Portland Infill | Northwest Portland

[RED_PDXer]

I have a hard time seeing how that makes financial sense. A bunch of separate buildings with their own systems, more exterior cladding, etc. IZ has been loosened so much, they would only need to provide a dozen or less units with multiple bedrooms and get tons of fee waivers, bonus FAR, etc.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

I have a hard time seeing how that makes financial sense. A bunch of separate buildings with their own systems, more exterior cladding, etc. IZ has been loosened so much, they would only need to provide a dozen or less units with multiple bedrooms and get tons of fee waivers, bonus FAR, etc.

Typically 19-unit buildings are three or four stories, which can be built without elevators. These are five stories, and have an elevator for each building. I can't imagine how the economics of that works.

[AdamUrbanist]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Typically 19-unit buildings are three or four stories, which can be built without elevators. These are five stories, and have an elevator for each building. I can't imagine how the economics of that works.

If I had a guess I'd say these are intended condos. As far as I know, no one has yet been able to make the IH rules for condos work. The Ritz is the one project that triggered IH and they ended up paying a (massive) fee in lieu.

Also some buyers see sharing an elevator with fewer people as a selling point.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

DAR Drawings [5 MB] and Commission Memo for the Modera Flanders.

Summary Memo.

[AdamUrbanist]

"20. Height in a historic district should be looked at in terms of compatibility not by right allowances. Study how the height relates to and affects neighboring buildings and the district as a whole."

This seems to contradict LUBA's stance as outlined in the recent decision on height limits in Old Town/Chinatown.

"Because CC 2035 adopts base and bonus maximum height limits that apply as of right to all new development across the District, the question of whether those base and bonus maximum heights ‘preserve and complement historic resources,’ and thus comply with PCP Policy 4.48, is a question that the city council must answer. It may not be deferred to discretionary historic resources review of individual development proposals for compliance with the PCC criteria and the Guidelines."

[maccoinnich]

Northbound 30 Collective Drawings [30 MB] and Staff Report.

[pdxsg34]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Northbound 30 Collective Drawings [30 MB] and Staff Report.

What is happening/planned for this lot?

[DMH]

Originally Posted by pdxsg34

What is happening/planned for this lot?

That is mostly surface parking for the future NW Children's Theater with shared use for car access to one of the Northbound 30 Collective buildings.

[maccoinnich]

Drawings [55 MB] and Staff Report for 2124 NW Flanders.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Drawings [55 MB] and Staff Report for 2124 NW Flanders.

I really like this building, this would make for great infill throughout Portland, especially near any urban commercial corridor. It would be great to see more buildings like this.

[maccoinnich]

Notice of a Public Hearing for the NW 23rd and Marshall Apartments.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Notice of a Public Hearing for the NW 23rd and Marshall Apartments.

I can't wait to see this building going up, that lot has been in desperate need of redevelopment since I moved to Portland in 2003. Though I do hope this building gets smacked around a bit in the design review phase cause it looks awful.

[cityscapes]

I thought this was going to look greener but I'm still impressed by how well it's turning out.

[urbanlife]

I miss the little old building that used to exist there, but this has turned out like a really nice addition.

[bvpcvm]

From the latest NW Examiner:

A presentation on redevelopment plans for Montgomery Park will highlight the Tuesday, March 9, 7-9 a.m., virtual meeting of the Northwest Industrial Business Association. Cody McNeal, development manager for Unicorp Properties, is the guest speaker. Visit www.nwindustrial.org for a link to the meeting.

[Rob Nob]

I hope their readership isn't as anti development as their editor!

[DMH]

Originally Posted by Rob Nob

I hope their readership isn't as anti development as their editor!

I searched the March edition of the NW Examiner for any sign of opposition by publisher Allan Classen to the redevelopment plans for Montgomery Park. Classen was present for the two neighborhood presentations by the Montgomery Park redevelopment team that I have attended. I believe that he was pretty pleased with the proposal so far, and that he hopes the development /design team will take seriously the suggested improvements offered by those in attendance.

Please clarify if I have gotten it wrong and Classen is opposed.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by DMH

I searched the March edition of the NW Examiner for any sign of opposition by publisher Allan Classen to the redevelopment plans for Montgomery Park. Classen was present for the two neighborhood presentations by the Montgomery Park redevelopment team that I have attended. I believe that he was pretty pleased with the proposal so far, and that he hopes the development /design team will take seriously the suggested improvements offered by those in attendance.

Please clarify if I have gotten it wrong and Classen is opposed.

I've known the guy for years (not well), and though I don't know for sure, it definitely wouldn't surprise me. There was more info about the redevelopment in the January or February editions, you might check those. I don't remember what his slant was, I was too distracted by the renderings (I live very close to Montgomery Park and REALLY want this to happen). Do you have any details you can share from the meetings you attended?

[DMH]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

I've known the guy for years (not well), and though I don't know for sure, it definitely wouldn't surprise me. There was more info about the redevelopment in the January or February editions, you might check those. I don't remember what his slant was, I was too distracted by the renderings (I live very close to Montgomery Park and REALLY want this to happen). Do you have any details you can share from the meetings you attended?

I searched my computer for any downloaded PDF of the MP presentation but found none. Generally the focus for comments was on the exterior development which really activates the east and north sides with public uses, dining and seating areas, particularly a landscaped set of terraces on the east side. On the west, the 1980's vestibule structure will be removed and replaced by a huge simply framed opening that fits the building better. A more clear direct E-W path through the ground floor will be created. Only the south side was disappointing as it largely retains the existing parking lot due to tenants who will remain. There was neighborhood pushback to create a better, more active public face on the south.

If the NW Examiner had any issues, maybe it would be about the proposed pedestrian bridge over NW Wardway to somehow connect with Macleay or Forest Parks. Some think that it should be moved to a crossing that makes for better park connections.

[bvpcvm]

Yes, as I recall the examiner did complain about this private development having the benefit of a public resource by building a pedestrian bridge across vaughn toward macleay park.