The Burnside Blog
Old Town Braces for Battle Over Height, Design
As reported by Alison Ryan in today’s Daily Journal of Commerce, developers and the Historic Landmarks Commission are bracing for a battle that could not only decide how future Old Town developments look, it could realistically decide whether some new private developments are built in Old Town at all.
Private developers, such as Brad Malsin and the Naito family (the primary land owners in Old Town) would like to see taller buildings allowed in Old Town’s heart, where the height limit currently hovers around 75 feet, but judging by feedback from Landmarks Commission, that’s going to be a hard sell to the neighborhood that hasn’t seen a new office development in a generation.
From Ryan’s article:
But, Commission Chairman Art DeMuro said, there’s already healthy development happening in the district, such as the new Mercy Corps headquarters and renovation of the White Stag Block. “Why are we all running scared?” he said. “Oh my gosh, how are we going to get development activated?”
DeMuro has certainly been responsible for a positive spark. He’s not only the chairman of the Landmarks Commission but also the developer who developed the White Stag Block, helping to lure the The University of Oregon into Old Town. Mercy Corps followed. Certainly DeMuro has as much at stake as anyone. There’s indeed other pockets of catalytic activity in Old Town, but it’s important to note that these projects are only in the planning stages and could easily be derailed. There’s talk of an Uwajimaya, Erik Sten plans a homeless access center designed by Holst Architecture, and according to Food Dude at Portland Food and Drink, Andina plans new restaurant on the corner of SW 5th and Davis. Even developer Homer William has been talking about an underground Target store topped by a few floors of housing on a vacant block adjacent to the trains station and across the street from the future home (fingers crossed on federal approval) and flagship campus of the fastest growing private arts college in America—PNCA.
Story Continues Below photo.
Still, the housing market is hurting right now, and there hasn’t been any new office space built in Old Town since One Pacific Square was completed in Ronald Reagan’s first term (1984). There’s currently more than 2 million square feet of office space under development in Portland’s Central Business District, but none in Old Town yet.
The Landmarks Commission is right to want to protect Old Town’s unique look and feel, but as Old Town has largely been unable to attract private development for a century, not allowing developers, including those who own the majority of the land in Old Town, the extra tiny boost in height that would make their projects pencil out could be a huge mistake. Many historic neighborhoods, such as West Chelsea in New York City, have enriched their built environments by allowing well designed infill that incorporates relevant, modern design that’s taller than the existing building stock. Reinvigorating Old Town is huge opportunity, and individual buildings will only be built if economically viable and will only stand the test of time if architecturally relevant.
The Historic Landmarks Commission has a tough job, but a odd track record. They’ve in part derailed a flagship Apple Store on NW 23rd and other well-designed infill projects throughout the city. Developer Randy Rapaport recently sold a large chunk of prime land in NW Portland’s Alphabet District to national developer Opus because he says he didn’t want to deal with headache.
What effect will Landmarks have on Old Town? Will Old Town reflect Portland’s bright future or the quadrant’s own blighted past? Leave your comments below.
By alison ryan on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 01:21PM PST
Height’s been a big topic for landmarks lately.
They also (coincidentally) talked about the Opus project this week…and that one’s looking likely to be approved at six stories. The team on the project (Sera Architects is the designer) has been really vocal about the fact that without the height, nothing pencils.
I do want to point out, too, that Landmarks isn’t the commission that’s guiding the code changes that’ll allow height. Planning is. But even height limits go up, it’s landmarks that approves projects in Old Town…and “allowed” is a moving target.
By Mike Thelin on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 01:29PM PST
“Without height, nothing pencils” will be the guiding mantra of all future debates surrounding development in Portland. Land prices are too expensive to built shorter buildings affordably.
By Monforts on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 02:01PM PST
True, Mike, but people are also tired of hearing the “pencil” argument. After all, Tokyo has vastly higher land prices but many high quality new, small infill projects. It’s understandable that people are skeptical when they hear developers use that stock phrase.
By Mike Thelin on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 02:08PM PST
Tokyo is the most expensive city in the world.
By intheknow on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 02:48PM PST
re: “people are also tired of hearing the “pencil” argument”
i’m sure that developers and architects would love to be able to design and build projects that didn’t pencil or meet a budget at all, for that matter – but that isn’t a reality. without huge public funds helping out every single project in the city – projects will have to continue to strive for “penciling” – for now and forever.
By on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 03:13PM PST
To clarify: I’M not tired of the pencil argument, but there is a strong reaction against it in general since it tends to be used when asking for additional FAR or height. This is often when the public is confronted with what is allowed by zoning and it freaks them out. And Tokyo is only the most extreme example of how high land prices don’t necessitate taller buildings; it does makes them less affordable as you point out. The point was simply that when you can see countless examples of good infill projects on expensive real estate around the world, it makes it harder to present the pencil argument.
I’ll be the devil’s advocate here: In an ideal world, a developer already factored in the cost of land when they did their proforma. If they paid too much for it then why should the zoning be changed? In theory the land is only worth the highest and best use of that site.
I dig the discussion, keep it coming.
By Monforts on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 04:12PM PST
Sorry that last one was me…
By intheknow on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 04:26PM PST
To speak a little about the landmarks commission: it does seem that they have grown into a group that is no longer focused on preserving great historic buildings or districts and instead into a group that lets its personal taste for the “historic” bleed into forcing new buildings to look “historic” and to shed the “look” of great buildings of the current time. every new building does build its own history. What makes one era better than another?
Equally disturbing is this quote in an article in the DJC today about the new ROSS facade downtown – “the building is getting a new, two story, facade designed to give it a more historic look. is it just me? or is something really wrong with this logic?
By moda on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 05:01PM PST
I can’t believe twenty to thirty feet of additional height would hamper the development of Old Town.
Based on city zoning information the existing fabric is comprised, on average, of only one historic building per block. There are 28 other lots designated as “contributing”. Forty lots are deemed “non-contributing” (presumably new or blighted buildings and “missing teeth” parking lots). Barely half of the lots within the district contribute to the Old Town designation.
While there are very special places within the Old Town district, the existing historical buildings will be the last to be vertically altered. The first areas of intervention will be the easily developed surface level parking lots already weakening the character of the area.
I look forward to thoughtful and innovative integration of well-conceived,contemporary buildings within a historic context. It has happened all over the world, it can here too.
By MIke Thelin on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 08:29PM PST
Welcome to the forum moda. Unfortunately, the surface level parking lots aren’t always the first developed. Surface level lots often produce more of a revenue stream than older buildings with deferred maintenance. We’ll probably lose a few buildings in Old Town before the parking lots, like the large U-Park between 3rd and 4th Avenues, are redeveloped.
By Stuart on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 11:35PM PST
Wait! I’m new to Portland but did I just read this correctly? Art DeMuro is a developer in Old Town but he’s also the chairman of the commission that decides what every building in Old Town will look like? Where are we? Sicily?
By andrew on Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 09:21PM PST
Oh, it’s worse than that…he’s the developer of the white stag…a cutting edge development that the Historic Landmarks Commission can hang their hats on…never mind the Mercy Corps Building, which is claw-marked from their fight with the HLC. DeMuro is disingenuous at best.
By ted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 09:26PM PST
It looks to me like DeMuro is picking his competition. Is that a conflict of interest? Recusal, anyone?
By andrew on Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 09:28PM PST
i meant “cutting edge” in sneer quotes.
By andrew on Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 09:27PM PST
i meant “cutting edge”
By Monforts on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 01:10PM PST
It’s helpful to see the recommended urban design and specific sites in question. A copy of the proposal can be found here:
http://www.pdc.us/pubs/inv_detail.asp?id=700&ty=18
Note, this was put together by PDC and Planning, so there is no question that it favors development. There is extensive history and background, not to mention public participation in the document. It seems that this disagreement comes down to a difference in philosophy between Planning and Landmarks. The recommendation calls for 6 sites to have increased height deemed appropriate by Planning “in a manner that will not negatively impact the historic character of the District.” Planning suggests that an increase in height at these points will help transition between the historic fabric while encouraging development. Landmarks wants to protect the continuity of the only nationally listed historic district in Portland.
The larger question of jurisdiction raised by Mike seems to be the interesting story in all of this. Landmarks has grown from encouraging preservation of individual buildings to exerting control over the character of new construction. The trend has been to include more zones and neighborhoods into what should be protected by their purview. Many neighborhoods seek inclusion since Landmarks appears to be the only brake on development and change.
Personally I think Landmark’s overview has been extended too far. Protecting irreplaceable history is admirable; dictating new history is not. Planning already does enough of that. Factor in the Design Guidelines, and you wonder if the primary function of a city is to provide a tasteful backdrop to enjoy your latte.