RiverPlace Redevelopment - Central City Master Plan | Proposed

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by subterranean

Why would they engage a big name architectural firm and expend predevelopment dollars if it were that far out? You'd think they'd proceed at the limited heights before waiting that long. No developer in their right mind is operating on that sort of timeline.

well it is Portland? who knows

[Derek]

I just have a feeling it’ll be like the James Beard Market and fizzle out or at least be scaled way down over time.

[MarkDaMan]

When The Strand was originally proposed it was to be two(?) taller towers instead of the three shorter buildings that were built because the condo and apartment owners further west didn't want their Mt. Hood views disturbed. They raised enough of a stink to make that change happen.

I don't know if those voices are as powerful now as they were a decade ago, but I don't expect a smooth, conflict free approval of higher limits in Riverplace.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

When The Strand was originally proposed it was to be two(?) taller towers instead of the three shorter buildings that were built because the condo and apartment owners further west didn't want their Mt. Hood views disturbed. They raised enough of a stink to make that change happen.

I don't know if those voices are as powerful now as they were a decade ago, but I don't expect a smooth, conflict free approval of higher limits in Riverplace.

I wonder if the political dynamics are different now though? We're 8 months into the IZ program, and there still hasn't been a single Central City project submitted under the new code. Allowing the height increase would let the council argue that the policy is working.

[soleri]

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but the architect here, Kengo Kuma is responsible for the expansion at the Portland Japanese Garden. Definitely worth a look: https://www.designboom.com/architect...on-10-06-2017/

[geohiker]

Originally Posted by Derek

I just have a feeling it’ll be like the James Beard Market and fizzle out or at least be scaled way down over time.

I thought the James Beard Market was going be part the OMSI site redevelopment. Is this not the case anymore?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by geohiker

I thought the James Beard Market was going be part the OMSI site redevelopment. Is this not the case anymore?

I haven’t heard anything in months. My point was that we got so excited about the James Beard Market only to have the original concept die. I don’t want everybody to get their hopes up about this either. I’m usually not this pessimistic but this current concept seems overly ambitious.

[geohiker]

Originally Posted by Derek

I haven’t heard anything in months. My point was that we got so excited about the James Beard Market only to have the original concept die. I don’t want everybody to get their hopes up about this either. I’m usually not this pessimistic but this current concept seems overly ambitious.

Fair enough. I know I shouldn't get my hopes up, but It doesn't help that Wheeler stated he is in favor of the proposal. That significantly increased the amount of hype for me.

[Mr. Walch]

Originally Posted by Derek

I haven’t heard anything in months. My point was that we got so excited about the James Beard Market only to have the original concept die. I don’t want everybody to get their hopes up about this either. I’m usually not this pessimistic but this current concept seems overly ambitious.

I feel better about this that the James Beard Market. That was dependent on them raising millions in donor and government money which is difficult. This just needs investor money which they presumably have lines up. Of course the city council could mess it up.

That being said I have always heard the most audacious projects usually get proposed just before the crash...

[DMH]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

The site being discussed in the entire area between SW River Parkway, River Drive, SW Montgomery and Harbor Way, which includes the Douglas Apartments and the [former] Riverplace Athletic Club. The drawings I've seen don't show any vacation of the ROW, but it wouldn't be the worst idea. If nothing else it would be nice to extend the multi-use path all the way up to Montgomery (and, as part of some other project all the way to Waterfront Park).

It is bittersweet that in my lifetime, one of my early projects would be demolished to make way for something bigger and newer. I refer to the Riverplace Athletic Club, which was designed as a family Y in the 80's. But I am certainly ready and willing to see it go and be replaced by a transformative project that this one appears to be.

[dubu]

Originally Posted by soleri

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but the architect here, Kengo Kuma is responsible for the expansion at the Portland Japanese Garden. Definitely worth a look: https://www.designboom.com/architect...on-10-06-2017/

oregon needs more stuff like this. not the japanese garden thing but japanese style areas.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by Mr. Walch

That being said I have always heard the most audacious projects usually get proposed just before the crash...

This. Yes. I'd be amazed if this project translates into construction. That said, the Riverplace Athletic Club has shuttered its doors for years and there may be incentive to make something happen. I'm just surprised the developers are considering height increases. They could easily develop the same number of units without the height increase.

[Natural]

Seems like a very audacious proposal....does anyone have any background info on the owners of the property( NBP River Drive Investments)?

[Natural]

Stumbled across an article in PDX Monthly which answers my own question about NBP....

Is the vision real? Or, in developer parlance, just “eyewash”—pretty drawings to seduce politicians and jack the land value for a flip? (NBP declined to be interviewed.)

https://www.pdxmonthly.com/articles/...lt-in-portland

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by Natural

Stumbled across an article in PDX Monthly which answers my own question about NBP....

Is the vision real? Or, in developer parlance, just “eyewash”—pretty drawings to seduce politicians and jack the land value for a flip? (NBP declined to be interviewed.)

https://www.pdxmonthly.com/articles/...lt-in-portland

Even if they did flip if they can get rezoned, why is that bad? The new owner, presumably a developer, will be paying a higher price and need to redevelop at higher densities to recoup that valuation.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

Even if they did flip if they can get rezoned, why is that bad? The new owner, presumably a developer, will be paying a higher price and need to redevelop at higher densities to recoup that valuation.

Re-zoning it for some higher-value purpose may be useful.

But flipping it without some change like re-zoning doesn’t add any value. It’s just rent-seeking behavior – hogging a resource and driving value up because you’re hogging it, and for no other reason. The net result is just that the resource sits idle and unproductive.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by Leo

Re-zoning it for some higher-value purpose may be useful.

But flipping it without some change like re-zoning doesn’t add any value. It’s just rent-seeking behavior – hogging a resource and driving value up because you’re hogging it, and for no other reason. The net result is just that the resource sits idle and unproductive.

That's why I said "if" they can get it re-zoned. No successful developer will look at sexy renderings and overpay for land if it isn't zoned to support those towers. If the current owners build the political will and get the land rezoned (a timely process likely with commitments for affordable housing), and then sell for a high profit to a developer willing to utilize the new zoning with the restrictions that goes along with the up-zoning, this is a win regardless of who owns the land.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by Leo

Re-zoning it for some higher-value purpose may be useful.

But flipping it without some change like re-zoning doesn’t add any value. It’s just rent-seeking behavior – hogging a resource and driving value up because you’re hogging it, and for no other reason. The net result is just that the resource sits idle and unproductive.

Yes. And when development finally comes, the costs would have to be higher, meaning rents would have to be higher.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Yes. And when development finally comes, the costs would have to be higher, meaning rents would have to be higher.

Currently a 440 square foot studio goes for $1,260 to $1,325 and that's pretty much the cheapest rent I can find down there. If new development comes, the higher zoning will come along with a covenant for a certain percentage of "affordable" units. I'd expect that a market rate studio in a high rise building will see an increase in rents over a market rate studio in a three story wood framed building, however we'd also end up with a more diverse economic mix of families with the affordable units added into the new development.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

Even if they did flip if they can get rezoned, why is that bad? The new owner, presumably a developer, will be paying a higher price and need to redevelop at higher densities to recoup that valuation.

From my own very limited experience, these kinds of renderings are getting to be more and more common when you have an owner with land in highly desirable urban locations but with very restrictive zoning. We've done these kinds of renderings in various jurisdictions in the pacific northwest to get them to upzone or change zoning on the owner's land.

Architects are there to sell a dream.