Yard | 200' | 21 floors | Complete

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by NJD

It was done before, yes, the bridge was originally designed that way, but I doubt it could happen now for one simple reason: money. The engineering and city rigamarole alone would add up quickly now that we have things like seismic code. The benefits are also few to connect to an automobile created dead zone (look across the street at the poor Templeton Building!).

I would love, love to see this part reconnected from bridge to fontage, but I don't see it penciling out. On another note, it would really darken the skatepark, so, there's that...

historic photos, images too large:
vintage portland 1939
vintage portland 1939
vintage portland 1940
vintage portland 1935

Pretty much agree with what you are saying here. While it would be cool, the benefits are limited, especially considering the design effort and money being spent on the Burnside Bridgehead as a mini-district with plaza and such. I think it will itself be a destination in the future - and most people will not really be experiencing it from Burnside, ironically enough.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

I definitely see a moat between this building and the bridge. What is this, if not a moat:

I assumed the moat you're referring to was to be part of the skate park, especially since they show somebody literally skating up the side of the building:

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

I assumed the moat you're referring to was to be part of the skate park, especially since they show somebody literally skating up the side of the building

Not the skate park per se, but the gap between the bridge and the building. People walk along the bridge. The building is next to the bridge. I assumed that whatever they propose here would abut the bridge and there would be retail along it, to activate the street. However, instead, there's a giant gap. No activity on the street. That's disappointing, isn't it?

[Derek]

Ah, ok, I see what you're saying now.


Would retail stores really survive on the Burnside Bridge? It doesn't get that much pedestrian traffic.

[2oh1]

You thought this project would include storefronts along the bridge, at bridge level, literally ON the bridge?

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

People walk along the bridge. The building is next to the bridge. I assumed that whatever they propose here would abut the bridge and there would be retail along it, to activate the street. However, instead, there's a giant gap. No activity on the street.

When you say "on the street," you're referring to being on-the-bridge rather than on the streets at street level, beneath the bridge. Yes? That would be a neat idea, but it potentially creates all sorts of problems. If someone walking on the other side of the bridge wants to shop at one of the shops you're imagining at bridge level, there wouldn't be a place for pedestrians to cross. You're probably thinking they'd walk to the nearest intersection, cross there and then return, but we both know people do stupid things. I think shops at street level, while a neat idea, could easily be a safety risk, among other problems.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

Not the skate park per se, but the gap between the bridge and the building. People walk along the bridge. The building is next to the bridge. I assumed that whatever they propose here would abut the bridge and there would be retail along it, to activate the street. However, instead, there's a giant gap. No activity on the street. That's disappointing, isn't it?

Honestly I am not too concerned about putting retail along the bridge, the building itself allocates plenty of retail space in it to insure the streets it does touch have a chance to be active.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

You thought this project would include storefronts along the bridge, at bridge level, literally ON the bridge?

YES. I did. That's what I imagined. Can you believe it?

OK, let's drop this. Obviously they're not building the project I expected.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

YES. I did. That's what I imagined. Can you believe it?

OK, let's drop this. Obviously they're not building the project I expected.

The link was about what could possibly be done with building caps along the 405 through downtown, which that is something they could add retail to. Along the Burnside Bridge wouldn't make much sense.

[bvpcvm]

No, the link is about an overpass - a bridge - in Columbus, to which they added retail along the sides. Retail. Along a bridge.

[tworivers]

For the record, I too was hoping that the building would interact directly with the bridge. I'm sure it was too much of a hassle dealing with permits, seismic issues, cost, etc.

I do think you guys are missing the potential here, though. Every time I bitch and moan about South Waterfront, everyone says "give it twenty years, we're building for the future". I have a feeling that in 20 years a row of little retail spots, live/work studios, artist nooks, restaurants, markets, whatever, that open up to the bridge would be much appreciated and possibly quite vibrant. Sounds like a visionary and creative move to me. That's all.

I'm very happy that the developer hired Skylab and not LRS, believe me. The tower looks beautiful. The podium, I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude on it. Definitely skeptical of the "it's perfect for this area" argument because, again, change is inevitable and we should be building with the future in mind.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

No, the link is about an overpass - a bridge - in Columbus, to which they added retail along the sides. Retail. Along a bridge.

note the parking on that bridge in Columbus, as well as the parking in the general vicinity. none of that would exist on the Burnside Bridge. retail in that location would be dead. the only thing that would work there would be social services for the local transient population.

it is certainly a nice notion to create connectivity there, but the reality is that a commercial enterprise would be bat-shit crazy to locate a store where there's no parking and limited foot traffic with a modicum of disposable income.

[PDX City-State]

A retail interaction with the bridge would be incredible, but I can't even imagine how difficult it would be to pull that off. You'd be surprised of the permitting process just to project an image or hang a temporary sign from a bridge for some of the festivals around town.

I love this building, and think the retail corridors will work best on 2nd and 3rd Avenue in the short run--and that appears to be the plan.

Speaking of the Bridgehead, did anyone see in the Business Journal yesterday that Kevin Cavanaugh raised nearly two million in crowdfunding for his "Dumbbell" building on the Bridgehead--and now that project will be happening too?

Pretty amazing.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by PDX City-State

A retail interaction with the bridge would be incredible, but I can't even imagine how difficult it would be to pull that off. You'd be surprised of the permitting process just to project an image or hang a temporary sign from a bridge for some of the festivals around town.

I love this building, and think the retail corridors will work best on 2nd and 3rd Avenue in the short run--and that appears to be the plan.

Speaking of the Bridgehead, did anyone see in the Business Journal yesterday that Kevin Cavanaugh raised nearly two million in crowdfunding for his "Dumbbell" building on the Bridgehead--and now that project will be happening too?

Pretty amazing.

That is awesome news about Cavanaugh's new building. Though I can't wait to see some site plans and such because the current model that he has up makes it hard for me to figure out how and where it will go.

Oh and a side note, apparently Kevin is a friend of my family-in-law that I never knew about until this past year.

[NESteve]

I've been watching a lot of this apartment construction in Portland and good things seem to be happening. I am surprised by the high rents, though, and can't believe these apartments continue to fill up at these prices. Wow. I've been looking and can't seem to find a studio for less than $1,300 in these new buildings.

During my search, I've been talking to leasing agents and they're all saying the same thing...that renters are getting harder to find at these prices and many are offering specials. My best friend (recently divorced) just rented a place at The Linden on 12th and Burnside (fugly from an architectural standpoint), and he got a deal! He rented a 600+ square foot one bedroom unit on an upper floor with a killer view for less that $1,200. Again, I'm no fan of how the building looks, but it has amazing things like a huge community room, two huge outdoor decks with barbecues and fire pits and loads of off street parking. He got a month free rent and pays no utilities. Another friend just rented in the NW area in a new building and got a very good deal also. So, things seem to be changing for the better. Which I think is great because Portland should be more affordable than it is.

My comment/questions is this: The Skylab/Bridgehead project seems to be pretty expensive and rents will be high to pay for it. But I have to believe with the amount of new stuff coming online especially on the eastside that rents are going to become more affordable. Are there that many renters that can afford the likely high rents in the Skylab project? Nothing against the east side (I live here), but it just doesn't seem like it attracts high-end renters.

If I could rent a one bedroom there for less than $1,200, I probably would but something tells me that it will be way way higher than that. I see irony/humor in the renderings of a big expensive apartment building directly next to the skate park I used to frequent. Two worlds colliding as they say.

[NJD]

^ What is happening right now is exactly what I see as being wrong with American development: banks only loan if the current market can handle it, but construction takes years (Commercial real estate is even worse, requiring pre-leases for space that may not be available for 3 years). Then everyone builds the same damn thing all at once, usually geared to the highest profit ratio: high end only. I've been through both business and architecture school, and what I've been told over and over again is that economics like this and the realities that ensue do not mix. They create waves and bubbles, booms and busts (...and only the few actually get richer, but that's another monster of a topic entirely). What the hell is wrong with people? Have they not learned from the last 500 years of lending practices? I know they, all of those involved, must have taken the same classes I have, been tested on it. I know they still remember condos and tract homes in 2007, and suburban low-rise office space in 2002, and ... and ... and ...

My apologies, I'll be getting off my soap box now.

The immediate problem for leasing these units that I see is the average income to housing expense ratio in Portland.

[Snowden352]

Boom & Bust cycle of society's been around forever. People see a chance to make a buck; too many jump into the bath tub, the water overflows, people get out too quick and you're left with less water than in the tub than before. Think of the Simpsons swimming pool episode.
Good earlier examples include the "Tulip Mania" of the 17th century or Roman patriarchal investment in wine (converting valuable farmland in Italy into vineyards--leaving the importation of wheat from the provinces).
People have been people since time memorial!

Cheers!

[NESteve]

@NJD, you are correct. Increasing apartment rents are what justify new (and expensive) construction like the Skylab project, and what makes it work is a willing lender who will "buy the story" of how the inner east side is "emerging", attracting highly paid "millennials" and by the time the project is completed rents will have increased by another 15%...Presto! It all will pay for itself. Really.

My former father-in-law is a developer. Here's the developer business model: Go shopping for equity (other people's money) - preferably from a pension fund or another "institutional" source where you can schmooze a middle-man that has none of his personal cash at stake. Once that is accomplished, go schmooze a lender to obtain construction financing. In all of this, the developer himself has no "skin in the game" personally (read: nothing to lose). During construction, bleed the project for a developer fee (that's $millions$ for a project of the Skylab scale). When it’s completed and can't pay the debt because rents are MUCH lower than promised, the bank forecloses and the pension fund (equity source) loses their investment. Said developer walks away unscathed (after bleeding the project for a developer fee, cha-ching!!) because he formed an LLC to be the borrower on a non-recourse loan (read: no personal consequences for failure). Bonus points if you can get a government-backed HUD loan and stiff the taxpayer. Take an extended vacation, repeat. This is what the 2008 meltdown was all about only this time apartments are fueling the frenzy, not condos.

A smart (and honest) developer wouldn't build this thing. Maybe it would work in the Pearl where some might pay $2,000 per month, maybe. Being a life-long eastsider (and now a renter), I find trying to capitalize on the inner eastside, under-the-bridge, grungy/edgy, skate-park, industrial, train-track "vibe" with a frigging yuppie, high-rent glass tower to be pure comedy gold. The east side used to be about regular people earning a living and being creative...pulling into the parking garage in your Audi A7, wondering if the skateboarder can get in seems so out of place for this area. Portland already has a Pearl district.

And the scale of this project...like 300 units. Really?

[philopdx]

And that's why investors and lenders should do due diligence. Their money = their responsibility to investigate.

The project does seem a little out of lockstep with where the neighborhood is today, but it might not be in five years. East Burnside is changing fast.

I point to how much Rontoms has changed in the past three years. It used to be a low-key place where locals would go to hang, stooped over their beer, talking in hushed tones, and usually wearing black. Now the crowd is indiscernible from an Old Town or post Timber's game bar on Burnside; boisterous, cheap and trendy in a suburban way.

[2oh1]

It pains me to say this, but the days of affordable rent in Portland are gone.

In the fall of 2005, I almost rented an amazing and HUGE 1br at NW 22nd and Flanders. It was basically a rental townhouse with its own front door and back door (to the outside, I mean). A friend was renting it for $525, but after she moved out, the price was upped to $667 a month. I balked at the price hike, which is hilarious now since the unit probably rents for $1400 today if not more.

When I think back on prices from as recently as 2006, I'm not shocked by how high prices are now. I'm shocked by how low they were then.

Portland's population is growing rapidly, but it's hard to compare what's going on here to what other cities are seeing because other cities don't have an urban growth boundary. Other cities sprawl out. Our urban growth boundary forces Portland to evolve inward. Our urban growth boundary makes Portland a very special city, but it also inflates prices the same way a natural boundary would, such as the water that surrounds San Francisco. Portland is growing, but we're not growing outward. I'm a firm believer that our urban growth boundary strengthens our neighborhoods, but it does push prices skyward.

I can't imagine what prices will be like a decade from now, but the fact that NESteve talked about $1200 a month for a 600 sq/ft 1 bedroom at SE 12th & Burnside as being a deal - A DEAL - well, if you'd told me that price for that location was a deal even as recently as five years ago, I'd have asked what you're smoking.

The only thing I can imagine that would drive down prices in Portland - especially inner Portland - would be a natural disaster leading to an exodus. But even then, it's hard to say. If the Big One hit tomorrow, the constant influx of new residents would probably end for at least a decade, and the overall population might decrease as those who could afford to leave probably would - assuming the economy here was crippled, which is a realistic expectation. But then again, assuming lots of older housing was devastated and newer housing withstood the quake, prices might actually increase due to the lack of supply versus demand.

It's hard to think in those terms, and I certainly hope the Big One doesn't happen during my lifetime, but I can't think of anything less that would drive down housing prices here.

None of us like high prices, but all of the things that make Portland such a special place to live also drive up housing prices. I hate these high prices, but how can I say they're too high when the units are renting as quickly as they hit the market?

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by philopdx

The project does seem a little out of lockstep with where the neighborhood is today, but it might not be in five years. East Burnside is changing fast.

100% This.