Wednesday, July 23, 2014         


 Print   Email   Comment | View 5 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Build Honolulu upward or outward, but not both

By Cynthia Oi

LAST UPDATED: 02:57 a.m. HST, Nov 10, 2011

That’s going to be one colossal building kissing the Kakaako sky if all goes as intended by the state agency that gets to decide such things.

What’s more, the edifice may not be the only structure stretching into the wild blue yonder, if the Hawaii Community Development Authority changes vertical limits in the neighborhood from the current 400 feet to 650 feet, the height envisioned for the tower at what has been dubbed the 690 Pohukaina project.

The agency also seeks to raise the roof limits around the city’s proposed rail transit stations, whose elevated concrete courses and columns have already drawn complaints about spoiled mountain-to-sea view planes.

Buildings with altitude, agency officials argue, would create housing that regular people may be able to buy and rent, while grouping residential units near transit facilities, which could get people out of their cars and relieve some of the misery of driving in the city.

Makes sense.

Gov. Neil Abercrombie’s pitch for the project and for increasing density in Kakaako is to counteract urban sprawl and end “arguments about where we’re going to build” — arguments that have been running long and hard across Central Oahu, the west side and the North Shore.

He may be too optimistic.

Urban sprawl — or more accurately, suburban sprawl — due to the conflict it arouses and the stresses it places on natural and public resources, will continue until the state and city put the brakes on residential development on open spaces and agricultural lands.

A better focus would be what’s called infill construction: building on vacant parcels or redeveloping under-used properties with residential and commercial components.

The Kakaako project appears to incorporate this idea. It would remove the need to extend infrastructure, such as sewer, water and power lines, across long distances and maximize the use of existing public facilities and services.

After all, widening old streets is easier and cheaper than building new ones and attaching on-ramps, off-ramps and extra lanes to freeways.

The plan for 690 Pohukaina would include housing for people of various income levels and provide some community spaces.

It would tie into nearby projects that would also offer retailers and stores so that residents could walk to buy groceries and other needs without gassing up the car.

To entice investors to bankroll 690 Pohukaina, the state is dangling the increased height-limit as a carrot, since without additional pricier “market rate” units to sell, including “affordable” housing would not pencil out in profits.

Too often, however, such trade-offs are rescinded or reduced for financial or other excuses. If the project is to succeed in its goal of providing decent housing at reasonable prices, the state cannot swap them out.

As for the governor’s objective to quiet the noise over land-use conflicts, he and the agency will first have to wait until the public has its say about radically altering the city’s skyline, then commit to stemming development outside urban lines. They can’t have both.


Cynthia Oi can be reached at coi@staradvertiser.com.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 5 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
KekoaBradshaw wrote:
Another excellent column, Ms. Oi!
on November 10,2011 | 07:27AM
OwenMiyamoto wrote:
Upward but certainly not as high as HCDA proposes. In fact, high density can be achieved even below 400 feet. Most probably have forgotten about the outcry when the City allowed the apartment development at Kapiolani Park that spoiled the slopes of Diamond Head. Look at the monstrous twin apartments in Pearl City and their impact on views. We should keep the building heights less than existing buildings and achieve higher densities in the urban core. No more high rises elsewhere.
on November 10,2011 | 08:38AM
lokahi808 wrote:
WE can thank Frank Fasi and former local councilman George Akahane for this spot zoning ot the two highrise twin towers in Pearl City. This development never made sense and is any eyesore.. SF is a good example (only 49 square miles) where you can have high rise in fill developments and yet maintain the many unique neighborhoods like the Mission, Chinatown, North Beach, Marina, Sunset, Richmond, Castro, Haight, Cole Valley, Bernal Hts, that define the history, diverse culture and values of SF. It can be done. With lots of community input and process along the way.
on November 14,2011 | 10:37AM
clum56 wrote:
What is considered afortable subburban housing for all income levels that everyone can afford at lower heights other than 650ft up.
on November 11,2011 | 03:29AM
FACE wrote:
Well outward isn't working so if we are going to preserve any kind of green space on Oahu it had better be upward. There are a lot of other high rises approved for this area - none of them for regular people - bet they don't face the same scrutiny!
on November 17,2011 | 07:27AM
Latest News/Updates