Editorial: Reject bills for sky-high towers

When Aloha Tower was built in the mid-1920s, its height — 10 stories reaching 184 feet, plus 40 feet of flag mast — climbed above all other buildings here; it held Oahu’s tallest-structure ranking for decades. These days, Honolulu’s tallest buildings loom far above the Honolulu Harbor landmark, with the tallest topping 400 feet.

State lawmakers are now weighing proposals that would set the stage for a higher-yet leap, allowing construction of towers as tall as 768 feet in the Kakaako area where a roughly 400-foot height limit has been in place for decades.

House Bill 1559 and Senate Bill 1496 seek to trade height for “public benefits,” although the benefits have yet to be nailed down. While the impulse to build vertically is sensible, especially given the short supply of affordable housing and land deemed suitable for home construction, lawmakers must be skeptical of these proposals.

The measures would allow one tower per master plan approved by the Hawaii Community Development Authority, if the building is near a proposed rail station site and provides extra benefits negotiated with HCDA, which regulates Kakaako development.

Two master plans would qualify: Our Kakaako, which is now filling with 2,750 homes in a mix of midrise buildings and seven towers; and Ward Village, filling with 4,500 homes mainly in 16 towers.

State Sen. Sharon Moriwaki, who represents Kakaako and issued a statement opposing the bills, rightly pointed out they “undermine and set back years of community work with the Kakaako governing authority.” A vaguely defined super-sized tower is a dubious fit for HCDA’s masterplanned Kakaako vision, which is tailored for mixed income, mixed density and mixed-use neighborhoods.

It also was good to hear House Speaker Scott Saiki opposing the bills, concerned that they would lead to a “proliferation of super towers.”

Lawmakers should remember that developers eager for opportunities to build skyward can be counted on to argue that such construction pencils out only if a large chunk of housing units are sold at luxury- bracket rates. Honolulu’s transit-oriented development (TOD) serves as a sort of cautionary tale.

Long touted as a golden ticket to reducing the affordable housing backlog, TOD — as currently executed — in the Ala Moana corridor is failing to secure deals that significantly ramp up inventory of units for moderate- and low-income local households.

In the case of the upcoming Mana’olana Place, a lavish condo-hotel at Kapiolani and Atkinson, in exchange for height, density and other land-use exemptions, the developer is electing to build affordable rental units off-site, or pay a cash equivalent (up to $3 million) into a city housing development fund.

Affordable housing is not much of a winner when its actual construction will likely be delayed. Oahu needs an estimated 25,000 affordable units to meet pent-up demand, but in recent years the marketplace has been adding only a few thousand to the supply annually, with many priced in the luxury range.

Even the pitch for HB 1559 and SB 1496 raises a red flag. The proposed legislation asserts that the city would benefit from construction of a “signature urban skyline” featuring varied heights, thereby avoiding an aesthetically drab visual in which the tallest buildings form a flat-top uniformity. But there are many other ways — aside from height — to create an inviting skyline.

Five years ago, HCDA proposed allowing three 700-foot towers near Kakaako rail station sites along with towers up to 550 feet in other parts of Kakaako. Responding to community concerns, such as potential overcrowding, the Legislature quashed the effort and passed the 2014 law capping heights at 418 feet. This time around, again, it appears that the build-sky-high negatives outweigh the positives.