The Sutton (Fremont Place) | 185'-0" | 17 Floors | Complete

[Abide]

Originally Posted by Leo

Well, those self-righteous assholes will just tell you where you can stick your value judgement, so besides letting off some ironic self-righteous steam, I'm not sure what this accomplishes ..

We each have our pet peeves ... Personally, I'd much rather they tear down so-called "historic" buildings in order to provide space for new housing. IMHO, the place to go tall and mixed-income would have been Slabtown. No public views to protect, and virtually no homeowners to play NIMBY. It's as close to a clean slate as we will get near downtown Portland.

As soon as the first building opens to new residents, you have newly-minted NIMBYs.

[maccoinnich]

City Council is going to consider the appeal this coming Wednesday at 2pm.

[maccoinnich]

17-story tower could block NW Portland views

Some people living in the Pearl District are worried yet another tower there would ruin views of the Fremont Bridge.

Developers are seeking to build a 17-story tower, the Fremont Apartments, just to the north of The Fields Park. The proposed building, at 1650 NW Naito Pkwy., would consist of ground-floor restaurant and retail space with residential units on the upper floors.

In December, the the Portland Design Commission approved the proposal. But city council will now hear an appeal on the decision at the request of the Pearl District Neighborhood Association Board.

Some living in similarly sized towers around The Fields now worry that their views of the Fremont Bridge would be affected.

...continues at KGW.

[urbanlife]

This building should be renamed to Suck It Place.

[maccoinnich]

No decision today due to a request by lawyers for additional time to enter evidence into the record. City Council now scheduled to vote on March 7th.

[maccoinnich]

Pearl District residents seek to block proposed apartment tower over bridge, river views



Residents of the Pearl District on Wednesday asked the Portland City Council to block construction of a 185-foot apartment tower on the shore of the Willamette River.

Dallas-based Lincoln Property Co. has proposed the 17-story Fremont Apartments on a site currently used as a parking lot. It would include 275 market-rate apartments and space for a ground-floor restaurant, as well as a public plaza on its north side.

But some residents of the Pearl District say the building will block views of the Willamette River and the Fremont Bridge. And, they say, the development, and future developments of similar scale, would serve to wall off the river.

The issue filled the Portland City Council chambers and an overflow room, and dozens of people spoke on the issue.

...continues at the Oregonian.

[crackerd]

You know you live in Portland when someone living in a skyscraper complains about another skyscraper blocking their view of a bridge that is in dire need of a paint job. How are we ever going to get a signature tower when we can’t even get a 17-story 185’ building built?

[Leo]

Why does everyone seem to assume that anyone who complains about this has a view of the bridge from their own apartment?

[2oh1]

Oh, Portland.

"KOIN Tower is gonna block my view of Mt. Hood!" ...becomes: "They're gonna block my view of KOIN Tower!"

Granted, this one is no KOIN Tower... but still... it's silly to assume underutilized land isn't going to be developed with height. It'd be a waste of land to not go tall.

[johnliu]

If this were on the other side of Naito by Waterfront Park, I'd be very opposed, because the building will deprive a large area to its east and northeast of sunlight. But that's not an issue here. It will shade the river, that's all.

I'm opposed to blocking important public views from public spaces. I have no sense of how important the view of the Fremont bridge from Fields Park really is to Portlanders. Don't think I've ever used that park.

[maccoinnich]

Neighborhood Leader Warns: By Preserving Views, the Pearl District Could Become a “Gated Urban Community for the Landed Class”
Others warn of the "uglification of our city," as City Council hears testimony on a project that would build hundreds of apartments on what's now a surface parking lot.



Portland City Council heard testimony Wednesday from the Pearl District residents who live in tall towers and oppose another tall tower slated to rise near the Fremont Bridge.

Their crusade, and similar ones, were the subject of a recent WW cover story.

Critics of the Fremont Place Apartments may not agree on much with the building's supporters, but they do see eye-to-eye on one thing: the decision by City Council on whether the project gets built as planned will be a harbinger of what the city becomes.

"Ultimately the debate is about what kind of city we want to become," wrote Michael Mehaffy, president of Goose Hollow Neighborhood Association, whose testimony was read at Council on his behalf. "Should we become a city that surrenders its heritage in an ill-considered rush to address its short-term problems with a simplistic 'build, baby, build' solution? Are we disturbed by the growing uglification of our city?"

...continues at the Willamette Week.

[MarkDaMan]

I wish the Willamette Weak made clear the headline picture was taken from a private, gated community viewpoint.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

I wish the Willamette Weak made clear the headline picture was taken from a private, gated community viewpoint.

... *and* that it looks pretty much the same from the park and the sidewalk.

[DMH]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

...continues at the Willamette Week.

It is unfortunate that during the platting of the River District and the planning of the three parks (Jamison Square, Tanner Springs, and finally The Fields) that a view corridor from The Fields to the Fremont Bridge was not established. Now it is too late.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by DMH

It is unfortunate that during the platting of the River District and the planning of the three parks (Jamison Square, Tanner Springs, and finally The Fields) that a view corridor from The Fields to the Fremont Bridge was not established. Now it is too late.

It was considered, it was decided not to enshrine the view of the freeway bridge.

[AcmeGreg]

"Ultimately the debate is about what kind of city we want to become," wrote Michael Mehaffy, president of Goose Hollow Neighborhood Association, whose testimony was read at Council on his behalf. "Should we become a city that surrenders its heritage in an ill-considered rush to address its short-term problems with a simplistic 'build, baby, build' solution? Are we disturbed by the growing uglification of our city?"

Ill-considered rush? Simplistic "build-baby-build" mentality? Seriously, how long does it currently take for a project to go through the approval process in Portland? Don't know about Goose Hollow but how exactly are we "uglifying" and/or "surrendering the heritage" of say, the Pearl District? Or South Waterfront for that matter. What "heritage" is Mr. Mahaffy talking about: riverside industrial wastelands that formerly comprised the Schnitzer, Zidell and OMSI properties? I certainly hope he is not conflating Victorian mansions in GH with the Fremont Bridge (c. 1973) whose "heritage", aside from an impressive feat of engineering consists primarily of the division and destruction its massive ramps inflicted on NW neighborhoods.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by DMH

It is unfortunate that during the platting of the River District and the planning of the three parks (Jamison Square, Tanner Springs, and finally The Fields) that a view corridor from The Fields to the Fremont Bridge was not established. Now it is too late.

The Peter Walker masterplan never envisioned the Fields as being the last park in the Pearl.

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Not that long ago there was a view of the Fremont Bridge from Tanner Springs Park. It's gone now and that's a little sad, but I also enjoy seeing the Cosmopolitan on the skyline.

To provide a permanent view of the bridge what the city should really do is create a public space at Centennial Mills, as was envisioned by Peter Walker's 1999 River District Park System Plan:



The city owns Centennial Mills, and the Pearl is certainly generating *a lot* of SDC revenue for Parks.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by johnliu

If this were on the other side of Naito by Waterfront Park, I'd be very opposed, because the building will deprive a large area to its east and northeast of sunlight. But that's not an issue here. It will shade the river, that's all.

I'm opposed to blocking important public views from public spaces. I have no sense of how important the view of the Fremont bridge from Fields Park really is to Portlanders. Don't think I've ever used that park.

Ironically, one of the environmental problems Oregon has been having with fish is that the rivers are not shaded enough. Too much sunlight and devegetation of river banks is one of the causes of salmon mortality.

By shading the river with skyscrapers, perhaps it will help the salmon out.

one source that bears this out: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41712304?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Leo

Why does everyone seem to assume that anyone who complains about this has a view of the bridge from their own apartment?

Please don't mention the Fields, please don't mention the Fields, please don't mention the Fields....

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

I wish the Willamette Weak made clear the headline picture was taken from a private, gated community viewpoint.

I am so over that publication, they have really gone down hill over the years and seem to be full of D student journalists that just moved here from California.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I am so over that publication, they have really gone down hill over the years and seem to be full of D student journalists that just moved here from California.

Just a heads up. I know Cali-bashing is a past time for locals and that this was probably intended as a joke, but like most stereotypes it's really baseless, inappropriate, and distracting from whatever you are trying to get across. My personal experience is that many locals experienced sub-par education and work ethics, just as much as anywhere else.

That said, I agree that WW is a mostly junk publication with little educational value on current events. That's why I stopped reading it years ago.