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

[AdamUrbanist]

The reduced height is a little bit of a bummer but the nice thing about the new proposal is it looks like they are keeping the historic building along NW Park (or at least the facade). I haven't checked the zoning on this lot but I believe it is subject to the same awkward green loop setback as other proposals further south. Personally, I'd much rather see a robust street presence at ground level than a taller building with a garden in front of it

[maccoinnich]

DAR #1 Summary Memo

DAR #2 Drawings [97 MB] and Memo to the HLC

[pdxsg34]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

DAR #1 Summary Memo

DAR #2 Drawings [97 MB] and Memo to the HLC

I'm sure there are some on this forum that would prefer this proposal include the "original" 20+ stories, but I actually like this proposal at its current height. It's a fitting step-up to the what eventually (hopefully) will be the post office blocks, and given its proximity to a future park (hopefully), I'm glad a building wont tower over the park (and potentially block sunlight). There's probably a myriad of reasons why the project reduced to its current proposal, but given its proximity to the bud commons area and homelessness -central only a few blocks away, I'm not surprised by the reduction (maybe demand plays a factor, but I don't know how to measure that in this area). While it's technically "in the pearl", that area is a cliffs-edge from the old town wild west. I'm also liking the design next to the existing 7-story portion of honeyman and the preservation of the east-facing facades.

[AdamUrbanist]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

DAR #1 Summary Memo

DAR #2 Drawings [97 MB] and Memo to the HLC

This memo seems to continue a pattern of the historic review process effectively downzoning parcels. I wish someone would directly challenge this in court. Council voted on the allowed FAR and height in this area considering all of the competing interests holistically. It should not be up to a commission who's purview is to consider only the impact to historic buildings (as they see it) to decide how large a building a parcel can support.

Maybe they are right that this lot should be limited to 5 stories on half the lot, but regardless it's not a decision the historic review commission should get to make independently.

[urbanlife]

I now have zero excitement about this building. At this point I am expected it to end up being a renovation of the existing buildings an adding an additional floor on top of them.

[2oh1]

As a building in general, of course I'd prefer the taller version, but for this specific location, I'm in agreement with pdxsg34. The lower height would help it sort-of blend in between the neighborhood that exists and the new neighborhood that will grow in the post office blocks. And, really, the shorter design isn't bad. Is it as exciting as the taller version? No. But it would still be a fine addition to the neighborhood.

The sooner this gets built, the better.

At some point, the area east of the North Park Blocks will start to become more like the Pearl, for better or for worse, because it simply has too much potential to be ignored. I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened already.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

At this point I am expected it to end up being a renovation of the existing buildings an adding an additional floor on top of them.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind that either. But I must admit, I have some nostalgia for the old Honeyman Hardware building. I came close to moving in there back in the day, and I'm a sucker for those old buildings getting rehabbed. There are a few downtown that I'd love to see turned into lofts.

[maccoinnich]

Frustration mounts for development team


A preferred option, left, would be significantly smaller than a version of option C that was presented during a previous design advice hearing. (TVA Architects)


A smaller footprint is likely for an initially proposed 23-story high-rise in Portland’s Pearl District. Plans presented Monday to the Historic Landmarks Commission were significantly downscaled.

Fields Holdings’ development for 555 N.W. Park Ave., the Philip Apartments, would be an addition to the eastern half of the historic Honeyman Hardware block that consists of the Bindery Building, the Metro Building and the Cotter Building. In all schematics proposed, the entire quarter-block Metro Building and a portion of the Bindery Building would be demolished.

Monday marked the project team’s second design advice hearing before the Historic Landmarks Commission. In February, commissioners called the 23-story tower design “overwhelming,” and its glass curtain façade “not contextual.”

The team returned with three new design options. The preferred one would be an eight-story, half-block addition with a metal and brick exterior that would hover above the two-story Bindery Building. The addition would have a penthouse suite on top.

The other two consisted of a 19-story quarter-block scheme and a 16-story version of the original design presented.

“Clearly,” Bob Thompson, applicant and TVA Architects principal said, “we were shooting for the sky on the first go around.”

...continues at the DJC ($).

[maccoinnich]

Right-Sizing on a Historic Block



A developer who had proposed building a glassy, 23-story apartment tower on the historic Honeyman Hardware block in Northwest Portland has scaled down the plan to a 12 story building sitting on half of the block at 555 NW Park Ave.

“What we heard loud and clear…it was simply too big and overwhelmed the remaining block,” Eran Fields told the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission on Sept. 26. The revised plan reduces the total number of apartments from 223 units to 123, and the total building height from 250 feet to 135.

The commission holds design review authority because the full block is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. At an earlier meeting, the commission showed no interest in the taller tower, shown below.

The proposed building would sit adjacent to the Honeyman Hardware warehouse built in 1912 that has since been converted to housing. The new structure also would hover above the two-story bindery building that was part of the Honeyman complex of three buildings. The quarter-block stable building, dating to 1903 and heavily changed over the decades, would be demolished.
Landmark commissioners still have concerns about the development scheme, but they expressed consensus for accepting the 12-story, half-block building. “We really appreciate the scale of change,” said Landmarks Chair Kristen Minor. “We’re really just focusing on the details now.”

...continues at Building on History.

[urbanlife]

Lame.

This block is sitting next to what will eventually be a huge urban redevelopment of a number of large building....maybe. I am expecting the historical committee to kneecap the postal site too, and turn it into a bunch of 6 story buildings.

What blows my mind about this building is that the block has a height limit that allowed for a 23 story building. If the historical committee is going to c***block every building that is "too tall," why not just have the historical committee set the height limits and go with that?

[PacificStates]

I typically refrain from complaining on here, but it’s ridiculous to claim any building downtown is “too tall” (especially considering Portland’s already restrictive height limits) and cut the number of units by 100 amidst a crippling housing crisis. If there’s ever been a time in history to build things that are a bit “out of context” - it’s now.

[CorbinWarrick]

You guys sound like me. Mind you like Urban said since this is next to the post office site be prepared for these so called historical committee cry foul on development there

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

"The moment you turn a city into a museum, it dies."

I remember reading that from an urban planner back at PSU years ago. It was timely then and it's become even more apparent now.

[DMH]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Lame.

This block is sitting next to what will eventually be a huge urban redevelopment of a number of large building....maybe. I am expecting the historical committee to kneecap the postal site too, and turn it into a bunch of 6 story buildings.

What blows my mind about this building is that the block has a height limit that allowed for a 23 story building. If the historical committee is going to c***block every building that is "too tall," why not just have the historical committee set the height limits and go with that?

I am certain that the Historic Landmarks Commission will play NO role in the review of proposed buildings on the post office site. There is no historic district there. It will be the Design Commission that reviews proposed buildings on the post office. I believe the Design Commission will welcome maximum allowed building heights. It will probably be alert to maintaining a clear view of the Union Station tower which is aligned with NW Johnson, I believe. That should be doable.

[Jakz]

I realize that context matters in historic preservation. But this is pretty ridiculous. The existing buildings are nice and worth preserving. But they aren't landmarks. There's nothing terribly special about them. We have weird attitudes about historic preservation in this country.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by DMH

I am certain that the Historic Landmarks Commission will play NO role in the review of proposed buildings on the post office site. There is no historic district there. It will be the Design Commission that reviews proposed buildings on the post office. I believe the Design Commission will welcome maximum allowed building heights. It will probably be alert to maintaining a clear view of the Union Station tower which is aligned with NW Johnson, I believe. That should be doable.

Fingers crossed, I don't want them trying to dictate that entire site to what used to sit on it or the blocks surrounding it.

[sopdx]

The one positive I see here is that it wasn't the developer that soured on the location for the larger building.

[AdamUrbanist]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

What blows my mind about this building is that the block has a height limit that allowed for a 23 story building. If the historical committee is going to c***block every building that is "too tall," why not just have the historical committee set the height limits and go with that?

This is really a profound issue for development in Portland. I don't personally mind the shorter building, but all sides should be able to agree on two things:

1) Height limits and FAR should be set by a body that is tasked with looking at all of the relevant factors holistically, not one that is tasked with considering integrity of historic resources in isolation

2) The decision should to be made in advance as part of a broader planning exercise, not in response to each development proposal individually

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by AdamUrbanist

This is really a profound issue for development in Portland. I don't personally mind the shorter building, but all sides should be able to agree on two things:

1) Height limits and FAR should be set by a body that is tasked with looking at all of the relevant factors holistically, not one that is tasked with considering integrity of historic resources in isolation

2) The decision should to be made in advance as part of a broader planning exercise, not in response to each development proposal individually

I agree, and I am the same way, Portland could be full of 5-12 story buildings and I would be okay with that, but if the far is set for a 400ft building and a developer wants to build something that tall, then that height limit and FAR limit should be what dictates what is allowed on the site.

[2oh1]

+1 to urbanlife and AdamUrbanist's comments above.

Portland is going through some growing pains as our town became a city without our local government evolving to fit the needs that come with such change. We're not a small town anymore and we haven't been one for a long time, but our local government doesn't reflect that.

We've had a lot of comments in this sub about the need for change in terms of how development is overseen and approved. It's absurd that we have a project where the developers want to build taller, and where the height restrictions allow taller... but they're told no.

I don't mind the shorter version of this being build, though of course I'd prefer it to be taller. But I absolutely do mind seeing something taller being denied due to restrictions that weren't spelled out in writing with crystal clarity before development was even considered.

Good lord. The developers presented a proposal based on the allowed height for the location and the design esthetics of the neighborhood. I'm sure there's a better way to phrase that. I'm not in the industry.

Dear Portland, I love you, but it's time to grow up. You're a bit city now. Act like it.

Originally Posted by sopdx

The one positive I see here is that it wasn't the developer that soured on the location for the larger building.

Absolutely. But isn't that also frustrating? We need more housing. They want to build more housing, and their proposal fits within the height limits for the site as well as the transitionary state of the neighborhood (it's right next to the post office site which will be all new construction and thus very modern not to mention tall).

This is stupid. I'll still be thrilled to see the shorter version built, because the neighborhood needs it, but the taller version deserves to be approved immediately.

[pdxsg34]

Request for Response for Historic Resource Review Approval.