RiverPlace Redevelopment - Central City Master Plan | Proposed

[Mr. Walch]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

If I can ask, why is that interesting?

Kengo Kuma is one of the most renowned architects of Japan. He is locally responsible for the Japanese Garden expansion. Google the name and check out his work.

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by Mr. Walch

Kengo Kuma is one of the most renowned architects of Japan. He is locally responsible for the Japanese Garden expansion. Google the name and check out his work.

Will do. Thanks

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Just found out Kengo Kuma & Associates are involved with this. Very interesting.

Hmm....I might need to check my underwear for poop. This is fantastic news. I am really beginning to think this is a serious proposal. I am really hoping it happens.

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

If I can ask, why is that interesting?

It is an architecture firm that designs fantastic architecture. The Japanese Gardens upgrade was designed by this firm. They have also designed a number of buildings around the world that would be considered top of the line design work.


http://www.archdaily.com/786400/keng...r-in-vancouver

You should check them out to see more of their work.

Google search of the firm's work

[cailes]

This would be fantastic! Not only the taller buildings, but also the amount of affordable housing that would come with it. If that could be locked in, this cannot be a bad thing. especially in an area that could use some more activity and infill.

As far as transportation goes, the area is already well served by streetcar, bike and sidewalks. Maybe a major grocer would finally percolate to the top of the conversation.

[geohiker]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Just found out Kengo Kuma & Associates are involved with this. Very interesting.

If we get anything half as cool as the Asakusa Culture Tourism Center I will be ecstatic!

[Leo]

Originally Posted by QAtheSky

The pitch is obviously for the whole project, but I would imagine these would go up in the same incremental fashion that the Oregon Square project is coming in: Phased and built with demand.

But you have to negotiate for the best case scenario to lock in heights and zoning. I wouldn't neccesarily call this project a canary for a recession, but there are probably broader indicators at indicate as much for the US as a whole.

The top of the rental market is definitely softening in Portland right now and that data is readily available. Tons of unfilled demand at mid and low market prices, though.

Rental prices adjust to market much more efficiently than purchase prices. If the top end starts slashing prices, they will look attractive to renters on the next rung down the pricing ladder, and the price reductions will cascade down. Given the amount of high-end rental units, it could be a significant effect.

The big variable I really see here is Slabtown. It's essentially goint to be another Pearl District of all rentals, supply-wise, all mid-to-high end. That's a *lot* of rentals!

[maccoinnich]

World-Renowned Japanese Architect Helping Design the Tall Apartment Towers Proposed for Portland Waterfront
Here's what the apartment towers could look like if City Council lets Kengo Kuma go tall.



If a proposal to bring tall apartment towers to the waterfront comes to fruition, an internationally renowned architect might have a hand in shaping Portland's new skyline.

Japanese architect Kengo Kuma, who designed the Portland Japanese Garden's new buildings and Tokyo's 2020 Olympic Games stadium, is working on the designs to build skyscrapers at RiverPlace.

WW first reported this morning that the project's developer is offering to build as many as 500 affordable apartments, in exchange for the city allowing the buildings to rise as high as 400 feet tall. The new neighborhood would step down from Portland State University to the Riverplace Marina and Tom McCall Waterfront Park.

Kuma's firm is the second architect listed on project documents. The other is locally based GBD Architects.

...continues at the Willamette Week.

[subterranean]

Is it time to poop our collective pants?

[innovativethinking]

Ohh this is getting pretty serious!

Let me guess everybody loves tall buildings now huh?!!

[DMH]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

...continues at the Willamette Week.

Yes, this could be an exciting proposal. But it gets down to the details of how the towers fit in the neighborhood. Do they comply with the central city plan for buildings to step down to the river? Will they cast shadows on any public spaces that have zoning restrictions protecting solar access? Furthermore it is well-established that affordable apartments in tall buildings are actually not affordable. Older apartment buildings are more likely to be affordable. Did anyone else attend the talk by Ed McMahon of the Urban Land Institute on Tueday evening at the White Stag UofO building? This point was emphasized throughout his presentation.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by DMH

Do they comply with the central city plan for buildings to step down to the river?

What the current plan states is:

POLICY 5.3 Dynamic skyline. Encourage the tallest buildings to locate adjacent to transit hubs and corridors, generally stepping down in height to the Willamette River. Allow taller buildings at bridgeheads and encourage contextually sensitive heights within historic districts. Encourage heights and building forms that preserve sunlight on public open spaces and parks.

The language about stepping down to the river originally came out of the 1972 Downtown Plan, but however there were no heights limits at all until 1979. Under current zoning, the max heights at Riverplace are 125'/150'. This is actually lower than that was allowed in 1979, when a 185'/205' height limit was established. In South Waterfront we already allow buildings of up to 325'. So I guess what I'm saying is that what "stepping down to the river" means can vary a lot, and Riverplace certainly meets the criteria for placing tall buildings near transit.

Originally Posted by DMH

Furthermore it is well-established that affordable apartments in tall buildings are actually not affordable. Older apartment buildings are more likely to be affordable. Did anyone else attend the talk by Ed McMahon of the Urban Land Institute on Tueday evening at the White Stag UofO building? This point was emphasized throughout his presentation.

Given the city's IZ policy, Ed McMahon's (somewhat dubious) arguments seem irrelevant. To get a building permit the developers would be required to comply with the policy, or not build anything at all.

[hat]

Are they potentially developing the Riverplace Athletic Club site as well?

[tworivers]

This would indeed be amazing, especially when you consider the potential Zidell and OHSU build-out. The public plaza rendering looks really intriguing. However, I'll believe it when I see it.

These guys must be looking at AAT, right? I wonder what their timeline is and whether they're thinking even longer-term (in terms of investment payoff) than those guys, especially with our softening higher-end rental market. Or if the obvious advantages of this site give it enough of a lift over the Lloyd District to make it a "go". ??

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by tworivers

This would indeed be amazing, especially when you consider the potential Zidell and OHSU build-out. The public plaza rendering looks really intriguing. However, I'll believe it when I see it.

These guys must be looking at AAT, right? I wonder what their timeline is and whether they're thinking even longer-term (in terms of investment payoff) than those guys, especially with our softening higher-end rental market. Or if the obvious advantages of this site give it enough of a lift over the Lloyd District to make it a "go". ??

I hope their not looking at AAT. Seems like those guys gave up

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

Ohh this is getting pretty serious!

Let me guess everybody loves tall buildings now huh?!!

Meh, not tall enough.

This looks like an amazing proposal for Portland, I hope this is what we get for a built version because that would be a huge boost for the city. I can only imagine how good the open space is going to be for this redevelopment.

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Meh, not tall enough.

This looks like an amazing proposal for Portland, I hope this is what we get for a built version because that would be a huge boost for the city. I can only imagine how good the open space is going to be for this redevelopment.

Yea this is going to be great. I’m excited

[johnliu]

Not quite soiling my undergarments, but very intrigued by towers of an interesting design in this location. Some vibes of Bosco Verticale?

Can anyone make some back of napkin estimates of whether and how this project will make sense financially, assuming 20% of 2,500 units are $1,000/month affordable housing. What rent would the other 80% have to be at? With the other development going on, will Portland be significantly oversupplied with high-end rental units? How much can rents weaken at the high-end, before the project will have to start cutting corners and all that cool stuff in the renderings goes away?

If rents at the high end are softening now, what will they be like when the next two years of projects are on the market.

I guess I'm asking how likely people think it is that, assuming the city council agrees to the heights, this project will get built in anything like the rendered form?

[subterranean]

Hard to say without a construction cost, which are rising by the week it seems.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by johnliu

Not quite soiling my undergarments, but very intrigued by towers of an interesting design in this location. Some vibes of Bosco Verticale?

Can anyone make some back of napkin estimates of whether and how this project will make sense financially, assuming 20% of 2,500 units are $1,000/month affordable housing. What rent would the other 80% have to be at? With the other development going on, will Portland be significantly oversupplied with high-end rental units? How much can rents weaken at the high-end, before the project will have to start cutting corners and all that cool stuff in the renderings goes away?

If rents at the high end are softening now, what will they be like when the next two years of projects are on the market.

I guess I'm asking how likely people think it is that, assuming the city council agrees to the heights, this project will get built in anything like the rendered form?

I'm curious if anyone knows how rents are calculated for "affordable" housing, and "workforce" housing, and others. If they're committing to offering what amounts to subsidized housing, is the subsidy the delta between 80% income and 100% income? or, maybe simpler, will the rents equal 80% of the market rate units? where does the $1,000/mo figure come from?

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by eric cantona

I'm curious if anyone knows how rents are calculated for "affordable" housing, and "workforce" housing, and others. If they're committing to offering what amounts to subsidized housing, is the subsidy the delta between 80% income and 100% income? or, maybe simpler, will the rents equal 80% of the market rate units? where does the $1,000/mo figure come from?

Affordability is generally based on 30% of a person's/family's income at 30%, 50%, 60%, 65%, 80% etc. Project-based vouchers are targeted at 30% AMI. HUD's low HOME rent is targeted at 50% AMI, which is usually the required targeting upon initial occupancy. Federal low-income housing tax credit projects are targeted at 60% AMI unless they have OAHTCs, then they have deeper targeting of 50% AMI. If Tax Credits and HOME are layered together, then the lowest rent/deeper targeting wins. HUD's High HOME rent is 30% of 65% AMI. A person in a HUD-subsidized property will be charged the High HOME rent even if their income reaches 80% AMI. After that, rent will be charged at 30% of their income if they are in a subsidized unit and the unit can't "float" somewhere else.

HUD's definition of "fair market rent" for Portland is currently $1053/mo for a 1 bedroom. An affordable rent for someone at 50% AMI is $700/mo for a 1 bedroom.

Supportive housing is usually the project-based housing (voucher tied to a project, not housing choice), and not really considered "workforce". Workforce is basically the working poor, not seniors, the homeless or mentally disabled. However, usually workforce housing will have a 8 vouchers to help support a project's operating budget since they can charge higher rents.

Portland's inclusionary zoning only targets 80% AMI. They can either pay a fee to not have to target that low, or the other units would have to subsidize the "loss" on those other units from an underwriting perspective.

PM me if this is confusing. God knows it was for me when I started in this industry.