Reviewing design review

Pearl District and Fremont Bridge (photo by Brian Libby)

BY NATHAN DAY

Last week, the City of Portland’s Design Commission gave its annual State of the City Design Report to City Council, a relatively overlooked event that is usually seen as more of a formality than one of great public interest. This go around it seemed different, more important than in years past, as the city is undergoing a massive construction boom which has brought a record number of cases in front of the Design Review panel.

The intended limitations of the Commission has caused delays in the review process, and has resulted in a general slowing in the development pipeline as individual cases all vie to be seen as quickly as possible in this time of economic upswing. Over the last year, the Design Commission has made improvements, mostly relating to maintaining an effective schedule (e.g. getting a proper timer) that has reduced delays and overruns. But the task force still sees room for improvement. The Commission and the local American Institute of Architects chapter as well as numerous others in the design profession and the public at large would like to see more review, not less, as the city continues to develop at its perceived rapid pace.

As noted during the report, the Comprehensive Plan Update will address many of the issues that are currently challenging the city's built environment, but that plan will not fully take effect for years as the details are still being hashed out in a willingly arduous, all-inclusive manner.

The Design Commission was created with the goal of improving architecture and urban design in the central city. It aimed at reducing the vast number of blank walls and lifeless streets that the automobile age had unintentionally and haphazardly created. In the past, the State of the City Design Report has been focused on the importance of design review, design appropriateness, long-term planning, and inequality issues regarding new development in the city's downtown core and immediate surrounding neighborhoods.

Now, however, the Design Commission is seeing more proposals than ever before, and the city is receiving pressure from neighborhood activists and associations to include the "d" design overlay (designating areas where projects fall under Design Commission review, mostly in the central city) across the entire city as a means to rein in what is perceived as the uncontrolled and inappropriate growth. The review process is something that is unfamiliar and commonly misunderstood by many, but it is generally regarded as valuable and increasingly important as the city grows.

Portland is not alone in this influx of new developments, as many American cities are currently experiencing similar construction booms, created by a combination of repressed supply and the fear of the impending increase in Federal Reserve interest rates. As an example, our neighbor to the north, Seattle, has the equivalent of one quarter of Portland's downtown office space (6 million square feet) currently under construction, with even more proposed to start in the coming years.

Portland's boom is primarily residential in nature, with a sharp increase in apartment building and an unprecedented number of new hotel units, over 2000, currently proposed or under construction. The city's growing pains are exacerbated by the wholesale condominium conversions that took place during the last housing boom that greatly reduced the city's inventory of existing rental apartments. Additionally, Portland's strict zoning code unintentionally prices most residents out of their own homes by limiting the housing supply in the guise of preserving neighborhood character, a duality that inadvertently pits the preservation of forest and farmland against existing neighborhood aesthetics and density.

Ross Island and South Waterfront (photo by Brian Libby)

In the State of the City Design Report, the Design Commission recommend five changes: (1) make design review mandatory throughout the city based on the scope of new development projects; (2) create an additional design review team to oversee this inclusion; (3) update the Community Design Standards as an alternative to design review; (4) rethink the housing bonus to include affordable and low-income units; and (5) remove residential as an acceptable ground floor use along commercial corridors. As with the nature of recommendations, none of these action items were immediately accepted, but the first three changes were welcomed by the City Council and the event's commentators.

Generally, expanding design review was seen as a potential means of addressing the current neighborhood and design community's concerns without encroaching on the ongoing revision process of the Comprehensive Plan. But updating the Community Design Standards would be an onerous process in itself and probably implausible at this time. What the new design overlay would look like, what initiates a review, and how it would be orchestrated are currently unknown, but the mayor, Charlie Hales, was keen on the idea, which means these changes could be explored sooner rather than later. The recommendation to change the language of the automatic housing bonus is an interesting idea, especially since the original intent was to increase the housing supply in the city's core, a goal that no longer needs incentive due to market conditions. Rewriting that particular bonus would be premature however, as any new housing policy would be reliant on the outcome of the Comprehensive Plan Update.

The most interesting change to be recommended, and one that could be implemented immediately, is a moratorium on residential ground uses for commercial corridors. The Design Commission ran through numerous examples on Burnside Street, Hawthorne Boulevard, and Martin Luther King Boulevard where such 'active' uses have actually broken up contiguous retail storefronts with dead space. The original intent was to create a mix of ground floor spaces, dynamic and interactive, but instead of the porches and stoops dreamed up by city planners, reality tends to repetitiously repeat closed doors painted the same color as the walls flush around them accompanied by a permanent set of adjacent window blinds. As currently written, code allows for residential uses in any commercial zone, regardless if it’s a high rise or a main street storefront, which means that the review team cannot object even if they deem it inappropriate for the location. That does not mean that the reviewers have been silent on this issue, as many times their advice has led to ground floor changes that were ultimately beneficial to the developer. In cases where ground floor commercial uses are unfeasible due to market conditions, the Design Commission recommends having the discretion to allow residential uses with the caveat that it could be adaptable to future retail uses with higher ceilings, open layouts, and ADA accessibility. Live/work units, such as those in the Pearl District or on upper Hawthorne, are a good example of how to accomplish successful adaptable ground floor spaces. The end goal is not to have commercial on every street, the goal is to maintain active uses along specific corridors where they are already thriving.

Regardless of whether any of these proposed changes actually come to fruition or not, the Design Commission is proving to be incredibly successful in positively impacting our built environment. There was ample testimony that reiterated the importance and benefits of the commission, and what their efforts have meant to the city.

With the current polarization of neighborhood associations, which is directly related to the prevalent anti-density groundswell, it is more important than ever to have a team of professionals who understand all sides of development to help bridge the emotionally-charged divide between growth and preservation. The coming Comprehensive Plan Update will hopefully address many of the issues currently in debate across the city, but the grand narrative of a sustainable Portland, the one with 20-minute neighborhoods and easy access to healthy foods and healthy places, must be heeded by developers and neighbors alike.

 

Advertisements

Comments

[rwnobles]

Anyone read Rick Postestio's take on it in Portland Monthly?
http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/real-estate/articles/a-radical-vision-of-the-future-of-portland-april-2015

[keath L]

"...the Design Commission is proving to be incredibly successful in positively impacting our built environment. There was ample testimony that reiterated the importance and benefits of the commission, and what their efforts have meant to the city."

Really? Please cite and document 5 projects where the input from the Design Commission (not planning staff - the commission) significantly improved the design originally submitted by the architect or development team.

I would be very interested to see how many projects were significantly altered in a positive way by the commission.

[Brian Libby]

keath L, I didn't write this post, but the Design Commission has been improving the design of central city projects for more than 25 years. Maybe that's specifically to do with how these projects intersect with the street at the pedestrian realm. Maybe at times the back-and-forth causes headaches for owners and developers and architects. And it's certainly true that ugly buildings still find their way to completion despite the Design Commission's efforts. But I think to suggest that the commission hasn't positively impacted local architecture is in my mind an extreme case of hyperbole.

[Keath L]

Brian - I understand that you didn't write this post but it is on your website. You didn't answer my question. (Or the author didn't answer my question.) I'll make it simpler. Please cite five examples where design commission has significantly improved a project submitted in the last 12 months.

I don't deny that design review has had a positive affect on our built environment. What I do see however is the growth of design review influence beyond a legitimate and effective review of building design elements within a zoning and planning code, to an an expansive and very effective, unregulated revenue generator for a municipality that is looking for other funding sources. I wholeheartedly agree the design review has a place in the Portland built environment. I don't believe however that it should be a requirement that every piece of property within the city limits should be required to present to design review.

Based on recent discussions both at design commission and at the city of Portland, it appears that this is the direction that we are headed.

[Nathan Day]

Keath, the view of the Council, the Design Commission, the AIA, and the neighborhood associations is that there is only a need for design review with buildings of a larger scale, regardless of its location within the city as a means of being more equitable (why does a one-story, quarter-block building downtown get the 'higher standards' treatment than a five-story, superblock in East Portland?), and additionally there is an equal push to update the Community Design Standards as an alternative to design review altogether, which could reduce the total number of reviews citywide. As far as your request, please take your pick, any five you want: 14th & Irving, 631 SW Harrison, Barbur and Hooker building, 419 E Burnside, 2201 NE Lloyd Center, NW 9th & Couch, 2403 SW Jefferson, 222 NE 102nd Ave, 208 NW 5th Ave, 102 and Glisan, 1301 NW 12th, 11 NE MLK, 2120 NW Quimby, 1241 NW Johnson, 1306 NE 2nd Ave, 11th Ave & Market St, 1501 SW Taylor, NW Front Ave & Fremont Br, 60 NW Davis, 424 SW Mill, N Fargo & N Williams, 21st & Glisan, NE Holladay and 2nd, 820 SW 3rd, 3309 N Mississippi, 2030 NW 17th, 2280 NW Glisan, 1131 SE Oak, 710 NE Holladay, 401 W Burnside, 403 NW 5th, 818 SE 6th, 1621 NW 21st, 2750 SW Moody, 1417 NW 20th, 1010 NW Flanders, 2161 SW Yamhill, etc, etc, etc...

[keath L]

Nathan - " Design Review is used to ensure the conservation, enhancement, and continued vitality of the identified scenic, architectural, and cultural values of each design district or area and to promote quality development near transit facilities." (taken verbatim from the City's website.)

I appreciate your references to the number of projects "improved" by Design Review. Unfortunately, we (the readers) do not have access to images of the original submittals, nor to the revisions or conditions of approval proposed by design review. Just for discussions sake, Lets take the most recent approval by design review - Couch 9 by Vallister Corl Architects. I have only seen the night time image reported the DJC - an 11 story mixed use project. It is my understanding that it was approved with conditions. What are those conditions? Did they change or alter the original design? If so, it what way?

Here is, in my opinion, where the design review process breaks down. Design review is supposed .." to ensure the conservation, enhancement, and continued vitality of the identified scenic, architectural, and cultural values of each design district or area..." but what it becomes is a subjective critique of a design proposed by an owner or architect. The use of Community design standards as an alternative to Design Review is always an option if homogenous design is a goal. Obviously, the Couch 9 project did not use the Community design standards option in creating its design. If the submitted project has modifications or adjustments to the zoning and planning code, those items should be where the process focuses its attention. The design & detailing should be left to the architect as he/she are the responsible party for the design and any liability thereof. Design Review should not dictate design, finishes, materials or any other choice to be made by the architect unless shuck choice is contrary to requirements set by the zone or overlays.

Design Review has lost focus on why it was created. The City doesn't need additional unpaid design review panels to review the submitted proposals, the Design review process only needs to refocus its attention on its fundamental statement and provide a review process specific to the approval criteria for its zone. Any "subjective" process should be left up to the Design professional.

Your comment "why does a one-story, quarter-block building downtown get the 'higher standards' treatment than a five-story, superblock in East Portland?" reflects the difference of the "overlay" requirements. However, your inflammatory reference to a "superblock" development in east portland shows a lack of general zoning knowledge where the City has very specific language related to "superblock" requirements that are, in many ways, far more restrictive than what DR would require. A superblock project would need to meet that highly governed criteria to be approved, and would not be required to go through DR. A "higher standards treatment" is already in place within the code without going through DR.

Lastly, Lets says that the average new building project submitted to DR has a value of $600,000 and is a type III application. (That is low but lets use it anyway.) This project requires a DR fee of $22,648. (the Land Use Services fee is $19,000, (3.2%) while the total of Site Development, Life Safety, Water, BES and PBOT review services is the remaining $3648) The Design Review panel is an unpaid position. So where does this fee go? I would really like to see a break down of the costs specific to each DR case. ( BES and PBOT perform this service and send you the breakdown on your project.)

I am in favor of a limited Design review process when used properly, with discretion and in accordance with mission statement.

[Steve Pinger]

Nathan hi; great piece, but the reference to "the current polarization of neighborhood associations, which is directly related to the prevalent anti-density groundswell" seems pretty loose: there are real livability issues at play in the central Portland neighborhoods. I don't see the neighborhoods as being polarized (against what?), nor is the groundswell simply anti-density, but rather it is, once again, about how the transition in density is to be managed, and how the current tools, both the various design guidelines and the Community Design Standards, simply are not equipped to address this issue, and it will be the big one over the next couple of decades. Suggesting that "the coming Comprehensive Plan Update will hopefully address many of the issues" is a little out of synch, in that the work of the Quadrant Plans to date doesn't indicate any such outcome, and moreover suggests that the hopeful work of the earlier CC2035 Concept Plan is going to get pushed aside and watered down on these issues as the update moves along.