Portland Infill | North Portland

[maccoinnich]

“It’s like when a guy is always complaining to his wife because she never cleans the house, so he decides to bring home a bouquet of flowers,” she said. “She puts the bouquet on the table and notices the clutter on the table, so she cleans it. Then she notices the clutter on the ground around the table and cleans that.”

Wow. Just... wow.

[65MAX]

Yeah, wow. Nothing sexist about that at all. And coming from a woman no less. She's obviously stuck in the '50s.

Here's an idea... how about the "guy" clean up his own f***ing mess.

[jaxg8r1]

I think you both are reading way too much into this...

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by jaxg8r1

I think you both are reading way too much into this...

I don't think so. The 'flowers' comment is just plain ignorant and sexist, though I'm sure Don Draper would approve. That's not to say the point she was so poorly trying to emphasize isn't valid though. In the same sense that nothing draws a crowd like a crowd, development is a great way to spur development.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by jaxg8r1

I think you both are reading way too much into this...

I second that.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

I don't think so. The 'flowers' comment is just plain ignorant and sexist, though I'm sure Don Draper would approve. That's not to say the point she was so poorly trying to emphasize isn't valid though. In the same sense that nothing draws a crowd like a crowd, development is a great way to spur development.

That was such a poor example that I had to reread it because I was confused what that paragraph had to do with the article. Shame on the editor for not hitting the delete button on that one. Maybe someone needs to take some journalism classes.

[maccoinnich]

Well, I thought it came across as incredibly regressive, whether it came from a woman or not. It's definitely a very poorly chosen simile though, because rather than discussing the merit of the point, we're debating the choice of words.

[MarkDaMan]

Boise Neighborhood Association fights scope of proposed North Williams apartments
Published: Thursday, July 12, 2012, 5:50 PM Updated: Thursday, July 12, 2012, 6:40 PM
By Casey Parks, The Oregonian

http://blog.oregonlive.com/portland_...sociation.html

After six months of discussions with architects, the Boise Neighborhood Association has curbed the scope of an apartment complex slated to take up a block on North Williams Avenue.

The complex will now have eight fewer units than first proposed, according to documents filed last week.

But changes to the development formerly known as The Rachel are just a brief win in the association’s fight to keep the avenue the way it prefers. The group has moved on to appealing another Williams Avenue apartment complex, The Payne. The city approved its design in late June.

“We are doing the best we can to attempt to keep the new development within a scale appropriate for our neighborhood,” said James Weter, the association’s land-use co-chairman. “Unfortunately, the city and many developers have a different idea of what our neighborhood should be.”

For the complex formerly known as The Rachel, developer Jack Menashe and LRS Architects initially proposed one 350-foot-long, 84-unit building stretching from Northeast Mason Street to Skidmore Street. Under that design, the whole building would have been four stories.

The Boise Neighborhood Association fought back. In January, neighbors asked Menashe to break the development into two buildings. The city agreed that a two-building development would be better.

“It’s a long site,” said Trish Nixon of LRS. “They felt like it would feel smaller as two buildings.”

The latest proposal, which LRS has submitted for review, has 76 units. It is broken into two buildings and includes a variety of heights. The north building is five stories. The south building is mostly four stories, but it steps down to three stories at the southeast corner facing Northeast Cleveland Avenue and down to one story at the southwest corner facing Williams.

“This is how the design process works,” Nixon said. “You start somewhere. And you massage it, and you work through it. You end up with a better result than where you started. We incorporated a lot of their comments. We feel like the overall result is improved design.”

The neighborhood hasn’t officially reviewed the latest plans. Neighborhood co-chairman Ted Buehler said that although the plans were an improvement over initial drafts, the association hadn’t formed its official opinion yet.

The approval process for that development will take all summer. In the meantime, the neighbors will be working on their appeal of The Payne, which is slated for the corner of North Beech Street.

Neighbors have met with developers, Payne Apartments LLC, since January. In several meetings, Buehler says, the residents asked for commercial spaces on the ground floor, design features that complement the neighborhood, and a height limited to three or four stories.

The developers ignored their requests, Buehler says, and the city’s Bureau of Development Services approved the design June 21 for the four- and five-story, 19-unit building at 3703-3709 North Williams Ave.

The appeal, which the association filed with the city Tuesday, alleges that the proposed development does not meet community design guidelines and limits commercial use by moving entrances off North Williams Avenue. The design guidelines offer eight techniques for blending into a neighborhood. Those include incorporating elements and details found in nearby structures, dividing large walls into smaller planes, complementing the scale of surrounding buildings and planting new landscaping. The Payne doesn’t use any of the techniques, the appeal says.

Agustin Enriquez, an architect with GBD Architects who worked on The Payne, declined to comment on the appeal. The Portland Design Commission will hold the appeal hearing Aug. 16.

Buehler said the association is not anti-development. It wants to see innovative designs and new buildings in the neighborhood.

“We really want to see these vacant lots get filled in,” he said. “We just don’t want to see them get filled in with buildings that have no amenities for the neighborhood, that have no employment and have higher streetscapes than would normally be on a Portland street.”

[bvpcvm]

The project formerly known as The Rachel:



Link to larger version

[65MAX]

"The developers ignored their requests, Buehler says, and the city’s Bureau of Development Services approved the design June 21 for the four- and five-story, 19-unit building at 3703-3709 North Williams Ave."

The developers don't have to obey your requests. You don't own the property, you aren't the builder or the architect, the property is being developed based on existing zoning, codes, height limits, etc., etc. You probably can't even see this building from your house. You have no vested interest in this. Nobody gives a s*** if you think the building is too high, or too modern, or too dull, or too whatever. It's not your decision..... butt out.

"Buehler said the association is not anti-development."

Oh sure..... as long as all these new developments are done the way YOU want them to be done.

F***ing NIMBYs.... Hate 'em, hate 'em, hate 'em.

[Mallory2008]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

F***ing NIMBYs.... Hate 'em, hate 'em, hate 'em.

Advocating for good design makes someone a NIMBY? You hate that the City-sanctioned neighborhood association is asking a developer to expand active ground floor uses on what is becoming a very vibrant streetscape? Hate hate hate?

What about the Beaumont NA? They convinced a developer to add ground level retail on Fremont. Do you hate hate hate them too?

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by Mallory2008

Advocating for good design makes someone a NIMBY?

If that was all he was doing, fine, no problem. That's not what he's doing though. Read the article. He's saying the developers "ignored" his requests, because they didn't change their project to suit him.

It didn't occur to him that they probably DID, in fact, listen to his requests and determined them to be unnecessary, or even poorly thought out, and therefore not worthy of changing the whole project? Just because a neighborhood association makes a suggestion, doesn't mean they're good suggestions.

Some requests, like splitting the 350' long building into two parts, or adding ground floor retail on Fremont, I agree with. Great suggestions. Very reasonable and common sense. Bravo. But limiting building heights because a couple of neighbors are uptight about 4-5 story buildings. Sorry... not on a major corridor like Williams/Vancouver.

So people like Buehler who think they own a street or neighborhood and try to tell other owners what they can and can't do with their own property.... yeah, hate 'em. That's why we have zoning, design guidelines, codes, height limits, etc. If a development is within those parameters, and they pass the city's design review, then they're totally within their rights to agree or disagree with NIMBY neighbors.

[tworivers]

Wow, talk about a classic debate. I often find myself riding around thinking "holy shit, we need more regulation to prevent idiots from doing things like this (fill in the blank)". Then I find myself thinking "dude, these NIMBYS/neighbors/Historic Landmarks Commission/etc. need to NOT stand in the way of good design/smart engineering/progressive urban planning/etc!".

This sort of thing came to a head in my neighborhood (King) recently when a developer decided to build a 7-11 on a vacant lot on MLK. The neighbors, rightfully, had all sorts of worries, particularly around traffic patterns. Everyone would have preferred something other than a suburban-looking convenience store that sells junk food and caters to people in cars zooming by on MLK. But the zoning supported it and the developers ignored them. It's u/c right now.

Another example IMO is the Williams Ave re-design. What a convoluted process with terrible, half-assed results. PBOT needed to put their foot down early in the process and say "look, either an auto lane or a parking lane is going away and we're doing a right-side separated cycle track from the Rose Qtr to Skidmore -- your input is valued but this is the baseline that we're starting with". Instead we have another example of the Portland "process" going haywire.

And speaking of Williams, the "Rachel" just looks like a mess now. And the neighbors I'm sure are still unhappy because they really just don't want too much density in their neighborhood. Which makes me furious a la 65MAX.

On the other hand, look at the CRC. What happens when the (highway-oriented) engineers go wild and undermine public participation from day 1?

I am without answers, other than putting me in charge of the world.

[trekkerguy]

Wow, frikkin ridiculous. That's a nice design for an apartment complex, and we need more multilevel housing here in Boise to condense the city. Disappointing.

[New Madrid]

Originally Posted by trekkerguy

Wow, frikkin ridiculous.

yes.

Originally Posted by trekkerguy

That's a nice design for an apartment complex

no.

Originally Posted by trekkerguy

we need more multilevel housing here in Boise to condense the city.

no one either here or in that article is disagreeing with you.

but if you don't think that building is an eyesore - well, just take a walk over to "tupelo alley" on mississippi and see what an out of scale, poorly detailed and cheaply built building does to what had the potential to be a great street.

I think that what people like the neighborhood association don't realize is that there are plenty of reasons architects choose simple facades and less complicated massings. The more the developer and their designers are forced to complicate their design the more money will be wasted on meaningless alterations instead of investing that money in a quality building.

That being said - there was no way that building was ever going to be anything but garbage - so appeal away.

[trekkerguy]

I really don't see what's so horrible about that design, not too often apartment buildings here get attached retail either. But to each their own.

[Derek]

I don't see anything wrong with the design either.

[maccoinnich]

Well, lets start with the ridiculous cutout at the corner.

[jaxg8r1]

I'd be willing to bet that they'll have no problems renting the building out....perhaps not to some architects, but it will be fine for that neighborhood.

[zilfondel]

I think the building could have been designed a lot better. Couple of things are killing it: the cutout corner, the use of brick on the bottom, and that hideous parking entrance could have been designed much more seamlessly.