Central Eastside News

[babs]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I think conceding a surface lot this close in and near transit is crappy.

Yeah, they should have put a 70 story building there instead.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by babs

Yeah, they should have put a 70 story building there instead.

I know you think I'm an idiot and youre on super snark mode, but 70 stories this close in would be awesome. I agree.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

70 stories this close in would be awesome.

70 stories at that location would probably grind future building to a halt because it wouldn't fill with tenants. Yes, there is demand for office space, but not for 70 stories at that location.

Overbuilding is death for the economy because future developments stall or get cancelled entirely when new buildings can't fill with tenants. At 70 stories, the price to lease space would be more than what businesses looking for office space in this location would be willing to pay.

Inner SE is going to erupt with new housing and office space, but it has to happen at a pace that doesn't get ahead of demand. There isn't demand for 70 stories of office space in inner SE.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by babs

Yeah, they should have put a 70 story building there instead.

Originally Posted by 2oh1

70 stories at that location would probably grind future building to a halt because it wouldn't fill with tenants. Yes, there is demand for office space, but not for 70 stories at that location.

Overbuilding is death for the economy because future developments stall or get cancelled entirely when new buildings can't fill with tenants. At 70 stories, the price to lease space would be more than what businesses looking for office space in this location would be willing to pay.

Inner SE is going to erupt with new housing and office space, but it has to happen at a pace that doesn't get ahead of demand. There isn't demand for 70 stories of office space in inner SE.

Thanks again for the unneeded lecture, but I'm aware 70 stories is too much. I'm aware it would halt building if it failed to fill. I was responding to snark with more snark.

Furthermore, my quibble is with the surface lot here. Don't make it into a lot that will be parking for decades. Ugh.

Edit: for what it's worth, an economist agrees with me. The goal is to overbuild to stabilize rents. See the latest bikeportland article about housing.

[NESteve]

I'm glad to see the Killian project finally moving forward, along with everything else in the Central Eastside. The lower Burnside area around NE MLK and Couch is amazing to watch as I ride through every day.

I've heard from a source in the development/architecture community that the planned 150+ unit building at 419 E. Burnside has very likely been moth-balled. I took a quick look at PortlandMaps, and permit activity stopped months ago (except for a very recent electrical permit to "add voice and data drop to an existing system"). Who knows, maybe we'll see a car lot open once again on that site - or maybe another beer garden!!!

Has anybody else heard anything about whether or not this will move forward?

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Thanks again for the unneeded lecture

are you the pot or the kettle, in this instance?

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

for what it's worth, an economist agrees with me. The goal is to overbuild to stabilize rents.

This might be the funniest thing I've ever read in this forum. Overbuilding leads to economic ruin. And "an economist"...? A slew of economists helped the Bush administration guide the economy into the worst collapse since the great depression. An economist can be wrong. An economist who recommends overbuilding certainly is wrong.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

This might be the funniest thing I've ever read in this forum. Overbuilding leads to economic ruin. And "an economist"...? A slew of economists helped the Bush administration guide the economy into the worst collapse since the great depression. An economist can be wrong. An economist who recommends overbuilding certainly is wrong.

No, they have residents in mind, not just developers/land investors. The CEID can be far more dense and not even hit that wall of overbuilding.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by NESteve

I'm glad to see the Killian project finally moving forward, along with everything else in the Central Eastside. The lower Burnside area around NE MLK and Couch is amazing to watch as I ride through every day.

I've heard from a source in the development/architecture community that the planned 150+ unit building at 419 E. Burnside has very likely been moth-balled. I took a quick look at PortlandMaps, and permit activity stopped months ago (except for a very recent electrical permit to "add voice and data drop to an existing system"). Who knows, maybe we'll see a car lot open once again on
that site - or maybe another beer garden!!!


Has anybody else heard anything about whether or not this will move forward?

I want to know this, too.

[2oh1]

Nobody disagrees about this:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

The CEID can be far more dense and not even hit that wall of overbuilding.

I can't imagine anybody agreeing with this:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

The goal is to overbuild to stabilize rents.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Nobody disagrees about this:



I can't imagine anybody agreeing with this:

How can you claim what is inevitable is not something to try to manage? We will overbuild, it's how the market works. I think building faster now would be better in the long run. We'd have more housing, and we probably won't hit the overbuild point anytime soon. Such is the demand. It's going to happen, but not as quick as you imagine even with faster rates of building.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

How can you claim what is inevitable is not something to try to manage?

Quote the post where I said what you're attempting to imply I said. I made no such claim about managing future growth. Period. You've got to stop trying to put words in people's mouths.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Quote the post where I said what you're attempting to imply I said. I made no such claim about managing future growth. Period. You've got to stop trying to put words in people's mouths.

You're being intentionally dense; you said no one would agree with stabilizing rents by overbuilding. Only thing is, it's inevitable. So we should try to manage it long term. I think the proper way would be to build more than we currently are because this boom will likely be more sustained. If we balk now, we will have an ongoing shortage during boom time-- exactly the SF situation we should avoid. This surface lot shouldn't be allowed. And we should be adding tons more housing. I get you agree with that, so let's leave it at that, ok? You are nit picking to try to tire me, and I will continue to defend my point.

And trying to push this conversation on topic, again, I am saying all this in the context of a decided lack of housing/office/retail density in CEID

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

How can you claim what is inevitable is not something to try to manage? We will overbuild, it's how the market works. I think building faster now would be better in the long run. We'd have more housing, and we probably won't hit the overbuild point anytime soon. Such is the demand. It's going to happen, but not as quick as you imagine even with faster rates of building.

where is the money supposed to come from?

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

where is the money supposed to come from?

From developers that want to build but are being slowed down by NIMBYs. I mean, the question seems to imply you think there isn't a demand for housing in Portland, which would be absurd. However, you never know with some people.

Again, this is too much surface lot on this building. The remainder of the lot can be utilized much better than a surface lot and should be zoned for such.

[colganc]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

70 stories at that location would probably grind future building to a halt because it wouldn't fill with tenants. Yes, there is demand for office space, but not for 70 stories at that location.

Overbuilding is death for the economy because future developments stall or get cancelled entirely when new buildings can't fill with tenants. At 70 stories, the price to lease space would be more than what businesses looking for office space in this location would be willing to pay.

Inner SE is going to erupt with new housing and office space, but it has to happen at a pace that doesn't get ahead of demand. There isn't demand for 70 stories of office space in inner SE.

I'm not familiar enough with the Inner SE. From what I've seen I can imagine four floor apartment and office buildings popping up, but can the streets handle the increase? The Llyoyd area makes sense since it is right next to MAX, awesome easy commute to downtown, walk nearby, or streetcar/bus to something along the water front. I see other developments popping up along the major streets, but it doesn't seem like it can continue to the extent I'm imagining your indicating. San Francisco for example has tons of double lane both direction streets, it creates more space for transit without blocking flow and more space for private vehicles.

[maccoinnich]

So, some context for why 240 Clay is the size that it is (and not 70 stories). The building is in an IG1 (industrial) zoned area, where any office use would normally require a Conditional Use Review (i.e. isn't prohibited, but is really difficult to get approved). In 2006 the City created the Employment Opportunity Subarea (EOS), which covers part of the central eastside closest to the river. The thinking was that a lot of the historic multistory buildings in that area were vacant because they were poorly suited to modern industry, but could be used for compatible office uses. The EOS allows up 60,000 sq ft of 'industrial office' by right. This was enormously successful, and the Central Eastside saw employment growth even through the recession. Many of the adaptive reuse projects that happened in the last decade couldn't have been happened otherwise. 240 Clay offers exactly 60,000 sq ft of office space - i.e. the max the EOS allows.

As part of the SE Quadrant Plan, which will go before the City Council later this year, the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability is proposing to expand the EOS to much more of the Central Eastside. There are likely to be people arguing strongly that they should go further and just replace the IG1 zone with EX, which basically allows anything (industrial, office, residential, whatever). On the other side the traditional industrial users of the district are likely to argue against any expansion of the EOS. They're worried about being pushed out of the district, because an office for architects or programmers can pay a much higher rent per square foot than a sheet metal fabricator or a fruit distributor can.

I find it an interesting debate. For most of the 20th century the whole point of Euclidean zoning was to keep the adverse affects of industrial uses far away from residential uses. We're now seeing the exact opposite: the industrial uses are worried about commercial and residential uses adversely affecting them. I hope that wasn't too boring for everyone.

[65MAX]

Not boring at all, very interesting actually. Obviously modern industry has far fewer adverse effects compared to 20th Century industry in general, and I think it can very easily coexist with high density commercial and residential uses. The question then becomes, how much IG1 space do we need to preserve (as a de facto rent control for those industries less capable of shouldering skyrocketing rents) so the CEID doesn't become Pearl East? Or is that transformation an inevitability?

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Not boring at all, very interesting actually. Obviously modern industry has far fewer adverse effects compared to 20th Century industry in general, and I think it can very easily coexist with high density commercial and residential uses. The question then becomes, how much IG1 space do we need to preserve (as a de facto rent control for those industries less capable of shouldering skyrocketing rents) so the CEID doesn't become Pearl East? Or is that transformation an inevitability?

It's an inevitability so close in. This is a losing battle for industry in so central and prime a location. This is just causing Portland to have a further shortage by acting like this isn't a done deal here.

[mmeade]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

It's an inevitability so close in. This is a losing battle for industry in so central and prime a location. This is just causing Portland to have a further shortage by acting like this isn't a done deal here.

I thought so years ago too, but this area has been well protected for quite some time. It took me a while to come around, but there is immense value to having working industrial this close to the central city. For one thing, this area is affected by a highway, a massive freeway bridge/overpass, and a train line. If you allowed typical uses, they would start to complain and cause these items to be reworked. That would be unnecessary if the current uses remain.

Additionally, these locations provide jobs. The ideal city contains a variety of jobs and a variety of housing opportunities. People can live near the central city, work near the central city, and benefit from all that the central city provides. Not everyone who lives and works near the central city should be bankers and lawyers and such. I value the diversity.

What I think would be interesting would be to find ways to rework the industrial spaces at a larger scale and create buildings like Activspace that provide space for smaller makers and even smaller industrial users.