Modera Main Street (MAC Block 7) | 158'-00" | 16 floors | Proposed - Page 3

Rob Nob · #41 Posted **Oct 12, 2021, 6:09 PM**

Too bad the elevators couldn't be more inboard and less prominent on the East elevation, otherwise I think it's well executed.

urbanlife · #42 Posted **Oct 13, 2021, 6:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhome

Astute observation. The Design Commission mentioned the same thing with the vertical grouping of the windows and the white brick.

As for parking, the MAC's need for parking is driving the size of this project. Growth Parking (33.510.261) allows 1.2 parking spots for each residential unit. With 336 apartment units wedged into a 9.9 FAR project (RM4 projects are allowed base 4:1 without bonuses and other allowances), Growth Parking would allow up to 403 parking spots. Guess how many parking spots they are building? 225 spaces are dedicated to the MAC and accessible through the single garage entrance, or via a tunnel under SW Main that connects to the MAC's main garage. The remaining 178 parking spaces are for the apartment building tenants. Another "coincidence" is that the value of the Block 7 property that the MAC is deeding over to the developer is approximately the cost/value to bury 225 parking spaces. The intent, I believe, is for those 225 spaces to be "condoized" and owned/run by the MAC, with everything above including the 178 residential parking spots and 336 apartment units owned by the developer.

Ian (maccoinnich) made an earlier comment about how the intent of this code was to allow shared use parking, and cut down on the amount of new parking built, but that the effect here seems to be making it legal to build a parking garage in a high density residential zone, as long as it has some residential units over it. It is insightful comments like these that has me coming back to this forum time and time again.

One of the few bright spots with this growing and changing technology is that this forum has managed to stay very informative without becoming dumpster fires of name calling like so many other forum sites.

maccoinnich · #43 Posted **Oct 24, 2021, 7:34 PM**

Unsurprisingly, the Design Commission's approval has been appealed to City Council.

maccoinnich · #44 Posted **Oct 25, 2021, 6:45 PM**

Final Findings and Decision by the Design Commission and Appeal by the Goose Hollow Foothills League.

maccoinnich · #45 Posted **Oct 29, 2021, 3:41 PM**

Notice of a Public Hearing

urbanlife · #46 Posted **Oct 30, 2021, 5:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Notice of a Public Hearing

I hope this larger building gets approved just to spite the Goose Hollow Foothills League of Fuddy Duddies.

maccoinnich · #47 Posted **Dec 2, 2021, 1:46 AM**

4-1 vote to deny the appeal against the Modera Main and uphold the decision by the Design Commission. Hardesty was the lone no vote.

A lot of unease from Council about the high amount of parking in the project, but the majority concluded that it was allowed under current code.

pdxsg34 · #48 Posted **Dec 2, 2021, 3:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

4-1 vote to deny the appeal against the Modera Main and uphold the decision by the Design Commission. Hardesty was the lone no vote.

A lot of unease from Council about the high amount of parking in the project, but the majority concluded that it was allowed under current code.

Link to the hearing and vote: https://youtu.be/CyvpuFyItMA

I'm personally torn on this proposal. I believe the MAC is clearly using loopholes to shore up parking for their club, and thus increasing car traffic and emissions. If I lived in Goose Hollow, especially near the site, I would absolutely be opposed to this project, as it appears to be serving the MAC first, with the cherry on top being the housing. That said, within the zoning laws currently established, they can get away with this and rightfully so, because they are following the requirements of the code (1.2 parking spaces max to units). They (the MAC) have been trying to get this parking in place since 1981, and their patience is paying off at this point, and the timing works since Portland is in dire need of housing. It's unfortunate the project proposes a parking need first, but I'm not mad about the housing that comes with it, which makes me feel mixed. I hope for future projects that we are not catering to advancing more parking for older and new buildings, with the emphasis on housing rather than parking first. The elevator run on the building appears to go from ground floor to 17 stories as a straight wall, a shame for the pedestrian experience. As a result of this project, I hope GH doesn't suffer from additional traffic congestion, especially given the MAX and Bus lines so close by. I'm glad we're acquiring 337 units, but I hope its not to cost of those who live around it. That would be a shame.

subterranean · #49 Posted **Dec 2, 2021, 5:24 AM**

Portland gonna keep on Portlanding.

maccoinnich · #50 Posted **Dec 2, 2021, 7:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxsg34

link to the hearing and vote: https://youtu.be/cyvpufyitma

i'm personally torn on this proposal. I believe the mac is clearly using loopholes to shore up parking for their club, and thus increasing car traffic and emissions. If i lived in goose hollow, especially near the site, i would absolutely be opposed to this project, as it appears to be serving the mac first, with the cherry on top being the housing. That said, within the zoning laws currently established, they can get away with this and rightfully so, because they are following the requirements of the code (1.2 parking spaces max to units). They (the mac) have been trying to get this parking in place since 1981, and their patience is paying off at this point, and the timing works since portland is in dire need of housing. It's unfortunate the project proposes a parking need first, but i'm not mad about the housing that comes with it, which makes me feel mixed. I hope for future projects that we are not catering to advancing more parking for older and new buildings, with the emphasis on housing rather than parking first. The elevator run on the building appears to go from ground floor to 17 stories as a straight wall, a shame for the pedestrian experience. As a result of this project, i hope gh doesn't suffer from additional traffic congestion, especially given the max and bus lines so close by. I'm glad we're acquiring 337 units, but i hope its not to cost of those who live around it. That would be a shame.

+1

AdamUrbanist · #51 Posted **Dec 2, 2021, 4:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxsg34

Link to the hearing and vote: https://youtu.be/CyvpuFyItMA

I'm personally torn on this proposal. I believe the MAC is clearly using loopholes to shore up parking for their club, and thus increasing car traffic and emissions. If I lived in Goose Hollow, especially near the site, I would absolutely be opposed to this project, as it appears to be serving the MAC first, with the cherry on top being the housing. That said, within the zoning laws currently established, they can get away with this and rightfully so, because they are following the requirements of the code (1.2 parking spaces max to units). They (the MAC) have been trying to get this parking in place since 1981, and their patience is paying off at this point, and the timing works since Portland is in dire need of housing. It's unfortunate the project proposes a parking need first, but I'm not mad about the housing that comes with it, which makes me feel mixed. I hope for future projects that we are not catering to advancing more parking for older and new buildings, with the emphasis on housing rather than parking first. The elevator run on the building appears to go from ground floor to 17 stories as a straight wall, a shame for the pedestrian experience. As a result of this project, I hope GH doesn't suffer from additional traffic congestion, especially given the MAX and Bus lines so close by. I'm glad we're acquiring 337 units, but I hope its not to cost of those who live around it. That would be a shame.

Personally I'm all for it. The way to mitigate negative impacts is to price them. In this case the price Mac is paying to the public is new housing and a much improved public realm. The real issue is all the other costs that cars impose on cities that go unpriced

uncommon.name · #52 Posted **Dec 2, 2021, 7:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

+1

I wish we had the ability to upvote on here.

maccoinnich · #53 Posted **Dec 2, 2021, 8:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncommon.name

I wish we had the ability to upvote on here.

Yeah... there are lot of modern features we're missing. This forum is running vBulletin Version 3.8.7, which was released in 2011 as update to software first released in 2004.

bvpcvm · #54 Posted **Dec 2, 2021, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Yeah... there are lot of modern features we're missing. This forum is running vBulletin Version 3.8.7, which was released in 2011 as update to software first released in 2004.

Yeah, it's real fun to read it mobile. But it's free, can't complain too much.

uncommon.name · #55 Posted **Dec 3, 2021, 7:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

yeah, it's real fun to read it mobile. But it's free, can't complain too much.

+1