the house had been designed specifically in accordance with and to take advantage of the views of the river and Mt. Hood.

Staehli asked me to act as an assistant for the day while he photographed the Gordon House with a large-format camera, the kind great, serious photographers from Ansel Adams to Julius Schulman always used. Even today that kind of camera achieves better precision than digital photography, but it takes forever just to set up one shot.

My memory of that day out there with Al is not of the things we said to each other, but the silence in between. It's rare you can stand in silence with someone, particularly if you're not already well acquainted, and have it not be awkward. But there was a kind of serenity out there photographing the Wright house on the eve of it being eradicated from its intended place. At least if it had to go, the two of us were at least lucky enough to spend a day with the Gordon House, alone.

But of course he wasn't mute, either. I also took notes when we did talk while photographing the Gordon House that day, and used some of his comments in a piece for Willamette Week. Here's one of his observations published in the story:

"Wright's houses are delightful to walk into. Unlike in most McMansions (or what I call 'big-hair houses'), you don't walk into some totally inappropriate corporate-sized lobby where you feel lost. You enter this house through a small, constricted opening with a low ceiling and transition into a dramatic high-ceiling area. You always have a sense of moving through a sequence of different-scaled spaces. Wright's Usonian houses are of a scale that you can live in. I'm not the kind of architect who could design, say, a 600-square-foot bathroom, so I relate to these designs.

Wright was especially known for using wood and masonry for their color, their texture, their warmth. A lot of the Northwest-style architects like Walter Gordon and Pietro Belluschi did that, too. People here like to be able to look out the window to the trees but also have a cozy feel on the inside.

You would not find this kind of detail in most builder-made houses today--it would be too expensive and require more attention to detailing. But that's exactly what some architects are now arguing for: more modest-sized spaces but spending the money on finish and detail and materials.

We're losing landmarks monthly throughout the state. A little bit goes here, a little bit there, and first thing you know you've lost the integrity of the land. It isn't as if this was one of Wright's major buildings, but in the context of surviving Usonian homes it's actually very important. And it's definitely the only work of its kind in Oregon."

I only talked to Al Staehli once or twice in the ensuing nine years, and even then only briefly. So it's not like I knew the guy exceptionally well. But when I put together the incredible collection of buildings he is credited with helping to save and his gentle, warm, guileless personal manner, it's a major regret to have to say goodbye - or to not have done so with more reverence.

Adams announces Memorial Coliseum to be spared from demolition

As first reported Wednesday evening by Mark Larabee of The Oregonian (and shortly afterward by Matt Davis of the Portland Mercury), Mayor Sam Adams has announced that Memorial Coliseum has been spared from demolition.

The City of Portland and Portland Beavers owner Merritt Paulson will now focus exclusively on building a baseball stadium in Lents.

This is a time both to rejoice and to pledge continued vigilance. If Wednesday evening's news holds and a baseball stadium isn't built on the Memorial Coliseum site, it's like I told Matt Davis: It feels like the end of Star Wars when they blew up the Death Star. But notice Star Wars was only one of several chapters in the overall saga.

Memorial Coliseum, as best we can tell, will now have the opportunity for new life, and to continue as a Portland landmark for generations to come. That's something to be enormously thankful for, not just if you love modern architecture or support historic preservation, but if you care about the city itself.

At the same time, the City and the Trail Blazers will now be looking to bring significant change to the Rose Quarter site, which could include altering Memorial Coliseum so far beyond its original design that the building loses its architectural integrity -- its greatness.

The Blazers are said to be looking at an open-air music venue. That's one possibility for the Coliseum. "Don't worry, we're gonna save the roof," one insider told a member of our Friends of Memorial Coliseum grassroots group. If the Blazers take the glass walls off Memorial Coliseum, it won't be Memorial Coliseum. I'd argue the same is true with respect to the interior seating bowl.

The Coliseum experience, what makes it one of the most unique arenas in the world, is the ability to watch a game or other event from the seating bowl with natural light pouring through. It's something the Coliseum hasn't delivered for many years because its curtain around the bowl seems permanently closed. But if they could open that curtain, people who go inside will advocate for this unique place to be kept as-is.

That's not to say you can't make changes. For instance, Tom Webb had an interesting idea in an Oregonian editorial a few days ago: Why not open up PGE Park to be a public park when it's not being used for games? That would have some difficulty given that the field needs to be kept pristine. But at the Coliseum, you could absolutely make the outer areas around the seating bowl into some kind of space that remains open to the public even when there's not an event. The Coliseum could become part of Portland's wintertime playground, a place to be in the light but not the elements.

The Coliseum should not become the Blazers' new outdoor venue because it would be too drastically stripped of its gem-like quality. But how about an indoor-outdoor arena? The Coliseum could be altered in a way that opens up a little of its facade or its roof in a way that brings the outdoors in an vice versa, but maintains the Coliseum as a more viable multi-use facility instead of the single-use capacity an outdoor performance venue would serve.

As the Coliseum process over the rest of the calendar year looks at different options, we also need to pay more attention to the more than 50,000 square feet of exhibit space underground that surrounds the veterans memorial. If the City and the Blazers want to add more amenities to the Rose Quarter like restaurants, bars or more entertainment, it should go around the Coliseum in the exhibition area, not in the Coliseum itself. If we had enough room in the exhibition area to stage the Portland Auto Show there for years, surely there's enough room for a Hard Rock Cafe and a slough of racquetball courts and other amateur athletic center amenities.

In a Portland Mercury story I was interviewed for last night about the Coliseum being spared, one commenter said that I had been duped, that the plan was to gut the Coliseum for entertainment-venue stuff all along. Another said I was an "arrogant prick" for claiming the community was behind this grassroots effort.

You can't please everybody, but I certainly don't feel duped. We knew all along this was a two-part battle: save the Coliseum from demolition, and then save it from ill-advised, heavy-handed renovation. And I remain quite confident, or arrogant if you prefer, about the community being behind the Coliseum. It's not just the 8-to-1 margin that polls showed to favor the building's preservation, but the outpouring of emails, phone calls and blog comments that encouraged a small group of architects, designers and a blogger to take on a city council and two billionaires.

Thank you to everyone who joined in this effort: institutions like the National Trust, US Green Building Council and AIA; architects and designers like Stuart Emmons, Rick Potestio, Don Rood, Randy Higgins, Peter Meijer, Paul Falsetto and Joseph Readdy; blogger/columnist Barry Johnson of The Oregonian and blogger Tim DuRoche of Portland Spaces; great reporters at the Portland Mercury like Matt Davis and Sarah Mirk; editorialists like Mark Zusman at Willamette Week; and academics like Portland State University's Will Macht.

And now let us keep up our guard as we move on to the next phase.

Smith & Bybee snapshots

Last weekend I made a long overdue visit to the Smith and Bybee Wetlands Natural Area just off North Marine Drive near where the Willamette and Columbia Rivers meet. I'd been there a few years ago, but in the interim had forgotten what a lovely little swatch of nature exists there, all within a mile of the Expo Center and Interstate 5.

Here's some additional information I gleaned from the Portland Parks & Recreation website:

"This natural area is the largest protected wetland within an American city even though it is surrounded by port terminals, warehouses, and other commercial developments. In 1990, the Portland Planning Commission approved a management plan for the lakes. They determined that Smith Lake would be maintained at a fairly constant water level and developed for low-intensity water recreation, such as fishing and canoeing. Bybee Lake, on the other hand, would be allowed to rise and fall with the tides and seasons and would be kept as an environmental preserve."

"Most visitors to the lakes can find beaver, river otter, black-tailed deer, osprey, bald eagles, and one of the largest remaining populations of Western painted turtles in Oregon. Access to the wildlife area is either by the Interlakes Trail (paved and universally accessible) or by boat."

Indeed, I saw several trees that had been felled by beavers. The ducks, of course, were much more well behaved. 

Cascadia Green Building Council's Jason McLennan talks about this week's Living Future "unconference"

Starting Wednesday, the Living Future conference will be taking place for three days at the Nines Hotel downtown this week.

Presented by the Cascadia Region Green Building Council, Living Future is labeled as "the unconference for deep green professionals" on its website. An accompanying video says, "Together imagining a world of living buildings, living sites and living communities....Learn what it takes to go deeper, to a world of true sustainability."

Leading-edge thinkers of the sustainability movement like Paul Hawken have spoken at Living Future in the past, as well as Sim Ven Der Ryn, the latter of whom has a prescription for the green movement that I love the sound of, even if I'm not completely sure what it means: going from "rigid instability to flowing resiliency".

Recently over email I interviewed Jason McLennan, CEO of the Cascadia Region GBC, about Living Future and it what it means for the chapter.

Q: How do you see Living Future fitting in to the spectrum of different design and sustainability conferences out there for architects and others in the industry to attend like Greenbuild?

A: A lot of other conferences are geared to appeal to all knowledge and experience levels; or they are more introductory.  With Living Future, we are trying to reach the deepest green leaders of the movement, targeting those who want to make huge leaps forward.  Those who attend Living Future are at the forefront of the green building movement and are looking for the next level – and we cater to that need with cutting-edge topics, revolutionary ideas and presentations from thought leaders.

Unlike other events that can top 1000+ people – where you might run into everyone you want to speak with – we keep Living Future purposefully intimate to allow multiple opportunities for participants to engage and network with each other.  Living Future is a think-tank of sorts – bringing leaders together and giving them the chance to share ideas.  Living Future draws passionate people, and we are trying to cultivate that energy to drive great change.

What are some of the different messages that the keynote speakers will be bringing, or are there any of them in particular you think people will be excited to hear?

All of the keynote speakers will be exciting.  I mean, they are keynotes for a reason –

Janine Benyus is going to talk about biomimicry and what lessons we can draw from nature in the designs of our buildings and cities, as well as cutting-edge research being done around the world.  I think people will come away from her presentation completely awed and inspired.

 Thomas Crum will have an impact on a more personal level.  His message is more tied in with the theme of the conference (Cultivating leadership. Begin with One).  He helps people reach their full potential through embracing conflict and challenging situations in order to create more positive outcomes.  These two are great bookends: One is about the influence of the outside, natural world and the other is focused inward on the potential we have within ourselves.

Denis Hayes is one of the most insightful people on a national level.  As a pioneer in the green movement, he will bring wisdom, as well as new perspectives.  Plus, I think he is very entertaining.  As for my talk, I will share with people some really interesting findings we are learning from the LivingBuilding projects out there, as well as challenge people to think differently about the scale of change we need to make in the world.  I plan to get everyone worked up!

There's a political party in power now that's more favorable to sustainable policies, but the economy has been in dire straits. How would you characterize the set of political and economic conditions in which green building exists right now?

Everyone is hopeful that the policies of the Obama administration will lead us further and quicker down the path of change.  Environmental issues were part of his platform, and there is stimulus money coming down the pipeline to those in our industry, which bodes well for growth of the green building movement.

At the same time, I think we have all been distracted – some for good reason, with jobs being lost and companies failing.  But we can’t put a hold on environmental issues!  These are issues that are bigger than the current economic crisis.  The current state of the economy is just a symptom of the larger issues we will have to deal with somewhere down the line.  I am concerned that we are allowing our days to drift from the larger threats and becoming complacent with the small victories.

What are some of the lessons you and the organizers of Living Future can take away from running past events like this?

Living Future is still a relatively new event for us, but I think we are getting quite good at it! People seem to love the conference and our feedback has always been stellar.  Evidence of this is in the sell-out crowd this year – we are going to be packed to the gills!  This is a good sign that we are in fact delivering something truly special.

How does putting on Living Future fit within the context of other Cascadia GBC endeavors throughout the year?

Living Future is the glue that holds it all together for us; it is our big annual summit.  Living Future is the focal point of the work we do, and the event we tie our board and branch meetings to.  It is the single most important event for us in bringing a large percentage of our members and sponsors together.  Cascadia is made up of a vast geographic area; we have members in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington and Oregon.  Living Future provides a great opportunity for everyone to check in, re-energize and connect face-to-face.  And it is these connections that really drive us forward.

Memorial Coliseum: City Council vote postponed, Lents & other sites still on the table

The City Council vote that had been scheduled for May 7 to select a site for Major League Soccer at PGE Park and a baseball stadium (at the Rose Quarter or elsewhere) for the minor-league Beavers has once again been delayed.

Sources say the Council is still looking at a number of options for where to build a Beavers stadium if it doesn't happen in the Rose Quarter. Right now, the leading candidates seem to be Lents Park and a co-location at PGE Park (at least temporarily) for the Beavers and Timbers.

The Lents site has strong points in its favor. It would be connected to a new MAX line a block away. The neighborhood has indicated they want the stadium. Lents is an urban renewal area that has been languishing for a generation without much improvement.

Building a baseball stadium in Lents would go a long way toward vitalizing the Portland Development Commission's Lents Town Center urban renewal plan that has already been in place for years.

There are two or three challenges with Lents for AAA baseball--parking and a net loss of park space--but sources say those problems appear to be surmountable.

The biggest challenge, parking, could be alleviated with a shuttle bus system connecting the baseball park to massive nearby parking lots at two malls: Clackamas Town Center and Mall 205. Trimet has already gone on record saying this plan would work from their perspective. There are also numerous surface parking lots in Lents that, if there were a baseball stadium there, would give private sector entrepreneurs a chance to make money on parking. Plus, the two malls would be excited to be involved with the shuttle because it'd put people in their parking lots, at least some of which would be likely to go shopping.

The other challenge, a net loss of open space from devoting Lents Park to baseball, could be not only accounted for but would actually improve Lents overall. There has already been open space identified along Johnson Creek that the city could make into a parkland. In fact, it would be more beneficial  than Lents Park in contributing to preservation of wetland and wildlife habitat. Plus, one of the local leaders most vocal in advocating for no net loss of park space, Mike Houck of the Urban Greenspace Institute, has already given approval to Lents Park (when it was looked at originally) as a baseball site if these conditions were met.

Even Merritt Paulson was into Lents when he and his staff visited the site. Regardless of what reservations he may express now, based on the demolished Coliseum site being more of a revenue stream, Paulson has explicitly told City Council members he likes the stadium there.

In fact, it's very possible attendance numbers at the Lents site could be higher than the dismal numbers the Beavers usually get at PGE Park (less than 2,000 per game for two recent sunny-evenings against the defending conference champions). People in Gresham, Vancouver, Clackamas, Oregon City and outer Southeast Portland would all be closer to the stadium. They'd have a lot easier time getting there by a range of options, not least of which is that Interstate 205 is a few feet away.

What's more, at least one of the two City Council members who supported baseball at the Memorial Coliseum/Rose Quarter site, Commissioner Randy Leonard, has preferred the Lents site all along. Bringing back the baseball park to Lents after the idea seemed to be dead would actually help Leonard's relationship with constituents in that neighborhood, a few of whom felt let down by the baseball plan going away after it seemed to be going forward in Lents last time.

Our group working to preserve Memorial Coliseum has been resistant to advocating for one non-Rose Quarter baseball stadium site over another (say, Lents versus Terminal 1 or Delta Park). But if baseball went to Lents, there seems little reason for anyone to complain.

What about going back to the idea of co-locating the Beavers and Timbers in PGE Park? After all, that's by far the most cost-effective. And it remains unclear whether having a soccer-only venue is merely a preference for Major League Soccer or a requirement. At the very least, PGE Park could be a temporary home for both, with MLS de-coupled from the Rose Quarter plan as we take a proper amount of time to look at where to build the Beavers a stadium.

Process is worth talking about in and of itself as well. There arguably hasn't been nearly enough of it regarding the Rose Quarter. Or, if you talk to certain City Hall veterans, there's already been a lot of process about this area in years past.

If one were to hypothetically imagine the baseball stadium going somewhere other than the Rose Quarter, and we then engage in a process to re-imagine Memorial Coliseum and the Rose Quarter for the future, what do we want that process to look like?

I believe a Rose Quarter process would benefit from going a different route than what we too often see here: a developer led system in which three developer-determined options are created from an RFP (request-for-proposal) process. Instead, we need to follow a model more like the Armory, where citizens are allowed to be part of the vision-making and developers play a more supplementary role. We have to have developers involved on the financial/pragmatic side, but should they be our dreamers?

Naturally this comes within the context of developers often being great forces for good in the community, and excellent place-makers sometimes. And it's not like developer-led proposals don't involve designers. So no offense meant to any of the developers reading this, some of whom I admire a great deal. Even so, I think the process of public projects, at least in certain cases like this, might benefit from a new way of working toward our shared goals.

As for the Coliseum itself, there is also an effort underway to move away from the protective, protection-oriented campaign to save the building from demolition and transition the conversation to something more aspirational and pragmatic. In other words, a renovated and revitalized Memorial Coliseum could be the centerpiece of a better future Rose Quarter.

Few cities in America or the world can offer two differently sized arenas available to work in tandem. What's more, the uniqueness of the Coliseum's design -- as a transparent, light filled space -- would allow it to act as a kind of indoor/outdoor public space.

Say it's raining on some January Saturday afternoon in 2014. You and your kids want to get out of the house, but everything seems to involve being outdoors getting wet or spending money in some retail setting. What if you could go to Memorial Coliseum and enjoy the openness of the glass box inside, with places to sit and congregate and eat and drink, even if there wasn't an even there? Or perhaps you could play racquetball in the MARC amateur athletic complex that's moved into the 50,000 square foot former Coliseum exhibition space, its underground now filled with natural light from skylights and light wells. Or if you don't mind spending a few bucks after all, the Blazers' planned bevy of restaurants and entertainment is there as well.

I also love the idea of Memorial Coliseum's central arena taking on the identity of amateur athletics and entertainment as a counterbalance to the NBA and traveling concert tours in the Rose Garden. Brand the Coliseum as the place where we hold high school basketball tournaments, or even a Friday night game of the week during the regular season like PGE Park functions during football season for prep teams. Then there's all the Rose Festival stuff that's gone on there for years. Maybe it becomes a place for public town hall-style conversations. 

Regardless of which idea hits or misses here, the city and Oregon Arena Corporation could be so much more creative in giving the Coliseum a purpose beyond just being the older, smaller (if vastly more elegant and open) sister to the Rose Garden.

The point is that both what progressives (about urban planning and architecture) want in terms of preservation for the Coliseum, and what business or government people care about in terms of economic viability and a reason to come there, can be made to work together.

Ultimately this isn't about just saving Memorial Coliseum (although it's the treasure here), but about re-imagining the entire Rose Quarter as a grand public space for the city.

Between workforce and luxury: visiting THA & GBD's Cyan

Yesterday I had the good fortune of being taken on a tour of the soon-to-be-completed Cyan apartments building downtown with architect Thomas Hacker of THA Architecture. Hacker's office collaborated with GBD Architects on the project developed by Gerding Edlen. The Cyan is slated to earn a Gold LEED rating from the US Green Building Council.

The project, which has smaller units than most new condos or apartments, is meant to cater to those seeking urban living at a more affordable price point. Units are about 400 to 600 square feet (mostly studios, 1-bedrooms and 2-bedrooms). You can rent a single-bedroom unit for about $1300. It's not ultra cheap, but it's a lot cheaper than you could get into most new high-density residential projects in the Pearl District or downtown.

The Cyan is a fairly blocky slab building, standing 16 stories and much of a city block. It's a more affordable way to build, but Hacker's office has given the project a distinctive look with its west-facing facade that overlooks Fourth Avenue. Portions of the facade angle inward to give the building the look of weaving, or at least the look of being a sum of many smaller pieces rather than just one big block. The building might look like a quintessentially fat stumpy Portland building were it not for this striking facade. Hacker also was explicit in giving Gerding Edlen credit for not eliminating this design from the final plans. The weave look had to be removed from the back side of the building for cost reasons, but the west facade was able to retain its signature look.

On its back, east-facing side the Cyan includes a courtyard that connects with the adjacent Pettygrove Park, an under-utilized downtown greenspace with tall trees and a mellow ambiance.

People have complained for years that enclaves like the Pearl District have catered too much to affluent buyers willing to fork over millions for condominiums. The Cyan was originally meant to be a condo too, and not a rental apartment project (the economy changed that), but regardless of whether people are buying or leasing these units, Gerding Edlen clearly got the message that Portland needs more affordable urban living options. Their staff traveled to Europe to research the kinds of housing there, and they brought back an admirable sense of wanting to replicate that kind of mid-level price point high-density living.

It's also great to see Gerding Edlen collaborating with Thomas Hacker and THA Architecture again. The partnership with GBD is a winning one too, because it brings first-rate expertise on sustainable integrated design. But Hacker, like only a few other architects in the city, has a brilliant gift for space, proportion and materials. Hacker brings poetry to GBD's big energy use reductions and other green achievements.

The photos I've taken here are of a building still in its finishing stages of construction, including chain-link fences out front. But I think one gets an idea of what the Cyan will be and how it will fit in the neighborhood -- which is quite nicely.

The Cyan also has some incredible views: of the downtown skyline on the west side (with Mt. St. Helens and the St. Johns' Bridge even visible, and to the east a view the riverfront (with Mt. Hood). I took a couple extra shots looking out the windows.