$65 million* of public money to give Gerding Edlen something to do
Nowadays, you wrap it in "green," but it's the same old line of "jobs" malarkey from the City of Portland as it throws literally tens of millions at a real estate play that will make a favored developer richer and leave the taxpayers with a white elephant. O.k., a "green" white elephant -- one that will become a quaint joke in short order.
[M]undane efforts, such as tenants putting up with cooler offices in the winter and warmer ones in the summer, taking the stairs instead of the elevator, not using hot water or energy-hog appliances, and minimizing electrical usage for desktop computers and personal electronic devices, must provide the rest.
What a wonderful place that is going to be for an office. Who's going to pay the astronomical rent that this moon station is going to need to pay for itself? NORML and OSPIRG? No one with any common sense is going to want to get near it.
Oh well, one more exhibit in the eccentric theme park that Portland has become. The bankruptcy will eventually put a stop to these. Go by streetcar! (Which, by the way, will cost another $4 million to have its tracks realigned.)
* - Preliminary liars' budget.
Comments (25)
But, but, but ... Sam Adams says we need it to be the world capital of sustainability.
Don't worry, Jack: it's being built as carbon offset for Adams' effort to pave over several hundred acres of Hayden Island. Folks buying the cars and burning the coal shipped from Asia and elsewhere need a clean, green place from which to run their business.
But seriously. Proponents think it's being built as a proof of concept, and so use that as justification for the mind-numbing public cost. I'd consider taking the joke more seriously if the same effort were taken to build *housing* in this way, or even tear down and recycle some of the overbuilt space that already exists.
The Living Building Challenge is nothing more than another way for the USGBC to perpetuate itself through fees, exams, and certifications. It will never be "cheap" to build buildings like this--in fact, it will become *more* expensive as the high-tech resources and resource-extractive inputs it requires become costlier and more scarce.
In other words, it's a stationary Tram with a USGBC medallion affixed to it.
On the whole this is preposterous. And many times examining the details of a proposed project tells you a lot about the viability of a whole project.
For example, they propose that the solar panels for the project "must be made" from no greater than 9,000 miles away. At our latitude of 45 degrees the 9,000 miles is more than 1/2 the distance around our planet, and would reach over 2/3rds of our planet. Gosh, that sure is a very restrictive clause that saves transportation energy.
Even the "validation study" by Balzhiser & Hubbard, paid for by the parties that will make money off this using our taxpayer dollars of $65 Million (certainly unbiased) stated that the energy savings projected is "very aggressive" and "may be overestimated".
Since Oregon Environmental Executive Director Andrea Durbin says we shouldn't be concerned with the building cost being way above normal building costs, she should pay for attempting to make her own living environment totally energy free. Same with Mark Edlen.
Even without the "tenant engagement" (which will absolutely end up being optional down the road, I assure you), it looks like the building is quite efficient all on its own. It's not hard to imagine there are certain companies that would like to have a space in cool looking, quote green unquote, building, especially in a few years if we start filling up office space like we used to again.
No. The building is intended to be efficient, if and when it is built; there is no guarantee or promise that it will be, and no recourse if it isn't.
if we start filling up office space
If in this context makes all the difference in the world. But even if the economy causes companies to charge out and lease office space, that doesn't make the building a good idea, or sustainable, or green, or a good use of precious public funds.
Skipping the non-sustainability of the building, here's a more pragmatic two-part question to ask: What happens if the building doesn't live up to its ecological promises, and what happens if the building can't sustain itself economically?
I am sure glad I am not a public employee, particularly one of the unlucky ones that are going to move into that building. I can just imagine squinting in badly lighted areas when the sky is cloudy and the light shafts don’t bring enough of it in. I can hardly wait to watch them bundle up in the winter as the temperatures inside will be in the low sixties. Or watch them sweat in the summer when it gets to the middle eighties in there. Oh well they are Portlanders and most like ride bikes anyway so they are used to discomfort. Perhaps they will bring together all those folks now who think that bathing daily is unnecessary. I can just see everyone using the composting toilets and getting used to nice barnyard aromas in the bathrooms. I can also see all the accommodations that will need to be made for the folks that have Fibromyalgia and other pseudo physiological disorders wanting relief. Everyone will have a window that opens and will be able annoy each other with one being too hot and another too cold. New sports will be developed seeing how many people you can hit on the sidewalks below by tossing out pennies or water balloons. This will facilitate a nice bunch of lawsuits and that are just waiting for a money gravy train. After it is all done and the gripes keep coming in, another sixty two million dollars will be spent to retrofit the building back to normal.
This is what happens when we let idiots get their filthy mitts on our tax money.
They peruse their dreams as to how other people should be forced to live. Without regard to basic economics or whether the average person can afford it.
The truth is that people's well being does not matter to people like the highly overpaid sustainable Susan. If she actually thinks proposals like this serve some real purpose, she should be on freeway ramp instead of collecting well over $100k /yr of tax money.
New buildings are the least sustainable solution available. The COP knows this because they already had use of the Eco Trust building. All of that concrete [ one of the most vile environmental products around ] , hi-tech electronic controls , motion detecting plumbing products and solar panels is destroying the planet. The glaciers are melting , tigers are gone , etc.
but dammm we look good driving off the cliff [ apologies to Susan Sarandon , who did look good driving off a cliff in that convertible T-Bird. ]
I suspect we can assume somewhere there's an intention to tax-subsize it permanently so that it has the appearance of being a success even when it isn't.
Like the neverending Convention Center project, if it made any economic sense a private developer would do it...
How can this building pay back the taxpayers $6,700,000 TIF dollars when only 1 out of 5 listed potential renters are private?
And there are even more potential lessees that are non-profits that pay no property taxes. In fact, who is the owner of this building? PSU, who pays no property taxes to pay off the TIF dollar debt.
This kind of disregard of how debt is paid off is exactly what is happening in SoWhat. Less than 1/2 of the properties in SoWhat are taxpaying entities. That is why Durbin and Sustainable Susan can go on their MaryWay of thinking-economics has nothing to do with this project.
I'm tired of paying for others' follies.
I guess this building will disprove Einstein's theory. Our first zero net energy building. A perpetual motion building using no energy. Impossible.
Sad to say Portlanders are getting what they wanted, or I should fail what they failed to put a stop to in two recall elections.
It's as if the sweat and misery of the people who built, lived in, and maintained this city for generations is being abused to turn it into a theme park that will eventually exclude them and is meant for someone else.
Some earlier century we'd be sharpening our pitchforks by now. Methinks we live in strange times.
Nonny Mouse Jim Karlock -
These folks are many things, but "...idiots..." is not one of them.
They do, after all, have $ 65 million of our dollars. JK: Good point. How about clever schemers who have figured out how to steal tax money for idiot ideas that play into the latest popular delusion.
But I still maintain that Sustainable Susan is a true believer that gets suckered by the latest popular delusion. For instance, aside from buying AGW & sustainability hook line & sinker, when I asked how much money recycling saved, she gave a non-responsive answer - she knows it is costly.
Looks and sounds like a replay of the "Media Arts" Building all over again. You know - the current "home" of PDC - since noone else was dumb enough to locate there long term!
Charamba, Douro 2008
Horse Heaven Hills, Cabernet 2010
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills Pinot Grigio 2011
Avignonesi, Montepulciano 2004
Lorelle, Willamette Valley Pinot Noir 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2007
Mercedes Eguren, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Lorelle, Columbia Valley Cabernet 2011
Purple Moon, Merlot 2011
Purple Moon, Chardonnnay 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend No. 12
Opula Red Blend 2010
Liberte, Pinot Noir 2010
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Indian Wells Red Blend 2010
Woodbridge, Chardonnay 2011
King Estate, Pinot Noir 2011
Famille Perrin, Cotes du Rhone Villages 2010
Columbia Crest, Les Chevaux Red 2010
14 Hands, Hot to Trot White Blend
Familia Bianchi, Malbec 2009
Terrapin Cellars, Pinot Gris 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2009
Campo Viejo, Rioja, Termpranillo 2010
Ravenswood, Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2010
Waterbrook, Reserve Merlot 2009
Lorelle, Horse Heaven Hills, Pinot Grigio 2011
Tarantas, Rose
Chateau Lajarre, Bordeaux 2009
La Vielle Ferme, Rose 2011
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio 2011
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir 2009
Lello, Douro Tinto 2009
Quinson Fils, Cotes de Provence Rose 2011
Anindor, Pinot Gris 2010
Buenas Ondas, Syrah Rose 2010
Les Fiefs d'Anglars, Malbec 2009
14 Hands, Pinot Gris 2011
Conundrum 2012
Condes de Albarei, Albariño 2011
Columbia Crest, Walter Clore Private Reserve 2007
Penelope Sanchez, Garnacha Syrah 2010
Canoe Ridge, Merlot 2007
Atalaya do Mar, Godello 2010
Vega Montan, Mencia
Benvolio, Pinot Grigio
Nobilo Icon, Pinot Noir, Marlborough 2009
Portuga, Rose 2011
Revelation, Chardonnay, Pays d'Oc 2010
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2005
Monte Alto, Tinto Reserva 2005
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Cabernet, Indian Wells 2009
Espiral, Vinho Rose
Vin-Koru, Pinot Gris 2011
14 Hands, Hot to Trot Red 2009
Rodney Strong, Cabernet, Sonoma 2009
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #11
Portuga, White 2010
La Bourgeoisie, Red 2009
Januik, Red 2009
Three Rivers, River's Red 2008
Kirkland, Alexander Valley Merlot 2008
Muga, Rioja Rose 2010
Quinta das Amoras, Vinho Tinto 2009
Mauro Molino, Barbera d'Alba 2009
Garda Chiaretto Rose
Columbia Crest, Two Vines Vineyard 10 White
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris, Columbia Valley 2009
L'Hortus, Rose de Saignee 2010
Maculan, Pino & Toi 2008
McKinley Springs, Bombing Range Red 2008
Trader Joe's Pinot Gris 2009
Montes Alpha, Cabernet 2007
Gran Sasso, Sangiovese, Terre di Chieti 2009
Garda, Classico Chiaretto Rose
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 1999
Picos del Montgo, Tempranillo 2008
Chateau de Montmirail, Vacqueyras 2008
La Granja 360, Syrah 2009
Montgras, Carmenere Reserva 2009
Lange, Pinot Gris 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Cabernet 2008
Kirkland, Pinot Grigio 2010
Trader Joe's Coastal Syrah 2009
Columbia Crest, Horse Heaven Hills Merlot 2008
Trader Joe's Coastal Chardonnay 2009
Vieux Papes Red
Domaine de l'Aujardiere, Chardonnay 2009
Santa Rita, Cabernet, Medalla Real 2007
Penfold's, Koonunga Hill Shiraz Cabernet 2008
Guild, Red, Lot #02 2008
Dievole, Dievolino Sangiovese 2008
Laforet, Burgogne Chardonnay 2009
Columbia Winery, Merlot 2007
Bonterra, Cabernet 2008
Elk Cove, Pinot Gris 2009
Maquis Lien 2006
Scott Paul, Pinot Noir, Le Paulee 2007
The Occasional Book
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt
Road Work
Miles run year to date: 21
At this date last year: 52
Total run in 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269
Comments (25)
But, but, but ... Sam Adams says we need it to be the world capital of sustainability.
Posted by Garage Wine | November 24, 2010 9:13 AM
Don't worry, Jack: it's being built as carbon offset for Adams' effort to pave over several hundred acres of Hayden Island. Folks buying the cars and burning the coal shipped from Asia and elsewhere need a clean, green place from which to run their business.
But seriously. Proponents think it's being built as a proof of concept, and so use that as justification for the mind-numbing public cost. I'd consider taking the joke more seriously if the same effort were taken to build *housing* in this way, or even tear down and recycle some of the overbuilt space that already exists.
The Living Building Challenge is nothing more than another way for the USGBC to perpetuate itself through fees, exams, and certifications. It will never be "cheap" to build buildings like this--in fact, it will become *more* expensive as the high-tech resources and resource-extractive inputs it requires become costlier and more scarce.
In other words, it's a stationary Tram with a USGBC medallion affixed to it.
Posted by ecohuman | November 24, 2010 9:26 AM
Scottish was a.better concept. And I liked our public buildings better when "Green" was preceded by "Edith".
Posted by Allan L. | November 24, 2010 9:50 AM
Ok, Steve Jobs, when I type "Ecotrust" I don't mean "Scottish" or even "cot rust", thank you..
Posted by Allan L. | November 24, 2010 9:53 AM
On the whole this is preposterous. And many times examining the details of a proposed project tells you a lot about the viability of a whole project.
For example, they propose that the solar panels for the project "must be made" from no greater than 9,000 miles away. At our latitude of 45 degrees the 9,000 miles is more than 1/2 the distance around our planet, and would reach over 2/3rds of our planet. Gosh, that sure is a very restrictive clause that saves transportation energy.
Even the "validation study" by Balzhiser & Hubbard, paid for by the parties that will make money off this using our taxpayer dollars of $65 Million (certainly unbiased) stated that the energy savings projected is "very aggressive" and "may be overestimated".
Since Oregon Environmental Executive Director Andrea Durbin says we shouldn't be concerned with the building cost being way above normal building costs, she should pay for attempting to make her own living environment totally energy free. Same with Mark Edlen.
Posted by Lee | November 24, 2010 10:09 AM
Even without the "tenant engagement" (which will absolutely end up being optional down the road, I assure you), it looks like the building is quite efficient all on its own. It's not hard to imagine there are certain companies that would like to have a space in cool looking, quote green unquote, building, especially in a few years if we start filling up office space like we used to again.
Posted by Aaron | November 24, 2010 10:18 AM
it looks like the building is quite efficient
No. The building is intended to be efficient, if and when it is built; there is no guarantee or promise that it will be, and no recourse if it isn't.
if we start filling up office space
If in this context makes all the difference in the world. But even if the economy causes companies to charge out and lease office space, that doesn't make the building a good idea, or sustainable, or green, or a good use of precious public funds.
Skipping the non-sustainability of the building, here's a more pragmatic two-part question to ask: What happens if the building doesn't live up to its ecological promises, and what happens if the building can't sustain itself economically?
Posted by ecohuman | November 24, 2010 10:25 AM
Answer: "... and here you see the former site of the city of Portland... at one time an undiscovered jewel in the Pacific Northwest..."
Posted by jc | November 24, 2010 10:48 AM
I am sure glad I am not a public employee, particularly one of the unlucky ones that are going to move into that building. I can just imagine squinting in badly lighted areas when the sky is cloudy and the light shafts don’t bring enough of it in. I can hardly wait to watch them bundle up in the winter as the temperatures inside will be in the low sixties. Or watch them sweat in the summer when it gets to the middle eighties in there. Oh well they are Portlanders and most like ride bikes anyway so they are used to discomfort. Perhaps they will bring together all those folks now who think that bathing daily is unnecessary. I can just see everyone using the composting toilets and getting used to nice barnyard aromas in the bathrooms. I can also see all the accommodations that will need to be made for the folks that have Fibromyalgia and other pseudo physiological disorders wanting relief. Everyone will have a window that opens and will be able annoy each other with one being too hot and another too cold. New sports will be developed seeing how many people you can hit on the sidewalks below by tossing out pennies or water balloons. This will facilitate a nice bunch of lawsuits and that are just waiting for a money gravy train. After it is all done and the gripes keep coming in, another sixty two million dollars will be spent to retrofit the building back to normal.
Posted by John Benton | November 24, 2010 12:26 PM
At $462/sqft, the mortgage at 6% is $2.78/sqft/month. Remember, it goes up from here based on history.
Just to cover the mortgage means $33/sqft/yr, THEN you need to add in prop taxes, insurance, maintenance and profit.
To gauge, $33/sqft will lease you a pretty nice existing space in the Pearl district that is very comfortable HVAC-wise.
God, I didn't think anyone could out-Homer Homer, I was wrong.
I guess this locks up the planner-pod vote for Sam.
Posted by Steve | November 24, 2010 1:03 PM
This is what happens when we let idiots get their filthy mitts on our tax money.
They peruse their dreams as to how other people should be forced to live. Without regard to basic economics or whether the average person can afford it.
The truth is that people's well being does not matter to people like the highly overpaid sustainable Susan. If she actually thinks proposals like this serve some real purpose, she should be on freeway ramp instead of collecting well over $100k /yr of tax money.
Thanks
JK
Posted by jimkarlock | November 24, 2010 2:25 PM
That first rendering looks like PGE Center, er, World Trade Center on Salmon street splashed with a lot of brown and green paint.
Didn't Frank Lloyd Wright express some heresy about "First it must be functional" or something? Oh, yeah, took some heat from the AIA for that. Sigh.
Posted by Old Zeb | November 24, 2010 2:32 PM
And the electrical wires can't be insulated with PVC? Perhaps beeswax and hemp fibers!
I'm sure Fireman Randy will go along with that.
Posted by Old Zeb | November 24, 2010 2:53 PM
Cool- Lets pay New York rents for some space in giant glass port-a-potty! I can smell it from here.
Posted by Doubting Thomas | November 24, 2010 3:22 PM
New buildings are the least sustainable solution available. The COP knows this because they already had use of the Eco Trust building. All of that concrete [ one of the most vile environmental products around ] , hi-tech electronic controls , motion detecting plumbing products and solar panels is destroying the planet. The glaciers are melting , tigers are gone , etc.
but dammm we look good driving off the cliff [ apologies to Susan Sarandon , who did look good driving off a cliff in that convertible T-Bird. ]
Posted by billb | November 24, 2010 4:05 PM
"At $462/sqft, the mortgage at 6% is $2.78/sqft/month. Remember, it goes up from here based on history."
I take it back, $72M for 132,000sqft = $545.45/sqft. A 6% mortgage is $39.24/sqft/yr.
They plan on renting the USABLE (ie not every last sqft foot) for $28.45/sqft/yr.
Great we are > $10/sqft in the hole ($1.32M) per year on this already.
Let's give welfare to the truly needy, not guys like Gerding-Edlen who can afford to build theaters.
Posted by Steve | November 24, 2010 4:24 PM
Actually, Gerding's dead. His name's left on there so that the sainthood will rub off on Edlen.
Posted by Jack Bog | November 24, 2010 4:52 PM
I suspect we can assume somewhere there's an intention to tax-subsize it permanently so that it has the appearance of being a success even when it isn't.
Like the neverending Convention Center project, if it made any economic sense a private developer would do it...
Posted by jc | November 24, 2010 5:04 PM
"guys like Gerding-Edlen"
Sorry, I meant the company not the individuals.
Don't forget that theater also has some tschotske dedicated to Vera - The patron saint of giveaways.
Which might be part of the problem, we buiold statues and dedicate buildings to people who give away money.
Posted by Steve | November 24, 2010 5:54 PM
As vile as this whole waste of money is, the truly outrageous thing here is billb's statement that Susan Sarandon looks good. *shudder*
Posted by Larry Legend | November 24, 2010 6:06 PM
How can this building pay back the taxpayers $6,700,000 TIF dollars when only 1 out of 5 listed potential renters are private?
And there are even more potential lessees that are non-profits that pay no property taxes. In fact, who is the owner of this building? PSU, who pays no property taxes to pay off the TIF dollar debt.
This kind of disregard of how debt is paid off is exactly what is happening in SoWhat. Less than 1/2 of the properties in SoWhat are taxpaying entities. That is why Durbin and Sustainable Susan can go on their MaryWay of thinking-economics has nothing to do with this project.
I'm tired of paying for others' follies.
I guess this building will disprove Einstein's theory. Our first zero net energy building. A perpetual motion building using no energy. Impossible.
Posted by Lee | November 24, 2010 7:49 PM
Jim Karlock -
These folks are many things, but "...idiots..." is not one of them.
They do, after all, have $ 65 million of our dollars.
Look at your tax statement from early November and see how much you are paying every year for the PDC follies.
Posted by Nonny Mouse | November 24, 2010 8:29 PM
Sad to say Portlanders are getting what they wanted, or I should fail what they failed to put a stop to in two recall elections.
It's as if the sweat and misery of the people who built, lived in, and maintained this city for generations is being abused to turn it into a theme park that will eventually exclude them and is meant for someone else.
Some earlier century we'd be sharpening our pitchforks by now. Methinks we live in strange times.
Posted by jc | November 24, 2010 9:05 PM
Nonny Mouse Jim Karlock -
These folks are many things, but "...idiots..." is not one of them.
They do, after all, have $ 65 million of our dollars.
JK: Good point. How about clever schemers who have figured out how to steal tax money for idiot ideas that play into the latest popular delusion.
But I still maintain that Sustainable Susan is a true believer that gets suckered by the latest popular delusion. For instance, aside from buying AGW & sustainability hook line & sinker, when I asked how much money recycling saved, she gave a non-responsive answer - she knows it is costly.
Thanks
JK
Posted by jimkarlock | November 25, 2010 4:09 AM
Looks and sounds like a replay of the "Media Arts" Building all over again. You know - the current "home" of PDC - since noone else was dumb enough to locate there long term!
Posted by Dave A. | November 26, 2010 3:42 PM