Tall buildings in Portland

[MarkDaMan]

Agreed!

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

I do think our max height limit is arbitrary and mistaken, but I also don't think taller buildings make us world class or in a shadow of other West Coast cities. The tiny pubs on the corner fronting a park, the best food truck scene in the country, the airport that punches above their weight, and the friendly Oregonians that want to show you the must sees (even if they don't know you), makes us world class.

THIS 100%. As a lifelong resident I have no need for a skyline to impress anyone. It's just so... pointless. Give me walkability and street character any day of the week.

[NOPO]

Originally Posted by eric cantona

THIS 100%. As a lifelong resident I have no need for a skyline to impress anyone. It's just so... pointless. Give me walkability and street character any day of the week.

Tall does not preclude street presence and services. I like walking through tower canyons with retail to access at street-level.

[CorbinWarrick]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

The chances of a corporate hq in the city center is nil these days, and height restrictions pretty much guarantee we're not gonna look like Seattle or SF anytime soon. I know this discussion has occurred many times here, but I think the small blocks, shorter towers and extra daylight has always created a more inviting and human scaled city. Only cities like NY and Chicago really have enough density, historic architecture and pedestrian activity to pull off super talls and not end up with lifeless, long canyons with nothing else. I don't find South Waterfront, for example, to be inviting, it seems dark and sterile. (If they'd activated the waterfront with something besides a path I suppose wouldn't care as much about the neighborhood vibe, but if you wanna get a bite to eat don't actually expect a water view... in a place named "waterfront" ). Ok rant over.

How does Vancouver BC do it? I love their city center and tall towers

[Tykendo]

Great point. Vancouver B.C. has much more density, and a higher height ceiling for towers. I really love the Southwest Waterfront District. Just wish i could afford to live there. I'm 59, but would love to see the SW District fully connected to downtown. I'm also hopeful for the Albina Vision/ Moda Center development, and OMSI. And maybe an ,at least 400 + foot, tower to anchor the Post Office Development as well. We all want to see this glorious city prosper, and pull out of these darker times. Most of all, we need to keep being US. Just say no to mean. And keep the vision to be greater, and better , alive.

[NOPO]

Originally Posted by Tykendo

Great point. Vancouver B.C. has much more density, and a higher height ceiling for towers. I really love the Southwest Waterfront District. Just wish i could afford to live there. I'm 59, but would love to see the SW District fully connected to downtown. I'm also hopeful for the Albina Vision/ Moda Center development, and OMSI. And maybe an ,at least 400 + foot, tower to anchor the Post Office Development as well. We all want to see this glorious city prosper, and pull out of these darker times. Most of all, we need to keep being US. Just say no to mean. And keep the vision to be greater, and better , alive.

I have great optimism for the future of our city as a progressive haven with a beautiful tall central skyline.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

The chances of a corporate hq in the city center is nil these days, and height restrictions pretty much guarantee we're not gonna look like Seattle or SF anytime soon. I know this discussion has occurred many times here, but I think the small blocks, shorter towers and extra daylight has always created a more inviting and human scaled city. Only cities like NY and Chicago really have enough density, historic architecture and pedestrian activity to pull off super talls and not end up with lifeless, long canyons with nothing else. I don't find South Waterfront, for example, to be inviting, it seems dark and sterile. (If they'd activated the waterfront with something besides a path I suppose wouldn't care as much about the neighborhood vibe, but if you wanna get a bite to eat don't actually expect a water view... in a place named "waterfront" ). Ok rant over.

I was driving home headed down Interstate Ave towards downtown, and the Ritz from that view looks gorgeous. I think that building height is perfect for Portland. I would love seeing more buildings going up that size.

[maccoinnich]

Yesterday the city voted 5-0 to approve the Housing Adjustments Compliance Project, which brings Portland's zoning code into compliance with SB 1537. It allows adjustments (variances) in many cases where they weren't allowed before; and Portland has to approve a high percentage (90% ?) of them to stay in compliance with the state law.

An amendment that was approved 9-0 at the Planning Commission, and therefore incorporated into the package that city council passed, will give architects and developers the ability to ask for adjustments to height in the Central City Plan District (Downtown, Pearl, Lloyd, Central Eastside, etc). Or, put another way, the 460' height limit in downtown will no longer be a hard cap that can't be exceeded.

Of course, the economics of development (and especially high rise development) aren't working in Portland right now. But it's possible that that could change before this package sunsets in 2032.

There's also a planned update to the Central City plan starting next year, which will likely look at the by-right allowances for height and FAR. The votes at the Planning Commission and City Council send a pretty clear message to the planners that there is support for revising the allowances that were first set in 1979.

[downtownpdx]

Good news. And like you say hopefully the downtown market will recover to support some high rise housing. So much attention was paid over the last couple decades to developing SOWA and Pearl, downtown has been left with a lack of housing that has contributed to its difficulties post-Covid.

[maccoinnich]

Portland opens door for unlimited building heights



The city of Portland has agreed to amend its planning and zoning code to comply with state requirements to allow adjustments to a range of development standards, especially where housing is proposed. Amendments approved Wednesday allow discussions for unlimited building heights for projects in the Central City.

The ordinance passed by the Portland City Council is a response to the Oregon Legislature’s passage of Senate Bill 1537 earlier this year. The city is required to comply with the law by Jan. 1, 2025.

The Housing Adjustments Compliance Project updates the city’s zoning code to align with state standards. The ordinance adopts the Portland Planning Commission’s recommended draft and amends Title 33 of the planning and zoning code.

Senate Bill 1537 was signed into law by Gov. Tina Kotek in April. This bill established development and design standards requiring local jurisdictions to allow applicants to request adjustments when housing is proposed.

The city amendments allow more regulatory flexibility in certain developments that provide housing, including allowing requests tied to minimize lot size, maximum height limits, bike parking location and cottage cluster development standards. The intent of the amendments is to encourage real estate development during the current downturn and housing shortage.

The council approved the Planning Commission’s recommended draft and code amendments, including changes to height allowances. The law requires a 20 percent height adjustment allowance in the Central City. Testimony during the Planning Commission’s public hearing in August was focused on expanding the height adjustments beyond what the state requires.

...continues at the DJC ($).

[PhillyPDX]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

...continues at the DJC ($).

So what exactly is the height limit and where does it apply? When did it come about? Portland has 4 buildings taller than 460’, and one downtown was built as recently as 2016. So clearly there must be some way to get around it?

[maccoinnich]

From what I’ve been able to gather, the 460’ height limit was introduced in 1979. Wells Fargo was completed before that. US Bancorp was built in phases, and although the tower was completed after 1979 it was presumably approved before then. KOIN I’m not sure on, although I wouldn’t trust the heights in Wikipedia. Both Park Avenue West and Block 216 are at (or within inches) of the 460’ height limit, though there are provisions in the code for mechanical equipment and architectural projections about the height limit, so they may be a bit higher depending on what you measure to.

[urbanlife]

Anyone wanna build some really tall residential buildings?

[Sioux612]

https://www.evidentoffice.com/portfolio/reserve-tower-study



This study from 2016 is an example of what I hope we see downtown - just please be taller than 325’

[uncommon.name]

Originally Posted by Sioux612

https://www.evidentoffice.com/portfolio/reserve-tower-study



This study from 2016 is an example of what I hope we see downtown - just please be taller than 325’

While I'd love to see taller buildings as well, I definitely wouldn't be upset to see more cranes in the sky with some 325' towers under construction. The lack of cranes right now is depressing.