Downtown Portland News

[MarkDaMan]

^The triangle across from Union Station, attached to an apartment complex bordering Naito, is also under construction, another block to scratch off the list.

[Sioux612]

The block directly south of the Portland Plaza building is such a great spot for a high-rise building. It's a shame it's just a surface parking lot.

On the Riverplace area; Marriott is developing the lot behind the Strand buildings but the area I'm more interested in is the large area behind the (new) Marriott plot:

[MarkDaMan]

Could capping Interstate 405 be in Portland's future? Portland City Hall roundup
Published: Friday, May 25, 2012, 10:18 AM Updated: Friday, May 25, 2012, 2:04 PM
By Beth Slovic, The Oregonian

http://blog.oregonlive.com/portlandc...ate_405_b.html

The urban-renewal zone that the Portland City Council approved last week jogs west of downtown to include the Lincoln High School campus.

But to get to Lincoln it also includes a fairly larger cross-section of Interstate 405...

...In a letter to the Portland Development Commission, the Goose Hollow Foothills League says it is interested in "capping at least portions of I-405 to mitigate the effects of transportation infrastructure which ripped through our neighborhood in the 1960s."

The league also writes that it is interested in a different option: "greening the I-405 corridor with urban parks and commercial blocks to significantly increase the value and redevelopment potential of areas that are not benefiting the Portland residents to their full potential."

..Any changes to I-405 would also be a long way off.

There's also no money set aside now in the new urban-renewal zone for capping I-405. But the zone's life extends to 2041, and a lot can change.

[bvpcvm]

To me this seems like such an obvious no-brainer, I can't understand why Katz was so ridiculed for proposing it. Couldn't the city just give away the air rights for free and let developers cap it with buildings?

[edirp]

Violetta is vacating the cool glass box in Director Park. Elephants will take over the space.

[Grantenfuego]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

To me this seems like such an obvious no-brainer, I can't understand why Katz was so ridiculed for proposing it. Couldn't the city just give away the air rights for free and let developers cap it with buildings?

I agree, but I don't think that will happen until all the surface parking lots are built on and the demand for more develop-able land is way higher.

[philopdx]

Originally Posted by edirp

Violetta is vacating the cool glass box in Director Park. Elephants will take over the space.

Too bad, I loved their burgers. Their prices were a little steep though, and I usually ended up going to one of the carts two blocks down, then walked back to the canopy to eat. Might be one of the reasons they are closing shop.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by philopdx

Too bad, I loved their burgers. Their prices were a little steep though, and I usually ended up going to one of the carts two blocks down, then walked back to the canopy to eat. Might be one of the reasons they are closing shop.

I talked to one of the guys there, and they said that the building was too small and they had to make a lot of stuff off site and that they would be somewhat happy to leave.

But yeah their burgers were great.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by Grantenfuego

I agree, but I don't think that will happen until all the surface parking lots are built on and the demand for more develop-able land is way higher.

But you still have to buy or get a very long-term lease on that parking lot. If we could somehow give away the air rights over the freeway, I can't see why developers would hesitate. Of course, the air rights probably belong to the federal government, given that the it's an interstate. But Seattle did it, right?

[Grantenfuego]

I am curious to know how Seattle went about capping I-5, and who paid for it. A large portion of the cap is that monstrosity freeway park, I know the city at least paid for that.

[maccoinnich]

I think Freeway Park is wonderful. It was designed by Lawrence Halprin, who also designed the string of parks in Portland's South Auditorium district, the highlight of which is the Keller Fountain.

[Shilo Rune 96]

Hello - there are still streets with no sidewalks or even pavement in SE Portland. Not to mention there's plenty of room for development in downtown as it is. This would be shameful if completed anytime soon (not that I think it will be).

[eeldip]

Originally Posted by Shilo Rune 96

Hello - there are still streets with no sidewalks or even pavement in SE Portland. Not to mention there's plenty of room for development in downtown as it is. This would be shameful if completed anytime soon (not that I think it will be).

the majority of residents in areas with unimproved roads are opposed to paving. the potholes and gravel are a feature, not a bug.

[Mr. Walch]

While I agree that in the long term capping I-405/I-5 is a fabulous idea, in the short term it is totally uneconomical. While I don't know the real cost difference, the extra complication of spanning the freeway and constructing a building over an active freeway must be great. It would take more than a free give away of development rights to spur development. Currently in Portland the economics don't seem to support building a structure taller than 7 stories and there is if anything an over abundance of developable land in and around downtown that can be easily developed with conventional techniques that developers are comfortable with. It should be telling that there are so few examples of development over freeways save were there were massive amounts of government money spent like Boston's Big Dig.

[edirp]

They're currently capping a portion of a freeway in Dallas, Texas and turning it into a park. This so could work for Portland!

http://www.dallascityhall.com/commit...Deck_Plaza.pdf

[MarkDaMan]

^Just under $68M for the Dallas cap. That doesn't, honestly, strike me as exorbitant.

Originally Posted by Mr. Walch

While I don't know the real cost difference, the extra complication of spanning the freeway and constructing a building over an active freeway must be great. It would take more than a free give away of development rights to spur development.

We hear way to much of this in the comments in mainstream news websites, and too many quotes in news stories about not doing something because of the perceived expense. I'd like to see some numbers before determining if the public support is a worthwhile investment.

Originally Posted by Mr. Walch

It should be telling that there are so few examples of development over freeways save were there were massive amounts of government money spent like Boston's Big Dig.

This would be NOTHING like the Big Dig. Nothing. There are plenty of freeway cap examples. Seattle, Phoenix, LA. Just Google "freeway caps" and you'll find half a dozen examples built, and even more studies underway.

[tworivers]

Personally I love the idea of capping 405 but it just doesn't seem very smart from a development standpoint -- why create even more developable blocks in a city with a surfeit of vacant lots and surface parking lots for single-occupancy vehicles? IMO we need to double down and create disincentives to maintain surface parking lots in the central city before we loosen whatever development pressure there is (not a whole lot) by bringing new blocks into the picture.

Building a public plaza cap sounds much more do-able, maybe on the triangle of land between Burnside and 14th?

If we're going to focus on ameliorating freeway damage I'd rather move forward on tunneling I-5 under the east bank of the river.

[Mr. Walch]

I did not mean to sound so anti. Capping the freeway through the center of Portland would be a great thing and go a long way to righting the horrible wrong of slicing the inner neighborhoods in half and unify the city. I just meant that it does not seem very feasible at this point in Portland's evolution.

I saw on Wikipedia that freeway park was funded by a parks bonds passed as pat of Seattle's/King County's Forward Thrust Bond. Portland could fund a partial cap as part of such an initiative or urban renewal zone. I would still question spending money to create new park space in a pretty well parked part of the city when other parts could use more green space.

[tworivers]

I definitely would not suggest that a capped park/plaza over 405 should be green space. I'd argue in favor of hardscape, maybe something designed by Allied Works and much less programmed than we're used to. I do think that we're over-"parked" but we're not over-public-spaced.

"Forward Thrust Bond"? Can we call ours something else?

[Mr. Walch]

Such a more innocent age...