Portland Design Commission
 

The Design Commission is presenting their State Of The City Design Report 2015 [PDF] to the City Council on Wednesday. (In a Machiavellian work of scheduling, this comes right before the Preserve the Pearl appeal of the Design Commission's approval of Block 136). A few themes I picked up from the slides:

1. There are three examples of buildings that dramatically improved during the Design Commission review: 419 E Burnside; the Stadium Fred Meyer; and the Pearl Marriott. Seeing the difference really makes wish the Design Commission had reviewed the Linden apartments or the Hawthorne Safeway, neither of which are in design districts.
   
2. There's a huge number of projects going on in the Central Eastside / Lloyd District. This is probably the biggest difference between the boom of the 2000s and the boom of the 2010s.
   
3. The Design Commission really wants the Zoning Code change to prohibit housing at the ground floor in commercial corridors. They have some great examples of how it just kills the vitality of the street.

I would also like to congratulate the Design Commission for refraining from the use of Comic Sans, which unfortunately made it into the appendix of the 2014 report.

That's the funniest thing I've read on this site in quite a while!

I'm really happy about the mention of mandating retail-- I've been banging this drum for awhile. That example of that overgrown craftsman development with no retail on Hawthorne is an excellent example of how terribly alienating such design can be to the streetscape.

I thought you were joking until I clicked.

It is! I just actually laughed out loud at my desk. :D:haha:

I don't disagree that housing at grade can be poorly executed. I will say that the commission will need to be careful about how it suggests the city mandate retail, in lieu of housing (or other active uses) at the ground floor. I think ground floor housing CAN (and does) work, but it is thoroughly dependent on the approach to its design. Perhaps specific guidelines about how its executed might help. (Setbacks, canopies, live work requirements, etc)

To me, boarded up continually failed retail is often worse than housing or live-work. Even in a commercial corridor. Retail where there is significant slope, can be particularly difficult to pull off without design & cost implications that subvert its success.

Like anything, I think its a balance.

Provide a clause to allow continually failing retail to revert to office/housing. It isn't inconceivable to have that written in and still mandate retail on corridors. It's about experimenting.

I get where you're coming from, but I think I would rather see boarded up retail for five years than 50-100 years of ground floor residential that kills the street activity. Setbacks, stoops, canopies, etc are all good ways to ensure ground floor residential works well on secondary streets. However I don't think it's enough for major commercial streets, which really need continuous active uses. Even a couple block or two of ground floor residential can kill the vitality of a street.

As for grade differences: the retail doesn't necessarily need to be large. Although it's on a flat site, I think Vallaster Corl's Central Eastside Lofts would work as a precedent for a site with steeper grades. It has 8 very small units facing onto NE 6th Ave, all of which seem to have leased.

For anyone interested, I posted the audio up here.

...continues at Portland Architecture.

Can Portland Double in Size? - Portland Monthly
 

Can Portland Double in Size?

Rick Potestio in Portland Monthly...

http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/re...and-april-2015

I like it.

Blargh, the tone of this. We are not throwing our city away to allow an evolution of density. It looks like we may even be able to have inclusionary zoning mandate affordable housing in new developments. We could give bonuses to developers who make more units overall in a small area. Density, affordability.

A city is not only buildings. We are not even close to demolishing Portland's housing stock; think twice if you think the majority of homeowners are budging. But should we allow those staunch land owners the right to stop density if someone else wants to allow it on their land? I don't believe so. We should be adding density wherever we can, and now work in the inclusionary zoning framework.

Julie Livingston is being appointed to replace David Keltner on the Design Commission. I don't recognize the name but a quick google suggests she is an architect who works at the Housing Authority of Portland.

Don Vallaster of Vallaster Corl is being appointed to the Design Commission to replace Gwen Millius.

Ben Kaiser is being appointed for a second term on the Design Commission, to expire in 2019.

Worth a read, I think.

...continues at KGW.

Interesting article indeed. However: "The proposed Core Spaces grocery store and apartment complex on Harrison Street is a beacon for what the future of Portland could look like. The multi-use development with hundreds of inhabitants will replace a much smaller structure, and in some ways a smaller way of life."

WTF?? I'm not aware of ANY structures currently on that block. I don't consider asphalt a "structure."

Great idea, how 'bout a thinner, taller structure that's less beastly with garden plazas around it and ground floor retail/restaurant. Even if that Core structure was shorter, the massing at ground level is brutal. Again, building up could solve this.

On the City Council agenda for next week: two new members for the Design Commission.