Courthouse to set course for city's development.

Byline: MICHAEL FIFIELD For The Register-Guard

OTTO POTICHA, local architect and adjunct faculty member in the University of Oregon Department of Architecture, raised serious questions about the role of architecture in society last December when he commented in The Register-Guard on the lack of good architecture in Eugene.

All great cultures have demonstrated their unique qualities through the built environment. They have taken pride in translating their values, their customs, their identity, into the built form. Where is that pride, that concern, in our local culture? If all architecture is a reflection of the society that generates it, Eugene's "culture" can expect a stinging verdict of mediocrity.

Is the absence of outstanding buildings due to lack of public imagination and expectations, to construction budgets that limit excellence, or to clients afflicted by a bottom-line mentality? Are the architects themselves also responsible? As citizens, we expect the best in police and fire protection, in health care, in education, in our quality of life. Why are we not as demanding with respect to the buildings in which we live, work and create our history?

Eugene and neighboring cities are at a critical point in their development. What values do we hold dear? What is our design legacy? What will future generations say about the culture of Eugene in the 21st century? The new Eugene Library may begin to answer some of these questions. However, the building that goes further toward setting a direction for future development in Eugene may be the new federal courthouse.

On Thursday, the General Services Administration will unveil the schematic design for the courthouse. It will surely cause much interest and debate. It might be useful to discuss the design process that has taken place so far.

The vision rests primarily with U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who for many years has been an energetic proponent of a new courthouse. The current facilities do not meet security standards and are simply too small to handle future needs. The GSA, responsible for the construction of all federal buildings, has agreed that Eugene needs a new federal courthouse.

As part of the Design Excellence Program, established in 1994 to seek the best architects for federal buildings, a selection process began in 1999. The final selection of the design firm was based on interviews and reviews of qualifications, as determined by the GSA, culminating in a competition judged by three peer reviewers (myself as jury chair, architect Robert Ivy, editor-in-chief of Architectural Record Magazine, and architect Bill Pedersen, principal of KPF - the design consultant to BOORA Architects for the new federal courthouse in Portland).

In a format prescribed by GSA, the review committee evaluated designs submitted by five final competitors, without knowing their identities. Because the actual building site was not known at the time, the charge to the jury was to evaluate each firm's ability to address issues of context, function (including efficiency of use), aesthetics and sustainability. The submittal was evaluated as evidence that a firm could provide the best design solution when a final site was chosen. The jury unanimously rated the Morphosis submittal as the best.

Morphosis, a cutting-edge design firm from Santa Monica, Calif., teamed with DLR Group of Portland, was selected as the architects for the new federal courthouse. The firm was founded in 1972 by Thom Mayne, and has won 29 American Institute of Architecture design awards, 16 progressive architecture awards, and many other awards.

The Morphosis submittal had the clearest and most meaningful vision of any of the firms competing. Essentially, Mayne stated that a federal courthouse for the 21st century needed to be both visually and physically accessible to the citizenry it was meant to serve. His design was the most efficient, dealt with the context in a meaningful manner, addressed issues of form and scale appropriately, and had an extremely innovative courtroom design.

Although Mayne is quick to point out that Morphosis does not use any one vocabulary or style in the design of buildings, their work is contemporary and reflects an attitude in which a project's program and budget are investigated with a synthesis of forms and materials that challenges the status quo.

In contrast, Judge Hogan's own vision was initially rooted in his knowledge of more historical and traditional courthouse architecture. Since Morphosis was selected, Hogan has been involved with every stage of the design process. Hogan, however, did not originally support Morphosis.

When Ed Feiner, chief architect of the GSA, asked me to summarize the design jury's recommendation in a 15-minute presentation, it was Judge Hogan who cross examined me for almost four hours. He was not pleased with the selection as depicted in the competition drawings. However, Hogan learned that the criteria for evaluation went far beyond personal aesthetic judgments. Hogan is now a very strong supporter of both Morphosis and the design.

The hotly debated final choice of a courthouse site in Eugene was consistent with the GSA's intentions. The agency's guidelines state that public buildings are to be located where they can be physically accessible to pedestrians and automobile traffic, visually accessible, directly engaged in and part of the community, and in a strong urban setting shared with other institutions. Government is meant to be accessible, not isolated from the people it serves. Government buildings symbolize what government is about; they are not just places where public business is conducted.

The courthouse location presents challenges, not only to the architects but to the city of Eugene. The original intention was to choose a site closer to the existing courthouse, on an existing and well-defined city block. The new site is not as easily reached from downtown; the circulation challenge will be critical.

However, the events of Sept. 11 have influenced the new design. The GSA still intends to design buildings that are accessible, to not give in to a terrorist threat by creating fortresses. The current design reflects both a response to a greater concern for security, and also to the site's uniqueness.

In contrast to the design process for most public buildings in Eugene, the GSA does not solicit public opinion in the design of federal buildings. Instead, it relies on peer review - professionals review various design stages, make comments, and help inform the architects as to what works and what does not. I, with many others, have been closely involved in this process. Professionally, I find it unfortunate that there has not been greater interaction between the courthouse architects and the consultants hired to develop urban design strategies for the area around the courthouse.

However, this is not the Eugene federal courthouse. It is the federal courthouse located in Eugene. The courthouse must serve the needs of the citizens of Oregon, and must have an appropriate relationship to the context in which it is located.

The new courthouse will have a lasting impact on Eugene's skyline and economy. It is big. The new Eugene Library is 127,000 square feet. The new courthouse is 228,990 square feet - almost twice as big.

The architects were required to present three schemes for consideration. Many more were actually studied. Schemes were rejected that seemed too tall, blocked views, or did not help reinforce a strong urban environment.

The scheme that will be unveiled Thursday will house support functions in a low-rise building that occupies much of the four-acre site. The entry will be to the south, up a set of wide, monumental steps to the second level. The six district and bankruptcy courtrooms will be grouped in twos, expressed as sculptural forms on top of the plinth of support services below.

The architects have made great strides in the evolution of the design to break up the overall massing of the building, expressing the courtrooms, inside and out, in an appropriate and meaningful manner. They have also adhered to the vision of an open and accessible building while addressing issues of security.

As the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, has greatly changed the perception of that city, the new federal courthouse will have a similar effect on Eugene. It will not only serve the needs of the federal courts, but it will act as a catalyst for downtown development. It will not have clear support from everyone. But it will be instrumental in raising the bar for the design of all future buildings in Eugene.

Architecture, as we strive to teach our students at the UO, is about ideas and the translation of ideas. Architecture should not be subjective, arbitrary or self-referential. If Hogan, once a critic of the selected designer, can comprehend how architecture is first about ideas, and that good architecture is a meaningful translation of coherent design intent, to the point that he now is a strong supporter of the scheme, then others, too, might learn to support a new vocabulary in the Eugene built environment - however challenging or unfamiliar this new idea might at first appear.

I was told that if the building was a success, Thom Mayne would receive all the credit; if it was not, then the selection jury would receive all the blame. I am confident that the long-term effect of this building will be positive and will result in a tremendously important building for Eugene, and also for Oregon and the federal court system.

People may not agree with the vocabulary of the building - it is not a neutral building - but it will produce much-needed debate as to what constitutes design excellence, which is something we desperately need in Eugene.

Herbert Muschamp, architectural critic of The New York Times, wrote on March 19, 2000, about Morphosis' design of the recently completed Diamond Ranch High School in Southern California. The headline was, "Every once in a while, beauty works." The new federal courthouse has the potential to elicit similar reviews.

This building will become the most important landmark in the city. I hope it will kindle in our architects and in the public the sense that mediocrity in design is never a virtue - and is a habit that can and must be broken.

Michael Fifield is head of the Department of Architecture at the University of Oregon.