Regional Oral History Office University of The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California

John Casey: Beverly Willis Oral History Project

Interviews conducted by Victor W. Geraci, PhD in 2008

Copyright © 2009 by The Regents of the University of California

Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of Northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral History is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is bound with photographs and illustrative materials and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable.

*********************************

All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between The Regents of the University of California and John Casey, dated December 18, 2008. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley. No part of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written permission of the Director of The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley.

Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, Mail Code 6000, University of California, Berkeley, 94720-6000, and should include identification of the specific passages to be quoted, anticipated use of the passages, and identification of the user.

It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows:

John Casey, “Beverly Willis Oral History Project” conducted by Victor W. Geraci, PhD, in 2008, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 2009. iii

Discursive Table of Contents—John Casey

Interview #1: October 29, 2008 Tape 1

Casey’s upbringing in Missouri, education at University of Kansas—Private practice and career with General Services Administration, “the government’s landlord”—Working with Beverly Willis on the IRS regional service center project—Strengths of Willis’s approach during selection process and collaboration with GSA and IRS—New information technologies, changes at the IRS, and obstacles to the completion of the project—Beverly Willis’s work ethic and collaborative spirit—the importance of design in government buildings.

1

Interview 1: October 29, 2008 Begin Audiofile 1

Geraci: Today is Wednesday, October 29, 2008, and I am conducting a telephone recorded interview with John Casey, in his Overland Park, Kansas home. This interview with Mr. Casey is being conducted by Victor Geraci, Associate Director of the University of California Berkeley Regional Oral History Office. And the interview is part of the Beverly Willis oral history series of interviews to document her life and work as an artist, architect, urbanist, lecturer, and writer. Funding for these comes from the Beverly Willis architecture foundation. John Casey was client representative for the General Services Administration, and served as the client’s representative while she was designing the Center building. This project served as a benchmark for Beverly Willis’s career because of her firm’s newly developed computerized approach to residential land analysis, referred to as CARLA.

Mr. Casey, first I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to interview you today, and ask for your permission to record this telephone conversation at this time.

01-00:01:01 Casey: You do.

Geraci: Great. Let’s see if we can get a little bit better start this time. I would like to begin with, like I do with all of my interviews, talking a little bit about your background, your life, education, and the things that you were involved with as a young man, that led you down the path before you meet up with Beverly Willis and the two of you work on this project together.

01-00:01:25 Casey: Okay. Well, going back to the beginning, I was born in Independence, Missouri, 1943, January 1943. I lived in the Kansas City, Missouri area, where the metropolitan area encompasses both suburbs of Kansas City, Missouri and suburbs of Kansas City, Kansas, both sides of the state line. I was raised in the Missouri side until 1951. Moved to a little suburban town called Shawnee, and was raised there. Went to high school, graduated, and went on to the University of Kansas. Graduated from there in 1968 with a degree in architecture. Worked in private practice. I worked as an electrician while I was going to school, and then started working in private practice while still enrolled at University of Kansas, in 1964. In 1974, I moved over to the US General Services Administration, and worked there until January of 2007, when I retired.

Geraci: Oh, so first of all, you’re a local Kansas boy. And your degree was in architecture, then. 2

01-00:02:34 Casey: That’s correct.

Geraci: Okay. Now, you said you were in private practice? What type of projects?

01-00:02:41 Casey: We covered a number of types of projects. We did a hospital in Jerusalem; we did multi-family residential; we did some single-family residential; we did shopping centers; we did factories, small factories, like window fabrication plants, and different things along those lines. So it was both residential and commercial and industrial type work.

Geraci: So it sounds like it was a larger practice, then.

01-00:03:16 Casey: Actually, we only had, at one time, six people; but we just seemed to have good inroads and joint ventures with several groups, and so it worked out really well.

Geraci: Oh, great. So what prompted you to leave private practice, then?

01-00:03:30 Casey: We also worked for the City of Leawood, as the city architects. And one of the gentlemen that was on the council, the city council, worked for General Services Administration, and was the director of design and construction. And he made me an offer I couldn’t refuse.

Geraci: So it was a good career move for you at that point, then.

01-00:03:54 Casey: Yes. And I think we were kind of in a recession in 1974, if I remember right. Things were a little down. So it was just a good move at the time.

Geraci: And things were down, in fact. In the case of Beverly Willis, this is one of the reasons why she was working on developing the CARLA system, to look for efficient approaches to land use and land development, and still be able to have a profitable process for developers and for contractors, and keep projects moving. So you take your job with the government. What was your position when you first start with them, with the General Services?

01-00:04:36 Casey: When I was hired with General Services, I was hired as an estimator, as an architect estimator. I had the degree, but I hadn’t taken my licensing exam yet. And I took it shortly after going to the General Services Administration, and did pass, luckily, first attempt.

Geraci: Good for you. 3

01-00:05:00 Casey: But anyway, I was hired as an estimator, and so I did that for probably— maybe the first year, at the outset, and did some architectural type work while I was there. And then I moved over to what they call the project operations branch and became an architect, that was my title, and I worked on one of the teams, and we did some in house design back then. Eventually, we got to the point where we contracted out everything, both design and construction, as well as operations, maintenance, and all of the associated type work that goes with owning and operating buildings. And that’s where I really got introduced to Beverly, while I was performing the duties of an architect for the project operations branch.

Geraci: Okay. Now, when we talk about the General Services, what is this branch of government really responsible for?

01-00:05:59 Casey: General Services Administration is sometimes referred to as the government’s landlord. And they have different services in that administration, General Services Administration. And the service I was in was the public building service. They also have federal supply service, which provides supplies for all government facilities and entities and administrations; and federal telecommunications, which does voice and data, and so on; also motor-pool type services. But mine was public building services. And we were responsible for the design, construction, and operation of federal buildings that other tenants, other federal tenants used. The General Services Administration was the largest property holder in the United States, and maybe the world. And we have, oh, upwards towards about 400-million square feet that we owned and operated and maintained.

Geraci: So really, they’re the overseer, then, for all the branches of the government, and the buildings and the facilities that they have.

01-00:07:06 Casey: The majority of them, yes. We don’t own them all, because military owns a lot.

Geraci: Well, yes, outside military.

01-00:07:12 Casey: Yes. And, well, Treasury owns some. But we were the primary one. We own about 47, 48 percent of all federal properties.

Geraci: Well, so I take it, then, that you were representing within a regional area.

01-00:07:28 Casey: That’s correct. A four-state region in the middle of the United States. Operates out of Kansas City, and was responsible for the state of Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas. 4

Geraci: Okay. So you mentioned you met Beverly. Let’s talk a little bit about the project that was developing that would precipitate your meeting Beverly. And that would be the Internal Revenue Service prototype buildings. So how did this project come about? How did this come across your desk? What was your responsibility?

01-00:08:00 Casey: Well, the IRS was looking at developing a prototype that was titled the Tax Administration System, TAS. And they would develop this prototype and then site adapt it to their ten different regions. We were, for reasons I’m not really sure, we just had a good working relationship with a lot of different agencies. And because of the reputation that we had in the Midwest and our working relationship with our own central office in Washington, D.C., they recommended that we take on the responsibilities for doing this prototype nationally. And so we did. The IRS liked the working relationship that we had, they liked the people that we had in our region. And so we set about doing this, and we solicited for a national firm. And the IRS had already done a conceptual level of design on their own, before coming to GSA.

Geraci: Okay, so they already had some ideas in mind, what they wanted out of this.

01-00:09:12 Casey: They did. Again, it goes back to GSA as the landlord of the federal government. And by law, that was done under the Hoover Commission in 1949, and signed by President Truman, that GSA would be the one to have a centralized responsibility for design and construction activities for the federal government.

Geraci: I’m wondering why all the IRS needed these new facilities? Is the tax system becoming that big, or what’s happening? What’s prompting them?

01-00:09:53 Casey: One of the things that they were attempting to do is to be able to tie the nation together by the ten regional service centers, so that they could be more efficient and effective in the way that they collected taxes. And so they would build these facilities and site adapt them, and tie back all these facilities to their Martinsburg, West Virginia location, which was the central headquarters, you might say, out of the Washington, D.C. area.

Geraci: So they’re looking to build ten regional offices. This isn’t just for your area, this is something that’s going to be done nationwide?

01-00:10:38 Casey: That’s correct, service centers in ten regions. And their regions didn’t really align perfectly with our regions, and so that was another reason that anybody, probably, in GSA’s regions could take on this project and adapt it nationally. 5

Geraci: So it’s a matter that they most likely already have the land, and make it part of existing facilities and things that, they’re already in place.

01-00:11:04 Casey: Right. And those that they didn’t, they would acquire under specific procedures that allows them to acquire land.

Geraci: So what kind of goals had they set up for the project? They come to you now and it comes through your office. What were their goals for this project?

01-00:11:25 Casey: Well, again, they wanted to build a system that was tied together nationally, so that if somebody really filed in California, they would really have a record of all of the transactions; and if that person again filed in Texas, they would be able to really see that, because they’d be filing under separate regional offices, in submission of their taxes. And so unless that was tied together, as far as the data and information-type structure, information-technology-type structure, there would be no way to really track that, without physically doing it, pen and paper.

Geraci: Right. And especially in these post-World War II years. The nation is expanding tremendously, and I can see you need to tie all this together. Did they have specific design and construction criteria for you when they came in?

01-00:12:24 Casey: They had the layout, the functionality of the structure itself, on the way it would work inside, the processing that would come in with the tax forms, submissions by taxpayers. They had a cost estimate that they were working towards, because they have to submit these requests to Congress, just like all of us do in our yearly budget, to get it approved and get the go-ahead. And they have to have both authorization and appropriation. Their vision was to develop this, come in and ask for the construction for maybe whatever they could get appropriated, two or three different sites. And the efficiency of doing a prototype and then site adapting it, was that it would save some time in the design element side.

Geraci: Okay, so they were looking for something that’s going to be very flexible in design, then. So were you given a specific budget that you had to stay in, within each of these facilities?

01-00:13:30 Casey: Yeah, they were looking roughly around the 19- to $20 million range per facility.

Geraci: Okay. So you at least had a good idea of what it would take, then to—Now, I guess for an architect coming in, looking at this, to put a bid in on this, there’s a problem, in that how do you design a building that is going to be appropriate to twenty different climatic or regional zones? 6

01-00:13:57 Casey: Exactly. And knowing that, they would design the basic prototype. And we had a specific area. It was first going to be site adapted in Covington, Kentucky, which is right across the river from Cincinnati, Ohio there, in the Three Rivers area. Anyway, that was going to be the first one. And knowing, depending on the years that they would go in for subsequent appropriations to build at other sites, there would be an escalation factor that is applied annually. So the basic one for the first site adaption was $20 million. And this was going to be the layout, and then you could adapt it, modify it a minimal amount, just to accommodate the various sites that you were on; but the building would be configured, and probably it would function, just as the original did in Covington.

Geraci: Was this a common trend in architecture and design in buildings in those days? This industrial architecture, where you can have one model and then you can keep reusing it over and over and over again.

01-00:15:12 Casey: Our courthouses, back in the WPA era—

Geraci: Post offices?

01-00:15:21 Casey: Yes, post offices, federal buildings, courthouses, those types of things, they all, in the late thirties, early forties, looked a lot alike. They were neoclassic type design—columns, rusticated bases, very strong element at the top to cap off the building, done in precast or stone, limestone type—They wouldn’t be precast like that, but I mean limestone. All about the same square footage. They’d have centralized courtrooms or post office area for sorting mail— basically, the same layout. That was really the only buildings I can remember back in that era that was like a cookie-cutter type approach or something like that. So no, we weren’t really looking at building or designing one building and then in most cases, site adapting it all over; but because of the size of these and the number of them, it would be a fairly substantial budget request back then, in the seventies, for Congress. You have to have the money available before you can start a project. So you can’t build it and take loans out and things like that; you have to have the money in that fiscal year that it’s awarded.

Geraci: And this is a rather ambitious project, considering that we’re in the seventies. Especially in the mid-seventies, this is a slow time for the American economy.

01-00:16:57 Casey: Yes. And another part of that equation was the IT part, the software and so on, like that. And that was even more extensive, if I remember right. That program they were looking at for all ten sites would run in the neighborhood—and tying it back to the Martinsburg, West Virginia site—was like $800 million. That number sticks in my mind for all of it. 7

Geraci: That’s a large number for those days.

01-00:17:25 Casey: That’s four times as large as the construction budget for all ten facilities, at $20 million a pop.

Geraci: I guess that kind of shows you where we were in our IT lives at that point. So knowing that, the IRS comes to your regional General Services office. How do you go about putting something like this out for a national bid? Who are the competitors? What’s the process?

01-00:17:55 Casey: I can remember the process, but I can not remember who the other potential bidders were. I really can’t. I’ve been looking for that and trying to remember, and I just can’t remember who they were. But I remember what we did at that time—and we still do, in a similar fashion—we’ve improved on it. But we were looking to hire a firm that had the best technical qualifications. And then once you hire that firm or select that firm, then you sit down and negotiate a fee structure. But you put a package together. And we had the package that IRS had been working on, on their own, up to that. And we would say that was probably a conceptual package, maybe 25 percent of the total design package that would be the ultimate package that we had done. So we used that. We go out on a massive national solicitation, ask them to submit proposals. We tell them what we’re looking for, what the cost range is; and they submit proposals. And the proposals really are submitting their technical qualifications capabilities. And then we look at all of those that are submitted, and then we make a shortlist of maybe three to five firms. And since these were going to be site-adapted nationally, we went out nationally. We didn’t confine it just to firms in the Kansas City metropolitan area or St. Louis or New York or whatever, we went throughout the nation. And then once we had arrived at what we thought was a good selection of firms, we held interviews, we conducted interviews. And then we selected the firm, and the one that we selected was Beverly’s firm. And the selection was based on their technical abilities and the approach to this project, and their staff, and their concept of how to finish it and move forward with it.

Geraci: I guess that begs for the question, then, what were the qualifications that made Beverly Willis and her firm stand out at that point?

01-00:20:08 Casey: Well, the panel’s made up of architects and engineers from the IRS side of the house and from GSA’s side of the house. And we also brought in, if I remember right, two individuals from our Washington office, who were also registered architects at that time. And I can remember one, because I still talk to him; and I’m trying to remember the other person’s name, and I can’t remember it for the life of me. But anyway, we sat down. There were three of us in Kansas City and two of them. And we were the panel, really, that was looking at who should we go after and select. 8

Geraci: So there is a genuine peer review process at that point?

01-00:20:51 Casey: There is, mm-hm. Yes.

Geraci: And so do you remember any of the specifics of the plan, or the package, at least, that Beverly Willis was presenting to you at that time?

01-00:21:06 Casey: I just remember that she came across as the most—sincere sticks in my mind—but the most honest of the proposals. She laid it out just like it was. She didn’t pull any punches, and told us where there might be some issues that we would have to resolve. She had the best assembled team, that satisfied both the IRS, which was the client, really, and GSA’s concerns, since we would own and operate the building.

Geraci: Right. Did you know anything about her track record at that point? From what I’ve gathered from other interviews, Beverly has a gift in coming across and really being able to, in a businesslike manner, deliver projects on time and within budgets.

01-00:21:55 Casey: Yes. And her submission was very good, or she wouldn’t have made the shortlist. And then they were able to expand on that written submission with a verbal interview, a presentation of their thoughts on the design, on the package that IRS had; what changes may be need to be made, or at least reevaluated; issues that she thought she needed to go through to develop a comfort level with working with IRS, and also their package that they already had. Because IRS was pretty adamant about. And an architect will look at that package—And also they want to become comfortable with it, because they didn’t develop it. So now they have to inherit this package and move forward, so they want to really know as much about that package, how it was developed, why it was developed, and any type of leeway they may have in making alterations to it. So that comfort level was solidified between the IRS and Beverly, on both sides. Beverly accepted theirs, and the IRS really embraced her.

Geraci: And what year does Beverly win this bid?

01-00:23:11 Casey: I think it was in 1976, and I want to say the fall.

Geraci: That seems to be about what I have in my records, also.

01-00:23:18 Casey: And for the life of me, I couldn’t really find it. It’s thirty-two years ago, and I’m going, okay, it was back in that time. But I’m pretty sure it was the fall of 1976 and into 1977, because we were out in reviewing the designs, and I remember they had snow. 9

Geraci: Oh, my goodness!

01-00:23:40 Casey: Rare instance. And it was real light, didn’t last very long, but they had snow.

Geraci: Yes, snow in San Francisco would leave a mark on your memory, I have to admit. Now, she comes in with this design. And from what I’ve been able to gather, this is a fairly innovative design. What are some of the things that she was able to accomplish, at least within the design phase of this?

01-00:24:09 Casey: Well, the flexibility. And the openness of the plan, even though it was like a fabrication-type thing, but it did have offices. And if I remember right—And again, I don’t have any copies of the design or photos of it and stuff, and I’m not sure—It’s something I never did save. And whether we still have records—We send records to National Archives and Records Administration to store records, but again, they only keep them for so long before they’re destroyed. And I don’t know if we ever microfilmed. Microfilm was coming into existence back there. So it’s just my recollection, but it was an octagonal building, if I remember right. And it moved, the flow moved in that kind of circular pattern, for this processing of returns and checks to be issued and things like that that the processing centers do, plus a mail bulk handling type facility, where all these came in via trucks and then again were shipped out, mailed out, that type of thing. So it was a really functional type project.

Geraci: Well, in talking to Beverly, one of the things that she seemed to be very satisfied with within her design was the ability of what she considered to be, she referred to as a mother building. And that you had offices in the lighted outer space areas, and then as you moved towards the inner core, it would be more all the computerized processes, then an open courtyard. But more importantly, this was a building designed to be moved upwards. It was one story to start, but could go all the way up to a four-story building with a covered atrium.

01-00:26:05 Casey: Yes, exactly. That’s what I kind of remember, too. And I remember that octagonal shape, for some reason. But it just seemed to function very, very well, I remember that.

Geraci: And she was very happy with the idea within her design, also of what she called the bollard lighting for efficiency. The whole idea of energy efficiency. We’re getting real close to the mid-seventies, when we do have one of our first oil crunches. But energy efficiency. And then also the idea that buildings, at that point, had not been made for full computerized future growth. And she was talking about the idea of designing these raised floors, with all the wiring underneath. 10

01-00:26:49 Casey: Exactly. I remember we worked with Tate Flooring, back in Baltimore, Maryland, now that you’ve triggered my mind again, on looking at those access floor systems and how we could use them to adapt to this type of facility. And we were also looking to use those access floors in the office areas, for modular-furniture type things and easy flexibility and changes. And IRS, I would say, back then, was probably a leader in that development. They had spent a lot of time on their own looking at furnishings, and they even taught some courses on modular design. That was really big back then.

Geraci: Okay, so these prototypes, this really is the ultimate in flexibility. How do you design a building that’s going to keep up with technology in twenty, thirty years in the future, when you don’t even know what the technology is?

01-00:27:49 Casey: That’s correct. You think about it’s going to progress, by looking at the IT development. And in fact, back then—and really, we found out that’s not the case now—but they thought that by using IT elements, and as they developed and they could get smaller, you would use really less energy. Well, in fact, they did get smaller, but for some reason, you use more of them. And IT things do take a lot of energy. So you looked at, though, really being able to conserve energy. Like you said, the bollard lighting and direct lighting, that type of thing, along with the workstations and the under-floor HVAC-type distribution, as well as the wiring, so that you could move things around readily, easy. And as things changed and we needed to adapt, you could do that within the existing structure that was designed, without having to encroach on more land or build a new structure or something of that nature. And so that was the way we moved forth with this vision.

Geraci: Now, I guess one of the things that I’m always amazed with, with the field of architecture, is the architect’s ability to speak to a client, to research and understand the real needs in the real world. And how do you bring those together for what the client wants and needs, and in reality, what can you deliver within that price range? What was the process for you and Beverly going through, trying to interpret those needs? It was thirty-some years ago and I fully understand—

01-00:29:43 Casey: Yes. Well, I know at that time, we didn’t really have any construction contractors in mind, so it was strictly going out and using independent estimators and stuff to try to look at the types of materials and things we were using, which I would say we were on the conservative side, really, as far as the types of materials. But we wouldn’t take the lowest price per se. We would put fudge factors, you might say. We would put—Oh, it slips my mind now. But just to make sure, at this early stage of the development, that we had costs in the project to cover it, and still maintain the budget that we were given. So we spent a lot of time looking at those things because it was very important to the IRS to be able to do these facilities, and to also do it within 11

the budget they’d been telling Congress for years that they could do, trying to work—

Geraci: Right. And at that time, Beverly and her firm have a big interest in computers. She’s developed her CARLA system. She’s looking at computers as being the future for many of these processes. So it was probably a great challenge for her, developing a building that is also for computers, looking towards the future. Did she team up with any of the other local architectural firms? Because we’re talking, this first one was to be built in Covington, Kentucky.

01-00:31:20 Casey: That’s what I can’t remember. I know they did have consultants, but I don’t remember a firm in Kentucky that she had joint ventured with or anything.

Geraci: Right. Well, she had mentioned something about {Coleman Graves?} architects, so I was just wondering.

01-00:31:43 Casey: I’ve heard that name. And I don’t remember the other consultants or people that she had teamed with, that were on her team at that time. But she did have a number of other people. Mechanical, electrical design, that type of thing, structural design firms that she consulted with and that were a part of her team that they had submitted their proposal to us.

Geraci: What was it like working with Beverly Willis?

01-00:32:09 Casey: It was great. It was a gem. It really was. All of her folks—I’m trying to remember the certain individuals. I can’t remember them by name, either, but they just were very responsive to our desires, our needs. They would show up and help us whenever we asked. Or they’d invite us out there. They were always on time and on schedule with their submissions.

Geraci: One of the things that Beverly likes to talk a lot about is that—and in particular, that era—there’s very few women in architecture. Was it different working with a woman architect than with the male architectural firms? You were dealing with a lot of architects.

01-00:32:53 Casey: I honestly don’t think so. That never did seem to enter my mind. It didn’t matter. We didn’t select her because she was a woman, and we didn’t not select her because she was—It didn’t enter in. It was her team, the way she presented the proposal. And we were, again, looking on a national level, and she just sold the whole thing. And then she fulfilled her promises.

Geraci: But it seems that it was, for her part and from what you’re saying here, a very collaborative type process. 12

01-00:33:29 Casey: It was. IRS, they were really hands-on type people. And I would say they were more advanced in some areas, as far as having a design and construction in-house team, than we were. And back then, that was probably the case, because we had gone through an era where the Hoover Commission had consolidated all those types of functions under GSA that made the responsibility be so that each agency could focus on their mission; and that mission wasn’t design and construction activities. And then because of, I would say, maybe the failure of GSA, for whatever reasons, to really fulfill that need, some of the larger agencies had started, because of their specific needs, forming their own design and construction staffs to kind of provide an oversight. So this whole effort was a new collaborative effort between GSA, which was mandated by law; the IRS, which was a little skeptical; and firms on the outside, to provide the services that neither one of them could totally provide, to work together. So I think it was unique at this time that we could all work together and build such a trusting and, as you said, collaborative relationship to get this stuff done.

Geraci: As someone who’s just recently retired, would you say that this type of project and process work today?

01-00:35:04 Casey: Oh, I think more so. We do have some issues, like census. Census is one that comes around every ten years, and it does take a lot of effort. And right before I retired, in the 2000 census, really, that era—and of course, it’s seven years later—but we won, you might say, the census folks to come back to GSA, and did an outstanding job with them and all of their needs. And that census is really difficult to take. It’s done every ten years. They want accuracy. They staff up and hire 400,000 to 500,000 volunteers or more.

Geraci: It’s a massive project.

01-00:35:48 Casey: And so you have to house those people, you have to house the records they’re taking, a lot of computer facilities and things like that. So they came back to us again to do the 2010 census. So yes, it’s done. Probably more so today than—We’ve gotten back to more where GSA is the focal point by law, and we are delivering on things that were promised. So I think we’ve geared up and recovered, and do a better job of customer satisfaction, you might say, than we had done for a number of years. But back then, it was just starting.

Geraci: That’s what I was just going to say. It seems that that was at the very beginning of this whole collaborative idea and approach.

01-00:36:30 Casey: Right. Right. The courts had their own stuff, the Treasury did their own thing. In Kansas City, we even, right after we did the IRS thing, we got a request to do a mint, the US Mint in Denver, Colorado, which is outside of our region. 13

And it also—the Treasury Department has their own authority, but they came to GSA. And that was 1980, ’81. So this was really the beginning of all of that coming-back-to-GSA type thing.

Geraci: Okay. Now let’s talk a little bit about what ultimately did or did not happen. We have this great project. We have Beverly winning. She comes in with this wonderful design. All these things happen, and it doesn’t get built. What happened?

01-00:37:14 Casey: [laughs] Remember, I told you the cost of the IT? Eight hundred million dollars. And that was a big chunk of money. But that really wasn’t the reason why it wasn’t built. The main factor was kind of a Big-Brother aspect. And it’s ironic, because today it functions this way, that they are tied together by an IT network, computers and so on. But back then, the thought of having all this data on all of our 200-million-plus residents of the United States, all on single data bank entries that people might abuse or get corrupted or stolen or whatever was just an insurmountable task to get through Congress.

Geraci: So there were definitely privacy issues, then.

01-00:38:14 Casey: There were. And that was probably the main driving force of not moving ahead with these projects, because they have come back and they are building new service centers at various locations. And of course, the service centers are a lot more extensive. At that time, there were ten, and I believe there’s like seven, I want to say now, or something like that. Some of them have consolidated or they moved the returns. I know for Missouri, we were doing Kansas City here for a while; then we moved to Austin, Texas. So they’re trying to consolidate it, and they’re doing it now. And the computer databases and the sharing of information is perfectly acceptable. But back then, it wasn’t.

Geraci: That’s interesting, how we’ve grown in, I guess, our acceptance of this technology.

01-00:39:09 Casey: Yes. It was fear, I think, a lot of it. But it was interesting, because the money, it was huge. Two hundred million dollars for the whole thing, for the construction, the bricks-and-mortar type, and then $800 million—you’re talking about a billion dollars. That’s a lot of money back then. Nothing like the $700 billion bailout [proposed by the Bush administration in 2008].

Geraci: [laughs] Yes. We’ve also learned to think in larger numbers, I think; that’s part of the problem. 14

01-00:39:39 Casey: But the money wasn’t the driving factor as much as how are you going to do all of this?

Geraci: Yes, the fear factor. Now, you said today they’ve gone ahead, then, and in each of these regional areas, have built facilities?

01-00:39:53 Casey: I think almost all of them are tied together. I’ve lost track a little bit on that. But they do have information on data, the data things. And they had reels. Back then, you had larger, huge, large computers. It was just a huge network at each facility, but it was kind of a stand-alone type. Payroll offices do the same; they put them on these huge disks—they weren’t disks back then—but these huge tape reels. And then if you wanted information sent to a local bank or something like that, they’d have to mail those or take them over. But now it’s all done over the internet. They’re tied together.

Geraci: In these facilities now, did they use a prototype, as they were thinking back then? Or did any of Beverly’s designs end up in any of these buildings that you know of?

01-00:40:46 Casey: Well, the actual design did not, but the concept, I think, did. How are we going to do this? A lot of it’s IT. It has to be adaptable. You’ve got people and IT stuff working together. And a lot of those concepts moved forward. The octagonal shaped building and the openness—Well, the openness-factor type thing, they still use today. We just built a new service center down in Kansas City. And in fact, we don’t really own it; it’s a leased facility. But we built it, we manage it, and it’s leased to us, the GSA, to operate for them. And it’s got 1.6 million square feet, but—

Geraci: That’s huge.

01-00:41:33 Casey: And it’s very open. Very open, with skylights bringing light into the center, with cafeterias and open areas for people to go outside. Beverly thought about that. So the computer function is internal and the human factor is external, it’s surrounding that.

Geraci: And actually, Beverly was on the right track, then, in talking about energy efficiency in a computer age, technological age—what do you do with all the wires? Computers generate heat when they’re working. How do you dissipate all that heat, and still make this a comfortable environment for the human being?

01-00:42:20 Casey: And flexibility. And also, how do you get all of these forms in and out? And it just works together and it’s a really nice complex. They have parking for pretty close to 5,000 cars. And 3600 of them, I think, are on that complex. 15

And then they have leased parking across the street, which they have a tunnel, a roadway to this parking structure.

Geraci: Interesting.

01-00:42:50 Casey: Security’s evolved over the years. But the idea of internal function of the computer activity and the processing of the actual forms, whether it be on a computer disk or a paper form, that type of thing. It’s very similar.

Geraci: Did you work with Beverly on any other projects?

01-00:43:21 Casey: No, I really didn’t. We never did anything else. That was just the only one. But we did stay in touch and communicated over the years, and I always had a strong admiration for her. And I guess it was reciprocal, in a way, because she’d call and we’d just chat.

Geraci: Yes. Which is a question I want to lead to. And this is, Beverly seemed to have an innate knack to be able to network extremely well and bring people together—you’re talking about this collaborative ability—and never lose track of people.

01-00:43:54 Casey: Right. Yeah, she did good. I’ve kind of lost track of her. I know she went back east. Because I think, if I remember right, she was born and raised back there or something, then went to California, then went back.

Geraci: Well, she was born in .

01-00:44:07 Casey: Oklahoma? Okay. See? I totally forgot that.

Geraci: Yes. But the thing is, she took a sabbatical for a couple of years and went back east and then just ended up staying there. And she’s working with her foundation, the Beverly Willis Foundation, which is actually a foundation designed to encourage young women in architecture and document the history of women in architecture.

01-00:44:31 Casey: Oh, great.

Geraci: And that’s really what a lot of this project is that we’re working on, is trying to make sure her oral history becomes part of the archives for this foundation.

01-00:44:42 Casey: Mm-hm. And so is it located in New York? 16

Geraci: Right. Her foundation is in New York. She’s actually living in Connecticut now, and has her offices in New York. And I find it very interesting that she—And she was also known for her social skills. Loved to throw parties. Did you ever get a chance to—Well, not being from out here, so I don’t know if you ever got to her vineyard and house in Napa.

01-00:45:12 Casey: No. Never did.

Geraci: River Run. But anything else about Beverly, in particular, that we could be talking about?

01-00:45:22 Casey: No, not that I remember or anything like that. But again, like you said, she was just easy to work with. She didn’t try to fluff over anything. She was very honest and sincere. And she was always that way. I never did see her trying to manipulate anything to get her way. A lot of architects—and I’m speaking for myself, in a way [they laugh]—are a little egotistical. And [they seem to] think, I’ve got it all; they ought to be looking at me and how I design things. And she never did come across that way. And maybe now that I know she was born in Oklahoma, maybe [laughs] her upbringing had something to do with her down-to-earth manner.

Geraci: It seemed that she had an ability to work with clients to compromise, to make things happen.

01-00:46:13 Casey: Right. Look for a solution.

Geraci: Right. In other words, she did not accept roadblocks. There’s always a way around a problem. And I think that’s something that was—Well, I thank you very much. Is there anything else that we would need to say about Beverly or about the IRS facility? I find that facility to be totally fascinating.

01-00:46:36 Casey: Yeah, it is. I wish I still had some of the drawings and stuff.

Geraci: And that’s the reason I was, I think, asking the question. For all the work involved that went into that, it was nice to hear that some of those at least key ideas did stay with the development of the future buildings.

01-00:46:56 Casey: Yes, because we were just getting into the IT range, personal computer. We had the Wang. And that was after, though. That was during the development of the mint project in Colorado. So a lot of these things were just starting, and so you didn’t know where they were going to go, but you knew you were going to use them. And if we’d have been a little further down the timeline, these projects might have been built. 17

Geraci: Okay. Now, for your own career, just to finalize the interview, were there any other large-scale projects that come to your mind that you were really satisfied with, proud of?

01-00:47:53 Casey: In the mid-1990s, we started projects that we called Design Excellence, where design really became more and more important. Because we’d lost focus on that. We were a little frugal about spending taxpayers’ money—you might say overly so—and we were just building standard seventies and eighties buildings. So we developed this program to emphasize design. And don’t get me wrong, a lot of seventies and eighties buildings are really nice and important and stuff; but a lot of them, particularly government ones, didn’t leave a legacy, you might say.

Geraci: Oh, I consider them to be an industrial model.

01-00:48:39 Casey: Yes. Even the thirties and forties buildings were probably better, even though a lot of them are the same. But they left a statement. So we got away from that. But in 1995, we started this Design Excellence program, where we started looking the best designers, the best builders, and really emphasized design. And we won some of the AIA’s top awards. When they did the 2000 top twentieth-century programs, we were recognized for our program, Design Excellence. And so we spent a lot of effort on, particularly, courthouses. And so we’ve got a lot of courthouses all over the country now. That program, we were going to build 150-some courthouses. And in the ten years, we’ve built about sixty of them. So we’ve got a long way to go.

Geraci: But still, that’s a good number.

01-00:49:33 Casey: Yes. But the courts, too, they’re struggling with their budgets, just like everybody is.

Geraci: Right, yes.

01-00:49:38 Casey: That has an impact on us a little bit. But a lot of the courthouses we did under that program, and any other projects we did, design innovation has really been high. And the way we go about involving constructors as a part of a team, so that we have everybody involved. And that’s difficult for us, as I said earlier, because you have to have all the money up front. And when you’re building a courthouse, like in Los Angeles, that is a half-a-billion dollars, that’s a big chunk of your budget, just for one building.

Geraci: Right. But it’s nice to see a return to that excellence. Even though the nation was in the Great Depression, it seems that in the 1930s, some of the 18

courthouses, post offices and the WPA buildings, they’re historic monuments to us today.

01-00:50:31 Casey: Right. And so we’re going back to that. A federal building ought to look like a federal building. Senator Monahan wrote “The Principles of Architecture” or something like that. It’s a two-page item, and I’ve got it on my computer. But he worked with John F. Kennedy and stuff in the sixties, to start trying to get this. And it just grew and became more evident in the 1990s that this is what the federal government ought to be: people going down the street look at a building and know that’s a federal building, and be proud that it is a federal building in the United States of America, that type of thing.

Geraci: That’s great.

01-00:51:13 Casey: I like that, and I appreciate that I was a part of that era.

Geraci: And then you retired in 2007?

01-00:51:21 Casey: Retired in 2007. I was the deputy assistant regional administrator for the region, at that time.

Geraci: Sounds like you had a very good, long career.

01-00:51:32 Casey: I did, I did. It was very enjoyable. I just really enjoyed it. And going from the private sector, when they made me that offer I couldn’t refuse, being that side of it, from the private side, opens your eyes, and [one] realizes that you need collaboration among people to get things done. And you shouldn’t point your fingers and say, those lazy government workers don’t get anything done and they don’t have any vision or insight and they’re just stupid, and so on, like that. And blaming the private sector folks for not having any consciousness of cost and delivery schedules and so on like that, it’s not true. And just working together in that collaboration was—

Geraci: Well, a lot of people really fear the large bureaucracies that have been created. But I think we forget to look at some of the huge accomplishments that we’ve made with these large bureaucracies.

01-00:52:28 Casey: Exactly. Exactly.

Geraci: Yes, maybe sometimes we’re a little slow to react and things don’t quite get done the way we want, but we’ve accomplished great things. 19

01-00:52:41 Casey: Mm-hm. Well, the American people are great at second guessing after it’s all said and done and saying, well, I didn’t do that. I wasn’t a part of that. [laughs]

Geraci: Yes, exactly. And we’ve done some wonderful things. And I think we need to start looking at those and taking pride in—I don’t know if a small structure could’ve accomplished some of those things.

01-00:53:05 Casey: Yes. No, you need to work together. And the government seems to be— Everybody complains about the government, but they’re the ones that seem to—They complained about Fannie and Freddie. But the government, as soon as it steps in, then they complain, well, you’re spending all the taxpayers’ money.

Geraci: Yes, it’s the politics of the whole thing. It’s amazing. Well, John, thank you very, very much.

[End of Interview]