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

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

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.

The trail was discussed during the design review. Per the findings:

Portland Parks and Recreation (PPR) did not respond to the original Notice of Proposal or to repeated staff requests before the September 28, 2017 Design Commission hearing. Following the November 30, 2017 Design Commission hearing, PPR staff met with Design Review staff and the applicants to discuss the Greenway trail proposal. The outcome of that meeting resulted in the applicants revising their design of the Greenway trail; see Exhibits H-74 and H-75 for additional details. PPR staff then responded to these design revisions on 12/14/2017 with a recommendation of support for the revised Greenway trail design, which they saw as “a substantial improvement over the existing Greenway on the site”. PPR staff also requested and “strongly encourage[d]” that the applicants remove the existing seawall guardrail and install a new guardrail closer to the river on the seawall to add additional space on the Greenway trail. Please see Exhibit H-79 for additional details.

If the proposal as approved by the Design Commission is not sufficient it's not clear what is.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

The trail was discussed during the design review. Per the findings:

If the proposal as approved by the Design Commission is not sufficient it's not clear what is.

That makes it clear it's only right for the developer to have a chance to provide a new design without "starting from scratch". PPR approved, if the city council found the greenway trail insufficient then despite PPR's approval then why didn't they give them a chance to revise?

[jaxg8r1]

Portland city council is useless, with Chloe and Amanda being just awful. Not that it would work but I would hope the developer sues the city and the neighborhood association.

[pdxsg34]

Very disappointed with this decision. Putting myself in the developers shoes, I would be furious at the design commission for how this project has transpired. The costs to develop a plan with TVA, the community complaints about height, design, view blockage (of a "view" that's no more than 5 years old), and the inclusionary housing rules going into affect, thus nixing these plans from resurfacing as is would make me, IMO, want to sue. With this project, coupled with the debacle of centennial mills, are we looking at these vacant waterfront lots for the next 5-10 years? What motivation does a developer have to put words into action after this Fremont Place project outcome?

I may be naive, but couldn't they have the opportunity to redesign by essentially pushing the lower building back, or repositioning the mini-park from the side to the greenway? It seems ludicrous they wouldn't give the developer/TVA another shot at design if greenway was truly the reason for this decision. Does the U-store self storage Pearl project and associated park have problems like this too?

I am rambling with questions, but as a casual observer of portland development over the past few years, this is quite disheartening to see the lack of consistency and clarity in the design commission's decisions. Sometimes controversial projects breeze on through while other pragmatic projects seem to find the hardest time. The average person and Portland citizen like me should be able to understand the basic guidelines of something like this, but its really unclear when you have decisions like this, where everyone passes it, then all of the sudden the door shuts. Our housing crisis is for real, and although this was for luxury apartments, i really worry about the speed and volume of future projects that we REALLY NEED.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by pdxsg34

Very disappointed with this decision. Putting myself in the developers shoes, I would be furious at the design commission for how this project has transpired. The costs to develop a plan with TVA, the community complaints about height, design, view blockage (of a "view" that's no more than 5 years old), and the inclusionary housing rules going into affect, thus nixing these plans from resurfacing as is would make me, IMO, want to sue. With this project, coupled with the debacle of centennial mills, are we looking at these vacant waterfront lots for the next 5-10 years? What motivation does a developer have to put words into action after this Fremont Place project outcome?

I may be naive, but couldn't they have the opportunity to redesign by essentially pushing the lower building back, or repositioning the mini-park from the side to the greenway? It seems ludicrous they wouldn't give the developer/TVA another shot at design if greenway was truly the reason for this decision. Does the U-store self storage Pearl project and associated park have problems like this too?

I am rambling with questions, but as a casual observer of portland development over the past few years, this is quite disheartening to see the lack of consistency and clarity in the design commission's decisions. Sometimes controversial projects breeze on through while other pragmatic projects seem to find the hardest time. The average person and Portland citizen like me should be able to understand the basic guidelines of something like this, but its really unclear when you have decisions like this, where everyone passes it, then all of the sudden the door shuts. Our housing crisis is for real, and although this was for luxury apartments, i really worry about the speed and volume of future projects that we REALLY NEED.

I agree with this sentiment.

[Tykendo]

Originally Posted by subterranean

I agree with this sentiment.

pdxsg34, I could not have agreed more with your well stated comments. This outcome is totally ridiculous, and a fail for Portland. This kind of thing can send developers looking elsewhere and quality jobs out the door. I just don't get it. The Fremont Bridge isn't a spectacular designed structure. And the industrial property, beneath the bridge, on the northern side, is hardly breathtaking. C'mon people.

[AdamUrbanist]

I think it’s inevitable that when you hold projects to guidelines rather than prescriptive standards some projects will struggle. The design commission is also an imperfect institution that doesn’t always get things right. But I do think they are genuinely trying to uphold a consistent, predictable standard.

My complaint here is not with the design commission, but with a process that allows council to vote down individual projects without regard to the guidelines. Council should vote on the approval criteria to be applied at large, not on whether a particular project meets their fancy.

Personally I agree that the building would be better if it provided for a wider greenway, but decisions like this undermine the sense of predictability and fairness the system is supposed to create. If council makes a habit of undermining the design commission, I worry we are headed towards a development scene that is defined by lobbying and political horse trading rather than well defined guidelines. It happens in other large cities and it can happen here if we let it.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by pdxsg34

I am rambling with questions, but as a casual observer of portland development over the past few years, this is quite disheartening to see the lack of consistency and clarity in the design commission's decisions.

this is on the City Council, not the design commission, just to be clear.

I believe that the developer does have recourse with the State. They can appeal this decision to DLCD, I think.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by AdamUrbanist

Personally I agree that the building would be better if it provided for a wider greenway, but decisions like this undermine the sense of predictability and fairness the system is supposed to create. If council makes a habit of undermining the design commission, I worry we are headed towards a development scene that is defined by lobbying and political horse trading rather than well defined guidelines. It happens in other large cities and it can happen here if we let it.

this x1,000.

[RED_PDXer]

I emailed the city council to explain how disappointing this decision was. Commissioner Fritz replied rather quickly. I exchanged a couple emails with her. I doubt the others will reply. I'm sure you'll find the responses as underwhelming as I did. She (and the rest of the council if they share this logic) just seem out of touch with the planning process, development needs, and the increasing costs of developing in this city.

Commission Fritz (first response)

Thank you for your message. As you acknowledge, the project wasn’t denied to protect views. It was denied because the proposed public space on the Greenway was too narrow, the building exceeded width and depth standards thus disrespecting the downtown block pattern, the bike parking was too small, the side setbacks were too narrow thus didn’t leave room for required tree planting, and the project proposed more shading the Greenway and the plaza than the code allows. Of these, the constraints on the Greenway were at the center of the denial. Of course, the essence of land use decisions is that they are based on discretionary Approval Criteria on which reasonable people can and do disagree. I recognize that you disagree with the Council’s decision. The cost to the developer is not one of the Approval Criteria, and therefore not something the Council can consider when deciding the merits of the proposal.

Likely new application will be submitted under the new Central City 2035 regulations, which allow more height and probably more units than in the application denied yesterday.

I rebutted all of those points and noted that yet another waterfront parcel will sit vacant for who knows how long.

second response:

Thank you for your response. I doubt very much that this lot will remain vacant for long. It is prime riverfront land, and with the new rules in the Central City 2035 Plan will be allowed additional height and building intensity.

The flaws in the proposal could not be corrected by a few tweaks. Changing the setbacks, massing, Greenway layout, and shade patterns will require a comprehensive redesign, which the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability and Design Commission are far more competent to review than the City Council.

Those are the full responses from Commissioner Fritz. I didn't leave anything out.

[MarkDaMan]

I don't fully understand the process of getting a hearing in front of LUBA, but could this be escalated to them and perhaps overturn the city council's decision?

[johnliu]

I don't have much to add, except to note that council appears to be more protective of the riverfront than many had expected. That's not proven, but I'm just looking for the common thread that - arguably - connects this project's fate to the Riverplace situation.

Are there other riverfront projects that should be assessed differently with that information?

[2oh1]

"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."

I can't help wondering if this developer is paying the price for Skylab's misdeed at an even more iconic location.

[AdamUrbanist]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

I don't fully understand the process of getting a hearing in front of LUBA, but could this be escalated to them and perhaps overturn the city council's decision?

What was being proposed was an amendment to the approved zoning to allow additional height and FAR. I don’t think LUBA couldn’t overturn a denial of that request unless you found a way to argue that the base zoning of the site was invalid. (Extremely unlikely)

[AdamUrbanist]

Ignore that previous post. I got mixed up with the river place project.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

I don't fully understand the process of getting a hearing in front of LUBA, but could this be escalated to them and perhaps overturn the city council's decision?

It's very difficult to get LUBA to decide against a local decision unless the mistake is painfully obvious and quantifiable. Local laws are best interpreted at the local level. That's essentially what happened at the Wizer block in downtown LO. In this case, adjustments are almost impossible to overturn because essentially the developer can meet all of them with a significantly reduced building size.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by Tykendo

This kind of thing can send developers looking elsewhere and quality jobs out the door. I just don't get it. The Fremont Bridge isn't a spectacular designed structure. And the industrial property, beneath the bridge, on the northern side, is hardly breathtaking. C'mon people.

I don't really see any evidence of developers curtailing building in Portland. There are plenty of buildings under construction in this part of Portland. An entire neighborhood of rentals is going up just a few blocks from this location. The time for being picky about development is exactly now, when market forces would otherwise overbuild.

[jaxg8r1]

Originally Posted by Leo

I don't really see any evidence of developers curtailing building in Portland. There are plenty of buildings under construction in this part of Portland. An entire neighborhood of rentals is going up just a few blocks from this location. The time for being picky about development is exactly now, when market forces would otherwise overbuild.

There have been numerous reports about how development is slowing down and how the affordable housing provisions are not delivering the units needed. Most of the buildings under construction now went through the permitting/review/design process years ago.

The reality is for more affordable housing, either supply needs to go way up or demand needs to go way down. I'm guessing demand isn't going to go down anytime soon but roadblocks to creating supply will definitely causes pricing pressures to escalate. That is what is so insanely frustrating about this and other asinine Portland policies. We are well on our way to becoming a boutique city where people in skyscrapers demand the city not allow other people to live in skyscrapers next door for silly reasons.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by jaxg8r1

There have been numerous reports about how development is slowing down and how the affordable housing provisions are not delivering the units needed. Most of the buildings under construction now went through the permitting/review/design process years ago.

The reality is for more affordable housing, either supply needs to go way up or demand needs to go way down. I'm guessing demand isn't going to go down anytime soon but roadblocks to creating supply will definitely causes pricing pressures to escalate. That is what is so insanely frustrating about this and other asinine Portland policies. We are well on our way to becoming a boutique city where people in skyscrapers demand the city not allow other people to live in skyscrapers next door for silly reasons.

Plus a number of developers rammed through housing projects right before the inclusionary housing rule went into effect. So in a sense, it caused an overbuild to avoid having to add in affordable housing which could explain a slowdown in building permits. It will be some time before we get to understand the true effects of that change.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by Leo

I don't really see any evidence of developers curtailing building in Portland. There are plenty of buildings under construction in this part of Portland. An entire neighborhood of rentals is going up just a few blocks from this location. The time for being picky about development is exactly now, when market forces would otherwise overbuild.

Washington County is seeing a lot more urban-style infill development, especially in downtown Beaverton and nearish to MAX stops (the massive Baseline 158 development near Nike, for instance). I don't know if this has any direct correlation to the inclusionary zoning in Portland or if it's just indicative of the market as a whole. All I know is I'm seeing a lot more units coming online that don't look like your stereotypical garden style suburban apartment complexes.