The Sutton (Fremont Place) | 185'-0" | 17 Floors | Complete

[DMH]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

The Peter Walker masterplan never envisioned the Fields as being the last park in the Pearl.

Thanks for pointing that out. We can hope (and advocate) for inclusion of a significant public open space from which to view the Fremont Bridge. That is, if and when what is left of Centennial Mills is redeveloped.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

Just a heads up. I know Cali-bashing is a past time for locals and that this was probably intended as a joke, but like most stereotypes it's really baseless, inappropriate, and distracting from whatever you are trying to get across. My personal experience is that many locals experienced sub-par education and work ethics, just as much as anywhere else.

That said, I agree that WW is a mostly junk publication with little educational value on current events. That's why I stopped reading it years ago.

The knock on California has more to do with recent transplants in general, personally I have nothing against transplants since I am one, but with recent transplants writing for Willamette Week is like reading people who just learned about Portland and didn't bother to do any back research. Which is unfortunate because it use to be an amazing and well informed publication years ago.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by DMH

Thanks for pointing that out. We can hope (and advocate) for inclusion of a significant public open space from which to view the Fremont Bridge. That is, if and when what is left of Centennial Mills is redeveloped.

Centennial Mills was meant to be the focal point for the Fields, it is designed with that building in mind. If it gets torn down and redeveloped, it will be a tragic loss for North Pearl as it will lose a significant piece of history that is worth preserving.

As for open space with views of the Fremont Bridge, that already exists and will never be obstructed.

Fremont Bridge View

[Tykendo]

The Fremont Bridge is a fantastic utility bridge, but in no way is it the Golden Gate Bridge design wise, and I find it laughable that this is even a problem. Build the dang apartment building, and sooner or later the NIMBY's will get over it.

[DMH]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

The knock on California has more to do with recent transplants in general, personally I have nothing against transplants since I am one, but with recent transplants writing for Willamette Week is like reading people who just learned about Portland and didn't bother to do any back research. Which is unfortunate because it use to be an amazing and well informed publication years ago.

Way back in 1976 when I moved from California to Portland, Californian-bashing was already much in vogue. It was shortly after Gov. Tom McCall's infamous "Come Visit, but Don't Stay" mantra, and you would see many "Don't Californicate Oregon" bumper stickers on cars. But ironically, most of my coworkers and new friends in Portland were from the East Coast or at least east of the Mississippi River. It was a long time before I met another transplanted Californian.

[RainDog]

Originally Posted by Tykendo

The Fremont Bridge is a fantastic utility bridge, but in no way is it the Golden Gate Bridge design wise, and I find it laughable that this is even a problem. Build the dang apartment building, and sooner or later the NIMBY's will get over it.

If folks are so hard pressed to take a gander at the Fremont bridge, there will still be unobstructed views from the public walkway to the north.

[johnliu]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

The knock on California has more to do with recent transplants in general, personally I have nothing against transplants since I am one, but with recent transplants writing for Willamette Week is like reading people who just learned about Portland and didn't bother to do any back research. Which is unfortunate because it use to be an amazing and well informed publication years ago.

You mean you don't like people who just moved here from [insert city] haranguing you about how Portland needs to become more like where they left?

[subterranean]

Interestingly enough, Oregonians move to California at over twice the rate as the reverse when taken as a percentage of each states total population.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by johnliu

You mean you don't like people who just moved here from [insert city] haranguing you about how Portland needs to become more like where they left?

Not sure what haranguing means (scratch that, learned a new word today), yeah, that is pretty much it. I moved away from suburbia hell, then moved to Spokane for a couple years before ending up here. My original plan was to move to Seattle years ago, but instead I went to Portland. I didn't come here and complain about how Portland wasn't like the suburbia hell I moved away from, I celebrated that Portland was everything I wished a city could be.

I don't care where someone is from if they move here to become a Portlander and an Oregonian, and celebrate all that makes this city, metro, and state great. I say we don't need Portland to be like where someone moved away from or they wouldn't have moved away in the first place.

[Rob Nob]

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/03/portland_city_council_nixes_pe.html

[Derek]

All of this over a 17 story building.

[MarkDaMan]

Some interesting quotes from Fritz and Mayor Wheeler from the Oregonian article:

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/03/portland_city_council_nixes_pe.html

Commissioner Amanda Fritz, who had argued against land-use policies that would allow taller development on sites near the river, said the proposal would create a pinch point on the greenway trail and failed to include design features that showcase to the Willamette River, one of the design guidelines for the district.

She — along with other commissioners — said views from The Fields park didn't factor in to the decision.

"I don't consider the view from The Fields park to be at all germane to this discussion," she said. "What is of concern to me is the development itself and the greenway, because the greenway is the significant public benefit that's involved in this site."

Mayor Ted Wheeler also said he found the argument about the greenway compelling.

"I don't think the building is a bad building," said Mayor Ted Wheeler. "However, this location, as I say, is an iconic location, and what we do here will set the standard for the rest of the development that takes place along that corridor. The one thing we can never take back is the location of the building in the greenway."

This really sucks for the developer...

The developers' attorney asked the council to delay its decision so the firm could bring forward a new design. The council, however, opted to uphold the appeal, sending the developer to start the application process from scratch.

A new application could also be subject to the city's inclusionary zoning policy, which requires private developers to set aside rent-restricted units for low-income residents in large apartment and condo projects.

[eric cantona]

is there a sense from anyone on this forum as to whether or not this project met the code requirements for this site? is there a requirement to provide a path that is wider than 13', for example?

I'm curious, because if not council has just laid down a serious marker on how the City intends to do business in the future. please tell me they had a good reason for this decision...

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by eric cantona

is there a sense from anyone on this forum as to whether or not this project met the code requirements for this site? is there a requirement to provide a path that is wider than 13.

There is not.

[urbanlife]

So basically this will probably kill this building and leave this piece of land undeveloped for a while....

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

There is not.

soooo... essentially an arbitrary ruling by council that tells developers that there are no guarantees for them that if they follow the rules they can conduct their business appropriately? that's fucked up.

hasn't council recently given BDS a directive to find ways to make the permitting process in the city easier, or at least less burdensome, to encourage development?

[RED_PDXer]

The requirement to start all over is a BIG deal. The developer dropped a bunch of cash on developing this proposal that apparently appeased the Design Commission, who review these all the time. For the City Council to not even allow the developer to further refine the design is BS. Who wants to take another stab at this site only to spend a year working with design commission to have it all shot down again. Appeals of this sort are almost impossible to win at higher courts since they tend to defer to the city to interpret their own code. What a joke of public process.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

The requirement to start all over is a BIG deal. The developer dropped a bunch of cash on developing this proposal that apparently appeased the Design Commission, who review these all the time. For the City Council to not even allow the developer to further refine the design is BS. Who wants to take another stab at this site only to spend a year working with design commission to have it all shot down again. Appeals of this sort are almost impossible to win at higher courts since they tend to defer to the city to interpret their own code. What a joke of public process.

what I find the most shocking is that this was agreed upon by all of the Commissioners and the Mayor. I can't fathom what the hell they're thinking will be the outcome of their vote. There are no doubt fielding a shedload of irate calls from very influential people this week. if I were a developer in town I would be very reluctant to propose anything in town moving forward.

it's going to be interesting to watch the fallout from this.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by eric cantona

if I were a developer in town I would be very reluctant to propose anything in town moving forward.

I saw some people on twitter speculate that this would be a win for affordable housing, because if the building is resubmitted for design review it would be under the current zoning code and therefore subject to IZ.

I think that take is entirely wrong. Even if this building gets resubmitted the process will undoubtedly scare off other developers who will now view Portland as an unpredictable jurisdiction. In the short to medium term the effect of this decision is going to be fewer housing proposals.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

I saw some people on twitter speculate that this would be a win for affordable housing, because if the building is resubmitted for design review it would be under the current zoning code and therefore subject to IZ.

I think that take is entirely wrong. Even if this building gets resubmitted the process will undoubtedly scare off other developers who will now view Portland as an unpredictable jurisdiction. In the short to medium term the effect of this decision is going to be fewer housing proposals.

Did it ever come up in design review that the greenway trail was not sufficient? If not, they should have a chance to revise and widen the space, at the very least anyway...If they received that advise and choose not to expand, then it was a gamble and they lost.