South Waterfront Blocks 41 & 42 (Alamo Manhattan Phase 1) | xx' | 23 & 6 floors | U/C

[maccoinnich]

New proposal for South Waterfront Blocks 41, 42, 44 and 45:

Design Advice Request meeting for a Central City Master Plan for a four-block site in the South Waterfront Subdistrict of the Central City Plan District known as Blocks 41, 42, 44 and 45.

• 9.83 acre site bounded by SW Lane St, SW Lowell St, SW Bond St and future greenway
• four separate structures with mixed-use programs including housing, parking and ground
• floor retail as well as greenway improvements and infrastructure.
• buildings will range from 6 to 17 stories and together include 1,140 residential units, 28,389 SF of ground floor retail and 994 parking spaces.

[tworivers]

The diversity of building heights suggested in this proposal would be most welcome.

I wonder if they'll incorporate any of the architecture from the previous iteration. I thought the block with the pitched roofs was pretty compelling.

I'll consider it a minor miracle if any of this breaks ground before the next recession...

[maccoinnich]

Drawings [24 MB] and memo to the Design Commission.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Drawings [24 MB] and memo to the Design Commission.

The staff memo says the two tall buildings are too bulky to be approved, but they look no more bulky than some of the existing high rises in the district. I wonder if this was one of the design changes that occurred between when the report was written and the updated plan set that arrived later on?

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

The staff memo says the two tall buildings are too bulky to be approved, but they look no more bulky than some of the existing high rises in the district. I wonder if this was one of the design changes that occurred between when the report was written and the updated plan set that arrived later on?

I think the staff memo is referring to the massing shown here:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

New proposal for South Waterfront Blocks 41, 42, 44 and 45:

Which, if so, is fair.

I'm a little bit confused by the approval criteria for the masterplan, particularly around open space. This isn't a required masterplan site, so what does going through the central city masterplan process get them?

[maccoinnich]

Summary memo

[maccoinnich]

Notice of a Pre-Application Conference:

A Pre-Application Conference to discuss development of four separate mixed use buildings. The project proposes a total of approximately 1,200 residential units, 20,958 square feet of commerical space and approximately 1,000 structured parking spaces across the four buildings.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

I think the staff memo is referring to the massing shown here:



Which, if so, is fair.

I'm a little bit confused by the approval criteria for the masterplan, particularly around open space. This isn't a required masterplan site, so what does going through the central city masterplan process get them?

Because design review staff in Portland area always better urban designers than, you know, people who are designers.

The FAR on those two towers is only at 5.7 and 5.0. That isn't very high. I'm also not aware of any requirements for "bulkiness." Thats a new one.

[maccoinnich]

Posting Notice

[MarkDaMan]

Step up to river? Interesting. I bet they get feedback about the tower placement.

[maccoinnich]

Applicant Presentation to the Design Commission [196 MB]

[Tykendo]

i like it. The designs are nice and it's well thought out IMO. A nice addition if the proposal gets "FULLY" built.

[cityscapes]

The towers look good and so does the smaller of the three low rises. I hope the other two become a little bit more modern looking to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood but on the other hand they might make the Ella look less out of place.

[pdxf]

I'm not really a fan of these yet...currently they seem overly fussy, and in quite a few places rather clumsy with some odd proportions. There are a few interesting moves here and there, so hopefully they can keep going on the good and refine the bad.

[Rob Nob]

Originally Posted by pdxf

I'm not really a fan of these yet...currently they seem overly fussy, and in quite a few places rather clumsy with some odd proportions. There are a few interesting moves here and there, so hopefully they can keep going on the good and refine the bad.

I agree. Some random materials and that one gable slammed on there? Massing is fine but the enclosure needs more thought.

[AcmeGreg]

Both towers look completely out of place in South Waterfront. I suppose they might make sense as taller companions to the mediocre post-recession lo-rise apartments in the district, but I would much rather they be an extension of the more interesting architecture employed in the initial phase, i.e Meriwether, Atwater Place, John Ross, Ardea, even the Mirabella. These buildings would look more at home in Slabtown or even the Pearl. Hope design review puts the kybosh on 'em!

[maccoinnich]

Summary Memo

[MarkDaMan]

I've only skimmed over the documents. Is there IZ housing included in the proposal?

[AcmeGreg]

The summary memo is spot on: "...tower blocks are overly complicated and missing the "big idea"... a simple idea carried to the ground." Yup.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

I've only skimmed over the documents. Is there IZ housing included in the proposal?

From the drawing package:

THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONSOLIDATES ALL THE AFFORDABLE UNITS INTO A SINGLE BUILDING (BLOCK 42) TO MEET THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS ALLOWED SINCE THIS IS A COMMON DEVELOPMENT OVER 4 LOTS AND THE PROJECT QUALIFY FOR THE "SITE" DEFINITION UNDER SECTION 33.910