Portland Design Commission

[maccoinnich]

The Design Commission is presenting their State Of The City Design Report 2015 [PDF] to the City Council on Wednesday. (In a Machiavellian work of scheduling, this comes right before the Preserve the Pearl appeal of the Design Commission's approval of Block 136). A few themes I picked up from the slides:

1. There are three examples of buildings that dramatically improved during the Design Commission review: 419 E Burnside; the Stadium Fred Meyer; and the Pearl Marriott. Seeing the difference really makes wish the Design Commission had reviewed the Linden apartments or the Hawthorne Safeway, neither of which are in design districts.
   
2. There's a huge number of projects going on in the Central Eastside / Lloyd District. This is probably the biggest difference between the boom of the 2000s and the boom of the 2010s.
   
3. The Design Commission really wants the Zoning Code change to prohibit housing at the ground floor in commercial corridors. They have some great examples of how it just kills the vitality of the street.

I would also like to congratulate the Design Commission for refraining from the use of Comic Sans, which unfortunately made it into the appendix of the 2014 report.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

I would also like to congratulate the Design Commission for refraining from the use of Comic Sans, which unfortunately made it into the appendix of the 2014 report.

That's the funniest thing I've read on this site in quite a while!

[PDXDENSITY]

I'm really happy about the mention of mandating retail-- I've been banging this drum for awhile. That example of that overgrown craftsman development with no retail on Hawthorne is an excellent example of how terribly alienating such design can be to the streetscape.

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

I would also like to congratulate the Design Commission for refraining from the use of Comic Sans, which unfortunately made it into the appendix of the 2014 report.

I thought you were joking until I clicked.

[BrG]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

That's the funniest thing I've read on this site in quite a while!

It is! I just actually laughed out loud at my desk.

[BrG]

I don't disagree that housing at grade can be poorly executed. I will say that the commission will need to be careful about how it suggests the city mandate retail, in lieu of housing (or other active uses) at the ground floor. I think ground floor housing CAN (and does) work, but it is thoroughly dependent on the approach to its design. Perhaps specific guidelines about how its executed might help. (Setbacks, canopies, live work requirements, etc)

To me, boarded up continually failed retail is often worse than housing or live-work. Even in a commercial corridor. Retail where there is significant slope, can be particularly difficult to pull off without design & cost implications that subvert its success.

Like anything, I think its a balance.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by BrG

I don't disagree that housing at grade can be poorly executed. I will say that the commission will need to be careful about how it suggests the city mandate retail, in lieu of housing (or other active uses) at the ground floor. I think ground floor housing CAN (and does) work, but it is thoroughly dependent on the approach to its design. Perhaps specific guidelines about how its executed might help. (Setbacks, canopies, live work requirements, etc)

To me, boarded up continually failed retail is often worse than housing or live-work. Even in a commercial corridor. Retail where there is significant slope, can be particularly difficult to pull off without design & cost implications that subvert its success.

Like anything, I think its a balance.

Provide a clause to allow continually failing retail to revert to office/housing. It isn't inconceivable to have that written in and still mandate retail on corridors. It's about experimenting.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by BrG

I don't disagree that housing at grade can be poorly executed. I will say that the commission will need to be careful about how it suggests the city mandate retail, in lieu of housing (or other active uses) at the ground floor. I think ground floor housing CAN (and does) work, but it is thoroughly dependent on the approach to its design. Perhaps specific guidelines about how its executed might help. (Setbacks, canopies, live work requirements, etc)

To me, boarded up continually failed retail is often worse than housing or live-work. Even in a commercial corridor. Retail where there is significant slope, can be particularly difficult to pull off without design & cost implications that subvert its success.

Like anything, I think its a balance.

I get where you're coming from, but I think I would rather see boarded up retail for five years than 50-100 years of ground floor residential that kills the street activity. Setbacks, stoops, canopies, etc are all good ways to ensure ground floor residential works well on secondary streets. However I don't think it's enough for major commercial streets, which really need continuous active uses. Even a couple block or two of ground floor residential can kill the vitality of a street.

As for grade differences: the retail doesn't necessarily need to be large. Although it's on a flat site, I think Vallaster Corl's Central Eastside Lofts would work as a precedent for a site with steeper grades. It has 8 very small units facing onto NE 6th Ave, all of which seem to have leased.

[maccoinnich]

For anyone interested, I posted the audio up here.

[maccoinnich]

Reviewing design review




BY NATHAN DAY

Last week, the City of Portland’s Design Commission gave its annual State of the City Design Report to City Council, a relatively overlooked event that is usually seen as more of a formality than one of great public interest. This go around it seemed different, more important than in years past, as the city is undergoing a massive construction boom which has brought a record number of cases in front of the Design Review panel.

The intended limitations of the Commission has caused delays in the review process, and has resulted in a general slowing in the development pipeline as individual cases all vie to be seen as quickly as possible in this time of economic upswing. Over the last year, the Design Commission has made improvements, mostly relating to maintaining an effective schedule (e.g. getting a proper timer) that has reduced delays and overruns. But the task force still sees room for improvement. The Commission and the local American Institute of Architects chapter as well as numerous others in the design profession and the public at large would like to see more review, not less, as the city continues to develop at its perceived rapid pace.

As noted during the report, the Comprehensive Plan Update will address many of the issues that are currently challenging the city's built environment, but that plan will not fully take effect for years as the details are still being hashed out in a willingly arduous, all-inclusive manner.

...continues at Portland Architecture.

[Rob Nob]

Can Portland Double in Size?

Rick Potestio in Portland Monthly...

http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/re...and-april-2015

[BrG]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Provide a clause to allow continually failing retail to revert to office/housing. It isn't inconceivable to have that written in and still mandate retail on corridors. It's about experimenting.

I like it.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by Rob Nob

Can Portland Double in Size?

Rick Potestio in Portland Monthly...

http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/re...and-april-2015

Blargh, the tone of this. We are not throwing our city away to allow an evolution of density. It looks like we may even be able to have inclusionary zoning mandate affordable housing in new developments. We could give bonuses to developers who make more units overall in a small area. Density, affordability.

A city is not only buildings. We are not even close to demolishing Portland's housing stock; think twice if you think the majority of homeowners are budging. But should we allow those staunch land owners the right to stop density if someone else wants to allow it on their land? I don't believe so. We should be adding density wherever we can, and now work in the inclusionary zoning framework.

[maccoinnich]

Julie Livingston is being appointed to replace David Keltner on the Design Commission. I don't recognize the name but a quick google suggests she is an architect who works at the Housing Authority of Portland.

[maccoinnich]

Don Vallaster of Vallaster Corl is being appointed to the Design Commission to replace Gwen Millius.

[maccoinnich]

Ben Kaiser is being appointed for a second term on the Design Commission, to expire in 2019.

[maccoinnich]

Worth a read, I think.

Gatekeepers of Portland character

PORTLAND, Ore. -- On a frigid day in early December, a hundred people crammed into a conference room in downtown Portland. The front row was occupied by hopeful developers, sitting stiffly at attention. Behind them were dozens of neighbors and city staff, some fumbling through papers, readying statements.

Staring back at the crowd was the stone-faced semi-circle of judges that would decide the building’s fate: The Portland Design Commission.

The developers, from the Chicago-based firm Core Spaces, were hoping to build a grocery store and 420-unit residential complex in downtown Portland. Their last hurdle before getting a building permit was sitting right in front of them.

Made up of a handful of volunteer architects, developers and designers, the Portland Design Commission has the final say in the aesthetics of the buildings that define Portland’s skyline. The commission follows guidelines crafted more than three decades ago to make sure Portland’s new developments fit with its unique past. Perhaps more than any other group, the design commission shapes what the future of Portland will look like.

...continues at KGW.

[Abide]

Interesting article indeed. However: "The proposed Core Spaces grocery store and apartment complex on Harrison Street is a beacon for what the future of Portland could look like. The multi-use development with hundreds of inhabitants will replace a much smaller structure, and in some ways a smaller way of life."

WTF?? I'm not aware of ANY structures currently on that block. I don't consider asphalt a "structure."

[Tykendo]

Great idea, how 'bout a thinner, taller structure that's less beastly with garden plazas around it and ground floor retail/restaurant. Even if that Core structure was shorter, the massing at ground level is brutal. Again, building up could solve this.

[maccoinnich]

On the City Council agenda for next week: two new members for the Design Commission.

Jessica Molinar has current work experience encompassing a wide range of scales and budgets with a focus on quality design and construction. Her current employment at Portland based Colab Architecture and Urban Design includes managing architectural projects, construction deadlines, and large scale master planning. Jessica also has a strong understanding of the local architectural community, recent development trends, modern building systems, and construction details. Her appointment will help to ensure the Portland Design Commission's high bar for new development and quality infill that enhances and preserves the City's architectural heritage and legacy.

Andrew Clark, a native Portlander, is a owner of Hugh Development, a real estate and development company for projects in NE Portland where he grew up. He was recently Land Use Chair of the King Neighborhood Association, and still active as a member of the King Land Use Committee. Andrew is currently developing a mid-rise project in NE Portland with a local architectural firm, and will bring an important perspective to the developer-side of the fast paced construction boom Portland is experiencing it many of its neighborhoods. His appointment will help bring to the DC a highly valued developer's perspective and balance brought by the previous developer position held by former Design Commissioner Ben Kaiser.

Design Review staff including Land Use Supervisor Kara Fioravanti and Senior Planner Tim Heron, in coordination with DC Chair David Wark and DC Vice-Chair Tad Savinar, assessed the needs of the DC and concluded that Jessica and Andrew would be the best fit among the potential candidates due to the reasons stated above. Their combined knowledge in architectural design and development are critical skills and experiences needed on the DC.