HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Downtown & City of Portland

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 7:13 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripcity0 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 11:19 PM
BrG BrG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 339
Quote:
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)

Last edited by BrG; Mar 20, 2018 at 11:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 11:34 PM
subterranean's Avatar
subterranean subterranean is offline
homesick alien
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,553
The proposal calls for 2,617 units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2018, 11:50 PM
BrG BrG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean View Post
The proposal calls for 2,617 units.
Sorry.. 500 *affordable units. Thanks for pointing out the omission.

Last edited by BrG; Mar 21, 2018 at 12:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2018, 1:45 PM
johnliu johnliu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 170
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2018, 4:21 PM
BrG BrG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnliu View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2018, 4:34 PM
NESteve NESteve is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 70
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2018, 5:45 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by NESteve View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2018, 2:22 AM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 6,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripcity0 View Post
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.

Quote:
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)
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2018, 3:53 PM
subterranean's Avatar
subterranean subterranean is offline
homesick alien
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,553
Good news.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2018, 5:16 PM
AcmeGreg AcmeGreg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 107
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!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2018, 3:45 PM
RED_PDXer RED_PDXer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcmeGreg View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2018, 1:20 AM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 6,163
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

www.twitter.com/maccoinnich
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2018, 5:13 PM
AcmeGreg AcmeGreg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 107
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2018, 4:08 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcmeGreg View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted May 29, 2018, 6:13 PM
pdxsg34 pdxsg34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 32
EA activity posted on PortlandMaps...

Quote:
5-24-2018 - 18-177182-000-00-EA 0150 SW MONTGOMERY ST, 97201 - Proposal is for a master plan development of approx. 8 acres.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2018, 1:51 AM
Natural Natural is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 28
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.

Last edited by Natural; Jun 10, 2018 at 4:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 8:09 PM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 6,163
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

www.twitter.com/maccoinnich
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2019, 7:35 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccoinnich View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2019, 3:44 PM
Natural Natural is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Downtown & City of Portland
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:05 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.