Word.

The perfect target for nature to reclaim as the forces of productivity and innovation flee this wasteland.

I am seeing shades of the south waterfront...

At least it doesn't look like the Portland Building.

Um yeah, we have far bigger priorities than a $75 million Greener-Than-Everyone trophy.

How about they reuse an existing building? While it is great that this building will have solar panels and use storm water from the roof and not any parking spaces, you can do that to almost any building. However, the construction of a brand new building has a ton environmental impact, instead they could take an existing building, (say, the Custom House: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto… ) put solar panels on the roof, some rain barrels (obviously big ones, not 55 gallon ones,) in the courtyard, and yes, do $3M in seismic upgrades, and have a far less environmental impact, (not to mention save $70M.)

Not having parking spaces sounds like a terrible idea. They aren't improving the public transportation or bike routes in any way, just trying to force people to switch by making parking problems worse? People are still going to drive to this thing.

"When we're cutting budgets so severely across the board, is this really the time to be pouring resources into a gleaming green tower?"

Jesus, if even Sarah Mirk is catching on, there may be hope yet. Could I turn from crotchity geezer to optimist?

Reymont, why do you think the city has to commit to renting the thing? (The city in no way needs new office space by the way.)

Private developers know that they need to offer parking with their buildings in order to find renters. Very few private companies will move in there with a commitment that everyone from the CEO on down will never drive to work.

Some non-profits and the like might be interested in that, but then they'll find that the cost of all the snazzy green features has raised the asking rent well beyond other office space that they can find in the central city.

No matter how you slice it, this is a huge money loser. If something like this were a money-maker, Gerding Edlen would have built one by now.

@Reymont: You are joking right? Plenty of parking, (usually free,) is the reason people drive everywhere in the first place, not the other way around. In any case, I imagine that if there is a serious demand for parking spaces at this building some capitalist will open a parking garage nearby. If we charged everyone a fair price for parking in the first place, we wouldn't have to subsidize mass transit anymore because the prices could rise to cover the costs and yet more people would use it than today. The subsidy that governments, (usually local ones) provide by giving away spaces on the side of the road would pay for both wars in the middle east, and the privately owned spaces at stores and the like add 5-10% to the cost of goods bought there. Forget the "a shopping bag tax will hurt the poor" argument, if we really wanted to help the poor buy food we've give them a discount for not taking up a space in the lot.

We can't even afford to treat the mentally ill people living on the street, but we can afford socialized parking for the middle and upper classes. Is this a fucked up country or what?

@Blabby - Preaching to the choir. :)

@Matthew D - That's just...stupid, and I try not to use that word very often. Even someone with their head up their hippy ass should know that people don't drive simply because parking exists. People drive because they need to get places, need to carry more than can fit on a bike, in all kinds of weather, and need to go further and faster than they can on a bike. Removing their ability to park doesn't change any of that, it just means this building can never be a destination for most people.

@Reymont: How many parking spaces does the Empire State building have? What percentage of people drive to it? (There is a parking garage across the street. It is owned by some capitalists. They charge $10.95 for the first half hour. You are of course welcome to count the people that park in that garage as driving to the Empire State Building.)

Given those answers, (Hint: 0. Very few,) what you mean to tell me that even if they put a big garage in the basement, that no more people would drive there? That the only people that ever drive anywhere are the people that need to drive there? Just to be clear: What you are suggesting that all those spaces in the new garage would be empty, or conversely that there would suddenly be a bunch of empty spaces at the garage across the street?!?

Don't get me wrong, I love your new found socialism, but you have some pretty odd views of "needs."

"if there is a serious demand for parking spaces at this building some capitalist will open a parking garage nearby."

--Like the huge one that opened a year or so ago, right across the street in the Cyan building? Or the surface lot right next to that? Or the huge lot underneath the current City office building 2 blocks south? Or the giant surface lot across the street from that?

There's plenty of parking already, right in the immediate area of this building. Having said that, any attempt to compare transportation demand dynamics in Portland with midtown Manhattan is immediately nullified by its irrelevance.

Office landlords are giving all kinds of incentives and breaks downtown right now.

If I'm the boss of a business, I can move into this building and pay more rent for no parking, or I can rent for less and get parking at 20 other buildings. I know my choice.

Maybe they can find enough suckers, but if they could, why is the city committing to renting a bunch of it? (Besides the fact that they are suckers, or course.)

I heard a presentation on this building. It keeps Portland on the map in the competition with other green cities planning triple net zero and other advanced buildings, particularly in China and Germany. It will also be a tourist attraction - good for business. And it gets a lot of green agencies and non-profits in one place. Easy for reporters to cover the green beat!

Separate in your mind ongoing year after year programs, like homeless services, from long term investments, like this building. The homeless and housing budget is about 50M a year. This building is a 75M investment good for 30+ years. Cheap and smart. Why are we arguing against a sexy building?? Do it!

Maybe it was just Matt Davis' pet project to be upset over the PGE Park deal, but as much as I enjoy this reporting, I'm surprised it only garners one angry self-righteous blogtown post when the new stadium deal with the Timbers got a seriously negative rap from the Mercury with multiple attacking articles...

You want to know what's really green? -- recycling all the unused office space in downtown portland. This project is obscene when the public schools are in disarray. Look closely at who is making money from this project.