|
BY PATTY WENTZ, pwentz@wweek.com
Is the Willamette River Greenway our public refuge against an oppressive urban environment, or is it just a sidewalk? Jerry Ward says we'd better decide, and we'd better decide soon. As he walks along Portland's Willamette River Greenway, about 25 miles of real and imaginary riverfront path that will someday line the Willamette River, Ward points out who owns which piece of land and what used to be there before it was developed. An architect and longtime Southwest Portland neighborhood activist, he fiercely believes in the river as a public resource and has repeatedly fought commercial encroachment on the greenway path. One of Ward's most pivotal battles could be decided next week, when the City Council will make a final decision on plans for a seven-story hotel that would loom over the Willamette River Greenway south of the Ross Island Bridge. "The city has a chance to do things right," says Ward, who opposes the hotel. "I hope they do." Last week, in a preliminary vote, the council suggested it would reject the plans. But even if things go his way, Ward and others who want to preserve the riverfront have years of work ahead as the city's desire to boost density within city limits clashes with the dream of the Willamette River Greenway. When most Portlanders think of the greenway, they picture Tom McCall Waterfront Park. That's where we take visitors for late evening summertime strolls to brag about our city. But most of the land along the river is privately owned and slated for commercial development. A state plan known as the greenway overlay, created by former governor McCall himself, requires developers to provide public access to the river whenever they improve their property. Portland's plan to meet the overlay requirement was developed in 1986, and it's vague about what other responsibility developers have to the greenway path. Many people believe the proposed Avalon Hotel will set a precedent for the rest of the riverfront. On one hand, the Avalon is exactly what we want in urban development. It's a 102-room hotel, capped by 10 million-dollar condominiums with river views. The city is short on hotel rooms, and condos contribute to density goals. But the Corbett-Terwilliger-Lair Hill Neighborhood Association, of which Ward is a member, disagrees. The neighborhood association, with the backing of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Audubon Society and the League of Women Voters, appealed the design to the City Council. Opponents are not against development, just this development in its current form. Chief among their numerous complaints: It's too big, and it will reduce public access to the river. The Avalon has been proposed by NSP Development, owned by Paul Brenneke. The hotel will rise to the 70-foot floor-to-roof height limit for the central city zone. Ward says it will be bigger and closer than any other building along the river, except for the old Albers Mill Building. He calls it an "urban cliff" that thumbs its nose at the greenway vision. Another area of contention is public access to the river. The north-south greenway path has already been built, and the current public access, from Moody Street, is a path next to the neighboring River Forum II. NSP made a bargain with the city's design commission to move the public accessway on the south side of the building, which allows it to squeeze up next to the current access path. That's a huge benefit for NSP, because if it had been required to shift the building even an inch to the south, it would have crossed the central city zone boundary into the South Macadam Planning District, which has a lower height allowance. Ward says allowing the hotel to be built right up to the existing north-side river path would effectively eliminate this public access. The south entrance, he says, is no replacement. It "looks totally privatized. There is valet parking and an auto turnaround area. There is no visual connection to the river. Is that public?" Brenneke is exasperated. He says his building will be a vast improvement over the current parking lot, is in scale with the surrounding development and will not increase the shading on the path. Most important, he says, his hotel meets all city design codes. "What else do I have to go by?" he says. "How can I design a building if I can't trust what's in that rule book? I've got land rights. You can't arbitrarily come in to take away land rights." He says he's passed design review, has more than a million dollars invested in the building and is baffled as to what else is expected of him. "I can't continually redesign a building while everyone takes a shot at it." Jeff Joslin, the city's senior planner, agrees that Brenneke's building met city code. As for other greenway guidelines, he says, "Guidelines are discretionary by definition." That may be so, but they could be enough to send Brenneke back to the drawing board one more time. At last week's council meeting, Mayor Vera Katz and commissioners Gretchen Kafoury and Jim Francesconi made it clear that they'd like to find a way to uphold the appeal. No matter what happens on Jan. 21, someone will be angry. And they won't be the last. Work plans have been created to develop the Zidell and Schnitzer properties along the greenway in the North Macadam District. Unless the city creates more specific guidelines for greenway development, this problem will come up again soon. |
