91ÊÓƵ

The 95-year-old building at 1727 N.W. Hoyt St. is a contributing structure in the nationally registered Alphabet Historic District. But in recent years, it has contributed only vacant space.

The problem is two parts zoning, one part structural. After the owners of the 13,000-square-foot building disbanded their law firm and moved out around 2007, the structure sat empty during the recession and lost its grandfathered status for conditional commercial use. Today, the property is zoned for high-density residential use, which would require a costly seismic upgrade.

“We’ve looked at multiple scenarios for developing the property, including renovating and developing next to it,” said Jill Sherman, Gerding Edlen vice president of development. “It’s just not feasible economically and I don’t think it’s a better project.”

Gerding Edlen and the property’s owners are working on plans to redevelop the half-block site on the east side of Northwest 18th Avenue, between Hoyt and Irving streets, as an 82-unit apartment building. But before the $14 million-plus development can move forward, the building at 1727 N.W. Hoyt St. must be demolished – and that promises to be a difficult proposition.

Only once in the city’s history has approval been given to demolish a contributing structure in a historic district – in 2010, for the Kiernan Building, aka the Dirty Duck – and it was controversial. Now, some Northwest Portland residents are rallying to save the Hoyt Street building.

Once again, goals for density and preservation are competing.

“When you put 80 units in a giant building in between these two streets of quaint Victorian homes that have been here for 130 years you’re seriously degrading the character of the street,” said Wendy Chung, a neighbor and a Northwest District Neighborhood Association board member.

Chung said the Hoyt Street building may not be on the National Register of Historic Places, but her 130-year-old home (at 1729 N.W. Irving St.) is, and so are many others on the surrounding block. She bought her house in 2007 for $485,000 with an expectation that those historic designations would be honored.

Chung noted that she and her neighbors are not opposed to development, and cited numerous projects nearby as evidence. She even likes Holst Architecture‘s designs – featuring a distressed brick facade, bay windows and a mansard roof – for Gerding Edlen’s proposed project. She just doesn’t think such a development is appropriate for the site.

“We’re all for development and trying to increase density,” Chung said. “We just think on this particular lot there could be ways to preserve (the building) and meet our density needs.”

Sherman has evaluated those options. She said that the cost of construction would not really justify the expense, and that after development of the surrounding property only a sliver of the contributing structure would remain visible. Nevertheless, she understands neighbors’ concerns; about a year ago she began meeting with them to gather input.

Because lack of parking is a big concern in Northwest Portland, Gerding Edlen is proposing 70 below-grade spaces. It is also hoping to include a substantial amount of two-bedroom units (now in short supply) and workforce housing. Sherman pointed to the same nearby multifamily developments that Chung did as evidence that the building would not be out of context, especially from a geographic perspective.

“It’s all about location and proximity to transportation, the proximity to services and the proximity to jobs,” Sherman said. “Basically, I think of that district as a downtown central city district and generally where I think you want to see – and a lot of our public policy says that’s where we want to have – density of housing.”

Part of the conflict stems from the mixed messages touted by the property. Its zoning encourages high-density development, but the historic district designation bestowed later doesn’t.

Notably, a by the National Trust for Historic Preservation found that some of the most thriving communities are those that contain a high diversity of building ages. But for the Hoyt Street building, its fate will be determined via a Type IV historic resource demolition review – a process that can take up to eight months, and ends with a vote by City Council.

“I think you’re asking a question that even preservationists would disagree on,” said Tim Heron, a senior city planner for the Bureau of Development Services. “It’s very subjective, and that’s why we have a process, and that’s why this will go through a process … We’re going to talk those issues out … When you demolish a resource, it’s irreplaceable. You don’t get it back. That’s the bar.”

Meanwhile, Josh Schweitz, a Kidder Mathews senior vice president who marketed the Hoyt Street building for several years during the recession, lamented that it can no longer accommodate commercial use. He came close to a deal in 2008, but nothing panned out.

Schweitz said that wouldn’t happen today.

“I guarantee I could put my sign up and I could have it under contract within a week just because the market right now is so hot,” he said. “… I wish I had 10 of those types of buildings.”