Slabtown (formerly Conway) Developments

[DMH]

Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick

Another former warehouse bites the dust. They should have made it taller tho to add more residents. Density density density people!

Having volunteered on the neighborhood planning committee when this project came through for design review more than once, I can confirm to you, CorbinWarrick, that the proposed building already exceeds the FAR for the site, and it never attained the Conway Master Plan's prescribed public plaza configuration with maximum solar exposure. A skyscraper was never in the cards for this Conway site.

[CorbinWarrick]

Originally Posted by DMH

Having volunteered on the neighborhood planning committee when this project came through for design review more than once, I can confirm to you, CorbinWarrick, that the proposed building already exceeds the FAR for the site, and it never attained the Conway Master Plan's prescribed public plaza configuration with maximum solar exposure. A skyscraper was never in the cards for this Conway site.

What I meant was the master plan and FAR not allowing for taller density. That side of town there is nothing that needs views to be persevered.

Density should always win

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick

Another former warehouse bites the dust. They should have made it taller tho to add more residents. Density density density people!

PDXdensity? Is that you?

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by DMH

Having volunteered on the neighborhood planning committee when this project came through for design review more than once, I can confirm to you, CorbinWarrick, that the proposed building already exceeds the FAR for the site, and it never attained the Conway Master Plan's prescribed public plaza configuration with maximum solar exposure. A skyscraper was never in the cards for this Conway site.

I have actually been liking the density and size of the buildings going up for the Conway site. The work done on it has been pretty great from planning to execution. I do hope we see another building or two that is similar height to the Carson Apartments.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by DMH

Having volunteered on the neighborhood planning committee when this project came through for design review more than once, I can confirm to you, CorbinWarrick, that the proposed building already exceeds the FAR for the site, and it never attained the Conway Master Plan's prescribed public plaza configuration with maximum solar exposure. A skyscraper was never in the cards for this Conway site.

I'm far from in love with the design that was ultimately approved, however the Con-way Master Plan is pretty explicit that the overall FAR of 3:1 was for the entire boundaries of the master plan, not per site:

4. Transfer of floor area within the NW Master Plan area - The Master Plan makes provision for FAR to be freely transferred between sites within the Master Plan limits, provided an overall cap of 3:1 is maintained for the limits of the plan area. Sites do not have to be abutting.

The Master Plan didn't make the assumption that the New Seasons building and the Leland James building would remain. I'm sure the fact that they were retained (a good thing, in my view) meant that there was extra FAR to distribute to the remaining sites.

The somewhat compromised plaza is to a large extent the result of Suzanne Lennard and others pushing for an enclosed square, surround by buildings on all sides. That was never contemplated by the Master Plan, which showed a L-shaped building in their conceptual diagrams. An enclosed square can be lovely (think Madrid's Plaza Mayor, for example), but it just isn't possible on a 200' x 200' block once typical apartment floorplate widths are taken into account. The early designs by YBA Architects tried to create a fully enclosed square, but were only sort of able to achieve that by encroaching on the pedestrian access way. The approved design by LRS Architects is a compromise, with a C-shaped building open to the south. I do worry that the plaza will feel more like an apartment courtyard than a public space.

Ultimately though, I think it was a strange decision to put a park and a plaza on the same superblock, with an apartment building separating them. It probably would have been a better decision to have the plaza occupy the full 200 x 200 parcel, with the park placed further north (but connected via the pedestrian accessways).

[urbanlife]

Thanks for pointing that out Mac, I didn't realize that the whole site was a single FAR, I too had thought it was based off individual blocks and then allowed for transfers.

[CorbinWarrick]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Thanks for pointing that out Mac, I didn't realize that the whole site was a single FAR, I too had thought it was based off individual blocks and then allowed for transfers.

Crazy right? What views are being persevered here? At the very least just make it unlimited and up to the developers on what they want

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick

Crazy right? What views are being persevered here? At the very least just make it unlimited and up to the developers on what they want

I think you missed my point. I am fine with the height of the buildings that have been going up on the Conway Site. that isn't an area that needs to be full of towers to have great density. What is currently going up is in line with what Barcelona is like. I would actually like to see more urban neighborhoods having the same size buildings going up on the Conway site.

[CorbinWarrick]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I think you missed my point. I am fine with the height of the buildings that have been going up on the Conway Site. that isn't an area that needs to be full of towers to have great density. What is currently going up is in line with what Barcelona is like. I would actually like to see more urban neighborhoods having the same size buildings going up on the Conway site.

Why not both tho?

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick

Why not both tho?

Because towers rarely create active urban streets.

[DMH]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I have actually been liking the density and size of the buildings going up for the Conway site. The work done on it has been pretty great from planning to execution. I do hope we see another building or two that is similar height to the Carson Apartments.

Actually NW neighborhood folks would prefer taller buildings like the Carson to go up adjacent to the Hwy 30 freeway ramps. In particular it is disappointing that the proposed project for a pair of buildings on two blocks east of NW 20th Avenue and divided by NW Savier do not have a much taller building planned for the north-of-Savier property next to the freeway. A much taller building would block the view of the freeway and muffle some of the freeway noise experienced by the other Conway sites. On the other block, south of Savier and east of 20th, a more modest scale is necessary because the proposed new building will abut the historic St. Patrick Catholic Church.

[CorbinWarrick]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Because towers rarely create active urban streets.

You can do towers on top of street level podiums that are mix used

[DMH]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Because towers rarely create active urban streets.

Also, tall buildings cast long shadows, blocking sunlight for the streets below. In effect, one could argue, tall buildings privatize access to sunlight, providing it to those who can afford to occupy upper floors while denying it to those in its shadow. A city with a more modest scale such as the historic arrondissements of Paris or all of Washington DC, offers its citizens more sidewalk sunlight and an active street life.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by DMH

Actually NW neighborhood folks would prefer taller buildings like the Carson to go up adjacent to the Hwy 30 freeway ramps. In particular it is disappointing that the proposed project for a pair of buildings on two blocks east of NW 20th Avenue and divided by NW Savier do not have a much taller building planned for the north-of-Savier property next to the freeway. A much taller building would block the view of the freeway and muffle some of the freeway noise experienced by the other Conway sites. On the other block, south of Savier and east of 20th, a more modest scale is necessary because the proposed new building will abut the historic St. Patrick Catholic Church.

I don't have the plans in front of me but I thought I remembered there being a higher height limit for buildings north of Savier, so I would imagine we would see a few more buildings similar to the Carson go up eventually since taller buildings on the northern end of the site won't cast any shadows on the site and would mostly just cast shadows on the highway.

[DMH]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I don't have the plans in front of me but I thought I remembered there being a higher height limit for buildings north of Savier, so I would imagine we would see a few more buildings similar to the Carson go up eventually since taller buildings on the northern end of the site won't cast any shadows on the site and would mostly just cast shadows on the highway.

If you scroll back to February 2, 2021, you can download the proposed plans for Conway blocks 261 and 262 at Savier. You will see how the north block does not have a tall enough building proposed.

[maccoinnich]

Request for Response for Con-way Blocks 261 & 262

[DMH]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Request for Response for Con-way Blocks 261 & 262

As we can see in the document, the proposed building on the odd-shaped block north of NW Savier is even shorter than the proposed building on the southern block. The reverse should be the case....the northern block should be much better taller to block the view and the noise from the freeway.

[AdamUrbanist]

Would be really nice to see a different architect design a few buildings in this neighborhood

[CorbinWarrick]

Originally Posted by AdamUrbanist

Would be really nice to see a different architect design a few buildings in this neighborhood

Tell me about it.. Its just North Williams street over and over again

[maccoinnich]

FWIW, there are or will be buildings by Holst, GBD, SERA, Jones and LRS within the boundaries of the master plan.