Broadway Corridor (Post Office Redevelopment) | Proposed

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

I'll never understand people who care about postcard pretty skylines more than they care about quality of life in the city. I'll gladly take two 250 footers over one 500 footer because it means two city blocks get improved rather than one.

But Im sure Mr Warrick makes 200grand plus a year because that's what Bellevue is all about, of course without any industrial areas.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

But Im sure Mr Warrick makes 200grand plus a year because that's what Bellevue is all about, of course without any industrial areas.

Yeah, lol. But I wouldn't care if somebody makes seven figures. If all they want is something pretty to look at, buy art. A city is a place for people to live, work and play. Quality of live in a city matters more than quality of the vista as seen from afar.

[CorbinWarrick]

Originally Posted by DMH

I would suggest that all of you go to Google Streetview and drop a pin at various locations in Downtown Bellevue. "Walk" around Bellevue on different streets, taking in the views and environment created by that collection of high rises. Is that really a city we would want to emulate?

Oh I agree with that but you can do both

[uncommon.name]

In my humble opinion - typically your central downtown of a large city is not going to ever be "affordable" to anyone making below the median income of that area. That is not just Portland, that is all large cities. If someone can show me a large city like Portland or larger that has true affordable housing in their downtown core, I'll eat my words. For this reason alone, I feel using the "affordable housing" as an argument of why we can't have any tower over 460', is not the correct way to look at it.

[Rob Nob]

There are several non-profits that run affordable apartments in downtown Portland. Bridge Housing has several: https://bridgehousing.com/properties/?fwp_city=portland and Home Forward: http://www.homeforward.org/developme...y-developments and Reach CDC: https://reachcdc.org/programs/our-housing and Innovative Housing: http://www.innovativehousinginc.com/...roperties.html

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by Rob Nob

There are several non-profits that run affordable apartments in downtown Portland. Bridge Housing has several: https://bridgehousing.com/properties/?fwp_city=portland and Home Forward: http://www.homeforward.org/developme...y-developments and Reach CDC: https://reachcdc.org/programs/our-housing and Innovative Housing: http://www.innovativehousinginc.com/...roperties.html

I think what uncommon.name is talking about is workforce housing that isn't subsidized and a prospective tenant doesn't need to "qualify" to rent. For example, when I moved here in 2002 I had a 10th floor apartment on Kings Hill for $650 and that included all utilities. That same apartment is $1,750 today. At around the same time, prior to the Harrison Towers being renovated, all three towers had a nice collection of workforce housing starting in the low $500s per month. Now only one tower has rentals and they start $1,640.

I remember searching for apartments when deciding to leave AZ waaay back then and seeing tons of unsubsidized options that I considered affordable for a two person income that were both slightly above minimum wage. Granted that was almost 20 years ago now. Unfortunately over that time rental housing became a profit driver with investment companies purchasing apartment buildings/complexes and expecting property manager to raise rents as high as possible to turn the biggest profit possible. We also lost a ton of central city rental apartments when the condo craze flipped many units from apartment to condos squeezing supply and causing rent increases.

[Rob Nob]

Originally Posted by DMH

Only the most expensive apartments and condos would be provided by towers taller than 460 feet. The housing that Portland needs should be not just "affordable" in the jargon of developers, but truly affordable, so that a couple working for the minimum wage and raising two kids can have decent housing that does not gobble up half of a family's monthly income. No, eliminating the current building height limit will not solve Portland's housing shortage.

There's good info on "City Observatory" that suggests otherwise. It's supply and demand, any increase in supply, even at the top, shifts old units slowly further down the line toward affordability like dominoes.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick

Check out Bellevue Washington’s skyline. A suburb city at that

The skyline growth there has been impressive, and being on top of the hill, it is visually appealing when driving into the downtown on the interstate, but as others have pointed out it is the streets that make a city.

Bellevue has come a long way, but a lot of that has been because of big corporations and big development projects. It is a bit of a model city for suburbs and suburban style cities looking to transition into having an urban downtown, but isn't the same as cities with historical urban cores.

Basically Bellevue feels like Bridgeport with corporate towers and condo towers.

[CorbinWarrick]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

The skyline growth there has been impressive, and being on top of the hill, it is visually appealing when driving into the downtown on the interstate, but as others have pointed out it is the streets that make a city.

Bellevue has come a long way, but a lot of that has been because of big corporations and big development projects. It is a bit of a model city for suburbs and suburban style cities looking to transition into having an urban downtown, but isn't the same as cities with historical urban cores.

Basically Bellevue feels like Bridgeport with corporate towers and condo towers.

Yea but eventually they can get their ground level feel better. It’s admirable how their vision is big time and you have larger cities who still think small

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick

Yea but eventually they can get their ground level feel better. It’s admirable how their vision is big time and you have larger cities who still think small

That has less to do with the city and the private corporations building towers in Bellevue. Portland would look more like Bellevue if Portland had companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Salesforce, and other tech companies building towers here.

So it isn't about thinking big or small, towers are just towers, I would much rather walk around downtown Portland than downtown Bellevue.

With the Broadway Corridor, this project will feel more in line with the urban feel of downtown Portland, which will be a better benefit than just some tall towers and parking garages.

[DMH]

Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick

Yea but eventually they can get their ground level feel better. It’s admirable how their vision is big time and you have larger cities who still think small

Have you considered relocating to a less-human-scaled, more tower-dominated city, one that "thinks big"?

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick

Yea but eventually they can get their ground level feel better. It’s admirable how their vision is big time and you have larger cities who still think small

BIG maybe. If you've ever been to Arlington, VA or Minneapolis, MN you will experience a similar feeling to Bellevue. I'm certain there are no limits to similar examples of this throughout the US, these are just places I've had experience with. The buildings themselves in these places were not designed to integrate into the pedestrian fabric. They can be retrofitted, but in most cases it's a very expensive fix that still won't match an urban setting and buildings specifically designed for street life.

Tall buildings are generally an extension of someone's ego, in my view, and rarely pencil out better than shorter versions. We should be advocating for buildings that contribute the most to our collective health, as well as considerations for limiting their carbon footprint. If super tall buildings can do that better, then by all means we should push for them. There are smarter people on this page than me who may be able to offer an opinion about what would be best.

[CorbinWarrick]

Originally Posted by eric cantona

BIG maybe. If you've ever been to Arlington, VA or Minneapolis, MN you will experience a similar feeling to Bellevue. I'm certain there are no limits to similar examples of this throughout the US, these are just places I've had experience with. The buildings themselves in these places were not designed to integrate into the pedestrian fabric. They can be retrofitted, but in most cases it's a very expensive fix that still won't match an urban setting and buildings specifically designed for street life.

Tall buildings are generally an extension of someone's ego, in my view, and rarely pencil out better than shorter versions. We should be advocating for buildings that contribute the most to our collective health, as well as considerations for limiting their carbon footprint. If super tall buildings can do that better, then by all means we should push for them. There are smarter people on this page than me who may be able to offer an opinion about what would be best.

Vancouver bc? Great urban feel and tall

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick

Vancouver bc? Great urban feel and tall

And if you're a millionaire, you might be able to afford it. You understand that, right? Right?

Vancouver BC: Great urban feel, tall, and completely unaffordable. I'd be thrilled to live there if I could afford it, but I can't imagine how anyone can. Everyone I've known from Vancouver BC has been priced out and pushed out over the last 20 years, and it was already expensive back then.

If a city is too expensive for its citizens, who is the city for? I worry about Portland becoming unaffordable, but Vancouver BC is on a whole other level. Prices there are wild.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I would much rather walk around downtown Portland than downtown Bellevue.

100,000,000% THIS.

If all somebody cares about is having a pretty view from a distance, they should move to Gary Indiana and buy some art to look at.

A city is a place for people to live IN, work IN, and play IN, emphasis on IN.

I would much rather walk in, live in, work in, and play in downtown Portland than downtown Bellevue.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick

Vancouver bc? Great urban feel and tall

To wit:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/...high-low-rise/

[AdamUrbanist]

Originally Posted by eric cantona

To wit:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/...high-low-rise/

I agree with the basic conclusion of this article, but I don't think comparing two urban environments in their totality actually reflects the planning choices that need to be made in existing cities. American cities have a challenge that Paris, in the era most of its fabric was constructed, did not. Paris was able to expand horizontally in relatively dense fashion. We don't have that luxury and need to accommodate densification on the relatively small number of parcels within the urban core that are available for redevelopment at a given time. One of biggest challenges with infill development is achieving an economy of scale and the only way to do that in a constrained space is to go taller. It doesn't mean every project needs to be 600 feet but also means you can't prescribe a 5 story height limit just because it's worked in Paris. Personally I think Portland has mostly balanced this pretty well

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by AdamUrbanist

I agree with the basic conclusion of this article, but I don't think comparing two urban environments in their totality actually reflects the planning choices that need to be made in existing cities. American cities have a challenge that Paris, in the era most of its fabric was constructed, did not. Paris was able to expand horizontally in relatively dense fashion. We don't have that luxury and need to accommodate densification on the relatively small number of parcels within the urban core that are available for redevelopment at a given time. One of biggest challenges with infill development is achieving an economy of scale and the only way to do that in a constrained space is to go taller. It doesn't mean every project needs to be 600 feet but also means you can't prescribe a 5 story height limit just because it's worked in Paris. Personally I think Portland has mostly balanced this pretty well

agreed. BUT, as in Paris, and to a lesser extent Portland, building at 5-7 or so stories consistently across the city will achieve much of the desired density without resorting to costly ego towers in the downtown core.

[CorbinWarrick]

[eric cantona]

of course you can do both. but is it the best use of resources in relation to climate change? is it the best form for a vibrant and connected urban fabric? I have never heard of anyone going to Paris to hang out in the built up core.

that, and, as has been mentioned ad nauseum to you, the financial disparities between a major international city and Portland are stark. you need deep pockets to create the skyline you so fervently desire. Bellevue, even without much international standing, has that. as does Vanc BC, Paris, London, NYC, etc.

I am genuinely curious WHY you are so fixated on tall buildings.

[Tykendo]

Because they're so cool. Todays designs are sleek, futuristic, and flat out badass. Add serious colorful lighting, and you have a beacon for prosperity, and excitement. No more bland architecture please. The Morrison Tower Project designed by KPF would have been so cool. Instead we got the stumpy ODS Tower.