The Irvington Squire condo project proposed for the corner of NE 15th and Hancock has been contentious since it first came before design review a year ago. But things heated up this summer as the Irvington Community Association rallied against the planned 5-story infill project in the middle of their historic neighborhood. I wrote about the project last month and since then, the neighbors have been working up to a big meeting today when the Historic Landmarks Commission would hear their appeal to the plan.
Here’s the problem with project:
The site is zoned high density residential. That means the someone can build a 75-foot condo tower if they want to. But the neighborhood it’s surrounded by is an official historic district protected by design review guidelines which say new development must match the scale and feel of the neighborhood, which is full of quaint two and three story homes and absent of 75-foot condo towers.
So when Perkins Architectural firm pitched the plan for the 64-foot Irvington Squire, which is well within the city’s zoned height limits, many in the neighborhood reacted with alarm. Alarm that led to a website, a sticker campaign, the recruitment of an arborist, 62 letters of protest mailed to the Landmarks Commission and the conversion of the Lion and Rose Bed and Breakfast (located next to the proposed condos) into a makeshift condo shrinkage headquarters:
… and TWO HOURS of testimony today at the Historic Landmarks Commission from a dozen neighbors and the architect. This project is important because it will set a precedent for what development can look like in historic neighborhoods as Portland tries to boost its central density. This debate applies not just to Irvington, but Ladd’s Addition and NW 23rd.
Mostly, the neighborhood association feels the project is too tall, the massing is too large for the area and the slim setbacks (zero feet from the curb on one side and 11 feet on the other) could harm the beautiful trees currently residing on the space. “If the city and its guidelines cannot protect the historic structures on this block, then they can not protect structures anywhere in Irvington,” said Dean Gisvold, the neighbor’s land use chair.
“A building of this quality, scale and material is a good precedent to set,” argued the developer’s lawyer, who’s basic defense of the project is: it looks good, it follows the rules, it dropped it’s height from six stories to five to fit in more with the neighborhood, let us build it!
“Initial reactions?” one commissioner asked, after the hours of debate. Six long seconds of silence followed. He tried again, “Any observations besides that this is a giant can of worms?”
Not many! The commissioners decided to move their vote to September to gather more info from both sides. In the meantime, they each talked a bit about their issues with the project. All of them were still undecided, but four of the five agreed with neighbors that the building should be scaled down. Art DeMuro (who also lives in the neighborhood) pointed out the contradictions between the city’s zoning code and the historic district guidelines, and said, significantly, “Design review guidelines DO trump code… I don’t think design review guidelines allow a building of 74 feet or even 64 feet to be built in this neighborhood.”
When asked whether they’d feel more comfortable about approving the project if it was one story lower, all the commissioners nodded. But then when asked whether they’d probably approve the project , they unanimously nodded, too. (I misunderstood that: they were actually affirming that they’d support the project with the parking as it is) One thing’s clear: it’s difficult to find firm legal footing on a project where there’s two conflicting legal codes.
edited 8/26/08
This building actually seems to pull off Faux-Historic better than most.
The protest banner does a good job conveying the scale of the building, but is misleading (perhaps not intentionally) because what is being constructed will not be a bright yellow windowless cube… it will in fact be a building much like those already found around town from decades past in well-established neighborhoods.
I’d like to see some renderings of the proposed structure which show neighboring houses (including the angle from the protest banner)… I’m just finding it difficult to be offended by this building. But, I don’t have to live next door to it, and I don’t live in Irvington.
However, I would gladly replace two less-dense but completely ugly (IMHO) properties across from my house with the Irvington Squire. 🙂
The neighborhood’s position, which appears to be roundly supported by the city Landmarks Commission, is that it is an attractive building that is just too large for its site, which is a particularly sensitive location in that three National Register landmark buildings — including two on the same block — are located nearby. In all, there are seven national landmark buildings in the vicinity.
I think the Commission’s preliminary judgement is largely based on the fact that the overall bulk and scale of the proposed building is dramatically greater than any other building in the area. It size simply overwhelms its neighbors and doesn’t meet the design standards that are mandatory approval criteria in an Historic Conservation District.
From that standpoint, it’s a pretty straightforward call. The neighborhood has said that it could support this very same project if it is no taller than 54 feet and has a greater setback from NE 15th that will maintain the important visual corridor that helps define NE 15th avenue as the “gateway to Irvington” and that also will have the additional virtue of helping to save the mature street trees along that street. Here again, another defining characteristic of the neighborhood.
So, in the end, we do hope the project gets built, but at the proper scale and configuration on the site.
Well, …. The proposed building seems OK to me. If it is architectually appealing and recalls historic building ideas, then why oppose it? If ding code allows, and it will reflect archtectual style, then Portland is better off for good buildings where good people will live.
What better way to honor the rich history of the gentrification of that neighborhood than by keeping more affordable housing out of the mix?
Fight on, you proud baby boomers, for your cause is wealthy!
Landmarks Commission says: “Design review guidelines DO trump code…”
And then, City Council and LUBA say: “no they don’t…”
Seriously, has this question not been adjudicated before? It’s pretty fundamental. And who would want to live in a can of worms, anyhow?
I want to know why the city continues to approve the building of new high rises in town when we can’t fill the ones we’ve already got built. We’ve seen numerous articles written in the last year about these buildings sitting at half residential capacity and many cannot fill the commercial spots open at ground level.
Five stories is by no means a “high rise”.
Take a look at buildings like 530 NW 23rd Ave (a different part of town, true) for a building which is essentially 5 stories tall at the north end, and was built in 1912.
Such buildings are a relative rarity outside of downtown, but they do exist. Typically, walk-ups were limited to 3-4 floors (most people don’t like to climb lots of stairs on a daily basis), but with elevators, 5-6 story buildings became more economical, while still maintaining a modest scale.
There is a sweet spot at 5 to 6 stories where you can get away with 1 or 2 relatively inexpensive hydraulic elevators to serve a whole building. As you start to get taller, you need more expensive elevators and/or more total elevators, stronger construction methods, etc.
But 5 stories does not a “high rise” make.
Ex-cellent!