PDA

View Full Version : ‘Vintage’ areas could waive modern building codes


Urbanpdx
Feb 14, 2007, 4:18 PM
‘Vintage’ areas could waive modern building codes
by Kennedy Smith
DJC
02/14/2007


Daily Journal of Commerce Photo
The word "vintage" is often thrown around in antique shops to signify something old-fashioned, but the term would come to mean something very new to the development community if a proposed Oregon House bill were to become law.

House Bill 2540 would designate "vintage downtown districts," allowing redevelopers of historic buildings in a downtown area to waive certain modern building codes. For historic property owners, that could mean the difference between razing a building and rehabbing it.

"Some of the building code issues on the books today make it difficult to redevelop properties or get redevelopment going," said Jerry Johnson, principal at land-use consultancy firm Johnson Gardner. "Flexibility is something we've advocated for."

Johnson should know: His firm is on the redevelopment team for the historic neighborhood of Kenton in Portland. He said the proposed legislation would be helpful in getting some redevelopment projects off the ground.

"Seismic and safety codes are some of the big issues we face," he said. "But some codes related to things like spacing between electrical outlets make it expensive to do historic redevelopment. What happens is there is no investment until (the buildings) slowly deteriorate and you tear them down."

The Kenton Business District, located on North Denver Avenue in Portland, is undergoing a range of street and building changes with the help of the Portland Development Commission and a redevelopment team that includes Johnson Gardner. It was designated a historic district in 2001 by the National Register of Historic Places.

"I guess there's two ways to do it: try and go with the minimalist approach and get away with not doing seismic upgrades, but that's dependent on the extent of the work and what you intend to do with the property," said Rick Jacobsen, a developer who rehabbed Kenton Village Shops on North Denver Avenue. "The second choice is to do all the seismic upgrades so that you can have a number of uses in the building."

He said he chose the latter because he wanted to ensure the building could be used in a variety of ways. Kenton Village Shops is currently home to three restaurants.


Tweaking bureaucracy

The most difficult aspect of the Kenton Village historic renovation, Jacobsen said, was coping with the city's bureaucratic process in making changes to the exterior of the building.

"To try and get things done to the outside of the building is a slow process," he said. "We were able to do exactly what we proposed, but we had to go through the process, pay a large fee and get public feedback. Later on there were instances where we could have had a better project, but it would have taken prohibitively long to go through the process of amending the approval. It was very frustrating in that regard."

The bill doesn't specifically outline which Oregon building code standards a redeveloper could waive, but it does state that no code involving "fire or life safety" may be waived. That includes a large portion of the state's seismic codes.

The bill identifies a vintage downtown district as "a downtown area in an adopted city comprehensive plan or land-use regulation" and "identified or described as a downtown area in official records or maps prior to Jan. 1, 1950."


Playing catch-up to Portland

In 2004, Portland City Council adopted amendments to Portland's zoning code that provided incentives to stimulate historic preservation throughout the city. Some of the incentives included financing; revised seismic upgrade provisions; an extension of existing zoning incentives to historic buildings; increased flexibility for commercial uses in industrial zones in the central city; increased maximum parking ratios; a waiver of minimum housing density requirements; and relaxed limitations for bed and breakfast facilities.

"It's often quite difficult in rehabilitation projects to adhere to seismic improvements," said Nicholas Starin of the Portland Bureau of Planning. "Sometimes it's impossible to adhere to the code, so there are appeals granted that allow a reasonable solution to be made. It's intended to make it easier for buildings to be historic and existing buildings to be reused and upgraded in a less onerous fashion."

If Portland has something like code waivers on the books, so should other cities, said Mike Schaufler (D-Happy Valley), chairman of the House Committee on Business and Labor, which is sponsoring the bill.

The bill would give sole authority to the director of the state Department of Consumer and Business Services to provide waivers of state building code provisions.

So far the DCBS has remained neutral on the bill. The department is in talks with the bill's supporters to "figure out what the problems are," according to Joanie Stevens-Schwenger, a spokeswoman for the DCBS.

"At this point," she said, "we can't speculate on what the financial impact would be to our operations."

Schaufler said that thus far there's been no real opposition to the bill but that it still has a long way to go. It has been referred to the House Workforce and Economic Development Committee and awaits a hearing.

westsider
Feb 16, 2007, 4:59 AM
I like this idea, alot.

Drmyeyes
Feb 16, 2007, 7:12 AM
If I read this article correctly, it seems to suggest that Portland's own zoning code can amend state code for its own jurisdiction . The comment by Mike Shauffler seems to confirm that the relationship between state and city code in that respect may be so:

"If Portland has something like code waivers on the books, so should other cities, said Mike Schaufler (D-Happy Valley), chairman of the House Committee on Business and Labor, which is sponsoring the bill.".

As the last sentence of the article states, it sounds as though this bill has a long way to go. Exactly what is required of refurbished vintage buildings in the way of structural upgrades should be thoroughly understood statewide and defined in state law, so that they come as close as possible towards meeting structural capabilities of the latest relevant technology available.

Nobody wants to be in an unsafe building. Vintage buildings are very important to people and their culture, yet many of those people, if they're going to support rebuilding and restoring such buildings, must be persuaded by solid proof that an old building, properly refurbished, can promise a level of safety consistent with modern standards.

Urbanpdx
Feb 16, 2007, 4:25 PM
Why should it "promise a level of safety consistent with modern standards"? If I drive a restored 1965 VW, I in no way expect it to be as save as a 2007 car. Should I be prohibited from restoring it or even using it? Many of our old buildings are vacant because it is not feasible to upgrade them to modern standards as required. We will keep losing them to tear downs unless some flexiblity is given.

MarkDaMan
Feb 16, 2007, 4:53 PM
^because you aren't packing hundreds of workers into your VW.

Urbanpdx
Feb 16, 2007, 5:35 PM
So, is it better to have hundreds of workers packed into an old building that is un-renovated or one that is renovated but has a few non-modern features like plug outlets that are 10 feet apart instead of 8 feet.

Drmyeyes
Feb 16, 2007, 7:26 PM
Urbanpdx, sometimes I think long and hard about the exact wording I use to express what I have in mind, but it can be hard to describe some of these things.

I'll amend what I said slightly with the following change: "...an old building, properly refurbished, can promise a level of safety as consistent as reasonably possible with modern standards.".

DaMan's retort should suffice to answer your question. It's pretty much just you and your 1 and a half passengers in your beetle zipping down the street or motionless in some parking space, but a building is a whole different ball game. Buildings are many different things; workplace, residence, studio, entertainment and cultural centers. Externally, from the perspective of a city as a whole, they function a little bit like furniture does for a house that people live in.

I don't know much about it really, but it would seem that things like seismic upgrades are a rather recent emerging technology. How much might the average person know about the potential for good old buildings that is represented by this technology? I imagine that many, many marvelous, irreplaceable buildings now demolished fell to that fate in no small part to the belief that it wasn't feasible to upgrade them.

Here in Portland, we've seen that it is feasible to upgrade quality vintage buildings; Central Library, Pioneer Courthouse, The Crane Building (in NW), The Ladd Bush Bank Building in Salem. There are likely many more buildings that can benefit equally from the treatment those buildings received. And the public will be the big winner as this happens. I think this is just the start of a great new wave of the future.

mcbaby
Feb 18, 2007, 12:51 AM
don't forget the armory.

Urbanpdx
Feb 18, 2007, 3:21 AM
none of those expamples were feasible, they all required massive subsidy

Drmyeyes
Feb 18, 2007, 5:04 AM
mcbaby, thanks for the armory mention. I just named a few off the top of my head. No doubt there's many more that could be mentioned, for example: Smith Center, PSU: within the last 10 years it was seismically upgraded. You can see the diagonal structural steel members from outside the building positioned next to the window as they are, also in the White Gallery space. While it's not a vintage building, it's already 30 some years old, I believe. Another example, is the tower on Yamhill just east of the Jackson Tower. It also has those diagonal steel structural members visible from the street. This is just stuff I see walking around. It seems to make sense that smaller buildings in the area have probably accomplished these kind of upgrades too.

"none of those expamples were feasible, they all required massive subsidy" Urbanpdx.

Your statement makes no sense Urbanpdx. I should think you could try be a little more articulate for everyone's benefit, even though you're not relying on reposts from your favorite source material.

westsider
Feb 18, 2007, 10:55 AM
^ I believe what he is saying, is that a private developer trying to turn a profit on a building without the luxury of public financing would have a hard time making seismic upgrades pencil out.

Urbanpdx
Feb 18, 2007, 5:09 PM
Thanks Westsider. You are correct. Put it this way, it is like saying that it is "feasible" to upgrade my 1965 VW Bug to 2007 safety and emissions standards. Sure, it could probably be done if you spent a few million dollars, does that make it feasible?

Drmyeyes
Feb 18, 2007, 8:08 PM
Oh, get real ! The analogy of vintage personal cars to vintage buildings as an argument favoring waivers of building codes to developers in certain cases is extremely weak.

Urbanpdx has offered absolutely no examples of the kind of structures he's thinking of, or any kind of circumstances where waivers might apply, so it's kind of aimless to imagine where waivers might reasonably be given. It could be disastrous to give developers a loophole that would allow them to put buildings on the market that might endanger the lives of many people that might have occasion to be in them.

There is a diminishing supply of vintage buildings. Developers do not generally seem inclined to produce modern buildings with much of the craftsmanship of vintage buildings. That makes the existing inventory of vintage buildings one of increasing value and a worthy subject of study for reasonable upgrades to modern standards and possible subsidies for this.

Retrofitting vintage buildings to modern standards seems to be a fairly new field that is evolving as new materials and tecniques for this purpose are developed. It seems important to keep the emphasis on encouraging developers to be aware of and seek out new ways of accomplishing these upgrades as efficiently and economically as possible. Cutting them undue slack in adherence to safety related building codes wouldn't seem to work in the favor of such an objective.

As the last paragraph of the article says "....no real opposition to the bill but that it still has a long way to go.".

65MAX
Feb 18, 2007, 8:58 PM
Ain't gonna happen.

You can't have cities overriding state codes. Too many liability issues. If Portland, or any city, wants to change the code, they have to do it through the state so it applies to everyone. Otherwise, the cities are just begging to get sued after the first "mishap".

65MAX
Feb 18, 2007, 9:12 PM
As the last paragraph of the article says "....no real opposition to the bill but that it still has a long way to go.".

Exactly. There's no real opposition because nobody's heard of this proposal. I deal with codes almost every day and I've never heard of this. I guarantee there will be STRONG opposition to this from professionals once they find out about it.

Urbanpdx
Feb 18, 2007, 11:58 PM
Oh, get real ! The analogy of vintage personal cars to vintage buildings as an argument favoring waivers of building codes to developers in certain cases is extremely weak.

Urbanpdx has offered absolutely no examples of the kind of structures he's thinking of, or any kind of circumstances where waivers might apply, so it's kind of aimless to imagine where waivers might reasonably be given. It could be disastrous to give developers a loophole that would allow them to put buildings on the market that might endanger the lives of many people that might have occasion to be in them.

There is a diminishing supply of vintage buildings. Developers do not generally seem inclined to produce modern buildings with much of the craftsmanship of vintage buildings. That makes the existing inventory of vintage buildings one of increasing value and a worthy subject of study for reasonable upgrades to modern standards and possible subsidies for this.

Retrofitting vintage buildings to modern standards seems to be a fairly new field that is evolving as new materials and tecniques for this purpose are developed. It seems important to keep the emphasis on encouraging developers to be aware of and seek out new ways of accomplishing these upgrades as efficiently and economically as possible. Cutting them undue slack in adherence to safety related building codes wouldn't seem to work in the favor of such an objective.

As the last paragraph of the article says "....no real opposition to the bill but that it still has a long way to go.".

So what you are saying is that if there is a building on a street in Portland that has not been refurbished and is occupied by 100 people it would "be a disaster" to allow it to be refurbished to less than modern standards? Or, lets say there were two identical buildings, both built in 1920. One building is un-refurbished and is occupied by 100 people, the mirror building next door is refurbished but some of the rooms have fewer electrical outlets than current code but the rest of the building has upgraded electrical, fire sysemts, etc and has 100 people in it. Where is the "disaster" other than the current system that has two non-upgraded buildings instead of one?

Drmyeyes
Feb 19, 2007, 3:46 AM
Urbanpdx, I don't know what the current code system says for various buildings. The implication I got from preliminary information about this proposed bill contained in the article you posted, is that it plans to address a significant challenge that developers likely face as they consider the business potential represented by unoccupied vintage buildings. I don't think the article specified unoccupied buildings exclusively, so maybe the intent of the bill will be directed towards occupied buildings as well.

Seems like there's probably lots of the latter around now that are functioning with more or less make-do upgrades to meet codes. This doesn't seem like anything new to me, but rather something that landlords have done for years and the city has probably allowed.

The bells that rang for me when I read this article, was that developers, seeing the potential represented by waivers to code in the refurbishment of vintage buildings, would snap a bunch of them up, and in the ground to roof refurbishing that followed to prepare them for the lucrative condo and expanding office market, skirt important seismic and other safety code upgrades because of them. That's what I see as being potentially disastrous.

When a building is gutted for refurbishment, that's the logical time to do things up right. It's where a developer really has to work to get the financing to do it, but the argument to do so should be in their favor. Piddly stuff like electrical outlets isn't going to jeapordize a project, but seismic upgrades, or lack of them might. The importance of such upgrades might very well generate some broad based support for helping them to get it done.

Urbanpdx
Feb 19, 2007, 5:25 AM
Ok Drmyeyes, I agree. Let em be torn down. I like new buildings better anyway.

zilfondel
Feb 19, 2007, 5:53 PM
I think fire & life safety issues are far more critical and important to this topic...

Let's take, for example, a building that could hold 100 people, but lacks fire escapes, or only has an external fire escape.

A fire might break out, and 100 people could die. The fire escape could fall off the side of the building due to the fact that they are merely anchored to the crumbling brick wall, and cannot support more than a few people's weight at a time. Similarly, lack of sprinklers, fire alarms, and wide enough stairways are also critically important.

Then there's the seismic, which you guys have brought up... and seismic is very expensive for larger brick buildings: you have to built a moment frame inside the existing load-bearing structure, which is not easy.

So these things cost a lot of money to upgrade, and many owners simply aren't willing to upgrade them, so they wait for the building to rot and fall apart (or catch fire) so they can collect the insure money, or sell to a developer and cash out.

65MAX
Feb 19, 2007, 8:56 PM
Oh Z, you're just thinking rationally. It's far more important to allow developers to space their electrical outlets 10' apart as opposed to 6' apart. Think how many 50 cent outlets they could save. Probably enough to bribe their code official with dinner and drinks at El Gaucho.

mcbaby
Feb 20, 2007, 1:38 AM
Ok Drmyeyes, I agree. Let em be torn down. I like new buildings better anyway.

are you serious?

zilfondel
Feb 20, 2007, 10:59 PM
Oh Z, you're just thinking rationally. It's far more important to allow developers to space their electrical outlets 10' apart as opposed to 6' apart. Think how many 50 cent outlets they could save. Probably enough to bribe their code official with dinner and drinks at El Gaucho.

Yea, I guess that's just how I am. ;)

Any code issues with outlet spacing, imo, is just complete BS. A more important one, I think, would be if the old electrical wiring is even grounded and if the insulation is still on them... old buildings can have very sketchy electrical that can cause fires. :(