Old Town Chinatown Block 33 | 125' | xx floors | Dead

[MarkDaMan]

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...ht_limits.html

Taller building height limit weighed on Old Town parking lot site
Updated 5:09 PM; Posted 4:47 PM
By Elliot Njus enjus@oregonian.com
The Oregonian/OregonLive

The Portland City Council is considering whether to allow a building up to 200 feet tall on a vacant block in Old Town Chinatown that's currently a surface parking lot.

Mayor Ted Wheeler had proposed to raise the height on the block — bounded by Northwest Davis and Couch streets and Fourth and Fifth avenues — to 160 feet on its west half and 125 on its east half.

The owner of the lot, Guardian Real Estate Services, on Thursday asked the council to go even further, raising the allowable height to 200 feet on the west side of the site. Company President Tom Brenneke said a housing development isn't feasible with lower height limits and said the parcel is profitable as a parking lot — and by implication could stay that way for a while.

...(continues)

[QAtheSky]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...ht_limits.html



...(continues)

Of course the HLC chimes in against it. As if the half dozen surface parking lots aren't far more damaging to the character of the neighborhood than slightly taller neighboring buildings.

It will only get more expensive to develop as land value goes up and since I doubt the City has the political will to torpedo parking-only land use with taxes they're gonna have to squeeze through a shrinking time window with height limit increases.

Here's hoping this happens.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by QAtheSky

Of course the HLC chimes in against it. As if the half dozen surface parking lots aren't far more damaging to the character of the neighborhood than slightly taller neighboring buildings.

It will only get more expensive to develop as land value goes up and since I doubt the City has the political will to torpedo parking-only land use with taxes they're gonna have to squeeze through a shrinking time window with height limit increases.

Here's hoping this happens.

I'm at a loss of what the HLC is trying to preserve. Also from that Oregonian article:

The Old Town Chinatown Community Association supported the 200-foot height if it led to a development that includes affordable and median-priced housing, saying it was convinced redevelopment wouldn't be possible at lower heights, said Chair Helen Ying.

"At this time, the way Chinatown and Japantown is, even my own children have a hard time wanting to come into the area," Ying said. "That does not help to pay respect to the community. We need to find a way to make this area thrive and be economically viable for the Chinese business there."

The council will revisit the issue at 2 p.m. on April 4.

[Rhome]

Can someone explain the problem here? I thought that there are two main limitations for every site: a limit on FAR (floor area ratio), and height. If the height is not changed here, developers will still be able to build an equally voluminous building. An increase in height will simply allow the developer to build a thinner, taller building, but not one that houses more people. This has been my issue with the whole height debate v. affordable housing. Doesn't it generally cost more money to build higher? There are a lot of well-informed people on this forum, so I'm interested to hear the argument.

[BrG]

Originally Posted by Rhome

Can someone explain the problem here? I thought that there are two main limitations for every site: a limit on FAR (floor area ratio), and height. If the height is not changed here, developers will still be able to build an equally voluminous building. An increase in height will simply allow the developer to build a thinner, taller building, but not one that houses more people. This has been my issue with the whole height debate v. affordable housing. Doesn't it generally cost more money to build higher? There are a lot of well-informed people on this forum, so I'm interested to hear the argument.

Yes, It does cost more to go taller. There often is a minimum height to achieve in order to justify the increased cost. Below that minimum and the cost per square foot can exceed the return needed to justify it. The valuation for the the land basis has an impact as well and can be mitigated by building more area (dilute first costs) and by building taller (quality = higher return).

There are sometimes site land-use parameters that can make it difficult to actually utilize the allowable FAR in a low-rise method of construction, and the height limit being raised will help in those cases. But I can't confirm that is the case here without looking into it.

Generally speaking:

Assuming there is an identified market willing to pay for it, then it's all about FAR utilization and how the quality of that space can be enhanced or properly programmed for the building use, to maximize the potential of the investment. Height helps with the flexibility of layout = quality.

A housing tower will often need to be thinner in plan, than an office tower because that is how the living spaces lay out effectively. On the other hand, An office floor to floor height is taller, so a building will run out of allowable height, faster. So it depends on what you are doing.

Building tall is expensive, but can be financially justifiable over something lower. Generally if it's considerably higher, it helps. Marginally often doesn't. It's not black or white as there are other parameters in play, but that is part of it.

Of note, some of the SOWA blocks developed as low rise housing, ended up being just as dense enough overall, to justify abandoning the high rises the city envisioned on those parcels.

Sometimes but not always, the only way to make the financial case to build on a site, is to go tall.

[johnliu]

This seems like spot zoning. Buy a parcel with height limits X', then tell council nothing will pencil out unless they rezone to 2X', throw in some promises of housing and a threat of surface parking lot, and get your parcel rezoned. Next, submit a design that ignores the historic district guidelines and context, and push that through too or get the guidelines changed to suit. Clearly, a lower and context appropriate building could pencil, unless you simply overpaid for the parcel, we just saw a lovely design that isn't 200' approved on 23/Glisan. But council can't check your math so you can say what you want.

[maccoinnich]

Portland real estate development movers and shakers call foul on City's permit process



For two and a half years now, a development on Block 33 — a full block of surface parking in Chinatown at Northwest Fifth Avenue and Couch Street — has waited for the maximum allowable building height to be increased in order to move forward.

Chinatown-Japantown design criteria included in the Central City 2035 Plan would have increased the height maximum, and was initially expected to be in place by mid-2016 at the time Block 33 designs were first initialized. Then, the proposed heights changed and the Plan was delayed.

Last week, Block 33's development team went to the City Council to propose an amendment that would allow the project to move foward, after $1 million spent in the City's permitting process over re-designs, construction inflation costs and hearing fees.

On March 22, City Council discussed Mayor Wheeler's amendment to raise heights on the western half of the block to 160 feet, and Commissioner Saltzman's amendment to raise heights on the western half of the block to 200 feet, raise the FAR (the ratio of the building's total floor area to the site's size) from 6:1 to 9:1,

and exempt Block 33 from further Historic Landmark review. The final vote is scheduled for April 4.

This comes after the City's permit process blocked or stalled development plans for the Chinatown-based Tuck Lung building, Wong Laundry and the New Omni — designed by Ankrom Moisan Architecture, which would have included Inclusionary Housing — and stalled the Grove Hotel on Burnside due to height as well, a Naito Development project. There's the Design Commission denial of Landon Crowell's Ankeny Apartments, which were approved by City Council after four hearings, five design reviews and a cost of $800,000 from Crowell's pocket. There's also the tentative hold on the Fremont Place Apartments in the Pearl, which comes back for a final vote in April as well.

The City has been attempting to mitigate the overflow of applications coming in during the building boom with projects such as the Design Overlay Zone Assessment (DOZA) to streamline the permit process, which is currently being implemented one step at a time, and the remodeling of the Bureau of Development Services for better internal use and public flow.

...continues at the Business Tribune.

[urbanlife]

I don't get this need to protect the low height limits of Old Town. If it is a vacant lot, then taller buildings should be allowed, especially if that means smaller older buildings can be saved. As it is, Oldtown should already have a height limit of at least 150ft, and with inclusionary housing, there should be a way to give bonuses for additional height.

[maccoinnich]

Council voted this afternoon to upzone the site to 160' max, vs the current 100' max height (and the 125' height originally proposed as part of CC2035).

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Council voted this afternoon to upzone the site to 160' max, vs the current 100' max height (and the 125' height originally proposed as part of CC2035).

That's nice, but is it still within the historic district? If so, the height increase seems meaningless.

[pdxsg34]

According to NW Examiner:

The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals remanded Portland City Council’s approval of a 200-foot height limit on the block bounded by Northwest Fourth, Fifth, Couch and Davis streets to accommodate a 16-story building proposed by Guardian Real Estate Services. LUBA found that the council amended height limits in the Central City 2025 Plan without adequate opportunity for public input. The city can either correct its findings or revise them.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by pdxsg34

LUBA found that the council amended height limits in the Central City 2025 Plan without adequate opportunity for public input.

I wouldn't necessarily expect better from the NW Examiner, but this is completely false. Restore Oregon made this argument, but LUBA rejected it:

In their second assignment of error, we understand Restore Oregon to argue that the city's decision fails to comply with PCP Goals 2.C and 2.E. The crux of Restore Oregon's argument, as we understand it, is that the city failed to comply with Goal 2.E when it did not allow public testimony during the May 24, 2018 city council hearing at which the 200-foot maximum building height was re-introduced, discussed by the city council, and ultimately adopted.

The city responds, and we agree, that the city council implicitly interpreted Goal 2.E to not require the city to accept public testimony in response to every motion or amendment made on a legislative proposal in order to satisfy the requirement to allow "meaningful participation." Amended Record 42. Nothing in Goal 2.E suggests that closing the final hearing on a legislative amendment to the comprehensive plan to testimony is inconsistent with Goal 2.E.

We also understand Restore Oregon to argue that the city council failed to comply with Goal 2.C, for similar reasons. The city responds, again, that nothing in Goal 2.C requires the city to accept public testimony in a legislative proceeding, in response to a motion or amendment. We agree.

Accordingly, Restore Oregon's second assignment of error provides no basis for reversal or remand of CC 203 5.

Restore Oregon's second assignment of error is denied.