Portland Infill | North Portland - Page 8

RED_PDXer · #**141** Posted **May 30, 2009, 11:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL

Zoning.

See: 60th & Glisan (which is actually being considered for rezoning)

Actually, much of east portland is already zoned for similarly high densities - at least at max stations. rents and sales prices are not high enough to support the costs of high density development yet as they are along mississippi and other relatively close-in locations.

tworivers · #**142** Posted **Jun 1, 2009, 1:15 AM**

The Patton on Interstate. Not bad for affordable housing.

urbanlife · #**143** Posted **Jun 1, 2009, 1:22 AM**

the Patton looks good, oddly enough, this is the first time I have seen or heard of this building....plus I am never in that area, so the chances of me ever driving past it would be pretty slim.

tworivers · #**144** Posted **Jun 1, 2009, 1:54 AM**

Multiple proposed and u/c developments in N and NE:

Williams and Beech:

Info here.

Designed by LRS, which is never a good sign. I was upset when the suburban developer demolished the old building that was there, as decrepit as it was. One of the last buildings left from the old urban corridor that stretched north from Russell. Incidentally, I noticed that the company that was going to develop the "Bakery Blocks" on Fremont between Williams and Vancouver is now trying to sell the vacant lot they created.

Williams and Shaver:

PDF here.

Involves moving a building from SW Harrison (!). Works Partnership. I believe this is the deal involving the United Bicycle Institute. Looks U/C.

4-story mixed-use project on Williams between Failing and Shaver, also designed by Works:

PDF here.

There's also the Shoebox Lofts across the street (I think they've been mentioned here before):

PDF here.

Two on Alberta:

one at 14th

Alberta Central at 17th. U/C.

tworivers · #**145** Posted **Jun 1, 2009, 2:03 AM**

Whoa!!! I just realized that the building Works wants to move to Williams and Shaver is the Cyan leasing office! They must be taking it apart and reconstructing it up there -- that is awesome.

dkealoha · #**146** Posted **Jun 1, 2009, 7:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers

Whoa!!! I just realized that the building Works wants to move to Williams and Shaver is the Cyan leasing office! They must be taking it apart and reconstructing it up there -- that is awesome.

I saw them taking it apart on Friday. Looked like everything was gone from inside already!

Valentij · #**147** Posted **Jun 2, 2009, 4:17 PM**

Is it just me, or is that weird? They're just completing the Cyan. Don't they have to LEASE IT now? Isn't that what the leasing office is for? And why would they move a brand new building? And what would go in its place?

Aside from that, I'm glad to see Works is getting so much work!

zilfondel · #**148** Posted **Jun 2, 2009, 7:54 PM**

It wasn't the leasing office, it was the condo sales office.

As far as the Patton, very colorful! I guess it answers my question as to whether Portland passed the upzoning for the Interstate corridor.

dkealoha · #**149** Posted **Jun 2, 2009, 8:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel

It wasn't the leasing office, it was the condo sales office.

As far as the Patton, very colorful! I guess it answers my question as to whether Portland passed the upzoning for the Interstate corridor.

It was temporariliy the leasing office but I believe they have since moved into the Cyan building now that it's completed.

tworivers · #**150** Posted **Jun 2, 2009, 9:12 PM**

In their demolition permit it was referred to as a "leasing office" and I just repeated that without further research.

mmeade · #**151** Posted **Jun 2, 2009, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valentij

Is it just me, or is that weird? They're just completing the Cyan. Don't they have to LEASE IT now? Isn't that what the leasing office is for? And why would they move a brand new building? And what would go in its place?

It is certainly not normal, but I'm not sure that I would call it weird. Reusing the building in a new location is a fantastic piece of recycling!

The leasing office is now attached to the lobby. Indeed, this building was originally a condo sales office. Once the units were sold, the sales office would have been unnecessary in the cyan building itself. As an apartment building, it will require a leasing office in the building permanently.

Moving the building allows the structure and skin to be reused to another purpose. This is a much less wasteful process than demolition and removal.

This block is part of a three block master plan, which could eventually see more housing. Cyan was the first block to be developed, the sustainability center could be the second, and the parking lot block would be the final piece. Until it is developed though, it will likely remain a parking lot.

Valentij · #**152** Posted **Jun 2, 2009, 11:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmeade

Until it is developed though, it will likely remain a parking lot.

Hmmm... I'm certainly not proposing that it should have been demolished, I just thought that it was the best part of the Cyan. I also consider moving a house to be rather extreme and more appropriate for preserving a historic building. After all, it seems pretty Las Vegas to build a building you know you are going to move in a year. (Granted, maybe it would have been a sales office that they now don't need. It still doesn't seem completely useless.) I think it would have made a great retail spot where it was. I just hope they have a better plan than a parking lot. Those things have a habit of sticking around way past their welcome...

Valentij · #**153** Posted **Jun 3, 2009, 12:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmeade

It is certainly not normal, but I'm not sure that I would call it weird.

BTW: As a lawyer, I love this parsing of language here. It sounds like you're in the process of lying to a jury.

Keep Portland weird.

bvpcvm · #**154** Posted **Jun 4, 2009, 6:30 AM**

This sounds interesting; it's at 3935 N Williams.

Okstate · #**155** Posted **Jun 4, 2009, 4:53 PM**

^ Kind of looks "Burnside Rocketish" Looks to be some quality infill.

mmeade · #**156** Posted **Jun 4, 2009, 7:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valentij

BTW: As a lawyer, I love this parsing of language here. It sounds like you're in the process of lying to a jury.

Keep Portland weird.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be slippery. I'll admit that deconstruction and reconstruction isn't very common. I guess that I have seen temporary buildings come and go before and I don't see it as weird. This building was a lot nicer than your average temporary structure though.

Delaney · #**157** Posted **Jun 4, 2009, 8:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

This sounds interesting; it's at 3935 N Williams.

That is the same project by Works Partnership whose LUR application was posted earlier. No elevator is an interesting concept.

dintares · #**158** Posted **Jun 5, 2009, 2:52 AM**

Is the leaf mural on the side of the Eco-flats really going up or was that just for the rendering?

65MAX · #**159** Posted **Jun 6, 2009, 7:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

This sounds interesting; it's at 3935 N Williams.

The scale and massing are great, and the green features are admirable, but random windows? Again? Does EVERYTHING now have to have random windows? Is this the new post-modernism? Trendy now, but dated in ten years.

scottyboi · #**160** Posted **Jun 6, 2009, 4:24 PM**

I'm pretty sure most of the projects recently constructed (or on the books) will be dated in ten years...I can see it now "what, another bland, boxy mid-rise, what were they thinking?" Most of our new construction is practically interchangeable...we need some new blood or something