McCulloch and the Design Commission

A few days ago in The Oregonian, Fred Leeson did a kind of exit-interview with architect Mike McCulloch as he prepares to leave the Portland Design Commission after 11 years.

I thought that a couple of things McCulloch (previously of Waterleaf Architecture, now heading his own firm) said in the interview might be good discussion topics. First, on the downtown condo market, he told Leeson: "We are building them at a socioeconomic level that is relatively exclusive." [That part we know, but here's the more important point:] "Once this first wave goes through, there will be a next wave of more affordable projects by necessity. I'm looking forward to the next wave, which is really the enrichment wave, adding a deeper cross section of culture. You have to start with the first wave."

I'm no expert, but I'd like to know what others think: Is there really a second wave coming of more affordable condos and apartments? Certainly there's been talk of its need, and there have been an isolated project or two, such as the one Gerding Edlen Development and Thomas Hacker Architects are collaborating on now downtown. But who else believes that this second wave is definitively going to arrive? I'm all for it, but I wasn't necessarily prepared yet to acknowledge a trend, let alone a wave. Maybe it's just the morbidly depressed Duck fan in me.

Also, McCulloch had this to say about design commission hearings: "What I've really liked is the full participation by the development and design communities in the discussion about design. It's not at all about how big it is and how much money it will make. There's always a central core of discussion about how it affects the livability of the city, and how it strengthens what we have here--or not."

When I read that quote, I instantly wondered what the broader design and building community thought about that assessment of the commission. In other words, I think most of us agree in the role of the commission and the fact they should exist. But how would all of you rate the design commission in terms of how it's structured, and the way it operates within the broader context of the city government and private sector? If you had a magic wand and could structure the commission's power and role however you wanted, what might that look like?

There are plenty of things I would like to see done in terms of the city and its approach to both public and private sector design. But the amount of projects that actually qualify for design review in the city overall is, if I'm not mistaken, rather small. So it's probably easy to hope for things from the commission that's not really part of their purview.

It's more or less a given that when you go to listings online for hotels and restaurants, most of them tend to have more bad comments than good ones because of the "squeaky wheel gets the oil" phenomenon - that those relatively few who had bad experiences tend to have a much larger appearance because they're more motivated to leave comments than the silent majority who had a satisfactory experience. So if this comment section should be dominated by jibes against the commission, I think we may have to take it in context. I'm really more interested in hearing constructive ideas or informed viewpoints about the design commission's past, present and future. Where are we now and where are we going?

Comments

[DC]

I've always thought of the explosion of new hotels in downtown Portland as the SRO's of the future. I suspect the fancy condo's will meet a similar fate. Once the frenzy of the past 5 or 10 years tempers a bit, we'll see where the sustainable market really exists. As land costs find their equilibrium, the second wave will find a shore to land on.

[pdx2m2]

I would like to think there is another wave coming of more affordable downtown housing.

I have my doubts. Land costs seem to dictate high density construction which brings high rise construction costs which bring costs that aren't close to affordable without subsidies.

Everything that I hear from several developers is that most affordable and work force housing needs to be in low - mid rise construction where the costs can be more reasonable..this seems to suggest that the most affordable housing will happen at the edges or on the close in east side where 5 story construction makes sense.

[john]

You talk about "land costs" as if they are somehow set in a vacuum. They are simply a percentage of the value of the improvements that go on them. If you can't sell the finished product the land is worthless.

[kjw]

The question seems to be why should this second wave occur? What is the economic thrust or lynch pin? For starters the land cost will need to subside as a lower percentage of the deal.

Though there will be a group developers willing to take a lower profit for what ever reason, right now, I don’t see land costs in the Pearl reaching a low enough point to make a lower or even middle rung of housing price points.

I believe these types of housing will be pushed to the periphery and into a different neighborhood.

[Scott Hoornaert]

Here in Toronto, where the condo market is much more mature, there have been subsequent waves of more affordable high-rise projects. In fact, multi-family housing is now more than half the residential market; I believe the proportion is even higher in Vancouver. I suspect that Portland will follow a similar trend, if to a lesser degree. High-density living has been sanctified by the upper middle-class, and others will want to follow them. Even if condos haven't yet gained wide acceptance, I think that some of the ingrained dislike Americans have of "tenements" and high-rise "slums" has been countered.

While they are never cheap on a cost-per-area basis, condos (especially in smaller, wood-frame buildings) can offer decent value for first time owners and small families. I have seen new condos within walking distance of subway stations advertised for as little as $99,000--and this in a city which remains significantly more expensive than Portland. Of course, the cheaper ones are in outlying areas: something that height-phobic Portlanders might not take to very kindly.

[jfd]

Brian,

There is a significant number of Design Reviews that occur annually throughout Portland, not just the higher profile projects in the Central City.

May I suggest that you speak with Jeff Joslin whom manages Design Review for the City and get a primer on the extent of Design Overlay Zoning as well as the range of development proposals that are reviewed. The Design Overlay zone can be found in the Central City, Gateway Regional Center, most established neighborhoods, and business/main street corridors.

It would also be worthwhile, especially for regular readers of this blog, to follow a development proposal from beginning to end and from the client and architect's perspective, Design Review staff, and the Design Commission. It is a rather complex story and an iterative process, which design and Design Review fundamentally are about: fluidity of design intent and formal expression working within constraints of time, space, place, economics, planning, and politics.

The Design Commission informs the review process and helps shape major changes to our urban form as well as serving as an arbitrator of the process for less intensive development proposals when there is significant disagreement between one or more parties that results in an appeal.

The Design Commission is also unpaid and comprised of architects, a landscape architect, developers, members of the arts and design community broadly, and the public-at-large.

Commissioner McCulloch will be missed and in my opinion his leadership helped to create one of the best Design Commissions of recent past that helped to guide the City and it citizens through an astounding expansion of building with great success.