OMSI Development

[maccoinnich]

Center for Tribal Nations to Transform Portland Waterfront
With its newly selected, Indigenous-led architectural team, the Center for Tribal Nations will create a hub for the urban Native community and reclaim space along the Willamette River.



Imagine a future in which first foods and medicines line the shores of the Willamette River in the OMSI district, Indigenous stories and design on full display, as flags from hundreds of Native nations fly proud.

This is the vision for the Center for Tribal Nations (CTN) — a hub of commerce and trade for the urban Indigenous community and Native nations across the Pacific Northwest.

“Ultimately, you have to have at your core this deep sense of understanding of protection and advancement of tribal sovereignty – I think that has to be at the forefront when you’re dealing with tribes,” said James Alan Parker, citizen of the Chippewa Cree Tribal Nation and executive director of the Northwest Native Chamber, which is helping to led the project. “I think we also have to have a deep understanding and a grounding in the place that we’re at.”

...continues at Underscore Native News.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

...continues at Underscore Native News.

So what's the actual site that they will have to build this hub? Which I assume will be some sort of building?

[uncommon.name]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

So what's the actual site that they will have to build this hub? Which I assume will be some sort of building?

Looks like it will be built where the parking lot is, next to OMSI on the South/SouthEast area of the property. This is a stunning building if this happens.

More info on their and a nice short video of the renderings on their website here...

[maccoinnich]

On the Prosper Portland Board agenda this Wednesday:

Action Item: Authorizing a Term Sheet and an Intergovernmental Agreement Related to the OMSI District Master Plan

Report 24-35
Resolution 7550
Resolution 7551

[maccoinnich]

OMSI District eyes infrastructure improvements, education park first



The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry’s (OMSI) plans for a new neighborhood district are moving forward.

The Prosper Portland Board of Commissioners on Wednesday authorized a term sheet with OMSI related to development plans for the OMSI District. The commission also approved an intergovernmental agreement with the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) for $10.9 million of Central Eastside Tax Increment Finance (TIF) resources, and up to $16.9 million if Prosper Portland and Business Oregon execute a $6 million grant.

Amy Nagy, development manager at Prosper Portland, said the term sheet provides the framework for private or public infrastructure and vertical development projects related to the OMSI District Central City Master Plan between Prosper Portland, the city of Portland and OMSI.

The intergovernmental agreement directs funding from Prosper Portland to PBOT for design, construction and management of New Water Avenue.

...continues at the DJC ($).

[maccoinnich]

OMSI nears $15.4M investment to boost 24-acre redevelopment



Portland City Council on Wednesday will consider a resolution that includes $15.4 million to support the OMSI District Master Plan.

The money will help fund $22 million in infrastructure improvements that project boosters say are needed before construction can begin.

The plan calls for redevelopment on 24 acres of Willamette riverfront property surrounding OMSI between the Tilikum Crossing and Marquam bridges. The 3-million square feet of mixed-use development would include up to 1,200 housing units, with at least 20% being affordable, commercial and retail space, and a waterfront education park.

Of the total, $11.4 million is earmarked for road and utility improvements. The remaining $4 million will help support development of a waterfront education center.

"The infrastructure investment is key to unlocking future development of the district," said OMSI CEO Erin Graham, adding that she's optimistic council will approve the resolution.

Mayor Ted Wheeler, and commissioners Carmen Rubio and Mingus Mapps are co-sponsoring the resolution, which was unanimously approved by the Prosper Portland Board on Friday..

...continues at the Portland Business Journal ($).

[uncommon.name]

City Council invests $15.4 million in OMSI District project

One of three mega-projects set to reshape Portland took a major step forward when the City Council unanimously approved a $15.4 million investment in the OMSI District in the Central Eastside on Sept. 4.

The funding will realign Southwest Water Avenue and lay the groundwork for a project that includes 24 acres of transit-oriented, mixed-use developments — including 1,200 new market rate and affordable housing units — a new waterfront education park, and the restoration of Tribal presence on the Willamette River through the creation of a Center for Tribal Nations and the waterfront education park.
...

The $15.4 million will fund much of Phase One of the project. The majority of the money is urban renewal tax increment financing. Portland Parks & Recreation has pledged $4 million, and the Portland Bureau of Transportation is adding $500,000.

The total project is estimated at $90 million. According to the city, the project will break ground in 2025 and eventually will spur $1 billion in economic development.

Read more at Portland Tribune

[sopdx]

Affordable Housing OMSI

https://www.portlandmaps.com/detail/permit/2025-046876-000-00-EA/5161926_did/

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

Originally Posted by sopdx

Affordable Housing OMSI

https://www.portlandmaps.com/detail/permit/2025-046876-000-00-EA/5161926_did/

Given what we know about the health effects of living next to or in proximity of freeways, this doesn't seem like a great spot to put affordable housing, to be mild.

[colossalorder]

I understand the point, but on the other hand, that kind of mindset is exactly what keeps us from adding to the housing stock. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I live directly next to 405. I can hear the cars roaring as I type. We already have so much housing that abuts the freeways. Every big city does. Its just a necessity of urban living and density.

[PlantDad]

Assuming things turn around at the federal level at some point in the future, I would assume the tailpipe emissions will continue to go down, particularly with freight trucks. The noise is another issue and I wish ODOT would consider placing sound walls on the overpasses and ramps in populated areas, and particularly near rivers and downtown. That said, living near the river should be a positive benefit to this housing.

[downtownpdx]

Excited to see more housing around here. I was just at a Solve volunteer event, through Human Access Project, helping to clean up and remove large rocks from the beach right below the Hawthorne Bridge. It’s such a beautiful view of the skyline from there. It still needs a lot of improvement to be a really attractive beach, but pathways are going in and HAP is putting on weekly events this summer on the nearby docks, dj’s, musicians etc. There were a couple homeless under the bridgehead and some garbage. But if more and more people start calling the area home I think it could really become an attractive destination.

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

Originally Posted by colossalorder

I understand the point, but on the other hand, that kind of mindset is exactly what keeps us from adding to the housing stock. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I live directly next to 405. I can hear the cars roaring as I type. We already have so much housing that abuts the freeways. Every big city does. Its just a necessity of urban living and density.

You make good points. Allow me to add more context for my original thoughts.

I'm about as far from NIMBY/anti-housing as one gets in this city (if it were up to me, whole stretches of Sandy, Interstate, MLK, etc would get major upzonings). I wouldn't have nearly as many qualms about housing on this site if it were market rate, because if people want to pay for the waterfront location in spite of the Marquam Bridge, that's their prerogative. But, what does not feel right to me is putting affordable housing here. Yes, we have a dire need for as much affordable housing as possible in this city, but I think about this holistically about who might live there and what their quality of life would be next to and under a double deck freeway bridge. Not just emissions, but noise and daylighting as well. Part of my view for affordable housing, and this is just my personal philosophy from having done a little work in the area, is helping create good environments for better health outcomes for residents. We know that selected residents for affordable housing are likelier to be lower income for areas, and lower incomes in America generally indicate worse health and more restricted healthcare access.

So, back to the site; housing, sure, if people want to pay for that experience, I'm sure there will be people willing to tolerate the bridge for the location. But, I think that there are probably better sites within the planned OMSI district more suitable for affordable housing so that residents have greater daylighting, cleaner air, and quieter spaces. I'm fully on board with not making the perfect the enemy of the good because that so often leaves us shooting ourselves in the foot and getting nothing done.

[AdamUrbanist]

Originally Posted by ThatDarnSacramentan

You make good points. Allow me to add more context for my original thoughts.

I'm about as far from NIMBY/anti-housing as one gets in this city (if it were up to me, whole stretches of Sandy, Interstate, MLK, etc would get major upzonings). I wouldn't have nearly as many qualms about housing on this site if it were market rate, because if people want to pay for the waterfront location in spite of the Marquam Bridge, that's their prerogative. But, what does not feel right to me is putting affordable housing here. Yes, we have a dire need for as much affordable housing as possible in this city, but I think about this holistically about who might live there and what their quality of life would be next to and under a double deck freeway bridge. Not just emissions, but noise and daylighting as well. Part of my view for affordable housing, and this is just my personal philosophy from having done a little work in the area, is helping create good environments for better health outcomes for residents. We know that selected residents for affordable housing are likelier to be lower income for areas, and lower incomes in America generally indicate worse health and more restricted healthcare access.

So, back to the site; housing, sure, if people want to pay for that experience, I'm sure there will be people willing to tolerate the bridge for the location. But, I think that there are probably better sites within the planned OMSI district more suitable for affordable housing so that residents have greater daylighting, cleaner air, and quieter spaces. I'm fully on board with not making the perfect the enemy of the good because that so often leaves us shooting ourselves in the foot and getting nothing done.

I think the 'not making the perfect the enemy of the good' take would be that living in a newly built apartment building next to a freeway is a significant improvement over living on the streets.

[downtownpdx]

I’ve lived next to a couple freeways over the years and the sound is like white noise, it’s not bad at all and you get used to it fast. As far as pollution/air quality, I understand the concerns but fingers crossed, despite the current political climate, we’ll continue to see cleaner emissions and more electric vehicles so this won’t really be such an issue in the coming years.

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

Originally Posted by AdamUrbanist

I think the 'not making the perfect the enemy of the good' take would be that living in a newly built apartment building next to a freeway is a significant improvement over living on the streets.

I'll be clear for the record that, in the buildout of this area, I'd much rather see affordable housing here than a continued parking lot. I'm just wondering if there isn't a better lot within the master plan for affordable housing. After all, there's what, 10-12 separate plots in the proposal? Seems like the best spot for affordable housing in the development would be one of the lots by Tillikum Crossing, give people easy access to bus/MAX/streetcar.

If this proposal was not connected to the rest of the master plan and was just a one off plot, I wouldn't be so questioning. Housing, any housing, beats parking lots every day of the week.

[maccoinnich]

My recollection is that this parcel is the only parcel (or maybe one of the few) that's shovel ready at this point. Other parcels require enabling work, including the relocation of SE Water Ave.

[sopdx]

This is up for early assistance/design advice


https://www.portlandmaps.com/detail/permit/2025-081469-000-00-EA/5197892_did/

[Jakz]

Originally Posted by sopdx

This is up for early assistance/design advice


https://www.portlandmaps.com/detail/permit/2025-081469-000-00-EA/5197892_did/

It's a shame ODOT is off doing stupid freeway expansions instead of investing in downtown Portland. A more forward-thinking organization would be setting aside this block and others adjacent to I-5 for the eventual replacement and burying of this segment of freeway.

By far the most realistic option for getting the freeway off the riverfront is building a 50' lower Marquam bridge (matching Tillikum) with an approach that can go under Hawthorne and then run in a cut-and-cover trench built adjacent to the current alignment to Burnside. This would also allow for the removal of the Goose Hollow/Pearl sections of I-405. It would be relatively cost-effective too if it were designed strictly for current traffic levels. CDOT recently built a cut and cover highway trench for $125 million/1000 ft in Denver (key distinction from other capping projects being the efficiencies allowed by not building over a space occupied by a freeway).

The commonly tossed-around ideas of either a) cutting highway traffic capacity in half by routing Marquam traffic over the Fremont Bridge; or b) doubling the width of I-405 through downtown, the Pearl, and the Fremont Bridge; are political non-starters. The latter would also be absurdly expensive to construct.

[mhays]

That seems like an extremely low cost for that trench. Denver's example had no groundwater (I assume) and they had a wide adjacent space to build it while the freeway remained open.