The Philip (Honeyman Hardware) | xx' | 11 floors | Proposed

[cityscapes]

23 to 11 to now what appears to be 7 floors.

[colossalorder]

"Squat" is the word that comes to mind.

I never went to architecture school. What is proper term for this aesthetic? Perhaps, Bureaucratic Suppression? What a dull disappointment for a neighborhood desperate for new life and energy ... and housing.

[CorbinWarrick]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

23 to 11 to now what appears to be 7 floors.

Again. Wasting prime space when we need all the housing we can get but yet somehow the north Pearl is always building tall

[Tykendo]

Man! This one went from "Hot to trot", to flannel jammies in a nano second.

[CorbinWarrick]

Originally Posted by Tykendo

Man! This one went from "Hot to trot", to flannel jammies in a nano second.

Just wasting prime real estate location for a baby 7 stories.. why not do what they do in the north Pearl

[Delaney]

Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick

Just wasting prime real estate location for a baby 7 stories.. why not do what they do in the north Pearl

Likely a combination of the Historic Landmarks Commission review process, the economics of construction cost (wood frame vs type 1), and the potential lower rent on the edge of a neighborhood in transition vs. the proven landscape and higher rent of the north pearl that Hoyt Street already built up.

[DMH]

Originally Posted by Delaney

Likely a combination of the Historic Landmarks Commission review process, the economics of construction cost (wood frame vs type 1), and the potential lower rent on the edge of a neighborhood in transition vs. the proven landscape and higher rent of the north pearl that Hoyt Street already built up.

Thank you for your more considered, thoughtful analysis of this site's constraints. More comments like yours backed by logic rather than shoot-from-the-lip laments would be welcome.

[DBenson]

In discussing this project on these pages there seems to be the widespread sentiment that taller is better, that 23 floors are better than 11, that 11 are better than 7. And when evaluating the height of other projects in the central city as well, taller is usually praised and shorter condemned. Because I’m a contrarian who thinks that, for the most part, the quality of life in even inner Portland is best served by shorter developments, I’d like to see the assumptions underlying the tall-is-better viewpoint made explicit.

For central Portland, is taller (10 floors or more) better because . . .
1. It makes for more beautiful buildings?
2. It makes for a more pleasing skyline?
3. It provides more residential housing?
4. It contributes more to the vitality of the city?
5. It improves the street-level experience?
6. Other?

[Delaney]

Originally Posted by DBenson

In discussing this project on these pages there seems to be the widespread sentiment that taller is better, that 23 floors are better than 11, that 11 are better than 7. And when evaluating the height of other projects in the central city as well, taller is usually praised and shorter condemned. Because I’m a contrarian who thinks that, for the most part, the quality of life in even inner Portland is best served by shorter developments, I’d like to see the assumptions underlying the tall-is-better viewpoint made explicit.

You might want to spend more time on a website not called SKYSCRAPERpage.

[DBenson]

And yet, many of the developments discussed on this site are not skyscrapers. Anyway, our dear city does not suffer from too many cross-silo discussions. It's good for all of us to have to think about why we think as we do. I'm guessing we all are wanting to figure out what's good for our community. I remain curious as to your answer to my question.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Delaney

Likely a combination of the Historic Landmarks Commission review process, the economics of construction cost (wood frame vs type 1), and the potential lower rent on the edge of a neighborhood in transition vs. the proven landscape and higher rent of the north pearl that Hoyt Street already built up.

These are all valid points, which makes me wonder why they are bothering building anything at all. With the old Post Office site coming down, I am surprised they haven't just put the site up for sale with the potential of what could be built there.

I would rather someone sit on this site until the Post Office site is developed or in the process to develop, then get a tower built on this site thanks to the proximity to prime real estate.

[jb111120]

Originally Posted by DBenson

Because I’m a contrarian who thinks that, for the most part, the quality of life in even inner Portland is best served by shorter developments, I’d like to see the assumptions underlying the tall-is-better viewpoint made explicit.

For central Portland, is taller (10 floors or more) better because . . .

Taller (usually) means more housing units. In the midst of a housing crisis, this is crucial. More units means more people living downtown, which reduces car dependency. It also means more economic activity to sustain downtown now that remote work has taken a chunk out of its daytime population. Generally speaking American cities are in desperate need of higher density housing for these reasons.

I'm not saying Portland needs a Burj Khalifa, but realistically we could benefit from more than 7 stories on a parcel like this.

[DBenson]

Intuitively, it does seem that taller means more living units. And I completely agree with you that Portland's inner city could use more residents.

However, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about density and height. Manhattan is the poster child for vertical urbanity and perhaps helps to form many of our ideas about its virtues. But it’s important to look at where the buildings are tallest on Manhattan and who actually uses those heights. The greatest concentration of height is in Midtown and lower, south of Central Park. What spaces are the upper reaches? Corporate offices and expensive condos. Why? Because going tall costs more. And just think of central Portland and its tall buildings. Are they any different? If I’m not mistaken, the tallest building under construction in Portland today is the Ritz Carlton, combination hotel and condominiums. Who do you think will use it?

And let’s look more specifically at the density question. The 7-8 story Alta Centric occupies half a city block and provides 203 apartment units. The recently built 28-story Cosmopolitan Apartments occupies a full block in the Pearl, “soars” to 28 stories and has 168 units. Which provides more density? How is this possible that the three times shorter building does? The former provides housing primarily to lower and middle income renters whose living spaces will be modest, while the later offers grand spaces to the affluent.

In many ways it comes down to this: For whom are we going to build our city?

[jb111120]

I usually refrain from discussing politics on this forum. I think an honorable long-term goal would be to decommodify the whole damn thing. At the very least I'd like to see us build more public/social/coop-style housing. I support orgs that advocate for that.

But in the short-term rich people still have a lot of money to spend on housing. And whether we build "luxury" housing or not, they're going to be able to spend that money on the next best thing. There's good evidence that even building housing in the upper price range still puts downward pressure on overall housing costs. Say someone spends $2M on a condo in the RC. If that building didn't exist they might pay $2M for the next best thing. That cascade effect raises prices across all housing types. At least richie rich in the RC is living downtown and not driving their Land Rover in from the suburbs everyday.

As far as density goes, the floor plans in the Cosmopolitan are bigger than Alta Centric (I believe it's called Tiller Terrace now). Why these developers made that particular design choice I can't say. Is it possible to make a building that height pencil with more small units instead of fewer large units? Probably, at least with the right policies in place.

If you want to discuss policy options for incentivizing greater density and affordability, I'm 100% supportive. But having an unelected committee for "Historic Landmarks" unilaterally cap the height of buildings like this is unequivocally not going to have the long-term impact on affordability that you want.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by DBenson

In many ways it comes down to this: For whom are we going to build our city?

Originally Posted by jb111120

If you want to discuss policy options for incentivizing greater density and affordability, I'm 100% supportive. But having an unelected committee for "Historic Landmarks" unilaterally cap the height of buildings like this is unequivocally not going to have the long-term impact on affordability that you want.

You're both right.

Really, we need more housing at all income levels. We need more affordable housing, we need more market rate housing, and we need more luxury housing. It can't be either/or.

We also need a more realistic approach to historic landmarks and districts.

This particular project is so badly needed, not just for housing, but also for revitalizing a neighborhood which desperately needs it.

The post office site is eventually going to be its own thing, and it could help force revitalization of Old Town/Chinatown (which was actually Japantown) because if it's successful, it'll bring in more people, which means more amenities for those people, which means even more people will want to be there, et cetera.

It would be very sad if projects like this one don't get built, and the post office site becomes an island of development surrounded by a sea of decay. Much of Old Town is in rough shape, and that's tragic since the neighborhood has potential to be such a gem.

[Rob Nob]

Originally Posted by DBenson

For central Portland, is taller (10 floors or more) better because . . .
1. It makes for more beautiful buildings?
2. It makes for a more pleasing skyline?
3. It provides more residential housing?
4. It contributes more to the vitality of the city?
5. It improves the street-level experience?
6. Other?

I think taller is better to a point, and I agree that 7 stories is not an ideal utilization of this particular site.

On your points above, I think 2-4 are generally true in the scale we build here in Portland. On point 5, taller is mostly detrimental in the form darker streets, but Portland has such a large proportion of street area to block area, that I don't think anything under 500 feet needs to worry about blocking the sun with the possible exception of being on the south side of an open area, like Pioneer Courthouse Square or the Park Blocks as examples.

[DBenson]

Originally Posted by Rob Nob

I think taller is better to a point, and I agree that 7 stories is not an ideal utilization of this particular site.

On your points above, I think 2-4 are generally true in the scale we build here in Portland. On point 5, taller is mostly detrimental in the form darker streets, but Portland has such a large proportion of street area to block area, that I don't think anything under 500 feet needs to worry about blocking the sun with the possible exception of being on the south side of an open area, like Pioneer Courthouse Square or the Park Blocks as examples.

It's almost axiomatic that height makes for a more dramatic skyline. But from what perspective is that enjoyed? From a distance. Manhattan, perhaps the most famous exemplar of the creed that urbanity is verticality, has a skyline best appreciated from afar, from cross the East River in Brooklyn or from across the Hudson in New Jersey. Skylines are abstractions where no people are to be seen. They stand far above the on-the-ground city where most of the populace actually lives. Among the reasons I love Portland is that, for the most part, we still evaluate urban development in terms of its sensitivity to human-scale, close-to-the-street experience where most public life is lived.

And as Paris, Barcelona, Thessaloniki, Oslo, Amsterdam, and Washington D.C., among others, demonstrate, wonderful, dense cities do not have to have mountain range city scapes. They benefit from more intimate building heights.

Portland is blessed with real mountain ranges to our east and west and with trees that in most places grow taller than the built environment. I suggest that this make us a modern American outlier, evincing an understanding of our place that rejects the uncritical definition of progress adopted by most other West Coast cities.

[DMH]

Originally Posted by DBenson

It's almost axiomatic that height makes for a more dramatic skyline. But from what perspective is that enjoyed? From a distance. Manhattan, perhaps the most famous exemplar of the creed that urbanity is verticality, has a skyline best appreciated from afar, from cross the East River in Brooklyn or from across the Hudson in New Jersey. Skylines are abstractions where no people are to be seen. They stand far above the on-the-ground city where most of the populace actually lives. Among the reasons I love Portland is that, for the most part, we still evaluate urban development in terms of its sensitivity to human-scale, close-to-the-street experience where most public life is lived.

And as Paris, Barcelona, Thessaloniki, Oslo, Amsterdam, and Washington D.C., among others, demonstrate, wonderful, dense cities do not have to have mountain range city scapes. They benefit from more intimate building heights.

Portland is blessed with real mountain ranges to our east and west and with trees that in most places grow taller than the built environment. I suggest that this make us a modern American outlier, evincing an understanding of our place that rejects the uncritical definition of progress adopted by most other West Coast cities.

Hear! Hear!

You have put it well!!

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by DMH

Hear! Hear!

You have put it well!!

agreed!

[uncommon.name]

Originally Posted by DBenson

It's almost axiomatic that height makes for a more dramatic skyline. But from what perspective is that enjoyed? From a distance. Manhattan, perhaps the most famous exemplar of the creed that urbanity is verticality, has a skyline best appreciated from afar, from cross the East River in Brooklyn or from across the Hudson in New Jersey. Skylines are abstractions where no people are to be seen. They stand far above the on-the-ground city where most of the populace actually lives. Among the reasons I love Portland is that, for the most part, we still evaluate urban development in terms of its sensitivity to human-scale, close-to-the-street experience where most public life is lived.

And as Paris, Barcelona, Thessaloniki, Oslo, Amsterdam, and Washington D.C., among others, demonstrate, wonderful, dense cities do not have to have mountain range city scapes. They benefit from more intimate building heights.

Portland is blessed with real mountain ranges to our east and west and with trees that in most places grow taller than the built environment. I suggest that this make us a modern American outlier, evincing an understanding of our place that rejects the uncritical definition of progress adopted by most other West Coast cities.

Please tell me how this would not require more urban sprawl? I've seen the comparison between one luxury condo tower vs an apartment building that was quite literally built to accommodate more units to cram more people inside of it, as an argument against building up, but that is not the reality of it. When apartment buildings are built with both the purpose of maximizing # of units in a vertical building, then height absolutely means more density. Without this type of density, you would be required to build outward, which in a Metropolitan like Portland, would require outward expansion, development of agricultural areas, further commutes, more driving/car use, etc. You also brought up Paris as an example of keeping scale smaller… evidently you haven’t seen Paris’ actual downtown since most pictures us Westerners see is of the Eiffel Tower. Here you go…