HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Parks, Metro, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2015, 5:37 PM
PDXDENSITY PDXDENSITY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrG View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Parks, Metro, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:36 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.