Modera Glisan | 145'-0" | 12 floors | Complete

[DMH]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

That's the thing, when you start to take away property rights in the name of protection, then it sometimes leads to massive NIMBY control that makes it near impossible to do anything and then forces the cost of property to go up.

The way I see it, I think we have a number of people and groups that have done a great job of preserving a lot of architecture in Portland, and I am all for nurturing that and encouraging people to do that, but at the same time I don't want to see too many barriers put into place that prevents development. So in the end, we are going to lose a few gems, and I accept that fact, but when I walk around Portland, I still see so much that people have renovated and preserved.

As most I think should happen here is that a delay to demolition should happen to allow anyone to purchase the property with the intent to preserve it because if it is something truly preserving, someone will do that. But it also forces us to face a real fact, not everything is worth saving, even if it is something we really think should be saved.



And again, I say all this knowing full well that Portland would be losing a beautiful piece of architecture and history if this building is torn down. But at the same time, I know I don't have the funds to buy it and save it.

I am not willing to throw in the towel and say that the "market" will determine what is saved and what is demolished.

For the past three years I have been living 1/3 of each year in foreign cities. I am presently in Seville, Spain. Soon I will be in Barcelona for a while. In all of the cities where I have resided, there is a strong core of historic buildings as well as a mix of modern architecture. Even banking capital Frankfurt, Germany (known in Deutschland as Mainhattan, being on the Main River but resembling NYC because of its many high rises) has a healthy mix of vibrant historic buildings abutting contemporary structures.

This is what I would hope for Portland as it develops. We should see more of a mix of old and new as Gerding Edlen did with the Brewery Blocks, as should be done at SW 3rd and Taylor with the 'Temple' and the 'Lotus', and as should be done on this project at NW 14th and Glisan.

We need a city council that will protect historic buildings and incentivize their renovation and integration with new buildings.

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by DMH

I am not willing to throw in the towel and say that the "market" will determine what is saved and what is demolished.

For the past three years I have been living 1/3 of each year in foreign cities. I am presently in Seville, Spain. Soon I will be in Barcelona for a while. In all of the cities where I have resided, there is a strong core of historic buildings as well as a mix of modern architecture. Even banking capital Frankfurt, Germany (known in Deutschland as Mainhattan, being on the Main River but resembling NYC because of its many high rises) has a healthy mix of vibrant historic buildings abutting contemporary structures.

This is what I would hope for Portland as it develops. We should see more of a mix of old and new as Gerding Edlen did with the Brewery Blocks, as should be done at SW 3rd and Taylor with the 'Temple' and the 'Lotus', and as should be done on this project at NW 14th and Glisan.

We need a city council that will protect historic buildings and incentivize their renovation and integration with new buildings.

We are not Europe tho. America is a much newer country than the countries in Europe. I'm with UrbanLife on this one. If you want to complain about it buy it or let the free market that our beautiful nation is built on take care of it.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

That's the thing, when you start to take away property rights in the name of protection, then it sometimes leads to massive NIMBY control that makes it near impossible to do anything and then forces the cost of property to go up.

NIMBYism is NOT the same as historic preservation. Two entirely different things. These developers are buying historic properties, KNOWING that they are historic properties, and blatently disregarding their historical significance to make a quick buck. Nobody is taking away property rights in that situation, it's just greed on the developers part. The city could, and should, be making it MUCH HARDER for developers to bulldoze 100+ year old pieces of architecture. We have very few of them left now.

[pdxtraveler]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

We are not Europe tho. America is a much newer country than the countries in Europe. I'm with UrbanLife on this one. If you want to complain about it buy it or let the free market that our beautiful nation is built on take care of it.

Just letting free market decide is a scary thought, that leads to uncontrolled sprawl like Houston or DFW. We need more control than that.

[Nunya]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

That's the thing, when you start to take away property rights in the name of protection, then it sometimes leads to massive NIMBY control that makes it near impossible to do anything and then forces the cost of property to go up.

Totally agreed, I'd like to see barriers be reduced and the Nimbyism taken out of the system. If the City wants to preserve properties they should be proactive and buy them and/or provide significant incentives beyond FAR transfers. Money talks, the only way a developer is going to save a property is if it is more profitable to them. So make it more profitable to them by identifying properties the City wants to preserve and give significant FAR/Height bonuses that may be given/transferred to other properties beyond what it is even zoned for if it was razed. For historic structures of high value give stupidly large bonuses, for properties that have minimal value give smaller bonuses. Then it becomes much more profitable to keep the existing building and sell off the transferrable rights. Then it would be stupid to demolish anything considered worthy of preservation.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

As most I think should happen here is that a delay to demolition should happen to allow anyone to purchase the property with the intent to preserve it because if it is something truly preserving, someone will do that. But it also forces us to face a real fact, not everything is worth saving, even if it is something we really think should be saved.

This may seem like a good idea, but really it just adds more delay and cost to projects like this one. There is effectively zero chance anyone is going to be able to buy this property from the Developer since they've already bought the adjacent lot(s) and done the some pre-design and are far along in the process and have already an idea of the level of profit they are going to make on the project.

The costs to buy them out is going to be well beyond what the property is worth as a historic structure and you'd have to buy the adjacent lot(s) as well in all likelihood as their project probably won't pencil without that lot. So the only way it gets bought out is if there is some historic loving philanthropist with a ton of money lying around or the City buys it. Neither of which seems likely.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

NIMBYism is NOT the same as historic preservation. Two entirely different things. These developers are buying historic properties, KNOWING that they are historic properties, and blatently disregarding their historical significance to make a quick buck. Nobody is taking away property rights in that situation, it's just greed on the developers part. The city could, and should, be making it MUCH HARDER for developers to bulldoze 100+ year old pieces of architecture. We have very few of them left now.

I am far from believing the “free market” knows best, but it doesn’t help the cause of historic preservation to pretend that that being forbidden from demolishing a building one owns doesn’t interfere with property rights. There are very few types of property that the owner himself is not allowed to destroy using safe and lawful methods. If you want to make the case that “historic” buildings are important enough to justify a special curtailing of common property rights, then make it – but don’t pretend that it doesn’t impact property rights at all. It is unhelpful.

And DMH’s statement that demolishing this building would be criminal is just factually incorrect. Criminal has a common English and a legal meaning, and neither applies in this case. Melodrama like this doesn’t help the cause either...

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by Leo

I am far from believing the “free market” knows best, but it doesn’t help the cause of historic preservation to pretend that that being forbidden from demolishing a building one owns doesn’t interfere with property rights. There are very few types of property that the owner himself is not allowed to destroy using safe and lawful methods. If you want to make the case that “historic” buildings are important enough to justify a special curtailing of common property rights, then make it – but don’t pretend that it doesn’t impact property rights at all. It is unhelpful.

I didn't say that preserving historic buildings doesn't affect the rights of the owner to develop them (or demolish them in this case). I said, developers are buying properties, which they ALREADY KNOW are historic, and thus should KNOW have cultural value, and completely disregarding that in favor of a quick ROI. That's a speculative exercise and they run the risk of just this sort of outrage from people who value Portland's architectural history.

Of course, not every building can be saved. But there should be stricter mechanisms in place to prevent speculative behavior that destroys historic properties at the rapid pace that's occurring right now. A much more robust carrot/stick approach.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

I didn't say that preserving historic buildings doesn't affect the rights of the owner to develop them (or demolish them in this case). I said, developers are buying properties, which they ALREADY KNOW are historic, and thus should KNOW have cultural value, and completely disregarding that in favor of a quick ROI. That's a speculative exercise and they run the risk of just this sort of outrage from people who value Portland's architectural history.

Of course, not every building can be saved. But there should be stricter mechanisms in place to prevent speculative behavior that destroys historic properties at the rapid pace that's occurring right now. A much more robust carrot/stick approach.

OK, it's always possible that I misinterpreted something, but you wrote exactly that no property rights were being taken away (underlining added):

Originally Posted by 65MAX

NIMBYism is NOT the same as historic preservation. Two entirely different things. These developers are buying historic properties, KNOWING that they are historic properties, and blatently disregarding their historical significance to make a quick buck. Nobody is taking away property rights in that situation, it's just greed on the developers part. The city could, and should, be making it MUCH HARDER for developers to bulldoze 100+ year old pieces of architecture. We have very few of them left now.

But regardless of whether you meant "Nobody is taking away property rights" when you wrote "Nobody is taking away property rights", it is still unhelpful for the cause because you are refusing to acknowledge that the property owner has any reason to complain.

All they KNOW is that it has a historic designation of some kind. If the explanation in some of these other posts in this thread are correct, they also know that this designation can simply be removed, which appears to be what they did. If it can be simply removed, how serious can the historical significance really be?

The building is nice-looking and old. "Historic" might be an exaggeration; I'm not aware of anything with historical significance happening in it. It's not the Pantheon for crying out loud, it's an old firestation that might be kind of neat to keep around. I agree that really significant buildings should be harder to remove, but that also means that he bar for "really significant" should be commensurately raised.

[DMH]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

We are not Europe tho. America is a much newer country than the countries in Europe. I'm with UrbanLife on this one. If you want to complain about it buy it or let the free market that our beautiful nation is built on take care of it.

To say that the USA is not like Europe, not as old as Europe, so we should go our own way in letting the market decide what is saved is a weak stance. With that attitude we will have little to show 100 years from now, just 21st century buildings. When I was an architecture student living in Florence, Italy in the 1970's, I noted the significance of famous buildings such as the Duomo and the Uffizzi, but most of the city is comprised of 500 year old "background" buildings like the one I lived in. Take those buildings away, and you will lose the soul of the city. The same will be true of the Pearl District and of Portland if we do not save many of the significant older buildings that provide a rich urban context and a link to the city's past. I believe that many new buildings can be greatly enhanced by retaining nearby older buildings. In January I saw a great example in Mexico City along the Paseo de la Reforma, a nearly-complete 60+ story tower with two old stone buildings at the tower base. When a developer does that, it is an act of tremendous good will toward the community .

[maccoinnich]

So, I decided to browse through the Central City Fundamental Design Guidelines, which will be the approval criteria when and if this project comes before the Design Commission. Guideline A6 is interesting:

A6 REUSE / REHABILITATE / RESTORE BUILDINGS

Conservation and preservation have been significant forces in the revitalization of Portland’s Central City. The Central City currently includes five historic districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places, one conservation district, and numerous historic landmarks. Various financial incentives at the local, state, and federal levels are available for the redevelopment of older buildings. Though these incentives have helped to make some projects economically viable, they are not solely responsible for the conservation and preservation ethic of Portland’s developers and designers.

Even though an existing building is not a designated historic landmark, or located within a historic district, it may still be a good candidate for upgrading and/or adaptive reuse. Incorporating building elements from existing structures in new development,
such as construction materials, windows, doors, or facade ornamentation, is one way to respect the craftsmanship of the past when using contemporary design and construction
techniques. In some cases, it may be feasible for some development projects to reuse even entire building facades. These approaches are valuable for preserving buildings or building elements that contribute to an area’s character.

GUIDELINE

Where practical, reuse, rehabilitate, and restore buildings and/or building elements.

Is that strong enough language for the Design Commission to oppose the demolition of Fire Station #3? I don't know. But it's something.

As I pointed out before, this is still a develop-able site if they only use the quarter block. There is even precedent for this in the Pearl: the Casey maxes out the allowable height on a quarter block, and used FAR from the adjacent Bullseye Projects building to get there.

[bvpcvm]

Is moving the fire station a realistic possibility?

[Leo]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

As I pointed out before, this is still a develop-able site if they only use the quarter block. There is even precedent for this in the Pearl: the Casey maxes out the allowable height on a quarter block, and used FAR from the adjacent Bullseye Projects building to get there.

I think the Casey is a good example not only for using a quarter-block site, but for really taking advantage of the particular characteristics of a quarter-block site. That building snuck in just before the peak of the housing bubble and commanded the highest $/sf of any building in the Pearl. The quarter-block site was part of what made this work because it enabled a very large number of corner units and a very small number of units per floor. These would all be disadvantages in principle, but for the very top of the condo market, they actually turned out to be competitive advantages.

The question is whether you could command those kinds of prices outside of the bubble, for an apartment building right next to a highway on-ramp. My guess would be no.

[Nunya]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

Is moving the fire station a realistic possibility?

I wondered that as well. Could it be done, of course, but the question is whether it could be done and make sense economically for a developer otherwise it's not happening. Moving a presumably URM brick building isn't cheap and it's not going far so if you moved it the furthest you would be moving it would be likely on-site, anything further isn't practical. So you could try to move it East or West to the end of the block. Is this a building you'd want to save if it was moved to the end of the block as the longer sidewalls are pretty bleh looking. It's really only the short midblock façade that is interesting.

If you were going to maximize lot size you'd want to move it to the East end of the lot where it is a square corner, you'd have to set it back from the West end due to the radius corner at 15th & Glisan. As it is now there is really no point in moving it as the lot size is the same, unless this allows you to take over the smaller parcel to the West of the Fire Station, which would make the lot size then about the same size as they'd have gotten by razing the fire station.

That empty lot small parcel to the West end of the site is owned by the developer across the street who is supposed to develop it into a parklet of some type to satisfy the City on the FAR transfer for that adjacent site. Presumably they'd be happy to dump that cost/responsibility for free, or better yet the City should ask for the lot for free and then 90% of the cost of what the parklet would have cost which could go towards moving the Fire Station. That would be an offer they'd be hard pressed to refuse. Then the City could force this developer to move the building and offer to offset the cost from whatever money they got and if it cost more then make it up to them in tax credits, not to mention, they'd be getting a free freaking building that they now would get to keep.

It probably wouldn't pencil due to the staged excavation but you could also consider developing the full half block of underground parking that way by excavating and building on the one half before moving the fire station to the other half. I'd leave that up to the Developer if they wanted to do that on their own dime.

It would be expensive but it is feasible. But then you'd end up with the sidewall façade on the street permanently, but that could probably be cleaned up and turned into something much nicer fairly easily.

That is my dream scenario, but it would require proactive thinking by someone at the City to strong arm two developers. If done correctly by the City it should be essentially no cost to the city (tax credits maybe, but those should be offset overtime by having more property on the tax rolls instead of creating a new parklet in a crappy location that probably isn't needed) and could beneficial to both developers. Those are the types of solutions I'd like to see developed.

[maccoinnich]

The property at the corner of NW 14th & Glisan now has a 30' no build easement along its edge with the former Premier Press building. This is so that the 1440 Hoyt building can have windows at the property line. I doubt the owner of the future office building would be willing to give up that right.

[Nunya]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

The property at the corner of NW 14th & Glisan now has a 30' no build easement along its edge with the former Premier Press building. This is so that the 1440 Hoyt building can have windows at the property line. I doubt the owner of the future office building would be willing to give up that right.

That pretty much blows my idea up as the lot size left would be even more oddly shaped and that much smaller.

[Abide]

Another great candidate for facade retention. It blows me a way that that option is never used in this city.

[maccoinnich]

Historic fire station building, home to longtime Portland restaurant, may come down for 150 Pearl District apartments



It started life 103 years ago as a fire station, and since 1995 it's been home to the Italian restaurant Touché.

Now, it seems, the building at 1425 N.W. Glisan St. could be torn down along with two other nearby buildings to make way for a 12-story, 150-unit apartment building.

As reported by the Portland Chronicle, the city received an early assistance application for a pre-application conference to discuss design review for a new market rate apartment building at 505 N.W. 14th Ave., the address of a small building and the Hawaiian Time restaurant on the same block as the Touché building.

...continues at the Portland Business Journal.

[innovativethinking]

This building looks like small rundown warehouse I can see why they want to tear it down

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

This building looks like small rundown warehouse I can see why they want to tear it down

Facepalm.

That building is gorgeous and it's historic, but how it looks has nothing to do with why they want to tear it down. They want the land. They want the largest possible lot to build on. In a perfect world, they would build around it and perhaps even over it, but it's cheaper and easier to tear it down. 9 times out of 10, cheaper and easier win.

I'll be sad to see this old firehouse torn down, and I'll be sad to see Touche go too. Even if Touche reopens in whatever gets built here or moves elsewhere, it won't be the same.

[innovativethinking]

I really don't think anybody will ever remember what was on the land once the new building goes up. Now if it was something more significant and prominent then Yes