The charge of public agencies in terms of civic building is not to innovate, but to facilitate. Their public mission is to get the best talent for the money available. Public work supports the ground on which we walk; it is the unseen sidewalk, sewer or sign. Just as it is the library, school, fire station and park. The catch-22 of public work is that we pay for it and we want it to be cheap, effective and not interfere with our daily lives. This built-in inhibition of cost-effectiveness forces public agencies to add another criteria: the desire to complete their mission with the least amount of stress, anguish and hassle to the agencies and their project managers. So they fall back on experience, experience and experience. Giving commissions to established offices usually produces work on time and on budget. But wouldn’t the extra effort a younger firm might put out make up for the gap in experience? What is the problem with the public sector in terms of facilitating high-quality urban projects from all sectors of the design professions, particularly the young and ambitious?

The process precludes taking a chance on young (unproven), talented (difficult), ambitious (they’re going to challenge us, better not go there) firms that just might produce a work of real civic invention.

When I started writing this article I received a lot of interest, ambition, hubris and just plain common sense. I asked a number of local design luminaries to provide names for consideration. Then I examined the work, interviewed the offices and made choices. There were firms that wanted to be represented, per se, just because they thought they should be. There were offices that had difficulty with the issue of public work, but wanted to do it. And finally there were the offices, serious and subtle, that deserve the public commissions they are not getting. They are denied civic work by a system that pretends to be fair, open and reasonable, yet is really too insecure to realize those conditions.

Seattle has some very big exceptions to my argument. The Seattle Public Library’s Library For All program has produced an incredible collection of branch libraries (one just won a national AIA award) and there is OMA’s amazing Central Library for the world to enjoy. The Department of Parks has made a serious attempt at design excellence in several projects. King County Library’s system has produced notable projects. And Fleets and Facilities, the Seattle agency charged with accomplishing much of the City’s public work, is building Weinstein A+U’s Fire Station 10, another fine exception. But, where is the next generation of public architects?

As stated in ARCADE 24.3, my own architectural life started with public work in New York working for two 30-year-old architects that had just started their own firm. The public agencies in New York at that time had an active policy of encouraging and promoting young talent.

In Seattle, I’ve sat on many selection panels and always ask the agency lead where the hot young firms are? Why aren’t they being selected or even considered? Invariably the answer is some variation of “they can’t be trusted to do public work because they don’t have the experience (designing libraries, fire stations, etc.). And we (usually the Project Managers) can’t take the chance of blowing it on an unknown.” Why can’t an office that has designed million-dollar houses for demanding clients design a branch library or firehouse?

So, why do the six firms gathered here deserve public work? They would all like to get it and some have even achieved small commissions. But their current attitudes toward public work vary greatly, from desire to frustration, ambivalence to disinterest. They all have the skill, talent and seriousness to accomplish public work. These offices are not large (three of them total eight persons—and several dogs) but they certainly have the capacity to successfully carry out public work. All of these firms have been published, won awards or been awarded serious art commissions. Two of them are doing multiple projects at commercial scale in China. There is a high percentage of Ivy League degrees in the group, but more importantly partners of four of the firms worked for Weinstein-Copeland or Miller Hull, two established firms most invested in public work.

Eric Cobb was on everyone’s list. The most accomplished architect of the group, Cobb has submitted public RFPs and RFQs for years, but has never been awarded a commission. His 12-year-old, eight-person firm has built substantial houses in the northwest and his previous experience with major East Coast firms includes much complex public and commercial work. His resume is loaded with awards and publications. Why can’t Eric Cobb get a public commission in this region? I asked the Capital Projects Director of the Seattle Public Library why Cobb was not included on two shortlists and received the usual answer, a refrain about lack of public experience.

Hutchison and Maul are building a $5M residence on Mercer Island on a difficult sloping site, as well as designing three commercial projects in China. Robert Hutchison, who has submitted numerous public RFP/RFQs, comments that the public process “freezes out younger firms due to lack of experience.” But, he admits, public work is “different from private, with numerous public meetings, much community involvement and construction administration.” Hutchison believes this situation “leads to a less diverse architectural environment in the public sector.

Eggleston/Farkas expressed great ambivalence toward public work. They are a three-person firm, founded in 1999, with numerous awards and publications. Yet John Eggleston notes, they have “spent much time and money chasing public work and been shortlisted, but never selected. It took Ed Weinstein 12 years to get his first library. The low bidder requirement sets up small firms for failure. It takes too much effort for the result.” Let’s hope that attitude changes over time, as I find their modest but impeccable houses delightful and would like to see their skills extended to the public realm.

Vandeventer + Carlander, has not pursued public work, but would like to get it. The eight-year-old firm is designing four projects in China after winning a Home of the Year award for their Madrona Residence. Being small, they feel “swamped when the work comes in and desolate when it leaves” according to Tim Carlander. If they can be awarded and carry out work in Asia, why can’t they do the same for public agencies in the Northwest?

Heliotrope, formed in 2000, has actually accomplished several small public projects. Joe Herrin, one of three Heliotrope partners, says you have to be proactive in seeking public work. Frustration over public agency lack of response after being listed on many “Small Works Rosters” led to them going directly to the agencies to make their case. They followed up with phone calls, emails and unannounced visits. The result is two park shelters (Ross Park, quite finely done) and a library renovation. These three projects have a budget of about 13% of the Mercer Island house mentioned above.

Lead Pencil Studio is the closest thing that the Northwest has to Diller-Scofidio in New York City. Annie Han and Daniel Mihalyo have managed, through art installations, gallery designs, and small offices, to become the next big thing in the Northwest design scene. They are smart, talented, ambitious and hot. But can they actually do public work? Well, Daniel has produced one of the most brilliant art programs I’ve ever seen, for SDOT, an agency not generally credited with extensive design interest. 4Culture, King County’s arts arm, commissioned them to do their offices, in collaboration with Suyama Peterson Deguchi, and positioned them toward other projects. Daniel thinks “public work is great work, but there is a ‘confidence gap’ with the agencies.” Like Diller-Scofidio, who were considered marginal players in the real architectural world until they were given the chance to prove themselves, Lead Pencil needs only the opportunity to show they can do it.

SHED, a design/build firm that won an AIA award for the Bradner Gardens Community Building by the Department of Parks, asked not to be included in this article. The partners, well known in the Northwest architectural scene, felt pursuing public work would undermine their design/build strengths and have decided to work in the private sector for the foreseeable future. Prentis Hale noted that SHED was “prevented from building the Bradner Gardens Community Building. This was probably a good thing for us and the public, because we would have lost our ass on the project.”

Some notes on the selection criteria. Any short list like this one is highly subjective. I wanted to develop a group of architectural talent that could be legitimately tested by the bureaucrats in public agencies and found to be capable enough to award them commissions. Excluded are the many talented people who work for established firms, of which there are legions in this region. I was looking for the next bright offices, not the resident ones.

Zero Plus, Gustafson Guthrie Nichol and Iole Alddessani are examples of firms and individuals with great promise and talent considered but not included because they didn’t meet the criteria for this piece: an architectural or landscape firm, on its own,with a track record of work sufficient to satisfy public project managers.

I’m sure there are other firms out there that should be in the article. Don’t take it personally. Just keep trying to get public work.