Hyatt Place and Allison Residences | 250' | 23 Floors | On Hold

[MarkDaMan]

From WWeek

A Proposed Pearl District Tower Could Block a Long-Awaited Bikeway
Advocates worry the Portland Design Commission is poised to wreck that bike causeway—with valet parking for cars.
By Nigel Jaquiss |Published 5:37 AM Updated 5:37 AM

Rapid development of the Pearl District is causing conflict between two competing city policies. On one side is the need for greater density, which necessitates taller buildings. On the other: the development of better bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

The current flash point is a quarter-block lot at Northwest 12th Avenue and Flanders Street currently occupied by surface parking and one of the few remaining large trees in the Pearl District, a portly silver maple.

Under a plan created by Vibrant Cities, a Seattle developer, the tree would be turned into sawdust and the parking lot will become a 250-foot residential tower.

The new building would include an 11-story Hyatt Place Hotel and, above it, 110 private residences. At 23 stories, it would be the tallest building in the neighborhood, permitted by new height allowances under the city's recently adopted 2035 Comprehensive Plan.

The building would not include a single parking space. That's in keeping with a longtime city policy aimed at increasing the use of transit, bicycles and other forms of transportation.

...(continues)

[maccoinnich]

Foundation permit is under review:

HYATT PLACE HOTEL - Foundation, excavation, and shoring for new 24 story mixed-use tower including one level basement *** w/19-255710-MT ***

[maccoinnich]

Revised staff report

[tworivers]

The public comment section of that document should include a trigger warning for those upset by public displays of craven stupidity. One writer even asks that the ground floor program be moved up a couple floors so that the ground level can be devoted to parking. Another one mentions the "overbuilding" of the Pearl. LOL. Pardon my incivility, but, please... STFU.

Question for the pros: the developer doesn't have approval yet but they've submitted for an excavation permit. Are they acting strategically in some way that I don't fully understand? Aren't they pretty much guaranteed to get an appeal, which will set the project back significantly? Are they sending the signal that they're dead serious about moving forward and they know (as we all do) that the appeal will fail – i.e., is it an attempt to get ahead of the NA with a message of "don't bother, we're going to win in the end"? I wonder what the legal path would be to end the NAs' ability to appeal when a project abides by zoning requirements and it is blatantly obvious that the appeal is nothing but an illiberal-minded delaying tactic. Seems like there should be a few additional hurdles for the NIMBYs to jump through.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by tworivers

Question for the pros: the developer doesn't have approval yet but they've submitted for an excavation permit. Are they acting strategically in some way that I don't fully understand? Aren't they pretty much guaranteed to get an appeal, which will set the project back significantly? Are they sending the signal that they're dead serious about moving forward and they know (as we all do) that the appeal will fail – i.e., is it an attempt to get ahead of the NA with a message of "don't bother, we're going to win in the end"? I wonder what the legal path would be to end the NAs' ability to appeal when a project abides by zoning requirements and it is blatantly obvious that the appeal is nothing but an illiberal-minded delaying tactic. Seems like there should be a few additional hurdles for the NIMBYs to jump through.

They were almost certainly making sure that the project was reviewed under the 2014 edition of Oregon's building code, as opposed to the 2019 building code. Use of the 2019 code became mandatory on January 1st.

BDS allows you to submit for permit prior to receiving design review approval, but you have to sign a form that waives any rights to make a claim against BDS for changes required as part of design review.

And yes, I would amazed if this doesn't get appealed to City Council.

[tworivers]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

They were almost certainly making sure that the project was reviewed under the 2014 edition of Oregon's building code, as opposed to the 2019 building code. Use of the 2019 code became mandatory on January 1st.

BDS allows you to submit for permit prior to receiving design review approval, but you have to sign a form that waives any rights to make a claim against BDS for changes required as part of design review.

And yes, I would amazed if this doesn't get appealed to City Council.

Aaaah, ok, that makes sense. I didn't think of that despite being familiar with the building code update . So is that what the foundation permit for Eleven West is all about? Was hoping construction was imminent on that one...

[maccoinnich]

Tentative vote yesterday to approve; final vote scheduled for next week.

[maccoinnich]

Approved yesterday

[pdxsg34]

Since the design approval is now being appealed to the CC, I'm wondering (with the limited expertise I have in this field) what the purpose of appealing this is, at this stage in the game. If the project aligns with the standards of the CC2035 plan, passes through the design approval process, is there anything gained from appealing other than to prolong the inevitable in hopes the project dies before breaking ground? Would the CC alter design at this stage? Apologies for my naivety if I'm off base.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by pdxsg34

Since the design approval is now being appealed to the CC, I'm wondering (with the limited expertise I have in this field) what the purpose of appealing this is, at this stage in the game. If the project aligns with the standards of the CC2035 plan, passes through the design approval process, is there anything gained from appealing other than to prolong the inevitable in hopes the project dies before breaking ground? Would the CC alter design at this stage? Apologies for my naivety if I'm off base.

It's complicated, but given the current city council I don't think this appeal will lead to any changes. City Council overturned a design commission decision recently but ended up reversing course and letting it go through after the development community and others lambasted them for opposing a housing project during a housing crisis, regardless of the income level of intended residents.

Most city councils would be loathe to second guess their design commission. I'm not sure who filed the appeal, but it's relatively cheap to do, so anyone with a little bit of extra cash could extend this game. I suspect whoever did so has some personal skin in the game, such as a view blocked. Some people also really hate change.

[maccoinnich]

Notice of a Public Hearing. It's worth reading the reasons for the appeal.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Notice of a Public Hearing. It's worth reading the reasons for the appeal.

Is throw that entire pot of spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks a valid approach to an appeal? Asking for a friend...

Some of my favorites:

• Can an "uber-tall" building on a quarter block count as "massive", especially if it's a "super tall pencil tower"?
  
• The argument of preserving the cultural and ethnic diversity of the "South Pearl" is especially rich.

[AdamUrbanist]

Most appeals read like they're grasping at straws, but this one really feels unhinged

[PacificNW]

• "The argument of preserving the cultural and ethnic diversity of the "South Pearl" is especially rich."

I agree Eric..

[MarkDaMan]

The "South Pearl"? Perhaps Brewery Blocks doesn't sound neighborhoodly enough. Would love for them to go back to the area in 1999 and argue this appeal.

[urbanlife]

South Pearl? That's a new one.

The last complaint might be my most favorite one.

"The value of preserving the cultural and ethnic diversity of South Pearl that extends west of the new Chinatown/Japantown, including African American community who were pushed out of smaller, brick and wooden framed buildings. The community who resides here should be commemorated by preserving the low-rise character of the South Pearl district rather than a pattern of incompatible "vertical sprawl" that the Design Commission set in motion."

This is some serious entitled garbage that I would want to berate the entitled asshole who wrote this because this reads like something straight out of a rich, white persons handbook using racial diversity to defend their wealthy white area. I also love how this grasps at straws to try to make it sound like it is some historic ethnically diverse neighborhood when the Pearl District was just beginning to be built when I moved here and the South Pearl doesn't even exist outside of this entitled group of people. I am willing to bet that this entire group that put together this list of complains are some of the least diverse people in the city. Also you can't call building tall vertical sprawl because building up is literally the opposite of sprawl.

Seriously, I want to yell at whomever wrote this until they are ashamed to have even gotten out of bed this morning.



Yep, look at all the diversity on this board!
So much diversity with Pearl Neighbors for Integrity in Design

[pdxsg34]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Seriously, I want to yell at whomever wrote this until they are ashamed to have even gotten out of bed this morning.

Amen. They might as well saved their time and just appealed with "we don't like it, we don't want it, baby cry". It's quite a pathetic argument in the aggregate.

[RED_PDXer]

This has got to be one of the worst written appeals I've read. As the staff report states: "According to the appellants' statement, which did not provide direct connection between the relevant approval criteria that they cite and their issued raised..."

I found this a compelling point for approving the project - the carbon footprint of a "270-unit building" on a 10,000sf lot. It'll be one of the lowest carbon footprints in the city per person of any new development.

[Tykendo]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

South Pearl? That's a new one.

The last complaint might be my most favorite one.

"The value of preserving the cultural and ethnic diversity of South Pearl that extends west of the new Chinatown/Japantown, including African American community who were pushed out of smaller, brick and wooden framed buildings. The community who resides here should be commemorated by preserving the low-rise character of the South Pearl district rather than a pattern of incompatible "vertical sprawl" that the Design Commission set in motion."

This is some serious entitled garbage that I would want to berate the entitled asshole who wrote this because this reads like something straight out of a rich, white persons handbook using racial diversity to defend their wealthy white area. I also love how this grasps at straws to try to make it sound like it is some historic ethnically diverse neighborhood when the Pearl District was just beginning to be built when I moved here and the South Pearl doesn't even exist outside of this entitled group of people. I am willing to bet that this entire group that put together this list of complains are some of the least diverse people in the city. Also you can't call building tall vertical sprawl because building up is literally the opposite of sprawl.

Seriously, I want to yell at whomever wrote this until they are ashamed to have even gotten out of bed this morning.



Yep, look at all the diversity on this board!
So much diversity with Pearl Neighbors for Integrity in Design

Diversity? Looks like a bunch of upper middle class to rich white people to me. Maybe they should look into moving out to a "Stepford" community where i'm sure no HIGH RISE SPRAWL will ever happen.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Tykendo

Diversity? Looks like a bunch of upper middle class to rich white people to me. Maybe they should look into moving out to a "Stepford" community where i'm sure no HIGH RISE SPRAWL will ever happen.

Exactly, these people do not belong in an urban downtown if this is how they want to act because that is like complaining about urban buildings being built while living in an urban building in an urban district.