Byline (1400 NE Multnomah) | 75' | 6 floors | Dead - Page 9

CouvScott · #**161** Posted **Oct 15, 2015, 1:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abide

I don't get the need to make the East/West road through the site accessible to cars. That would be awesome for pedestrians only.

Has anyone ever been to the Stroget in Copenhagen? One of the best examples of a pedestrian shopping street in the world. I was thinking that this could be the dream of NW 13th in the pearl

soleri · #**162** Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 5:08 AM**

I went to the second Design Advice hearing this evening and it didn't go particularly well. The chair David Wark liked most of the changes but not the sky bridges over Hassalo and had questions about the "materiality". Ted Savinar didn't like it period, callinng it "lifestyle architecture", "without soul" and exhibiting "ADD issues". Julie Livingston was a bit more positive than the others. On the other hand, all the commissioners love the diagnonal crossing, and praised the small retail spaces incorporated in the design. Holst declined to schedule another meeting and will take the current product to Design Review next year.

Afterwards I talked to the developer, who was friendly and enthusiastic. I asked him if he was all nervous about the Portland market and he responded that Portland attracts more college graduates than any other city in America despite not having a strong job market. He suggested they have entrepreneurial drive, which will in itself become an economic driver over time. Okay! I then asked him about the movie theaters and whether they'll close once construction begins. He didn't know and didn't really care. Of course, if you have a major construction project going on in your parking lot, you might want to review your business plan. He says the theaters are in negotiations with Cypress, the company that owns Lloyd Center for space in the mall. He also said that a major grocer is interested in their land and he would gladly welcome them. At that point, I got the sense he might not be that keen on building Phase II. One other interesting point he made is that he thought the initial design of the project was much better than the redesign.

maccoinnich · #**163** Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 6:09 AM**

Did Tad Savinar ask what the budget for art is?

soleri · #**164** Posted **Oct 23, 2015, 11:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Did Tad Savinar ask what the budget for art is?

First words out of his mouth.

soleri · #**165** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 10:29 PM**

Apparently Holst and the developers changed their minds. They've scheduled another Design Advice hearing for December 3rd at 1:30 pm.

TowerPower · #**166** Posted **Oct 28, 2015, 7:38 PM**

I still hope they find a way to keep the Lloyd Cinemas. It's not a bad building as far as theaters go, quite nice actually, and as others have said, one of the last close-in movie going options in the city. If they really do build phase II with hi-rises, I suppose it's worth it, but otherwise, keep the theater (only problem is parking...).

maccoinnich · #**167** Posted **Oct 28, 2015, 7:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TowerPower

I still hope they find a way to keep the Lloyd Cinemas. It's not a bad building as far as theaters go, quite nice actually, and as others have said, one of the last close-in movie going options in the city. If they really do build phase II with hi-rises, I suppose it's worth it, but otherwise, keep the theater (only problem is parking...).

This is a daydream, but the Portland Housing Bureau is currently looking for developers for the site at 1010 NE Grand Ave (once the site for one of Joe Weston's projects). With the site comes up to $5.1 million in public financing for affordable housing. The NOFA states a preference for "programming that includes mixed-income or mixed-use or both."

Given the intense zoning on the site, it would be fantastic to see a tower built with a cinema at the lower floors, and a couple hundred units of housing above it. The public financing should be enough to fund around 50 units of affordable housing, and the rest could be market rate.

2oh1 · #**168** Posted **Oct 28, 2015, 10:48 PM**

If 1010 NE Grand Ave became the site for new theaters to replace the ones from inside and outside of the mall, that would be very bad news for the mall. Movie theaters bring so much foot traffic. I can't believe Lloyd Center is willing to let all of that foot traffic go. I say "willing" because they're the ones who tore out the theaters inside the mall (though perhaps that decision was made with horrific bad timing).

cityscapes · #**169** Posted **Nov 23, 2015, 5:57 PM**

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...ml#incart_2box

Quote:

The popular movie theater company Regal Entertainment Group is suing the owner of the Lloyd Center and the developer who wants to build 980 units in the rapidly changing area, according to a lawsuit filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court.

The plaintiff is Eastgate Theatre Inc., a company that listed Regal's corporate headquarters as its address with the Oregon Secretary of State's office. The defendants are Dallas-based Cypress Equities, which owns the Lloyd Center and the property in question, and Portland Lloyd Center Community LLC, a limited liability company associated with Southern California developer Bob Bisno.

Bisno announced earlier this year plans to buy the site of the Regal Lloyd Center 10 & IMAX and the adjacent parking lot and build a 980-unit residential development that would also include retail space and parking for 873 cars.

The lawsuit contends that the parking at the site is "a material term" of Eastgate's lease and "critically necessary" to the use of the property. The theater generates about $6.3 million in annual revenue, the complaint says.

BrG · #**170** Posted **Nov 23, 2015, 11:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Did Tad Savinar ask what the budget for art is?

Choked on my afternoon tea just now, giggling. Stole the thought right outta my head.

It's like he could just record his line of questioning once and play it for all applicants.

urbanlife · #**171** Posted **Nov 24, 2015, 3:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityscapes

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...ml#incart_2box

I saw this lawsuit coming based on how the new owner of that site was acting towards the theater currently sitting on the site. It will be interesting to see how this pans out, though I am guessing the result won't really matter to anyone outside of the money transaction deal that this suit will cause.

maccoinnich · #**172** Posted **Dec 1, 2015, 6:09 AM**

So I just read the complaint filed by Eastgate Theatre, Inc against Cypress Equities. My feeling is that they don't have a winning case.

Under the 1985 contract Regal leases the land under their theater, but not the adjacent parking lot. They have 11 years left on this lease, which is almost certainly why the project is now split up into two phases. Under an amendment to the lease, made in 1986, the Lloyd Center guarantees that "parking that Landlord has available for customers and patrons of Lloyd Center will also be available for utilization, on a non-exclusive and first-come, first- served basis, by patrons of the theater..." It doesn't say anywhere that this has to be the parking provided directly adjacent to the theater. By my reading if they allow Regal patrons to park across the street in the Lloyd Center itself they're meeting the letter of the contract. A lawyer friend of mine says that there is an argument to be made under the concept of negotiating in good faith, however it's a weak one and the mall would probably win in court. Perhaps more likely is that an out-of-court settlement will be reached.

maccoinnich · #**173** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 8:07 PM**

DAR #3 drawings [PDF - 32MB].

58rhodes · #**174** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 8:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

DAR #3 drawings [PDF - 32MB].

interesting

eric cantona · #**175** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 8:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

DAR #3 drawings [PDF - 32MB].

WOW. so different from the initial submission. first impression from the aerial renders is that it somehow looks like it should be in Paris. the renders from the ground make me believe there's some serious Kahn/Salk Institute love going on here.

the lack of height differentiation continues to be the weakest point of this design. not sure how they'll be able to overcome that without giving up some of the 5th flr apartments (4-5 story massing). not sure if this current interation will satisfy the design commission fully.

overall I think this is moving in a very good direction.

urbanlife · #**176** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 9:42 PM**

I will say the single chair balconies look stupid, but overall it does look like it is heading in the right direction when it comes to design and density.

cityscapes · #**177** Posted **Dec 7, 2015, 10:20 PM**

I like it more this time but I think somehow while they made it prettier it looks more monotonous. Each time the facade splays like it does now it always has the same look no matter what side you look at it from.

Abide · #**178** Posted **Dec 8, 2015, 1:41 AM**

I see no reason why they feel they have to have east-west auto access through what could otherwise be a fantastic pedestrian area.

maccoinnich · #**179** Posted **Dec 12, 2015, 2:49 AM**

Memo [PDF] to the Design Commission.

TowerPower · #**180** Posted **Dec 12, 2015, 7:49 PM**

Still not coming together, though the plan is certainly more interesting. Too much monotony. The sum should be greater than the parts. They need to inject some variety, both with height/massing and expression. Can't remember the commissioner that said it at their last hearing, but it basically amounted to if everything is special, nothing is special. And currently the design language isn't that compelling to begin with. It's an ambitious project though, so they probably haven't had as much time to develop it as necessary.