Gentrification

[urbanlife]

I would like to see Portland take the Vancouver BC approach that requires a percentage of affordable housing for incentives like added height and density, along with tax breaks.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I would like to see Portland take the Vancouver BC approach that requires a percentage of affordable housing for incentives like added height and density, along with tax breaks.

I mistakenly assumed this was already happening here. The apartments above Safeway on Jefferson were built with incentives that led to the inclusion of a number of affordable units, but that building was also part of other wheelings and dealings (and I mean that in a good way).

I wish the city did a better job of offering incentives to include some affordable units. Why not allow extra height in exchange for including 20% affordable units? Perhaps, allow an extra floor or two in exchange for each floor's-worth of affordable units - meaning, if the average floor in the building has 20 units, and the building has a total of 20 affordable units, allow an extra floor above the max height - or something to that effect. I'm really just thinking out loud here. There have to be all kinds of ways to incentivize the inclusion of some affordable units.

[tworivers]

The developer of the 5-story, 75-unit building going up on the NW corner of Skidmore and Williams took advantage of the 10-year property tax exemption in exchange for setting aside 20% of the units for people earning 60% or less of the median income. Apparently the first developer to do so since the city increased the requirements. I wonder what made it feasible/attractive for these people -- I'm always curious about the behind-the-scenes calculations developers make when deciding such things. The exemption is worth over 800K.

Anyone want to guess the name?

[zilfondel]

According to the DJC article, the program has been in place since 1998. Since then, 72 projects were complete. But there are 76 projects with affordable housing in the pipeline! So it must be working. Thats quite a boom of affordable housing coming soon.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

According to the DJC article, the program has been in place since 1998. Since then, 72 projects were complete. But there are 76 projects with affordable housing in the pipeline! So it must be working. Thats quite a boom of affordable housing coming soon.

...coming soon to Seattle, not Portland. Sadly.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

...coming soon to Seattle, not Portland. Sadly.

heh, whoops. Wait, I thought this was a Portland sub-forum??

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

I mistakenly assumed this was already happening here. The apartments above Safeway on Jefferson were built with incentives that led to the inclusion of a number of affordable units, but that building was also part of other wheelings and dealings (and I mean that in a good way).

I wish the city did a better job of offering incentives to include some affordable units. Why not allow extra height in exchange for including 20% affordable units? Perhaps, allow an extra floor or two in exchange for each floor's-worth of affordable units - meaning, if the average floor in the building has 20 units, and the building has a total of 20 affordable units, allow an extra floor above the max height - or something to that effect. I'm really just thinking out loud here. There have to be all kinds of ways to incentivize the inclusion of some affordable units.

Gawd, I'm trying to make my brain recall. You're right about the incentive given to the developer to include affordable housing in that Safeway mixed-use building downtown.

If my memory serves me, the Alexan (Riva) in South Waterfront was to be built with this same incentive and the city council got bent out of shape about the term 'affordable' as the 'affordable' apartments weren't 'cheap'. Being reactionary, they rolled back the incentives. I believe that's how we ended up with Randy's Hole (3rd and Oak) as well as the city council now in control of the PDC budget.

[RED_PDXer]

Oregon's primary approach to affordable housing is to allow adequate supply of multifamily zoned properties and ensure developments are built to minimum densities. I think we're seeing good market response to this approach - lots of multi-family development everywhere! Sure, rents have gone up, but mostly because there's more new construction hitting the market.

Truly affordable housing is great, but I don't see us ever catching up with demand with our current funding. Incentives are fine, but how do we expect them to work well when the city's zoning is so density-friendly. I'd rather have density-friendly zoning and lots of new development rather than restrictive development practices that produce a nominal amount of affordable housing units combined with luxury units to offset the affordability mandates/costs.

A good approach would've been to institute some sort of real estate transfer tax, but the home building industry succeeded in eliminating that as a tool. :-(

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

Incentives are fine, but how do we expect them to work well when the city's zoning is so density-friendly. I'd rather have density-friendly zoning and lots of new development rather than restrictive development practices that produce a nominal amount of affordable housing units combined with luxury units to offset the affordability mandates/costs.

Whut?

Bonusing developers with extra height (for example) in exchange for adding a specified amount of affordable units is the very definition of increased density. It's working in Seattle, but it can't work here? I don't believe that.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Whut?

Bonusing developers with extra height (for example) in exchange for adding a specified amount of affordable units is the very definition of increased density. It's working in Seattle, but it can't work here? I don't believe that.

Yeah, but think about where much of the development is happening: along neighborhood commercial streets. Developers and the city are already getting significant pushback from neighbors and n'hood associations at existing heights/densities - which are often built to lower heights than what is allowed (ie, 4 vs 6). If you allow bonus heights for "lower income" units, I guarantee that in most neighborhoods the pushback will be fatal to most projects.

It may work in downtown, South Waterfront, the Pearl, the Lloyd, etc however.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

It may work in downtown, South Waterfront, the Pearl, the Lloyd, etc however.

Those are precisely the neighborhoods where I think it is most needed, along with inner SE. The downtown Safeway on Jefferson is a perfect example, although I don't know the details of the wheeling and dealing that made it happen. The building has a mix of housing, ranging from 2 story luxury apartments, to market rate lofts (though pushing toward the $1500+ mark these days) and number of affordable units as well.

Do it where it works. Where it doesn't work, do something else.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

It may work in downtown, South Waterfront, the Pearl, the Lloyd, etc however.

There are few, if any, projects that have maxed out the FAR allowed to them. Look at Hassalo and 8th, any of the new developments in the Pearl or SoWa. Except for PAW, I can't think think of another example of FAR or height being maxed out. In fact, there's so much FAR already allowed, that most incentives are rarely used. Perhaps if the real estate values were as high as Seattle or SF, you might see more desire for pushing every extra square foot out of incentives, but we haven't reached anywhere near it.

The City did a report in 2007 regarding density bonus incentives and tranfer of density for the central city https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/177368. It found most of them aren't being used, except for the bonus floor area for providing residential floor area in their developments.

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

There are few, if any, projects that have maxed out the FAR allowed to them. Look at Hassalo and 8th, any of the new developments in the Pearl or SoWa. Except for PAW, I can't think think of another example of FAR or height being maxed out. In fact, there's so much FAR already allowed, that most incentives are rarely used. Perhaps if the real estate values were as high as Seattle or SF, you might see more desire for pushing every extra square foot out of incentives, but we haven't reached anywhere near it.

The City did a report in 2007 regarding density bonus incentives and tranfer of density for the central city https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/177368. It found most of them aren't being used, except for the bonus floor area for providing residential floor area in their developments.

Can't FAR be transferred to future properties? I'm not an expert on it, but I thought some of the Brooklyn area developments included FAR transfers as part of how they could be built?

Since the SE 17th corridor is being targeted for office over warehouse it might make sense to have incentives to build it.

[Black Box]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I would like to see Portland take the Vancouver BC approach that requires a percentage of affordable housing for incentives like added height and density, along with tax breaks.

Seattle's is somewhat modeled after Vancouver's, but it doesn't have the teeth. Also, we have a huge project that will include affordable housing in the core. This will be taking shape over the next 15-20 years. Overall, that project will yield less affordable housing than what it offers now. This is the Yesler Terrace redevelopment.

[Black Box]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

heh, whoops. Wait, I thought this was a Portland sub-forum??

What's wrong with a little Seattle here and there?

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by davehogan

Can't FAR be transferred to future properties? I'm not an expert on it, but I thought some of the Brooklyn area developments included FAR transfers as part of how they could be built?

Since the SE 17th corridor is being targeted for office over warehouse it might make sense to have incentives to build it.

FAR transfer rules vary depending on which part of town you're talking about, but they also disrupt the desire of developers to pursue incentives because there's so much unused development capacity available through FAR transfers.