KATE LAUE | DESIGN PORTFOLIO
KATE LAUE, CPHD, LEED AP +1 (541) 914-7291 | katelaue@gmail.com 619 NE Stanton St Portland, OR 97212 Online Portfolio: https://issuu.com/katelaue/docs/laue-kate_portfolio_2023-10
DEGREES & CERTIFICATIONS Master of Science in Architecture
09/2023
University of Oregon - Portland
Bachelor of Architecture + Business Minor
06/2012
University of Oregon
PHI Passive House Passive Designer Certified Passive House Consultant LEED Accredited Professional
JOB HISTORY Tallwood Design Institute
12/2019 09/2011 02/2009 Portland, OR
Graduate Employee - Research
03/2023 - Present
Laue Design
San Francisco, CA
Residential Design & Permit Drawings
Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory
06/2014 - 08/2022
Eugene, OR
Research Associate Student Researcher
09/2012 - 04/2014 01/2009 - 09/2012
The Dough Company
Eugene, OR
Book-Keeper & Payroll Manager
09/2006 - 10/2008
SOFTWARE PROFICIENCY
AutoCAD - Revit - Rhino - Sketchup - ArcGIS - Adobe: Illustrator - InDesign - Photoshop Microsoft: Word - Excel - Powerpoint - PHPP - Solidworks - R - Tableau - THERM - VRay - WUFI Kate Laue
Page 2
REFERENCES Judith Sheine
Director of Design- Tallwood Design Institute Professor- University of Oregon
Mark Fretz
Interim Director- Institute for Health in the Built Environment Assistant Professor- University of Oregon
Connie Rolfe
CFO Essex General Construction, Past Client
+1 (323) 821-1208
jesheine@uoregon.edu
+1 (503) 539-0033
mfretz@uoregon.edu
+1 (541) 743-5522
connie.rolfe@essexgc.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS PROFESSIONAL WORK MPP House Prototype Modeling & Construction Drawings
Pages 4-7
McKenzie River House Redesign House Renovation & Expansion
Pages 8-11
RESEARCH & STUDENT WORK Bone River Interpretive Center & Retreat Terminal Studio Project Portland Housing Prototype Study M.S. Terminal Research Project Eugene City Hall Redesign Junior Studio Project
Kate Laue
Pages 12-19 Pages 20-25 Pages 26-31
Page 3
MASS PANELIZED PLYWOOD MODULAR HOUSING Kate Laue
The most recent project that I have worked on, I was brought onto this prototype house project for the Tallwood Design Institute to work on constructibility and the manufacturing process for this panelized house created from mass plywood panels, a new product being produced by Freres Lumber Company. This is a multi-stage project involving the design and construction of several progressive housing designs in order to create a housing prototype using MPP that can be produced in a factory and assembled quickly on site. By designing the house to meet ADU and cottage cluster criteria for jurisdictions around Oregon, the goal was to create a product that could be easily constructed for infill housing. The project includes performing structural testing sufficient to meet the standards of building departments in Oregon as this is a new product they will not be familiar with. My work included advising on panel connections, joint details, enclosure design, and the CNC layouts for the project.
Page 4
PHASE 1 WINDOW MOCK-UP
STRUCTURAL 3” MPP PANELS
MAJOR PROJECT RESPONSIBILITIES: Construction Drawings - Joint Detailing - Engineering Coordination - Material Research & Sourcing - Code Research BIM Coordination - Revit Modeling - Rhino Modeling - CNC Layouts - Shop Drawings Kate Laue
Page 5
EXTERIOR PANEL ASSEMBLY & CONSTRUCTION
Kate Laue
Page 6
48'-0" 24'-0"
7'-10"
EW D2.2
EW B2.2 EW D2.2 IC 2.2
EW B2.2
EW D2.1 IC 2.3
IC 2.3
EW D2.1 ST LD1.1
EW B2.1 ST LD1.1
EW B2.1 EW D1.2 EW D1.2 ST TR5.1
ST TR4.1 ST TR4.1
ST TR3.1 ST TR3.1
ST TR2.1
ST TR5.1
ST TR2.1
ST TR1.1 ST TR1.1
IT 2.7.4 IT 2.7.4
IW 2.7.2
ST TR7.1
1 83 "W X 1"D WINDOW RABBET
MIGHT NEED TO BE CUT DOWN DEPENDING ON LEDGER THICKNESS
ID 2.2
IL B1.1
IL D1.1
IL B1.1
ID 2.1
IL D1.1
ID 2.1
24'-0"
ST TR1.3
IT C1.4
IW 2.2
IT C1.4
IW 2.2
IW 2.3
IW 2.3
ST TR7.3
IW 2.4
IW 2.4
9'-10"
WALL HEIGHT WILL NEED TO BE CUT ACCORDING TO DEFLECTION FROM RIDGE BEAM, CURRENTLY 1/8"
IW 2.1.2
IT 2.7.5 IT 2.7.6 IT 2.2.1 IT 2.2.2
IW 2.1.1
KS 1.1
IT C2.3 IT C2.4
ID 2.4
ID 2.2 ST TR9.1
ST TR8.3
IW 2.6
KS 1.2
IW 2.1.1
IW 1.4
48'-0"
CS 1.1?
IW 1.3
KS 1.1
ID 2.4 ST TR8.1
IT 2.7.5 IT 2.7.6 IT 2.2.1 IT 2.2.2
IT C2.3 IT C2.4
ST LD1.4 ST LD1.2
ST LD1.3
IW 2.1.2
IW 1.2
IT 2.7.2
IT 2.7.1
ST TR8.4 ST TR2.2 ST TR6.2 ST TR10.2 ST TR7.4 ST TR1.2 ST TR5.2 ST TR9.2 ST TR6.4 ST TR10.4 ST TR4.2 ST TR8.2 ST TR5.4 ST TR9.4 ST TR3.2 ST TR7.2
23'-11 12 "
IT C1.3 IT C1.2
ST TR6.3
ST TR3.3
ST TR4.3
ST TR5.3
ST TR2.3
ST TR9.3
ID 2.3
MIGHT NEED TO BE CUT DOWN DEPENDING ON LEDGER THICKNESS
IW 2.7.3
KS 1.2
IW 1.4 IT B1.1 IT B1.2
ST LD1.5
ST TR10.3
24'-0"
WALL HEIGHT WILL NEED TO BE CUT ACCORDING TO DEFLECTION FROM RIDGE BEAM, CURRENTLY 1/8"
IT D1.2 IT D1.1
ST TR10.1
Spoil Board
IW 1.2
IT C2.2 IT C2.1
ST TR2.3 ST TR1.3
24'-0"
IW 2.7.1
IT A1.1
IT 2.7.3
KS 2.1
ST TR9.1
ID 1.1
KS 2.2
ST TR6.1
IW 1.3
ST TR8.1
IW 2.7.3
IL B2.2 IL D2.2
ST LD1.4 ST LD1.2
ST LD1.3
ST TR4.4 ST TR3.4 ST TR2.4 ST TR1.4
IT C1.1
ST STR1.1
IT 2.7.2
IT 2.7.1
ST TR8.4 ST TR2.2 ST TR6.2 ST TR10.2 ST TR7.4 ST TR1.2 ST TR5.2 ST TR9.2 ST TR6.4 ST TR10.4 ST TR4.2 ST TR8.2 ST TR5.4 ST TR9.4 ST TR3.2 ST TR7.2
23'-11 12 "
IT C1.3 IT C1.2
ST TR6.3
ST TR3.3
ST TR4.3
ST TR5.3
IW 2.7.1
IW 2.5
IT B2.1 IT B2.2
IT B1.1 IT B1.2
ST LD1.5
ST TR7.3
9'-10"9'-10"
IW 1.1
ST TR7.1
IT D1.2 IT D1.1
ST TR10.1
ST TR8.3
ID 2.3
IT D2.2 IT D2.1
IW 2.7.2
23'-11 12 "
IT C2.2
ST TR9.3
BEARING LENGTH MAY NEED TO BE 2" OR 3" DEPENDING ON ENGINEERING. BEAM MAY NEED TO BE CUT DOWN 2"
EW C2.3
POCKETS MAY NEED TO BE FULLY CUT OUT IF BEAM REQUIRES MORE BEARING LENGTH
BEARING LENGTH MAY NEED TO BE 2" OR 3" DEPENDING ON ENGINEERING. BEAM MAY NEED TO BE CUT DOWN 2"
ID 1.1
KS 2.2
ST TR6.1
IT C2.1
EW D1.1
IT 2.7.3
KS 2.1
ST TR10.3
24'-0"
ST TR4.4 ST TR3.4 ST TR2.4 ST TR1.4
IT C1.1
IL B2.2 IL D2.2
ST STR1.1
48'-0"
24'-0" STRONG WALL TESTING BOARD IW 2.5
IW 1.1
STRONG WALL TESTING BOARD
9'-10"
IL B2.1 IL D2.1
STRONG WALL TESTING BOARD
48'-0"
RB 2.1
POCKETS MAY NEED TO BE FULLY CUT OUT IF BEAM REQUIRES MORE BEARING LENGTH
EW C2.3
EW B1.2
IT A1.1
EW B1.1
9'-10"
IT B2.1 IT B2.2
EW B1.1
48'-0"
Spoil Board STRONG WALL TESTING BOARD
23'-11 12 "
EW D1.1
24'-0"
24'-0"
FL 2.1
24'-0"
24'-0"
FL 2.1
POCKETS MAY NEED TO BE FULLY CUT OUT IF BEAM REQUIRES MORE BEARING LENGTH
EW A2.2
24'-0"
24'-4"
RB 2.1
POCKETS MAY NEED TO BE FULLY CUT OUT IF BEAM REQUIRES MORE BEARING LENGTH
EW A2.2
EW A2.1
EW B1.2
9'-10"
IT D2.2 IT D2.1
1 83 "W X 1"D WINDOW RABBET
9'-10"
23'-11 12 "
ROOF B3.1 KC 1.1
48'-0"
EW C2.2
POCKETS MAY NEED TO BE FULLY CUT OUT IF BEAM REQUIRES MORE BEARING LENGTH
EW C2.2
POCKETS MAY NEED TO BE FULLY CUT OUT IF BEAM REQUIRES MORE BEARING LENGTH
EW C2.1
24'-4"
EW A2.1
24'-0"
EW EWA1.1 C2.1
24'-0" 24'-0"
EW A1.1
EW C1.1
9'-10"9'-10"
23'-11 12 "
ROOF B3.1 KC 1.1
IC 2.1
IC 2.1
BEARING LENGTH MAY NEED TO BE 2" OR 3" DEPENDING ON ENGINEERING. BEAM MAY NEED TO BE CUT DOWN 2"
POCKETS MAY NEED TO BE FULLY CUT OUT IF BEAM REQUIRES MORE BEARING LENGTH
POCKETS MAY NEED TO BE FULLY CUT OUT IF BEAM REQUIRES MORE BEARING LENGTH
9'-10"9'-10"
23'-11 12 "
ROOF D3.1
23'-11 12 "
IL B1.1
FL 2.2
ROOF D3.1
23'-11 12 "
23'-11 12 "
23'-7 12 "
23'-7 12 "
IL B1.1
FB 1.2
BEARING LENGTH MAY NEED TO BE 2" OR 3" DEPENDING ON ENGINEERING. BEAM MAY NEED TO BE CUT DOWN 2"
BEARING LENGTH MAY NEED TO BE 2" OR 3" DEPENDING ON ENGINEERING. BEAM MAY NEED TO BE CUT DOWN 2"
POCKETS MAY NEED TO BE FULLY CUT OUT IF BEAM REQUIRES MORE BEARING LENGTH
24'-0" 24'-0"
11'-10" 9'-10"
IL B2.1 IL D2.1
IL B2.2 IL D2.2
23'-11 12 "
ROOF D3.2
FL 2.2
48'-0"
BEARING LENGTH MAY NEED TO BE 2" OR 3" DEPENDING ON ENGINEERING. BEAM MAY NEED TO BE CUT DOWN 2"
7'-10"11'-10"
IL B2.1 IL D2.1
IL D1.1
IL B2.2 IL D2.2
ROOF ROOF B3.2 D3.2
IL B2.1 IL D2.1
IL D1.1
23'-11 12 " 23'-11 12 "
FB 1.2
FB 1.1
ROOF B3.2
IC 2.2
FB 1.1
EW C1.1
7'-10" 7'-10"
2" MPP BILLET: 2" MPP 157.2 BILLET: CF 157.2 CF 2" MPP USAGE: 2" MPP 137.82 USAGE: CF 137.82 CF 2" MPP WASTE: 2" MPP 19.38 WASTE: CF (12.3%) 19.38 CF (12.3%) MATERIAL EFFICIENCY: MATERIAL EFFICIENCY: 87.7% 87.7% 100 PIECES 100 FORPIECES STRUCTURE FOR STRUCTURE
IW 2.6
CS 1.1?
48'-0"
MASS PANELIZED PLYWOOD MODULAR HOUSING
Kate Laue 23'-11 12 " 23'-11 12 "
POCKETS MAY NEED TO BE FULLY CUT OUT IF BEAM REQUIRES MORE BEARING LENGTH
CNC LAYOUTS & MATERIAL EFFICIENCY
23'-11 12 "
3" MPP BILLET: 3" MPP 683.92 BILLET: CF 683.92 CF 3" MPP USAGE: 3" MPP 587.07 USAGE: CF 587.07 CF 3" MPP WASTE: 3" MPP 96.85 WASTE: CF (14.16%) 96.85 CF (14.16%) MATERIAL EFFICIENCY: MATERIAL EFFICIENCY: 85.84% 85.84% 35 PIECES FOR 35 PIECES STRUCTURE FOR STRUCTURE
Page 7
MCKENZIE RIVER HOUSE REDESIGN
MAIN HOUSE SITEPLAN
Kate Laue
Page 8
Located on a beautiful riverfront property on the Mckenzie River in Oregon, this project was to remodel an existing house, add a mother-in-law cottage near the main house, and a shop closer to the road. The client wanted to preserve as much of the existing structure as possible while still adding space, raising the wall height in areas, and modernizing the aesthetic of the entire house.
Kate Laue
Page 9
Divider Wall and Closets Removed
Expanded Kitchen
Footprint Expanded into Garage
Entry Moved Closer to Driveway
Main Entry Moved
French Doors to Connect Indoor & Outdoor Dining Areas More Open Floorplan
Interior Walls Removed
Kate Laue
Closet Space Moved to Walk-In
8’x12’ Glass Doors Looking Towards Mountain & River
Enlarged Master Suite Wall Height Raised in Vaulted Living Room
Page 10
Rendering of Kitchen for Client
Kate Laue
Kitchen As Built
Page 11
Kate Laue
Page 12
BONE RIVER INTERPRETIVE CENTER & RETREAT
Individual Retreats
Retreat Visitor Center
My terminal studio project was a design for a Visitor Center and a series of Retreats for a Natural Area Preserve on Wallapa Bay in Washington State. The site included an almost completely protected watershed that included a saltwater estuary, old growth forest, and nesting grounds for several endangered species of birds. The project included comprehensive ecological research for the site in order to identify locations for the various program components while respecting the more environmentally fragile areas of the Preserve.
Kate Laue
Page 13
BONE RIVER INTERPRETIVE CENTER & RETREAT
Historical Context
Abandoned Chinook Village
Clearcut Forest
1870 Fire
Marsh Zones Low Intertidal, High Salinity, Sandy Marsh
Conifer Forest Upland Buffer
High Intertidal, Low Salinity, Marsh Low Intertidal, High Salinity, Silty Marsh
Shorebird Habitats High Tide Feeding Habitat
Conifer Forest Nesting Habitat Salt Marsh Nesting Habitat
Low Tide Feeding Habitat Kate Laue
Page 14
The Interpretive Center was built near the coastal highway on a bluff overlooking the salt marsh and estuary. The mainly stilted design was intended to preserve the forest floor as much as possible while still slicing through the landscape in select locations to provide windows into the ecology and diversity of a healthy, older forest.
Kate Laue
Page 15
Kate Laue
Page 16
Entry Floor Interior Perspective
Kate Laue
Lower Floor Observation Deck
Lower Floor Ecology Exhibits
Page 17
Kate Laue
Page 18
Shorebirds & Waterfowl
Kate Laue
Bald Eagle Nests
Marbled Murrelets
Coastal Steelhead Trout
Coastal Cutthroat
Coho Salmon
Page 19
INFILL HOUSING PROTOTYPES FOR PORTLAND, OREGON: ANALYSIS OF LAND USE REGULATIONS & DESIGN FACTORS
Kate Laue
Page 20
The housing shortage in Portland, Oregon and the United States overall has reached a critical state in recent years. Oregon’s deficit estimated to be around 110,000 units, with 60,000 of those homes needed in the Portland metro area. Historical underproduction particularly in multifamily housing has pushed changes to the zoning code in recent years that attempt to fill some of the shortage by encouraging the infill development of “Missing Middle” housing in previously single-family neighborhoods. This study examines those changes through the use of design prototypes to analyze what is allowed by current land use regulations, and how the code could be changed to enable more density, sustainability, and livability.
HOUSING & RIP PERMIT ACTIVITY
Kate Laue
Page 21
Existing Multifamily Units + Units Added 1995-2022
Selected Neighborhood
Richmond
NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
Building Price / Lot SF
NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING
CITY HOUSING ANALYSIS & NEIGHBORHOOD SELECTION STUDY Kate Laue
Existing Multifamily & Single-Family Residential Units 0 - 33 33 - 80 80 - 400 400 - 1000 1000 - 1389 Buildings - Year Built 1950-2009-Richmond Potential Sites
Oregon Metro, Bureau of Land Management, State of Oregon, State of Oregon DOT, State of Oregon GEO, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA, State of Oregon GEO, State of Oregon, U.S. Forest Service
Page 22
SEE PAGE 24 FOR DESIGN & ANALYSIS
PROTOTYPE SITES SELECTED
3902 SE HAWTHORNE BLVD
3440 SE SHERMAN ST 4235 SE DIVISION ST
2803 SE 33RD PL 2820 SE 33RD PL
LIVABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA OUTDOOR SPACE =
Total Outdoor Space á√åÖ‚É-B~åâÉÇ 2 DÉÉé Rç™® Lot Area Rç™®ë BÉíï†Éå
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT = Average Height 3 Wá√ofåÖNear W~ääëBuildings Average Prototype Design Height
ENERGY EFFICIENCY =
Floor Area Square Footage 4 VÉåíìêá√
Exterior Envelope Square Footage BêÉÉòÉïúó
NATURAL VENTILATION =
OfRç™®ë/VÉåí Unit Walls with 5 Lá√å%âÉÇ Ventilation Access
TÜêç∞Öfi Cá√êÅìä~íá√ç©
DAYLIGHTING =
% Of Unit Perimeter with Daylight Access
AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHTS
0 - 12 12 - 24 24 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 550 Buffer - Height Calculation 3902 SE Hawthorne Blvd
Kate Laue
Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri
Page 23
SITE ANALYSIS & SUMMARY
ZONING
R2.5 R5 R7 RM1 RM2 CM1 CM2 3902 SE Hawthorne Blvd
REDESIGN PROTOTYPE DEVELOPER PROTOTYPE
3902 SE HAWTHORNE BLVD
LIVABILITY ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS
Kate Laue
Developer Maxar, Microsoft, Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri
Redesign
Developer
Redesign
0.82
Developer
Redesign
0.48
Developer
0.48
Redesign
Outdoor Space Outdoor Space as a % of Lot Area
28%
1.13
Neighborhood Context Existing Average Height / Design Height
30%
63%
Energy Efficiency Floor Area / Envelope Surface Area
52%
Natural Ventilation % of Unit Walls with Ventilation Access
Average Unit Perimeter Daylighting %
Daylighting
35%
Developer
43%
Redesign Page 24
SUMMARY MATRIX OF PROTOTYPE RESULTS
Kate Laue
SUSTAINABILITY METRICS
54%
Developer
Developer
52% 30%
Developer
Redesign
% of Unit Walls with Ventilation Access
60%
Developer
Redesign
Daylighting
63%
58%
63%
28%
Developer
Redesign
Redesign
0.81 0.59
Developer
Developer
Redesign
0.41
0.48
Developer
0.54
1.13
0.82
Developer
Redesign
Redesign
Redesign
Density
1.08
Developer
Redesign
Average Unit Size in Square Feet
912
912
Total Housing Area in Square Feet
7481
Developer
7481
Redesign
Total Housing Area in Square Feet
3648
Number of Units
4
4
Developer
Redesign
Number of Units
3648
Developer
Redesign
Density
Units per 1000ft2 of Lot
Developer
Redesign
Average Unit Size in Square Feet
2,212
Developer
Redesign
Total Housing Area in Square Feet
8847
4
4
Developer
Redesign
Number of Units
9108
7
0.61
60% 1,301
4
0.35
Redesign
Outdoor Space
Developer
Redesign
Density
Units per 1000ft2 of Lot 1.89
Developer
Redesign
Average Unit Size in Square Feet
Developer
47%
54%
Redesign
in Square Feet
Outdoor Space
Density
Units per 1000ft2 of Lot 2.75
35%
Developer
2.63
Developer
Redesign
Number of Units
9 7,104
5
789
Redesign
Developer
1,416
1.05
Developer
Redesign
Total Housing Area
7,080
Developer
Energy Efficiency
1,870
0.53
Units per 1000ft2 of Lot
73%
Developer
Redesign
in Square Feet
64%
Outdoor Space
Redesign
Developer
1.08 64%
Developer
Energy Efficiency
Redesign
0.48
Redesign
0.67
Developer
Neighborhood Context
0.48
0.46
Energy Efficiency
Neighborhood Context
0.51
Outdoor Space as a % of Lot Area
Existing Average Height / Design Height
Floor Area / Envelope Surface Area
Developer
Redesign
0.59
0.52
Redesign
Average Unit Size
1,870
0.53
Outdoor Space Outdoor Space as a % of Lot Area
Developer
Floor Area / Envelope Surface Area
0.54
Developer
Redesign
Natural Ventilation
0.51
Density
Units per 1000ft2 of Lot
75% 65%
Developer
Energy Efficiency
Neighborhood Context
Redesign
Natural Ventilation
% of Unit Walls with Ventilation Access
Average Unit Perimeter Daylighting %
57%
100%
Developer
Daylighting
47%
Redesign
Natural Ventilation
Redesign
Neighborhood Context
Redesign
Outdoor Space as a % of Lot Area
100%
% of Unit Walls with Ventilation Access
Average Unit Perimeter Daylighting %
Daylighting
Developer
0.62
Outdoor Space as a % of Lot Area
Developer
Redesign
Redesign
0.68
Outdoor Space
Outdoor Space as a % of Lot Area
Developer
63%
Developer
Floor Area / Envelope Surface Area
57%
100%
0.48
Floor Area / Envelope Surface Area
76%
Natural Ventilation % of Unit Walls with Ventilation Access
Average Unit Perimeter Daylighting %
Daylighting
Redesign
0.60
DENSITY METRICS
Energy Efficiency
Floor Area / Envelope Surface Area
Developer
Existing Average Height / Design Height
Redesign
Existing Average Height / Design Height
Developer
Existing Average Height / Design Height
49%
75% 63%
Neighborhood Context
Existing Average Height / Design Height
47%
Natural Ventilation % of Unit Walls with Ventilation Access
Average Unit Perimeter Daylighting %
Daylighting
Average Unit Perimeter Daylighting %
3902 SE HAWTHORNE
4235 SE DIVISION ST
3440 SE SHERMAN ST
2820 SE 33RD PLACE
2803 SE 33RD PLACE
PROTOTYPE SITES
Redesign
Average Unit Size in Square Feet
Developer
Total Housing Area in Square Feet
52,640
786
788
Developer
Redesign
Redesign
50,400
Developer
Redesign
Number of Units
67
64
43%
Redesign
Developer
Redesign
Developer
Redesign
Developer
Redesign
Page 25
EUGENE CITY HALL REDESIGN
A Vision for Greater Downtown Eugene...
A Vision for Greater Downtown Eugene... A Vision for Greater Downtown Eugene... Connect Downtown to the River
City Hall Site & Existing Structure
5th Avenue
Create Great Streets Create Great Neighborhoods
Eighth Avenue
A Redesign of the Eugene City Hall to embrace future downtown greAvenue enways and the 5th connection to the Willamette River.
5th Avenue
Broadway Eighth Avenue eet
Kate Laue
illamette Street
Eighth Avenue
Pearl Street
Broadway
Broadway
Green Streets Connection to Riverfront
Page 26
The Eugene City Hall Redesign oriented around making use of the existing structure which included a half subterranean floor and large postensioned waffle slabs. My design focused on creating a large atrium to assist daylighting and orienting it around the original round council chamber concept of a round, colonnade structure. Because the reinforced tendons were dangerous and expensive to cut, to increase daylighting in the space sections between the tensioning were chiseled out to create scattered skylights.
Eugene City Hall in the 70s
Sitting at the terminus of several major roads into town and at the nexus of the Downtown and the Willamette River, it was important that the City Hall become a Visual Focus for Eugene’s Downtown Kate Laue
Rendering of Entryway looking under the slab Page 27
E-W Section Through Atrium Facing Council Chamber
Because the existing structure was sunk halfway into the ground, a terraced plaza was used at the entryway in order to connect the building to the street above.
First Level Floorplan & Program
Municipal Courts Public Works
Aerial View of Design
The placement of the Council Chamber and roof lines of the atrium were designed to reflect the Chamber’s role as the city’s voice, radiating outwards.
Kate Laue
City Mgr Mayor & Council Offices
Planning & Permits Financial Services
Page 28
S-N Section Through Atrium & Council Chamber Third Level Floorplan & Program
Second Level Floorplan & Program
Municipal Courts & City Prosecutor
Human Resources & Risk Services
Council Chamber Public Works City Mgr, Mayor, & Council Offices Planning & Permits
Kate Laue
Council Chamber Info Services
Planning & Permits
Page 29
Kate Laue
Page 30
North Elevation
West Elevation Daylighting for the lower levels required using a combination of reflectors and light wells in order to reach deeper in the space and to provide more connection to the outside. Additionally, the atrium was used as a visual connection to a bright environment filled with vegetation.
Kate Laue
Page 31