Robertson/Sherwood/Architects' Newest Principals

Lana Sadler, AIA

Becky Thomas, AIA

Big news! Lana Sadler, AIA, and Becky Thomas, AIA are the newest principals and shareholders at Robertson/Sherwood/Architects, joining Carl Sherwood, AIA and Scott Stolarczyk, AIA, CDT, LEED AP BD+C on the firm’s leadership team. Lana and Becky assume their new roles as founding partner Jim Robertson, FAIA, FCSI, CCS and I step back from our senior leadership responsibilities.

 
Jim relinquished his ownership back in January 2023, and I just sold my interest in the firm earlier this month. Along with Scott, Carl remains a primary shareholder. As readers of this blog are aware, I intend to leave the workforce very soon, as early as this June if all goes to plan. Jim, and eventually Carl, will follow me into retirement.
 
As I mentioned upon Lana’s and Becky’s promotion to Associate status a few years back, the process of ownership transition does prompt reconsideration of old paradigms, especially those that are overdue for reexamination. Robertson/Sherwood/Architects will always retain elements of the successful culture and attributes instilled by Jim and Carl (and to a lesser extent, by me). On the other hand, the injection of energy and new vision that Lana and Becky promise to bring is precisely what the firm needs most at this moment.
 
The practice of architecture is dynamic, to say the least. The ongoing evolution of an architectural office is both a necessity and a driver for growth and change. Those firms poised to evolve with agility and foresight stand to flourish, leveraging innovation to stay relevant and competitive. Evolution isn’t just about survival on the competitive landscape—it’s about seizing the occasion to redefine and excel, to embrace new technologies and ways of working, and to shape the future of a firm with informed foresight.
 
I expect great things from Lana and Becky. They’ve waited patiently for this opportunity. Along with Scott, they’re more than ready to take the reins and carry Jim’s and Carl’s legacy forward for decades to come.
 
Here's the announcement we posted to our website:
 
All of us at Robertson/Sherwood/Architects (RSA) are excited to announce the newest evolution for our firm. Lana Sadler and Rebecca Thomas are our newest principals, extending the legacy that James Robertson and Carl Sherwood began in 1986.
 
Lana joined RSA in 2002 after graduating from Kansas State University and traveling across the country from Illinois to explore the Pacific Northwest. She has been a major contributor to several of our firm’s significant projects, including the Lane Community College Downtown College campus and Roosevelt Middle School. Lana was the Project Architect for the Edison Elementary School project and is currently taking on the lead for the second phase of work at Civic Park. Lana has also taken a strong lead in acting as production manager for the firm, coordinating work in the office and making sure we all stay on task. Outside of the office, Lana enjoys spending time with her children and taking advantage of the outdoor activities her adopted state provides.
 
Becky joined RSA in 2005 after graduating from the University of Oregon and working with the UO Facilities Division during school. She has led the charge for our office on projects such as the expansion for FOOD for Lane County, multiple athletic facilities for the Eugene 4J School District, and a new indoor aquatic center for the North County Recreation District. She is currently working as the Project Architect on the Lane Community College Health Professions Building which is nearing completion. In the office, Becky is our IT guru, making sure we all have the tools needed to do our job. She has also been a big advocate of the work experience for everyone in the office, not something explainable but incredibly important. Outside of the office, Becky loves spending time with her family. She also enjoys being outside any chance she gets, running, walking, hiking, skiing . . . anything active. Her extra time is spent volunteering at local schools and supporting her two boys as they pursue their passion for sports throughout the year. If she’s not at the office you can usually find Becky at a field, in a gym, at a school, or walking her dog.
 
Lana and Becky join Carl Sherwood and Scott Stolarczyk in leadership roles for RSA. Carl is a founding Principal of the firm. Scott has been with the firm since 1999 and joined leadership in 2020. It is exciting to bring Lana and Becky into our leadership team, moving us into great new directions.

Ethics in Architecture

Interior rendering of THE LINE, Neom, Saudi Arabia (from the project website).

I recently watched a video produced by architect and YouTuber Dami Lee about THE LINE, a project that raises significant questions regarding the ethical duty and moral obligations of architects. Typical of everything on her YouTube channel, the video is informative and entertaining, with impressively high production values. I encourage you to watch it. 

In a nutshell, The Line will be a colossal 170-kilometer-long linear city in Saudi Arabia's Neom region, aiming to accommodate a population of up to 9 million people. Some estimates project a cost of up to $1 trillion (USD). Designed to be car-free and powered by renewable energy, it's part of Saudi Vision 2030. Initial construction began in 2021, with a completion target of 2030. Despite promises of economic growth, the project faces criticism for displacing indigenous tribes and threatening wildlife. Architects, including Norman Foster and Francine Houben, withdrew due to ethical concerns, while others like Thom Mayne, David Adjaye, Peter Cook, and Rem Koolhaas remain involved despite the project’s adverse environmental and human rights impacts. 

As an architect, I inhabit a profession where ethical dilemmas are not merely theoretical constructs but real-world challenges that can profoundly shape the built environment and society at large. An unimaginably huge project like The Line poses an obvious ethical quandary. At the opposite end of the scale, architects regularly navigate through ethical shades of gray that equally test our moral compass and professional integrity. 

At the forefront of ethical debates lies the notion of complicity. The Line is a simply a prominent case in point, with architects knowingly collaborating on a venture linked to a regime accused of deplorable human rights abuses and political repression. The hypocrisy of architects who choose to prioritize financial gain or professional acclaim over ethical considerations highlights the complex interplay between personal values, professional obligations, and societal impact. 

Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident and journalist, was assassinated in Istanbul, Turkey by agents of the Saudi government in October 2018 at the behest of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. (photo by April Brady / POMED, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons) 

Architects face moral predicaments rooted in issues of social justice, environmental sustainability, and cultural preservation. For instance, when designing affordable housing projects, we routinely address competing priorities of cost-efficiency, community engagement, and design excellence while ensuring equitable access to safe and dignified living spaces. Similarly, in urban renewal initiatives designers balance the need to revitalize blighted neighborhoods with the risk of gentrification and displacement, striving to promote inclusive developments that benefit existing communities. 

Environmental ethics loom large in my profession. The imperative to mitigate climate change and minimize the ecological footprint is central to every project we undertake. Sustainable design principles, such as energy efficiency, net-zero and Passivhaus design strategies, and use of environmentally friendly materials, are second nature to our work. They reflect our broader commitment to environmental stewardship and responsible resource management. Yet, we must often confront trade-offs between sustainability goals and project constraints by resolving the tension between idealism and pragmatism in pursuit of environmentally conscious design solutions. 

Cultural ethics present another layer of complexity, as architects grapple with the necessity of preserving heritage sites, indigenous architecture, and cultural identity in an increasingly globalized world. The tension between modernization and tradition underscores approaching cultural heritage with sensitivity and respect, engaging in meaningful dialogue with local communities and stakeholders to ensure that design interventions uphold cultural values and foster a sense of belonging. 

My firm routinely faces the dilemma of balancing the client’s budget with a desire to deliver the highest quality or most sustainable solution possible. A client’s design preferences might clash with our own design principles or aesthetic sensibilities. Managing the tension between community input and the requirements of our public sector projects or balancing social equity with market demands are other examples. 

Cultivating a nuanced understanding of the architect’s professional responsibilities and ethical obligations is crucial. Carl M. Sapers (1932 – 2018), Hon. AIA, was an adjunct professor on legal practice at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design from 1984 to 2009, and one of the country’s preeminent lawyers in architecture and construction law. His framework of ethical obligations for the architect included four points: 

1. The architect is responsible for making sufficient income to support the architect and his or her family. 
2. The architect is responsible for the sometimes-conflicting requirements of serving the client. 
3. The architect is responsible for the sometimes preceding and competing interest of serving the public. 
4. The architect has the responsibility to have devotion to the art of architecture.

Similarly, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Code of Ethics underscores the architect’s duty to promote the public interest, serve clients competently, uphold professional integrity, respect colleagues' rights, and safeguard the environment. The Code is structured into three tiers: Canons, Ethical Standards, and Rules of Conduct. There are six canons, prioritizing obligations to the public, clients, profession, colleagues, and the environment. Ethical standards outline goals and member expectations, while rules of conduct enforce the code. Canons emphasize advancing architectural knowledge, promoting public interest, serving clients professionally, upholding professional integrity, respecting colleagues, and prioritizing sustainable design. These guidelines ensure that we prioritize societal well-being, professionalism, and environmental responsibility in our practice. 

Western terminus of THE LINE at the Red Sea (from the project website).

Ultimately, ethical decision-making in architecture is fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty. Sooner or later, all architects confront moral jams that lack clear-cut solutions. For me, The Line presents no such ambiguity—I find it to be abhorrent on multiple levels. The preposterously dystopian project does serve as a stark reminder of the ethical challenges inherent in routine architectural practice.
 
Architects must remain vigilant in scrutinizing their actions and strive to uphold ethical standards that transcend individual projects and shape the profession's collective ethos. By engaging in ongoing dialogue, reflection, and ethical inquiry, we can tackle the moral complexities of our profession with integrity, humility, and a commitment to the common good.

The Need for Visionary Thinking

The City of Eugene mailed a multi-page brochure regarding the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project to neighbors this past February. While the brochure did a good job of providing a basic project overview, a description of its funding, and the anticipated construction timeline, it was what it did not address that concerns Otto Poticha, FAIA. The elephant in the room (or perhaps rather, not in the room) is what he perceives as another example of the City’s failure to prioritize visionary thinking in its planning processes.
 
Otto sent the following missive to Eugene’s city councilors and the city’s Public Works Department director (Matt Rodriguez) a few weeks ago following publication of the project update:
 
“This is a very important project for our city. The presented scheme is typical public works engineering and is not DESIGN; it is engineering. Have any of the special nature or special experiences within this corridor been included? One’s experience and the special qualities of being in this major urban space, even in a vehicle, have not been explored nor presented. This public works engineered solution could be dropped into any city and probably has. Engineering is an essential ingredient in any design but tends to be quantitative or measurable. A design must pair the experiences of being and using the space to be a ‘design.’
 
The presented design narrative has a paragraph called ‘placemaking,’ but this important criterion is not evident nor discussed. History says that these important elements are used to sell the plan and never considered or included. 

• Where are the principles or processes to incorporate these elements?
• How does this design recognize and provide for ‘placemaking?’
• How Is this a major introduction, statement, and entrance to our city?
• How can Judkins Point and other adjacent elements play a role as a part of this entrance?
• Should this corridor still use the term ‘boulevard’ understanding the definition of that term? (It takes more than landscaping or plant masking to be a boulevard). Boulevards are like parks or park-like corridors and should be a special place. A place one wants to occupy and use differently than a street with landscaping.
• How does this ‘design’ accommodate and promote or engage the pedestrian or bicycle users? How does this design provide a way for them to interact with the adjacent commercial uses? Do they get more than an elevated crosswalk and a painted line to designate their space?
• How does this become a real connection with the adjacent neighborhoods and downtown providing experiences and support for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and vehicle users during their journey?
• What and where is the ‘street furniture’ (lighting, benches, graphics, signals, signage, and utilities) being incorporated into this design?
• Does this design recognize or support that there is the entrance to a major university along this corridor?
• What materials and textures provide the community’s statement and define the scale and nature of this functional space?

There are more questions to be asked, many more than ‘how do we move vehicular traffic safely’ that must be expressed in this design.

I encourage the Council to delay approval until a comprehensive design is presented with a set of principles and a process developed. This project is much more than a public works street project and might even set an example of how our city could design most of our city’s public spaces and streets.”
 
Not eliciting the response he hoped for, Otto subsequently reached out to me to express his frustration, once again lamenting what he regards as the apparent inability of city leaders to understand what fully considered design solutions and real placemaking entail.
 
To a point, I do share Otto’s disillusionment. That said, if there is a fundamental problem with how the City plans and implements major public works projects, it is not due to the earnest efforts of the city administration and staff. Instead, the problem(s) may be one inherent in the structure of local governments everywhere, specifically their traditional segregation of functions into discrete silos of responsibilities. In the case of the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project, this may be an instance wherein the well-intentioned priorities of the Public Works Transportation Planning team are taking precedence over other imperatives.
 
By no means am I fully informed about the extent to which the City has addressed the complete range of considerations associated with the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project. Nonetheless, I do wonder whether the design concept the City is advancing does mesh with the S-SW Walnut Station Special Area Zone development standards (which incorporate a form-based code) and the expressed goals of the Walnut Station Specific Area Plan, which focuses on the shaping of the public realm.
 
Specifically, the images included with the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project update do not appear to depict the multiway boulevard configuration described by the Walnut Station Specific Area Plan. The multiway boulevard concept would separate through-traffic along Franklin from the adjacent land uses through the construction of planted medians, local access lanes, and on-street parking serving those uses. The concept supports the full range of transportation options and users of the street system.
 
While the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project update touts improving safety, encouraging density and development, and fully supporting multimodal transportation options, like Otto I don’t find detailed evidence in the design now moving forward about how these goals will be achieved. Notably, the 2024 project update and web page fail to refer to the Walnut Station Specific Area Plan. This telling omission speaks to my overarching concern regarding compartmentalized thinking in the City’s planning processes, and possibly reflects partial abandonment of some of the Walnut Station Specific Area Plan's guidelines. I welcome correction of any of my assumptions that are in error. 
 

Rendering of the proposed Walnut Station roundabout from last year's (2023) project report.

Rendering of a multiway boulevard per the 2010 Walnut Station Special Area Plan. Note the separated local access lane and on-street parking, which are not evident in the Walnut Station roundabout rendering above.

It’s important that we heed Otto’s plea for the fundamental consideration of placemaking principles in the future design of the Franklin Boulevard corridor.  The project certainly should address its role as a major entrance to the city, acknowledge landmark elements (such as Judkins Point, Matthew Knight Arena, and the Romania Building), emphasize the incorporation of vibrant, pedestrian-oriented elements, all while promoting engagement with adjacent commercial uses. Whether it will or not deserves our attention.
 
Otto will be an advocate for bold thinking until the day he dies. He has always wanted Eugene to be the best it can be, but he is growing weary of being a lone voice holding the community accountable for ambitious plans that enhance its livability and aesthetic appeal. The least we can do is to support his advocacy for visionary and holistic design approaches that transcend the limitations of narrowly focused and discipline-constrained problem solving.

Citizen Architect

 

The well-attended March meeting of the Eugene Section of AIA Oregon took place last Wednesday at the Ninkasi Better Living Room. The intriguing subject of the meeting was what it means to be a model “Citizen Architect.”

Simply put, the notion of the Citizen Architect relates to design professionals who engage in civic endeavors, contributing their insights, talents, and experiences towards the betterment of society. Citizen Architects regard architecture not merely as a vocation but as a conduit for social progress, leveraging their skills to address pressing issues affecting the profession and more broadly the communities of which they are a part.

Central to the spirit of the Citizen Architect is a dedication to civic activism and advocacy. Architects possess specialized knowledge of the built environment's impact on society, and thus are uniquely positioned to advocate for policies addressing urgent issues impacting everyone. Local engagement additionally serves as a cornerstone of the Citizen Architect's mission. By interfacing with grassroots organizations, attending town hall meetings, and collaborating with local stakeholders, architects forge connections that underpin community-driven development initiatives. They harness their collective influence to shape legislative agendas and advocate for policies conducive to sustainable urban growth.

The meeting featured speakers who collectively described some of the paths architects can follow toward fulfilling the role of a Citizen Architect:

AIA Oregon Leadership Summit

The Eugene Section’s representative on AIA Oregon’s Emerging Professional Committee is my colleague at Robertson/Sherwood/Architects, John Webster, AIA. John described the February 21 Oregon Leadership Summit at the State Capitol in Salem, which featured the opportunity for the 15-20 young professionals who attended to learn firsthand about how the legislative process, public policy, and governance impact the work of architects. The event also provided them with an opportunity to meet with the AIA Oregon Legislative Affairs Committee, various state representatives, and the Oregon State Board of Architect Examiners (OSBAE).

John regarded the Summit as an excellent introduction for the attendees to the responsibilities of a “Citizen Architect.” Learning how to become effective voices for the profession is a critical aspect of leadership and advocacy. Seeking change when laws or policies are contrary to the best interests of our communities or the architectural profession often means being an advocate in public spaces, a useful lesson for every emerging professional.  

Oregon House of Representatives (photo by Cacophony, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

The 2024 Oregon Legislative Session

As I mentioned above, helping to shape legislative agendas is a central function of a Citizen Architect. AIA Oregon has provided the structure and support for its members on matters of public policy, both at the State and Federal levels.

Cindy Robert, AIA Oregon’s lobbyist since 2000, reported on the outcomes of the recently adjourned 2024 Legislative Session impacting the architectural profession. Cindy said the legislators only passed 100 of 300 bills introduced, but many of those which became law portend “monumental changes” for Oregon architects. Chief among these changes are the Governor’s Housing Bill & Funding Package (allocating $376 million in funding for housing initiatives across the state), the creation of a new Housing Accountability & Production Office, a directive for the Department of Land Conservation and Development to create model ordinances that provide clear and objective standards for the development of various housing types, and the barring of design professional “duty to defend” provisions in construction contracts.

The passage of the “duty to defend” legislation (SB 1575A) is particularly welcome and overdue. I’ve seen too many public agencies throughout Oregon include contractual clauses that require architects to defend those agencies in the event of legal claims for damages even though the design professional is not responsible for them. The “duty to defend” language is legally problematic, expensive, and uninsurable by professional liability carriers. The fact such clauses became ubiquitous may in part be a consequence of many architects failing to understand their implications, or simply missing the “fine print” altogether. The new legislation will ensure fairness for architects and engineers in the public contracting process by requiring each party to a construction contract to be responsible for their own negligence or fault. This means parties will pay damages based on actual liability, rather than alleged liability once that responsibility is determined.

Mentor Madness

The definition of a Citizen Architect can also include the duty to mentor the future generation of design professionals. Evon Calabrese, Assoc. AIA and Nicole Becker, AIA, introduced Mentor Madness, which will be a fast-paced four-week program offering group and one-on-one mentorship sessions. The sessions will match experienced professionals looking to share their wisdom with aspiring architects-to-be.

Evon and Nicole, both emerging professionals themselves, organized Mentor Madness particularly for those new to the Oregon architecture community. In addition to a series of virtual meetings, the coming Oregon Design Conference will serve as a program venue. The conference (May 8-10 in Bend) will host related presentations, including an overview of the AIA and the pathways to getting involved at the chapter and national levels, an introduction to allied professional organizations, and what it means to be a Citizen Architect. Acceptance into the Mentor Madness program includes registration to the Oregon Design Conference and a $300 travel stipend. The AIA College of Fellows provided the funding necessary to make the program possible.

Unfortunately, the deadline for both mentor and mentee applications is tomorrow (Monday, March 25); I’m late in reporting about the Mentor Madness program. Act quickly if you’re interested. I expect the program may become a fixture on the AIA Oregon calendar in future years, so future opportunities to participate will undoubtedly exist.

The Architect as Mayor

Kaarin Knudson, AIA is currently one of three candidates running for mayor of Eugene. I’ve already endorsed Kaarin’s candidacy. She is nothing but the epitome of a Citizen Architect. As I first wrote last September, Kaarin brings a fresh perspective to local politics, one that combines her experience as an architect, urban designer, university educator, and community leader. She addressed the value of that perspective during her presentation and the subsequent question & answer period.

In some respects, it’s curious more architects have not taken this step. Architects do possess political agency by virtue of their training and the nature of their work, which is inherently public. I believe design excellence as a civic imperative should be a precondition for holding political office at the local level. Thomas Jefferson’s dictum that “design activity and political thought are indivisible” comes to mind here. By their nature, architects are adept at solving complex problems through design, leading project stakeholders as well as the communities they serve toward better futures.

Effective leadership from the mayor’s chair can result in constructive and responsible change. This is even true here in Eugene, which operates under the council-manager form of government. The mayor’s influence is limited or “weak” in such a system. Regardless, the mayor of Eugene can exercise leadership to build a constituency for design excellence and influence the community to confront its adaptive challenges—those gaps between a citizenry’s values and the current reality that cannot be closed by routine behavior.

I believe Kaarin has the acumen, collaborative mindset, and most importantly the vision to be the persuasive leader Eugene needs. She is most worthy of your support. Ballots for the primary election are due on May 21.   

*    *    *    *    *    *

I cannot claim the mantle of “Citizen Architect” to the extent that those who have worked tirelessly over many years on behalf of their clients, friends, neighbors, and fellow design professionals can. Yes, I did my part during my 2008-2009 stint on the AIA Oregon board, traveling to Salem and Washington D.C. to advocate for sound public policies that support livable, sustainable communities. Since then, my contributions have mostly been limited to attending public meetings and directly participating in public workshops associated with issues related to urban design, the housing affordability crisis, and the like. If anything, perhaps this blog fulfills my obligation to be a Citizen Architect, as I have used it as a public platform upon which to advocate on behalf of the broader purposes of architecture.

The Citizen Architect paradigm epitomizes the convergence of professional expertise and civic responsibility, serving as a catalyst for transformative change in the built environment. Through advocacy, activism, and community engagement, architects leverage their talents to address societal challenges, advance public welfare, and nurture inclusive, sustainable communities. As stewards of the built environment, Citizen Architects embody the ethos of service, stewardship, and social progress, shaping a more equitable and resilient future for future generations.

Eugene/Architecture/Alphabet: R

 

Romania Building, Franklin Boulevard side (my photo)

This is the next in my Eugene/Architecture/Alphabet series of blog posts, the focus of each being a landmark building here in Eugene. Many of these will be familiar to most who live here but there are likely to be a few buildings that are less so. My selection criteria for each will be threefold:

1. The building must be of architectural interest, local importance, or historically significant.
2. The building must be extant so you or I can visit it in person.
3. Each building’s name will begin with a particular letter of the alphabet, and I must select one (and only one) for each of the twenty-six letters. This is easier said than done for some letters, whereas for other characters there is a surfeit of worthy candidates (so I’ll be discriminating and explain my choice in those instances).

This entry’s selection begins with the letter R, for which my choice is the Romania Building.
 
Romania Building
The Romania Building at 2020 Franklin Boulevard is perhaps Eugene’s best-known (if not best-preserved) example of 1950s-style “Googie” architecture. Its elliptical plan, sweeping “potato chip” roof, and once expansive glass walls are characteristic of the futuristic Googie designs—many of which employed gravity-defying cantilevers, bold geometric shapes, and vibrant colors—that exuberantly celebrated the car-centric culture of the era. Located as it was and is at the east end of Franklin Boulevard, the building functioned as a gateway and symbol of the city’s rapidly expanding transportation infrastructure and commercial development upon its opening in 1960. Though its original dynamism is a thing of the past, current plans promise new life for the forlorn structure.
 
The firm of Balzhiser, Seder, and Rhodes designed the showroom, initially for the Lew Williams Chevrolet dealership. The late Grant Seder served as the building’s principal designer. Grant intended its curved form to be reminiscent of the energy of automobiles in motion, rather than as Eugene’s own faddish take on the Googie style. The design team considered various structural solutions (including a tension structure suspended from a perimeter compression ring), ultimately settling upon a relatively conventional and economical system that nevertheless managed to realize the striking aesthetic they wished for.

Photo from the National Register of Historic Places (https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalregister/6035198053/in/photostream/Lew Williams Chevrolet Dealership | Eugene, Lane County, OR … | Flickr)

Lew Williams sold the business to Joe Romania in 1969 (Joe was general manager of the dealership under Lew). What grew to become the Romania group of car dealerships was a force on the local scene when I first arrived in Eugene in 1980, and it remained so up until the time the Romania family sold the land and buildings its Chevrolet dealership occupied to the University of Oregon in 2005. Since purchasing the strategically important location, the university repurposed the 4.0-acre site for storage and parking use, with the former showroom serving for a while as studio space for its Product Design program.

 

Romania Building, east end (my photo)

As of 2011, the showroom has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. According to the listing, the display pavilion “served to attract customers driving along Franklin Boulevard with its modern, futuristic, and aerodynamic design.” Notably, the dealership was the first to be situated outside of Eugene’s downtown core, which no longer can boast any such businesses.
 
An interesting tidbit I wasn’t familiar with is that the showroom was an addition to a former Coca Cola bottling plant, as opposed to the facility entirely being purpose-built as an automobile dealership. As the NHRP listing details, Lew Williams converted the bottling plant into the dealership’s service center, later adding a paint shop, body shop, and collision repair center office in quick succession to the building. So adaptive reuse is part of the dealership’s history, and as I will address next, will be part of its future as well.
 
The UO solicited proposals from developers in 2019 for exploration of a potential public/private ground lease arrangement that would include, among many other features, the preservation of the historical integrity and Googie style of the former dealership showroom commensurate with its placement on the NRHP. The goal was to strike a balance between honoring its past and embracing future opportunities for growth.
 
The university selected the proposal presented by Project^, a Portland-based developer whose Eugene portfolio includes the nearby Skybox, Courtside, and K14 student apartment buildings. The proposal for the Romania site by Project^ aims to retain the iconic features of the Romania Building while revitalizing the surrounding area. As a development partner, the UO would lease the land to Project^. The university’s continued involvement would underscore its commitment to enhancing the campus and its neighboring communities. In this scenario, the Romania Building holds immense potential as a catalyst for the property’s transformative change. By preserving its architectural heritage and integrating it into a modern urban development, we would be able to celebrate the Romania Building’s past while embracing the future.
 

Redevelopment proposal by Project^.

I believe the Project^ proposal for the Romania site is proceeding (someone correct me if I’m mistaken, and it is instead stillborn). The rendering shown here hints at its large scope, which will entail a mixed-use development, the centerpiece of which will be the former automobile display pavilion, returned to its former glory, perhaps functioning as a restaurant. If the entire plan is realized, the project will be the type of neighborhood node improvement called for by the City of Eugene’s Walnut Station Specific Area Plan.
 
Safeguarding the Romania Building’s historical significance while embracing an opportunity for sustainable growth and development makes sense, so I’m hopeful the University of Oregon’s partnership with Project^ will move forward along the lines of the vision presented. This community hasn’t been the best when it comes to preserving its architectural heritage. With luck, the Romania Building will be fully restored and again be the captivating presence along Franklin Boulevard it once was.