HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #721  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2008, 3:33 AM
RED_PDXer RED_PDXer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 710
I noticed this too.. I assumed a development was going on, but I don't see any permits on the city's website other than a complaint over the summer about overgrown vegetation. The vegetation wasn't that bad.. probably just an excuse to tear down trees before a development proposal.

Permit/Case Number 2007-156884-000-00-NU
Permit/Case Type Nuisance
Vacant Lot
Complaint
Work/Case Description OVERGROWTH OF BLACKBERRIES, VEGETATION ONTO THE SIDEWALK ALL AROUND PARKING.
Issue Date
Final Date
Latest Activity 8/23/2007
Status Request
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #722  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2008, 3:34 AM
Garissimo Garissimo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by bvpcvm View Post
btw, i live about a block away.
Well, hello neighbor, in that case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bvpcvm View Post
honestly, the fact that there will be height along vaughn doesn't bother me in the least, especially given that there will be some retail where right now there's a wall.
I have no issue with adding retail space. I would be nice if they honored the zoning code for that retail space, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bvpcvm View Post
and regarding lost views - views of what? montgomery park and esco? good grief. we live in a city. cities change. they're densely populated.
None of us has a view of Esco. We have, however, been enjoying our views of Forest Park and Montgomery Park - which many consider to be an iconic Portland building. If that view were to be replaced by a 60 foot wall with a textured metal facade, the height increase might bother you.

Some of us don't want this neighborhood to turn into Pearl District West and think this stretching zoning rules to maximize your unit count sets a bad precedent. Unfortunately, the city is ga-ga for high density and wants to keep the developers happy, so this building will probably go in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #723  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2008, 5:27 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 4,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by RED_PDXer View Post
I noticed this too.. I assumed a development was going on, but I don't see any permits on the city's website other than a complaint over the summer about overgrown vegetation. The vegetation wasn't that bad.. probably just an excuse to tear down trees before a development proposal.

Permit/Case Number 2007-156884-000-00-NU
Permit/Case Type Nuisance
Vacant Lot
Complaint
Work/Case Description OVERGROWTH OF BLACKBERRIES, VEGETATION ONTO THE SIDEWALK ALL AROUND PARKING.
Issue Date
Final Date
Latest Activity 8/23/2007
Status Request
even bigger is the issue of tearing down the wall.

the trees however... require a permit from the city Forestry Dept. Did they get one?

=========

Cast, nice pics you got there. I live right by the Hungry Tiger site... very interesting thing they're doing with those blocks.

I'm glad someone is getting around with a camera taking pics. What kind do you have, anyway?
__________________
Portland Bike Bridge traffic:

2009 - 15,749 | 2010 - 17,576 | 2011 - 18,257 | 2012 - 18,794
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #724  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2008, 10:22 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 6,952
I can't find the source, but I saw on the news a couple weeks ago that intense rains caused that wall that start cracking and become unstable. I believe this is an 'emergency' reaction to a failing wall, and therefore there isn't any information on the work going on...I think...
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #725  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2008, 1:07 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 4,467
hmm. seems a bit... convenient, no? Considering that wall is around 100 or more years old.

oh well. I think if a building IS built on that block in that future, it would probably be a good thing to not have the wall. Maybe they can save the stones and incorporate them in the future (yeah right). Or at least have some sort of gesture to the previous nature of the site. Although, considering that its owned by an out of state investor, I doubt it.
__________________
Portland Bike Bridge traffic:

2009 - 15,749 | 2010 - 17,576 | 2011 - 18,257 | 2012 - 18,794
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #726  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2008, 7:17 AM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 6,952
convenient? Like I said, I'm not positive about the corner, but the clips on the news had huge cracks with water leaking through the stones. 100 years don't mean shit because every year there are walls, old walls that fail in the winter.

If it isn't the corner you guys are referencing, I have no idea what is going on, but from what I saw earlier, if this is the corner, it certainly didn't seem fake.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #727  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2008, 10:19 PM
anp's Avatar
anp anp is offline
Now in Portland!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
I can't find the source, but I saw on the news a couple weeks ago that intense rains caused that wall that start cracking and become unstable. I believe this is an 'emergency' reaction to a failing wall, and therefore there isn't any information on the work going on...I think...
I think this might be the same story (from the Tribune a while back). Doesn't sound like a fake to me:

Cracked, unstable wall closes downtown streets
UPDATE: Property owner working with consultant to repair structure
LocalNewsDaily.com, Jan 11, 2008, Updated Jan 12, 2008

The owner of an unstable downtown Portland retaining wall is working with a consultant to address the problem.

The cracked wall forced the city’s Office of Transportation late Friday evening, Jan. 11, to close a two-block section of Southwest Fourth Avenue near Market and Mill streets.

Transportation officials said that at about 9 Friday night several cracks in a 14-foot-long wall caused it to become unstable and dangerous.

The retaining wall is holding up a parking lot and is on private property. Although a collapse of the wall does not appear imminent, the structure is failing (map).

The city has closed the eastbound lane of Market Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues, and the northbound lane of Fourth Avenue on the west side between Market and Mill streets.

City crews have placed barricades at the location in order to protect life and property in the event the wall gives way.

The property owner told city officials Friday night that a consultant had been contacted to remedy the situation.

City crews will monitor the location throughout the weekend.

Motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians are advised to stay away from the retaining wall and use the other side of the street.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/...11675090416300
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #728  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2008, 11:50 PM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,707
I drove (in the dark) past what a thought was supposed to be the Backbridge Lofts, and the lot was all fenced off and the building was torn down (huge block between Fremont/Cook and Vancouver/Williams). What is going on there? I thought Backbridge was cancelled? Or is this something else?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #729  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2008, 9:48 AM
timpitts57 timpitts57 is offline
timpitts57
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Portland
Posts: 3
Backbridge was supposed to take up the block north of Fremont between Williams and Vancouver. According to the developer, it is on hold for at least a year.

The block to the south (where you noticed the building gone) was the old Hostess building, and it was bought by a Seattle firm.

Details from the Oregonian in November:

Seattle-based Ivy Street Partners bought the old Hostess distribution facility out of bankruptcy last year on the southwest corner of Williams and Fremont. The project started as a mix of 300-plus condos and apartments, but now they're moving forward with just apartments and ground-floor shops, says Ivy Street's Brendan Lawrence. They're having lead- and asbestos-based paint removed before tearing the building down and must figure out the most cost-effective plan for parking.

Last edited by timpitts57; Feb 3, 2008 at 10:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #730  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2008, 4:28 PM
RED_PDXer RED_PDXer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 710
Lombard MAX Station Area Development Proposal

Got this from the City's website. It's tucked away from Interstate a bit, but across the street from the Fred Meyer I think? I don't know that area that well.. Up to 8 stories!

Proposal:
The applicant seeks design advice on the potential development of three multi-family residential
buildings (one may have some commercial or office use at the ground floor) on 6 adjacent parcels
between N. Montana Avenue and the I-5 freeway. One of the 6 parcels is zoned RHd and the other 5
are proposed to be rezoned RHd in a separate land review case. The resulting site is 333' by 110'.
The site has frontage not only on Montana, but also to N. Buffalo, at the north edge. The east
property line fronts onto an alley, with a concrete soundwall and a planted buffer between the alley
and the freeway. The three buildings progress in height from south to north, with a 4-story, a 5-
story, and then an 8-story volume at the corner. A combination of below-grade parking and some
tuck-under parking at grade is proposed, with about 70% parking spaces as units proposed: 153. A
one-way driveway along the south edge of the site allows for access to the alley, which also is to be
one-way north only, exiting to N. Buffalo. Tuck-under parking is located along the alley and along the
southernmost building edge. The below-grade parking is accessed via a garage opening on N. Buffalo
Street.

The alley is currently unimproved, and the applicants may explore nonstandard improvements in the
alleyway in order to use pervious paving (perhaps in combination with impervious) as well as some
stormwater planter or swale treatments. On-site stormwater strategy includes the use of eco-roofs
(between buildings) and flow-through planters. The Montana Street frontage will also be improved
with stormwater planter treatments.

Modifications to the size of loading space may be requested. It is not yet clear if other Modifications
(or Adjustments) may be necessary. The height allowed within 1000 feet of a transit station is 100',
or 75' outside of this boundary. The site is at least partially within the boundary, and the
northernmost building is proposed at 85 or 90 feet in height. Maximum FAR is 4:1 on the site.

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared....cfm?id=181398
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #731  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2008, 7:29 AM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,707
^ there's a rendering of this project in post #634 of this thread - i like it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #732  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2008, 5:01 PM
tworivers's Avatar
tworivers tworivers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland/Cascadia
Posts: 2,526
I like it too, but I can't imagine how it pencils out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #733  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2008, 6:02 AM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,707
Last week's NW Examiner had a big article on this project. It should come as no surprise that the neighborhood association is "shocked" at the scale of this project, given that they're "shocked" at the scale of every single project that gets proposed in NW.

I suggest we flood the editor with letters in support of this project. His name is Allan Classen. He can be reached at: allan@nwexaminer.com or 2066 NW Irving, 97209.

Unfortunately, I don't have OCR, so here are scans of the article. Unfortunately, the article cuts off in mid-sentence (in the newspaper).

We start with another rendering:



And on to the article:



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #734  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2008, 7:59 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 10,943
okay, I can see why they were shocked...I mean, granted they were probably "bad" shocked and not just shocked. I wasn't expecting 325 ft, I was thinking the project would be more like 125-225ft.

But on the flip side, there is nothing in that area except unused warehouses and parking lots. I love the fact that they point out that the NW district have NOTHING over 10 stories which is a total lie. Hell the neighborhood buts up to all the high rises on Burnside. They are within feet of all the towers being built in the Pearl....this writer just needs a swift kick to the nuts.

my biggest concern is the "affordable housing for families and the elderly." What do they mean by affordable because many developers have a number that I don't see as that affordable to most people. If ConWay is serious about making this a very middle class affordable neighborhood, I say bring on the tall towers to help support that. In no way should the morons oin the NW district turn this city into another San Francisco. If a developer wants to bring affordable density to the city, then I see nothing wrong with that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #735  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2008, 8:20 PM
pdxf pdxf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 186
I don't agree with the height. I love to see tall towers, but we have plenty of room in SOWA, the Lloyd, and especially downtown that should be completed first. I feel like the city will soon just be a solid block of these tall structures which all pretty much look the same and creates a city without focus.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #736  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2008, 8:28 PM
tworivers's Avatar
tworivers tworivers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland/Cascadia
Posts: 2,526
Quote:
...creates a city without focus.
My worry exactly. We're already well down the road, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #737  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2008, 1:19 AM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 6,952
Portland is growing and we have an attractive downtown. Big cities have huge downtowns and I think it is time to expand our idea of what downtown is. It will take Portland 100 years to fill in. Central Eastside, SoWa, Pearl, Lloyd, NW, CBD, Goose Hollow, all IMO downtown...I think what they are building now will bring beautiful historic districts like we see in Old Town to Morrison, early renewal like the auditorium area, 50s to 90s office towers like near the bus mall, and than our generation of neighborhoods. There will always be land for something 'better and newer' in all these neighborhoods, and I believe Portland's long term growth will support a continued filling in of moderate growth turning into a large and vibrant city. We are not sprouting like Vancouver BC so each of these projects will be distinct with decades of architectural styles represented.

I think Portland is focused. We aren't building skyscrapers up Division, and out Barbur, or over on Fremont. But when we have 5 million people we will have many distinct district and downtown will be several miles across in all directions. Also much taller and more dense than today.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #738  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2008, 4:47 AM
tworivers's Avatar
tworivers tworivers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland/Cascadia
Posts: 2,526
Some good news for lower Alberta:

A little project for 'my little darling'

As Northeast Alberta Street evolves, a modest infill project at 13th Avenue is emerging as a signature development.

Alberta Square is the first commercial development for Rambo Halpern (aka The Bungalow Guy), who, in addition to his day job as a real estate agent, developed townhomes at Alberta and 25th.

The project, on the north side of the street, has three phases, with the first framed up, the second on the drawing board and the third a rough sketch.

The small corner lot, once home to a run-down Victorian, will have a two-story building with a pair of ground-floor commercial units and two live-work spaces upstairs that will split a loft deck.

The project, purchased pre-construction for $1.15 million, shares the block with a tattoo parlor, a pet salon and a coffee shop. Phase two, beginning in late spring, will renovate the boarded-up Accuracy Grinding shop with a single-story restaurant and a cafe.

The third installment -- probably with six to eight live-work units and ground-floor commercial space -- will go next-door, replacing a house Halpern owns. The start date is late this year, after phase two is complete.

Project designs will vary but will reflect Halpern's affinity for modern design, with green elements and recycled materials. Alberta Square, he says, gives him a chance to help develop the neighborhood in a way that fits its small scale and local character.

"Alberta has been my little darling."
J. DAVID SANTEN JR.
(Oregonian)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #739  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2008, 12:04 PM
65MAX's Avatar
65MAX 65MAX is offline
Karma Police
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: People's Republic of Portland
Posts: 2,138
Shocked!?!

Try pleasantly surprised. Who in their right mind would bitch about a developer wanting to turn 20 acres of close-in parking lots and old warehouses in a vibrant, attractive urban neighborhood? And exactly who is getting overshadowed there? One church? Give me a f***ing break. Typical NWDA NIMBYism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #740  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2008, 5:13 PM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,707
exactly. they bitched because the riverscape developer wanted to go 20 stories on the river - which is not only further away, but mostly hidden by the bridge from NW residents, so, once word of this gets out further, it'll cause an epidemic of wailing and gnashing of teeth. i just don't get it. do they think they live in the suburbs?? NW is one of the most urban neighborhoods in the city and wishful thinking won't do anything to keep it from changing. and really - they'd rather have dead parking lots than 25-story towers? WTF?!?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 1:32 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.