PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : PDX - NW transition area/Slabtown/Con-way World



bvpcvm
Mar 25, 2007, 5:27 PM
http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/entertainment/117468692297130.xml&coll=7&thispage=2

NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE FUTURE

The company's Northwest Portland property is the perfect blank palette for a 21st-century twist -
Sunday, March 25, 2007RANDY GRAGG
The Oregonian

Between the Pearl District and the Northwest District lies the perfect blank piece of land to create a new 21st-century model for the working-class neighborhood.
That's because at the center of the land sit 1,000 members of the 21st-century working class.
Let's name the neighborhood right now: Con-way.
Con-way?
That's the owner of the land, the employer of the workers and the company that can make it all happen.
Trucking enthusiasts and longtime Portlanders know Con-way is all that may soon be left of the dwindling Consolidated Freightways, the trucking company started by Portlander Leland James in 1929. The history of mergers and spinoffs is tangled, but the bottom line is that the truck-building Consolidated Freightways has mostly been off-shored to Mexico while the transportation and logistics company Con-way thrives.
Recently named one of Forbes magazine's most-admired companies, the $4-billion company is based in San Mateo, Calif. But the entire company's technological nerve center sits at Northwest Thurman and 21st Avenue, surrounded by 15 acres of mostly empty land mainly used for parking.
"We have this property," says J. Craig Boretz, Con-way's vice president of corporate development. "We don't need it for our business. It's become valuable. We'd like to redevelop it, but in a way that will be a good experience for our employees."
Con-way's goal is to attract the best employees, Boretz says.
"Let's face it, transportation isn't as sexy as Nike or Intel," he says. "So we want to be here, in the heart of Northwest, surrounded by amenities and good places to live."
Simple as that may sound, it's actually a tall order.
Con-way's land is zoned for mixed-use buildings -- retail with either commercial or housing on top -- the same as the Pearl District next door. But Con-way's land has lower height and bulk limits and fewer available bonuses to go above and beyond them.
One of the only bonuses the city offers, in fact, is to build smaller -- for buildings with 10,000 and 20,000-square-foot footprints. That's a lovely idea: an attempt to social engineer this land, a la Christopher Alexander-style "pattern language," with small-grain apartment buildings like those in the Northwest District. The only problem is, the economics don't work. Current construction prices make building small more expensive, plus whoever develops this land will have to pay for way more than just the buildings.
The Northwest District Plan, for instance, calls for a neighborhood park and a community center on the land. The only mass transportation to the site is one bus line. And then there's parking. Most of Con-way's employees drive. The company leases parts of its vast surface parking lots to such nearby employers as Good Samaritan Hospital. So, even with improved mass transit, Con-way needs parking for at least 1,000 cars. That's $25,000 for every parking stall -- $35,000 if it goes, as it should, underground -- so, $25 million to $35 million for starters.
Though Con-way's average wage is, Boretz estimates, "somewhere north of $50,000," that doesn't buy much in today's inner-city housing market. Land and construction prices have skyrocketed to the point where even middle-class urban housing has to be subsidized, cheaply built or tiny.
Boretz hired an initial design team: John Spencer (a private planning consultant), Gerding/Edlen Development and GBD Architects. They studied several housing types like townhouses and courtyard apartments. They pondered a potential streetcar extension linking Con-way to other transit-starved areas nearby like the north Pearl District and Montgomery Park. Under current zoning, only 1,500 to 2,000 units of housing are possible.
But the real opportunity -- if not the necessity -- is to look at this land for what it is: a blank slate.
What would this future neighborhood look like with no rules but two basic goals: 1) to produce as much energy as it consumes; and 2) offer housing options and amenities affordable to all of Con-way's workers, whether a vice president or a janitor, whether a young single or the head of a family of five?
There's no paved road to follow to success in these times. Maybe the buildings would be low, maybe tall. With the area already gridded with super-blocks, maybe we could build true Vancouver-style "point towers" -- thin skyscrapers that rise from five- or six-story buildings topped by roof gardens, some serving as family-supportive daycare playgrounds. Maybe they're very small units arranged in buildings with more common rooms and pocket parks for communal recreation. Maybe they're an entirely new kind of flex-space buildings where people buy raw space to live in, work in or rent as they need for growing and shrinking families and businesses.
Whatever. The key is to drive the process with aspirations rather than limits, to consider models beyond our own and maybe even develop some new ones.
Randy Gragg: 503-221-8575; randygragg@news.oregonian.com


©2007 The Oregonian

PDX City-State
Mar 25, 2007, 8:10 PM
This article says absolutely nothing. Typical Randy.

asher519
Mar 25, 2007, 9:16 PM
I don't think it's trying to, except that the owner of the land is interested in developing it. He's simply asking us to consider the possibilities.

PDX City-State
Mar 25, 2007, 9:43 PM
Old news. Why is everyone on this forum so fond of this guy? He doesn't write that well, he recycles nearly everything from other writers in town, and is generally considered to be a self-important ass by local architects. Only in Portland could a guy like this be employed.

brandonpdx
Mar 25, 2007, 9:48 PM
I enjoy reading his columns...anyway back to the topic:
I think the commissioners should consider opening it up for this piece of property. However, it is the Northwest neighborhood association where this property lies, so I'm sure if they start talking point towers the NIMBYs will be out in full force.

tworivers
Mar 25, 2007, 10:44 PM
I also generally enjoy reading his columns, although I do feel like I've noticed a change in style after his return from Harvard. He definitely seems to be much more friendly to the powers-that-be in the development world, and I agree that he can have an air of smug self-importance. I was also really disappointed by that free lecture that he gave last month. If his meanderings on the subject of "deep history" are any indication of the depth of his intellect... well, he has a lot of studying to do.

I am both concerned and intrigued by his suggestions recently that we alter some of our long-held planning models. The whole article was mostly a vehicle for this last line:

The key is to drive the process with aspirations rather than limits, to consider models beyond our own and maybe even develop some new ones.

Back to the topic, the NIMBY's are probably organizing already! But I highly doubt point towers are going to get built over there any time soon, particularly given the seeming weakness (fickleness, at least) of the market here. We can't even get a point tower built elsewhere in the city.

pdxman
Mar 26, 2007, 4:50 AM
Point towers? I wish--not with the NW neighbors controlling that area...I could see some nice 5-6 story brownstone rowhousing with community gardens-kind of like something you'd see in london area or manhattan(not orenco style). Something dense...

sirsimon
Mar 26, 2007, 6:31 AM
^ That's a nice image, and one that would fit well with the rest of NW. :)

MarkDaMan
Mar 26, 2007, 3:23 PM
I'm not so sure the neighborhood is going to be that opposed. As dumb as that sounds considering their Riverplace objections. This area has been planned for higher density and zoning changes have been requested for some time now, over a year, and opposition isn't flaring. Maybe when renderings come out people will start paying attention. However, if they can come out with something that provides as much affordable housing as Con-Way says it wants to develop, the neighborhood association will look like an ass opposing it. I see neighborhood buy-in will mostly depend on what Con-Way and the selected developer put on the table, parks, community center, streetcar lines, and condos starting at $125,000 will go a long way to getting neighborhood acceptance of pointy towers.

JoshYent
Mar 26, 2007, 7:24 PM
yeah it doesnt say much.....but i guess thats how it goes sometimes...

it did however make me aware that there could be a nice new development, or a really crappy one that is n0t as dense or of the quality Portland deserves....

bvpcvm
Jun 2, 2007, 11:49 PM
The latest NW Examiner has another article about Con-Way's developments plans. Apparently, they're accelerating their plans - they've hired GBD to create a master plan, which might include a park, and also calls for the streetcar to be extended up 21st to their offices and then out Thurman (or Vaughn?) to Montgomery Park. A city planner in change of streetcar planning says in the article that these are still pretty vague plans. Still, wonderful news, given I live right next to Montgomery Park. The only concrete plans so far are for a retail building, possibly with housing, on the parking lot across from McMenamin's (across Savier) on 23rd. Also, Legacy plans a new building at 22nd and Northrup, where they currently have their recycling plant. Both of these are about two years away.

zilfondel
Jun 3, 2007, 12:42 AM
Hmm, I'll have to go pickup a copy of the NW Examiner then! Any photos to scan?

pdxstreetcar
Jun 3, 2007, 1:20 AM
good to see something happen to all that open land, there seems to really be a lot of potential for that area, its essentially a clean slate in a great location.


theres supposed to be a city-wide streetcar plan underway, afterall theres many informal proposals for lines and extensions throughout the city that have been mentioned in the last few years.

65MAX
Jun 3, 2007, 1:59 PM
I would think using the 18th/19th couplet would be better for streetcars to Thurman, then out to Montgomery Park. It would connect better with the Burnside/Couch streetcar and PGE Park. Besides which, 21st Ave would be a really tight squeeze.

zilfondel
Jun 3, 2007, 7:31 PM
^ Can't be any worse than Lovejoy, can it? 21st is already home to a bus route, and it doesn't get much traffic to the north of Northrup.

bvpcvm
Jul 3, 2007, 11:48 PM
A project on 19th and Overton, unloved in this forum, was just approved for construction:

http://www.portlandmaps.com/detail.cfm?action=Permits&folder=2612470&propertyid=R141118&state_id=1N1E33AB%20%2010100&address_id=625124&intersection_id=&dynamic_point=0&x=7640601.725&y=687812.917&place=1947%20NW%20OVERTON%20ST&city=PORTLAND&neighborhood=NORTHWEST%20DISTRICT&seg_id=136361

http://www.myhregroup.com/images/projects/Overton_Large.jpg
http://www.myhregroup.com/images/projects/OvertonAerialLarge.jpg
http://www.myhregroup.com/images/projects/OvertonSiteLarge.jpg
http://www.myhregroup.com/images/projects/Overton_Sidewalk-Large.jpg

sirsimon
Jul 4, 2007, 12:24 AM
I know that I'm a loner, but I kind of like this one.

PacificNW
Jul 4, 2007, 1:45 AM
I like it also....

zilfondel
Jul 4, 2007, 5:15 AM
puke

tworivers
Jul 4, 2007, 5:49 AM
gag

robbobpdx
Jul 4, 2007, 9:50 AM
I like it also....

Me too !!!

And it looks like it fits in great withe scale and look of the surrounding area too.

:tup:

PDX City-State
Jul 4, 2007, 6:27 PM
I think its motives are terrible, but at least it's iconic.

MitchE
Jul 6, 2007, 4:58 PM
I think it will look a lot better in person than the rendering suggests. I don't think the roof is going to look so weird. It reminds me of the Vaux a lot. I thought it was kind of bland based on the renderings I saw but I think it turned out fantastic... at least for the style it is going for.

http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/NW/P1010226.JPG

westsider
Jul 6, 2007, 9:24 PM
The styling doesnt bother me one bit, I think it will look pretty good when its done.

kvalk
Jul 6, 2007, 9:48 PM
Robo: "And it looks like it fits in great withe scale and look of the surrounding area too."
really...seven stories on Overton and 19th...i personally don't care about the height, but don't tell me it fits in with the scale of the neighborhood.

add another three stories to the Vaux, then what do you think...

cab
Jul 6, 2007, 9:54 PM
I think Hundreds of well earning people living more efficiently in the city spending their money at local store's and adding vibrancy to upper 21st. What do you Kvalk?

kvalk
Jul 6, 2007, 10:04 PM
Like I said, I don't mind the height, and I appreciatte the greater density. I don't care for the aesthetics of the building, but that's just my personal opinion, and that's not really important.
I also don't think the upper floor set back on a seven story building really has the intended effect. It definetly won't change the feeling of the building at the street level, it's a nice thought, and i know neighbors like to hear "we set the top floor back to make the building feel smaller" but once you get past the fourth floor you have to be quite far back to even notice the difference.
I also appreciatte that it's not a full block mass, as there appears to be a nice courtyard, though with a 7 story building on the south side it may not get much light.

The building next door to the EAST, visible in the renderings, is actually quite a nice little 2 story building, completed several years back, perhaps by Bolighus??? though my memory may be off.

kvalk
Jul 6, 2007, 10:09 PM
Cab, I haven't seen the plans, do you know how many units are in here, my quick math, based on balconies and a lot of assumptions is about 88-90 units, which would probably be well below 200 residents...so the idea of "Hundreds of well earning people living more efficiently in the city spending their money at local store's and adding vibrancy to upper 21st" may be a bit of an exageration, by my count. though a nice idea.

zilfondel
Jul 7, 2007, 9:37 PM
Yea, I kind of like that Overton building. Nice materials, reminds me of Dutch contemporary architecture. :D

bvpcvm
Jul 7, 2007, 9:42 PM
yuk. i like the height and density, but it looks like a left over from a star wars set.