On the corner of Southwest 5th Avenue and Montgomery Street sits the undeveloped site of the Oregon Sustainability Center, a project that since its inception has had its followers and detractors divided over one issue: funding.
And the site is likely to remain that way—undeveloped, at least for a time, leaving Portland State with low classroom space and no laboratory for sustainability initiatives, potential leasers without leases, and the City of Portland out of the running for the first “living building.” Despite the proposed benefits of the OSC, securing funding for the multi-million dollar building has proven to be a hard sell.
Last fall the Portland City Council was split on the decision to move forward, with commissioners Amanda Fritz and Nick Fish constituting the two nays. When asked about why she voted against the OSC, Fritz gave a detailed case example.
“I voted against it because we can’t afford it right now,” Fritz said. “It relies on the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability moving into the new building, paying much higher rent than their current location in the 1900 Building on SW 4th.
“That building was custom built to house Planning and Development Services, and we haven’t yet finished paying for it. Rent for BPS is paid by the General Fund. Current projections show continued deficits for the General Fund over the next five years. Paying higher rent for fancy office space is not my priority, especially when current funding requires cutting basic services for citizens throughout Portland,” Fritz added.
Mark Gregory, PSU associate vice president of Finance and Administration, pointed to a declining economy in general as playing a part in explaining votes like those of Fish’s and Fritz’s and those of the Oregon Legislature.
“Basically the legislature supported the project in 2009, but as the economy got weaker they wrote a budget note that called the project back for re-consideration,” Gregory wrote in an email interview. “Basically the legislature was split on the project for a few reasons: some saw it as too costly and potentially risky, others felt it was good for Portland, but not necessarily as good for their rural districts…that said, others strongly supported it, seeing it as an economic development and innovation opportunity for Oregon.”
The building was conceived in what The New York Times described as a “freewheeling, frenetic brainstorming meeting” in 2009 and over a period of four years has become less and less of a reality with a poor economy encroaching ever more on public projects.
Fritz questioned the need for trumpeting in the current economic climate. “There are already other buildings being built with the same goals, elsewhere. So I don’t see the urgency to prioritize doing the one in Portland right now. I might support it in the future, if funding for it doesn’t take away general fund money from essential services,” Fritz said.
With crucial chunks of funding having been denied and investors dropping out, the project’s realization seems unlikely. Losing the much-needed state bonds and the $3 million from the Oregon University System, leaves the building’s proponents looking for alternate ways of financing the project.
For the time being, it seems the OSC will remain stagnant, with an eye on the future. “In the end there were not enough supporters to get the requested $37 million in bond financing from the state (another $25 million was in hand already),” Gregory said. “The project really needed that lower interest state loan in order to remain affordable for tenants. The partners in the project continue to look for a path forward and alternate ways of financing the project.”
The OSC, with its proposed net-zero waste, water and energy use, would have constituted the nucleus of PSU’s Ecodistrict. According to the PSU website the Ecodistrict is a “highly integrated neighborhood that is vibrant, resource efficient and engages residents in promoting human connections and well-being.” It is “home to smart buildings; strives to capture and reuse energy, water and waste on site; offers a range of transportation options; provides open space for people and natural areas for wildlife; and tracks tangible progress toward neighborhood sustainability over time.”