On Thursday it was announced that the Ladd Tower condominium project will instead be developed that the project will instead be developed as 220 luxury rental apartments, along with the planned four retail tenants on the ground floor.
According to the press release, plans for the temporary move and preservation of the Ladd Carriage House remain unchanged. The Rosefriend Apartments building on Broadway (across from The Oregonian) was not mentioned in the release, so one assumes it's still going to be demolished at the bequest of its owner, First Christian Church. And regardless of whatever practical realities may exist to justify its fate, I still find the Rosefriend's current status on architectural death row pretty depressing. But we've been through that. (Appropriately, a Police song just came on my i-Pod via the shuffle setting as I wrote this, with Sting singing the lyrics, "What is my reaction/what should it be/confronted by this latest atrocity?")
I'm not sure what to make of the business decision to switch from selling condos to renting apartments. One could argue this is part of a somewhat softening condo market in the central city. However, it does seem that the market for higher-end apartments is increasing. A couple years ago I wrote about an Architecture W project in Nagoya for Dwell magazine, and it was just such a building: meeting the increasing demand of a Japanese middle class that after the Asian financial crisis isn't always as quick to live for tomorrow, economically speaking, in the way that home ownership often requires. I think this could be an increasing trend in the US too: people who want a nice place, but for various reasons don't want to buy it.
One other noteworthy part of Thursday's announcement: the partnership between developer John Carroll's Carroll Investments and Opus Northwest is not going forward. Opus is handling the Ladd apartment gig solo. Anything to be inferred from this turn of events? Carroll will still be involved, the press release says, in the Ladd Carriage House preservation, which, paired with his efforts to preserve and house the Lovejoy Columns, keeps alive a laudable collected résumé of preservation.
Very strange. I would have thought the developers and the church were dependant on getting the 50+ million or so that selling condos upfront would have brought in.
All along, the church and developers claimed their arrangement hinged on the profits from selling a tower-full of condos. The developers' insistence on the scale the project demanded seems to have been exaggerated if they can go ahead regardless of lack of sales. Maybe the hastily-determined prerequisite of a demolished Rosefriend Apartments was b.s. as well. It is to wonder.
I predict 1st Christian will end up with nothing remotely close to the results they were promised on this.
Posted by: gerry | March 23, 2007 at 03:12 PM
The only thing the church wants is parking. Destorying two historic buildings or eliminating low rent housing options never challenged their morals at any point in the process. As one of the members said "were in the business of saving souls not buildings" Parking is the one and only issue for 1st Christian.
Posted by: thedude | March 23, 2007 at 03:48 PM
I don't know any more than you all but I would guess it went something like this:
1. The recent cap rate compression and increasing income from apartments made an apartment building worth close to as much as a condo building.
2. When Opus brought John Carroll in to help them figure out the whole "condo thing" their agreement hinged on it going forward as a condo project.
3. Looking at the prospect of making half of the profits from a condo building or ALL of the profits from an apartment building the apartments looked even better to OPUS...especially since they now know most of what Carroll could teach them. Heck, if the apartment profit was forcast to be 55% of the condo profits this still seems like a good deal for OPUS.
Posted by: nwjg | March 23, 2007 at 04:06 PM
I surely don't know as much about the business factors going into Ladd Towers changing status as I'd like but others have been factoring in the condo vs apartment situation similar to nwig. I suppose that this, from the business world's point of view, warrants the change of plans.
From my point of view as not much of a businessperson, the whole situation surrounding the pending destruction of the Rosefriend Apartment Building is so unfortunate, that this recent development seems of entirely secondary consideration.
It's distressing to be told that the need for a parking lot could reduce a church to the act of sacrificing so much in the way of ideals and principle for such common, worldly concerns. If it has any conscience remaining after being unwise enough to commission the project in the first place, let them draw on what remains of that conscience to do something better for themselves and the city that has hosted it for 100 plus years.
Posted by: ws | March 23, 2007 at 08:07 PM
Oh please. get off of it WS. it's happening, deal with it. the rosefriends ain't nothing special.
Apartments are a better investment for Opus. Done.
Carroll deals with condos and has no desire to run an apartment building. gone.
the market changes, it's the reality of investments. opus builds "luxury apartments" and converts to condos at the next turn, heaven forbid someone looks out for their bottom line. No instead the should lose money for the sake of "what's good for the city", who's decision is that, the lying politicians at city council, sure?
Why should the church sacrifice what they need? It's their property, if i'm correct?
Try telling New Yorkers to stop development along central park, it's called "prime real estate".
Perhaps workforce housing in the Rosefriend...
Posted by: truth | March 23, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Oh please. get off of it WS. it's happening, deal with it. the rosefriends ain't nothing special.
Apartments are a better investment for Opus. Done.
Carroll deals with condos and has no desire to run an apartment building. gone.
the market changes, it's the reality of investments. opus builds "luxury apartments" and converts to condos at the next turn, heaven forbid someone looks out for their bottom line. No instead the should lose money for the sake of "what's good for the city", who's decision is that, the lying politicians at city council, sure?
Why should the church sacrifice what they need? It's their property, if i'm correct?
Try telling New Yorkers to stop development along central park, it's called "prime real estate".
Perhaps workforce housing in the Rosefriend...
Posted by: truth | March 23, 2007 at 11:30 PM
sorry for ther double post.
Posted by: truth | March 23, 2007 at 11:31 PM
I will miss the Rose Friend Apts.
Posted by: Peggy MacDonald | March 24, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Why should the church sacrifice what it needs?
It already HAS, 100 years ago! It decided that an apartment complex could be built in it's yard, that it didn't need the space. It's too late to change their minds now, because a beautiful, historic facility that is now people's HOMES stands there now. Parking? Who needs it, there's a streetcar 1 block away, take it or walk to church.
The church I live next to ran out of parking years ago, and now they pick up their elderly members in shuttles so the don't have to walk. The rest can.
There are plenty of other sites in portland for condos, waterfront space where ships were built, that lot by the police station...
The church wants to sell out the low-income people living in the Rosefriend for PARKING. It's sick.
The church vultures can cry me a river.
Posted by: Tsarevna | March 24, 2007 at 12:19 PM
I just want to say that I appreciate anyone who's still willing to take the time to point out how wrong, on so many levels, First Christian Church is in destroying the Rosefriend Apartments. This particular act of greed-inspired destruction seems inevitable at this point, but it's not something we should avert our eyes from or forget.
We shouldn't "move on" from the Rosefriend destruction, except in the sense of waking up to what it might portend for other fine old buildings in Portland. There's a great private will to build things in Portland right now, but I don't see a countervailing public desire and ability to protect the best buildings we already have. I look around downtown with the Rosefriend destruction in mind, and my overwhelming emotions are disgust and worry. Disgust because with all the surface parking lots, parking garages, and other ugly or architecturally insignificant buildings--all these potential building sites in need of improvement--the Rosefriend is being sacrificed for another apartment/condo tower. Worry because so many other handsome and useful old buildings are no more safe from destruction in the future than the Rosefriend is now.
As for the remarks above of the self-styled realist and B.S.-cutter who calls himself/herself "truth": how depressing, and how perfectly emblematic of the emotionally impoverished way of thinking that lies behind the destruction of the Rosefriend.
Posted by: Richard | March 24, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Why should the church sacrifice what it needs?
It already HAS, 100 years ago! It decided that an apartment complex could be built in it's yard, that it didn't need the space. It's too late to change their minds now, because a beautiful, historic facility that is now people's HOMES stands there now. Parking? Who needs it, there's a streetcar 1 block away, take it or walk to church.
The church I live next to ran out of parking years ago, and now they pick up their elderly members in shuttles so the don't have to walk. The rest can.
There are plenty of other sites in portland for condos, waterfront space where ships were built, that lot by the police station...
The church wants to sell out the low-income people living in the Rosefriend for PARKING. It's sick.
The church vultures can cry me a river.
Posted by: Tsarevna | March 24, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Yes, the deal is done, but has a lesson been learned from this? To be honest, I didn't hear any public outcry about the Rosefriend until last year, even though the plans to tear it down had been in the works since the early planning stages. I guess everybody was more concerned about the Ladd Carriage House.
Is the Rosefriend actually historically significant, or simply a handsome building (I believe the interior was not so handsome). Was anyone paying attention?
Does, or can the city play a role in situations like this? Is it possible to make it more difficult to tear down structures such as the Rosefriend, - even though the structures have not been deemed a historical landmark.
Posted by: brian | March 24, 2007 at 01:48 PM
Yes, the deal is done, but has a lesson been learned from this? To be honest, I didn't hear any public outcry about the Rosefriend until last year, even though the plans to tear it down had been in the works since the early planning stages. I guess everybody was more concerned about the Ladd Carriage House.
Is the Rosefriend actually historically significant, or simply a handsome building (I believe the interior was not so handsome). Was anyone paying attention?
Does, or can the city play a role in situations like this? Is it possible to make it more difficult to tear down structures such as the Rosefriend, - even though the structures have not been deemed a historical landmark.
Posted by: brian | March 24, 2007 at 01:49 PM
Central Park is 400 acres. Portland Park Blocks (each 100' by 200'), about 10 of them not counting those in the PSU campus, comprise a total of about 200,000 sq ft., to total 5 acres. (43,560 sq ft/acre) That makes Central Park 80 times greater in size than all the Park Blocks put together. To many people this very modest size alone, given its relationship to the city, qualifies the Park Blocks as a very precious resource.
The comparatively smaller size of the Portland Park Blocks relative to Central Park should underscore the importance of sustaining the integrity of the Park Block ambience and general experience. For the people, the city should be taking greater measures to insure that these attributes of the Park Blocks will be sustained.
Church and developer never voluntarily made the slightest effort to aspire to anything greater than a cash cow that could take advantage of the immediate real estate market.
I don't know what all kinds of development are happening around Central Park. Comparatively speaking, it's perimeter is far, far greater than the Park Blocks. Some of the architecture around Central Park's architecture is very good, and likely, related to that of the Rosefriend.
So sure, church and developer, jumped the hoops, and they'll probably get their demo permit and some kind of business plan together that will let them get their glass box up where people will have to look at it for the the next 50-100 years.
They made no effort to conceive of a design that would leave a positive legacy to the city in addition to covering their bottom line. Apartments or condos? Interesting, but of not much importance here. Carroll probably got smart and realized this project sucked so much that he'd better minimize as much association of his name with it as possible.
In the end, this tower will just be an unimaginative, obnoxious structure that destroyed distinguished, well proportioned architecture for a pathetic reason. One that relentlessly confronts visitors to the park with a long shadow and shiny glass instead of the sun and sky that have been and should continue to be among the Park Block's key features for generations to come.
Posted by: ws | March 24, 2007 at 02:01 PM
Wow, drunk blogging late on a Friday night, stirs things up...is that legal here Brian?
The developers must have made some attempt at "leaving a positive legacy" by allowing the Ladd Carriage House to remain. If I am correct it was originally slated for destruction.
Most development requires compromise, from both sides.
As for the argument that is always made about all the empty parking lots, parking garages and insignificant architectural buildings that would be better locations for whichever development is being fought...wonderful idea, but extremely unrealistic, and in my opinion a very naive argument at that.
Tsarevna, the RoseFriends was not "low-income" housing. It may have been inexpensive rent, probably because it was old and not in great condition, but it was not public subsidized housing. And renting always leaves the possibilty that you may be kicked out. Would it have been OK to convert it to condos and kick out the renters anyway? Because that's probably what would have happened if it remained. As for the Church deciding 100 years ago to build the apartments, and that it's too late now! So they give up all the rights to their property? Things change a whole lot in 100yrs.
Perhaps the church should have torn it all down and provided a surface parking lot, so as not to block any views or create any shadows.
Richard, that's for the compliments. You must be such a better person than me.
And WS, don't forget to preface your comments like "this tower will just be an unimaginative, obnoxious structure" with IN MY OPINION. Because that's all it is. And if you reread the original post the whole condo/apartment conversion was the point!
Posted by: truth | March 24, 2007 at 05:27 PM
WS's "this tower will just be an unimaginative, obnoxious structure" is more than an opinion, whether or not shouted in capital letters: what it is, is an entirely reasonable prediction. I witnessed the developers' attitude during the design review hearing, wherein they actually had the gall to credit their project with rescuing the church itself from demolition. It was ludicrous. The treatment of the Rosefriend, and the people to whom it was home, is an embarrassment to those of us whose ability to think isn't confined to an obsession with "property rights."
Posted by: gerry | March 24, 2007 at 07:19 PM
The Carriage House has had its devotees for a long time. Lacking the availability of its long term present home, others awaited it. I've heard that keeping he CH in its present location makes a nice tax writeoff for somebody.
Does government have a copyright on the term "low-income housing"? Doubt it. According to HUD's formula, low income for Portland is 60% of the median family income($46,850/fam of 1)
At this URL:
http://www.portlandonline.com
/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=106242
...a chart says the fair market rent for a 2 bdr apt in 2006 was $723. Actually, I don't understand the charts at that URL very well, so maybe somebody else can do better there.
Can't remember for sure, but I think the most expensive apartment at the Rosefriend was $600/mo. It's over on portlandindymedia archives.
I pretty much assumed people who'd been able to afford the Rosefriend would have no chance in the new condo. Ideally, some arrangement would have been made to provide similarly affordable housing in the area to replace that lost with the Ladd project. If the Rosefriend had been refurbished making it cost prohibitive to offer low or moderate income housing in it, yes I think it might have been reasonable to price the apts/condos for at least some, maybe only people with higher incomes to allow it to pencil out as long as lost low-moderate income housing was in fact replaced in the area.
I believe the rents for the new tower will be around $2000/mo. Likely, $2.40 sq/ft according to the following article: http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business
/1174620336129490.xml&coll=7
Posted by: ws | March 25, 2007 at 12:25 AM
So is this all about saving a "historic" building, or preserving "low income" housing?
Or just some people's inability to handle change?
And, I do believe that a "reasonable prediction" based on subjective interpretations would still be considered AN OPINION.
And although the government may not have a copyright on the term "low income housing" it definetly has connotations, which pull at the heart strings, which has great influence and is somewhat biased.
But, keep fighting for what you think is right.
Posted by: truth | March 25, 2007 at 01:19 AM
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Posted by: truth | March 25, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Nice defs. What are they? Websters? Thing is, we live in one of the countries where every aspect of life isn't dictated by one individual, one set of rules, procedure, and so on. Life here is a complex balancing act involving lots interaction, question, custom, traditon, etc.
Church and developer are playing this project legal. If that was all their was to it, there'd be no problem. In a dictatorial regime, there probably wouldn't be any objection to a church and developers actions in a situation like the Ladd project.
Since we don't live under a dictatorial regime...yet...in the case of the Ladd project, the First Christian Church and the developer, even though they're doing everything legal with the project, are still subject to the idiosyncratic liberties that go along with a situation where individuals and groups may exercise their freedom in taking action they believe meets the definition of creating and sustaining the high quality of life citizens in this country believe is rightfully theirs.
The market isn't the only arbiter of right from wrong here. It only decides what' neccessary to cover its bottom line. For people, citizens of this city and this country, we've got a better deal going on.
I don't see fighting going on here. The situation doesn't call for fighting. This situation just asks of people to exercise their mind, spirit, freedom and speak out against the natural force of market pressure that could completely determine the character of their community if they didn't do so.
Low-income, poor, relatively poor, however its called, is not much money in your pocket to pay rent or anything else. Part of the Rosefriend isssue and downtown housing in general has been about a potentially gradual displacement of low and moderate income residents from downtown and more immediately, the Park Blocks. Personally, I don't think that's right regardless of what the rental or condo market says to the contrary.
Posted by: ws | March 25, 2007 at 11:38 AM
"idiosyncratic liberties" ... interesting, sounds rather subjective, exercise your freedoms all you want, write your blogs, appeal the decisions,
just realize that those developers or property owners can exercise their own rights as well.
"sustaining the high quality of life"...as long as those people agree with your definition.
Oh, and the shot on my definitions, ouch, that really hurt. But if you need to know they come from the Oxford American Dictionary as provided on my Mac. My point is that our society is actually neither, but somewhat of a compromise. The community get's their say, through elected officials, who create codes and allow for appeals, developers and property owners then do what they can as allowed by that code, created by the community.
So what else are doing to "speak out against the natural force of market pressure," besides blogging. Because all this just sounds like whining to me.
Posted by: truth | March 25, 2007 at 04:01 PM
Speaking of definitions:
Whining: the comments of anyone who's not a developer or a member of the Cascade Policy Institute.
Posted by: gerry | March 26, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Actually Gerry, Oxford says this...
Whine:
• a long, high-pitched complaining cry
• a long, high-pitched unpleasant sound
• a complaining tone of voice.
• a feeble or petulant complaint
I thought the last one was most relevant.
Posted by: truth | March 26, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Besides the historical preservationist argument, tearing perfectly nice buildings out of the city center is also a lost opportunity for everyone: there are tons of parking lots and crappy buildings - many of them 1 story - downtown that aren't helping to create a vibrant or active urban environment.
These are great opportunities for reinvestment that should be redeveloped. Tearing down an existing building - particularly low income housing - to simply build again is a bit of wasted effort: we could have built some luxury condos a block or two away on an empty lot, and we could have the parking, condos, AND low income housing. It would have been a win-win-WIN!
Instead... lack of creativity (gotta love them bean counters, eh?) drives the efforts to build our city.
We really need both inspired citizenry and some really creative architects (who are also budget-minded) to help build things, because there seems to be a lot of wasted energy and effort.
So, I'll sum up the idea:
BUILD ON PARKING LOTS FIRST!
Posted by: Bill | March 26, 2007 at 04:55 PM
Bill, let us in on how someone is supposed to build on property they don't own, and that isn't for sale. Ask nicely, or just start digging? There's an empty lot down the street from mine, and I need a garage and a second bedroom.
As I said it's a wonderful idea, but not very realistic.
Posted by: truth | March 26, 2007 at 05:04 PM