Modular Construction - A Tipping Point for the Affordable Housing Industry?

For more than a decade I’ve been touting the benefits of modular construction to the affordable housing industry.  In the early years, I was trying to convince bankers that modular construction was real property – they confused modular with manufactured housing (aka mobile homes or double wides).  Then it was talking with General Contractors about how their subs would bid out the site work, and whether they would charge a premium due to decreased scope or uncertainty about scope.  And the latter few years was spent encouraging an Owner to be the pioneer – to be the first to build a multifamily affordable housing project using modules. 

tortise and the hare

At times I felt like I was the proverbial tortoise watching the hares run by with built prototypes and talk of market rate multifamily projects. Michelle Kauffman, with her Breeze House and Glide House, opened up the single family market and suddenly prefab was perceived as cool and sustainable by the likes of the Sunset and Dwell magazine readership. When Michelle was a keynote speaker at the Housing Washington Conference [1] a few years back, I thought “wow, it’s about to tip!” But it didn’t.

Until now.

On July 23, we opened bids for Schemata’s first modular construction project. The pioneering client is the Renton Housing Authority. The project is an 18-unit 2-story multifamily project – predominantly townhomes but with four stacked flats, making the scope a perfect test case.

Modular construction means that residential units arrive on site 90% complete with interior finishes, flooring, plumbing and lighting fixtures, electrical wiring, plumbing lines, windows and even exterior cladding if you choose. The modules are trucked to the site and lifted onto a site built foundation by a mobile crane.  

OneBuild Modular Setting

The state and county funders thought the project was very innovative and awarded the project funding on the first round, which was quite an accomplishment in such a competitive environment.  And while construction for sitework will commence immediately, the L&I approval process [2] for the modules is just starting with the selected manufacturer which means that modules cannot begin production for at least 2-3 months. 

The design of the project started off with a strong understanding of the shipping constraints [3].  While modular construction can accommodate wide open and double height spaces, the greatest economy can be achieved when modules are essentially intact, self-contained boxes.  Given the tight construction budget, we elected to be conservative with our first project and go the latter route, expressing the modularity of the construction type in both the unit planning and exterior expression.  Intent on a design that would allow the new homes to fit in with the neighboring modest and traditional housing, we looked at the gable form of the archetypal house.  However, the width of the units were 14’ wide and gables over each unit which would have created a busy roofline.  Instead, the gable was split over 2 units and the two halves slid past each other to provide modulation along the street.

KAT concept diagram

As townhomes, the stacking of units creates a fairly straightforward connection (or marriage) of modules with similarly straightforward wall and floor/ceiling assemblies; however, transition between the floors (namely at the stairs) had to be increased due to the redundant structure in the floor/ceiling assembly which resulted in lower ceiling heights than typically desired. The flats were not limited in ceiling height and the floor/ceiling assembly still posed some challenges relative to the sound transmission and impact noise.  In addition, the marriage line required some attention in the detailing since there were openings between modules.  This was not an issue at all with the Townhomes since the connection between modules was only vertical. However, the marriage line at the stair between upper and lower modules will be carefully reviewed during the “button up” phase [4].

Many owners assume incorrectly that modular inherently means a savings in construction cost.  As one modular vendor aptly described, modular construction uses the same lumber and drywall that a site –built project requires. The deliveries that occur to a job site still take place, just at a factory leading to basic materials costs which are more or less the same as traditional site-built construction.  It is true that the working conditions in a factory are much more efficient and result in lower material spoilage and waste, yet any cost savings in labor are offset by the fact that the modules are over-engineered to withstand the structural impacts of transport and lifting by crane. In fact, there is almost double the wood framing in a modular construction project than typical site-built project, making the modules very structurally robust. So it is not feasible that the costs would be less. Now if there were some economies of scale (not as significant on an 18-unit project), there is the possibility for the overall cost per square foot of the modules to come down significantly.  

Where the potential cost savings lie are in the construction interest carry. For any developer of affordable housing, the ability to reduce the amount of interest paid means that there are more funds available for higher quality, durable finishes or a play structure for the children who will live in the project, or the staff time to provide supportive services for the residents.

Shorter construction time also means that the units are available for residents to move in sooner meaning the owner can start collecting rents and servicing the debt faster.  This is of benefit to any multifamily developer, non-profit or market rate.  However, for the affordable housing developers, the ability to provide more units in a shorter timeline means that they have the ability to serve more hard-working families, seniors, and veterans in need of housing.

We look forward to seeing whether Schemata’s first modular construction project will be the tipping point for the affordable housing industry and for Schemata’s multifamily portfolio.

1. Housing Washington is the state’s affordable housing conference.  It is held annually and between 700-800 people attend - primarily non-profit housing developers, public housing authorities, social service providers, lenders, attorneys, architects and contractors working in the affordable housing industry.  As one of the largest of its kind, the conference draws 10% of the attendees from other parts of the country.
2. Washington State Labor & Industries will review the modular plans for adherence to building and energy codes.  L&I will issue a Gold Insignia for each module, which will dramatically decrease the permitting costs but will increase the costs for special inspections.
3. Trucking dimensions are roughly 14’ wide, 65’ long and 14’ tall.  Modules can be wider or longer, but pilot cars will be required, adding to the already high transportation costs. 
4.  Button up refers to the patching of the marriage line between modules – both vertically in the townhouse stair and horizontally between rooms of the flats.

American Planning Association 2013 Conference: Sustainable Street Network

---

American Planning Association 2013 Conference: Sustainable Street Network

Joseph Readdy of Schemata Workshop was invited to participate in a panel at the 2013 American Planning Association national planning conference – Plan Big Chicago. Our panel was devoted to the principles of a sustainable street network. The panel was organized and moderated by Heather Smith, planning director for the Congress for the New Urbanism. The other panel members included Jacky Grimshaw, vice president of the Center for Neighborhood Technology and Marcy McInelly, principal at Urbsworks, Inc. The topic of our panel was to challenge planners to reevaluate their transportation plans and policies and rethink their approach to the design of their streets in their communities. This is my presentation: 

A Hypothesis and a Call to Action

I enjoy logic problems. I’ll often start my morning finishing my coffee and solving the Sudoku puzzle in The Oregonian or the crossword in The New York Times. But logic problems like those are not adequate preparation for urban design or transportation planning. Logic problems like ken-ken, sudoku, or the crossword puzzle are considered “tame,” while urban design problems exhibit all of the characteristics of a “wicked problem.”

​

the Saturday puzzle

"Wicked problem" is a phrase coined originally by two professors from UC Berkeley for use in social planning to describe any problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing determinants that are often difficult to recognize or not immediately apparent. The term ‘wicked’ is used, not in the sense of evil but rather its resistance to resolution. Professors Horst Rittel and Melvin M. Webber developed the concept of wicked problems in a 1973 treatise, contrasting "wicked" problems with relatively "tame," soluble problems in mathematics, chess, or puzzle solving. Their formulation of wicked problems in social policy planning specified ten characteristics. In the graduate seminar that I developed and teach at Portland State University, I’ve developed four principles for the wicked problem that helps describe their role in urban design and transportation: 

1. each wicked problem is not fully understood until after the formulation of a solution; 

2. stakeholders may have radically different world views and vastly different frames of reference for understanding the wicked problem, so a solution to some stakeholders is not a solution for other stakeholders; 

3. constraints and resources to solve a wicked problem will change over the course of formulating a solution; and

4. the problem is never solved. 

In my experience, each of these principles feels true and captures a fundamental challenge of urban design problems. Of the four, the last makes the point that many in the design profession fail to perceive to the detriment of our cities and the social, cultural, and economic exchange that they are meant to foster and support. Early modern architects applied their knowledge, experience, and skills to the environmental degradation and squalor of the early 20th century city, especially those issues of extreme poverty and social housing. I am convinced that because the solutions that they envisioned were intended to eradicate for all time these problems, their belief in a perfect solution that would endure for all time was a fundamental and fatal flaw, as was their goal of an international –or placeless and timeless– approach to design.

​

​Ville Radieuse applied to the city of Algiers Photo : Lucien Hervé © FLC/ADAGP

​Le Corbusier, Plan Voisin, Paris, 1925. Drawing: Stuart E. Cohen and Steven W. Hurtt. Fig. 2-6 in: TRANCIK, Roger (1986). Finding Lost Space. Theories of Urban Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.

“Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them.”

— Laurence J. Peter

Strategies to tackle wicked problems

Wicked problems defy a traditional approach to problem solving in which problems are defined, analyzed, and overcome in discrete, sequential, and logical steps because there is never a clear, concise, and complete definition of a wicked problem. There are three strategies to cope with wicked problems:

Authoritative

These strategies seek to tame wicked problems by vesting the responsibility for solving the problems in the hands of a few people. The reduction in the number of stakeholders reduces problem complexity, as many competing points of view are eliminated at the start. The disadvantage is that authorities and experts charged with solving the problem may not have an appreciation of all the perspectives needed to tackle the problem.

Competitive

These strategies attempt to solve wicked problems by pitting opposing points of view against each other, requiring parties that hold these views to come up with their preferred solutions. The advantage of this approach is that different solutions can be weighed up against each other and the best one chosen. The disadvantage is that this adversarial approach creates a confrontational environment in which knowledge sharing is discouraged. Consequently, the parties involved may not have an incentive to come up with their best possible solution.

Collaborative

These strategies aim to engage all stakeholders to find the best possible solution for all. Typically these approaches involve meetings in which all parties have equal standing and all issues and ideas are discussed and thoroughly understood before a common approach is formulated for implementation. I believe that only a collaborative approach truly offers the best opportunities for successful engagement of urban design problems.

In a 1972 paper, Rittel hints at a collaborative approach; one which attempts, "…to make those people who are being affected into participants of the planning process . They are not merely asked but actively involved in the planning process…" In her 2000 paper, Nancy C. Roberts, Professor in the School of Information Sciences at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, says of solutions to wicked problems, “We learn to take care in attempting to tame wicked problems by turning them over to experts or some center of power for definition and solution. If we are truly dealing with wicked problems when no one is “in control,” then it is unlikely that the experts and leaders will be able to act unilaterally to define the problems and their solutions. In fact, their insistence in doing so may impede the problem solving process. We learn that wicked problems are socially defined so that getting the “whole system in the room” to enable people to learn from one another is very useful.” In other words, a collaborative and inclusive approach will yield better, more intelligent, more robust solutions to our wicked problems.  

Hypothesis:

If the fundamental purpose of cities is to maximize social, cultural, and economic exchange, then we must change the way that we design our streets. We’ve been defaulting to the authoritative approach for the design of our streets for too long. We’ve been giving the design of these important parts of our public realm to our “experts” who apply their knowledge, tools, and training to their design at the expense of place.  The tools that we are currently using to illustrate street design results in a street network that:

• prioritizes the free flow of automobiles; 
• is resource intensive or wasteful – both initially and long-term; 
• contributes to our sedentary lifestyle and the chronic diseases that arise from it; 
• unfairly burdens both the young, the old, the poor and people of color; and
• diminishes the social, cultural, and economic exchange that we seek. 

Streets in our cities serve two essential functions: to connect people to destinations and to be places in and of themselves. When we design to connect people to these destinations, we seem to plan for destinations that are too far apart to make effective use of walking, biking, or transit as alternatives to the automobile. Yet, more than half of all trips in the United States are three miles or less; forty percent of all trips are two miles or less; and nearly thirty percent of all trips are one mile or less. Yet we design our streets as if every trip was a marathon and every second of delay counts significantly. Melvin Webber, one of the authors of the wicked problem, in the 1960’s decried the “non-place urban realm” which he felt was used to legitimize the domination of the automobile over public transportation and the pedestrian. ​

An expert solves the problem of the turning radius of a transit bus at an urban street intersection at the expense of economic development and other modes of travel. The red lines indicate the location of the curbs as initially designed by the urban design team. The new curbs (in black) represent the engineers proposed solution.

One of the reasons we prioritize the free flow of automobiles is the way that we choose to illustrate the solutions to street design problems. When we design to a “functional classification” or for “level of service” we eliminate consideration for the placemaking qualities of the street. Illustrations like this one are often used to show how the curb radii need to be eased and the landscape medians need to be reduced in extent, and sight lines need to be created at street corners to accommodate the safe travel movements of tractor-trailer freight delivery or public transport. What illustrations like this fail to show is the negative impacts:  

• on-street parking is lost that could serve neighborhood retailers; 
• development potential and property tax income is lost to required sight lines; 
• speeds increase; 
• bicycle safety is diminished and biking is discouraged; and
• pedestrian safety is compromised and walking is discouraged. 

In February I attended and helped facilitate a training in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Chicago. Most of the participants were experienced engineers that work for Illinois Department of Transportation. All the participants were interested in learning how to apply the new guidelines from the 2010 ITE Manual for Creating Walkable Urban Thoroughfares. One of the case studies was a downtown street in a small city that had been laid out in the 19th Century. Eventually the street under study became one of a pair of the State highway that passed through town. Despite their extensive experience and knowledge, the members of the training class developed solutions for this main street that ignored the role of all other streets in the network. They had trouble remembering that there were other streets that could support the function of the network and that this particular street did not have to provide every function: freight mobility, on-street parking, left-turn access to mid-block surface parking lots, bicycle lanes, and expanded sidewalks. One of the reasons it was possible to ignore the additional capacity that the network does provide was the base maps provided in the training showed only the one street rather than showing a larger context. 

“The best transportation plan is a land use plan,” Brent Toderian. “The best land use plan is a transportation plan,” Ian Lockwood. The figure-ground relationship that is the network of streets and fabric of blocks that make up our cities means that both Toderian and Lockwood are kind of wrong in the sense that neither can predominate the other. You can’t have a land use plan without a transportation plan and should that transportation plan ignore its context and fail to adequately support the adjacent land uses it will also fail the society that it is intended to serve. Other than taxi and bus drivers, no one makes money going places. You may save money by saving time when you go places, but wealth is created only in that fabric between the streets where people meet. 

The disadvantage of the authoritative approach to solving wicked problems is evident in the sample illustration above. A well-educated, highly-skilled, and licensed engineer’s response to the urban design of an intersection is to discount the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists and ignore the economic potential of land uses while making the turning movements for large vehicles easy, convenient, and safe. The expert is never charged with applying a collaborative approach with the residents, neighbors, and businesses that would accommodate and support other modes of transport. The expert accepts no responsibility for the loss of value or economic development potential for the adjacent land use. These elements have been abstracted out of the problem set, so the solution under the authoritative approach is obvious to the individuals who control the technology and are secure in their expertise.

Challenging solutions like this intersection all too often places other interested parties into the competitive approach to solving wicked problems where the various parties attack one another using their respective set of “experts” to defend their entrenched positions. Eventually a solution that satisfies no one emerges, but most often it is the solution most strongly influenced by whichever expert is in control of the technology that developed and represents the solution.

A spread from the CNU Project for Transportation Reform Sustainable Street Network Principles.

© 2012The Congress for the New Urbanism.

A Call to Action

Employ a collaborative approach to the identification, redefinition, and solution of the design of the streets in your community. Create a street network that supports communities and places by including and empowering the residents, neighbors, and businesses. Make them equal members of the larger design team. Use them to map the existing network that is their community. Help them identify those qualities that represent the existing strengths of the community, the opportunities for repair and renewal, and the border vacuums that unnecessarily isolate elements of their community and interrupt the network. Work together to illustrate how well the layout of the network influences the social, cultural, economic, and environmental performance of the places in their lives. Give the community access to, and control of, appropriate technology that enables them to communicate their full understanding of the needs of the community. 

Model the network first. For much of our recent history we’ve employed those things that have been easy to measure such as, average daily volume of automobile traffic or the level of service of an intersection, as the essential determinants that must be solved in street design. We’ve invested those things that we can easily measure with importance that far outweighs their true value. And we have tended to dismiss those things that are difficult to measure, like the movement of pedestrians, because they have traditionally been difficult or impossible to quantify. As Abraham Maslow said, “if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”  Our technology is becoming increasingly capable of measuring and evaluating those determinants that we have been ignoring.

A detail of the space syntax of London ©2008 Space Syntax

When the collaborative approach is used, all parties will be heard, their stories told, and their contributions incorporated into the solution of the wicked problem. Finding true collaboration, however, often means that the organizer has to surrender some of their authority and power to fully accommodate, involve, and invest the other stakeholders in both the problem and its solution. This can mean giving up control of the technology that is used to represent the symptoms of the wicked problem and its full array of potential solutions. The singular disadvantage of the collaborative approach is that achieving a shared understanding and commitment to solving a wicked problem is a time-consuming process. But the enduring value of a solution achieved through collaboration will represent a much greater value for money over time.

---

References and links

Jacky Grimshaw, vice president, Center for Neighborhood Technology cnt.org

Marcy McInelly, principal, Urbsworks, Inc. urbsworks.com

Heather Smith, planning director, Congress for the New Urbanism cnu.org

The Wicked Problem

The wicked problem, wickedproblems.com

Nancy C. Roberts, Professor, Navy Postgraduate School, Monterey, California nps.edu

Street Networks

CNU Sustainable Street Network Principles: cnu.org/networks

Space Syntax

Space Syntax,Ltd.Professor William Hillier spacesyntax.net

Georgia Institute of Technology, Professor John Peponis arch.gatech.edu/people/john-peponis

Ville Radieuse

Le Fondation Le Corbusier, fondationlecorbusier.fr/

The Kingshire: A Mid-Century Sleeper on Harrison

Every time I walk by the Kingshire, at the intersection of 14th Avenue  East and  East Harrison, I flatter myself and wonder if I am the only one who appreciates its dignified and restrained design. After all, it is only a white box with a relatively flat facade and an entry that hardly gives one pause. Despite these attributes (or because of them), the Kingshire is a little beauty with a subtle complexity to it and is a great example of many of the finer points of modernism. Among these is the nifty way the building touches down on its site, with its brick façade wall held up by diminutive pipe columns supporting a steel lintel. Both the scale of the columns and the void they create are certainly a reference to the design prerogatives of modern masters such as the Swiss architect Le Corbusier, whose pilotis (columns that allow for the raising of a building in order to let the landscape pass underneath) became a modernist icon.

The Villa Savoye (1929)

On the Kingshire, the height afforded by the columns is of a decidedly smaller scale than that of the Villa Savoye, and most likely is a recognition of this building’s urban setting and its need to create a strong street edge. The roof too makes a nod toward Le Corbusier, with its lushly planted roof garden and well-tended foliage gracefully hanging over the parapet. Between the pilotis and roof garden (and setting up the base, middle, and top architects do so love) is the middle facade where the shifting of widow openings and mullion patterns from floor-to-floor, as well as a pair of subtractive windows (perhaps another reference to the Villa Savoye?), reveal the Kingshire to have a host of latent surprises.  Such variety in articulation is a fine example of how even a slight alteration in an otherwise regularized design vocabulary is effective at achieving variety and nuance. Note how the third floor corner windows have either more tightly spaced mullions, a flipped orientation compared to their lower floor brethren, or are even subtractive.  Best of all, these design distinctions a grounded within the building’s simple vocabulary.

Painted white to achieve a certain level of modernist abstraction, the building convincingly uses brick as its skin.  Modernism generally eschewed brick as being too traditional, instead preferring white stucco. None-the-less, the brick here provides a reliably crisp edge around the openings; perhaps the most effective single detail one can lend a building to give it a sense of scale. Built in 1957, the Kingshire is one of the Hill’s most handsome modernist buildings. Sadly for us, there are not many examples of its type, which is a shame as its design has an economy and suitability that would make new derivations of its design precedence most welcome even 55 years later.

Conserving Authenticity in Capitol Hill's Buildings and Streetscapes

The ongoing debate on the Hill as to the value of conserving our so-called ‘character structures’ (buildings over 75 years-old) is heating up. It is fueled in part by recent development proposals that choose to incorporate (or not) such buildings into their project. Much of this debate — and the value placed by developers on preserving any particular character structure — centers on the merits of a building’s architecture and whether or not the building in question is great, or even good. All too often, however, such a focused valuation of building-as-object ignores the real value embodied in everyday buildings, and dismisses the contributions these buildings make to the urban fabric. Those who focus on building-as-object overlook how neighborhood character is defined as much by the ordinary buildings one encounters as by the extraordinary ones, especially when those of ordinary qualities comprise an assembly that weaves a complete, cohesive, and convivial urban fabric. While there are many impressive vintage structures on the Hill that deserve preservation outright — regardless of the surrounding urban fabric, such as the one at Pine and 11th pictured below, there are certainly many more buildings that actually contribute more to the character of Capitol Hill’s enviable streetscape, even if paling in comparison to our most beloved buildings as singular architectural objects,  While a building’s particular architectural pedigree may be important, it is arguably more important to value the contribution a good collection of ordinary buildings makes in achieving neighborhood character.

11^th and Pine, Capitol Hill

Pictured below are some traditional streetscapes that are an absolutely first rate, despite of (or perhaps because of) their being defined by average buildings. In these European examples, the adjacent streets inevitably lead to piazzas surrounded by architecturally magnificent secular and religious buildings that are the standard fare in that part of the world. Yet, it is a neighborhood full of streets just like those pictured below, defined by their average and ordinary buildings, that fosters the qualities which make these cities great. And it is ultimately  this kind of street fabric that creates the quality spaces residents and visitors cherish just as much, and perhaps to a greater extent than, the grand buildings so often featured on the postcards we send back home.

Mantua, Italy

Bruges, Belgium

Back on Capitol Hill, let us suppose we have the same relative ratio of average buildings to grand buildings leading to a similar high quality built environment. With an understanding that the average does as much as the grand in creating our neighborhood character, there is no better representative assembly of such buildings on the Hill than those along 11th Avenue between Pike and Pine, pictured below. No individual building is particularly grand or distinguished, but taken together they form one of our great streetscapes. By paying attention to the cumulative effect created by such a collection of buildings, one is able see their value in establishing the kind of desirable character that many of us on the Hill cherish. Criticalto our current debate, this character is fully compatible with new development. Conserving our character structures while simultaneously building new structures is the kind of balanced development approach that will continue to inject fresh ideas into our built realm, while paying due deference to the urban qualities that attracted us here in the first place. To foster the positive outcome of a balanced development approach it is incumbent on members of the Capitol Hill community to effectively communicate to developers that they must take time to understand the value we place on a successful blending of both the old and the new structures.

11^th Avenue, Capitol Hill

One relatively close by neighborhood that has achieved a very successful old-new balance on a neighborhood scale is Portland’s Pearl District. It took me some time to realize it, but it is the Pearl’s southern portion (where the character structures are, the northern portion was undeveloped rail yards) that is the most successful. The inclusion of both old and new is especially successful when the two are juxtaposed, as seen below. In this case, neither old nor new structures are exemplary as individual buildings, but taken together the streetscape they form achieves a balanced scale and creates a rich variety of experiences.

NW Glisan Street, Portland, OR

NW 11^th Avenue, Portland, OR

Pursuing such a balanced development approach on the Hill presents one with several options. First, and as promised by the developer of the Bauhaus building site, there is a preservation strategy that includes the character structure’s original exterior design and the retention of its interior environment. New development would occur above and be visually distinct in appearance from the retained character structure. In the particular case of the Bauhaus development the approach is certainly laudable, supportable, and easy to imagine as both the exterior and interior of the Bauhaus and adjacent Pineview Apartments are clearly something special. In the case of the Bauhaus/Pineview, we have a building that is fairly distressed requiring considerable resources and a financial commitment from the developer. Beyond leveraging the ambiance (and good will) of our neighborhood, one major incentive in favor of preservation of the Bauhaus is, of course, the extra floor the developer is awarded as an incentive for its preservation. This incentive is the means that the developer needs to offset the added costs of preserving the buildings instead of tearing them down, and was conceived and shepherded by members of the community, and adopted by the City in 2009.

The Bauhaus Building, Pine and Melrose

Bauhaus Building Interior

In addition to the straight forward preservation approach of the Bauhaus, one could pursue to adaptively re-use a building by restoring it to take on new uses its original developers may never have considered. This option can be attractive if the building in question is, say, a diamond in the rough and not such an obvious preservation candidate as is the Bauhaus. One thing making this approach attractive on Capitol Hill is that we have many of the old Auto Row buildings, buildings originally designed to support automotive uses. Automobiles, being rather large and heavy, required extra-stout structures and open floor plans. The upside to this is that a robust structure and open plan provide the most flexible floor plan of all, one that is well suited to provide for the diverse demands for tenant space on Capitol Hill that include retail, office, and restaurant. In our debate on the value of maintaining the granular streetscapes through preservation of the average and every day, goals for preservation certainly should include such Auto Row buildings as the Davis-Hoffman, pictured below. Davis-Hoffman is is a perfect candidate for conservation efforts, the extent of which are being discussed by members of the Capitol Hill community and the property's  developer, and whose latest design fully integrates the Davis Hoffman and the adjacent Madison Park Greetings buildings into the project.

Davis Hoffman, Original Condition (Puget Sound Archives)

Davis Hoffman, Current Condition

Removing the layers of previous renovations would reveal that in its former life the Davis Hoffman was a much more handsome building than it is today, and, more importantly, has those average qualities that contribute to extraordinary streetscapes. Even today it has porosity — courtesy of a substantial collection of large windows — that distinguishes it from contemporary developments. Paired with the two adjacent Madison Park Greetings buildings around the corner (and part of the same proposed development), the Davis Hoffman creates the type of continuous street fabric that has made neighborhoods such as the Pearl District a great success, and holds great promise for ours. Fortunately, on Capitol Hill one needs not imagine the potential outcome of such conservation efforts, for we have many fine examples of adaptive re-use projects. Thanks to such forward thinking developers as Hunter’s Capital, Dunn and Hobbs, and Madrona Real Estate Services — to name but a few — we have not only the architectural proof of the viability of such a strategy (while often times starting with buildings in much greater distress than is Davis Hoffman), but of its financial merits as well. And this group of local developers is willing to share their experiences with others seeking to achieve similar results by in their own development projects.

Elliott Bay Book Company, Prior to Renovation (Image Michael Oaksmith)

Elliott Bay Book Company, Post Renovation

When Elliott Bay Book Company relocated from Pioneer Square, it was a significant victory for Capitol Hill. It was no easy achievement as its previous location in the Pioneer Square Historic District defined the character of the bookstore as much as the thoughtfully chosen volumes that graced its shelves. Such character was important to the book store owner, and was a prime driver during his search for a new space. Thanks to the adaptive restoration of the flexible Auto Row typology from automotive service to bookstore, we have a fine retail space whose character and authenticity is preserved. In addition to the code-required seismic upgrade, restoration strategies included restoring the wood trusses and skylights, which had been roofed over. On the facade, a historically accurate new window system was installed. This was done in addition to the more typical new bathrooms, modern telecommunications, lighting, and heating/cooling system upgrades. A fairly involved process, but with results that have created one of the best retail environments in all of Seattle. Yet the developer, Hunters Capital, could have easily demolished the building, and started afresh with a 6 story edifice. Besides a passion for old buildings, Hunter’s has found that such spaces create desirable and profitable retail spaces, which have a unique ability to attract discerning local retailers such as Elliott Bay Books.

Elliott Bay Book Company, Interior Prior to Renovation (Image Michael Oaksmith)

Elliott Bay Book Company, Post Renovation

In addition to the above success story, there is another project that perhaps required even greater vision and fortitude: taking the building pictured below and realizing what has become a model for small, local retail, and adaptive re-use projects — the nationally acclaimed Melrose Market. Quite frankly, it is hard to imagine anyone seeing the value in its pre-restoration condition. But someone did, and thanks to developers Dunn and Hobbes and Eagle Rock Ventures, we have a project that has literally re-defined the western edge of Pike Pine. What was formerly a forgettable street has been transformed into what many  see as becoming one of Capitol Hill’s fines.  It provides the foundation for a great streetscape being embraced by current and future development projects such as the above mentioned Bauhaus project whose conservation efforts were inspired by those of Melrose Market.

Melrose Market, Prior to Renovation (Image Liz Dunn)

Melrose Market, Post Renovation

Melrose Market Interior, Post Renovation

Melrose Market is another good reminder (similar to Elliott Bay) that the conservation of the interior environment elicits as much consideration as the outside.  Another former Auto Row building, Melrose Market has long spanning trusses that prove to be well adapted to re-purposing. At Elliot Bay, which has a similar structure, the space provided is for one large retailer whereas at Melrose Market space provided is for almost a dozen, revealing the beauty and utility of the auto-row typology. In both cases the success of the project involved more than removing layers of paint, repairing rot, and bringing the building up to current standards of health and safety. Thoughtful tenanting of the spaces was essential, and to my mind, the successful results were almost a forgone conclusion. Larger national chains, with their standards of vending and for spaces they feel optimize the separation of shoppers from their money may not look twice at Melrose as it doesn’t fit within their conceptions of a successful retail environment. Yet, Elliott Bay Book Company and Melrose Market are of a culture that appreciates the unique qualities possessed by character structures, making the conservation of such spaces as appealing in attracting the types of businesses we desire on the Hill as are the spaces themselves. In a broader context, conserving our heritage buildings is one of the best a means we have in providing the type of spaces that locally-bases businesses crave, and many of us want to support.

Agnes Loft, Terrace Between Old and New Structures

Both old and new buildings are needed to create a cohesive urban fabric, and it is starting to emerge on small patches of Capitol Hill. New, modern buildings, with their clean lines and transparency are to be expected — and are most welcome — as they fill in parking lots, gas stations, and vacant lots.  However, we must not neglect those portions of our neighborhood where frontages of character buildings exist and ask developers to thoughtfully incorporate them into new developments while there still is an opportunity to do so. There should be little debate that such a conservation strategy is critical not only to maintaining the neighborhood identity many of us cherish, but to providing the kind of spaces others of like mind are looking for when searching for a new place to call home.

Jasper Park Lodge's Rustic Modernism

Much of so-called hospitality architecture leans too heavily on nostalgic imagery for my tastes. Especially so are those buildings that are in or adjacent to national parks, which try to harken back to pioneer days. True, there are many great, truly rustic lodges in the West -- Timberline, Crater Lake, Yosemite, Glacier National Park -- to name but a few. But those lodges, if not built during the time period we typically associate with pioneering days  (the 19th Century), were at least pioneering in the location within which they were built, which was more often than not far removed from established roads, towns, and other support infrastructure.

This lack of support meant that -- much as the true homesteading pioneers -- lodge builders relied on hand tools and manual labor, local craft traditions, and other limitations not posed today. Lodges built in the later half of the 20th Century and to this day were (and are) not faced by such hardships, yet many (most?) continue to evoke forms that have nothing to do with the time or traditions within which they were built. This is not the case at Jasper Park Lodge,  where the architect (whose name I could not ascertain during my stay there) artfully blended an historic 'lodginess' with mid-century modern flair.

Most likely built in the 1950's, this incredibly well conceived building combines the seemingly disparate goals of handcraft and the then jet-age aesthetic into a wholly original design. I can only image the struggles the architect endured balancing the expectations of rough-hewn and hand-crafted, with where his or her heart really was -- firmly modern. Fortunately for us, they were able to not only represent both, but do so in a highly original and satisfying way. And is a most spectacular setting.