Burnside One | 350' | 30 floors | Proposed

[Socinus]

Originally Posted by pdxsg34

Pre-Application Conference Notice

Ahh, the classic example of a serious building submission and not a publicity stunt, the 1/5 of a tower devoted to a long hallway between separate structures.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by Socinus

Ahh, the classic example of a serious building submission and not a publicity stunt, the 1/5 of a tower devoted to a long hallway between separate structures.

10' floor to floor seems perfect!

[PhillyPDX]

Can someone explain what a potential motive for a “publicity stunt” is here? What might the developer gain?

[FiveOverPun]

Originally Posted by PhillyPDX

Can someone explain what a potential motive for a “publicity stunt” is here? What might the developer gain?

“People keep getting mad at developers for not building affordable housing, but look: we’re trying. It’s not actually our fault. If you want affordable housing, you’re going to have to do something about zoning and historic preservation first.”

[Delaney]

Originally Posted by PhillyPDX

Can someone explain what a potential motive for a “publicity stunt” is here? What might the developer gain?

Ask for something extreme with hopes of getting something in between that is more than what is allowed? Who knows. But it is an irresponsible waste of time that grabs headlines and points fingers rather than working on real solutions to provide more housing. Access Architecture should have advised their client to rethink their strategy. There are other sites that are more suited to this kind of development with plenty of FAR and height that should be discussed. The vacant full block at NW Glisan and Broadway comes to mind - it is owned by Prosper Portland, has 6:1 FAR and 250' of available height before any bonuses, is adjacent to transit and services, and could draft off of momentum from the post office masterplan. That is just one of MANY available sites the public owns. Fiddling while Rome burns.

[sopdx]

30 story affordable housing pre app meeting

https://djcoregon.com/news/2023/08/2...tious-project/

[Tykendo]

Mr. Rystadt presents the city planners with a fantastic proposal to make a real dent in affordable housing , and faces the usual " blah blah " rhetoric that stops positive growth from happening again and again. The only thing the planning office should be concerned with during this crisis we, and other major cities , have , is whether he can get it built , or not. As long as the design can be safely built to withstand a major seismic event, get the guy the ok's he needs to get the project rolling. And the sooner the better. We don't have all day , and a pizza , to wait out this situation. Without acting now, and fast, it will only grow worse. If he can get this project paid for, the Planning commission needs to give him the "GO", and get the bleep out of his way. I don't care how tall it is , we need affordable units NOW.

[Tykendo]

The planners are worried about the Saturday Market, and other events at Waterfront Park. Hellooooooo. We have people who can't afford to get their own apartment under current so called "Fair Market" housing pricing , and these guys are worried about a weekend event. Their priorities seem to be somewhat skewed.

[maccoinnich]

The heights for the site were set about 50 years ago, and development review planners don't have any ability under city code to change them.

And I don't begrudge the planners for identifying the constraints on the site. I'd love to see that site developed... but regardless of the height of the building it's extremely constrained, with no possible construction access from the 2nd, Burnside and 1st sides. That's a normal kind of a thing to discuss a Pre-Application Conference.

[uncommon.name]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

The heights for the site were set about 50 years ago, and development review planners don't have any ability under city code to change them.

And I don't begrudge the planners for identifying the constraints on the site. I'd love to see that site developed... but regardless of the height of the building it's extremely constrained, with no possible construction access from the 2nd, Burnside and 1st sides. That's a normal kind of a thing to discuss a Pre-Application Conference.

Realistically, what would it take to get the City Council to re-evaluate the height limits for Portland and come into this century with what would serve the City of Portland better. There is a lot of building/development reform that needs done in Portland in general. There is so much red-tape to even get a project off the ground here that many developers just give up.

[maccoinnich]

The zoning for the central was just redone as part of Central City 2035, and it did include some large increases in height (i.e. south end of the transit mall went up to 460', the Pearl south of Lovejoy went from 150' max to 250'). I think it would be a good idea for the city council to revisit the Central City plan, if only because of all the impacts to the Central City since 2020... but also given that nothing is being built immediately outside of the Skidmore/Old Town historic district I don't think rezoning the district would make development that much more likely.

[sopdx]

Rystadt mentioned the quarter block at 3rd and Oak as an alternative site. It is still owned by Toyoko Inn (spell checker changed it to Toyota) if you all remember that project.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by sopdx

Rystadt mentioned the quarter block at 3rd and Oak as an alternative site. It is still owned by Toyota Inn if you all remember that project.

OH, yeah, you mean the Toyoko Inn. Here's the link for that project on Next Portland. That would be a good spot.

I can't help wondering if that location was the plan all along, and Rystadt proposed the first location because he wanted to get a serious conversation about heights and restrictions started. If so, kudos to him.

[pdxsg34]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

OH, yeah, you mean the Toyoko Inn. Here's the link for that project on Next Portland. That would be a good spot.

I can't help wondering if that location was the plan all along, and Rystadt proposed the first location because he wanted to get a serious conversation about heights and restrictions started. If so, kudos to him.

If I recall, the site of the Toyoko Inn proposal has some underlying agreements with the Police Block to the east regarding a commitment to build a parking garage for that block under any new proposal (i think?), which has deterred many from building there and why its been empty for so long. Potentially another interesting hurdle the developer would have to climb over.

Regarding the Burnside One site, could construction staging take place on the empty lots to the south (1st and Ash, 2nd and Oak)? Would that alleviate the construction concerns, is it more about transport and actual feasibility?

Correction: According to WWeek in 2017:

In 2005, the PDC offered the land—for free!—to developer Trammell Crow Co. to build a condo tower. Unfortunately, in all the excitement, the PDC demolished an underground parking garage belonging to the building next door, on the assurance that the new owners would rebuild it.

TCC pulled out of the deal, leaving the property "encumbered," which meant whoever bought the place would have obligations to a third party—specifically, that new garage.

Perhaps the Toyoko Inn developers didn't do their due diligence on the site...

[PhillyPDX]

Don't developers usually own the land before they build on it? What is this proposal for a building, then shop around for a site?

[sopdx]

Developer vows to take 30-story affordable housing tower plan to Portland City Council


https://www.oregonlive.com/business/...y-council.html

[Tykendo]

You go Dog. Go at them, and be relentless. You're bringing a plan to actually put a dent in a MUCH needed need. The sooner the better. Time is of the essence . Bravo!