WSU – Junction 270 – 1

During the architectural doldrums of the early 1990’s, when I was between jobs, I was offered the opportunity to fill a one-year opening on the Architectural Faculty at Washington State University by the Dean, Rafi Samizay. He asked me to teach Architectural Programming and 5^th year design in the Fall; and in the Spring, 5^th year Thesis Design. At that time, Rafi said that a second course opening existed in the Spring if I wanted to propose something that would be of interest to me.

In the ten years or so leading up to this point I had had my first involvements with Design Team Collaboration, a process of involving multiple disciplines, including artists, in developing public designs as a group and involving the community in the process as well. The Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel and Stations design was an intense collaboration between architects and artists that began my interest in the idea of balancing Art, Infrastructure, and Environment as the basis of an approach to large civic projects. After that I participated in a successful competition design with two artists and a landscape architect for a new King Street Gardens Park in Alexandria, Virginia. Subsequently, I worked as a consultant to an artist on a number of environment-related projects.

Based on this background, I proposed to Rafi that I teach A Collaboration Studio for a semester, assuming that I could get a number of students from different disciplines interested in trying it out. I developed a small promotional poster and put it up in the schools of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Art, to see if there was interest.

The poster used a drawing from King Street Gardens Park to give a sense that this would be a course that explored a variety of forms and ideas, not just Architecture. I also contacted the faculties of the three disciplines to explore their interest in having their students work on a full-semester, cross-discipline design.

The Interest

There was immediate student interest; but the faculties were reluctant. In an academic setting it takes a lot of time and discussion to establish a program, the courses that will provide the skills to complete the program, and the whole credit structure that will work towards graduation. I was essentially asking for an exception to the rules on relatively short notice. For a time, I thought I might have to abandon the idea because of its administrative complexities. Then, one afternoon, three interested landscape architecture students paid me a visit in my office and said, essentially, “You’re not giving up!”

After that, there was no turning back. I sorted out the administrative issues; and Rafi arranged for a small graduate studio space we could use as a home base. We were off and running with eight students: three architects, three landscape architects and two artists.

In the beginning, since none of us had done this kind of work in a classroom setting, I had everyone introduce themselves and talk about their work and ideas. One of the major challenges of collaborative work is developing the trust and understanding necessary to successfully share the creative process. David was a sculptor; Curtis was one of my 5th year architecture students; John was an architecture student; Mary and Angie were Landscape students; Monique was an art student; Kurtis, a landscape student; and Harley a 4th year architecture student. They had all experienced the typical design format in which each student does his/hers own work, and has the work judged against a program but also – inevitably – against each other’s. It was import for me to convey that in this class we would all be contributing our skills to a shared goal.

I introduced myself as a part of the collaboration. My experience to that point had been that collaboration is an inclusive process in which everyone shares their skills and also works to see that everyone else’s goals are met. That meant that I was also part of the collaboration, even though I was also managing the class process.

Mark Spitzer, Interim Associate Professor of Architecture, WSU

My previous work had also taught me that this is a learning-by-doing endeavor. I resolved that the best way to teach it would be to have us all design the class itself, then the scope and nature of the gateway project, then the gateway project. That way, they would experience the “designing of the rules” that occurs in genuine collaborations and reflects the political realities of human cooperation and conflict.

The Project and the Challenge

One of the aspects of our culture in which I am particularly interested is the way in which the infrastructure we design and build (roads, bridges, parks, campuses, public buildings, etc) affects and is affected by the environment which we all share. Immediately in front of the main entrance to the Washington State University campus, the state was, at that very moment, widening and rebuilding highway 270 and the junction to the campus entrance,

Photo of Junction 270 site looking from the direction of downtown Pullman. In this photo one half of the old bridge has been removed and construction has started on the new bridge foundations.

and the bridge that carries it over the Palouse River and railroad (below). Since the project affected the entrance to the campus (left above), an adjacent strip of highway-related strip retail (right above), wetland and river landscape, and sites for potential housing, I decided to focus that collection of elements as a gateway to both the campus and the community, and include all of them in the design program.

Original route 270 bridge over the railroad and Palouse River (hidden on the left) looking toward town.

This approach had some distinct advantages for the class. The needs (student housing, better retail, effective use of the hillside, some environmental sensibility, a more gracious campus entrance, a some level of harmony between the campus and city) were all clear and compelling. The site was a 5 minute walk from our design studio. The elements of the program were familiar. And the fact that the site was currently being torn up made it obvious that large-scale change was clearly do-able.

Strip Retail along route 270 opposite the main entrance to the WSU campus.

The Collaboration Process

Collaboration is a learning-by-doing endeavor. I resolved that the best way to teach it would be to have the students design the class itself, then the scope and nature of the gateway project, then the gateway project. That way, they would experience the “designing of the rules” that occurs in genuine collaborations and reflects the political realities of human cooperation and conflict.

Everyone counts in a collaboration, and conversely, everyone makes his or her skills available to the group. (Willing is the magic word – willing to share one’s skills, willing to participate, willing to listen to others). In our class, I chose this to mean that I was a part of the collaboration along with the students. I brought one set of skills and experiences; they each brought theirs. Together we had a Studio of Skills with which to approach the gateway design and manage the process as well.

Since this approach was new to the students, they had some pretty clear reactions, especially since much of the work was done in informal, small-group conversations.

Junction 270 team holds in informal outdoor session

Some of their comments convey a sense of the newness of the process:

“In architecture you assume that everyone else works in the same way as architects do. What I learned is that some of the artists worked better in three dimensions . . .”

“It was an unusual feeling having the professor working along side the students on designing the project.”

“It was difficult to get used to someone else drawing on your drawings and trying out their ideas on yours.”

In the case of a project like Junction 270, collaboration is about community-based design as well, meaning that all the issues related to the campus Gateway area create the definition of the project and determine the people in the community who need to be involved. As a result, during the semester, we interviewed or heard presentations from staff of the University, the City of Pullman, the Pullman Civic Trust, the Department of Transportation, and the local retail community. I said to the students that they should take these various points of view as equally legitimate and worthy of consideration as we proceeded through the project. I was impressed with how forth-coming our various presenters were.

The dynamic of a collaborative project reflects struggles which change brings to a community. It also reflects the belief that these issues will be better resolved if everyone affected is willing to make the struggle public. A public setting permits many points of view to be presented, in a facilitated environment, for everyone’s understanding. During the development of the project, with the help of the Pullman Civic Trust, the students and I ran a community workshop that involved a wide range of Pullman and University participants.

Where to start? – Research the Situation

The rolling hills of the Palouse region of Washington and Idaho, a result of dramatic lava flows overlain with rich topsoil, strike you immediately in contrast to the rest of the state.

Palouse landscape in the Fall, with partially burned-off fields.

Palouse landscape intersected by wooded stream-bed.

Our Junction 270 project would not directly include these agricultural elements; but many of them would be visible from the site, and the site itself still carried similar characteristics.

Route 270 approach to WSU campus from the East

The WSU campus sits on a hill (right above) that slopes down to the Palouse River. Route 270 cuts across the brow of the hill, staying high enough to be out of the flood plain and to clear the river and railroad below. It also leaves just enough space for a strip of small-scale retail buildings, opposite the entrance roadway to the WSU campus (below left).

At the time of our Junction 270 project, a portion of WSU’s hill was being carved away (above right) to provide space to widen the road and build extra lanes to handle traffic to and from the campus entrance.

The retail stores backed up to an area that sloped down to the small railroad freight line and river flood plane. Our site consisted of the existing retail area plus the grassy slope (center below), flanked on each side by existing 3-story housing projects. This was the part of the site that sat directly across the highway from the main campus entrance.

Landscape Materials

Beneath all that rolling farmland lies miles of basalt and granite. In places, where wind and/or water have worn away the topsoil, this stone asserts itself into the landscape. The Landscape students in particular wanted this stone to play a strong role in the design.

For plant materials we assumed that all new specimens would be required; so we spent some time at local nurseries, exploring what was possible.

And we did also have one odd but strong clump of existing willow trees on the site.

We couldn’t believe that these trees had survived the history of development in the area, primarily because the original highway had created an embankment right up against them. What we discovered was that there was a storm water drain and pipe running through the center of the clump; and we deduced that it had been put in when the entrance road to the campus was built in a swale in the land that also contained a small creek. The road filled the swale; and the creek went into the pipe.

Housing and Retail Research

In the beginning of the project, we determined that student housing would play a major role in the design. The WSU campus at that time was suffering from a lack of decent housing; and the housing available nearby was not always configured for student living. We also resolved that we would provide space in the project for enough retail to absorb all of the facilities currently on the site. Finally, even though we hadn’t yet visualized it, we knew that there should be some open gathering space woven through the site.

No one felt that there were good models for housing / retail combinations in Pullman at that time. Both student housing and town apartments were developed without including retail; and retail was either downtown or in nearby malls. To get some good models we relied on examples from Seattle.

Pike Market Housing with street level retail – Seattle

Having a larger market place to survey also gave us a chance to look at a wider range of housing forms and materials.

Housing above retail – Belltown – Seattle

Seattle also has a variety of examples of hillside construction.

Hillside housing – Seattle

We knew that there would inevitably be some form of hillclimbs for access.

Pike Market Hillclimb – Seattle

The circulation paths would logically reach some form of open space.

Central Plaza – Carillon Point – Kirkland, WA

We knew we wanted the scale of the retail to be inviting, with shelter and outdoor seating.

Finally, we knew that we would have to make transitions into the landscaping, especially where the willow grove framed the project on the south end.

With all of these inspirations in front of us, we started the design process – Junction 270 – 2.

WSU – Junction 270 – 2

With the raw materials for our design collaboration in hand (see WSU – Junction 270 – 1), we set out to see if we could make sense of the project. Since the scope was large and the elements complex, I suggested we look at what the situation in general might tell us.

Junction 270 Site in context between downtown Pullman and the WSU Campus

The site (red rectangle) straddles a number of major elements. The WSU campus and City of Pullman each sit on hills that define several circulation elements: the oldest is the Palouse River, followed closely by two railroad lines (one of which was about to be converted to the Palouse Path) and State Route 270, connecting Pullman to Moscow, ID, eight miles away. The site also lies directly across route 270 from Stadium Way, the main entrance to the campus; so it is automatically a focal point. The two hills that bracket the site represent the traditional “town and gown” pairing that define many college towns; and led us to make a concerted effort to engage both with the WSU Administration and the City of Pullman.

In preparation for thinking about such a complex set of circumstances, I gave the students some materials developed by other planners and designers who have tackled similar situations in an analytical manner. One of those was William Rees Moorish, who had studied ways in which very large sites could be approached with cultural relevance.

William Rees Moorish analysis of Phoenix, AZ and its surroundings.

This very large scale overview lays out the elements that have traditionally influenced settlements in the area and which are significant enough to influence contemporary design going forward. In another study, he looked at ways that development and site context might interact as growth and change takes place.

William Rees Moorish – Land form influences

The point of this exercise was not to use any particular study, but to get used to the idea that very large movements in the site could have relevance to the design. In addition, I felt it was important to understand that the landscape was not something “over there” but that it and the site were one and the same thing. Here are a couple of examples of the idea-diagrams that were sketched out. The first one exaggerates the sense of the hills to indicate how that might structure the site plan.

In reverse of that, this one suggests that the Palouse River valley and its tributaries connect all the small surrounding towns to Pullman, adjacent to the site.

Pullman receiving the Palouse River and its tributaries.

By this time the students were impatient to begin the real design process so we jumped into a conceptual look at the whole package, beginning with the site.

Junction 270 – Initial Site Investigation

Here’s a study with a number of notes that show we were thinking in a number of directions at the same time.

Junction 270 – Site Analysis Sketch

For a number of studies we pursued the idea that a major space could be defined at the point that the Stadium Way entrance to the campus joined route 270. This would involve using four taller buildings set across from each other, perhaps an entrance round-about, and pulling lower buildings away from the road. This idea did not eventually survive our process; but other elements in the sketch did. These include stepping layers of housing going down the hill, some sort of a “zipper” hillclimb holding the center of the project together, and the incorporation of the existing retail into the design.

On one study, up in the corner of the drawing, a small doodle introduced an idea that also survived, a long sinuous residential building that wrapped around an open plaza space.

A variation of this idea also helped consolidate our thinking.

Junction 270 – Housing and Plaza

In this case the housing would step rather than flow around the open space. As we went along, we periodically sat around the table and identified our individual conclusions about the work being developed. That way, in contrast to the students’ typical design studio work, the ideas were all shared – and often merged with each other. Here are some of them:

Use basalt to make edge definition. Identify community needs that we might incorporate. Use a pedestrian bridge over the highway to mark the campus gateway. Find a way to pull the fractured landscape back together. Housing should be affordable. Soften the land form where the willow wetland meets the site. Use the housing to define a plaza entry space.

From all of this analysis we finally constructed our community.

Check out WSU – Junction 270 – 3 for the design results.

WSU – Junction 270 – 3

At the mid-point of our collaboration we were ready to begin the serious design process. We had done research, met with both WSU and City of Pullman administrators, and developed a series of analyses to guide us. During this process a fellow professor had asked how the project was going and suggested that if we wanted to reach out into the general community, he knew just the person to talk to. A few days later I sat down with Loretta Anawalt.

Harley Cowan, Kurtis Roberts, and Loretta Anawalt review a site concept.

Loretta Anawalt (above) almost single-handedly enlarged the focus of our work to take in the citizens of Pullman who lived with the Town and Gown issues that we were designing around. It turned out that she was the head of the Pullman Civic Trust, a local non-profit focused on improving Pullman’s parks and developing a bicycle/walking trail from Pullman to Moscow, Idaho. She had been an engaged leader; and she had built an army of citizen supporters interested in public sector improvements. A significant portion of the riverfront park work had been completed.

Palouse River and riverfront park

The park combined green space, walking and biking trails, existing and new bridges, and flood management structures like the one in the photo above. Building consensus and shepherding the project through a long public process had been a labor of love for Loretta. Luckily for us, she saw our project as a related and worthwhile venture that would also support her bicycle path project as well.

Between the two of us, we called on local citizens, City officials, WSU faculty and a few consultants already working on campus; and we asked them to participate in a one day workshop to review our work to date and comment on our goals and aspirations. We had a terrific response; so I arranged with Rafi Samizay to use one of the large studios for a Saturday. I also set up the workshop format so that the 8 students would prepare display boards and actively manage the small-group discussions.

Junction 270 Public Workshop – Small Group Discussions

I introduced the overall project and noted the various areas we were studying.

Junction 270 Areas of Analysis

Each area included comments generated by our team outlining our issues.

Junction 270 – Retail Analysis

The students then walked people through our conclusions, asking about agreement with or challenges to the ideas, and both talking about the work and taking notes.

John Riordan and Angie Hastings lead a discussion.

Curtis Bigelow and Monique Danielson take in a point being made by a community member.

A couple of WSU staff tackle a tricky issue with the site plan

David Drake and Mary Eickoff take in a citizen point of view.

At the end of the day, the students presented the ideas and conclusions that each of the groups had developed to the whole audience.

For the community, this workshop challenged many of their ideas about how the University and the City could come together to understand and resolve significant planning concerns about which they were often at loggerheads. For the students, it was an eye-opening introduction to the real world of disagreement and consensus-building, all focused on work for which they were responsible.

As we packaged up our materials and started thinking about how we were actually going to turn all these ideas into a design, Loretta Anawalt said she had one more suggestion.

By this time, I had learned that when Loretta had an idea, it was worth listening to it.

She wanted to come into the studio where we worked and talk to the students about how they could engage in a holistic understanding of the project as they finalized it. At this point the project had started to come together as a series of generic forms but hadn’t yet developed its personality.

Junction 270 Study Model – View of main plaza

I had had the engineering shop cut up some scale blocks for us to use. Each block, for both the buildings and the site, was one story high; so they were easy to stack in sensible ways and still be able to represent a sloping site. In the view above, a major triangular plaza opens towards the campus and highway, framed by retail shops at grade with housing units above. Other housing sits behind.

Junction 270 Study Model – View of Housing facing the valley.

From the downhill, or valley side, the housing clusters along pedestrian streets that flow with the linear contours of the site.

Junction 270 Study Model – View of Housing and Willow garden.

This view shows more clearly the central hillclimb that connects the apex of the triangular plaza down through the housing to the Palouse Path. The open site platforms at the right hand end show where the existing Willow wetland space would be developed into a garden and quiet space adjacent to the housing.

So what did Loretta say to the students?

She said that each of the students should pretend that the project had been built before they arrived on campus, that they were each living in one of the housing units, and that they were expecting their parents to show up for a football week-end. She said, “visualize living here and how you would take people through it and explain to them why the design is the way it is”.

And that’s what they did. Check the next blog post to see how it all turned out.