Page 1





FALL 2010




Retrospect and Prospect Dean’s Introduction FREDERICK R. STEINER


Celebrating 100 Years of Design Excellence Traces & Trajectories: The School of Architecture at 100


Learning to Broaden Our View UT Austin Engages the Future


A Message from the President UTSOA Celebrates 100 Years WILLIAM POWERS JR. Ellis


Our Sustainable Earth A Global Call for Carbon Action RAYMOND L. ORBACH





and Kim Cole

The Texas Triangle Megaregion FREDERICK R. STEINER


Best of Times/Worst of Times Planning and Sustainability in the Austin Region MICHAEL ODEN


Geography of Opportunity Designing Density in a Growing City SINCLAIR BLACK


Master Planning for Sustainability at The University of Texas at Austin


Sustainability on the UT Austin Campus What Starts Here Changes the World JIM WALKER


Sustainability at the School of Architecture A Forward-Thinking School in a Changing Environment MICHAEL GARRISON


Neighborhoods The Key to Sustainable Growth GIRARD KINNEY


Sustainable Sites STEVE WINDHAGER


Building for the Solar Age ULRICH DANGEL


Experimental Research at UT Austin MATT FAJKUS AND ULRICH DANGEL


Sustainability Traces & Trajectories Major Influences on Sustainability


A Leap of Faith Personal Sustainability ERIC HEPBURN


David R. Braden [B.Arch. ‘49] Alumni Profile AMY MAVERICK CROSSETTE


Eugene R. Peters [MSCRP ‘82] Alumni Profile AMY MAVERICK CROSSETTE


Christy Seals and Marla Smith [M.Arch. ‘97] and [M.Arch. ‘96] Alumni Profile


Perry Lorenz Philanthropy AMY MAVERICK CROSSETTE


The Goldsmith Society Celebrating 100 Years of Excellence


Gifts to the School of Architecture


Advisory Council Members







Round numbers call attention to our age. One hundred is a big milestone. This year, we celebrate the centennial of our School of Architecture, and next year Battle Hall turns one hundred years old. The school’s anniversary reminds us of the dynamic nature of higher education. Battle Hall exhibits the challenges significant historic buildings pose for renewal and renovation. During the past two decades, sustainability has moved from the fringe to the core of interest in higher education. Meanwhile, Battle Hall illustrates the more tangible necessity to improve our current built environment for the benefit of future generations. I have to admit that when sustainability began to emerge in the late twentieth century, I was underwhelmed by the concept. I still find it wanting. Of course, we should use what we have more wisely so that future generations inherit a better world. I would like a bolder agenda, one advancing regenerative design and planning, where we are foster living machines that restore the planet rather than merely sustaining it. Still, the sustainability concept has proven to be remarkably, well, sustainable. It is now embodied within the disciplines in our school, and we are expected to provide critical leadership in a field that we helped to create. I believe this leadership is important to both the future of the built environment and the viability of our disciplines. For example, I recently attended a deans’ forum at the 2010 AIA Large Firm Round Table. The firms represented have been greatly affected by the economic recession of 2007-2010. Several large-firm CEOs expressed dismay that the architects’ role in the building process has consistently diminished over the past century. Green building practice offers a concrete opportunity for architects to retake control. No other profession is better equipped to design buildings that use energy and water more efficiently and are pleasant and stimulating to inhabit. The need for such expertise is likely to increase as energy becomes more expensive, water more scarce, and our planet more urban.

Planners, interior designers, landscape architects, and preservationists have similar opportunities to reclaim authority, which the following articles illustrate. As we help to develop this evolving field called sustainability, we are being forced to rethink and re-evaluate our practices. For example, landscape architects historically have had wellestablished approaches to manage stormwater. We now have the ability to assess and measure the ecosystem services provided by such management. As we produced this issue of Platform, we could not help but undergo some self-evaluation. We asked about the sources of the paper and the ink used. [Our printer is certified by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and uses vegetable-based inks.] I wonder what you will do with this issue. Will you keep it? Pass it on to a friend? Recycle it? Or just toss it? I am a print person. I simply love books and periodicals. However, I realize the times are a-changin’ and, as a result, we have decided to explore a transition away from a printed Platform to an electronic version. We will retain our commitment to relevant, engaging, and graphically exciting content. We invite you to design this transition with us. What would you like to see in our new, electronic version? What information is important to you? How do we continue to highlight the contributions of the School of Architecture to our various design and planning disciplines in a new medium? I welcome your ideas and suggestions.

In support of Dean Steiner’s invitation to explore a transition of Platform to a digital medium, we have launched a blog to share ideas and suggestions about how to proceed with such a transition successfully. Platform blog: Platform is now available online. View this edition, as well as past issues, at:


Images Above: Frederick R. Steiner, Dean, The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture. Opposite page, top: “A Casino on an Island,” 1947, Peyton Edward Kirven [B.Arch. ‘48]. Image courtesy Alexander Architectural Archive, The University of Texas at Austin. Opposite page, bottom left, bottom: Combustion gas turbine model used in the Hal C. Weaver Power Plant, The University of Texas at Austin. Opposite page, bottom right: Life drawing class, ca. 1920s. Photo courtesy Alexander Architectural Archive, The University of Texas at Austin.


CELEBRATING 100 YEARS OF DESIGN EXCELLENCE TRACES & TRAJECTORIES: THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN AT 100 Events Highlights Exhibitions: faculty work (September 2010), “The Future of Austin” (October 2010), and alumni work (November 2010) Centennial weekend, November 5–6: Deans’ Roundtable Discussion, with Dean Fritz Steiner (2001-present), and former deans Larry Speck (1992-2001), Hal Box (1976-1992), Charles Burnette (1973-1975), and Sinclair Black (acting dean, 1982-1973); symposium; and schoolwide open house.

Traces & Trajectories: The University of Texas at Austin at 100 To help mark the centennial of the School of Architecture, established in 1910, faculty, students, alumni, and staff contributed to produce the book, Traces & Trajectories: The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture at 100. Edited by Professor Richard Cleary, Page Southerland Page Fellow in Architecture, the book presents 29 essays accompanied by illustrated portfolios of historical “traces” and design works by students and alumni.

The School of Architecture’s centennial-year graduating class of 2010 included 128 men and women from Texas, other regions of the United States, and around the world. Approximately half of them earned undergraduate professional degrees in architecture and interior design or completed the bachelor of architectural studies program. The graduate-degree recipients represented the school’s broad offerings, which include professional degrees in community and regional planning, architecture, and landscape architecture; academic master’s degrees in historic preservation, architectural history, sustainable design, urban design, and architectural studies; and Ph.D. programs in community and regional planning, architectural history, and historic preservation. Like the class of 1915, which faced an uncertain future as the nation struggled to recover from economic recession, adjusted to modernization, and debated its role in a global war, the members of the centennial class have begun their professional careers at a challenging time. They face a slow economy and a highly competitive job market, urgent social and environmental issues, and transformations in professional practice. But the class of 2010 has opportunities that were unavailable to their predecessors. Although women constituted half of the school’s first graduating class, their career options in architecture were limited. For many people, even more formidable barriers based on race and ethnicity blocked access to higher education and the professions. The measure of the School of Architecture’s success today is how well it has prepared its graduates to view change as opportunity and to act on the motto of The University of Texas at Austin, “what starts here changes the world.”







Images 1. Cover, Traces & Trajectories: The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture at 100. 2. Architecture students, 1915, clockwise from top left: W.G. Stacy, Thomas D. Broad, Stella T. Elmendorf, and Nellie Jefferson. 3. Pam Zeigler, “Modular Constellations,” first-year design, 1968-1969.


4. Members of the B.Arch. class of 2010. Photo by Flash Photography. 5. Phil Zimmerman, parametric diagram; Danelle Briscoe, critic, 2009.


6. Centennial Faculty Exhibit, Mebane Gallery, Goldsmith Hall. Photo by Marcy Shaw. 7. Raymond Studer (BArch ’57), “Interpretation of a Plan,” plan and perspective; John Hejduk and Bernhard Hoesli, critics, 1955. 8. “A Monumental Causeway,” 1935, Wolfe Jessen [B.Arch. ‘36].


9. Hugo F. Kuehne (1884-1963) was the first professor of architecture at the University of Texas. Kuehne created the first curriculum for the School of Architecture within the College of Engineering. Photo from Cactus Yearbook, 1912. 11. Mimi Garza-Love [B.Arch. ‘89], “Broadway State Office Building”; Natalie de Blois, critic, 1989. 12. Faculty, students, and staff, 1983-1984. © Goldbeck Co. 2, 3, 5, 7-9, and 11 courtesy of Alexander Architectural Archive, The University of Texas at Austin.






LEARNING TO BROADEN OUR VIEW UT AUSTIN ENGAGES THE FUTURE BY JIM WALKER, GUEST EDITOR Biography Jim Walker was appointed the university’s first director of sustainability in 2009. He is a research fellow with the UT Center for Sustainable Development and has been active in many civic endeavors since arriving in Austin in 1992, including the Central Texas Sustainability Indicators Project, Envision Central Texas, Liveable City, and the redevelopment of the former Robert Mueller Municipal Airport. He is an alum of the School of Architecture’s Community and Regional Planning Program.

Images Top: Jim Walker. Bottom: The University of Texas at Austin has been recognized for the last 3 years as a Tree Campus USA by the Arbor Day Foundation. 4,500 trees, worth over $25 million, are a vital part of the university’s sustainability effort. A family enjoys the trees along the Larry and Mary Ann Faulkner Plaza, which connects the two buildings of the Blanton Museum of Art complex on The University of Texas at Austin campus. Photo by Fritz Steiner.

I am excited by the opportunity to guest edit this edition of Platform, which has as its themes sustainability and the School of Architecture’s centennial anniversary. Being the (still) relatively new director of sustainability for The University of Texas at Austin, the diversity of the concepts and implementation of sustainability on campus—not just as related to design and the built environment, but also to the entirety of the college experience—continually surprises me. I hope this compilation of focused perspectives on sustainability encourages even more discussion and creative action. The mission of higher education has always been to understand and anticipate the concerns of society and the forces that influence it, and then to produce research and support scholars who can apply their understanding and knowledge to shape the future with beneficial new ideas and insights, technological advances, and leadership. Add to that mission the evolving definition of sustainability. While the most important understanding of sustainability must be at a personal, internal level, there are two concepts in every definition regardless of starting point and scale: time and optimization. We have become adept at talking about working to the benefit of future generations, but we struggle in our work with balancing the benefits we seek for ourselves with the benefits we desire for our descendants. Optimizing for multiple values is similarly difficult and necessary. The idea is captured in the three original E’s—economy, equity, and environment; the triple-bottom-line approach or any of the international sets of principles and accords; or the builder’s truism of balancing time, quality, and money. Sustainability in higher education is about broadening the scope of our critical thinking—of society’s natural resource needs and impacts and how we adapt; of our collective sense of humanity and social justice and turning away from bumper sticker empathy to deeply understand how we impact one another’s quality of life; and of society’s definition of returnon-investment and how much further that equation needs to reach to be useful to future generations.

Universities across the country are beginning to delve into their business and academic models to target research and attract scholars who exemplify broader critical thinking about society’s future concerns. Those universities that fall behind in this evolution will not recruit the best students, attract the best faculty, or receive early-innovation research opportunities. While The University of Texas at Austin is early in its pursuit of campus-wide sustainability, our DNA is changing. The organizing principle for this edition of Platform is “scale.” Sustainability principles vary in their resonance and focal points at different scales. We encouraged our authors to explore their perspectives on key issues at given scales at which they have expertise. As you read the following articles, we hope you see golden threads emerge across the scales. Within this organizing structure, several introduce initiatives on campus and the School of Architecture and highlight the university’s evolution. In the process of soliciting authors and reviewing submissions, we found ourselves, perhaps not surprisingly, caught up in the diffusion and debate about what sustainability means to the design disciplines. Sustainability (in any discipline) remains a concept that is both accessible and constraining, “sucking all the air out of the design room,” as one design philosopher put it. In this Platform you will find examples of the successes of applied sustainability in response to various influences, as well as examples where the application falls short or demands renewed effort or has not yet neared its necessary potential. I believe this compilation reinforces the truth that sustainability is a pursuit over generations and across many scales of society. I believe it also supports the truism that this societal adaptation of how we live requires broad participation, perhaps especially by those professionals in the design disciplines who commit society’s resources and energy to the built environment on behalf of future generations. They, you, must lead by example, and so then must the schools that train us, you. My hope, as you read through these pages, is that you have the opportunity to engage in as many interesting conversations as I did in editing them. I invite you to join me on the university’s Office of Sustainability blog site ( sustainability), which I manage, or the School of Architecture’s new Platform blog ( to continue the conversation.



A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT UTSOA CELEBRATES 100 YEARS BY WILLIAM POWERS JR. Biography William Powers Jr. is the 28th president of The University of Texas at Austin. Before taking office on February 1, 2006, he served as dean of the university’s School of Law, where he won recognition for recruiting a world-class faculty and attracting highly diverse and talented students. In 1997, the university named him to its Academy of Distinguished Teachers. He is a University Distinguished Teaching Professor and holds the Hines H. Baker and Thelma Kelley Baker Chair in Law.

Congratulations to the School of Architecture on its 100th anniversary. We’re very proud to have the only architecture school in the country ranked in the top 5 for both undergraduate and graduate programs. The undergraduate program in interior design, the smallest in the nation, was ranked tenth; and the graduate landscape architecture program, with only three graduating classes (four, as of May 2010), was ranked twelfth.* As one of our oldest schools, the School of Architecture has grown in size and status with the university and has graduated several generations of architects, planners, and designers who have shaped the world in which we live. Among its many contributions to campus life, the School of Architecture has played a leadership role in implementing the Campus Master Plan, which is guiding us in ways that will preserve our special character, while at the same time prepare the university for future generations. The university faces the ongoing challenge of sustaining our historic buildings and designing and

building new state-of-the-art facilities, and in this complex process, we have greatly benefited from the creativity of our architecture faculty and students. As we mark this centennial, we should also be conscious of our current moment in history. The concept of sustainability has found strong support from our students, faculty, and staff. Sustainability has particular resonance for those in the design and planning disciplines, and the School of Architecture is leading the way. We have a renewed focus on energy awareness and how our campus operates and grows. And we are looking to architects, planners, and designers to help us understand what sustainability means in our day-to-day interactions on campus and in the world around us. The School of Architecture has a long and beloved history on our campus. For 100 years, you have designed our physical environment with grace and beauty, and I am confident that you will continue to provide leadership and inspiration for the next 100 years.

Images Above: William Powers Jr., president, The University of Texas at Austin. Photo by Marsha Miller. Left: Paul Cret’s perspective of future development of the University of Texas campus, 1933. (Paul Philippe Cret Collection, Perspective of Future Development, Alexander Architectural Archive, University of Texas Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin.)

Note * Source: Design Intelligence report, America’s Best Architecture & Design Schools, 2010.



OUR SUSTAINABLE EARTH A GLOBAL CALL FOR CARBON ACTION BY RAYMOND L. ORBACH Biography Dr. Raymond Orbach has been director of the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin since 2009. The institute’s mission is to provide the State of Texas and the nation guidance for sustainable energy security through the pursuit of research and education programs — “good policy based on good science.” Dr. Orbach, the U.S. Department of Energy’s first undersecretary for science, is a fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Note Four organizations comprise the National Academies: National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine National Research Council

Evidence has mounted to a point where we need to consider a new geologic epoch where human activities will largely control the evolution of our Earth’s environment. This has been coined the “Anthropocene.” What we don’t know is whether our influence on climate during the Anthropocene will be a short-term, relatively minor change from the current climate or an extreme deviation that lasts for thousands of years. A recent “Report in Brief” from our National Academies points out: The higher the total, or cumulative, carbon dioxide emitted and the resulting atmospheric concentration, the higher the peak warming that will be experienced and the longer the duration of that warming. Duration is critical: longer warming periods allow more time for key, but slow, components of the Earth system to act as amplifier of impacts, for example, warming of the deep ocean that releases carbon stored in deep-sea sediments. Warming sustained over thousands of years could lead to even bigger impacts. The conundrum we face is alarming. The Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy has estimated in its 2009 Annual Energy Outlook that the United States annual carbon dioxide emissions went from 4,735 million metric tons in the mid-1980s to 5,991 million metric tons in 2007 and is projected “to slow” to 6,414 million


Despite this knowledge, we (the United States) increased annual carbon dioxide emissions by 26.5% from the mid-1980s to 2007 and are projected to continue to increase annual carbon dioxide emissions by another 7.1% from 2007 to 2030. We are going the wrong way, with dire consequences for our planet.

metric tons in 2030. Slowing, but continuing to increase. This is significant because the longer we increase carbon dioxide emissions, the longer we allow equilibrium effects to amplify warming. Stabilization of the Earth’s temperature requires deep emissions reductions. One hears about “stabilization” of human carbon dioxide emissions to keep the Earth from warming, but this is just wrong. From the National Academies Report: Because human carbon dioxide emissions exceed removal rates through natural carbon “sinks,” keeping emission rates the same will not lead to stabilization of carbon dioxide. Emissions reductions larger than about 80%, relative to whatever peak global emissions rate may be realized, are required to approximately stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations for a century or so at any chosen target level.

Speaking of dire consequences, what do I mean, and where is the evidence? Serendipitously, the American Meteorological Society has just issued its 2009 decadal report titled “The State of the Climate,” covering the time period from 2000 through 2009. The report constitutes “a comprehensive review of key climate indicators.” More than 300 scientists from 48 countries analyzed data on 37 climate indicators, including sea ice, glaciers, and air temperatures. Often indicators (air temperature near Earth’s surface, sea level, humidity, sea-surface temperature, temperature over oceans, ocean heat content, temperature over land, area of snow cover, glacier mass, and extent of sea ice) change in the direction of global warming (the first seven increase, the last three decrease, respectively). Further, the last three decades show significant warming. The decade of the 1980s was the warmest global temperature decade on record at that time. The decade of the 1990s was even warmer, with every year warmer than the 1980s average. And the decade of 2000-2009 was warmer still, with every year warmer than the 1990s average. Evidence of global warming is incontrovertible.

“There is no more important moral imperative than global thermal sustainability.” How can we reverse carbon dioxide production in the face of the Energy Information Administration’s projections? And what about the contributions from the rest of the world? (China now emits more carbon dioxide than the United States.) It is my thesis that there are technological opportunities that can deeply reduce carbon dioxide emissions without a price on carbon or regulation. They are premised on being able to survive in the market place without subsidies or energy price increases. They do require investment and collaboration between research universities, state and federal governments, and the private energy sector. For example, coal-fired power plants in the United States currently generate 2,100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. This amounts to roughly a third of the total annual carbon dioxide “footprint” of the United States. Yet, the current approach to capture the carbon dioxide and sequester it (called CCS) in deep-lying aquifers is not economically feasible without either large subsidies or a very high price on carbon because current CCS methods require approximately one-third of a power plant’s energy for carbon dioxide capture and pressurization. Neither merchant nor regulated utilities can survive with this additional cost.


The University of Texas at Austin, in conjunction with two utilities, has developed a combination of two technologies and introduced a third that together could reduce the cost of CCS to a point that it would survive in a competitive market environment without subsidies or a price on carbon. Specifically, the production of energy from geothermal aquifers and the sequestration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in deep, saline aquifers have evolved as separate, independent technologies. The University of Texas at Austin has proposed a game changing idea that combines these two technologies and adds another—dissolution of carbon dioxide into extracted brine, which is then re-injected. Additional elements are the production of energy from the extracted brine to help offset the cost of capture, pressurization, and injection and the subsequent injection of brine-containing carbon dioxide back into the aquifer. Realistic simulations indicate that the combined value of the methane and heat energy from the produced saline

water is of the same order as the cost of separating, pressurizing, and injecting the carbon dioxide. And geologic studies have shown that there is a huge amount of methane dissolved in aquifers near and along the Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana coasts. Simulations show that 29.4 million tons of carbon dioxide can be stored in this aquifer, with about half of the original methane produced, amounting to 98 billion SCF (standard cubic feet). Adding in the value of the saline liquid heat, the total energy generated would be worth more than the current cost of capturing and pressurizing carbon dioxide from associated coal-fired power plants. This concept deeply reduces carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants without increasing the cost of electricity. It is economical and meets the need for thermal stabilization of our Earth. It is also global in that methane-saturated geopressured geothermal aquifers are common in most parts of the world. Other concepts need development and application if we are to save life as we know it on our planet. There is no more important moral imperative than global thermal sustainability.

Images Opposite page, top: In this naturalcolor image from August 31, 2010, the ocean’s canvas swirls with turquoise, teal, navy, and green, the abstract art of the natural world. The colors were painted by a massive phytoplankton bloom made up of millions of tiny, lightreflecting organisms growing in the sunlit surface waters of the Barents Sea. Image: Norman Kuring, NASA Ocean Color Group. Opposite page, bottom: Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) global map of carbon dioxide in Earth’s middle troposphere for the month of July 2003 (left) and 2009 (right). Image: NASA. Top: Blue Marble Next Generation, true-color, cloud-free composite, January 2004. Image: Reto Stockli, NASA Earth Observatory. Bottom: The graph shows changes in ocean heat content in joules (a measure of energy) compared to the 1955-2002 average. The different colored lines represent various independently produced analyses of ocean heat content data. The most recent studies, in which recently discovered data errors have been corrected, show the strongest warming. Source: State of the Climate Highlights, 2009, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.


THE TEXAS TRIANGLE MEGAREGION BY FREDERICK R. STEINER Biography Frederick R. Steiner, FASLA, is the dean of The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture and Henry M. Rockwell Chair in Architecture. He teaches courses in landscape architecture and environmental planning. Dean Steiner is active with Envision Central Texas, the Hill Country Conservancy, and the new Austin Comprehensive Plan.

THE TEXAS TRIANGLE is one of the eleven megaregions in the continental United States. This megaregion includes the metropolitan areas of Houston and San Antonio at its base and Dallas and Fort Worth at the apex, with Austin along the left side of the triangle. The megaregion had a total population of almost 15 million people in 2000 and is expected to grow by an additional 10 million people by around 2040. This growth poses at least three major challenges. First, consumption will pressure land, water, and other natural resources. Second, the region’s population will become more diverse, with significant international in-migration, posing challenging demands on employment, education, health care, and other services. The third challenge will be mobility. National mobility studies show that all of the metropolitan areas in the Texas Triangle have been among the nation’s top congested regions for the past two decades. Megaregional planning presents a new way of approaching large-scale transportation systems, green infrastructure, and economic development. For instance, Amtrak works more efficiently in the Northeast, because it connects a series of major population centers. In the Texas Triangle, might similar efficiency be achieved by connecting Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio by rail? New urbanism shifted the way developers, planners, and architects think about neighborhoods and communities. New regionalism can change how we view natural, cultural, and economic processes. In the nineteenth century, passenger and freight trains connected the major Triangle cities. It was the train connection that boosted the initial growth of the settlements. The term “Texas Triangle” appeared as early as 1936, when the Missouri Pacific (MoPac) Railroad announced its new overnight services from St. Louis and Memphis to link Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. “The Texas Triangle” was one section of MoPac’s premier name services, the “Sunshine Special.”

Images Above, top: Missouri Pacific Railroad’s “Sunshine Special,” circa 1940. Above, bottom: Local favorite, Snake Farm, along Interstate 35 in New Braunfels, Texas. Top, right: The Texas Triangle megaregion. Image: Dean Almy, Hope Hasbrouck, Jason Sowell. ©Dallas Urban Lab. Opposite page: Aerial view of Dallas. Photo by Neff Conner.

Today, the Texas Triangle train service no longer operates. Only limited Amtrak connections exist, and these trains are slow because freight is given preference over passengers on the rail lines. Three interstate highways have assumed the role of providing inter-city connections and delineating the Triangle. Are the Triangle cities economic rivals or do they function as complements? Table 1. Vital Statistics of the Texas Triangle Region

Triangle (66 Counties)

Area (sq. mi.) 57,430 Pop. (1000s) 14,660 GDP ($million)

4 Core CMSAs

Texas State


25,035 12,734 605,458*

268,580 20,852 722,832

3,794,083 281,422 9,749,104

Percent of U.S. Total Area (sq. mi.) 1.51% 0.66% 7.08% 100% Pop. 5.21% 4.52% 7.41% 100% GDP 6.21%* 7.41% 100% Source: 2000 U.S. Census, *2003


ECOLOGICAL SPACE OF THE TRIANGLE The metropolitan areas of Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio are located in and along the edge of the Blackland Prairie and the Edwards Plateau. Houston and other parts of the Gulf Coast lie in the Coastal Plain. Ecological regions in the Coastal Plain are generally perpendicular to the Gulf Coast margin and to the major watersheds and river corridors, as they extend to the coast. The Blackland Prairie ecological region is a highly fertile and agriculturally productive province, composed of fine textured clay soils and only small remnants of a formerly extensive natural prairie. There is still considerable agricultural and ranch land, although urban and industrial growth and development is a persistent challenge to the preservation of the region’s intrinsic resources. Located south and west of Austin and San Antonio, the Edwards Plateau ecological region is characterized by a hilly limestone terrain, which is dissected by many spring-fed streams of significant ecological, recreational, and aesthetic value. Most of the region is used for livestock and wildlife management, including hunting. Together, these resources and their associated amenities provide critical support for the economic stability of the metropolitan areas. Agricultural, mining, and other resource-based industries provide a base for many dozens of smaller communities located between the metropolitan areas. Increasingly, with improved transportation and telecommunication infrastructure, the interstitial zones between the metropolitan areas are encountering intensive growth and development pressures. The Houston metropolitan area and associated communities closer to the Gulf Coast are situated in the Gulf Coastal Plain ecological region. The terrain is very flat and covered mainly with grassland; forest and savanna-type vegetation prevail in areas further inland. Cropland covers a very large portion of this ecoregion. Urbanization and industrial development are the primary agents of change in land cover. The combination of the above described areas, flows, and ecoregions helps define the Texas Triangle, encompassing 66 counties and 57,430 square miles (148,743 km2). (See Table 1.)

THINKING LIKE A MEGAREGION A megaregion approach means that planning for economic development, environmental protection, and transportation infrastructure should go beyond the conventional practice that has been typically confined within individual jurisdictions. Currently, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are responsible for transportation demand forecasting and planning for each metropolitan region. The scope of the MPO’s work typically does not go beyond their designated areas. A megaregional transportation plan should, therefore, integrate individual metropolitan transportation plans with consideration of inter-city people and goods movements. A new MPO may be necessary to coordinate the efforts of the existing MPOs and other entities in the megaregion. Such large-scale planning has the potential to concentrate transportation and growth corridors away from environmentally sensitive areas, like the Edwards Plateau, and avoid productive farmlands, like the Blackland Prairie. With 10 million more people expected to live in the Texas Triangle by 2040, the state has the opportunity to create a globally highly competitive megaregion. If serious education funding issues can be addressed, Texas can emerge as a global exporter of knowledge and culture. The protection of open space is related to water supplies. The Edwards Plateau in particular is essential to San Antonio’s future. The springs along the Edwards Escarpment provide a valuable, potentially sustainable source of water for many communities. The Texas Triangle is crossed by magnificent rivers, such as the Trinity and the Colorado, which are an important resource for both water and recreation. Connectivity within the megaregion is also a challenge. Currently, the Texas Triangle is dominated by automobile, truck, and air transportation systems. But a megaregion encompassing more than 300 miles (483 km) will require a new infrastructure: High Speed Rail. HSR should be integrated with expanded urban rail and goods movement. Dallas’ leadership with urban rail is a positive step toward diversifying transportation, as are newer rail initiatives in Houston and Austin. A related challenge concerns the restoration of infrastructure while building new projects for an expanding population. We will need new roadways, bridges, parks, water and sewer lines, utility plants, and wastewater treatment facilities for this first urban Texas century. This transformation has significant consequences for the people of the Texas Triangle. Social equity, cultural heritage, public safety, and quality of life will be affected. The study of megaregions is a new, evolving area of inquiry, for which theories and methods are still developing. Many related issues in transportation planning, economic and social development, and environmental preservation warrant further study for the Texas Triangle and for other megaregions, nationally and internationally.


Texas Megaregion Cities — A Brief History Austin The City of Austin (2008 city population 757,688; 2008 metropolitan population 1,705,075) is located in east central Texas, where it straddles the Colorado River at the interface of the Edwards Plateau to the west and the fertile Blackland Prairie to the east. Austin’s first mayor, Edwin Waller, proposed a grid system for streets on the north bank of the Colorado River. That structure remains largely intact in the city’s downtown. To the north of downtown, the grid shifts to a true north-south structure. Outside this core, streets ramble more organically across rolling hills and around water systems. After Texas became part of the United States in 1845, Austin became the permanent state capital. Until the early 1970s, the city’s economy was dominated by state government and higher education. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, a series of seven dams was constructed on the Colorado River for water supply, flood control, and hydro-electric power. As a result, manufacturing expanded, the University of Texas grew, and the seeds for the growth of the computer technology industry were planted. Since the 1970s, the city has become an important center for computer technology, music, and, to some extent, film and television. Barton Springs provides a popular yearround swimming pool with its constant temperature and prolific discharge. Its popularity laid the groundwork for a strong local environmental movement affecting city politics and its local and national identity. Austin is also rapidly becoming a national leader in sustainable building and energy systems. Dallas The City of Dallas (2010 city population 1,316,350; 2010 metropolitan population with Fort Worth, 6,477,315) is located on flat prairies along the Trinity River in northeast Texas. The ninth largest city in the nation, its metropolitan population is fourth largest when combined with nearby Fort Worth. Initially a trading post by the Trinity River, Dallas as a county was officially formed on March 30, 1846, by order of the Texas State Legislature. Its role as an inland transportation hub was established, when two Texas highways converged there. Dallas plays a leading role in the petroleum industry, telecommunications, computer technology, banking, and transportation. Fort Worth Fort Worth (2009 city population 720,250; 2010 metropolitan population with Dallas, 6,477,315) is also located along the Trinity River, 32 miles (51 km) west of Dallas. Evolving from its origins as a cattle drive terminus, Fort Worth retains its Western character. The Stockyards Historic District, for example, preserves and recreates vestiges of the Chisholm Trail and the Texas and Pacific Railway. The city also houses

three major art museums: the Modern Art Museum (designed by Tadao Ando), the Kimbell Art Museum (designed by Louis Kahn), and the Amon Carter Museum (designed by Philip Johnson). Houston The City of Houston (2009 city population 2,242,193; 2009 metropolitan population 5,728,143) is located in southeastern Texas and is the fourth largest city in the nation. The accessibility to water transportation offers Houston strategic advantages. Historically, small river steamships operating on Buffalo Bayou connected the ocean-going ships in Galveston with oxen-drawn wagons in the hinterland. In 1900, a hurricane devastated Galveston, the fourth largest city in Texas at the time. After the hurricane, Houston became the leading focal point for growth in the state. In 1914, the Houston Ship Channel opened, making Houston a deepwater port, later to be ranked the second largest in the United States. By then, Houston had become a large commercial power, ranking first among Texas cities in terms of commerce and industry. Houston’s economy had changed dramatically after the discovery of oil at Spindletop. To ensure a safe distance from Gulf storms, oil companies built their refineries along the Houston Ship Channel. Houston used its supplies of salt, sulfur, and natural gas to develop one of the largest petrochemical concentrations in the United States. With this industry in place, the city had become a world energy capital by 1970, and the economy, although rapidly expanding from its energy base, is still largely based on oil- and gas-related industries. San Antonio The seventh largest city in the United States, San Antonio is located in south central Texas. The 2008 city census reported 1,351,305 people in San Antonio, while the 2008 regional data listed a metropolitan population of 2,031,445. Spanish explorers founded San Antonio in 1718 as a supply depot for the missions in East Texas and Louisiana. After the State of Texas joined the Union, San Antonio emerged as a distribution hub for western migration. By 1860, San Antonio had become the largest city in Texas, and it held this title until the early twentieth century. During World War I, Fort Sam Houston became the largest military base in the United States. During World War II, more than one-third of the total population of the city was comprised of military personnel. Being the oldest city in Texas, San Antonio has more recently become a top tourist and convention destination with attractions such as the River Walk, the Alamo and other Spanish missions, and the Tower of the Americas.


BEST OF TIMES/WORST OF TIMES PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY IN THE AUSTIN REGION BY MICHAEL ODEN Biography Dr. Michael Oden’s teaching and research areas include local and regional economic development, regional growth dynamics, program evaluation methods, and affordable housing policy. Prior to joining the school’s Community and Regional Planning Program, he worked at the Project on Regional and Industrial Economics at Rutgers University, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, and as the senior economist on the Appropriations Committee of the Michigan State Senate.

Images Top: Damselfly on the Colorado River. Photo by Rolf Nussbaumer. Opposite page: View of downtown Austin, Texas, from Barton Creek Mall. Photo by Fritz Steiner.

There is a strong consensus that new forms of planning across boundaries at the regional or metropolitan scale are required to achieve substantive improvements in environmental performance and more equitable access to opportunities for citizens of metropolitan regions. Gaining momentum through the 1990s, new regional initiatives were launched across U.S. metropolitan areas, including new state government actions mandating forms of local and regional planning, smart-growth initiatives, and new public-private partnerships initiating numerous regional visioning and comprehensive planning efforts (Salkin, 1999; Rusk, 1999). There has, however, been only marginal progress in dealing with the deep-seated jurisdictional and functional fragmentation in metropolitan regions that stymie significant changes in transportation, land use, and regional equity policies (Norris, 2001; Mitchell-Weaver et al., 2000; Brenner, 2002). This seeming disjuncture between talk and action, visioning and real planning, and implementation is on stark display in the Austin metropolitan region. In 2001, Envision Central Texas (ECT) was formed as a non-profit regional organization committed to advancing a coherent regional vision for future growth and development in the five-county Austin-Round Rock metropolitan statistical area (MSA). ECT conducted an amazingly energetic regional visioning process that involved civic leaders across the region and engaged thousands of citizens in delineating a preferred growth scenario for the five-county area (released in 2004). The growth scenario selected through ECT’s deliberative process (with about 12,000 citizens “voting”) concentrated new development in existing towns and cities, called for extensive commuterrail, light-rail, and express-bus networks, and limited the development of agricultural land and other open space to accommodate population growth (ECT, 2003). Yet, despite this unprecedented community effort, there has been very limited progress in forging the new forms of regional action and organization needed to make a meaningful dent on sprawling Central Texas development patterns and related automobile dependence. While downtown residential development did take off over the past ten years and urban infill projects have proliferated, population growth has continued to be concentrated on the suburban and exurban fringes. The ECT process arguably supported some encouraging developments, including the opening of the region’s first commuter-rail line and numerous transit-oriented and/or denser mixed-use projects in the urban core. But ECT and other regional efforts have not yielded anything like coordinated regional planning shaped by institutions that have the capacity to transcend local jurisdictional interests. As ECT’s 2008 evaluation stated, “…the major issues facing Central Texas today are the same as those facing the region five to ten years ago—only magnified. The lack of a coordinated approach to infrastructure planning in the region—one that


is tied to land-use planning and that breaks down traditional silos—is seen by those in both the public and private sectors as a barrier to achieving regional goals.” (TIP Strategies, July 2008, p. 2). The problems of overcoming jurisdictional fragmentation and planning at the regional scale are deeply rooted and certainly not unique to Austin. There are durable historic barriers to metropolitan-level planning and governance in the United States, including strong citizen resistance to encroachments on local prerogatives and control; disinterest of local public officials in surrendering powers or resources to regional entities; and resistance of the development and business communities to new regulatory controls over their actions (Basolo, 2003). Indeed, there are compelling arguments that in many areas of urban administration and governance, local control leads to better government outcomes more closely matched to the preferences and priorities of local citizens (Oakerson,1999). However, it is important to reassert that the revival of regionalism over the past 15 years is first and foremost related to serious failures of traditional local government frameworks in dealing with deepening problems of metropolitan-scale growth. The shocking differential between urban population growth and growth in urban land area portrays an urban growth process that will generate increasing direct and external costs across numerous domains. Expensive transportation and water infrastructure, high service costs, and a host of negative spillovers, such as air and water pollution, are explicit outcomes of fragmented local governments unable to deal with region-wide processes AUSTIN REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS Population Share 4.1.2000 of MSA Geographic Entity City of Austin 656,562 52.5% Full Purpose 639,185 51.1% Limited Purpose 17,377 1.4% Extra Territorial Jurisdiction 128,925 10.3% Travis County 812,280 65.0% Austin-Round Rock MSA 1,249,763 Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, 2010.

Population Share 4.1.2010 of MSA 785,850 774,636 722,832 200,217 1,033,553 1,752,938

44.8% 44.2% 0.6% 11.4% 59.0%

Bibliography and Works Cited Basolo, Victoria. 2003. “U.S. Regionalism and Rationality,” Urban Studies, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 447-462. Brenner, Neil. 2002. “Decoding the Newest Metropolitan Regionalism in the USA: A Critical Overview,” Cities, No. 19, pp. 3-21.

(Burchell et al., 2005). It is not really controversial to say that with the realities of global warming coming into sharp relief, contemporary patterns of metropolitan growth are fundamentally unsustainable. The literature on regionalism suggests that the ability of a metropolitan region to forge strong regional planning and governance processes is related to three key factors: state government mandates and incentives to engage in regional planning and coordination, an institutional structure and history of regional collaboration among jurisdictional and multi-jurisdictional entities (such as the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in transportation), and “external” threats or opportunities that mobilize support for new regional planning initiatives (such as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency non-attainment status for air quality). All of these factors are weak in the Austin region. Texas state government generally limits rather than encourages regional planning, and the region has very little institutional structure or history supporting metropolitan-scale planning, and outside mandates, such as the Clean Air Act, have not been in play. In sum, region-wide planning and action is swimming against very strong tides in the Austin metropolitan area. On the other hand, significant improvement in regional sustainability outcomes demands progress in regional planning capacity and action. Given the hand we have been dealt, a durable and patient commitment to regional collaboration and institution building seems to be the best way forward. And there are numerous forces suggesting that significant progress can be achieved. First, preferences seem to be shifting toward alternative land-use and settlement patterns (especially among higherincome strata). Baby boomers and busters, who are beginning to dominate the demographic picture, seem more attracted to amenity-rich, high-density settings. Since cities are much safer now than they were 20 years ago, and urban lifestyle choices seem more fashionable, general support for denser mixed-use development with greater mobility choices


may be pushing urban and suburban leaders and developers to change development patterns. The challenge here is to plan for diverse and economically integrated communities across the region; urban sustainability will deteriorate if higher income households move into the urban core and simply displace low-income households to far-flung exurban settlements. Second, it is clear that awareness and active discourse around regional approaches to region-scale problems have burgeoned over the past decade. ECT has not led to systemic advances in land-use or transportation coordination, but the organization continues to provide a crucial forum to engage private and public sector actors to address regional problems and serve as an incubator for smaller-scale regional initiatives. ECT’s Central Texas Greenprint for Growth project created a regional prioritized map of green space, and the organization has supported the development of conservation easement and subdivision models. CAMPO, the regional transportation planning organization, has also advanced a growth concept as part of its long-range plan that—for the first time—explicitly tries to link regional transportation plans to local land-use decisions by offering specific incentives for more compact transit-friendly growth in suburban communities. In addition, regional organization and collaboration have flowered in the areas of healthcare provision, K-12 education, and social-service delivery. Together, these initiatives have created a significant learning dynamic, whereby political and institutional actors gain know-how and capacity in thinking and acting regionally. Because the support factors for regional planning are generally weak in the Austin region, the small, but significant, steps that have been taken over the past decade must be actively built upon and scaled up to incorporate and integrate functional areas (such as transportation, land use, housing, energy, and water). Since we are running against the very unforgiving clock of regional resource constraints and global climate change, the sometimes unglamorous process of regional planning must become a first-order priority.

Calthorpe, Peter and William Fulton. 2001. The Regional City. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Envision Central Texas. 2003. Envision Central Texas: Our Mission. Available online at www. Accessed 10 September 2004. Gainsborough, Juliet. 2001. “Bridging the City-Suburb Divide: States and the Politics of Regional Cooperation,” Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 497-512. Mitchell-Weaver, Clyde, David Miller, and Ronald Deal. 2000. “Multilevel Governance and Metropolitan Regionalism in the USA,” Urban Studies, Vol. 37, No. 5-6, pp. 851-896. Norris, Donald. 2001. “Prospects for Regional Governance Under the New Regionalism: Economic Imperatives Versus Political Impediments,” Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 557-571. Oakerson, Ronald. 1999. Governing Local Public Economics. Oakland, California: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press. Rusk, David. 1999. Inside Game/ Outside Game. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Rusk, David. 1995. Cities Without Suburbs. Washington, D.C.: The Woodrow Wilson Press. Salkin, Patricia. 1999. “Smart Growth at Century’s End: The State of the States,” The Urban Lawyer, Vol. 31, No. 3, Summer, pp. 610-648. TIP Strategies. “Visions Progress Assessment,” Envision Central Texas, July 2008.


GEOGRAPHY OF OPPORTUNITY DESIGNING DENSITY IN A GROWING CITY BY SINCLAIR BLACK Biography Sinclair Black, Roberta P. Crenshaw Centennial Professor in Urban Design and Environmental Planning, is an urban designer, planner, architect, educator, and author. He has planned, programmed, designed, and built projects in Central Texas for 40 years.

If Austin weren’t always so hampered by short-sighted politicians and citizens in a tizzy against virtually everything, it would now be the best test case for land-use paradigm change of emerging mid-sized American cities. This article explores Austin’s under-utilized urban geography before discussing future lifestyle and economic and environmental benefits that potentially can be gained, not by continuing to embrace sprawl, but by optimizing density via infill. Infill development generally occurs by rezoning formerly vital neighborhoods that have been lost over decades of change, which, in turn, instigates private investment. An infill project should be appropriately scaled and leave a neighborhood significantly better off than it was. Furthermore, transportation systems are the pulmonary veins through which an urbanized area breathes, while its downtown is the heart that pumps its vitality. They are inextricably entwined; if one underperforms, stress is added to the other, which then adds additional stress, until the whole urban structure begins to collapse. Streetcar systems facilitated the original growth of most American cities, including that of Austin. Unfortunately, those responsible for the advent of the automobile destroyed these rail systems. The process of reinstituting streetcars running right “up the middle” could be facilitated in Austin by the near perfect grid of existing streets. With destinations like the central business district (CBD), the Texas Capitol complex, and The University of Texas at Austin, the market clearly exists for this. The potential to densify many centralized zones is

tremendous. Streetcars could once again serve Austin’s most intense population concentrations, while unlocking development potential of areas between and beyond. Today, alas, Austin is not unique when it comes to having crosstown arterials that are lined by retail and low-density buildings. These auto-dominated thoroughfares divide neighborhoods and deny pedestrian corridors that, instead, could be interconnecting adjacent neighborhoods. Redeveloping these arterials into medium-density, transit-enabled, walkable, mixed-use continuous corridors could provide housing for thousands of people. While many cities have brownfield sites due to former industrial land uses, Austin has “black holes” in the form of changed land uses. For example, the State of Texas owns many tracts of land around the city. As state institutions move, consolidate, or disappear, land will become available for redevelopment by the private sector, ultimately filling most of the urban black holes. The zones adjacent to and north of the Texas Capitol complex are totally automobileoriented and, therefore, presently lifeless both day and night. A great opportunity exists to inject mixed-use development and urban life into this huge (80-block) area. Many good examples of graceful increases in density and the subsequently corresponding increase in property values already exist in Austin. Central Park (38th and Lamar) and The Triangle (Guadalupe and Lamar) are already established, while Plaza Saltillo (the site of abandoned rail switching yards just east of the CBD and Interstate 35), and Mueller are being redeveloped as walkable, mixed-use New Urbanist communities. Others include the University Neighborhood Overlay that favors dense student housing and the Rainey Street neighborhood at the intersection of IH-35 and Lady Bird Lake.


The central business district of Austin has traditionally been the hub of the region. Recently, it has again become the focus of urban living and, as a result, is reemerging as a hub of retail activity and experiencing a hotel building surge. But two major problems exist: first is the brutal superimposition of IH-35 over historic East Avenue; second is the as yet unrealized opportunity for approximately 91 acres (52 city blocks) of downtown redevelopment on the shores of Lady Bird Lake. Because the latter is Austin’s most important amenity and most valuable real estate, it has the potential to become Austin’s “green lung,” if done well. Encouraging sustainable development of privately-owned land along its edges is a short-cut to enhancing the tax base and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Thousands of people could live and work there, and the entire Central Texas Region would be better off as a result. Of course, there is heartburn associated with this kind of change. But in the end, thousands of people will be able to walk to their destinations. And, by living closer to where they work and play, literally tens of thousands of people will begin reducing the vehicle miles they travel, rather than crowding streets with more commuter cars. With that said, let us now explore the benefits that could be gained by optimizing Austin’s density on just a few opportune sites. Of the thousands of acres of unutilized and underutilized land inside the Austin city limits, we selected five sites to explore the implications of walkable, mixed-use developments at a gentle level of density. These five sites, representing about 10% of the opportunity in the region, include the Green Water Treatment Plant, the West 5th Street Corridor, the Southbank at the Pecan Groves, the Austin American-Statesman site just east of Congress, and the Northshore just east of IH-35. After both the Riverside Corridor and the Brackenridge Tract master plans were completed, we added those numbers to the statistical analysis.


A brief impact summary for the seven sites shows:

Total area of non-public land for development: 1674 acres holding 44,500 housing units

Area of sprawl preempted: 13,150 acres

Length of new lake edge made open and accessible to the public: 3.1 miles

Potential tax base creation: $12.87 billion

Mileage not driven due to shorter commutes: 1,118,495 miles daily

Gas saved: 57,675 gallons daily and 16,437,304 gallons annually Amount of commuter time saved by not sitting in traffic: 6,095 hours daily and 1,737,190 hours annually Amount of CO2 emissions saved: 577 tons daily and 164,373 tons annually The Austin Metropolitan Region is ever-verging upon violating the Clean Air Act. When, indeed, this does occur, we the people, will have no choice but to densify in a manner similar to this proposal. It is always better to act now, rather than reacting later. While the five-county regional vision of Envision Central Texas points the way toward a sustainable future, Austin needs visionary leadership and cooperation among jurisdictions that enable compact, walkable towns and neighborhoods linked by rail transit that is structured around the downtown core. The conditions are in place for paradigm change, to create a new “Geography of Opportunity” for the Central Texas Region.

Images Opposite page, top: First day of streetcar operations on Congress Avenue. Photo courtesy of Austin History Center, Austin Public Library. Opposite page, bottom: This aerial diagram looks at the development potential of five under-utilized sites within Austin’s central core. The Brackenridge Tract and East Riverside Corridor were added to the study later, after their master plans were released. Top: Image visualizing downtown development by student Hyekyung Kim in Professor Sinclair Black’s and Associate Professor Dean Almy’s advanced design studio.


MASTER PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABILITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN BY LAWRENCE W. SPECK Biography Lawrence Speck, W.L. Moody, Jr. Centennial Professor in Architecture, came to the faculty of the School of Architecture in 1975 after teaching at M.I.T. for three years. He served as Founding Director of the Center for American Architecture and Design from 1982 to 1990 and was dean of the school from 1992 to 2001. He is a principal in the firm Page Southerland Page. Recent writings include chapter contributions on Cass Gilbert and Alvar Aalto—each dealing with works of the architects on American campuses.

In many ways, college campuses in the United States tend to be, as an urban typology, more sustainable than other American urban or community fabric. As early as Thomas Jefferson’s seminal design for the University of Virginia campus in the early nineteenth century, an idea was established that universities should be housed in well-planned and orderly physical environments that created a supportive “academical village.” Facilities would be included that accommodated not only the requisite academic spaces for classrooms, faculty offices, and libraries, but also places for faculty and students to live, recreate, interact, and form a community. As economic, technological, and social forces transformed villages, neighborhoods, and cities in America from dense, cohesive physical environments in the late nineteenth century into sprawling resource hogs in the late twentieth century, campuses often remained remarkably compact and coherent. The commitment to regular master planning, to mixed-use development, and to a predominantly pedestrian environment created an anomaly in the make-up of many American cities—oases of sustainable patterns of living and working in the midst of an insanity of car-dominated urban chaos. This pattern has certainly held true in the case of the campus of The University of Texas at Austin. From its first master plan in 1910 to the present, there has been a regular and repeated reassessment every ten to fifteen years of the general direction for campus development. A remarkable propensity toward compactness early on created a fabric that could grow and change coherently as the university transformed itself from a tiny regional college into one of the largest and most influential educational institutions in the world. As this growth progressed, four strong principles have contributed fundamentally to the campus’ sustainable performance: MAINTAINING A SINGLE, COHESIVE CAMPUS RATHER THAN RELYING HEAVILY ON SATELLITE CAMPUSES Early in its history, the notion was proffered that, as the university grew, it might establish additional campuses on the edge of town on open, readily available land, rather than staying on a single campus in the center of the city. Attractive land was acquired on what is now called the Brackenridge Tract to the west of the city and later on the Balcones Tract to the north of the city. Though decisions were made to locate some modest improvements for graduate student housing and for remote research facilities on these large suburban parcels, the university resisted the temptation to split the campus, increase vehicular transportation challenges, and stimulate suburbanization of the city. Though acquisition of necessary parcels adjacent to the campus was often difficult and politically contentious, it has enabled the creation of a much more compact and operationally efficient institution.






One of the most remarkable qualities of the Paul Cret master plan for the university in 1933 was its extraordinary density envisioned for the sparsely settled context of Austin at the time. Rather than imagining a bucolic landscape inhabited by a scattering of academic buildings, Cret portrayed a series of well-developed open spaces, strongly defined by large buildings. His 27-story tower roused heated controversy in tiny Austin, but was consistent with his vision for a dense, urban feel for the campus. This was a vision that could grow to accommodate a campus for 50,000 students and still maintain pedestrian accessibility and the ability to change classes for the teeming multitudes in a 10-15 minute interval. RESISTING THE TEMPTATION TO PROVIDE A PARKING SPACE FOR ALL STUDENTS, FACULTY, AND STAFF In the 1960s, when rapid growth of the university brought with it more demand for parking than surface lots could accommodate, a decision was made to create a comprehensive mass-transit system to serve the campus. Initially a shuttlebus system separate from the city’s bus system, it eventually came to be operated by, and blended into, the Capitol Metro network. For fifty years, there has been no expectation that car access to campus would be available to everyone—even in a car-dominated city like Austin.

CREATING A MIXED-USE LIVE/WORK ENVIRONMENT WELL INTEGRATED INTO SUPPORTIVE SURROUNDINGS From its inception, the university envisioned a residential campus with both men’s and women’s dormitories among the first few buildings that were constructed. Cret’s plan emphasized a carefully integrated women’s campus, complete with sports fields, a gymnasium and pool, housing, and dining and study areas, all oriented toward women. A separate men’s campus had similar amenities, and both sub-campuses were conveniently interwoven into the larger campus fabric for common uses. Off-campus commercial support on “The Drag” and additional residential stock for both students and faculty in neighborhoods to the east, north, and west helped create a walkable larger community and an entire sector of the city that met virtually all of the needs of its inhabitants in a compact community. By the mid-1990s, after several decades of accelerated growth, a concerted effort was undertaken to re-assert some of these principles in the form of a new master plan led by Cesar Pelli & Associates. Four of its seven major principles addressed these notions specifically—emphasizing the return of the core campus to pedestrians, adding substantially to oncampus housing, establishing new centers of student activity to enhance a full on-campus life, and concentrating future construction in the core campus rather than on its fringes. At the same time as the Pelli master plan was being implemented, zoning changes were made to allow substantially greater density of living accommodations in the West Campus neighborhood. The goal was to enable students who had formerly commuted to the campus from various student apartment “ghettos” to the north and south to be able to live within walking distance of classes and other activities.


The university is about to embark on a new master plan that could inspire a next-generation advance on its efforts in sustainability. This time, the university administration and the Faculty Building Advisory Committee established specific goals that address sustainability in six different regards. 1. Reduction of energy and water consumption and enhancment of overall building performance. 2. Integration of pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, mass transit, and service vehicle movement to and from the campus, as well as within the campus. 3. Standardization of policies for campus landscape focusing on minimizing water usage and maximizing economy, durability, ease of maintenance, and sustainability, as well as the beauty of the campus landscape. 4. Creation of a campus hydrology plan and a specific scheme for the enhancement of Waller Creek. 5. Reevaluation of housing availability in close proximity to campus, not only for students, but also for faculty and staff. 6. Creation of a complete engineering infrastructure plan with the ability to update and reconfigure the existing facilities in the most cost-effective and sustainable manner. This new master plan could be an opportunity for a great leap forward in creating greater sustainability for The University of Texas at Austin. It could also offer a larger opportunity to see how campus master planning might be a more effective tool for sustainable development.

Images Opposite page, top: Plan of Development, University of Texas, Paul Cret, 1933. Paul Philippe Cret Collection, Alexander Architectural Archive, University of Texas Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin. Opposite page, bottom: Paul Cret compared the proportions of his plan for the University of Texas to the University of Virginia in his 1933 “Report Accompanying the General Plan of Development.” H2L2 Architectural Planners/Danze Blood Architects. Top, left: Proposed campus master plan for The University of Texas at Austin, 1999, Cesar Pelli & Associates. Top, center: Under the Pelli campus master plan, traffic and parking would be removed from the core campus, known as “the 40 acres.” Top, right: The Pelli master plan proposes enhancing the South Mall’s role as the formal “front door” to the university.


SUSTAINABILITY ON THE UT AUSTIN CAMPUS WHAT STARTS HERE CHANGES THE WORLD BY JIM WALKER This article, with links to additional information, can be found at blogs.utexas. edu/sustainability, managed by the author. Feel free to meet Jim there and ask questions or continue the conversation.

Images Top: Cooling Tower No. 1, located on the east side of campus, cools turbines associated with electrical and steam production at the adjacent combined heating and power plant. Utilities and Energy Management has a water recovery program in place which reuses water from various sources on campus. Facilities Services is also implementing changes to increase conservation. Photo by Veronica Hansen. Opposite page, top left: The 2007 UT Solar Decathlon team traveled 1,500 miles to compete on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., with 19 other collegiate teams to design, build, and operate solar-powered houses that are cost-effective, energy-efficient, and attractive. The school also entered teams in 2002 and 2005. Opposite page, top right: On October 22, 1969, architecture students played a prominent role in resisting the university’s effort to remove trees along Waller Creek to make room for the enlargement of the football stadium. In the face of bulldozers and the no less resistant countenance of Frank Erwin, the chairman of the Board of Regents, students held their ground, and Dean Alan Taniguchi refused the chairman’s order to intervene in the standoff. Photo from The Daily Texan, courtesy Dolph Briscoe Center for American History. Opposite page, diagram: Francisco “Paco” Arumí-Noé Memorial Sundial, designed by Jeff Barajas. Dr. Arumí-Noé saw the sundial as both a tool for teaching solar geometry and as a symbol of the potential embodied in this “dance with the sun.” After his death in 2005, a competition was held to design a permanent sundial for the south face of Goldsmith Hall.

The University of Texas at Austin opened its doors in 1883, with the mission to be a “university of the first class.” Such a degree of commitment to higher education in the late nineteenth century—following right behind Texas statehood— acknowledged the need for new critical thinking and new resources to overcome the known and unknown challenges facing a new state on the frontier of a new world. Today, sustainability is one of the great challenges facing Texas and the world. The University of Texas at Austin’s peer institutions are quickly expanding their existing brands with sustainability initiatives. The university brand, “What Starts Here Changes the World,” captures the idea that “the university is able to make a greater impact in the areas of innovation and social and economic growth because of its size and impact in a vast number of fields.” The core values within any definition of sustainability can be seen in the core brand of the university. Sustainability is already in the university’s DNA, we just have to activate it. There are many success stories to tell—a handful are listed below—but they are not yet collated into a cohesive identity. There are many ongoing conversations on campus, but they are not housed within a cohesive context or aimed toward a clear goal. We will note 2010 not only for the centennial of the School of Architecture, but also as the year The University of Texas at Austin turned its attention to the challenges of sustainability and the need for new solutions. ENERGY INITIATIVES OVER THE LAST GENERATIONS Texas grew up as a major producer of oil and gas, and the university built an identity as a prime supplier of geologists and engineers to serve that industry. The state became the leader in an energy field that dominated society for a century. The university itself has maintained a natural gas power plant since 1930. Major investments over the last 15 years have increased the capacity of the plant and its efficiency and have earned the university numerous international awards. But the energy challenges of the next 100 years require a thoughtful approach to how we utilize all natural resources on campus. SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS The university is committed to achieving LEED Silver certification on all new construction, currently 11 projects and $800 million of construction activity. The Division of Housing and Food Services supports 7,000 students in dormitories and recently went trayless in cafeterias, where seasonal and local food is promoted. It has contracted to compost 3,300 cubic yards of annual food scraps. The Office of Sustainability supports the expansion of “green teams” within all academic and operational units on campus.


UT Athletics may be the most energy-conscious division of the university and continues to expand event recycling, including at tailgating lots. The launch of Texas Longhorn Energy will provide a new revenue stream for sustainability projects. The president’s Sustainability Steering Committee was formed in 2007 and includes faculty, students, staff, and administrators. The committee drafted the Campus Sustainability Policy, adopted in April 2008, and the Office of Sustainability was established in April 2010. The university is a charter member of the national STARS rating system for sustainability in higher education. Students approved a “green fee” of $5 per semester, dedicated to environmental services and scholarships on campus, in March 2010. The green fee will generate over $400,000 annually and be allocated by a student majority committee. THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND BEYOND A partnership between the Office of the Executive VicePresident and Provost and the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center will deliver an online, interactive academic sustainability catalog to help existing and prospective students quickly find courses and research across campus with a focus on sustainability. The catalog will help integrate sustainability principles into each of the academic disciplines in all 17 colleges and schools. The university has expanded recycling efforts to include new bins and additional materials and will conduct an assessment of what is needed to become a zero-waste campus. In 2006, the university’s carbon footprint was 475,671 metric tons of CO2 equivalents, including core and additional emission sources. A Climate Policy Risk Assessment has been completed to better understand the potential risks of emerging legislation. The next several years will see campus conversations about what carbon mitigation strategies and targets are feasible and desireable. The first campus master plan update in 16 years is underway and will focus primarily on the campus’ infrastructure systems, with an interwoven theme of sustainability. Sustainability is a pursuit—for individuals, for institutions, and for nations. The university has a tradition, an expectation, of being a leader, not only in energy research, but in academic and institutional excellence. With sustainability continuing to grow as a priority for prospective students, faculty, and research funders, we should strive to become a leader in all facets of sustainability. The university has a solid, albeit little publicized, foundation on which to build new efforts that will elevate it to the top tier of higher education institutions in sustainability.


SUSTAINABILITY AT THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE A FORWARD-THINKING SCHOOL IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT BY MICHAEL GARRISON Biography Michael Garrison, Cass Gilbert Centennial Teaching Fellow in Architecture, is active in the design and construction of sustainable buildings. He served as faculty sponsor of the 2002, 2005, and 2007 Solar Decathlon competitions administered by the U.S. Department of Energy.

The School of Architecture has a long history of confronting the emerging necessities of design. The need for shelter and the effects of climate on human environments have been concerns in the architectural curriculum across all design disciplines since the beginning of the school. Over the last 50 years, since the modern concepts of sustainability first emerged, the school has marked milestones in each decade. 1960s In the swell of national interest and key evolutions in applied environmental design, the school began incorporating the principles of bioclimatic design, design for solar control, and the impact of environmental engineering on building design. Topics in sustainable design have continued to evolve in response to the ideals of faculty and students and their perceptions of changing environmental conditions and political events.

2000s Dr. Frederick Steiner, another student of Ian McHarg, was appointed dean in 2001. With the deaths of Duke in 2000 and Arumí-Noé in 2005, the leadership of the Design with Climate Program passed to a new generation. In 2002, Moore revised the program and changed the name to Sustainable Design.

in 1976 and provided the leadership that started the graduate program in architecture and energy, appointing ArumíNoé as the program’s first director. 1980s During the 1980s, Dean Box expanded the school’s facilities and started its endowment program. In 1984, he recruited influential architect Charles W. Moore as the O’Neil Ford Centennial Chair. Buford Duke Jr. joined the faculty in 1981, adding commercial design expertise to the architecture and energy program. Arumí-Noé led the graduate program through the 1980s, changing the name of the program to Design with Climate. State-funded research work on regional passive solar guidelines was integrated into the design studios, and students won numerous awards for their energyconscious design projects. 1990s

1970s Dean Charles Burnette brought Pliny Fisk, a disciple of Ian McHarg, to the school in 1972 to build a program in architecture and energy. Michael Garrison joined the faculty in 1975 and began teaching passive solar design and technology integration studios. David Smith joined the faculty, bringing expertise in adobe and earthcovered building design and construction. Francisco “Paco” Arumí-Noé, a physicist, joined the faculty in 1974, teaching architecture courses in thermal design, energy and thermal inertia, and solar geometry. Hal Box was appointed dean


In 1992, Lawrence Speck was appointed dean. That year, the first United Nations conference on environment and development (Earth Summit) was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, ushering in a new paradigm for sustainable design. In 1994, Michael Garrison led a team of graduate students, funded by the U.S. Department of the Interior, the National Park Service, and the Park Foundation, on a series of sustainable design-build projects in Big Bend National Park. Dr. Steven Moore joined the faculty in 1997 and, in 1999, succeeded Arumí-Noé as director of the Design with Climate program.

In 2001, Moore and Robert Paterson, professor in community and regional planning, co-founded the Center for Sustainable Development (CSD). Paterson helped foster the creation of the Texas Sustainability Indicators Project and the ECT Toolbox. The Alley Flat Initiative design-build project, founded in 2005 under the direction of Moore, Visiting Associate Professor Sergio Palleroni, and alumnus Michael Gatto, was one of the CSD’s first major initiatives. Also in 2005, Moore established the trans-disciplinary Portfolio Program in Sustainability with support from the Henry Luce Foundation. After Moore and Paterson, the CSD was led by Kent Butler, followed by Elizabeth Mueller, who secured funding from the Meadows Foundation to incorporate principles of sustainable design into the core curriculum and from the UT System to support an interdisciplinary doctoral initiative. Later, CSD Director Werner Lang and Assistant Director Barbara Brown Wilson (interim director in 2010) launched important initiatives, including the Thermal Lab and the Living Lab. Under Dean Steiner’s leadership, the Sustainable Design Program added research funding, new program areas, including landscape architecture, and new faculty: Ulrich Dangel (2005), Dason Whitsett (2006), and Matt Fajkus (2010). The Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center joined the university in 2007 as part of the School of Architecture and the College of Natural Sciences. Along with its native plants research, the Wildflower Center is a leader in restoration ecology and green roof design. With the CSD, the American Society of Landscape Architects, the U.S. Botantic Garden, and the U.S. Green Building Council, the Wildflower Center led the development of the Sustainable Sites Initiative.

2010 and Beyond The opening of the Thermal Lab as part of the CSD firmly establishes the School of Architecture at the cutting edge of teaching and research in sustainable design.


NEIGHBORHOODS THE KEY TO SUSTAINABLE GROWTH BY GIRARD KINNEY Biography Girard Kinney [B.Arch. ‘78] is a lifelong Austinite and an alumnus of The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture. He founded Kinney & Associates, a full service architecture firm with special expertise in the areas of architectural programming, master planning, urban design, transportation planning, architectural design of bridges, and accommodating neighborhood input.

Neighborhoods are distinct, identifiable groups of people living in a defined geographic area. Typically, they exist within a clear context of environmental, economic, and social justice issues, but true neighborhoods have additional characteristics—individuals and families know each other, and they are connected to each other in the common purpose of their neighborhoods’ ongoing success. These characteristics enable sustainability to manifest. Beyond the traditional social-equity dimension of sustainability, which addresses our consideration for each other’s needs, great neighborhoods are distinctive because people take the initiative to seek out those opportunities to cooperate for mutual benefit. This proactive consideration is a broadened concern for how the actions of a few will impact the many, as well as how they impact the future of the neighborhood at large.

This characteristic is independent of the financial motivations of individuals and coincident with concerns for public safety and quality of life. The entire neighborhood’s problems are seen from many personal perspectives, regardless of the actual personal interest in any particular problem. Neighborhoods fail at their potential when they choose

to transfer a societal problem or concern to another neighborhood instead of seeking to understand the nature of the problem and proactively creating innovative solutions. Neighborhoods may then be the ideal place to achieve a successful, ongoing application of sustainability principles. They offer a collection of structures, infrastructure, systems, and places that meet different neighborhood needs. They are micro-reflections of their larger cities and regions and climates, and they include hundreds or thousands of people with at least the commonality of their place. All the needs of society—food, materials, energy, water, waste handling, transportation, recreation, entertainment, education, and even workplaces—may conceptually be met without sacrificing quality of life, overwhelming any part of the system, or reaching beyond the neighborhood’s area. In addition, the opportunities at the neighborhood scale for artistic expression—beauty—and conflict resolution are key factors in how cohesive and motivating the neighborhood becomes for its residents.


The role of the architect and planner in sustainable neighborhoods is vital. While the design professional cannot select residents such that design aspirations and sustainability are achieved, much can be done in design and planning to attract those who are seeking inspirational neighborhoods and to create spaces that encourage engagement. Similarly, how neighborhoods are shaped by their residents and their larger cities on behalf of successive generations directly influences who is attracted there and how strongly they will engage one other. MUELLER AIRPORT REDEVELOPMENT MODEL As Austin updates its Comprehensive Plan, it would be well-advised to look at the process that resulted in the ongoing redevelopment of Robert Mueller Municipal Airport. This project, rather than being the brainchild of city planners or the development community, actually resulted from the surroundings neighborhoods acting in their own interests, considering the health of their own neighborhoods and the eventual Mueller revelopment neighborhoods and their ideal weaving into the city and region.


As the neighborhoods around Mueller learned in the early 1980s that the current airport would have to more than double in size if it were to remain at that site, they came together initially to oppose the expansion that would have dislocated hundreds of existing families and would have greatly diminished the quality of life in the neighborhoods that remained on its periphery. But rather than simply opposing the expansion, the neighborhoods became advocates both for the relocation of the airport and also for development of the site in a way that would benefit both the neighborhoods and the city at large. From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, a vision for the redevelopment evolved, and, in 1996, the Austin City Council appointed a task force made up of a diverse group of 16 citizens representing all of the neighborhoods surrounding the site, as well as other crucial stakeholders, to formalize a vision for redevelopment of the site. Drawing heavily on input and involvement from neighborhood representatives, this task force produced a historic document that outlined a “Vision for Mueller.” The document was signed by all 16 mem-

bers and endorsed by all the neighborhoods surrounding the former Robert Mueller Municipal Airport, as well as by the Austin Chapter of the American Institute of Architects and many city boards and commissions. It expressed the vision developed by the surrounding neighborhoods for a redevelopment that would serve the interests of the neighborhoods as well as the city, became the basis for the planning and development that followed, and is the document to which we return to remember the principles that it fostered. The Mueller redevelopment has most of the attributes that are normally associated with sustainability—green building practices, lower energy use, native plants, recycled materials, affordability—and a rich variety of other characteristics that place it in the forefront of the movement toward sustainable communities. However, it is the fact that this place was conceived of, nurtured by, and is overseen today by representatives of the neighborhoods around it—that have supported it because it serves their interests—that may be its most important contribution to the idea of sustainable communities.

Images Opposite page, top: Plan, Northwest Park greenway, Mueller neighborhood, Austin, Texas. © Catellus. Opposite page, bottom: Plan, Mueller neighborhood, Austin, Texas. © Catellus. Top: Mueller community meeting with citizen representatives and developers. Jana McCann [B.Arch. ‘80] (in green, at center) from ROMA Design Group explains details on the Mueller neighborhood model.


SUSTAINABLE SITES BY STEVE WINDHAGER Biography Dr. Steve Windhager has been director of the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES) at the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, where he oversaw the center’s ecological research, fee-based consulting program, and the development of SITES, in partnership with the American Society of Landscape Architects and the U.S. Botanic Garden. Dr. Windhager was recently appointed president of the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, effective December 2010.

Images Top: The High Line in New York City was built in the 1930s as part of a massive public-private infrastructure project called the West Side Improvement. It lifted freight traffic 30 feet into the air, removing dangerous trains from the streets of Manhattan’s largest industrial district. No trains have run on the High Line since 1980. Friends of the High Line, a community-based non-profit group, formed in 1999 when the historic structure was under threat of demolition, works in partnership with the City of New York to preserve and maintain the structure as an elevated public park. Photo by Fritz Steiner.

Green building has come a long way over the last 25 years, and we are now taking that same fruitful approach and applying it to the built landscape. This is critical, for while our buildings account for much of our energy use, our landscapes are often significant consumers of resources as well. More importantly, they have the ability to go beyond conserving critical resources to actually regenerating the capacity of the built environment to provide the essential goods and services that humans depend on for well-being and economic development. These services include the production of critical “products,” such as breathable air; fishable, swimmable, and drinkable water; regulation of atmospheric gases; nutrient and waste cycling; eco-tourism; the raw materials for building and manufacturing; and a host of others. Many of our current sustainability-related challenges come from not having enough of these services, and the situation could get much worse.

Bottom left: Sidwell Friends School (middle school renovation and addition), Washington, D.C. View from top of the wetland terrace toward the new extension of the middle school building. (Architect: Kieran Timberlake; landscape architects: Andropogon Associates; wastewater engineer: Natural Systems International). Photo by Andropogon Associates. Bottom right: Sidwell Friends School, axonometric. A constructed wetland forms the heart of the natural wastewater treatment and reuse system, using biological processes to clean water and serving as a living laboratory, where students can learn about biology, ecology, and chemistry. Image by Andropogon Associates.


The Urban Land Institute predicts that, even with a substantial increase in urban infill and redevelopment, 65 percent of new development between 2000 and 2050 will occur in greenfield locations—areas that already are producing as many of these ecosystem services as they can. If we are already challenged with poor air and water quality, urban heat-island effects, and rising greenhouse-gas levels in the atmosphere, we must find a way to construct the built environment so that we do not compromise the landscape’s ability to provide ecosystem services. We must increasingly focus on the design, construction, and maintenance of landscapes that are productive, even in the most urban environments. They need to not only enhance the beauty and functionality of the urban environment, but also must be designed to address those specific ecological issues necessary to provide for the more basic human needs. Urban sites can easily be designed to provide specific ecosystem services, such as reduction of the local heat-island effect; reduction of stormwater runoff and improvement of the quality of that runoff; improved air quality, particularly related to reductions in surface ozone and particulates; and

improved visual and physical access to greenspace, an increasingly recognized component of a livable city. Effective use of street trees alone has been shown to reduce energy demand through direct shading and reduction of the local ambient temperature, resulting in energy savings worth two to five times the initial investment. The production of ecosystem services— particularly those services identified as critical for the site or region—should become a core practice in the design of the built environment. To this end, the School of Architecture, through the Center for Sustainable Development and the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, has been on the leading edge of creating the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES). Modeled after the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED rating system, the Sustainable Sites Initiative contains a set of voluntary guidelines for development focused on the buildingskin outward or on projects without any buildings. The initiative—led by the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, the American Society of Landscape Architects, and the United States Botanic Garden—focuses not only on reducing resource consumption in the landscape, but also on going beyond

conservation toward the conscious generation of ecosystem services as part of the design process. Through 51 credits and 15 prerequisites, The Sustainable Sites Initiative: Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks 2009 (available at seeks performance-based goals with ecosystem services explicit in the design process. The Sustainable Sites Initiative aims to maintain or improve the ability of the landscape to provide ecosystem services as the benchmark for site sustainability. As such, every prerequisite or credit outlined in the rating system is tied to the production of at least one ecosystem service. This allows for the development of national guidelines based on large-scale goals, while having specific performance levels tied to different regions of the United States, based on climate and potential primary production, and while considering different performance levels depending on whether the site has been previously developed or not. These guidelines, however, apply regardless of typology, and, thus, are relevant not only to sites with buildings, but also to sites without buildings, from sites with only 2,000 square feet (185 square meters) to projects with hundreds or thousands of acres. The efforts to develop SITES have included organizations such as the U.S. Green Building Council, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Recreation and Park Association, The Nature Conservancy, the National Association of County


and City Health Officials, the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Environmental & Water Resources Institute, and the Center for Sustainable Development at The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture. The initiative involved more than 30 subject-matter experts in soils, vegetation, hydrology, materials, and human health and well-being from around the country, from disciplines such as landscape architecture, urban planning, botany, ecology, engineering, horticulture, soil science, and forestry. This dynamic group of experts was drawn from governmental agencies, universities, and private design and engineering firms that had all been on the front lines trying to improve the sustainability of sites across the United States. The initiative aims to apply sustainability principles to any site that will be protected, developed, or redeveloped for public or private purposes. “Site” was defined as the entire project area proposed for development and management. SITES focuses on the landscape attributes of the site and the integration of buildings and landscapes. A roof could be considered, for example, as well as a yard, a parking lot, or the exterior space surrounding an office building. In addition, SITES allows projects without significant building components— for example, parks, cemeteries, and botanic gardens—to become certified, though they are not currently able to be certified under the existing LEED standards. The principles of SITES will also apply to integrated building-landscape projects such as college campuses, urban plazas, and business parks.

Initial drafts were released for public comment in November 2007 and 2008. They stressed the positive environmental impacts of landscapes and were greeted with both significant support and constructive criticism. The pilot version of the report, The Sustainable Sites Initiative: Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks 2009, was released in November 2009 and is currently undergoing testing with 164 projects from 34 states, as well as Canada, Iceland, and Spain. Tools like the SITES rating system, however, are only the beginning of a movement toward landscape sustainability. Like LEED, SITES certification could turn into a distraction and be perceived as a goal in itself, rather than a tool to evaluate performance and raise questions during the design process. We have only begun to assess ecosystem services production in a significant way, and the integration of this knowledge into the design of the built environment needs more research. Still, it is a first step toward more sustainable communities and helps to frame part of the School of Architecture’s research agenda for the next 100 years.

Images Top left: Humble Administrator’s Garden, Suzhou, China. UT Austin School of Architecture students and faculty members visited the garden, a UNESCO World Heritage site, during a joint studio with Beijing’s Tsinghua University. Photo by Fritz Steiner. Top right: Ecological corridor bridge over the Fifth Ring Road, Olympic Forest Park, Beijing, China. Image courtesy of Tsinghua University Institute of Urban Planning and Design. Bottom: Detail, Musée du quai Branly, Paris, France. Photo by Fritz Steiner.


BUILDING FOR THE SOLAR AGE BY ULRICH DANGEL Biography Assistant Professor Dangel’s research and teaching focus on embedding the application of technology into the design process, advancing designbased learning approaches in technology courses, and educating students on the importance of architectural detailing. He is particularly interested in developing evaluation tools and strategies that aid in finding design solutions for building skins as components of sustainable, lowenergy concepts.

Works Cited Hannß Carl von Carlowitz, Sylvicultura Oeconomica – Anweisung zur wilden Baumzucht. Leipzig: 1713, 105-106. Victor Olgyay. Design with Climate: Bioclimatic Approach to Architectural Regionalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963.

Before inexpensive energy was widely available, the efficient use of energy for heating and cooling and the principles of solar energy gain were important criteria in the design of a building and its envelope. Orientation of the building, its exposure to sun and wind, openings in the façade, and the choice of materials were all directly influenced by location, site, and climate. Over time, this led to the evolution of a building culture that demonstrated a direct relationship between the functional requirements of a building and its external appearance, a connection that can still be found today in traditional buildings around the world. The vernacular architectural language that developed over centuries was the direct result of a response to the prevalent environmental conditions of a specific location and was also deeply rooted in the availability of resources, as well as local construction knowledge and craftsmanship skills. As early as the eighteenth century, the sustainable management of natural resources started to have an impact on the choice of building materials in construction. In many parts of Europe, for example, timber served as the dominant construction material, but it was also the sole energy source. Extensive logging created a shortage, which led to the creation of strict laws and limitations regarding its use. It is, therefore, no surprise that the origins of the word sustainability can be found in eighteenth-century European forestry regulations. In his 1713 publication, Sylvicultura Oeconomica, the first comprehensive treatise on forestry, the German administrator Hannß Carl von Carlowitz used the German term nachhaltend (sustainable) to formulate the concept of sustainability in forestry for the very first time. The term was eventually translated into other languages, resulting in the nineteenthcentury English term “sustained yield forestry,” which would serve as the source for the word sustainability in the modern sense. The advent of industrialization, however, marked the first step toward architecture’s reduced dependence on local climate and resources. The invention of new technologies, such as central heating systems, the arrival of inexpensive fossil fuels, and the mass production of building materials, coupled with the need to provide housing for the growing working-class population in urban areas, led to the design and construction of buildings that mostly ignored existing environmental conditions, such as solar orientation and daylighting strategies. The vast improvement of glass manufacturing techniques in the early twentieth century allowed


the cost-effective production of large-format glass panes for building applications. In the quest for more transparency, architects, such as Walter Gropius, Bruno Taut, and Mies van der Rohe, were able to exploit the new material in the achievement of a new aesthetic. The trend of this glass architecture culminated with the emergence of the International Style, which matured after World War II. The curtain wall façade rapidly proliferated and became the dominant architectural approach for decades. With examples in every town and city of the developed world, it represents the deceptive promise of technology to make man independent of nature. Design solutions became indifferent to location, site, and climate and led to the development of hermetically sealed glass boxes without operable windows—fully dependent on air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation. As the glass curtain wall was asserting its presence regardless of climate and culture, Victor Olgyay’s book, Design with Climate, was first published in 1963 as a step-by-step guide to understanding, learning, and applying bioclimatic principles for architectural design. Even though Olgyay’s book is still one of the most comprehensive books written on bioclimatic architecture, it was not until the energy crisis of the 1970s that a major shift started to occur in the architecture community and the construction industry. Initially driven by the growing realization that the Earth’s fossil fuel supplies are limited, a wave of experimental solar architecture developed,

which contributed to the revival of long-forgotten passive solar-design strategies, along with the development of new active technologies. A renewed awareness emerged, which advocated the design of buildings and spaces aimed at providing thermal and visual comfort, based on local climate, while making use of solar energy and other environmental sources. More recently, the effects of global warming, environmental pollution, limited natural resources, rising energy costs, and an exploding global population have led us to assertively continue the development of sustainable design practices and building technologies. The German Passive House standard and other European ultra-low energy building standards, for example, have significantly contributed to a reduction of a building’s energy demand for heating, hot water, and electricity, thus directly impacting its ecological footprint. This is primarily achieved through passive means, including high degrees of insulation, energy-efficient windows, low levels of air infiltration, and heat recovery ventilation. However, these buildings still require a substantial external supply of energy, which they draw from the electrical grid. In order to

successfully face the upcoming environmental challenges, more rigorous measures will be necessary, requiring not only increased energy conservation of new buildings, but also the harvesting of renewable energy, enabling buildings to generate their own power. The new generation of net-zero energy buildings uses less energy over a year than it creates, resulting in zero net energy consumption and zero carbon emissions annually. The use of on-site renewable energy technologies, such as photovoltaic panels, is required to offset the building’s primary energy demand. However, the energy-plus building concept takes the idea of energy harvesting even further by producing more energy from renewable sources than importing from external sources. This is achieved through a combination of low-energy building techniques, including passive solar design and heavy insulation, as well as careful site selection and placement. In addition, the employment of microgeneration technologies and the generation of zero-carbon heat and power by individuals to meet their own needs plays an integral role. This includes the use of small-scale wind turbines, photovoltaic solar systems, ground-source heat pumps, and micro-combined heat and power plants. Achieving a positive energy balance, actually producing more energy than is being used, allows homeowners to sell energy back to the grid, turning utility bills into income. Lower energy prices and less stringent energy conservation regulations than in Europe, combined with the demands of the free market economy for a quick amortization of property investment, have meant that sustainable construction practices in the United States have not proceeded with the same determination as in the Old World. As many new technologies are at the cusp of becoming attainable and affordable to the general public, the opportunity to personally harvest renewable energy at home offers a lasting solution to the world’s energy, environmental, and housing problems. Fossil fuels will one day be depleted, but solar, wind, water, and geothermal energy will be available for millions of years to come.

Images Opposite page, top: Cliff Palace, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. The Cliff Palace is the largest cliff dwelling in North America. Home to the Ancestral Puebloans, the settlement was deeply recessed into the rock, protecting the structure from the intense heat of the summer sun, while taking advantage of solar gains from the low winter sun. Photo by Gary Tucker. Opposite page, middle: Traditional timber farmhouses in Hirschau, Vorarlberg, Austria. Photo by Ulrich Dangel. Opposite page, bottom: The Solar Settlement in Freiburg, Germany, is a 59-unit energy-plus housing community designed by architect Rolf Disch. It is the first residential complex in the world in which all the homes produce a positive energy balance and are emissions-free and CO 2 neutral. Photo by Andrew Glaser. Top: Lever House, New York, designed by SOM and completed in 1952. It is considered the pioneer curtain wall skyscraper in New York City and follows the glass box design principles of the International Style. Bottom: Built as his private residence in 1994, architect Rolf Disch designed the Heliotrope to be the first energy-plus house in the world. Photo by M. Jörgens.



EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH AT THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE BY MATT FAJKUS AND ULRICH DANGEL Biographies Matt Fajkus is an Assistant Professor at The University of Texas at Austin. He received a Master in Architecture degree from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, and he most recently worked for Foster + Partners in London. He is a registered and practicing architect. Ulrich Dangel is an Assistant Professor at The University of Texas at Austin. He holds architecture degrees from Universität Stuttgart in Germany and the University of Oregon. He has worked for Foster + Partners and Grimshaw in London, is a registered architect in Germany and the U.K., and maintains a small design practice in Austin, Texas.

Images Interior and exterior views of a Thermal Lab shading device prototype, designed by Stefan Bader [M.S. Sustainable Design ‘10], under the direction of Professor Werner Lang.

Architecture can be described as the creation of spatial experience through the integrated design of volume, scale, proportion, materiality, and the modulation of light, in addition to many other factors, which together create our physical environment. The formal and spatial aspects of architecture have traditionally been the primary research focus in architecture schools, while research related to the thermal performance of buildings was conducted by architectural and structural engineers and rarely connected to the field of architectural exploration. As sustainability has risen to prime architectural significance in the past decade, architects, designers, and planners now see a new venue for research in these fields. The spreading awareness of the urgent need for more sustainable buildings offers a tremendous opportunity to reposition architecture as a way to create shelter, define space, and modulate the climatic conditions in such a way that the physical performance of a building becomes a driving force for design. The push for sustainable design highlights the need to rethink and influence the aesthetic qualities of buildings in exciting and impactful ways. Sustainable architecture is primarily a strong balance between building efficiency and human comfort, in both physical and psychological terms. Approaching design from the perspective of sustainability offers an opportunity to create attractive spaces that serve as well as they please. The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture is known for its work in the field of sustainable development in architecture, urban planning, and related programs. The breadth of the work varies in size, scope, and focus—from the school’s interdisciplinary graduate programs in sustainable design, to the scholarly activities of the various faculty members, to the new Sustainable Cities Doctoral Initiative, and to the applied research programs offered to engage students, such as the Solar Decathlon, in which The University of Texas at Austin has been a successful participant three times. The Center for Sustainable Development (CSD) was founded in 2001 to help coordinate the dynamic network of sustainability-oriented initiatives underway at the School of Architecture. The mission of the CSD is to lead the study and practice of sustainable development in Texas, the nation, and the world through complementary programs in research, education, and community outreach. Based on this rich background and the urgent need to facilitate experimental research related to the maximization of building performance, the Thermal Lab was established in late 2009.


TESTING FACILITY FOR THE BUILDING ENVELOPE The Thermal Lab at the School of Architecture simulates a full-scale single room with a south-facing façade, allowing for thermal experiments, as well as for research in the field of energy consumption related to comfort, light control, ventilation, and the direct and indirect use of solar energy. The lab facilitates the testing of innovative components, systems, and buildings in hot climates, such as Central Texas, pairing the numeric analysis of energy performance with the qualitative analysis of the structural and aesthetic characteristics of these architectural elements. A facility that can measure the effects of façade material innovations and shading treatments informs the field of experimental research in sustainability in two ways. First, with regard to comfort, energy consumption, and the aesthetics of buildings, the building envelope is by far the most important subsystem of the building. The performance of the building skin dramatically influences the load on building services. Second, because the relationship between the building volume and its surface area strongly influences the thermal gains and losses within a room, predicting a structure’s thermal behavior is inherently dependent on using real-scale facilities. Thermal gains and losses also directly impact human comfort, as well as the energy demand required to maintain this comfort, in a decisive way. The Thermal Lab captures the fundamentally spatial nature of building-energy efficiency in order to conduct dynamic, applied research. The location of the Thermal Lab provides integrative access to existing facilities—such as the design workshops, the University Co-op Materials Resource Center, the computer lab, and the digital fabrication and conservation labs—allowing for the deployment of immediate and effective design studies. Such research can demonstrate the scope and tremendous potential in the field of sustainable architecture with regard to comfort, reduction of the need for fossil fuels, and the extension of the current limits of architectural design.

Images Top: The Thermal Lab glows blue during UT Austin’s May 2010 commencement ceremonies. Center: The CSD is analyzing UT Austin campus buildings with thermal imaging to evaluate thermal performance and find opportunities where building efficiency can be improved. Peter T. Flawn Academic Center east façade and detail views with thermal imaging. Bottom: Building parameters.


As an initial example of the Thermal Lab’s potential as a tool for design and experimentation, a recent student thesis project is worth noting. A shading-device prototype was designed and developed in the spring of 2010 by Master of Sustainable Design student Stefan Bader under the instruction of Professor Werner Lang. The design set out to create a shading structure that would maximize efficiency, as well as internal comfort, daylight, and views. In addition to the phenomenological aspects, the project aimed at high standards with regard to low energy use by limiting cooling loads and demands for artificial lighting while avoiding glare and winter heat loss. More specifically, the shading structure was intended to be a patterned array of fixed shading components, sharing an overall geometric logic, but varying in size and proportion to fulfill desired criteria, such as views, transparency, and the aesthetic appearance of the structure itself, in addition to its solar and thermal implications. A full-scale prototype of the design was built and tested on the Thermal Lab, yielding promising results in terms of efficiency and visual factors. This prototype was the first in a lineage of future experiments. The Thermal Lab offers the opportunity to develop an integrated approach to problem-solving by an interdisciplinary team of scientists and students from architecture, engineering, natural sciences, and other fields. No other university in the country boasts an outdoor, experimental facility of this kind, and its value will be amplified through its dynamic and integrated use by architects, planners, designers, and engineers. It is anticipated that experimental research of this caliber will help strengthen The University of Texas at Austin’s reputation as one of the leading research institutions in sustainable design, and that it will attract, inspire, and energize students to engage in the field of sustainable design and to create change in the future of building.

The UT Austin Center for Sustainable Development (CSD) officially opened its Thermal Lab in December 2009 under the direction of Professor Werner Lang and is now overseen by Assistant Professors Matt Fajkus and Ulrich Dangel. The Center for Sustainable Development was founded in 2001 with a mission to lead the study and practice of sustainable development in Texas, the nation, and the world through complementary research, education, and community outreach programs. The CSD is unique in its integration of diverse interests to develop creative, balanced, achievable solutions to the physical and social challenges facing the planning, construction, and preservation of buildings, neighborhoods, and regions.

User Requirements

Energy Consumption

Climatic Parameters

Indoor air temperature

Building skin

Outdoor air temperature

Surface temperature Relative indoor air humidity

Heating energy Cooling energy

Air change Luminance

Artificial lighting

Lighting intensity

Relative outdoor air humidity

Solar radiation Building Services


Air movement

CSD Interim Director Barbara Brown Wilson: “We see the interconnected nature of the ‘sustainability challenge’ as central to our work; we attempt—through our projects, interdisciplinary teaching, and ongoing working groups—to better understand the connections between environment, economic prosperity, and social justice. Educational work at the CSD includes a transdisciplinary Graduate Portfolio Program in Sustainability, the Sustainable Cities Doctoral Initiative, and an annual sustainability symposium. Primary research/outreach projects include the Alley Flat Initiative, the Pecan Street Project, the UT Solar Decathlon, the Central Texas Sustainability Indicators Project, Transit-Oriented Development in Latin America and China, the East Austin Environmental Justice Project, and the Austin Historical Survey Web Tool.”


SUSTAINABILITY TRACES & TRAJECTORIES MAJOR INFLUENCES ON SUSTAINABILITY: PAST AND FUTURE Background The concept for these pages was born over the summer as a curiosity. Working with the authors on their primary articles for Platform, noting the individuals and ideas they highlighted, the editors thought it important to know more about what had influenced them in their own pursuits of sustainability. We received a wonderfully diverse collection of perspectives and references to books and movements, as well as interesting hopes and concerns about what will drive us in the future.

Image As part of Associate Professor Ming Zhang’s summer 2010 “International Transportation Issues” course and China Planning Workshop, graduate students from the Community and Regional Planning and Architecture Programs at The University of Texas at Austin experienced an exciting three-hour high speed train ride, topping out at a speed of 210 miles per hour, from Guangzhou to Wuhan, a distance of 610 miles. The themes of this year’s China Planning Workshop were highspeed rail (HSR) and urban spatial development. Workshop participants compared international cases of HSR development in Europe and Asia and explored HSR-based spatial strategies for sustainable growth of cities and regions. Workshop participants from UT Austin included Kathy Chang, Patrick Connor, Ken Dineen, Diane Dohn, Donovan Johnson, Colleen McGue, Joshua Penhaskashi, Sara Sha, Patton Sides, Nathaniel Waggoner, and Paul Ward. A group of 15 faculty and graduate students from Wuhan University also participated in the workshop. Photo by Ming Zhang.

“Dear Author, Thank you for contributing to this edition of Platform. The issue is coming together nicely, but we have one more quick request … We are not seeking narratives or even complete sentences and ask that you respond to the following two statements.” 1. Cite examples of the major influences on sustainability over the past 100 years. 2. Predict the major influences on sustainability over the next 100 years. INFLUENCES OVER THE PAST 100 YEARS


Sinclair Black The auto industry conspiracy to kill rail transit in America and the advent of sprawl (i.e., the private exploitation of land at public expense).

Sinclair Black $10 per gallon of gasoline in the relatively near future will make clear how unsustainable our land-use patterns are and how efficient rail transporatation is our destiny.

Ulrich Dangel The Industrial Revolution, ironically, the reason for many of the environmental and social problems of modern society. The knowledge base, which developed as a result, enables us to find sophisticated solutions to the problems we have generated. The oil/energy crisis of the 1970s. The enormous improvements in material science and renewable energy technologies in the 20th century.

Ulrich Dangel The exponential increase of the world’s population and striving to achieve the standard of living in the Western world. The global availability of natural resources, including fuels and raw materials, and even more importantly, clean water. The increasing amounts of generated waste and the need to recycle/reuse/repurpose. Increasing awareness that there is a need to preserve our planet for future generations.

Matt Fajkus Frederick Law Olmsted, who realized the importance of bringing nature into cities. Teddy Roosevelt initiated legislation for nature conservation and the creation of national parks and the U. S. Forest Service. Frank Lloyd Wright’s largely site-specific designs that worked cleverly with nature and local materials, in contrast to the International Style of his contemporaries. Buckminster Fuller’s concern for global problems and his structures which maximized efficiency in materials and weight. Norman Foster’s use of structure as an enabler of meaningful spaces and technology to maximize solar gain and overall thermal efficiency.

Matt Fajkus Successful future influences will be very collaborative, as buildings and demands become more complex, and issues of efficiency and aesthetics must be considered in tandem by all designers and consultants. The global agendas set forth by Fuller and Foster may work as templates, but those ideas will need to be interpreted at multiple scales and localized in various cultures with specific materials and resources.

Michael Garrison Rachel Carson and her 1962 book, Silent Spring. Donella and Dennis Meadows and their 1972 book, The Limits to Growth. Jared Diamond and his books, Collapse and Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. 1987 Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, by the United Nations’ World Commission on Environment and Development (commission convened in 1983). William McDonough’s and Michael Braungart’s 2002 book, Cradle to Cradle.

Michael Garrison Edward Mazria and his work on the 2030 imperative linking sustainability and architecture. David Orr and his writings linking sustainability and beauty. Tom Friedman and his writings linking sustainability to history and politics. James Hansen, from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, on global warming linking sustainability to science. U. S. Green Building Council and continued development of LEED—linking sustainability, business, and the new green economy.

Eric Hepburn The illusion of cheap energy. The illusion of human/market rationality. The dominance of advertising as propaganda. The culture of consumer society. The arrogance of human intervention.

Eric Hepburn The unification of science and religion. The evolution of world governance. The use of taxation to assess and collect the costs of externalities from producers. The subjugation of economic interests to social, political, and ecological needs. New technological, scientific, social, and spiritual evolutions.


A LEAP OF FAITH: Personal Sustainability BY ERIC HEPBURN



Girard Kinney Population explosions in the poorest sectors of society. Air conditioning since the mid-20th century. Food stamps and welfare payments as a means of providing goods and services to those who cannot afford the basics, resulting in a host of societal ills. Single-use zoning, for all the reasons that Andrés Duany argues and more. Sprawl and the related issues of automobile-dominated transportation and land-use systems. Loss of the aspirational neighborhood for the above reasons.

Girard Kinney Our ability to deal with all of the major past influences that have shaped us to this point.

Larry Speck Advancements in high-rise construction between 1910 to 1930 as the impetus for dense, efficient cities all over the world. Case Study Houses of the 1950s emphasized small, delightful houses well suited to climate and site. Requirement of LEED standards by U.S. General Services Administration around 2000.

Larry Speck The world will replace LEED- and BREEAM-type standards with farther-reaching standards applied to all new buildings, not just a tiny minority. There will be widespread new construction of rail systems to replace car and air travel. China will lead the world in this. City building will return to a neighborhood focus, where mixed use live/work/recreate communities will be the focus of one’s lifestyle rather than the amorphous metropolis.

Fritz Steiner Gifford Pinchot’s advocacy of “multiple use and sustained yield” in his role as first director of the U.S. Forest Service. Ian McHarg’s advocacy of the use of ecology in planning and design in Design With Nature. U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Program.

Fritz Steiner Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, the American Society of Landscape Architects, and U.S. Botanic Gardens’ Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES). Several “new” themes will dominate design and planning— landscape urbanism, urban ecology, urbanization (the first urban century), global population growth, and a post carbon energy society.

Steve Windhager Aldo Leopold (A Sand County Almanac) for redefining the American conception of the human relationship with nature. Rachel Carson (A Silent Spring) for awakening the American awareness of toxicity. E.O. Wilson (Diversity of Life, among others) for spreading an understanding of ecology outside the realm of science.

Steve Windhager Conflict over scarcity of drinking water. Quality of life issues. Economics. Beauty.


Over time, individual actions influence global cycles and societal structures where the benefits (and consequences) are primarily realized by future generations, not by the individuals initiating action. Many references and examples in this edition of Platform exist because individuals came to believe a new way of doing things was vital and urgent and designed a solution that became common practice. For those individuals, there was a moment or an experience when a switch was flipped that reoriented their relationships to the world. A useful way to describe this switch-flipping phenomenon is the language of spiritual conversion. One must sincerely believe, as a matter of faith, that one’s actions in the universe matter deeply and inescapably. One must know oneself as a complex being in order to not only adapt one’s mind, but to adapt one’s ways. Individuals must have means to judge their own actions, standards by which to choose one way of living over another. The struggle to achieve human sustainability is not a struggle to convince the intellect of the rightness of the science. It is a struggle to spiritually convert ourselves to the faith that we are powerful stewards of our own futures and to adapt our behaviors to live our values. The few observations made here are explored in greater depth on the new Platform blog site,



Images Above: Members of SPHINX, 1949 University of Texas Cactus yearbook. SPHINX was founded on January 3, 1930, as an architectural honorary society. Front row: Douglas M. Lansing, Robert W. Butler, Paul G. Eppes, Miles A. DeLaney, Robert E. Middleton, William E. Lake Jr., and Lacey R. Whitten.

The year was 1946. The fresh-faced 21-year-old navigator had just devoted three years of his life to the U.S. Army Air Corps in World War II, ending his military career as a member of a B-29 Superfortress bomber crew, after having completed 35 missions over the industrial cities of Japan. David Braden flew his last mission as a fighter pilot between the two atomic bombings. On the flight back home, high above the Grand Canyon, singing a chorus of “America the Beautiful,” he realized it was time to focus on his future. “I saw that I was actually going to have a life and had to decide what to do with it,” said Braden.

Second row: Howard F. Cappel, Joe T. Pursell, Martin S. Kermacy (faculty sponsor), Kenneth M. Nuhn (president), William G. Wagner (vice-president), H. Conrad Kroll (secretary-treasurer), David R. Braden, and Phillip S. Carrington.

The time had come for the young lieutenant’s final landing—returning to a country very different from the one he’d left behind, teeming with impossibly young veterans, all desperately trying to pick up their lives that had been interrupted by war.

Third row: Charles W. Brubaker, Jose M. Alvarez, Leon S. Brin, George C. Pearl, Thomas W. Shefelman, John E. Moore, J. Stark West, Porter J. Smith, and Ralph W. Davis.

“Before going to war, I had spent two years at North Texas Agricultural College (now the University of Texas at Arlington) and had taken a number of courses in aeronautical engineering. I wanted to apply those courses to a degree plan, but I knew that engineering was not the path I wanted to continue to pursue.”

Fourth row: John Shaw, W. Eugene George, Lester A. Braun, Edwin E. Beran, Roy S. West, James R. Pratt, and Herbert H. Ulbricht. Not pictured: James Douglass, G. Campbell McGill, William G. Parker, Robert L. Richey, William S. Wilson, and R. Lamar Youngblood.

“The real reason I became an architect?” Braden says with a smile, “A fear of integral calculus.” Arriving in Austin, Braden understood that the city had become a mecca for young veterans, much like himself, seeking degrees in higher education. Getting into The University of Texas at Austin wasn’t a problem for Braden. However, finding a place to live was.


“I knew a guy who lived in a remodeled chicken coop,” said Braden. “There was simply no housing in Austin.” However, an option was about to present itself. The university had built a veteran’s village of “Dallas huts” on Red River Street that could accommodate approximately 60 vets. The 16-square-foot huts, made of quarter-inch plywood and warmed by kerosene stoves, were a far cry from an architect’s dream home. But, for Braden, they provided a much sought-after place. After living in military barracks for three years with fellow pilots, the tiny huts seemed spacious. There was only one hurdle to overcome. The university restricted the hut rentals to married couples. Not easily thwarted, Braden applied for one of the huts, was approved, and moved into the tiny abode. He called his fiancée, Sara Deering, who was in Arlington planning their June wedding. Although not happy with the rush, she agreed to move the wedding date up. On Friday, April 5, Braden was called into the office of Arno Nowotny, dean of students. Someone had reported that Braden was single and living in the dorm for married students. After chronicling his story and sharing anecdotes about the war, Braden told Nowotny that he was to marry the next day, on Saturday, April 6, 1946. “That’s great,” said Nowotny. “But if you don’t get married Saturday, don’t come back on Monday.”

He did. They did. And in 1949, Braden graduated from the School of Architecture. Shortly after graduation, Braden and his wife moved to Dallas, where he began the long process of making a name for himself in the architecture community. After working for a few years with George Dahl and then Howard Meyer, he spent the next 20 years as president of Braden and Jones, Inc. In 1973, when Dahl approached him about becoming his successor, Braden jumped at the chance. He served as president and CEO of Dahl Braden PTM, Inc. until 1991. Halfway into his distinguished career, Braden found that architecture wasn’t his only talent. The City of Dallas had, since 1963, suffered from the notoriety of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Just five years later, Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered. Two months after that, Robert F. Kennedy was killed by an assassin’s bullet. The City of Dallas, and, in turn, the country, was in mourning. Newspapers across the nation decried that Dallas was “sick.” The sentiment grew following the latter two assassinations and, by the late 1960s, national media were reporting that the entire country was “sick.” On a business flight to El Paso, Braden pondered the headlines and decided he didn’t agree with the media’s assessment of the nation. Braden jotted down his thoughts and titled the manifesto, “I’m Sick to Death of Being Told I’m Sick.” Braden’s tenure as president of the Oak Cliff Lions Club in Dallas was coming to an end, and, on his final day in office, he delivered his six-minute speech to an audience of more than 250 Lions Club members.

When he finished the speech, the entire crowd stood up and cheered. Two local printers banded together and printed 2,500 copies of the speech for distribution. One of the Dallas City Council members collected funds to purchase a full-page ad in both local newspapers extolling the virtues of Braden’s speech. Picked up by national media sources and read into the Congressional Record, the speech began what Braden calls his “15 minutes of fame.” Requests for speaking engagements began to pour in, not only from Texas, but from across the country. Almost overnight, Braden was on his way to a successful 35-year second career as an architect-turned-professional-platform-political-humorist. [Although the first speech was acrimonious, Braden chose to focus on humor thereafter.] “One of my early speeches was at the state convention of the Texas Society of Architects,” said Braden. “I was asked to roast Tom Bullock, then-president of TSA.” Braden roasted Bullock and continued, to everyone’s surprise, to roast all of those seated at the head table and the entire profession of architecture. The president of the American Institute of Architect was in the audience and watched as the attending architects were consumed with hilarity. From that point on, Braden was a regular on the AIA state and national convention circuit. “Over time, I became friends with Cactus Pryor and would substitute when he was not available. I think the toughest roasts I did were those of the Texas Exes Distinguished Alumni, which I was asked to do on five occasions. Let me tell you—that’s a tough audience.” Braden says he officially retired in 1991. However, since that time, he has served on many civic boards and organizations, including as the director and chairman of the DFW International Airport Board. He also presided over more than 100 disputes for the American Arbitration Association. After an efficacious stint as an aerial navigator, highly successful careers as an architect and a public speaker, nearly two decades as a civic and community leader, and a 64-year marriage that’s still going strong, Braden shows little sign of slowing down. Retirement simply isn’t what it used to be.


Images Top: David R. Braden. Bottom: Many of Dallas’ best modern homes were built in the neighborhood of Oak Cliff in the 1950s, including the house David Braden designed for himself and his family in 1951. It was his first design project after graduation.



As a director of one of the leading aviation consulting firms, Ricondo & Associates, Gene Peters has spent the last 25 years as an aviation environmental planner, bringing the concept of sustainability into airports across the nation. Peters came to the School of Architecture in 1980 to study environmental planning and policy, eventually focusing on various aspects of transportation planning. During his time at The University of Texas at Austin, he was influenced and inspired by many faculty mentors, including Kent Butler, Terry Kahn, and Sandra Rosenbloom. Following graduation, Peters worked on an environmental evaluation for the relocation of Highway 290, heliport developments, and airport land issues. Within just a short time, he found himself working on some of the nation’s largest airport development projects. “Highway development serves a growing need to connect people and support jobs and economic growth,” said Peters. “Airports are nearly the same. Aviation, however, is a highly complex environment that has grown even more so with changes in technology, security, regulatory and community issues, and a very demanding traveling public.”

“Following the creation of the SDM, the industry began to embrace sustainability. In 2005-2006, a group of industry professionals gathered to further sustainability in aviation. Partnering with Dallas-Fort Worth’s James Crites, I used my airport experience to develop the industry’s first index of sustainability measures,” said Peters.

Not until fairly recently was sustainability, as we view it today, associated with roadway- or airport-development projects. And, as with most sustainability issues, it has been a constantly changing conversation.

In 2008, the Sustainability Aviation Guidance Alliance (SAGA) was formed to create a “how-to” guide for airports to incorporate sustainability. The volunteer group was comprised of representives of industry organizations and key airport and industry professionals. Peters developed an updated sustainability index of over 950 measures (

“Sustainability means different things to different people,” noted Peters. “There are many definitions as to what exactly it means to be ‘sustainable,’ even among the various groups that seek to help organizations and businesses be proactive in this area.”

Images Top left: Eugene R. Peters. Top right (and plan above): Chicago O’Hare International Airport, from the City of Chicago’s O’Hare Modernization Program’s Sustainable Design Manual.

“Airports are no different in this respect—they strive to be fiscally, socially, and environmentally responsible and to be good neighbors.” In 2003, when airports and sustainability were not thought of in the same context, Peters participated in the development of the aviation industry’s first sustainable guidance manual, the City of Chicago’s O’Hare Modernization Program’s Sustainable Design Manual (SDM). The SDM was the creation of Chicago Department of Aviation Commissioner Rosemarie Andolino, a key advocate of sustainability in the aviation industry. The manual achieved many “firsts” in airport sustainability. It was the first to develop metrics to set project goals and evaluate benefits, the first to establish a uniform way to rank and rate project designs and construction, and the first to award and recognize development teams (called the Green Airplane Certificate award system).


Shortly thereafter, O’Hare International Airport issued an update to the SDM with the Sustainable Airport Manual (SAM), a more comprehensive program to include design, construction, operations, maintenance, concessions, and tenants. The SAM was a collaborative effort of airport leaders across the United States and internationally ( Peters has served as project manager and lead for environmental stewardship and sustainability initiatives at airports across the nation, including Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. “We have a long way to go. However, the changes at airports in recent years have been significant,” Peters stated. “At a growing number of airports today, you can see solar power, wind turbines, green roofs, permeable pavement, innovative concessioners, water and energy conservation innovations, alternative renewable fuels and fleets, recycling, reuse and reduced use, and much more.”



It was amidst the ranches and small towns of the Texas Hill Country that Christy Seals found her niche. Seals devised a rainwater collection system for her parents’ house in Blanco, Texas, prompting Mother Nature to provide 100 percent of one of Texas’ most prized commodities—H2O—to her family. A trickle of an idea began to flow. After a quintessential “what do you want to do with your life?” conversation with longtime friend and classmate, Marla Smith, a plan was devised, a business class taken, and together, they formed Loop Design, an architectural firm specializing in rainwater-collection projects. “I had previously worked for David Heymann who designed a house with a unique rainwater-collection system in Crawford, Texas, for George W. and Laura Bush,” said Seals. “It was a great example of how any part of a house can be expressive of not just its function, but also a way of living.” According to Smith, who lives on five acres in Bastrop, “there were lots of water-rights issues concerning the Colorado River, and the non-sustainable way the water was being used. In Bastrop, Alcoa, Inc., was planning to strip-mine and sell the water to San Antonio.“ For Seals and Smith, identifying the problem was easy. Unfortunately, finding a solution was a bit more complicated. Traditionally, homeowners work directly with rainwater-collection installers. This meant that Seals and Smith were obligated to create and define their roles as collection-system consultants. At the same time, building clientele in a new and relatively unexplored territory of architecture was difficult. And, finally, realizing that residential customers and commercial clients present entirely different challenges, the goal of incorporating architecture and water conservation was at times exciting, at times very frustrating. However, one thing that became obvious to both women is that Austin, and the School of Architecture, provided a wonderful network of support.


“Many of our first projects came from our being part of the Austin Green Energy Program,” said Seals. “We also got clients from UT connections. Austin and the school promote a great sense of community in the field, rather than a sense of competitiveness.” According to Smith, the idea of community begins in the classroom. Having taught both undergraduate and graduate courses in the school for many years, she says that unlike some universities that emphasize theory, UT students are encouraged to focus on integrating the vast amounts of available information into a strong theoretical and technical foundation. “The idea of integrated systems—such as water, energy use, wastewater, landscape, and land use—has really blossomed in architecture. Also emphasized in UTSOA’s program is the importance of using local materials and incorporating local customs and behavior. The ‘cradle-to-cradle’ idea and the idea of community thrive together.” “There was a wonderful group of professors at the school when I arrived in 1994 to begin my master’s degree program—Christopher Macdonald, Stephanie White, David Heymann, Richard Cleary. They taught me a different way of thinking about buildings, beyond materiality or technology. About how buildings have a story that is necessarily entwined with the people who live in and around them.” Both women agree that two of the most valuable lessons they learned, while working on their graduate degrees, were the necessity for collaboration and the need for clear communication. They firmly believe that it takes both of these talents to not only be a successful architect, but a good teacher. “As architects and designers, we get to inform the narrative that a client brings to us. It is our job to enhance their vision,” said Smith. “As a teacher, I do the same with my architecture students. My job is to help them identify their vision and make it better. It’s a huge privilege and a responsibility.”

Images Top left: Christy Seals and Marla Smith. Photo by Amy Crossette. Top right: UnderTree House, home of UT Austin School of Architecture’s Director of Information Technology Eric Hepburn. Photo by Whit Preston. Casa Conejo, Austin, Texas. Photo by Patrick Wong , Atelier Wong. Bottom: Southwind Ranch, Blanco, Texas.



When University of Texas System Chancellor Mark Yudof and The University of Texas at Austin President Bill Powers were searching for an affordable piece of land for the university’s proposed elementary school, they knew just who to contact. Surely, Austin developer and former School of Architecture Advisory Council member Perry Lorenz could help. And help he did. Lorenz owned a piece of property at 2200 East Sixth Street that proved to be a perfect location for the school. In deference to previous philanthropic gestures, he leased the property to the university at an affordable rate for a few years and ultimately offered to sell the property at less than half the appraised value. “I’m a huge supporter of the charter school,” said Lorenz. “I worked with Dr. Sharon Vaughn from the College of Education and the new elementary school’s founding Principal, Ramona Treviño, who are both wonderful people. “They don’t ‘cherry-pick’ students at the school; it’s open enrollment. For the first time in their lives, the possibility of college is real to these kids. Most of them had never considered it before. The school has been ranked exemplary every year, which is amazing.”

Images Top left: Perry Lorenz. Top right: Spring Condominium, Austin, Texas; developed by Spring Austin Partners.

Of Note Lorenz generously supported the Alley Flat Initiative in the School of Architecture. A project of Professor Steven Moore, the Alley Flat Initiative proposes a new sustainable, affordable housing alternative for all Austinites by creating innovative designs, as well as methods of financing and home ownership that benefit all neighborhoods in Austin. Lorenz’s gift was vital in helping the program meet a matching grant goal of $35,000..

Lorenz came to Austin in 1966 as an undergraduate student at The University of Texas at Austin and received a degree in English. Years later, at age 34, he completed a Master of Business Administration degree. By that time, he had acquired numerous properties (including many in East Austin) and was thoroughly entrenched in the Austin real-estate market. “I bought a number of rather strange, unconventional properties in the lower east side of downtown,“ said Lorenz. “All real-estate transactions downtown and in the industrial part of town were done by a particular set of guys who had been developing these properties for decades. They became my mentors. I never received professional training, nor did I work for any of the large, name-brand firms.” At the time, Lorenz forged a battle that few developers were willing to engage in, and by doing so, he was able to purchase acres of property along the Union Pacific railroad tracks in East Austin. The railroad, via layers of red tape and bureaucracy, made it almost impossible to buy the land. However, with persistence born of an illustrious vision, Lorenz was determined to build communities on the fallow land. “The neighborhoods in East Austin have true street grids, mature landscaping, and alleys. These are wonderful old neighborhoods, much like Hyde Park, Bouldin Creek, and Travis Heights. That’s why people—especially young people— want to live there. I saw the opportunity to take this unutilized land on the edge of these old neighborhoods and create communities for people to thrive in.”


“The one thing I won’t do, which some real-estate developers have done, is displace older generations from their homes or try to re-zone land zoned for single family homes. It simply does not feel like the right thing to do.” When asked about the real-estate developer’s role in sustainability, Lorenz points out that the two foremost issues of sustainability are building location and type. His Spring Condominium tower at the intersection of Third and Bowie streets is a consummate example of a sustainable building. The building, designed as the first “point tower” in Austin, is strikingly tall and has an exceedingly efficient floorplate. Lorenz grasped the idea after visiting Vancouver, where hundreds of point towers exist. Working with Foad Rafii, who is considered one of North America’s most influential architects, Lorenz brought the design to Austin. “The design is extremely efficient,” said Lorenz. “You don’t need hundreds of acres of land to build roads, additional infrastructure, sewers, landscaping, etc. There are no long hallways to maintain because the building has an internal elevator core, and condos branch outward from the center. A point tower is 90 percent efficient.“ When it comes to his philanthropic nature towards the university and the School of Architecture, Lorenz is self-effacing. “I’ve been a long-time supporter of the university. My wife, Sheridan Lorenz, who has a hundred times more design sense than I have, went to the School of Architecture at The University of Texas at Austin, as did a couple of brothers-inlaw. Architecture is disproportionately represented in my life,” he says with a smile. “My interest is pragmatic. I try to build livable communities. It all goes hand-in-hand.”



Without a doubt, the success of the School of Architecture is founded on the energy and generosity of our many “friends” who give of their time, treasure, and talent. This year, as we celebrate our centennial, Friends of Architecture has launched the Goldsmith Society, a special group of alumni and friends who honor our 100 years by investing in the School of Architecture with a five-year annual commitment of $5,000 per year ($25,000 total). Donors who pledge to join the Goldsmith Society by December 31, 2010, will be recognized as our “founding members” during the November 6 centennial events and will be listed on permanent signage in Goldsmith Hall. Gifts to the Goldsmith Society will be used to support faculty, students, and programs across all disciplines within the school.

“It is not through his design alone that the architect makes his reputation. Many people who see and admire the exterior of a building never learn the name of the architect. As in any business or profession, and architecture partakes of both, one’s best advertiser is a satisfied client; and the client who is constantly annoyed by unsatisfactory results in the construction of his building will be a poor advertiser. One forgets the beauty of a roof when it leaks.”

THE FIRST 16 Thank you to the following individuals, couples, and firms who have already become founding members of the Goldsmith Society (as of September 13, 2010): Lexa M. Acker – Austin Phillip Arnold, L.M. Scofield Company – Los Angeles Suzanne Deal Booth and David G. Booth – Austin Jean and Bill Booziotis – Dallas Chuck and Diane Cheatham – Dallas Journeyman Construction, Inc. – Austin Lucas/Eilers Design Associates, L.L.P. – Houston Lucifer Lighting Company – San Antonio Howard Rachofsky – Dallas Shannon and Gay Ratliff – Austin Deedie and Rusty Rose – Dallas Lloyd Scott – Dallas Lawrence W. Speck – Austin Lenore M. Sullivan and Barry W. Henry – Dallas Helen Thompson and Charles Lohrmann – Austin Coke Anne and Jarvis Wilcox – New York City


GOLDWIN GOLDSMITH Goldwin Goldsmith (1871-1962) was appointed chairman of the School of Architecture in 1928. Like many architects of his generation, he had begun his career as a draftsman, working for McKim, Mead, and White from 18881890. He then pursued formal studies at Columbia University, earning a Ph.D. in architecture in 1896. After a year in Paris, polishing his design skills in the atelier of Jean-Henry Duray, a professor at the École des Beaux-Arts, Goldsmith opened a firm in New York City with Joseph Van Vleck. In 1913, the University of Kansas named him director of its new architecture program. At that time, Goldsmith also was a co-founder of the recently established Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture. He came to the University of Texas 15 years later with nationally recognized experience in architectural education and a clear agenda for securing accreditation for its professional degree program. Goldsmith’s course on specifications was a favorite of students, and he authored a standard textbook on the subject in 1935. Goldsmith resigned as chairman in 1935, but continued teaching until 1955. He was a beloved figure in the school for whom the Architecture Building was renamed Goldsmith Hall in 1978.

--Goldwin Goldsmith, Architects’ Specifications— How to Write Them

Images Top: Goldwin Goldsmith. Photo courtesy Dolph Briscoe Center for American History. Bottom: A few of the 25,000+ material samples in the University Co-op Materials Resource Center, an example of the type of unique programs supported through philanthropic gifts.

Interested in becoming a member? Please visit our website ( goldsmith_society) or contact Assistant Dean Julie Hooper at 512.471.6114 or jhooper@



ENDOWMENTS AND SPECIAL SCHOLARSHIPS Architecture Class of ‘78 Scholarship Honoring Mike McGlone Anonymous Architecture Class of ‘78 Scholarship Honoring Steve Firgau Anonymous Architecture Class of ‘78 Scholarship Honoring Susan “Suby” Bowden Anonymous ArchiTexas Endowed Scholarship ArchiTexas – Architecture Planning Barbara & Donald Pender Endowed Scholarship Barbara and Don Pender, Jr. [BFA ‘78, MArch ‘81] Blake Alexander Traveling Student Fellowship in Architecture Richard Swallow Boone Powell Family Prize in Urban Design Boone Powell [BArch ‘56] Laura Powell [MSCRP ‘95] Leilah Powell [MSCRP ‘96] Images Top: Dallas Urban Lab – Rachofsky House exhibition.

Brandon Shaw Memorial Endowed Scholarship The Boeing Company William Larsen Kathy and Colonel Brewster Shaw C. William Brubaker/Perkins+Will Endowed Presidential Scholarship Perkins + Will

Note Degrees from The University of Texas at Austin are indicated.

Charles M. Nettles Endowed Presidential Scholarship Katie Ann Nettles Lyons [BSCommStds ‘03] Betsy [BS ‘76] and Charles [BSME ‘76] Nettles, Jr. Charles Michael Nettles [BSArchSt ‘09] Cogburn Family Foundation Architecture and Urbanism Prize Mike [BBA ‘66] and Betsy [BA ‘68] Cogburn Urban Land Institute Dick Clark Student Travel Fund Dick Clark Architecture Ltd. Excellence Fund for Topics in Sustainable Development Pamela Jo Abee-Taulli [BA ’83, MS ’89, MSCRP ’08] Katherine Alfredo [MSE ‘08] Arturo Arima Mac Carroll [BBA ’07, MPA ‘07] Audrey Hare [BA ’05, JD ‘07] Christopher Jensen [MBA ‘08] William Longley [JD ‘07] Sunshine Mathon [MArch ‘07] Patrick McNamara [MSE ‘08] Mary Miner [MPA ‘07] Rachael Phillips [MBA ’09, MPA ‘09] Julia Raish [MSCRP ’08, MSSD ‘10] William Sarchet [MSE ‘08] Jeffrey Smythe [BA ’00, MBA ‘07] Wilfred Srubar [MSE ‘08] Peipey Tang [BS ’03, JD ‘07] Namrata Venkatraman [MSHP ‘09] Elizabeth Walsh [MSCRP ‘08]

Ford, Powell & Carson Endowed Scholarship Ford, Powell & Carson Francisco “Paco” Arumí-Noé Memorial Fellowship In Sustainable Design Blake Alexander [BArch ‘50, BS ‘51] Betsy Arumi Barley + Pfeiffer Architects Clare Barry [BA ‘77, MArch ‘86] Kent Butler Rachel Carson [MArch ‘07] Tamara Chambless [BArch ‘79] Hans Czell [BArch ‘57] Philip Grau [MArch ‘84] Brantley Hightower [BA ‘00, BArch ‘00] Intel Foundation Roseanne Kaysen [MArch ‘92] Roy Keithley Stephen Kubenka [BA ‘72, MArch ‘75] Katherine Liapi [MArch ‘86, MSArchSt ‘89, PhD ‘94] Robert Martin [MArch ‘92] Mason Miller [BA ‘06, BArch ‘06] Anh Nguyen [BArch ‘07] Dena Qaddumi [BArch ‘05] Connie Rivera [BArch ‘94] Marcia Roberts [MArch ‘80] * Deedie Rose Ann Routh [BArch ‘72] Brian Salek [MArch ‘05] John Whiting Fred Wilson, Jr. [BArch ‘92] David Wolff [BA ‘79, MArch ‘88] Young Boozer Family Foundation Frederick Steiner Endowed Excellence Fund in Landscape Architecture Frederick Steiner Gensler Exhibitions Endowment David Botello Joseph Broncato Stephanie Burritt Robert Cataldo Stephen Chen [BBA ’91, MBA ‘01] Corey Credeur [BSArchSt ‘97] Denis Ducey Richard Ferrara, Jr. [BArch ‘86] James Furr Gerald Gehm Gensler David Gensler Donald Ghent, Jr. Rocco Giannetti Charles Hagemeier [BA ‘75] Gustavo Hinojosa Walter Hunt, Jr. Ted Kollaja Greg Lacour Emily Layton [BSID ‘93] Kent Lew [BArch ‘81] Michael Matula [BSArchE ‘96] Alan McClung Linda Moriarty [BArch ‘70] Linda Nelson Ruth Ortiz [BSID ‘84] Chi Pang Duncan Paterson Judy Pesek [BSID ‘78] Kerry Ray [BS ‘87] Shaw Industries Delbert Shuford Robert Traub [BArch ‘75] Steven Weindel Edward Wood David Wyckoff

HDR Architecture Endowed Scholarship HDR Architecture Inc. Jean and Bill Booziotis Endowed Graduate Fellowship in Architectural History Jean and Bill [BArch ‘57] Booziotis Jean and Bill Booziotis Endowed Excellence Fund in the School of Architecture Jean and Bill [BArch ‘57] Booziotis * John Greene Taylor Family Graduate Fellowship in Architectural History John Taylor [BBA ‘48] Journeyman Construction Faculty Excellence Fund in Architecture Sam Kumar [MSE ‘92], Journeyman Construction LP Joy & Morin Scott/Sally & John Byram Graduate Fellowship Anonymous Lake|Flato Endowed Scholarship Lake|Flato Architects Inc. Lance Tatum Endowed Scholarship Paul Satchell [BArch ‘92] Lawrence W. Speck Endowed Graduate Fellowship in Architecture Lawrence Speck Lily Rush Walker and Coulter Hoppess Endowed Presidential Scholarship in Architecture The Coulter and Lily Rush Hoppess Foundation Lynne Brundrett Maddox Scholarship in Interior Design Ina Brundrett ExxonMobil Foundation Matthew F. Kreisle, III/Page Southerland Page Graduate Fellowship in Architecture The Page Southerland Page Foundation McCall Endowed Excellence Fund Michael [MArch ‘80] and Abbe McCall Myron Geer Blalock Endowed Presidential Scholarship Myron [BArch ‘78] and Rosanna [BS ‘77] Blalock, III Jen Collier Blalock [BFA ‘49] Myron [BBA ‘06] and Libba [BSPR ‘06] Blalock IV Holly Collier Blalock [BBA ‘10] O’Neil Ford Centennial Chair in Architecture Carrin Patman [BA ‘54] Overland Partners Endowed Scholarship Overland Partners Inc. Paul C. Ragsdale Excellence Fund for Historic Preservation The Ragsdale Foundation Potter Rose Graduate Fellowship Rusty [BES ‘63] and Deedie Rose

Potter Rose Professorship in Urban Planning Rusty [BES ‘63] and Deedie Rose Raquel Elizondo Staff Excellence Fund Richard Cleary Jeffrey Evelyn [BA ‘92] Eric Hepburn [MA ‘00] Julie Hooper Lawrence Speck Frederick Steiner Wilfried Wang School of Architecture Advisory Council Endowed Excellence Fund Lex Acker [BArch ‘63] Frank Aldridge, III Richard Archer, III [BArch ‘79] Phillip Arnold John Avila [BSArchE ‘75] Bobbie Barker David Barrow [BBA ‘53, BArch ‘55] Ken Bentley Susan Benz [BArch ‘84] Myron Blalock, III [BArch ‘78] Diane Cheatham Dick Clark [BArch ‘69, BBA ‘69] Kent Collins [BArch ‘81] Tommy Cowan [BArch ‘68, MArch ‘70] Hobson Crow, III [BA ‘76, MArch ‘80] Gary Cunningham [BArch ‘76] Bill Curtis, Jr. [BArch ‘81] Donald DeBord [BArch ‘78] Biby Dykema [BArch ‘79] Larry Good [BArch ‘72] John Grable [BArch ‘76] Charles Gromatzky Jay Hailey, Jr. [LLB ‘68] Christopher Hill [BArch ‘78] Diana Keller Sam Kumar [MSE ‘92] David Lake [BS ‘77] Michael Lobbestael Gilbert Mathews Michael McCall [MArch ‘80] Jana McCann [BArch ‘80] Laurin McCracken John Nyfeler [BArch ‘58] Donald Pender, Jr. [BFA ‘78, MArch ‘81] Judy Pesek [BSID ‘78] Charles Phillips [BA ‘70, BArch ‘74, MArch ‘75] Howard Rachofsky [JD ‘70] Gay Ratliff [BSEd ‘63] Elizabeth Chu Richter [BArch ‘74] Rollie Roessner, Jr. [BArch ‘76] Deedie Rose Lloyd Scott Cyndy Severson [BSID ‘70] William Shepherd [BArch ‘76, MArch ‘76] Dan Shipley [BArch ‘79] Madison Smith [BArch ‘80] Lennie Sullivan Emily Summers Jerry Sutton Helen Thompson [BA ‘71, MA ‘73] Laura Toups [BS ‘78, BES ‘83] Karen Walz Michael Wheeler [BBA ‘74] Gordon White Coke Anne Wilcox Kathy Zarsky [BSArchSt ‘94] Sixth River Architects Endowed Scholarship Sixth River Architects Inc.

* Denotes Planned Gift + FALL 2010 + SUSTAINABILITY 36

Susan Benz Excellence Fund in Architecture Susan Benz [BArch ‘84] * Suzie Friedkin Endowed Scholarship in Interior Design The Mutt Foundation Ted Freedman Endowed Scholarship Elise Freedman Phyllis Freedman [BA ‘72] Reba Freedman Renee Stern [BA ‘71, MA ‘80] Triad Health Project Terry Norman Forrester and Nancy Hoppess Forrester Dean’s Excellence Fund Terry Forrester [BArch ‘59] Texas American Planning Association Scholarship Texas Chapter American Planning Association Texas Chapter American Society of Landscape Architects Endowed Graduate Fellowship Texas Chapter American Society of Landscape Architects The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture’s Women’s Endowed Scholarship Bobbie Barker Susan Benz [BArch ‘84] Diane Cheatham Biby Dykema [BArch ‘79] Diana Keller Jana McCann [BArch ‘80] Gay Ratliff [BSEd ‘63] Elizabeth Chu Richter [BArch ‘74] Scott + Cooner Lloyd Scott Cyndy Severson [BSID ‘70] Lennie Sullivan Helen Thompson [BA ‘71, MA ‘73] Laura Toups [BS ‘78, BES ‘83] The Urban Edge Developer’s Dean’s Excellence Fund Diane Cheatham * Theodore M. Freedman Memorial Graduate Fellowship in Landscape Architecture Phyllis Freedman [BA ‘72] * Wayne Bell Excellence Fund for Historic Preservation Bob Brinkman Toni Bruseth Debra Farst April Garner [MA ‘06] Janie Headrick Julie Hooper Heather McBride Stephanie McDougal [MSHP ‘08] McDoux Preservation Kimberly McKnight [BA ‘99] Jill Robinson Bratten Thomason Wilmont “Vic” Vickrey Endowed Scholarship Vic Vickrey [BArch ‘49]

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE FACULTY CAMPAIGN Dean Almy [MArch ‘89] Kevin Alter Michael Beaman Judith Birdsong [BAArt ‘85] Sinclair Black [BArch ‘62] John Blood [BArch ‘81] Danelle Briscoe [BArch ‘95] Richard Cleary Ulrich Dangel Elizabeth Danze [BArch ‘81] Larry Doll Sarah Dooling Michael Garrison Allison Gaskins [MArch ‘07] Tamie Glass Francisco Gomes Louise Harpman Hope Hasbrouck Michael Holleran Terry Kahn [BBA ‘64] Nancy Kwallek Werner Lang Fernando Lara Ming-Chun Lee Francois Levy [MArch ‘93, MSE ‘08] Christopher Long [MA ‘82, PhD ‘93] Talia McCray Smilja Milovanovic-Bertram Juan Miro Steven Moore Elizabeth Mueller Michael Oden [BA ‘76] Joyce Rosner Allan Shearer Igor Siddiqui Bjorn Sletto Vincent Snyder Jason Sowell Lawrence Speck Frederick Steiner Wilfried Wang Lois Weinthal Nichole Wiedemann Patricia Wilson Ming Zhang PROGRAMS Architecture Monika Berstis [BSArchSt ‘05] Joseph Boyette [MArch ‘02] Michael Bricker [MArch ‘08] Xavier Cantu [BArch ‘08] David Cooperstein [MArch ‘98] Leopold Danze [BArch ‘55] Edward Kopelson [MArch ‘08] Rubin Mendoza [BS ‘06] Richard Meyer [BArch ‘70, JD ‘74] Howard Templin [BArch ‘72] Edward Wallace [BArch ‘70] Center for Sustainable Development Georgia Lucas Fund at the Austin Community Foundation Natalie Fischer [BSPR ‘03] Marley Green [BArch ‘49] Patricia Griffin [BA ‘74] Joshua Lee [MArch ‘05] Jennifer Morgenstern [MArch ‘94] The Meadows Foundation Inc. Community and Regional Planning John Blunt [BA ‘81, MSCRP ‘08] Lacey Eckl [MSCRP ‘03] Mary French [MSCRP ‘90]

John Gay GE Foundation Robert Halperin Shandrian Jarvis [BA ‘99, MSCRP ‘01] Joelle Kanter Nancy Ledbetter [BA ‘82, MSCRP ‘91] Andrew Tadross [BA ‘00, MSCRP ‘02] Texas Chapter American Planning Association Xichang Zhang [PhD ‘94] Historic Preservation Heritage Society of Austin Inc. Kimberly McKnight [BA ‘99] Starr Colorado Partners LP Interior Design Meredith Domino [BSID ‘84] Interior Design Educators Council Paul Labrant [BSID ‘94] George Lee [BSID ‘98] Julie Patton [BSID ‘92] Christine Pierini [BSID ‘83] The Read & Pate Foundation Inc. Landscape Architecture Catherine Acuff [MLA ‘08] American Society of Landscape Architects Michael Pecen [MLA ‘07] TBG Partners Christine Ten Eyck Sustainable Design David Bourland [BSSpeech ‘86] Mark Essert [BArch ‘75] Lars Stanley [MArch ‘03] Karen Stewart [BA ‘67] Urban Design CNU Central Texas James O’Connor Marc Toppel [BArch ‘06] OTHER GIFTS 100: Traces & Trajectories Amon G. Carter Foundation Honors Day Brunch University Co-operative Society Summer Academy Ron Foster [BArch ‘70] Louis Skidmore Pat Sweeney [BArch ‘57] The State of the Practice in Land Use Transportation in Integration in Chinese Studies Holland Photo Inc. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Daniel Updegrove Visual Resources Collection Wilfried Wang FRIENDS OF ARCHITECTURE Goldsmith Society Founders Lex Acker [BArch ‘63] Phillip Arnold, L.M. Scofield Company Chuck and Diane Cheatham Lucas/Eilers Design Associates L.L.P. Lucifer Lighting Company Howard Rachofsky [JD ‘70] Rusty [BES ‘63] and Deedie Rose Lenore Sullivan and Barry Henry Helen Thompson [BA ‘71, MA ‘73] and Charles Lohrmann [BJ ‘75]

Dean’s Circle ($1,000 +) Lex Acker [BArch ‘63] Frank Aldridge, III Richard Archer, III [BArch ‘79] Phillip Arnold John Avila [BSArchE ‘75] Bobbie Barker David Barrow [BBA ‘53, BArch ‘55] Marvin Beck [BArch ‘60] Martha Bennett [BArch ‘75] Ken Bentley Susan Benz [BArch ‘84] Myron Blalock, III [BArch ‘78] Bill Booziotis [BArch ‘57] Richard Bundy [BArch ‘75] Diane Cheatham Dick Clark [BArch ‘69, BBA ‘69] Kent Collins [BArch ‘81] Tommy Cowan [BArch ‘68, MArch ‘70] Hobson Crow, III [BA ‘76, MArch ‘80] Gary Cunningham [BArch ‘76] Bill Curtis, Jr. [BArch ‘81] Don DeBord [BArch ‘78] Biby Dykema [BArch ‘79] H.M. Favrot, Jr. Darrell Fitzgerald Terry Forrester [BArch ‘59] Larry Good [BArch ‘72] John Grable [BArch ‘76] Charles Gromatzky Jay Hailey, Jr. [LLB ‘68] David Harrison [BArch ‘79] Christopher Hill [BArch ‘78] Kenneth Hughes Diana Keller Reed Kroloff [MArch ‘86] Sam Kumar [MSE ‘92] David Lake [BS ‘77] Michael Lobbestael Graham Luhn [BArch ‘60] Gilbert Mathews Michael [MArch ‘80] and Abbe McCall Jana McCann [BArch ‘80] Laurin McCracken John Nyfeler [BArch ‘58] Donald Pender [BFA ‘78, MArch ‘81] Judy Pesek [BSID ‘78] Charles Phillips [BA ‘70, BArch ‘74, MArch ‘75] Howard Rachofsky [JD ‘70] Gay Ratliff [BS ‘63] Brent Redus [BArch ‘85] Elizabeth Chu Richter [BArch ‘74] Fred Roberts [BArch ‘72] Roland Roessner, Jr. [BArch ‘76] Deedie Rose Lloyd Scott Cyndy Severson [BS ‘70] William Shepherd [BArch ‘76, MArch ‘76] Dan Shipley [BArch ‘79] Madison Smith [BArch ‘80] Lennie Sullivan Emily Summers Jerry Sutton Helen Thompson [BA ‘71, MA ‘73] Laura Toups [BS ‘78, BES ‘83] Karen Walz David Watkins Michael Webber [BSaSE ‘95, BS ‘95] Terrance Wegner Michael Wheeler [BBA ‘74] Robert Wheless [BArch ‘74] Gordon White Coke Anne Wilcox Kathy Zarsky [BSArchSt ‘94]

Gifts continued on page 38. + FALL 2010 + SUSTAINABILITY 37

Images Left: Fritz Steiner, Howard Rachofsky [J.D. ‘70], and Carolyn [B.A. ‘66] and Peyton [B.A. ‘62] Townsend. Middle: John Greene Taylor [B.B.A. ‘48], Julie Hooper, and Fritz Steiner at the Dallas Country Club construction site. Right: Susan Benz [B.Arch. ‘84], at the Hill Country Ride for AIDS, 2009.



FRIENDS OF ARCHITECTURE Partner ($500 - 999) Robin Angelo Melissa Bogusch [MArch ‘95] Jesus Bustos [BArch ‘80] ExxonMobil Foundation Mary Margaret Farabee [BA ‘61, MA ‘67] Emily Franklin-Knapp [BSID ‘95] Guy Hagstette [BArch ‘79] Mark Headley [BArch ‘78] Steven Hooker [BArch ‘73] Marianne Jones [BSID ‘81] Suzanne Lee [MArch ‘78] Dana Nearburg [BA ‘73, MArch ‘76] Kenneth Owen [BArch ‘60] Gregory Papay [MArch ‘93] Camilo Parra [MArch ‘94] Gary Skotnicki [BArch ‘74] Bruce Turner [MSCRP ‘75] John White [BArch ‘57] Fred Worley [BArch ‘71]

Image Bill [B.Arch. ‘57] and Jean Booziotis. The naming of the Goldsmith Hall loggia in their honor reflects their long-term commitment to excellence in the school and their generous outright and planned gifts.

Note Degrees from The University of Texas at Austin are indicated.

Patron ($200 - 499) Jerry Alexander [BArch ‘85] James Allen [MSCRP ‘91] Michael Antenora [MArch ‘91] Tracy Atkins [BSArchE ‘87, MSCRP ‘08] Marlene Beckman Pat Brockie [BJ ‘77] Jay Brotman [BArch ‘79] Scott Carpenter [BArch ‘90] Mark Castleman [BSArchSt ‘93] Tamara Chambless [BArch ‘79] Jacquelyn Chuter [BA ‘99, BS ‘99, MSCRP ‘02] Susan Clark David Cochran [MSCRP ‘71] Sean Coney [MArch ‘86] Pauline Conger Cooke & Skidmore Consulting Corporation Neal Corbett [BArch ‘86] Jack Cox [BArch ‘59] Jack Crier [BArch ‘60] Weldon Cunningham [BArch ‘75] Leopold Danze [BArch ‘55] Danae Diana [BArch ‘80] Peter Dixon [MArch ‘88] Caleb Duncan [BS ‘97, BArch ‘98] Winston Evans [BArch ‘68] James Faulk [BArch ‘75] Marcella Ferguson [BArch ‘85] William Foster [BArch ‘99] Nonya Grenader [BArch ‘76] Remberto Gutierrez [BArch ‘80, BS ‘80] Janell Hargrave [BArch ‘90] Michael Hedges Robert Heiser [BArch ‘74] Morris Hoover [BS ‘74, BArch ‘77] Scott Hounsel [MA ‘96, MSCRP ‘96, JD ‘02] Nathan Howe [MArch ‘02] Lina Hsieh [BArch ‘08] Javier Huerta [BArch ‘95] Jeffrey Kaufman [BArch ‘82] Virginia Kelsey [BArch ‘83] David King [BArch ‘75] Keith Klein [BArch ‘65] Daniel Kornberg [MArch ‘90] Charles Lawrence [BArch ‘51] Hugo Ley [MArch ‘93] Lindsay Newman Architecture and Design Michael Lyzwa [BArch ‘79] Marathon Oil Company Foundation Raymond Martin [BArch ‘67, MSCRP ‘69] Don McDonald Grace Meeks [BArch ‘87] Dwight Micklethwait [BArch ‘72, BS ‘72] Clayton Morgan [BA Art ‘77] Kendall Mower [BArch ‘56]


Negrete and Kolar Architects Amy Ng Jim Nix [BArch ‘71] Charles Nixon [BArch ‘67] Stephen Oliver [BArch ‘01] Hemantkumar Patel Thorbjorn Pedersen David Petro Olga Popova [MArch ‘97] James Powell [BArch ‘79] Rainier Management Ltd. Van Ramsey [MArch ‘76] Linda Reed [BS ‘80] Jack Romigh [BArch ‘71] Ralph Ross [BBA ‘78] Craig Russell [BArch ‘80] Carole Schlessinger [MSCRP ‘80] Roberto Sepulveda [BArch ‘82] James Shepherd [MArch ‘94] Shiflet Group Architects, Inc. Marcy Shinrock [BSID ‘88] Dorenda Smith [BSID ‘80] Robert Smith [MArch ‘77] Philip Southwick [MArch ‘04] Scott Spence [BArch ‘74] Shelley St. Clair [BSID ‘87] David Stanford [BS ‘79, BArch ‘79] Thomas Stovall [BArch ‘62] James Susman [MArch ‘79] Pat Sweeney [BArch ‘57] Paul Terrill Walter Vackar [BArch ‘65] Brady Vinje [BArch ‘83] Ana Wade [BArch ‘00] Edward Wallace [BArch ‘70] Cynthia Walston [BArch ‘82] Floyd Watson [MSCRP ‘79] Robyn Webb [BSME ‘07] Webber + Studio, Inc. Kim Wilson [BSID ‘80] Jerry Wright Michael Yancey [BArch ‘75] Associate ($50 - 199) Abode Inc. Laura Aguilar [BArch ‘97] Lydia Akel [BSID ‘80] Ana Alcorta [BSID ‘84] Kenneth Aldrich [BArch ‘55] Allied/CMS Inc. Edward Alshut [MArch ‘84] Norman Alston [BArch ‘78] American Electric Power Service Corporation Thomas Amis [MArch ‘76] Lee Anderson Susan Appleyard [MSCRP ‘94] Martha Arosemena [BA ‘93, MSCRP ‘01] AT&T Inc. Foundation Allen Atkinson [BArch ‘75] Katherine Avalos [MSCRP ‘05] Robert Ayers [BArch ‘66] Jack Backus [MArch ‘97] Monica Badilla Patricia Bahr Michael Baker Corporation Foundation Ronald Balderach [BArch ‘74] Deborah Ballard [BA ‘84, MSCRP ‘88] Derek Barcinski Andrew Barnard [MArch ‘89] Brandon Baunach [BArch ‘96] Jeanne Baxter [BArch ‘65] Joseph Baxter [BArch ‘39] Linda Bayer [MSCRP ‘77] Evan Beattie [BArch ‘04] Bechtel Group Foundation Craig Beneke [BSArchSt ‘89]

Edward Bennett [BArch ‘61] Gerald Bergmann Kathy Bergmann [BS ‘69] Quincy Berlin [BArch ‘59] Richard Berry [BBA ‘83] Hilary Bertsch [MArch ‘95] Erling Bjerga John Blood [BArch ‘81] Larry Boerder [BArch ‘76] Stanley Boles [BArch ‘70] William Bonham [BArch ‘51] Paula Bookidis [BSArchSt ‘94] Jeremy Boon [BArch ‘00] Farzad Boroumand [BArch ‘87] Diana Bravo Gonzalez [BArch ‘81] Ernest Breig [BArch ‘91] Bob Brendle [BArch ‘71] Jeff Bricker [BArch ‘73] Flint Britton [BSArchSt ‘93] Eddie Brooks Franklin Brooks [BArch ‘75] James Brown [BArch ‘68] John Brown [BS ‘71, BArch ‘72] Thomas Brown [BArch ‘04] Eric Buck [MArch ‘94] Kim Bulleit Richard Burnight [MArch ‘81] Matthew Burton [MArch ‘97] Evelyn Butler [BArch ‘55] Jack Cade [BArch ‘73] Bryan Cady [BArch ‘99] Adrienne Campbell [MSHP ‘04] Margaret Campbell [MArch ‘02] Michael Campbell [BArch ‘78] Thomas Campbell [BArch ‘59] George Cape [BArch ‘58] Salvador Cardenas [BArch ‘65] Charles Carlson [MSCRP ‘99] Henry Carranco [BArch ‘75] Chris Carson Corinne Cassidy [MArch ‘95] Vernon Castle [BS ‘68] Centre Canadien d’Architecture Nicholas Cervenka [BArch ‘81] Thomas Cestarte [BArch ‘71] Ariel Chavela [BArch ‘91, BSArchE ‘91] Qiuyu Chen [MArch ‘08] Tracie Cheng [BArch ‘09] Robert Clark [BArch ‘70] Sherman Clarke Atelia Clarkson Susan Coffman [BSID ‘86] Vera Cole Michael Collins [BArch ‘72] Michael Connor [BArch ‘84] James Coote John Corder [BArch ‘95] Patricia Cornelison [MArch ‘84] Thomas Cornelius [MArch ‘83] Herman Coronado [BArch ‘78] Jennifer Cox [BArch ‘97] Margareth Craddock Logan Cravens [MArch ‘86] Andrea Croft [BSID ‘81] Don Crowell [BA ‘73] David Cumby [BArch ‘95] Thomas Curiel [BArch ‘80] Eric Dagradi [MArch ‘86] Thomas Daly [BArch ‘65] Carl Daniel [BArch ‘67] Susan Daniels [MArch ‘00] Elizabeth Danze [BArch ‘81] James deGrey David [MSCRP ‘75] Patrick Davis [BArch ‘74] Leah Dean [BA ‘89, MArch ‘95] Claire Dewar James Dickson [MArch ‘76]

Robert Dickson [MArch ‘96] David Dillard [BArch ‘73] Signe Dinsdale-Smith [BArch ‘99] Richard Dobrot [BArch ‘89] Christopher Dolton [BArch ‘72] David Dowler [MBA ‘73] Sam Drago [BArch ‘68] James Duncan [BArch ‘92] Frank Dunckel [BArch ‘78] Matthew Dungan [BArch ‘06] Deborah Ebersole [BArch ‘96] Sarah Ehlen [MSCRP ‘01] James Ehler [BArch ‘94] Georgia Ehlers [BA ‘71, MSCRP ‘77] Dianne Enas [BSID ‘87] Christopher English [BA ‘80, MSCRP ‘82] Cesar Escalante [MArch ‘99, MSCRP ‘02] John Everin [MArch ‘95] Allen Faries [BA ‘77, MSCRP ‘80] Jay Farrell [MArch ‘80] Edgar Farrera [BArch ‘89] Virginia Faz Clarence Feagin [BA ‘82, MSCRP ‘84] Linmor Feiner [BS ‘64] David Feldman James Ferguson [BArch ‘58] Terese Ferguson [BArch ‘80] Stephen Firgau [BArch ‘78] Janice Fisher [MSCRP ‘97] Lewis Fisher [BArch ‘73] Elaine Fitch [BArch ‘85] James Flajnik [BArch ‘73] Thomas Fletcher Lauren Ford [MArch ‘99] Terry Forrester [BArch ‘59] Ron Foster [BArch ‘70] Michael Fowler [BArch ‘97] Norman Friedman [BS ‘85, MArch ‘92] Michael Fries [MArch ‘84] Frost Interiors Charles Fulton [BArch ‘99] Gary Furman [BArch ‘86] Kenneth Gaede [BArch ‘75] Hector Garcia [BArch ‘78] Michael Garcia [BArch ‘67] Samuel Gelfand [MArch ‘09] Gensler Janet Gerber [BA ‘70] Kay Gerfers [BArch ‘84] Geoffrey Gibson [BArch ‘73] Ali Gidfar [MArch ‘85] Charles Giffin [BArch ‘75] David Gill [MArch ‘87] Egan Gleason [BArch ‘55] Jan Goehring [BBA ‘87] Joe Gonzales [BArch ‘79] Shawn Gorman [BArch ‘89] Craig Graber [MArch ‘94] Stanley Graham Walter Graham [BArch ‘48] Kenneth Grajek [BArch ‘93, BSArchE ‘93, MSE ‘95] Michael Gray [BArch ‘94] Thomas Gray [MSCRP ‘99] Lynda Greene Jane Greig [MSCRP ‘74] Travis Greig [MArch ‘07] Jennifer Groman [MArch ‘93] Kenneth Grossman [MArch ‘07] Carlos Guerra Erik Haden [BS ‘97, MArch ‘03] Joseph Hale [BArch ‘77] Dian Hallmark Vicki Hamilton [BArch ‘72] Steven Handelman [MArch ‘98] Rebecca Hanford [BSID ‘96] Dena Hanks [BSID ‘00]

Richard Hardison [BBA ‘69, BArch ‘78] Stephen Harris [BArch ‘87] Frederick Harrison [BA ‘71, MArch ‘78] David Harriss [BArch ‘82] David Hartwell [BArch ‘78] Benny Hawkins [BArch ‘69] Lloyd Hawthorne [BArch ‘69] Diane Hays [BS ‘80, MArch ‘84] Jerry Hazelwood [BArch ‘68] Jennifer Hefner [BArch ‘04] Charles Heimsath [MSCRP ‘76] Josh Held [BArch ‘95] Andy Helms [BA ‘64, MSCRP ‘70] Joel Helms [MArch ‘96] Matthew Hennigan [MSCRP ‘06] Jane Henry [BA ‘65] Claude Hermann Laura Hermann Mark Hernandez Noel Hernandez [MArch ‘00] Gilbert Hickox [BArch ‘80] Carolyn Hiza [BSID ‘77] Jen-Hung Ho [MSArchSt ‘93] David Hoang William Hoffman [BArch ‘78] Joe Holley [BArch ‘95] David Holloway [BArch ‘85] Smith Holt [BArch ‘94] Julie Hooper Joseph Hoover [BArch ‘57] Rhoda Hornaday [BS ‘57] Leland Horstmann [BArch ‘80] Michael Hovar [MArch ‘87] Montgomery Howard [BArch ‘83] Wenny Hsu [BSArchSt ‘05] En-Hua Hu [MArch ‘07] Catherine Hudak [BArch ‘07, BS ‘07] Amber Huff [BSID ‘99] Peter Hung Robert Husmann [BArch ‘79] Pinna Indorf [BArch ‘65] Vicki Interrante [BSID ‘86] Edith Jackson [BArch ‘91] Robert Jackson [BArch ‘70] Joseph Jacobs [BArch ‘87] Deborah James [BArch ‘73] Laura James [BA ‘74, MSCRP ‘77] Daniel Jansen [BArch ‘75] Catherine Jaramillo [MSCRP ‘09] Maya Jensen [MArch ‘92] Charles Johnson [BArch ‘50] Jennifer Johnson [BSArchSt ‘91] Michael Karnowski [BArch ‘04] Susanna Kartye [BA ‘96, MArch ‘02] Kamran Kavoussi [BA ‘85, BArch ‘91] Kenneth Keeney [BArch ‘77] Christine Kelley [MArch ‘94] Craig Kennedy [BArch ‘73] Wendy Kilcollin [MArch ‘77] Charles Killebrew [BArch ‘95] Jeanne Klein [BS ‘67] Anne Kniffen [BArch ‘79] Orion Knox [BArch ‘68] Peggy Kopke [BSID ‘78] Kurt Korfmacher [MSArchSt ‘02] Diana Koros [MSCRP ‘86] Sue Kothmann [MArch ‘88] Vladimir Kulic [PHD ‘09] Batis Kuykendall [BS ‘70] William Kyle [BArch ‘86] Sandra Laflin [BSID ‘85] Hall Lamme [BArch ‘81] Joseph Lanza [MArch ‘95] Joanne Laws-Ochs [BSID ‘94] Jennifer Lee [BA ‘81] Robert Lee Wonsoo Lee [MArch ‘07]


Valerie Lemaire-Simondet Jack Levin [BArch ‘74] Kent Lew [BArch ‘81] Heather Lewis [MArch ‘00] Julia Lewis Paula Lewis [BArch ‘99] David Lidsky [BS ‘78, BArch ‘79] Chad Little [BSArchSt ‘07] Emily Little [BA ‘73, MArch ‘79] Jennifer Lo [MArch ‘04] Kevin Lorenz [MArch ‘84] William Lothmann [BArch ‘73] Marina Love [BArch ‘89] Andres Lozano [MArch ‘07] Hao Lu [MArch ‘99] Ana Luksa [BArch ‘00] Samuel Luna [BArch ‘77] Allison Lunsford [BSID ‘96] Paul Lutey [MSCRP ‘98] Alice Lynch Joshua Ma [BArch ‘01] Glenn Macias [BSID ‘90] Kelly Mahan [MArch ‘00] Dana Manners Ronald Marabito [BArch ‘61] Harvey Marmon [BArch ‘50] Edward Martin John Martin [MArch ‘99] Regan Martin [BArch ‘01] William Martin [BArch ‘58] Ruben Martinez [BArch ‘77] William Massingill [BArch ‘84] Benjamin May [BArch ‘03] Lisa Mayer [BSID ‘83] John Mayfield [MBA ‘88, MArch ‘95] Kyle McAdams [BArch ‘86] Roy McCarroll [BArch ‘62] Scott McCrary [BArch ‘71] Mike McGlone [BArch ‘78] Edward McGoohan [BArch ‘66] Eleanor H. McKinney Landscape Architect Amanda McNally [MArch ‘00] Nathan Meade [MArch ‘07] Christopher Means [BArch ‘01] Lea Metting [BSID ‘89] Caroline Meyer Gary Meyer [BS ‘75, BArch ‘75] Richard Meyer [BArch ‘70, JD ‘74] George Mills [BArch ‘70] Ann Moore [BFA ‘52] Charles Moore [BArch ‘84] Steven Morales [MSCRP ‘95] Frank Moreland [BArch ‘63] Joan Morris [BSID ‘76] Meeta Morrison [MArch ‘07] Robert Morrison James Moses [MArch ‘93] Gregory Musquez [BArch ‘69] Jack Musselman [BArch ‘72] Ali Naraghi [BArch ‘97] Brian Nee [BArch ‘00] Charles Nelson [BArch ‘78] Vicki Nelson [BArch ‘79] Philip Newburn [BSArchSt ‘00] Lawson Newman [MArch ‘98] Larry Nichols [BArch ‘59] Vidya Nittala [MSCRP ‘06] Chris Noack [BArch ‘91] Beth Norby [BArch ‘92] Allan Nutt [BArch ‘71] Royce Nutter [BArch ‘78] NWR Consulting Ltd. Susan Odom Edward Ogden [BArch ‘74] Robert Ogorzaly [BArch ‘84] Cory Olsen [BSID ‘08] Meri Olson [BSID ‘97]

Donna Osborn [BS ‘87] Joe Osborn [BA ‘55, LLB ‘58] Delbert Ottmers [BSArchSt ‘96] James Overton [BArch ‘75] Mary Owens Ann Patterson [MArch ‘82] Paul Pedigo [BS ‘72, MArch ‘77] Laura Peeples [BArch ‘84] Patti Peressini Anthony Perez [BArch ‘88] Jim Phillips [BArch ‘73] David Plummer [MArch ‘94] Clayton Porsch [BArch ‘88] Carol Poticny Terry Potts [BArch ‘76] Shari Poynor [BS ‘75, BSID ‘79] James Pratt [BArch ‘50] Lauren Prickett [BSID ‘03] Diane Procter [BS ‘77, BArch ‘78] Adam Pyrek [BArch ‘91] Rene Quinlan [BArch ‘88] Josette Rabun [BSID ‘75] Noel Ragin [BArch ‘74] Roz Rakoff Ronald Ramsay [MArch ‘92] Charles Randall [BArch ‘54] Paul Rash [BArch ‘55] Stephen Ratchye [MArch ‘96, MS ‘97] Vineeth Ravinder [MSArchSt ‘00] Albert Raymond [BArch ‘83] Susan Raymond [BArch ‘90] Recek Architects Soumya Rege [MArch ‘81] Robert Reid [BArch ‘75] Don Reimers [BArch ‘58] Robert Reiter [BArch ‘00] Mariel Reyes [MArch ‘07] Marcela Rhoads [BArch ‘91] James Richardson [BArch ‘72] Riordan Construction Group Inc. Connie Rivera [BArch ‘94] David Robb [MArch ‘88] Phillip Roberts [BArch ‘72] Richard Robinson [BArch ‘64] Ronald Roeder [BArch ‘76] Charles Roman [BArch ‘73] Carolyn Roosen [MArch ‘02] Stuart Roosth [BArch ‘79] Daniel Roush [MArch ‘01] Gireesh Sadasivan Marta Salinas-Hovar [BArch ‘87] Paulette Sanchez-Smith [BSID ‘91] Nancy Scanlan William Schenck [BArch ‘70] Martin Schwartz [BArch ‘87] Jimmy Seale [BArch ‘70] Martin Selensky Michael Shelton [BArch ‘66] Luke Sheridan [MArch ‘82] Laura Sherman [MArch ‘93] Daniel Shih Robert Simpson [BArch ‘75] Janet Sisolak [BSID ‘81] Chester Slimp [BArch ‘77] Christy Smidt [MSCRP ‘96] Leslie Smith [BArch ‘80] Marla Smith [MArch ‘96] Sandra Smith [BArch ‘84] Valantin Solyman Katherine Sommers [BS ‘68] Jerry Sparks [BArch ‘67] Linda Spencer Duke Squibb [BArch ‘56] Craig Stafford [BA ‘78, MSCRP ‘83] Lawrence Stalzer [MArch ‘86] James Steele [BArch ‘89] Karl Steffes

Sharon Steiner [BArch ‘05] Fran Stelly Joanna Stephens [BArch ‘06, BS ‘06] James Stewart [BArch ‘67] Jerry Stewart [BArch ‘64] Tracy Stone [MArch ‘85] Jo Strane [BSID ‘74] Kristine Street [BArch ‘87] Sally Strickland [BS ‘68] Charles Studebaker [BArch ‘79] Martha Suzuki [BArch ‘92] Les Swanson [BArch ‘52] Bess Swantner [MArch ‘08] William Tamminga [BArch ‘71] Arthur Tatum [BArch ‘84] Andrew Taylor [MArch ‘92] Cheryl Taylor [BS ‘82] Christine Ten Eyck Lily Y. Teng, R.N. Toni Thomasson [BArch ‘74] Wendy Tita [BArch ‘98] Robert Tobias [BArch ‘85] Tray Toungate [BArch ‘06] John Turpit [BArch ‘78] John Tyler [BArch ‘88, BS ‘88] Laurie Tyler [BSID ‘82] Melissa Tyree [MSCRP ‘03] Bruce Uphaus [MSCRP ‘94] Michael Uyeda [BArch ‘84] Paula Vance [BA ‘74] Constantine Vasilios [MArch ‘87] Linda Vasquez [MArch ‘01] Jane Verma [BArch ‘90] Jennifer Vernon [BSID ‘81] Michael Voit [BArch ‘91] William Walker [BArch ‘75] Eli Wang Zhe Wang [MArch ‘01] Chris Warnagiris [BSID ‘93] Joseph Watson Rick Weatherl [BArch ‘76] Susan Weaver [BArch ‘72] Daniel Weber Harry Weddell [BArch ‘74] Brooks Wehner [MArch ‘09] James Weiershausen [BArch ‘53] Anne Weigers Norman Weiner [MArch ‘96] Tina Weintraub [BSID ‘81] Richard Weiss [MSCRP ’04] Michael Wells [BArch ‘71] Linda Welsh John Wettling [BArch ‘79] James White [BArch ‘57] Samuel White [MArch ‘94] Leon Whitney [BArch ‘58] Ross Wienert [MArch ‘09] Stephen Wilkinson [JD ‘74] Deborah Wilkowski Carl Williams [BArch ‘09] John Williams [BArch ‘60] Norine Williams [BArch ‘88] Fred Wilson [BArch ‘92] Lawrence Wilson [BArch ‘52] Richard Wilson [BArch ‘03] Albert Wong [BArch ‘73] Patrick Wong [MArch ‘92] Jeffrey Wood [BA ‘03, MSCRP ‘05] JoeAnn Wright Chengyan Wu [MSCRP ‘95] Ann Yoklavich [MSArchSt ‘87] Harvey Youngblood [BArch ‘71] Christopher Yurkanan [BA ‘74] Janet Zeitler [BArch ‘85, BSArchE ‘85] Eric Zobrist [BS ‘92, MArch ‘95]

Images Left: Richard Miller [B.Arch. ‘84] and Ray Beets from Perkins+Will celebrate the firm’s new Endowed Presidential Scholarship in memory of Bill Brubaker. Middle: Advisory Council Members Emily Summers and Diane Cheatham at the Master of Interior Design Program reception at the home of Nancy Cain Marcus in Dallas in August 2010. Right: Friends of Architecture has provided support to the school’s outreach efforts, such as the Summer Academy in Architecture. The students’ skills are tested in the annual bridgebuilding exercise in the Goldsmith Hall courtyard. The students were given the task of crossing the courtyard’s fountain using only corru– gated cardboard, wood dowels, and string. Photo by Allison Gaskins.

1 University Station B7500 Austin, Texas 78712-0222

UTSOA Advisory Council FY 2010-2011 Chair Bobbie J. Barker Vice-Chair Bill C. Booziotis, FAIA, LEEP AP Past Chair Kent Collins Executive Committee Frank M. Aldridge, III Susan Benz, AIA Diane Cheatham Diana W. Keller Michael J. McCall, AIA John V. Nyfeler, FAIA, LEED AP Dan S. Shipley, FAIA Michael I. Wheeler

Members Lexa M. Acker, AIA Emeritus Richard M. Archer, III, FAIA, LEED AP Phillip J. Arnold, Hon. ASLA, LEED AP John Avila, Jr. David B. Barrow, Jr., AIA Marvin E. Beck, AIA Emeritus Ken Bentley Myron G. Blalock, III Timothy B. Blonkvist, FAIA, LEED AP Hal Box, FAIA Dick Clark, III, AIA Tommy N. Cowan, FAIA H. Hobson Crow, III, AIA Gary M. Cunningham, FAIA William P. Curtis

Covers Front: Thermal image of the Center for Sustainable Development’s Thermal Lab, south façade of the West Mall Building. The CSD is analyzing UT Austin campus buildings with thermal imaging to evaluate performance and find opportunities where building efficiency can be improved. Back: Exterior detail view of the Thermal Lab shading device prototype designed by Stefan Bader [M.S. Sustainable Design ‘10], under the direction of Professor Werner Lang.


James deGrey David Donald R. DeBord, Jr., AIA Bibiana Bright Dykema, AIA Darrell A. Fitzgerald, FAIA, LEED AP Robert Lawrence Good, FAIA, AICP, LEED AP John Grable, FAIA Charles E. Gromatzky, AIA R. Jay Hailey, Jr. Christopher C. Hill LEED AP Ford Hubbard III Kenneth H. Hughes Ellen King Reed A. Kroloff, AIA Sam Kumar David C. Lake, FAIA

Charles E. Lawrence, FAIA Sandra Drews Lucas Graham B. Luhn, FAIA Patricia R. Mast Gilbert L. Mathews Laurin McCracken, AIA Donald W. Pender, AIA Judith R. Pesek, IIDA, LEED AP Charles A. Phillips, AIA, PLLC Boone Powell, FAIA Leilah H. Powell Howard E. Rachofsky Gay Ratliff Elizabeth Chu Richter, FAIA Roland Roessner, Jr. Deedie Rose

Lloyd Scott Cyndy Severson William Shepherd, AIA Lenore Sullivan Emily Summers Jerry S. Sutton, AIA Helen L. Thompson David H. Watkins, FAIA Robert F. Wheless Gordon L. White, M.D. Coke Anne M. Wilcox Kathy Zarsky, Assoc. AIA, LEED AP Faculty Representatives Allan Shearer Bjørn Sleto

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage Paid Austin, Texas Permit No. 391

Profile for UT School of Architecture

Platform Fall 2010  

"Sustainability" Guest editor: Jim Walker

Platform Fall 2010  

"Sustainability" Guest editor: Jim Walker

Profile for utsoa