RiverPlace Redevelopment - Central City Master Plan | Proposed

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

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.

Max rent for a studio targeted at 80% AMI is $1,046/mo.

[maccoinnich]

RiverPlace high-rises rile neighbors



Downtown residents are preparing to object to two proposals to build high-rise towers near the west bank of the Willamette River when the City Council considers updating the Center City Plan on Thursday.

Mayor Ted Wheeler already supports the larger of the two proposals, which would replace a failed health club and low-rise apartments in the RiverPlace development with eight new residential buildings, including one up to 400 feet high. He says downtown is the best place to increase residential density to accommodate newcomers, and notes the city now requires that all new residential buildings with more than 20 units to set a certain percent aside as affordable housing or pay a fee.

"Downtown is the most logical place to grow. All of the growth we can accommodate there is growth that doesn't have to go into neighborhoods," Wheeler says of the proposal, which is being pitched by NBP Capital, a local company with international connections.

..continues at the Portland Tribune.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

..continues at the Portland Tribune.

The irony in that photo is the word "downtown" in their sign. It isn't like that word promotes quaint single family homes and small single story businesses. These people are literally surrounded by towers in any direction they look.

Edit: Reading the article, these people aren't complaining about the possibility for towers, these people are complaining about the possibility of towers in their view from their towers. Or should I say "blocking their view." Nothing annoys me more than someone who moves into a tower in the middle of downtown and thinks that there will never be any new buildings built around them and their views will be preserved forever.

[ORNative]

I do have to say that I've always been in favor of the step down zoning heights. It makes a better visual from the east bank photos of the skyline and it makes the waterfront human scale. That said, I also think that the arbitrary 460' height limit further inland is foolish. Developers can charge more for better views (encouraging height) and the highest floors generally have those views, unless we have lid of uniformly tall buildings and nobody can see the mountain. Take the Porter Hotel, for example. Why in the world would Hilton want to build a 5-Star hotel on that block? Zero views of the river or Mt. Hood once the Courthouse is built. I would expect that room rates would by much better if it were tall enough to overlook the surrounding buildings and see the river, city lights or Mt. Hood.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by ORNative

Take the Porter Hotel, for example. Why in the world would Hilton want to build a 5-Star hotel on that block? Zero views of the river or Mt. Hood once the Courthouse is built. I would expect that room rates would by much better if it were tall enough to overlook the surrounding buildings and see the river, city lights or Mt. Hood.

Of course they would, but this is not why zoning rules exist. Rich people will get the views they want even without any rules. The rules are for the rest of us.

[maccoinnich]

City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly’s Vote Blocks Plans for Kengo Kuma-Designed Skyscrapers on Portland Waterfront
Portland City Council voted down a proposal to increase the height at Riverplace and with it 500 affordable units. A day later, Eudaly signals she's open to reconsidering.



Portland City Council on Wednesday rejected a proposal to raise height restrictions along the Willamette River just south of downtown, despite the tantalizing possibility of 500 units of affordable housing and a concept designed by an internationally renowned architect.

City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly cast the deciding vote. It was a significant vote— in part because she campaigned on the issue of housing affordability. (And it was the rare decision at Council decided by such a close vote.)

By this afternoon, Eudaly indicated she's willing to reconsider, though she may not necessarily approve the height increases.

The new vote will take place March 22.

...continues at the Willamette Week.

[urbanlife]

Wow, this council is turning out to be the complete opposite of what they should be. Anyone in Portland should be looking to clean house and kick out each one of them because they are all turning out to be completely useless.

[subterranean]

Wow, what a sorry bunch.

[2oh1]

How much of the cluelessness of city council is due to a lack of leadership from the mayor?

I ask because when Vera Katz was mayor, she got things done. Was city council so much better back in her day? Or is the bigger issue a lack of leadership from the mayor now?

...sigh.

Portland needs the next Vera Katz.

[johnliu]

It sounds like Eudaly's no vote was based on a concern that major height changes should be reviewed and made through the planning process, rather than brought by developers directly to council.

"Eudaly voted with [Fritz], citing concerns over the process: The developer had come to City Council to increase the height limits after the city's Planning Commission had weighed in on the Central City 2035 plan.

"I've expressed my concerns for a tacit approval for a development project that has not gone through the proper channels for approval," she said Thursday at Council. "I've asked for commitments from the mayor that any project that develops on that site, particularly if they plan to build to the maximum heights, goes through the master plan process, design overlay and community engagement than [sic] any other development would." "

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.

There is another thing I've been wondering about. I think much of the support for this project here is based on the architect involved and the renderings of floaty vertical forests towering over verdant public spaces. That is the case for me anyway. If it were a ho hum architect and the renderings showed dully generic buildings with gray concrete public spaces, would there be the same level of support? Maybe not. So how can council approve the new heights based on the gorgeous renderings but not get bait and switched? Is there a way to handle that risk?

[MarkDaMan]

Oh man, I love(d) Vera. Vera came from the Oregon Legislature and was the first woman Speaker of the Oregon House. Her experience in that venue made her masterful in the commission form of Portland government. She understood it took compromise and three votes to get things passed and never had a problem waiving a carrot to get a vote in her corner. I'm honored to have met and talked with her a few times. I have never seen a mayor since quite as dynamic as her.

...

Back to the topic I encourage everyone to send a polite and informed message to Commissioner Eudaly to encourage her to vote yes in the revote.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by johnliu

There is another thing I've been wondering about. I think much of the support for this project here is based on the architect involved and the renderings of floaty vertical forests towering over verdant public spaces. That is the case for me anyway. If it were a ho hum architect and the renderings showed dully generic buildings with gray concrete public spaces, would there be the same level of support? Maybe not. So how can council approve the new heights based on the gorgeous renderings but not get bait and switched? Is there a way to handle that risk?

It would be nice if the central city allowed unlimited height through a discretionary process that emphasized iconic design and public space. Most major cities allow that kind of process.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

Oh man, I love(d) Vera. Vera came from the Oregon Legislature and was the first woman Speaker of the Oregon House. Her experience in that venue made her masterful in the commission form of Portland government. She understood it took compromise and three votes to get things passed and never had a problem waiving a carrot to get a vote in her corner. I'm honored to have met and talked with her a few times. I have never seen a mayor since quite as dynamic as her.

...

Back to the topic I encourage everyone to send a polite and informed message to Commissioner Eudaly to encourage her to vote yes in the revote.

Reading this post really makes me miss that woman, by far one of the best mayors Portland has ever had. I would love to see another mayor that could hold a candle to here, Portland could really use that kind of leadership. I had thought Wheeler could potentially be that type of mayor, but watching his first term, I am not entirely sure. I am still giving him time to prove himself because these are big issues to tackle, but I haven't been too impressed with what he has done so far.

Eudaly on the other hand seems to be a bad pick, I was rooting for Stuart Emmons because with him being an architect and having strong ties to low income housing and transitional housing, he would be a good person to have on the city council.

I personally am not buying the reasoning for shooting down this proposal. The master plan is really important, but so is housing, if a developer says they want to increase the height and build a bunch of affordable housing, then you say yes to that and make an amendment that requires key things to be met in order to get the height increase. The ball was in the City Council's court to really champion a great and probably iconic development and add a good chunk of affordable housing.

[johnliu]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

It would be nice if the central city allowed unlimited height through a discretionary process that emphasized iconic design and public space. Most major cities allow that kind of process.

I think a pathway like that would be great.

[tworivers]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Reading this post really makes me miss that woman, by far one of the best mayors Portland has ever had. I would love to see another mayor that could hold a candle to here, Portland could really use that kind of leadership. I had thought Wheeler could potentially be that type of mayor, but watching his first term, I am not entirely sure. I am still giving him time to prove himself because these are big issues to tackle, but I haven't been too impressed with what he has done so far.

Eudaly on the other hand seems to be a bad pick, I was rooting for Stuart Emmons because with him being an architect and having strong ties to low income housing and transitional housing, he would be a good person to have on the city council.

I personally am not buying the reasoning for shooting down this proposal. The master plan is really important, but so is housing, if a developer says they want to increase the height and build a bunch of affordable housing, then you say yes to that and make an amendment that requires key things to be met in order to get the height increase. The ball was in the City Council's court to really champion a great and probably iconic development and add a good chunk of affordable housing.

Completely agree also about Katz. She was tough as nails and had a visionary streak in her, something I miss dearly. Wheeler is too much of a trust fund type to be what Portland needs right now -- clearly a relatively decent guy, but lacking the sort of foundation in real life struggles that Vera brought to the table. At least his term is shaping up to be less than the total failure that Hale's ended up being.

And, yeah, that was an unfortunate move on Eudaly's part. However, if you knew just how much she hates the "supply" argument when it comes to housing -- combined with a near-complete lack of understanding of, or interest in, contemporary architecture -- it's not that surprising.

Emmons is awful, though. Just take a look at his grotesque pandering to the Stop Demolishing Portland group on FB. Ouch.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by tworivers

Completely agree also about Katz. She was tough as nails and had a visionary streak in her, something I miss dearly. Wheeler is too much of a trust fund type to be what Portland needs right now -- clearly a relatively decent guy, but lacking the sort of foundation in real life struggles that Vera brought to the table. At least his term is shaping up to be less than the total failure that Hale's ended up being.

And, yeah, that was an unfortunate move on Eudaly's part. However, if you knew just how much she hates the "supply" argument when it comes to housing -- combined with a near-complete lack of understanding of, or interest in, contemporary architecture -- it's not that surprising.

Emmons is awful, though. Just take a look at his grotesque pandering to the Stop Demolishing Portland group on FB. Ouch.

I don't agree with you about Emmons, Stop Demolishing Portland is just a group that is tired of seeing homes torn down and being replaced by huge $750K houses. I get that frustration, at the same sense we should be pushing for more organic infill rather than giant single family house replacements and large apartment buildings. Plus with Emmon's architecture background, it would be nice having someone who understands that field sitting on the council.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I don't agree with you about Emmons, Stop Demolishing Portland is just a group that is tired of seeing homes torn down and being replaced by huge $750K houses. I get that frustration, at the same sense we should be pushing for more organic infill rather than giant single family house replacements and large apartment buildings. Plus with Emmon's architecture background, it would be nice having someone who understands that field sitting on the council.

We already have Fritz and Eudaly on the council. I can't handle any more anti-development people. We might as well turn into the Bay Area if we get any worse.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

We already have Fritz and Eudaly on the council. I can't handle any more anti-development people. We might as well turn into the Bay Area if we get any worse.

I wouldn't consider Emmons anti-development, he would have been way better than Eudaly.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I wouldn't consider Emmons anti-development, he would have been way better than Eudaly.

He seems to targeting the "old portland" residents who dislike change for votes. He also is quoted as disliking the changes happening on Division Street, which seemed to be concern about parking requirements. Very Fritz-ian. Seems anti-development to me. Willamette Week: Architect and City Council Candidate Stuart Emmons Makes a Play for the Defenders of Old Portland

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

He seems to targeting the "old portland" residents who dislike change for votes. He also is quoted as disliking the changes happening on Division Street, which seemed to be concern about parking requirements. Very Fritz-ian. Seems anti-development to me. Willamette Week: Architect and City Council Candidate Stuart Emmons Makes a Play for the Defenders of Old Portland

Willamette Week has really gone down hill, I wouldn't read too much into anything they produce these days. As for Division, I don't blame him, we basically saw a bunch of overpriced apartments go up with no parking and rent to people who most definitely have cars and drive. This wouldn't have been an issue if the apartment buildings that were going up were marketed towards those that would actually bike and take transit rather than own a car, but that would have required asking much less in rents.

Old Portland voters are still a major block of voters in the city as it slowly prices many of them out. It would be good to have a city council member that was actually pushing for more affordable residential options and making it a point to get people off the streets.

Besides, calling an architect anti-development is like saying someone doesn't want to the job they are licensed to do. Emmons has always focused on those that are less fortunate, and lets be honest, less homeless people and less people being priced out is a good thing for Portland.