Gerding Edlen Development has acquired a property near Seattle University where it will build a mixed-use development, the company announced Wednesday.

“We have been very actively looking for good mixed-use development opportunities that are multifamily based, in good locations in major urban centers,” said Kelly Saito, president of Gerding Edlen.

The development company recently kicked off mixed-use projects in San Francisco and Venice Beach, Calif.

The Seattle building will include approximately 118 residential units, including 20 percent affordable housing units, and 6,500 square feet of retail space on top of two floors of underground parking, Saito said. The project is located near three major health care institutions: Swedish Medical Center, Harborview Medical Center and Virginia Mason Medical Center, at 412 Broadway. A streetcar line is planned to pass right in front of the building. Construction is expected to begin on the project in August of this year.

The post Gerding Edlen acquires Seattle Property appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Oregon Sustainability Center, still being developed in Portland, is expected to be a superlative accomplishment for American green building. Meanwhile, another Pacific Northwest project – the Cascadia Center for Sustainable Design and Construction – has been described as “the world’s most energy-efficient office building.”

Cascadia Center for Sustainable Design and Construction

Floors: six
Square footage: 45,000
Primary building material: timber framing
Prospective tenants: the Bullitt Foundation, the Cascadia chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council and the International Living Building Institute
Project team: Miller Hull Partnership, Point32, PAE Consulting Engineers, Schuchart Construction
Building life goal: 250 years
Completion target: summer 2012

Oregon Sustainability Center

Floors: seven
Square footage: approximately 135,000
Primary building material: concrete
Prospective tenants: Portland State University, retailers and others
Project team: GBD Architects, SERA Architects, Gerding Edlen Development, PAE Consulting Engineers, Skanska USA
Building life goal: 100 years
Completion target: August 2013

The projects, however, are not competing with each other so much as with the challenge of creating living buildings that won’t be occupied by their owners.

“The interesting thing about the Living Building Challenge is that you either meet it or you don’t,” said Scott Clem of , the general contractor for the sustainability center. “To say that one building is greener than the other is facetious.”

The Cascadia center, scheduled to be completed in summer 2012, would be the first urban office building to meet the Living Building Challenge. The sustainability center, slated to be completed in August 2013, would be the first urban high-rise living building, according to Jill Sherman at Gerding Edlen Development. And at seven floors and approximately 130,000 square feet, it would be the largest and tallest living building.

“We think it’s great that somebody else in the region is trying to figure this out,” Sherman said.

The Oregon Sustainability Center, originally planned as a 220,000-square-foot structure, has had to overcome significant hurdles relating to cost and public opinion. The center’s schematic design will need to be approved by the Portland Development Commission and Portland City Council before design development can proceed, hopefully this fall, Clem said.

Like all stakeholders striving to meet the Living Building Challenge, those leading the Portland and Seattle projects must take special care to avoid materials that contain harmful chemicals, detailed on the challenge’s “red list.” Officials with both projects are in talks with manufacturers to find – or even specifically commission – materials that meet those requirements.

“We’ve got a pretty good database that we’re building that will vet materials contractors use, and we’re working with manufacturing to remove toxins,” said Chris Rogers of Point32. He is working as a Cascadia center project manager.

A limited use of materials affects cost – a factor particularly important for buildings that will eventually offer leases.

In most cases, potential living building projects are community centers, nonprofits’ offices or private homes. Their owners typically absorb cost burdens and come to understand how net-zero energy structures and systems work.

“We’ve introduced the wrinkle of tenants that can change, need to be encouraged and controlled and monitored and that need to pay a rent that’s reasonable,” Clem said.

The Oregon University System has mandated that construction costs for the Oregon Sustainability Center be less than $424 per square foot so that rents can remain competitive. The Oregon Sustainability Center is a $70 million project, according to recent numbers from the Portland Development Commission. Rogers would not give a cost estimate for the Cascadia center, but added that downward pressure on commercial rents and the expense of green construction were major challenges for the project.

Stakeholders in the projects justify large price tags with sustainability: The Cascadia center is expected to last 250 years, and the sustainability center is expected to last 100.

Tenants in the buildings will be required to adapt to energy needs to keep them net-zero, Clem said. If office tenants were to act as normal office tenants – such as maintain a regular office temperature, run many large appliances like copy machines, and rely on artificial lighting – he said, “a lot of the (energy) strategies … are going to fail.”

Tenants will sign “green lease” agreements to assure practices are employed that will keep energy consumption low. Also, energy use will be monitored.

In the Oregon Sustainability Center, lower-floor retail spaces will be open only to tenants who consume relatively less energy: no dry cleaners or bakers, for example, Clem said. Cascadia center tenants, on the other hand, are expected to be involved in the green building industry and naturally employ sustainable practices.

Neither of these buildings, when completed, will be expected to operate like normal buildings.

“This isn’t just a real estate project; it’s an economic development project,” Sherman said. If a developer just wanted to build an office building that was profitable to rent, she added, this wouldn’t be the way to do it.

The post Oregon Sustainability Center meets its Seattle cousin appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

If Seattle were to stop work on its Alaskan Way Viaduct project and start over, the city would lose more than $1 billion, according .

The monster project could be a lesson to Portland, which has long been planning the Columbia River Crossing project. The Portland project would replace the Interstate 5 bridge over the river and add freeway lanes and interchanges on both shores. Price estimates for the Portland project go as high as $4.2 billion.

Seattle’s project, with a price tag of $3.1 billion, would replace the elevated portion of State Route 99 near Elliott Bay with an underground tunnel. Other highway work and improvements to the sea wall would be included in the project.

The Seattle project, like Portland’s, is highly politicized. Both have staunch opponents and supporters. In fact, Seattle ballot initiatives are planned that would put parts of the viaduct project up to a city-wide vote. But the Seattle project, which has actually begun construction, would be far more expensive to scratch now. About $650 million has been spent on the project already, and hundreds of millions more are committed or would be lost if the project was roadblocked. From the Seattle P-I:

State Rep. Judy Clibborn, the Mercer Island Democract who chairs the House Transportation Committee, said she didn’t want to speculate on how state lawmakers would proceed if the tunnel project were to stall. But, she is concerned about how an initiative could delay the project, she said.

“When you have already spent $650 million, and have the deep-bore tunnel contract ready to go and signatures on utility and right-of-way agreements, that is a strange time to say we’re going to do something different,” she said.

At some point, the money spent on a project reaches a point of no return, a point where reimagining the project as a whole becomes unfeasible.

The Columbia River Crossing has not yet reached that point, but it could be well on its way. More than $100 million has already been spent on the project, and the team behind it is only in the planning stages. Planning started in earnest in 2005; the Seattle project has been in planning stages since as early as 2001, but earnest planning began in 2009.

The Columbia River Crossing project appears to be dragging on. Every aspect becomes a debate. Should the bridge be replaced or not? Will tolling be necessary? How many lanes? None of the debates ends with firm resolutions, and if one does, it can easily be recanted. After months of discussion over a preliminary bridge design, one was selected, but then later rejected.

This back and forth can go on for a while, but the Seattle example should be a lesson that decisions must be made with some degree of commitment. At some point, changing one’s mind becomes very expensive.

The post Seattle viaduct project could be a lesson for Portland’s Columbia River I-5 bridge appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

If Seattle were to stop work on its Alaskan Way Viaduct project and start over, the city would lose more than $1 billion, according .

The monster project could be a lesson to Portland, which has long been planning the Columbia River Crossing project. The Portland project would replace the Interstate 5 bridge over the river and add freeway lanes and interchanges on both shores. Price estimates for the Portland project go as high as $4.2 billion.

Seattle’s project, with a price tag of $3.1 billion, would replace the elevated portion of State Route 99 near Elliott Bay with an underground tunnel. Other highway work and improvements to the sea wall would be included in the project.

The Seattle project, like Portland’s, is highly politicized. Both have staunch opponents and supporters. In fact, Seattle ballot initiatives are planned that would put parts of the viaduct project up to a city-wide vote. But the Seattle project, which has actually begun construction, would be far more expensive to scratch now. About $650 million has been spent on the project already, and hundreds of millions more are committed or would be lost if the project was roadblocked. From the Seattle P-I:

State Rep. Judy Clibborn, the Mercer Island Democract who chairs the House Transportation Committee, said she didn’t want to speculate on how state lawmakers would proceed if the tunnel project were to stall. But, she is concerned about how an initiative could delay the project, she said.

“When you have already spent $650 million, and have the deep-bore tunnel contract ready to go and signatures on utility and right-of-way agreements, that is a strange time to say we’re going to do something different,” she said.

At some point, the money spent on a project reaches a point of no return, a point where reimagining the project as a whole becomes unfeasible.

The Columbia River Crossing has not yet reached that point, but it could be well on its way. More than $100 million has already been spent on the project, and the team behind it is only in the planning stages. Planning started in earnest in 2005; the Seattle project has been in planning stages since as early as 2001, but earnest planning began in 2009.

The Columbia River Crossing project appears to be dragging on. Every aspect becomes a debate. Should the bridge be replaced or not? Will tolling be necessary? How many lanes? None of the debates ends with firm resolutions, and if one does, it can easily be recanted. After months of discussion over a preliminary bridge design, one was selected, but then later rejected.

This back and forth can go on for a while, but the Seattle example should be a lesson that decisions must be made with some degree of commitment. At some point, changing one’s mind becomes very expensive.

The post Seattle viaduct project could be a lesson for Portland's Columbia River I-5 bridge appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The City of Seattle has issued a new City of Seattle Supplemental Bidder Responsibility Criteria form that will be used for all City Public Works projects of $300,000 or more starting Jan. 1, 2010.

The apparent low bidder will be required to submit the form after bid opening. The form replaces the Pre-Award Information Statement.

A sample work experience form is also included for reference if the specification includes detailed work and personal experience.

A training session will be held on Thursday, Dec. 17, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. in the Seattle Municipal Tower, Room 4080. Interested Prime Contractors need to email a RSVP to maura.donoghue@seattle.gov if they wish to attend.

The post City of Seattle Issues New Supplemental Bidder Criteria Form appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The City of Seattle has issued a new City of Seattle Supplemental Bidder Responsibility Criteria form that will be used for all City Public Works projects of $300,000 or more starting Jan. 1, 2010.

The apparent low bidder will be required to submit the form after bid opening. The form replaces the Pre-Award Information Statement.

A sample work experience form is also included for reference if the specification includes detailed work and personal experience.

A training session will be held on Thursday, Dec. 17, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. in the Seattle Municipal Tower, Room 4080. Interested Prime Contractors need to email a RSVP to maura.donoghue@seattle.gov if they wish to attend.

The post City of Seattle Issues New Supplemental Bidder Criteria Form appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.