Anderson Krygier, a local firm specializing in landscape architecture and experimental graphic design, announced it will now be known as Knot. The name change marks an effort to rebrand the company, which was founded 28 years ago by Elizabeth Anderson and John Krygier.

Ownership of the firm transferred from Anderson to Managing Principal Marilee Hanks in 2015, and the new name acknowledges that passing of the torch, a company press release stated. The name was chosen to symbolize how the qualities of nature and the built environment are entangled, pulling together the pragmatic and the aesthetic.

“The essence of our firm is to provide world-class design delivered by a close-knit team,” Hanks stated in a press release. “Changing our name to Knot expresses the process of collaboration from which design ideas emerge.”

With the new name comes a new brand, replete with a different logo and color scheme.

Knot has worked on a number of prominent projects both locally and abroad, including ones for the Oregon Historical Society, the Portland Japanese Garden and the U.S. Embassy in Mozambique.

The post Landscape architecture firm rebrands itself appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

As Houston grew, few developers gave much thought to potential flood damage when they tackled projects. Parking was a bigger consideration than where water from storms like Hurricane Harvey would go.

“Continually paving over parts of the city invites flooding,” said L. Rudolph Barton, professor emeritus of architecture at Portland State University. “In essence, Houston doesn’t have any fundamental growth limits.”

The Houston-metro area covers more than 600 square miles of what used to be clay soil and bayous. Attracted by cheap land prices, developers built houses, streets and parking lots on areas that formerly helped usher floodwaters back into the Gulf of Mexico. The results of those decisions shouldn’t have come as a surprise, according to Barton, because warnings were issued long ago.

“There were books out about the risks in Houston 10 years ago,” he said. “It said what they should do and not do. They didn’t pay attention to any of it.”

Houston isn’t the only city where developers have essentially discounted risks of natural disasters. The problem is that financial demands, public influence and cultural impacts often draw projects right into harm’s way.

“We typically talk about the value to the project,” Scott Shumaker, an associate principal at SERA Architects, said of conversations with clients. “Those flood and fire discussions are almost always about code requirements.”

While risks tied to natural disasters are discussed, the overriding factors that make or break a project are financial. Anyone hoping to convince a client to address such risks has to keep that in mind.

“I have had some clients walk away from sites that had flood risks,” Shumaker said. “We have also had clients that substantially changed the project due to risks.”

Some clients, especially governmental entities, take the risks posed by natural events into consideration more readily and are open to paying for greater resilience. Anderson Krygier helped the U.S. Forest Service make its cabins in the Tongass and Chugach national forests in Alaska resistant to fire risks.

“We made a strong argument for the metal roof type,” said Michael Yun, an associate principal at Anderson Krygier.

By using metal roofs and spending less on each individual cabin, the forest service gained flexibility to adjust to changing environmental conditions.

“As professional landscape architects and urban planners, we have to put forth really good data on cost-effectiveness,” said Kate Holmquist, a senior planner and landscape architect at Anderson Krygier.

Clients must be able to provide financial backers justification for added expenses. Without a solid reason, financiers often balk at proposals to mitigate disaster-related risks. That hasn’t stopped hurricanes Harvey and Irma from wreaking havoc in populous areas. Yet developers can face risks on the outskirts too.

“It’s very expensive to build in the inner city,” said Vivek Shandas, professor of urban studies and planning at Portland State University. “You have a lot of market pressure to find buildable land. That means you push into forested areas where there could be avalanches or fires.”

Anderson Krygier also helped the city of Portland choose the best way to address seismic concerns at Washington Park Reservoir. For that project, public opinion became a major hurdle.

“There was a lot of resistance to modifying those reservoirs,” said Marilee Hanks, managing principal at Anderson Krygier. “It was a difficult decision. Basically the decision was do we let go of something that has met its limit.”

Even when people suffer the consequences of discounting risks – such as the massive destruction caused in New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina – they often keep coming back. This can be because of cultural beliefs.

“Long term, there are some areas (of New Orleans) that should not have been rebuilt after the hurricane,” Barton said. “The local politicians are in a tough position trying to deny someone a permit that wants to rebuild their home.

“What we try to do is to understand the deep traditions. In New Orleans, that was their home. People had lived there for generations. It wasn’t just a house or a physical artifact. It was a place where they knew everyone and everyone knew one another.”

Many houses in New Orleans wiped out by Hurricane Katrina were rebuilt in the exact same places that flooded. Now they stand 14 feet, rather than 4 previously, above their foundations. The city also boosted the efficiency of pumps tasked with removing water when major storms hit.

Barton, however, questions whether those measures will be effective.

“I would hope it helps, but haven’t seen a lot of evidence of it,” he said. “A lot of the pumping stations failed again (during recent flooding).”

Balancing financial, cultural and personal interests means many ideas that could mitigate damage from natural disasters are never implemented. The problem is that oftentimes more than one landowner must buy in. Flood or fire mitigation efforts, for instance, might involve land owned by multiple developers working with different timelines.

“There are interesting things we can do to mitigate flood risk,” Shumaker said. “A lot of times on projects that are between 100 and 1,000 acres we can position the project on parts of the plot less likely to flood.

“There are these great ideas of how to do a better project, and out of 10 of those maybe one will be implemented.”

One might think that well-publicized natural disasters would cause municipalities to adjust building codes or pass other laws to ensure public safety. However, any such efforts rarely last, according to Shumaker.

“I usually see about a six-month bump,” he said. “I don’t see a lot of jurisdictional change to codes because of an event that happened somewhere else.”

The post Willing to possibly pay a hefty price appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.