The Sutton (Fremont Place) | 185'-0" | 17 Floors | Complete

[johnliu]

Originally Posted by petcarpdx

I agree with your point, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment and point out that one of the views being partially obstructed is the view from Fields Park. I work nearby and am a little disappointed at that, but there are other views of the bridge. Increasing density is more important than preserving every pretty view in the city.

I'm not saying this particular view is important. I haven't spent any time in Fields Park and I hadn't heard of the Fremont Bridge being an iconic view object. Maybe it is, I'm not taking a position because I just don't know.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

There are a dozens and dozens of public viewpoints that have been reviewed and preserved, many of them in parks.

I've never actually come across this document before but the Google machine is an amazing thing.

I do stand corrected, there has apparently been consideration to preserving the Fremont view from The Fields. The ESEE analysis recommends allowing development that obscures the view. The explanation:



https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/564214

I agree with their reasoning for development, besides the best view of the Fremont Bridge is always going to be along the walkway along the river.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

There are a dozens and dozens of public viewpoints that have been reviewed and preserved, many of them in parks.

I've never actually come across this document before but the Google machine is an amazing thing.

I do stand corrected, there has apparently been consideration to preserving the Fremont view from The Fields. The ESEE analysis recommends allowing development that obscures the view. The explanation:



https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/564214

These are the latest documents that cover the city's view resources:

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/644128

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/644129

In effect, this has all been carefully considered, studies, cataloged, and planning decisions have been made. WWeek is just trying to restart fires by pouring gasoline on some old embers.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

These are the latest documents that cover the city's view resources:

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/644128

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/644129

In effect, this has all been carefully considered, studies, cataloged, and planning decisions have been made. WWeek is just trying to restart fires by pouring gasoline on some old embers.

This is why I stopped reading the Willamette Week, it has really gone down hill in recent years and their journalism has turned into just drumming up comment traffic and clicks rather than reporting on good journalism.

[TowerPower]

Here you go - from page 69 of that extremely long views report:





I think it's an amazing view, and worth preserving, and I don't live somewhere that will be affected. It's a public resource, and is more important than the private housing that will be provided by this building. As someone rightly pointed out in the article, the Fremont Bridge could be considered the most expensive piece of art in Portland (right up there with St. Johns).

[justrmor]

I think Affordable Housing is a bigger issue than what views are preserved in a public park.

[maccoinnich]

The city made the policy choice not to protect the view of the Fremont Bridge from the Fields Park in the new Central City Plan. But even if they had made the opposite choice it wouldn’t affect this project, which is subject to the zoning that has been in effect for almost 10 years, and not the zoning that will come into effect in May.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by justrmor

I think Affordable Housing is a bigger issue than what views are preserved in a public park.

Are they really building affordable housing at that waterfront location?

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by Leo

Are they really building affordable housing at that waterfront location?

The way I understand it, 20% would need to be reserved for low-income residents with the inclusionary zoning rules.

Even without it, building more housing is the only way we're going to move the needle on affordability. We're not keeping up with the people who continue to move here. In the Washington County Comprehensive Plan, there is a need for 14,000 affordable units in the westside suburbs alone. I shake my head at the argument that middle/high income apartments and condos don't impact affordability. When there isn't middle and high income housing, people live in units that otherwise might be affordable to low-income residents.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by subterranean

The way I understand it, 20% would need to be reserved for low-income residents with the inclusionary zoning rules.

This project was submitted before the IZ rules came into effect, one year ago today. To date there hasn't been a single Central City project submitted for design review that would be subject to IZ.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

This project was submitted before the IZ rules came into effect, one year ago today. To date there hasn't been a single Central City project submitted for design review that would be subject to IZ.

I didn't realize it was before. Still, my latter point stands.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by subterranean

I didn't realize it was before. Still, my latter point stands.

Without the requirement that they build below-market apartments, they are just going to build high-end apartments. That's where the profit margins are, especially at a waterfront location. I suppose at some point, there will be trickle-down effect that helps affordable housing, but that doesn't in itself mean that we are all going to be glad for everything that gets built just to have more. There are still many places to build, and regrettable building choices don't just get knocked down at the next housing downturn.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by Leo

Without the requirement that they build below-market apartments, they are just going to build high-end apartments. That's where the profit margins are, especially at a waterfront location. I suppose at some point, there will be trickle-down effect that helps affordable housing, but that doesn't in itself mean that we are all going to be glad for everything that gets built just to have more. There are still many places to build, and regrettable building choices don't just get knocked down at the next housing downturn.

I didn't make a value judgment about whether or not this particular project should get built on that location, but building more units is the only way to at least keep prices stable no matter the intended beneficiaries' income brackets. 270 units is a big chunk of demand for one building. That's 270 households not competing for existing housing stock.

There is most certainly a trickle down effect if building can keep up with in-migration. There could eventually be an equilibrium, where costs outpace rents, but we're a long ways from that. And what we have right now are 10's of thousands of extremely rent-burdened households (spending more than 50% of HH income on rent/mortgages) because of the competition from middle income families. This info is all readily available from HUD CHAS data and can be found in our local Consolidated Plans.

What I find so appalling about this particular project is the hypocrisy of the NIMBYs. Just blows my mind. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, and even if I want to preserve the view shed, I almost want this thing to go through just to stick it to those self-righteous assholes. There's my value judgment.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by subterranean

what i find so appalling about this particular project is the hypocrisy of the nimbys. Just blows my mind. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, and even if i want to preserve the view shed, i almost want this thing to go through just to stick it to those self-righteous assholes. There's my value judgment.

word.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by subterranean

I didn't make a value judgment about whether or not this particular project should get built on that location, but building more units is the only way to at least keep prices stable no matter the intended beneficiaries' income brackets. 270 units is a big chunk of demand for one building. That's 270 households not competing for existing housing stock.

There is most certainly a trickle down effect if building can keep up with in-migration. There could eventually be an equilibrium, where costs outpace rents, but we're a long ways from that. And what we have right now are 10's of thousands of extremely rent-burdened households (spending more than 50% of HH income on rent/mortgages) because of the competition from middle income families. This info is all readily available from HUD CHAS data and can be found in our local Consolidated Plans.

What I find so appalling about this particular project is the hypocrisy of the NIMBYs. Just blows my mind. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, and even if I want to preserve the view shed, I almost want this thing to go through just to stick it to those self-righteous assholes. There's my value judgment.

Well, those self-righteous assholes will just tell you where you can stick your value judgement, so besides letting off some ironic self-righteous steam, I'm not sure what this accomplishes ..

We each have our pet peeves ... Personally, I'd much rather they tear down so-called "historic" buildings in order to provide space for new housing. IMHO, the place to go tall and mixed-income would have been Slabtown. No public views to protect, and virtually no homeowners to play NIMBY. It's as close to a clean slate as we will get near downtown Portland.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by Leo

Well, those self-righteous assholes will just tell you where you can stick your value judgement, so besides letting off some ironic self-righteous steam, I'm not sure what this accomplishes ..

We each have our pet peeves ... Personally, I'd much rather they tear down so-called "historic" buildings in order to provide space for new housing. IMHO, the place to go tall and mixed-income would have been Slabtown. No public views to protect, and virtually no homeowners to play NIMBY. It's as close to a clean slate as we will get near downtown Portland.

Did you read the article posted above ("A fight over Portland's Skyline is Raging")? Brenneke has been trying to build in slab town for 6 years now...to much opposition.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by subterranean

Did you read the article posted above ("A fight over Portland's Skyline is Raging")? Brenneke has been trying to build in slab town for 6 years now...to much opposition.

Brenneke, the developer behind the almost universally despised Yard building? Who, despite the reaction he got from the Yard, decided to take on a building with a requirement for a public square? It does not surprise me that he’s running into problems...

He has not been trying to build this for six years. The article says he didn’t even buy the land until 2015. He anticipates his project will complete in 2021, 6 years from 2015, and he finds it ludicrous that it should take six years of planning and execution. Six years from planning to flipping doesn’t sound unreasonable to me.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by Leo

Brenneke, the developer behind the almost universally despised Yard building? Who, despite the reaction he got from the Yard, decided to take on a building with a requirement for a public square? It does not surprise me that he’s running into problems...

He has not been trying to build this for six years. The article says he didn’t even buy the land until 2015. He anticipates his project will complete in 2021, 6 years from 2015, and he finds it ludicrous that it should take six years of planning and execution. Six years from planning to flipping doesn’t sound unreasonable to me.

I've met the guy and he's a bit of a sleaze, but 6 years is still ridiculous. A lot of Portlanders like to think that private property is public property.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by subterranean

I've met the guy and he's a bit of a sleaze, but 6 years is still ridiculous. A lot of Portlanders like to think that private property is public property.

Doesn’t it take like 2-3 years to design and build a truly custom single-family house? (I’m not talking about a house in a subdivision where you get to pick out countertops, but an architect-designed custom house on a single plot of land that still needs permits). 6 years for planning, designing, and constructing a full-block building does not seem long to me.

This particular private property came with explict obligations for a public square; it was part of the deal. If you sign up for this kind of thing but are not good at it, of course you will encounter delays. And if the guy seems like a bit of a sleaze when you meet him, that doesn’t speed things up.

[subterranean]

I've worked in multifamily housing development outside of Portland for more than a decade and I've never seen a project take 6 years. A project usually goes from well-fleshed idea to completion within 2 years. Maybe 3 years tops depending on certain variables.