HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Downtown & City of Portland


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted May 31, 2023, 6:59 PM
CorbinWarrick CorbinWarrick is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 555
Haha great job.. this is the picture of Paris nobody wants people to see. When they tell me you don’t need to build tall because look at Paris I’ll show them this picture
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted May 31, 2023, 7:44 PM
downtownpdx's Avatar
downtownpdx downtownpdx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,672
I don't have stats on Paris but it didn't suddenly become dense because of those newish skyscrapers. Don't get me wrong, I love tall buildings. But Paris, Barcelona etc were already very dense many, many decades ago before these modern high rises were built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted May 31, 2023, 7:58 PM
FiveOverPun FiveOverPun is offline
Mostly Up To Code
 
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: NW PDX
Posts: 49
I don't think it's particularly helpful to compare old world cities with hundreds (or thousands) of years of history to newer cities that are expanding in the time of steel and automobiles. Cities are also not one thing, they can have skyscrapers in one part and midrises in another and (God forbid) single family homes in some parts too.

The better question is whether a place is appropriately dense, and if not, should it change? And as somebody who lives in the Pearl, I'd love to see some additional density. There's a LOT of ground-floor commercial space that's empty right now, especially as you head north from here. Getting 15-25 floors on the Broadway site (just north of here) will be incredibly important for this area, and it's a shame this building was downsized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted May 31, 2023, 9:34 PM
colossalorder colossalorder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 53
Lots of good debate .... but really, is there any disagreement that this particular building design went from something exciting and desperately needed to an unremarkable and depressing wasted opportunity? Just do a before and after comparison of the original images to the latest. I don't know how anyone could feel good about the end result. I'm not an insider and I may not have the full story, but for the life of me I can't figure out why the design commission chopped this building. It borders the Pearl District and Broadway Corridor after all. A 23 story tower seems entirely reasonable in its location. I'm not an expert, just a hobbyist, so maybe I'm missing a good argument for this design. To me though, its squat.

Last edited by colossalorder; May 31, 2023 at 9:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2023, 12:01 AM
DMH DMH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Portland (part-time); warm foreign countries (part-time)
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by colossalorder View Post
Lots of good debate .... but really, is there any disagreement that this particular building design went from something exciting and desperately needed to an unremarkable and depressing wasted opportunity? Just do a before and after comparison of the original images to the latest. I don't know how anyone could feel good about the end result. I'm not an insider and I may not have the full story, but for the life of me I can't figure out why the design commission chopped this building. It borders the Pearl District and Broadway Corridor after all. A 23 story tower seems entirely reasonable in its location. I'm not an expert, just a hobbyist, so maybe I'm missing a good argument for this design. To me though, its squat.
Wait. Please confirm what you are writing. Did the Landmarks Commission require the owner to reduce the building's height? Or was it market forces, escalating construction materials costs, higher labor costs, getting a loan....that caused the reduction in scale?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2023, 12:22 AM
colossalorder colossalorder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 53
https://djcoregon.com/news/2022/09/2...elopment-team/

Frustration mounts for development team
By: Alex Jensen in ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING September 27, 2022 1:10 pm

A smaller footprint is likely for an initially proposed 23-story high-rise in Portland’s Pearl District. Plans presented Monday to the Historic Landmarks Commission were significantly downscaled.

...

Monday marked the project team’s second design advice hearing before the Historic Landmarks Commission. In February, commissioners called the 23-story tower design “overwhelming,” and its glass curtain façade “not contextual.”

...

The difference in the two proposals is immense; the new preferred proposal is 46 percent shorter and has 33 percent less floor area ratio and 32 percent less leasable space. Also, the number of residential units was dropped from 337 to about 200.
...


Yet after three and a half hours of discussion on Monday, little consensus was reached among commissioners on a direction forward for the design.

The project’s developer, Eran Fields, stated that the team will not return for a third design advice hearing. If the project is to advance, clarity is needed from the commissioners, he said.

“We took an enormous amount of time and effort to get to this point,” Fields said. “Maybe that doesn’t mean much. But for us it means a lot, and we try to come back with a building that you can’t possibly tell me that if someone bikes by, walks by, drives by, this building once built, they’re not going to be impressed.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2023, 1:52 AM
CorbinWarrick CorbinWarrick is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 555
Told you guys for years. This city hates on towers when we clearly need the housing. Get rid of these damn so called design commissions
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2023, 4:38 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick View Post
Haha great job.. this is the picture of Paris nobody wants people to see. When they tell me you don’t need to build tall because look at Paris I’ll show them this picture
That photo isn't of Paris, it's La Défense. Also those towers aren't residential, they are primarily office buildings. This business district sits outside of Paris because building all this in Paris would require tearing apart what makes Paris iconic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2023, 6:53 AM
CorbinWarrick CorbinWarrick is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
That photo isn't of Paris, it's La Défense. Also those towers aren't residential, they are primarily office buildings. This business district sits outside of Paris because building all this in Paris would require tearing apart what makes Paris iconic.
Well luckily for us we don’t have anything to worry about in our downtown core bc we don’t have anything iconic instead we have a bunch of surface parking lots
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2023, 10:07 AM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick View Post
Well luckily for us we don’t have anything to worry about in our downtown core bc we don’t have anything iconic instead we have a bunch of surface parking lots
At some point, you're going to have to either move to where you want to be, or accept Portland for what it is rather than what you want it to be. Or, just waste your entire life to anger and frustration.

We get it. You want everything taller, and you want it all built now. You have no understanding of urban planning, economics, or even reality.

Every single post of yours has been the same since you joined this forum. You add zero insight, zero analysis, zero thought. Just post after post about, boo hoo, can't everything be tall and built now, as if you're the first person to ever think density is good.

I honestly can't tell if you're a kid in middle school or not. If you are, I strongly encourage you to work hard to get good grades so you can go to college somewhere else, in order to either find the life you dream of, or realize how good you had it in Portland - if you actually live here, which I doubt.

On the other hand, if you're an adult... (yikes) ...you have to ask how many years or even decades you're going to throw away on living somewhere you don't want to be.

I bet you're not a Portlander. I bet you live in some nameless suburb. Somewhere not even worthy of being Woodburn or Estacada.

Enough already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2023, 3:23 PM
CorbinWarrick CorbinWarrick is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
At some point, you're going to have to either move to where you want to be, or accept Portland for what it is rather than what you want it to be. Or, just waste your entire life to anger and frustration.

We get it. You want everything taller, and you want it all built now. You have no understanding of urban planning, economics, or even reality.

Every single post of yours has been the same since you joined this forum. You add zero insight, zero analysis, zero thought. Just post after post about, boo hoo, can't everything be tall and built now, as if you're the first person to ever think density is good.

I honestly can't tell if you're a kid in middle school or not. If you are, I strongly encourage you to work hard to get good grades so you can go to college somewhere else, in order to either find the life you dream of, or realize how good you had it in Portland - if you actually live here, which I doubt.

On the other hand, if you're an adult... (yikes) ...you have to ask how many years or even decades you're going to throw away on living somewhere you don't want to be.

I bet you're not a Portlander. I bet you live in some nameless suburb. Somewhere not even worthy of being Woodburn or Estacada.

Enough already.
We just need the housing. And don’t give me that economics excuse. Look at the north Pearl they always build somewhat tall and make it work
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2023, 6:40 PM
DBenson DBenson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Posts: 9
"evidently you haven’t seen Paris’ actual downtown"

It has been a long time since I've been to Paris. Thank you for the picture which updates my outdated mental image of the city. I've a suspicion about those Parisian towers that, if wrong, I hope you'll correct: Most of the space in them is 1) offices, or 2) high-end hotel rooms, apartments, or condos.

I do agree that you can provide dense living space for the affluent by building tall because they can afford the lofty price. But that is not the population with the greatest demand for housing.

The residential density debate boils down to this: Given the same size lot, which provides more housing - taller or shorter? Since standard Portland blocks are wonderfully small, going tall usually requires a lot about that size. If you have that 200' x 200' footprint, taller certainly does better up to around 6-7 stories, somewhere after which the costs of going higher begin to dictate that you build bigger, fancier units for a better heeled clientele. Doing so, however, actually decreases average per floor density.

One example can be seen in a comparison of the 20 story Portland Astoria and the 6-story Olivia Apartments, both recent constructions. The website for the former describes it as having 348 "luxury residential units." The latter, with 231 units, does have 117 fewer, but it averages over 38 units per floor, compared to the 17+ of the three-times taller PA.

We can agree that inner Portland will be made better by more residential density, but the question remains: Who composes that density? I would like to see the middle class compose most of it, including families with children. That's not the kind of density that very high rises provide.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2023, 6:44 PM
Delaney's Avatar
Delaney Delaney is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick View Post
We just need the housing. And don’t give me that economics excuse. Look at the north Pearl they always build somewhat tall and make it work
The developer clearly didn't do his homework on the historic landmarks commission's history of downsizing buildings, and either didn't believe his architect or didn't get a strong enough warning. But to say that one part of the city is the same as another part for economics is just naïve. No one that is renting top-of-market housing in the north pearl is going to pay the same rent on the edge of Old Town, and that rent directly affects how much cost/sf you can afford to build. It's math, it's not an excuse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2023, 8:00 PM
Delaney's Avatar
Delaney Delaney is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by DBenson View Post
"We can agree that inner Portland will be made better by more residential density, but the question remains: Who composes that density? I would like to see the middle class compose most of it, including families with children. That's not the kind of density that very high rises provide.
There is room for both towers and good mid-rise, it's not an either-or scenario. We will never be able to build to the quality of Paris or Barcelona in our economic model so why not root for variety and options? There are also plenty of examples of high rise family housing for the middle class families in Portland, it is not a zero sum game, and there is no right or wrong (unless we are talking about the landmarks commission).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2023, 11:36 PM
pdxsg34 pdxsg34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 314
It does appear the developer was a bit overzealous in its initial height design, but given the site's location, it's proximity to a significantly large "soon-to-be" (TBD) development in the post office blocks, it's proximity to Old Town and its chronic problems, the continued rising construction costs and the HLC's history of rigidity on height/mass, it's not surprising to me that this project has significantly trimmed down. I felt the same way about the Grand Belmont when it was heavily trimmed down (but man, the original design was superb).

While it's "disappointing" the project isn't taller and allows more units, from the developer/owner side of things, it appears to be higher on the risk scale to make a "jump into the unknown" given the points above. The site is surrounded by parking/vacant lots on the north, east and south side, which isn't (currently) that desirable (compared to the Pearl developments). Perhaps the development would've held with a taller height if the park to the east was already developed, and/or some of the Post Office Blocks were being built or already built.

On the glass half full side of things, I'm glad to see some juice being put into this site, regardless of height. The city gains housing units and a modern building that appears desirable to some degree. Not every site requires a supertall or tall building, variation adds character, and TVA is not a bad architect on the record. My wish is the site directly south (804-824 NW Glisan) gets some love at some point, especially given its location adjacent to the park blocks as well.

Unfortunately, for this area, and the broader Old Town/Chinatown area to the east, the problems it currently faces must be either resolved or in route to resolve for most developers/owners to trust in profitable projects in these areas. We can't just cry for housing without sustainable solutions that raise the desirable living perception of these areas. Developers/owners want predictability on the bottom line, and this site is somewhat of gray area. Here is a recent rendering of the project, courtesy of mthrailkillarchitect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2023, 2:53 AM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,471
What's needed is a broader conversation about the Historic Landmarks Commission, and I don't mean on this forum (or, at least, not only on this forum).

I definitely believe we have some history that needs to be protected, but this site isn't on the list. No amount of wishing or Corbin Complaining will change anything. So, what will? What's the process for reevaluating the scope and power of the historic landmarks commission? What changes are even possible?

The commission rejecting this proposal seems especially egregious given that they're not trying to save the Honeyman Hardware building, not to mention other buildings they've allowed to be torn down in recent years, yet they're against height here? They're allowing the past to be scrapped, but only if it's for minimal reuse? It's just wrong. If the post office site was actually a historic neighborhood filled with low-rise buildings, I could understand, though I'd still disagree. But the Honeyman Hardware site is on the border of a giant site that is already planning for heights taller than this rejected proposal. Like I said, rejecting this proposal seems downright egregious.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Downtown & City of Portland
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:30 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.