Portland Infill | Northwest Portland

[Aya Murase]

Looks like the architect for the art academy building is Perkins Architectural.
http://www.perkinsarch.com/commercial.shtml

hmmmm.....

[MarkDaMan]

City bets on courtyards
TRIB TOWN • Planning agency contest seeks designs that meld density, family-friendliness
By Anna Johns
The Portland Tribune, Jul 31, 2007

After years of hearing complaints from neighbors, the city of Portland’s Bureau of Planning is taking the first step to encourage real-estate developers to build high-density housing that is family-friendly.

This month, the bureau launched a nationwide design competition for courtyard housing. Traditional courtyard housing rises only two or three stories high and wraps around a courtyard on three sides with all the units opening up to the courtyard.

The fourth side of the courtyard is open to the street.

“As higher density housing is a larger component of new housing, we want to look at how family housing might be part of that mix,” said Bill Cunningham, city planner.

Courtyard housing, Cunningham said, is an obvious choice for families because of the semiprivate courtyard that is shared among neighbors. Courtyard units – with up to three bedrooms and two levels – tend to be larger than many compact condominium units that are popping up throughout Portland.

The city already has courtyard housing complexes sprinkled throughout its neighborhoods. Many of the complexes were built in the 1930s and 1940s, often as affordable housing for families after World War II.

The design competition is meant for lots that are typical for two areas of Portland most likely to experience high-density housing:

• Inner Southeast: 100-foot-square lots, which can accommodate four to 10 units facing a shared courtyard space.

• East Portland: lots 95 feet wide and 180 feet deep can accommodate seven to 17 units facing a shared courtyard space.

Courtyards can be limited to pedestrian-only use or can be mixed-use with narrow streets that provide pedestrian access, but no through traffic. The designs are intended to be on quieter streets in the neighborhoods, not on main business streets where complexes featuring retail on the ground and housing above are most profitable for developers.

Cunningham said courtyard housing is meant to be an alternative to row houses or “skinny” houses that developers are building on those lots.

The advantage to developers, he said, is that they can fit more units on a lot in a courtyard-style development than with row houses. The disadvantage is that courtyard housing developments tend to be better rentals than ownership opportunities because of liability insurance costs.
Resident loves the design

Caroline Skinner has lived in a courtyard housing complex in Northwest Portland for 20 years. She raised her daughter – now college age – in their two-bedroom apartment in the Quimby Court Apartments.

“For years, I’ve been saying the city should get more courtyards like this one,” she said. “I love the design.”

For Skinner, the shared green space provides limited privacy from the road but also provides limited intimacy with the neighbors who live in her building.

Because of the courtyard each of the 16 units in the building are far enough away from one another that no one looks directly into someone else’s living space.

“I’m really glad that Portland is recognizing the seriousness of the situation that housing is just about out of reach for ordinary people,” Skinner said.

In inner Southeast Portland, the word “infill” has a negative connotation. The Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood – which borders the Willamette River, 29th Avenue, and Hawthorne and Powell boulevards – has approximately 100 new condominium units under construction.

“People within this neighborhood and this inner-Southeast area have been concerned for a long time with trying to find a way to take our share of the increased density and hold on to what makes our neighborhood special to us,” said Linda Nettekoven, vice chairwoman of the Hosford-Abernethy Neighborhood Association.
More families wanted

Nettekoven identifies families and local businesses as key assets to her neighborhood. Hosford-Abernethy has seen growth in local businesses along Hawthorne and Division Street, but new families have been slow to move into the neighborhood.

“We’re always nervous about enrollment at the neighborhood schools,” Nettekoven said.

Nettekoven is supportive of the design competition and hopes that the city actively encourages developers to build family-friendly, high-density housing once the contest is complete. And, she said, it will take more than development opportunities to entice families to return to the inner city.

“We need community centers and settings where families can come together,” Nettekoven said. “If families are going to settle for less space so they can live in the city, we need some amenities for them.”

The designs are due Oct. 24. The winner will receive $20,000. Information is at www.CourtyardHousing.org.

annajohns@portlandtribune.com
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/...82942332189500

[MarkDaMan]

this doesn't really go here...it mentions the Gateway project near the end so I'm going to see if I can't find something on portlandonline today.


Design’s early-look process to get closer look from city
Daily Journal of Commerce
by Alison Ryan
08/01/2007


The two Portland commissions that review building design are expected to take a closer look at how well the city’s design advice process works.

The design advice option, introduced in 2003, is a way for developers to get early feedback from the Portland Design Commission or Historic Landmarks Commission on what may be complicated or limit-pushing projects. Unlike design review and the pre-application conference, design advice sessions aren’t mandatory.

Developers pay a flat fee of $1,501 for design advice. City staff says paying a small amount before spending between $7,611 and $24,712 for formal Type III design review is worth the added cost.

“That’s just excellent due diligence,” city planner Tim Heron said.

But commissioners have started to question whether repeat appearances are time well spent. The fee paid covers the entire design advice process, which can involve two or even three appearances before the commissions.

A recent design advice session for a Reach Community Development project on Southeast Division Street had Historic Landmarks Commission members questioning the role of the advice option in the entire process. The project, in its third appearance before the commission, hadn’t changed significantly since the last session, Commissioner Peter Meijer said.

“Basically, they’re looking for approval before they submit to the formal application process,” he said.

Most often, Heron said, projects returning two and three times have undergone significant, fundamental changes along the way. For example, he said, a project in Portland’s Gateway District that began as two five-story buildings with ground-floor retail space has shifted to six stories with no retail component.

As building activity in the central city, historic districts and other areas subject to design review has grown, so has interest in the design advice option. The variety in what’s submitted, in terms of level of detail, accompanying renderings and photographs and plans, is widening as the process becomes more popular.

Design advice is due for a look by both commissions. City review processes are constantly being refined, Heron said, and design advice issues popped up in Historic Landmarks Commission meetings as well as Design Commission meetings.

The process is likely to be on the agenda for commissioners’ yet-to-be-scheduled retreats, typically held once a year in a half-day recorded session.

“We’ve had a lot now to reflect on,” Heron said. “Let’s look at some that weren’t as successful and some that were.”

[MarkDaMan]

dup

[tworivers]

Brian Libby's latest blog post is worth posting here in its entirety. Interesting discussion happening in the comments.

Email From A Frustrated Architect

A few weeks ago I wrote about the small Portland firm William Kaven Architecture and its various housing projects. This week I received a follow-up email from co-principal Daniel Kaven expressing some major frustration at the apparently lengthy process of making his firm’s latest design, a multi-family project in North Portland called the North House, a reality.

The City of Portland actually recently approved the Kaven design on North Vancouver, but it has been appealed by a neighbor near the property. "The proposed development is in a residential zone and therefore should be designed to enhance these existing and predominant features," the appeal argues. "The design is not compatible with the existing structures and neighborhood."

A design review commission hearing this Thursday, August 2 (1900 SW Fourth Ave., Room 2500A) will allow public testimony, and the architects asked me to appeal to the design community to come and support their efforts. It’s not just about the North House, Daniel argues, but the ability of contemporary architecture to get approved in a timely fashion that doesn't let good projects die on the vine.

“The City of Portland has made it excruciatingly difficult to make the most simple changes to its own community-design standards,” he goes on. “I have been sucked into the BDS [Bureau of Development Services] bureaucracy for months now based solely on my attempt to have flat roofs, which exist in order to have more urban space and foster green roof development.”

“The manner in which the City of Portland and neighbors can hold your design hostage has really gotten out of control. There needs to be major changes in the "community design standards" in order to accommodate modern design. Modern housing, which might only slightly deviate from the standards, is slathered in red tape, while awful track housing still gets the green light.”

I present Daniel’s experience not as gospel, because to be honest I hear varying things about city design review and have never been through this process myself. Anyone I’ve ever talked to at the City seems pretty reasonable about crafting a balance between unchecked design freedom and rigid guidelines. But proof is in the project, of course. What do other architects and developers trying to generate contemporary urban infill projects in historic neighborhoods have to say about their experiences?

It seems tempting to cast this, as Daniel has, as evidence of civic growing pains, wherein residents who love their Craftsman bungalows, Tudors and other pitched-roof single family homes see the arrival of contemporary architecture as out of character. I and many others have argued that, done properly, modern buildings and homes fit in easily with historic styles, and the diversity enriches the entire neighborhood. However, with any project there can be a lot of subtle but important details regarding scale and material that can and should be worked out in order to help a modern structure fit into a more historic context or accentuate the pedestrian experience. One of the appeal's other complaints other than the contemporary style had to do with public access and pedestrian integration, which I think may have been better served as a stand-alone argument rather than this "the world is flat" mentality about the place of contemporary architecture.

The city may have certain legitimate concerns about certain details regarding the North House they want to take time to resolve, and quite often the timetables of public and private concerns can be different ones - like two cars on the freeway who belong in the far-left and far-right lanes but have to somehow ride together. But I know William Kaven is not the only architecture firm to express frustration about red-tape. The very term "red tape" is a cliche, after all, because so many people have reached for such shorthand terms over time for government slowness and time-wasting. Does the BDS need more resources to do its job, or are these architects just Kaven to the pressure?

Posted by Brian Libby on July 31, 2007

[pdxman]

The design looks great...but nimbys will be nimbys and of course the city caves in whenever neighbors get involved. ONE person has complained, ONE! and they send it back. Thats ridiculous IMO. The portland process is alive and well and this situation proves it.

[kvalk]

PDXMAN, it would probably be good if you had some basic understanding of the process before making comments such as those. Because apparently you don't.
Now I'm not high on the city processes, but I'm also not a fan of placing blame were it doesn't belong.
One person has appealed, by following the process of the code. The city has done no caving, they actually APPROVED the project. Now the Design Commission will hear the appeal. That's the process, nothing has been sent back.

[hi123]

How iss lane 1919 progresing? Any new pics?

[pdxtraveler]

Originally Posted by hi123

How iss lane 1919 progresing? Any new pics?

I can see it from my desk. I don't think you want pics now, it looks HORRIBLE. I hope once they do the finishing touches it looks good. My fingers are crossed!

[CouvScott]

Thursday, August 02, 2007
By Fred Leeson
Special to The Oregonian

Barely more than three years ago, the City Council expressed high hopes for the block bounded by Southeast 102nd and 103rd avenues between Burnside and Ankeny.

It had the potential, the city said, to become a gateway to the Gateway District. So the council gave it a zoning label that would allow a building height of 150 feet -- say, 12 or 13 stories.

What will come to this block, however, is a senior housing complex of three and four stories. And that's just fine, city and neighborhood officials say.

"Conditions for redevelopment are very difficult," says Justin Douglas, a project coordinator for the Portland Development Commission. He says incomes in the area are declining, and unpaved streets and a lack of parks discourage major developers.

The "gateway" block -- vacant except for a house that will be removed -- soon will become the third phase of Russellville, a development that began in 1999 after the Rembold Cos. bought what was then a vacant school site in 1995.

The latest, and final, phase will contain 139 units for senior residents, including 17 group-living units for seniors suffering from memory disabilities.

Four wings will frame a central courtyard. The Burnside and 103rd Avenue facades will be four-story, flat-roofed structures. The southern and western sides will have three stories topped with pitched roofs and gables.

Robert Moreland, a principal in MCM Architects, says a pedestrian link across 103rd will allow senior residents in Russellville II to use fitness and dining facilities in the new building.

While not as urban (read dense) as planners had once hoped, Moreland says the new block will help create a defined district within Gateway.

"The new development reflects a lot of the patterns and motifs of the existing development," he says. "We feel our neighborhood is developing a pedestrian feel, and what we are doing will be a continuation of that. We think it is a community that really works."

With a nod to the city's planning goals, the Burnside frontage has a more urban look, with its flat roof and a horizontal Art Moderne feel. Moreland's plan turns the corner at 102nd with a bold curve that will add visual interest before the pitched roofs march down the rest of 102nd.

The pitched roofs raised some eyebrows on the Portland Design Commission. But Linda Robinson, vice chair of the Hazelwood Neighborhood Association, says neighbors like the residential feel of the pitched roofs and gables.

"Some feel it might not be urban enough," she says of the plan, "but it's a big step from what's there now. It's really tough to put in big fancy new buildings when there's nothing there now."

Douglas of the PDC says the completion of Russellville has the potential to attract more development to the Gateway urban renewal area.

Wayne Rembold, head of the development team, says the first two phases filled slowly. He thinks the third phase will fill faster with seniors who already live in Southeast but who need assisted care.

Final approval of the plan is expected from the design commission later this month. Construction should begin soon thereafter. "We have our phase three financing, and we're ready to go," Rembold says.

[MarkDaMan]

Neighbor’s appeal of modern North Portland design denied
Daily Journal of Commerce
by Alison Ryan
08/06/2007


A neighbor’s appeal of a three-story modern triplex project in North Portland was denied Thursday by the Portland Design Commission.

The project’s slice of land on North Vancouver Avenue sits in a neighborhood of layered context: the front porches and intense detail of historic residences, and the boxes and utility of commercial use.

“It needed to be the transitional element between the residential element and what will surely be a very big commercial development,” said designer Daniel Kaven of William Kaven.

Stacked squares of glass and true cement stucco, three stories for each of the three units, are accented by stretches of ipe in Kaven’s design for the building. Living spaces are contained in the first and second stories; the third stories are large green roof decks.

The solution offers a creative, modern transition between the commercial and the residential, commissioners said. Kaven’s design is an integrated, sensitive response in a “well-orchestrated” piece of architecture, commission Chairman Lloyd Lindley said.

“You do have a historical view of development over time,” Jeff Stuhr said. “This is truly going to be a building that’s of it’s time.”

As developers and designers target infill lots in Portland’s grown-up neighborhoods, existing residents say buildings of their time can be too much: too big, too modern and too expensive.

The proposed design, said Deadra Hall, the neighbor appealing the approval, encroaches on neighboring properties, doesn’t fit within the visual flow of existing residences, and will ultimately usher lower-income residents out of North Portland.

“Mr. Kaven’s design is insulting and only serves to satisfy his creative appetite,” Hall said.

The project was approved by staff in the city’s type II review process, in an effort that involved much back-and-forth between staff and the design team, said city planner Justin Fallon Dollard. Changes like the addition of a front porch and front entry door, he said, helped move the project within the community design guidelines.

The end result, he said, “is probably the greenest triplex we’ve ever seen.”

Some of the neighborhood concerns, said commissioner Gwen Millius, are generated as by-products of sustainability efforts. Flat roofs create green roof opportunities. Higher density in an urban corridor means fuller use of infill lots.

“Architecture does have to evolve, and we have to allow it to accommodate certain values that as a city we’re trying to embrace,” she said.

But installing such a project could, residents said, change the dynamic of the neighborhood itself. Keeping the neighborhood a neighborhood, 25-year resident Bernice Dunn said, is her main concern.

“Not structure, life there,” she said. “Life.”

Commission vice-chairman Michael McCulloch said that future residents of the new triplex are likely to be attracted, and contributors, to the neighborhood character.

“I’m hoping you don’t think higher density, as such, creates a lack of neighborhoods,” he said.
http://www.djcoregon.com/viewStory.c...29886&userID=1

[tworivers]

I'm glad the Design Commission made the right choice.

It'd be a shame to see quality contemporary design like this get squashed when the crap they're building over on Cupola Blvd (aka MLK) gets through no problem. Yes, each of the three new buildings that the PDC has had a hand in --Fremont corner, Heritage Bldg, and Vanport-- feature cheap-looking cupolas, I'm guessing as a nod to neighborhood provincialism.

“Mr. Kaven’s design is insulting and only serves to satisfy his creative appetite”

I love that line. Man... Portland is the wrong place to be marrying creativity and architecture, I guess...

[zilfondel]

That is why I'm not crying when old-school Portlanders move to Gresham. People with the mentality of a Jack Bog don't have anything to contribute positively (to anything), IMO.

Let 'em move.

[Eagle rock]

Jack Bog isn't even from Portland. He is from New Jersey or something. Don't forget that many visionary old school Portlanders established the policies and principals that define Portland today and brings newcomers into the city.

[EastPDX]

there are progressives living here in Gresham. You do generalize, my friend. We love being closer to Nature and still be able to get to PDX on MAX or stay local at our home grown resturants in Old Town Gresham.

By the way, are you a Native Oregonian? Some of us NO's like staying close to family, friends, and our roots. Some of us have been environmentalists since the Sixties because our Faith taught us to honor Creation. Some of us treasure Love, Creation, and Others.

Some of us progressive Christians go to our local churches and stay away for the corporate mega-churches. There are many of us in East County my friend including our Native American Associate Pastor. He teaches us alot about God's Creation.

Is it strange to you to have someone call themselves a progressive and talk about Creation?

EP

[zilfondel]

^ Yea, I'm a native. Born in Corvallis, didn't grow up in P-town.

My post wasn't meant to say anything about Gresham, just that a lot of people are fleeing Portland to move to the burbs... and I don't really give a **** that they are moving.

My parents were LA escapees. And considering I grew up in small-town Oregon surrounded by religious nuts and Mormons, I'd prefer to stay as far from any religiously minded people as possible. Thanks, tho.

[Okstate]

Is the Mormon influence very strong in PDX?

[Eagle rock]

I think it should be a concern that native Portlanders are moving to the suburbs. I think this trend will ultimately hollow out the city into just a bunch of rootless transplants that may not really even care about the city. Old native Portlanders add richness and character to the city and when they leave they take pieces of the cities history with them.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the new people who have moved into Portland have had a tremendously positive effect on the city and are responsible for much of the culture and vibrancy. But I have heard these anti native Portlander sentiments from lots of newcomers and I think that is kind of a messed up mentality.

I am a native but I have lived in California for the last 5 years so I am sure people down here might feel the same way about me.

[zilfondel]

^ The people that are moving are the ones that generally don't give a rat's ass about Portland. Those that are staying are the ones that have the passion... as do many of the new 'immigrants.'

Or have you not noticed? After living here a few years, the change is about as noticeable as it is to be struck by a semi at 60mph.

==

Mormons in PDX? Nope. I have yet to meet any... I was talking about a small town that shall remain nameless.

[brandonpdx]

phu-lease. I'm a native and I live in the heart of the city and I'm not going anywhere. A lot of people that are moving to Portland are of a like mind in our common values. we have maintained not being very politically diverse for better or for worse.
I appreciate your concern, but the sky is not falling.