Modera University District | xx' | 16 Floors | Proposed

[MarkDaMan]

Is Mill Creek licensing the Modera name to others? I see on the posting notice that the owner is Oregon Pacific Invest & Devel Co and when you look at their portfolio it's...well...not full of especially inspiring apartment complexes. And given what this owner owns, they might be more comfortable maxing out what they can with a "safer" development. Which I think also explains how we get a higher rise proposal in the Lloyd and a stump next to PSU. It's the ownership of the property not necessarily the market.

[maccoinnich]

The posting notice will contain the name of the current owner of the land. Most likely Mill Creek has an option to buy the land.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by tworivers

I don't have an issue with the height so much as Sera being the architect, which more or less guarantees a mediocre final product. I'd take 7 stories of Lever over 20+ stories of Sera any day.

It often seems odd to me that the "market", such as it is, supports 15 stories at NE 7th/Irving and only 7 stories right downtown near PSU. But I've long given up on trying to understand the myriad calculations that go into this sort of thing... on the surface, though, it doesn't seem to reflect very well on "the system" as it is structured, especially given the brutal housing crisis that we're in.

Sera: Building White Bread Architecture

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

The posting notice will contain the name of the current owner of the land. Most likely Mill Creek has an option to buy the land.

Thanks!

[Rob Nob]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

I'm not quite sure. 460' was set as the maximum height for all of Downtown (plus much of what's now the Pearl) in 1979. The 1988 plan significantly reduced the number of sites where the 460' limit applied, and then the 2018 revisions added back a lot of zoning for 460', mostly along the southern end of the transit mall. I've no idea though how they arrived at that particular number.

Maybe in the 70's they decided that First National Bank tower was too tall at 546 feet and they wanted to limit buildings to less than that? But then Big Pink in 1983 is 536 feet tall?

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by Rob Nob

Maybe in the 70's they decided that First National Bank tower was too tall at 546 feet and they wanted to limit buildings to less than that? But then Big Pink in 1983 is 536 feet tall?

The big pink superblock was built in two phases, with the mid rise portion completed in 1974. As far as I understand the tower was already approved, which is why it was allowed to exceed the the 1979 height limits.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

The big pink superblock was built in two phases, with the mid rise portion completed in 1974. As far as I understand the tower was already approved, which is why it was allowed to exceed the the 1979 height limits.

That is my understanding of Big Pink as well from a Portland history class I took at PSU. It is unfortunate that the city has that kind of a height limitation, but I would also be cool with seeing a bunch of 250-450ft buildings going up on both sides of the river.

[maccoinnich]

Drawings [24 MB] for the Modera University District at SW 4th & College

[Jakz]

Conventional SERA. But that part of town could use some brick facades and solidly detailed canopies. It'll be a good addition to the neighborhood.

[stan]

Stipulating that I wish it were taller, but overall I like it and it adds a couple hundred homes to downtown. Pleasantly surprised they’re doing brick without the design commission telling them to.

[urbanlife]

For a full city block in downtown, which there are not many of those, this is really disappointing. The design is pretty bland, so it won't be bad on that site, but just underwhelming.

[maccoinnich]

A nugget form the Downtown Neighborhood's testimony regarding the Modera University District:

The designers are considering the option of two building development with an east portion being lower height and the west portion being 16 stories.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

A nugget form the Downtown Neighborhood's testimony regarding the Modera University District:

Now this is something I can support. Even if they built it in phases with the underground full block garage and then the southern half of the block be a 7 story building with plans to build a 16 story building on the northern side would be good.

[Rob Nob]

Originally Posted by Jakz

Conventional SERA. But that part of town could use some brick facades and solidly detailed canopies. It'll be a good addition to the neighborhood.

It looks sooooo much like NW 19th and Quimby, especially that rendering on the last page: https://goo.gl/maps/NR4HV4h5wMn9bmKN7

[PacificStates]

I feel like in places such as the Pearl, a developer shouldn’t need to transfer FAR to build something like this. That’s somewhat true for all of Portland in my opinion, the FAR seems too restrictive and almost out of touch with height limits.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PacificStates

I feel like in places such as the Pearl, a developer shouldn’t need to transfer FAR to build something like this.

Certain areas should have no height restrictions for housing. The Pearl, downtown, inner SE, etc. Or, at the very least, there should be significant FAR bonuses for housing, especially if including affordable housing.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Certain areas should have no height restrictions for housing. The Pearl, downtown, inner SE, etc. Or, at the very least, there should be significant FAR bonuses for housing, especially if including affordable housing.

I've been emailing and asking city politicians/bureaus for years why we have the 460' height limit and have never received a consistent or concrete answer. Generally the response (if I get one) is pretty much "well, because."

I don't believe there are FAA considerations, at least 1000' and under. We're a grown assed city now, time to get rid of regulations we can't defend. And who is the arbitrator of FAR and why?

[truebaru]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

I've been emailing and asking city politicians/bureaus for years why we have the 460' height limit and have never received a consistent or concrete answer. Generally the response (if I get one) is pretty much "well, because."

I don't believe there are FAA considerations, at least 1000' and under. We're a grown assed city now, time to get rid of regulations we can't defend. And who is the arbitrator of FAR and why?

I won't pretend I know the answer, but I would suggest that housing is cheaper and quicker to build when building tons of low rises (as opposed to a few high rises).

I think we should look for a European model - significant chunks of the city being 6-8 stories tall. This also has an environmental bonus since these types of buildings can be built from mass timber instead of concrete. One way to turn our cities into carbon sinks!

[CorbinWarrick]

Originally Posted by truebaru

I won't pretend I know the answer, but I would suggest that housing is cheaper and quicker to build when building tons of low rises (as opposed to a few high rises).

I think we should look for a European model - significant chunks of the city being 6-8 stories tall. This also has an environmental bonus since these types of buildings can be built from mass timber instead of concrete. One way to turn our cities into carbon sinks!

Waste of land with that type of thinking. We need density..

[subterranean]

I always just assumed that the residents in the West Hills with the deepest pockets must be at or above that 500 feet mark in elevation, protecting their easterly views. I bet if you go back to the comprehensive plans and their comments from the 70s, you'll find your answer.

It would be great if DLCD's rulemaking on Climate Ready and Equitable Communities had the ultimate effect of lifting the height limits. The Division 8 rulemaking doesn't speak to this specifically, but its other rules could maybe end up being a safe harbor for city staff and elected officials in lifting those limits for housing.