Broadway Tower | 269' 8" | 19 floors | Complete

[maccoinnich]

Project had a design advice request hearing yesterday, and the Design Commission loved it. Not sharing that opinion were a couple residents of the Benson Tower, who had a long list of reasons why the project would be perfectly fine somewhere else, but is inappropriate for that site. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a "Preserve the Park Blocks" group emerge.

It sounds like the schedule for this is pretty aggressive. They want to submit a full design review package pretty soon, with the goal of gaining approval in the spring and being under construction in May (!).

Discussed at length was how they would achieve the FAR required and what the public benefit might be for allowing a transfer through a Central City Masterplan. One option suggested by the applicant was to develop the RX zoned portion of the site with a building that would include 30% affordable housing (not received well by one of the Benson Tower residents). There are apparently four historic properties that they might transfer FAR from, one of which is the Gerding Theater.

[cityscapes]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Not sharing that opinion were a couple residents of the Benson Tower, who had a long list of reasons why the project would be perfectly fine somewhere else, but is inappropriate for that site. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a "Preserve the Park Blocks" group emerge.

What reasons did the people in the 26 story building have in opposition to the 19 story proposal several blocks away? In a downtown... Of a big city...

I always dread conducting neighborhood meetings. It's hard to hold my tongue because those posting notices and mailings really do bring out some of the craziest NIMBY's.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Project had a design advice request hearing yesterday, and the Design Commission loved it. Not sharing that opinion were a couple residents of the Benson Tower, who had a long list of reasons why the project would be perfectly fine somewhere else, but is inappropriate for that site. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a "Preserve the Park Blocks" group emerge.

Wow. That's nuts.

Benson Tower is relatively recent construction. Preserving their views is ridiculous since their tower took away others' views. It's even more ridiculous being that the site is on BROADWAY. Broadway is the perfect site for this tower. It's a shame it won't be taller.

Preserve Downtown? That'd be hilarious. Preserve a high rise district from a high rise. Then again, it was equally ridiculous in the Pearl.

[maccoinnich]

[BrG]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Project had a design advice request hearing yesterday, and the Design Commission loved it. Not sharing that opinion were a couple residents of the Benson Tower, who had a long list of reasons why the project would be perfectly fine somewhere else, but is inappropriate for that site. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a "Preserve the Park Blocks" group emerge.

It sounds like the schedule for this is pretty aggressive. They want to submit a full design review package pretty soon, with the goal of gaining approval in the spring and being under construction in May (!).

Discussed at length was how they would achieve the FAR required and what the public benefit might be for allowing a transfer through a Central City Masterplan. One option suggested by the applicant was to develop the RX zoned portion of the site with a building that would include 30% affordable housing (not received well by one of the Benson Tower residents). There are apparently four historic properties that they might transfer FAR from, one of which is the Gerding Theater.

Wow. They must be way down the pipeline in their schedule. With 6 month permit review times being on the short side, I'd have to think they are in mid to late CD's. Good thing the Commissioners like it.

[maccoinnich]

GBD Architects have submitted the Broadway Tower for Design Review:

Design review for a new 19-story high-rise mixed-use building with a combination hotel, office and retail (ground floor) uses. Parking provided in a below-grade structure. Three modifications requested: loading stall size requirement; bicycle parking stall size; and exceeding glazing minimum for entire site, except for north and south elevations.

[maccoinnich]

Request for Response [PDF].

[maccoinnich]

Notice of a Public Hearing [PDF]

[maccoinnich]

GBD Architects have submitted a portion of the Broadway Tower for building permit review:

Excavation and Shoring for new commercial high rise structure with retail, office and hotel uses with 4 floors of below grade parking

[maccoinnich]

Staff Report [PDF], which recommends approval.

[maccoinnich]

Drawings [PDF - 58 MB].

[maccoinnich]

[maccoinnich]

Also, this project went before the Design Commission on Thursday. The audio hasn't been posted yet, so I'm not sure if it was approved, but the staff presentation [PDF - 3MB] was... and holy shit is the developer being extorted by the City. In order to gain approval for the FAR transfer they are offering a $625,000 contribution to the Affordable Housing Fund and a $375,000 contribution to Portland Parks & Recreation. (That is on top of, and not instead of, the millions of dollars in SDCs the project will pay).

I have two objections to this.

Firstly, I'm skeptical that it's legal for the city to demand it. Nowhere in 33.510.255 does it state that any money or public benefit has be obtained for an FAR transfer to be approved. I'm sure the applicants have come to the same conclusion, and decided that an appeal to City Council and possibly LUBA will delay the project.

Secondly, one of the major reasons for allowing FAR transfers is to encourage the preservation of historic buildings that have unused FAR. If we make it so difficult and/or expensive to transfer FAR away from buildings then it starts to make more sense to just demolish the buildings and redevelop the site to its highest and best use.

[innovativethinking]

Well it just comes to show you that this city HATES high rises and that's a perfect example demonstrating such. Damn shame

[maccoinnich]

No it doesn't.

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

No it doesn't.

How so? Because to me it just indicates a tactic to strong arm a developer to the point it might scare them off. Just find it unfair

[maccoinnich]

The issue is about FAR, not height. The height is allowed by right.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Also, this project went before the Design Commission on Thursday. The audio hasn't been posted yet, so I'm not sure if it was approved, but the staff presentation [PDF - 3MB] was... and holy shit is the developer being extorted by the City. In order to gain approval for the FAR transfer they are offering a $625,000 contribution to the Affordable Housing Fund and a $375,000 contribution to Portland Parks & Recreation. (That is on top of, and not instead of, the millions of dollars in SDCs the project will pay).

I have two objections to this.

Firstly, I'm skeptical that it's legal for the city to demand it. Nowhere in 33.510.255 does it state that any money or public benefit has be obtained for an FAR transfer to be approved. I'm sure the applicants have come to the same conclusion, and decided that an appeal to City Council and possibly LUBA will delay the project.

Secondly, one of the major reasons for allowing FAR transfers is to encourage the preservation of historic buildings that have unused FAR. If we make it so difficult and/or expensive to transfer FAR away from buildings then it starts to make more sense to just demolish the buildings and redevelop the site to its highest and best use.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that there were stipulations spelled out to gain the additional FAR, and that a contribution towards affordable housing and/or parks were just two possibilities. Since there's no historic building on this site, wouldn't they have to buy the air rights to some other historic building nearby instead?

Personally, I think the current FARs downtown are absurdly low for an area that is supposed to absorb a big chunk of the metro area's growth over the next few decades.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Also, this project went before the Design Commission on Thursday. The audio hasn't been posted yet, so I'm not sure if it was approved, but the staff presentation [PDF - 3MB] was... and holy shit is the developer being extorted by the City. In order to gain approval for the FAR transfer they are offering a $625,000 contribution to the Affordable Housing Fund and a $375,000 contribution to Portland Parks & Recreation. (That is on top of, and not instead of, the millions of dollars in SDCs the project will pay).

I have two objections to this.

Firstly, I'm skeptical that it's legal for the city to demand it. Nowhere in 33.510.255 does it state that any money or public benefit has be obtained for an FAR transfer to be approved. I'm sure the applicants have come to the same conclusion, and decided that an appeal to City Council and possibly LUBA will delay the project.

Secondly, one of the major reasons for allowing FAR transfers is to encourage the preservation of historic buildings that have unused FAR. If we make it so difficult and/or expensive to transfer FAR away from buildings then it starts to make more sense to just demolish the buildings and redevelop the site to its highest and best use.

First one about the new renderings, I am really liking this tower, though I do miss that it no longer has the cross glazing. I kind of liked that about the older design, but overall it is a classy looking building for that area.

The second part is that it is a bit messed up for the city to try to hold FAR transfers hostage over these extra fees. It is definitely overstepping their boundaries with this one and should not be tolerated. Besides, what would this money even go to that the city could point to as being concrete other than letting the homeless set up camp in city owned parking garages? I am so done with this city council and cannot wait to see a bunch of them get replaced.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that there were stipulations spelled out to gain the additional FAR, and that a contribution towards affordable housing and/or parks were just two possibilities. Since there's no historic building on this site, wouldn't they have to buy the air rights to some other historic building nearby instead?

The Broadway Tower has an FAR of 15.43:1. Here's how they're achieving it:

• The site has an automatic base FAR of 9:1
• The site is eligible for bonuses of up to 3:1. One of the ways to achieve this bonus is indeed by paying into an affordable housing fund, or to dedicate open space, but that's not how they're getting it. They're providing bike locker rooms, per 33.510.210 C.8
• The remaining 3.43:1 is being transferred, either from the Armory Building or the Customs House. The developers presumably intend to pay the owner of whichever building they transfer from. They are then paying money to the City for the ability to do this. I'll buy a beer for anyone who can find something in the current Comp Plan, Central City Plan or Zoning Code that states you have to pay for the right to transfer FAR.

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Personally, I think the current FARs downtown are absurdly low for an area that is supposed to absorb a big chunk of the metro area's growth over the next few decades.

I agree. The Central City FAR limits were largely set in 1980, at a time when the bus mall (as it was then) didn't extend south to PSU or north to Union Station, and none the five light rail lines serving Downtown had been constructed. After billions of dollars in investment in public transit, it's amazing to me that we haven't adjusted the FAR limits.