Portland Infill | North Portland - Page 9

crow · #**161** Posted **Jun 6, 2009, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delaney

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

unless you are in a wheelchair...or old...or broke your leg, then it could be a pain in the ass. I lived in a flat in europe where elevators are not common at all. We lived on the top floor, and tall floor to floor heights. The only thing that saved us while moving in and out, was a beam at the roofline that we could run a rope through to hoist up our furniture. I would at minimum suggest the same for this building. Elevators are handy for moving, but yes are expensive and use energy.

or maybe you provide a lift (freight dumbwaiter) that is human powered. A series of gears with a crank arm or bike as your controller.

urbanlife · #**162** Posted **Jun 6, 2009, 7:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by crow

unless you are in a wheelchair...or old...or broke your leg, then it could be a pain in the ass. I lived in a flat in europe where elevators are not common at all. We lived on the top floor, and tall floor to floor heights. The only thing that saved us while moving in and out, was a beam at the roofline that we could run a rope through to hoist up our furniture. I would at minimum suggest the same for this building. Elevators are handy for moving, but yes are expensive and use energy.

or maybe you provide a lift (freight dumbwaiter) that is human powered. A series of gears with a crank arm or bike as your controller.

Walk-ups are pretty common in NYC as well...also most suburban apartment complexes are walk-ups as well. Sure they are a pain in the ass to deal with, but that should stop an architect or developer from building them...actually, it is probably the only way to really get more affordable housing built is the subtracting the cost of an elevator.

crow · #**163** Posted **Jun 7, 2009, 6:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Walk-ups are pretty common in NYC as well...also most suburban apartment complexes are walk-ups as well. Sure they are a pain in the ass to deal with, but that should stop an architect or developer from building them...actually, it is probably the only way to really get more affordable housing built is the subtracting the cost of an elevator.

typically those walk-ups in NYC, Boston, etc were either built sometime ago - prior to ADA - or they are for sale. With for sale, all you have to do is show they are adaptable, meaning, with very little modification, a door swing here, drop a counter there, add grab bars etc. All for sale product has to do is be adaptable. Rental units on the other hand have to have a certain percentage that are accessible. At least that is my understanding - maybe i am wrong. lift or no lift is fine by me...just an observation.

sowat · #**164** Posted **Jun 9, 2009, 12:31 AM**

Tupelo Alley are advertising on craigslist

http://portland.craigslist.org/searc...=max&bedrooms=

New Madrid · #**165** Posted **Jun 26, 2009, 10:16 PM**

Not sure if these have been posted yet:

(imo) a pretty horrible looking new building going up on MLK and Beech.

happier news: though it's not directly on MLK, Williams is close by, and it's worth mentioning. Not sure if this is still moving forward, but it sure would be nice to see some potential quality work coming to the MLK area. Especially given that these would be right down the street from The Park Box and Williams Five. Works Partnership appear to have done the renders, hopefully they're signed on for the whole project.

The developer, Jean-Pierre Veillet, heads up Siteworks, who have done decent things in the past and have a good reputation for playing well with others...

apologies if this stuff has already been mentioned.

tworivers · #**166** Posted **Jun 27, 2009, 1:01 AM**

That's Williams and Beech, and yes, it looks mighty ugly -- what you'd expect from a suburban developer and LRS. The building that was previously there was in disrepair, but was one of the last of the old fabric buildings left on the couplet. I think there should be some sort of regulation that says developers can't tear down existing structures until permits, loans, and plans for the replacement project are all lined up. This corner and the vacant lots around Fremont and Williams will probably be eyesores for years to come -- much worse imo than old, even crumbling, buildings that abut the street.

tworivers · #**167** Posted **Jun 30, 2009, 5:10 AM**

Shaver Green. Though I have my quibbles, this building has turned out surprisingly well, and is proof IMO that architects should be capable of doing at least reasonably-interesting things even when presented with a typical set of constraints. Compare it with the cheap-looking and awkward Tupelo over on Mississippi...

Anvil. One block west from MLK on Failing. Offices... same developer as Planned Parenthood, I believe.

Finally, the Planned Parenthood building is coming along. (This shot is from the back side.)

tworivers · #**168** Posted **Jun 30, 2009, 5:19 AM**

Sorry, but I think this building is nasty. Whoever at SERA designed this should be skulking in a corner somewhere, or sending their license back. Junior High jumble of materials, cheap panels that will not age well, white vinyl windows, and a paint job that does not come close, in all it's pseudo-"funkiness", to compensating for any of the above.

New Madrid · #**169** Posted **Jul 1, 2009, 1:25 AM**

I agree with you about Shaver Green. I drove by it today and was impressed by the fact that while it's obviously not going to be a landmark or anything, it's at least going out of its way to not insult the people who are going to live there. (Btw, it's low income/transitional housing, which I think makes it even more impressive.)

oh, y&c have some old construction photos up.

New Madrid · #**170** Posted **Jul 1, 2009, 1:32 AM**

I took a tour of Tupelo Alley yesterday, just to see, and it felt like something between a dorm and a prison. Cheaper than cheap finishes, trite "green" features and a overall tackiness were abundant.

I sort of hope it fails completely and kids living around mississippi have a huge ghost town-like building where they can go to go smoke pot and fire off bottle rockets.

nobody · #**171** Posted **Jul 1, 2009, 5:28 AM**

I parked across the street from Anvil the other day while I was getting rejected from getting into Ned Ludd. The building looks awesome in person, I really like it. I had no idea anything was happening right there, it was a pleasant surprise.

scottyboi · #**172** Posted **Jul 1, 2009, 4:17 PM**

honestly, i like the mississippi lofts...the alternating facades breaks up the mass nicely...but i think it's the choice of brick that ruins it...that awful 60's-70's blonde brick is just awful and tacky...reminds me of an elementary school or a suburban dentist's office. It may have a bit of an old-school feel, but it seems more warm and human than alot of the newer developments, which just seem to be trying to do the same thing ad nauseum (a boxy form randomly divided into smaller boxy forms) the only one of which seems really successful, IMHO, is B-Side 6, which at least takes the idea to the extreme and makes it worthwhile. I do agree that Tupelo is unsuccessful, but mainly because of the scale...it's just too massive...

sowat · #**173** Posted **Jul 1, 2009, 6:19 PM**

speaking of which, the Miss. Ave lofts web site has promised a "summer 2009 grand opening" (for some time now)
http://www.mississippiavenuelofts.com/

Artist · #**174** Posted **Jul 2, 2009, 2:10 AM**

Tupelo Alley really is gross. Mississippi Ave (wood-brick-wood) I kind of like. However, the Mediterranean design strikes me as very inviting. But then, I'm a Southwesterner and live next door to a pinto.

eeldip · #**175** Posted **Jul 2, 2009, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sowat

speaking of which, the Miss. Ave lofts web site has promised a "summer 2009 grand opening" (for some time now)
http://www.mississippiavenuelofts.com/

from what i hear, the bank froze the developers line of credit. its NEARLY done, but not ready for any tenants. opening delayed indefinitely.

the condo units are unwarrantable, and currently there are very very few lenders who will go for that. so the developers are basically stuck. the entire building may be sold off soon...

tworivers · #**176** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 12:22 AM**

Mind if I ask why you were being rejected by Ned Ludd?!

nobody · #**177** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 12:26 AM**

Just didn't have (slash realize we needed) reservations on a busy night. I'm on a roll, I also got rejected from Departure a week or two ago.

tworivers · #**178** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 12:31 AM**

I heard the same thing about Mississippi Lofts -- or that it has already been foreclosed on. I keep waiting to see a story in the media. I know the Pastaworks downstairs is hurting bad. I think the building turned out fine, despite all the watering down of the original, more consistent, design by the Design Commission (or maybe it was the HLC?). It blows my mind that the historic district doesn't extend as far as Tupelo Alley, so that a corporate piece of crap like that can go up *no questions asked* but quality buildings with local developers, like the Lofts and the Kurisu (designed by Holst and canceled because of the city), are harassed relentlessly.

tworivers · #**179** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 12:32 AM**

Oh, ok. Well, I am glad they are doing well. Awesome restaurant.

Valentij · #**180** Posted **Jul 7, 2009, 12:29 AM**

^ Amen.