RiverPlace Redevelopment - Central City Master Plan | Proposed

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Ripcity0

https://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-new...erplace-towers

I think this ends up passing. It seems that’s Eudaly just wanted to clear some things up before she ends up giving a yes vote.

This deal is just too good to pass up for affordable housing that this city has needed

That is hopefully good news because this is a really good project for everyone if it happens. Also Eudaly needs to be replaced next time she is up for reelection, she was definitely a bad pick. Portland needs people that are at least qualified to sit on the council.

[BrG]

That makes a good deal of sense, the flipside is that the planning process takes time and this project may not make it into construction before the door closes on this economic cycle. But from what is happening or not happening at Oregon Square, I think it may have already been too late for this one.

This.

The cost of construction today, should ensure that what you see in the renders has absolutely zero chance of being realized, as pitched. Zero. The math does not add up. Will the math balance requirement, re-adjust? A minimum of 1 of these 2 scenarios has to happen:

1: Only if rent or sale $ per sf prices previously unforeseen in Portland, can be charged when these buildings are introduced to the market. Think $5/foot rents and $1,200.00 sf and up 'for sale' prices.

OR

2: There is a massive retraction in cost to build. That means some combination of commodity prices retracting, commercial lending rates retracting, commercial real estate investment performance expectations retracting, land prices retracting, entitlement costs retracting, or labor costs retracting. Dramatically.

Either scenario is unlikely in the near term. As an example, the Cosmopolitan in the Pearl, the closest to these buildings in proposed type... would have had buyouts to all subcontracts and commodity/material purchases, more than 2 years ago. EVERYTHING has escalated in cost, significantly since then. not to Mention the Tariff's being considered in Washington DC right now by the current Presidential administration (please don't make this thread go towards broader national politics).

This is a future cycle project. By the time these 500 (*affordable) units are online... there will be a need for 1000 in its place. *2100+ market rate units here, will need to retain or generate well more than 1.25 Billion in market value to begin to make economic sense. *(EDITED)

[subterranean]

The proposal calls for 2,617 units.

[BrG]

Originally Posted by subterranean

The proposal calls for 2,617 units.

Sorry.. 500 *affordable units. Thanks for pointing out the omission.

[johnliu]

I think most everyone here knows that the lovely rendered towers will not be built in this economic cycle. Whether the height limit is raised or not.

[BrG]

Originally Posted by johnliu

I think most everyone here knows that the lovely rendered towers will not be built in this economic cycle. Whether the height limit is raised or not.

You do, but I posted without making an assumption about 'most everyone here'.

I was responding using your specific comment about how 'it may be too late' and 'may not happen in this cycle', specifically for the people who come here and read these threads to learn about how this stuff works. Because they don't yet know.

[NESteve]

Great comments regarding the cost to build and the chances of something like this happening in this economic cycle.

Effective rents on new development projects have flattened and arguably softened from their highs in 2016 (I say 'arguably' because it depends on how you factor in incentives like 8 weeks free rent). The Pearl is seeing average rents of $2.75 per square foot for new lease-ups, and some of the new close-in eastside stuff is falling in at closer to $2.35...and there is still a massive amount of product under construction and in the permitting pipeline. Yard has never completely filled up and sits at 80% occupancy. So don't look for rent inflation anytime soon, and as BrG implies...all of this is happening in an inflationary construction cost, interest rate, and land price environment. So, with todays rent and cost numbers, projects such as this aren't nearly as financially viable as they were five years ago. You simply can't build a project like this with today's rent and cost numbers.

I believe the wild card in all of this is the City's inclusionary housing policy. After the current pipeline not subject to inclusionary housing has been built, new supply will slow dramatically and rents will begin to rise beyond what they are now - perhaps significantly because supply will be constrained. If construction costs soften, which they are bound to do, a project like this might make sense. But, something like this is at least five years out.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by NESteve

Great comments regarding the cost to build and the chances of something like this happening in this economic cycle.

Effective rents on new development projects have flattened and arguably softened from their highs in 2016 (I say 'arguably' because it depends on how you factor in incentives like 8 weeks free rent). The Pearl is seeing average rents of $2.75 per square foot for new lease-ups, and some of the new close-in eastside stuff is falling in at closer to $2.35...and there is still a massive amount of product under construction and in the permitting pipeline. Yard has never completely filled up and sits at 80% occupancy. So don't look for rent inflation anytime soon, and as BrG implies...all of this is happening in an inflationary construction cost, interest rate, and land price environment. So, with todays rent and cost numbers, projects such as this aren't nearly as financially viable as they were five years ago. You simply can't build a project like this with today's rent and cost numbers.

I believe the wild card in all of this is the City's inclusionary housing policy. After the current pipeline not subject to inclusionary housing has been built, new supply will slow dramatically and rents will begin to rise beyond what they are now - perhaps significantly because supply will be constrained. If construction costs soften, which they are bound to do, a project like this might make sense. But, something like this is at least five years out.

A project this size on a site that is currently occupied with housing is going to be five years out at least, regardless of everything else that you said. If anything, I would expect this project to begin in possibly three to five years with the demolition of the current structure, and then five to ten years for any construction of this new proposal to happen.

Of course on the flip side, they could get approved for the height increases and then put the building site up for sale with potential to build more for any future property owner.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by Ripcity0

Eudaly did the right thing and reversed her decision!

Great news

Whether tomorrow, next year, five years or a decade to see redevelopment, this was a good decision. Since I sent her an email asking her to reconsider, I sent her a message to thank her as well.

Portland City Council reverses itself, votes for taller buildings at RiverPlace
Updated 5:42 PM; Posted 5:41 PM
By Elliot Njus enjus@oregonian.com
The Oregonian/OregonLive

The Portland City Council reversed itself Thursday, voting to advance a proposal for buildings up to 325 feet tall in the downtown waterfront district known as RiverPlace.

Towers built to that height would be as tall as the tallest buildings in the South Waterfront district. To reach it, however, the developer would have to earn a number of "bonuses" offered by the city in exchange for including affordable housing and other elements.

The development firm that owns the site has privately pushed an ambitious plan for towers that would include more than 2,000 apartments, and they circulated a concept by superstar architect Kengo Kuma that was first reported by Willamette Week.

Because any housing project would be subject to a 2017 city mandate that developers include rent-restricted units in any new housing, it would add hundreds of affordable apartments.

But that plan, while tempting in a city with a housing shortage, isn't a sure thing under the proposed zoning that also allows commercial uses, such as offices. To maintain some control over what goes on the site, the council also voted to require a master plan before any future development.

...(continues)

[subterranean]

Good news.

[AcmeGreg]

If this project does indeed move forward in anything close to the form indicated in the renderings it's too bad they couldn't have started this process sooner and included the parcel of land currently under construction adjacent to the power substation!

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by AcmeGreg

If this project does indeed move forward in anything close to the form indicated in the renderings it's too bad they couldn't have started this process sooner and included the parcel of land currently under construction adjacent to the power substation!

The land under construction is owned by PDC. I'm just happy something is finally happening there as opposed to other PDC properties that have sat vacant for a decade or longer.

[maccoinnich]

Portland’s affordability mandate saved its latest skyscraper proposal

Portland’s council just showed why inclusionary housing can lead to more homes if done right

Portland’s new affordable-housing mandate includes a lot of details worth debating, and Portlanders certainly are.

But last week, the city council gave Portlanders a powerful illustration of why inclusionary housing matters: when you require 10 to 20 percent of homes in any new project to be below market rate, that makes every new housing project something to get excited about.

In an unusual move, the council reversed its March 7 vote against raising height limits in downtown, west of the Willamette and north of the Ross Island Bridge. The swing vote: Commissioner Chloe Eudaly, who won in 2016 on a housing affordability platform. Her switch from “no” to “yes” changed the vote from a 2–2 deadlock to a 3–1 pro-housing majority. Buildings in the RiverPlace area won’t be allowed to be larger in total floor area, but they can now go as high as 325 feet.

...continues at Medium.

[AcmeGreg]

Can anyone offer up a good definition of "skyscraper"? Pretty sure it's not 325', certainly not in this day and age. It's all relative I guess.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by AcmeGreg

Can anyone offer up a good definition of "skyscraper"? Pretty sure it's not 325', certainly not in this day and age. It's all relative I guess.

It is subject to location, 325ft down in Salem would most definitely be considered a skyscraper. Portland, it would be a borderline definition of skyscraper, and Seattle, it would just be considered a building.

[pdxsg34]

EA activity posted on PortlandMaps...

5-24-2018 - 18-177182-000-00-EA 0150 SW MONTGOMERY ST, 97201 - Proposal is for a master plan development of approx. 8 acres.

[Natural]

Reading the "O".... "Portland Building Boom" and came across an interesting nugget of info that I have not come across yet......NDP Capital is partnered up with a Billionaire Investor Nicolas Berggruen. He is most notably referred as the " The Homeless Billionaire" as at one point he lived in hotels and did not own a home. Not sure what he really brings to the table. We'll see I guess.

[maccoinnich]

Notice of a Pre-Application Conference

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Notice of a Pre-Application Conference

Are they really moving forward on this? This proposed project has to be one of the few I really hope happens like how it was originally being planned. It would be such a game changer architecturally for Portland.

[Natural]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Are they really moving forward on this? This proposed project has to be one of the few I really hope happens like how it was originally being planned. It would be such a game changer architecturally for Portland.

Looking down from the Marquam Bridge, RiverPlace has to be one of the most platinum view sheds in the City. The location, mass transit connected, and under utilization of the area, make this a prime location for a quality, large scale development.