Lawrence Modern home

My first instinct when I approached Studio 804’s latest finished product, located at 436 Indiana St., was to photograph it from every conceivable angle. The house looked radiant as it shimmered in the early morning sunlight, and I felt an irresistible, perhaps mindless, urge to capture the fleeting moment before it was gone. On this well-attended open house last weekend, many others did the same: Instagram is once again alight with knockout images of another beautiful rectangular box inside and out, this one even more visually appealing than 2022’s 519 Indiana Street house, which at the time felt like a high point in the design/build program.

My assessment was premature, though. It was merely a plateau, not a pinnacle. As each successive 804 class raises the bar, students find creative ways of topping their predecessors, even as they have come to recycle many of their forms. Last year’s confection was a stunning amuse-bouche for architecture fans and a first-class upgrade of 2015’s New York House. (Though I first dismissed it as too decadent for the neighborhood, I’ve since come to admire it.) This year’s house improves 519 Indiana’s layout and features Corten steel exterior siding, which was inspired by Studio 804’s previous Random Road House project. The rich, textured metal jacket contrasts perfectly with the shiny Studio 804 house next door and feels more rooted in the local vernacular. The photos fall short of capturing the sheer awe of this material.

The architectural change of clothes has been highly successful lately in attracting buyers for 804’s projects. This year’s house sold for $663,500 months before it was completed. Studio 804 is a non-profit and proceeds from the sale are reinvested in the following project, resulting in buildings that continue to improve each year as students add new variations on their brand of increasingly sophisticated rectangular (or otherwise boxy) shapes, and minimalist, hermetically sealed interior spaces that have won many design and energy efficiency awards.

Perspective here is in order. Most Studio 804 students have never designed or built anything before being put to this highly complicated task. They face constraints that most practicing architects never have to deal with and are often limited by what’s donated or left over from previous projects. The project timeline is insanely compressed. As Studio 804’s founder and senior leader, Prof. Dan Rockhill told me, “You can’t have 28 people with really no full-on experience in nine months build a house where every single thing in there is custom.” And yet by some miracle they manage to pull it off every year.

So, what’s next?

My hope is that next year students will embrace universal design principles along with the focus on beauty and technical performance. Practically, that means designing an interior accessible to people of all ages. While elevating the main living spaces imparts an otherworldly feeling, with privileged views and privacy, it also makes it difficult for old people who must climb a long flight of stairs to get to the kitchen. And what about animals? Unreachable cabinets too high for short old people is another problem. So are bathrooms that you can’t turn around in a wheelchair, and narrow door openings that restrict them. More and more people are living into their 90s, and they don’t want to live in nursing homes. 

Moreover, most can’t afford $7,000 a month. Is it possible to be beautiful and affordable or is beauty only for the rich? How do you design and build a house for $350,000, the average cost of a house in Lawrence? Can a house still be sexy at that price or is that simply out of the question?

These problems can be fixed but will require a shift in focal length that encompasses a broader social vision. Are students up to this task?

Over the past 15 years that I’ve interacted off-and-on with Studio 804 students, I’ve noticed a recurring fetishization of technology when discussing their work, as if it were an end in itself. Not that there is inherently anything wrong with that—technology is a pillar of modern architecture—and it’s not the case with every student, but it’s enough that I’ve begun to wonder if they have a vocabulary for talking about what it is they’re doing when it comes to spatial needs.

Many students have an excellent vocabulary for talking about the shape of space and certain technical and structural effects but I rarely hear them talking about function or humanity, or spirituality, in architecture. Perhaps they are too afraid to use that vocabulary because it isn’t fully developed. But to the extent that language can be further developed and expressed in actual buildings, I believe we will see a tremendous breakthrough that will elevate Studio 804 to new heights.

To continue the same path of repetitive forms and industrial chic is boring. And it only looks functional. Architects are in the business of solving human problems. While designing with humanity—or designing with nature for that matter—probably will never win a design award it shows purpose beyond self-indulgence.

Studio 804 students have already proven they can do the impossible. The next level of progress is a higher responsibility to solve the very pressing housing problems of the future. In doing so they can also create architecture that touches the soul and connects on an emotional level—something we can love, not just admire. When that happens, I’ll leave my camera in the bag, stand back, and smile.

—Bill

Of the approximately 800 students who joined Frank Lloyd Wright’s Taliesin Fellowship program (1932-1959), W. Kelly Oliver, 97, is one of its last surviving apprentices. Last month Lawrence Modern’s Dennis Domer interviewed Oliver at the Pioneer Ridge assisted living facility, where Oliver recalled his decade working in the program and later efforts with Taliesin Associated Architects, the firm established after Wright’s death to maintain and further his legacy. One of the many interesting parts of the interview is Oliver’s recollection of Curtis Besinger, KU professor emeritus and architect who left Taliesin penniless after 15 years serving as the Fellowship’s de facto music director. Domer’s interview followed a documentary screening of an extended conversation between Oliver and Frank Baron, a fellow Pioneer Ridge resident and retired KU German professor. You can watch that video here. Fascinating stuff from a bygone era in architectural history that, thanks to Kelly Oliver, still captures our imagination. Special thanks to Tim Phillips for his videography.

—Tom, Bill, Dennis & Tim

Last year Lawrence Modern learned that KU had placed Smith Hall on a list of university buildings—among a dozen deemed obsolete and “demolition ready”—that were likely to be razed in Fiscal Year 2023. Like the superheroes in The Avengers, we sprung into action with the Lawrence Preservation Alliance and assembled a multitalented team to save Smith Hall. The University’s plans have now changed.

The State Historic Preservation Office of the Kansas Historical Society informed KU last month that Irma I. Smith Hall, a building located within the University of Kansas’ East Historic District, is now a “contributing” property within the district. This action significantly strengthens the possibility of saving Smith Hall from the wrecking ball. I recently wrote an OpEd about this in the Lawrence Times, which you can read here, but for the Lawrence Modern preservation group, a key stakeholder in the effort to save the building, I’d like to provide a bit more detail about how we got here and what lies ahead.

The road to preservation began last December, when Lawrence Modern, the Lawrence Preservation Alliance, and the Historic Mount Oread Friends group hosted an open house at Smith Hall to raise awareness of the building’s plight. More than 125 people attended. The event featured family members and friends of building namesake Irma I. Smith, and of Elden Tefft, the late KU professor and renowned bronze sculptor who created the statue of Moses that rests in Smith Hall’s front courtyard. Since then, community members have banded together and written letters to key decision makers, penned newspaper articles, engaged in online outreach, and taken political action.

The community response has been remarkable. Students, faculty, Lawrence residents, and beyond have demonstrated deep and long-lasting ties to Smith Hall. The messages sent to the Chancellor, Provost, and the 12-member Kansas Board of Regents (KBOR) have made a significant impact. 

Parallel to the letter writing campaign, a coalition of individuals met with Lawrence legislators, which led to discussions about Smith Hall at the statehouse level. At a House Higher Education Budget Committee meeting in February, Lawrence Rep. Mike Amyx asked KU Chancellor Doug Girod about KU’s demolition planning process, as well as specific plans for Smith Hall. You can watch that illuminating exchange here.

At the meeting Girod indicated that a final decision about Smith Hall would be put on hold until the new Campus Master Plan is completed later this year. The Campus Master Plan is a blueprint for the development of the KU campus over the next 10 years. Girod noted that KU has had town halls to invite everyone in the community into the master planning process before final decisions are made. The larger Lawrence community was not invited to discuss Smith Hall, however.

When asked about Smith Hall, Girod said: “Smith Hall has been an area of focus obviously for us, it is largely a vacant building that needs significant repair, and would need massive upgrades.”

Technically speaking, Smith Hall was not vacant. Classes were held there in the fall 2022 and spring 2023 semesters and office space was still in use. The library continued to be utilized as a place of study, work, and contemplation. The building is currently in the process of being vacated. KU says the building will be heated and cooled in addition to staff checking on the building once that’s completed.

Perhaps most importantly, Girod’s comments about Smith Hall’s condition do not align with information contained in KBOR records. In January 2021, KBOR released a building condition study that assigned a facility condition index (“FCI”) score to buildings at Regents institutions across the state. That report gave Smith Hall a score of .25, which translates into a “B” on a scale ranging from A to F. This index is an industry standard metric that identifies the magnitude of needs and deficiencies for a building or college campus. According to that study, the cost to bring Smith Hall to a 90% renewal level, or “A / good” condition, is projected at $859,151. The funding KBOR allocated for Smith Hall’s demolition was $650,000. 

The study also identifies a total replacement cost for the buildings, and Smith Hall’s replacement value is approximately $5.6 million. This means that it would take at least that much money to build back the same building with similar functionality.

On March 7, the House Higher Education Budget Committee met to make recommendations about KU’s budget. Rep. Amyx offered an amendment that was aimed at ensuring KBOR would have an opportunity to receive complete information about KU’s plans for Smith Hall before voting again on demolition, and that the public would also have an opportunity to offer testimony to KBOR on the topic. The amendment requires a majority vote from KBOR before the building can be demolished in Fiscal Years 2023 or 2024.

The House Higher Education Budget Committee voted to include this amendment in its funding recommendations. You can watch the committee’s deliberations here. The full text of the amendment can be found here.

Meanwhile, the Lawrence Preservation Alliance prepared a draft nomination and a request for the State Historic Preservation Office to reevaluate Smith Hall’s status within the KU East Historic District. The Office did and granted Smith Hall “contributing” property status in July. As I noted in my column, this change offers KU new opportunities and responsibilities in its stewardship of Smith Hall going forward. 

For instance, the university is now able to apply for and use state historic tax credits for repairs or rehabilitation to Smith Hall. Any proposed changes to the building will require review under the Kansas state preservation law (K.S.A. 75-2724). 

Furthermore, KU has an agreement with the preservation office allowing the Campus Historic Preservation Board to review any proposals for modifying buildings within the district. A finding by the board that a proposed project would “damage or destroy” the historic building would halt the project unless an appeal is made to Gov. Laura Kelly. 

While these important steps taken offer hope that Smith Hall ultimately will be saved from demolition, the building is still endangered. We look forward to communications from the KU administration about their plans for Smith Hall given its new status. 

Please visit http://www.savesmithhall.org for the latest information. 

—Tom Harper