Advanced search

Seeing The Light | Architects at home

In smaller and smarter design, possibilities grow

Gordon Walker has practiced architecture in Seattle since 1962. The Maynard Building, Pike and Virginia Building and Hillclimb Court, all forward-thinking residential projects in downtown Seattle, were among undertakings by Olson/Walker Architects, where he was founding partner with Jim Olson before starting Gordon Walker Architecture. Today at 68, Walker is a consulting principal at Mithun, where his focus includes affordable in-city housing. We spoke with him recently in the three-bedroom condominium in Seattle's First Hill neighborhood that he shares with his wife, Sandie Pope.

Q: You've chosen to live in a very urban setting. Why?

A: I've grown up with Seattle as it became a city. This is actually the farthest out we've been, having lived near Pike Place Market previously. It is the fifth house I've built for myself. My wife and I both work downtown, so it makes good sense.

Q: You and your son, Colin Walker, also an architect, designed this project. Tell us about it.

A: When we found this lot six years ago, it was zoned L3, which allowed nine units. There had been an old house here, and a fire. The question was how to take a 60-by-125-foot lot and build so all the residences had light on four sides and cross-ventilation. This is important in tight in-city living. They feel more like space one wants to inhabit. I also wanted each to have a private front door. I didn't want an entry gate. When you do that, you build exclusivity into a place. You don't build eyes in a neighborhood that way. A strategy probably not suitable for a 15-story building, but it works here.

Q: What else makes these places special?

A: They're crafted to be a little crisper, a little less cluttered. If you start trying to satisfy the supposed demands of buyers, as translated by salespeople, you start adding the granite counters, the stainless this and that, the powder room off the kitchen. It becomes jarring. It's better to keep the surfaces and the design simple. Your home is supposed to be a background for living.

Q: Your unit faces the street and not a view of the city. Why did you choose it?

A: I get less interested in a view as time goes on. If anything, a territorial vantage is fine. The important thing is to have a space that is well-ventilated and has good natural light. My upstairs office lacks a view, but it gathers light from four sides. I also chose this unit because it has direct access to the neighborhood, and because I thought it would be harder to sell than others with a view. It's barely 1,400 square feet on three stories.

Q: Do the interior stairs get to be a concern?

A: The older I get, the more I appreciate these stairs. I must go up and down these two flights of stairs nine times in the mornings. They keep me young.

Q: What works especially well in this design?

A: When you are designing smaller, you're focused on function and details. But I want to be clear: My home isn't high design. I think of it more as common-ground living. The exterior is very functional — Hardie-board planking over a true rain-screen barrier. The advantage there is better insulation, it's easy to repair and, depending on who's looking, it's aesthetic. Interiors have concrete floors with radiant heat from gas-fired, hot-water tanks, so there are no space-eating duct runs to interfere with ceiling heights. And a detail such as recessing a sliding-door frame for minimal reveal is the kind of thing that is important in a smaller space, but it's not standard building practice. If you are designing carefully when you build small, you also build quality, and this tends to cost more.

Q: As does any residential, especially in the urban core.

A: Is there a way to build quality, to build well-designed housing in a cheaper way? We're exploring that question at Mithun. We need to build affordable housing for people who make modest livings, so Seattle workers can live centrally. I think we can build what we need in modular form and take quite a bit off the costs.

Q: Still, in-city housing may not be for everyone.

A: If we had younger families more a part of urban life, then things would change for the better — schools, for example.

Q: Have you always had this passion for living in smaller spaces?

A: I was exploring this with (architects) Jim Olson and Rick Sundberg in the 1970s. The kind of living I'm talking about is a condensing down; one isn't losing anything. It's all in how well the design works. In the 1990s, I did long-range planning for universities and was interested in in-fill — how they could revamp what they had. When you start designing rooms for multifunctional use, for meetings and classes, the dynamics shift. Then it all starts working differently, more cooperatively. In the average home, let's say you have a TV room, a serving area, and so on. When not used for these purposes, the rooms stand empty. Compare that to the design of a well-made boat, where every inch has to work for you.

Q: Are you doing other residential work?

A: I'm getting out of doing homes for wealthy people. You really can't enhance lifestyle by building large houses. The notion of rooms you never use — why build that way? That is not the answer. You can talk about building green, or high performance, but what does that mean if you are creating a 5,000-square-foot living space? The answer is to create smaller spaces that are intelligently designed and carefully detailed to enhance the lives of the people who live in them.

Dean Stahl is a Seattle free-lance writer. Benjamin Benschneider is a Pacific Northwest magazine staff photographer.

Buy a link