Washington County (Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard, Forest Grove, etc.) - Page 13

Sekkle · #**241** Posted **Sep 22, 2011, 1:42 AM**

image pulled from http://www.djc.com/news/co/12033395.html

This project is a couple blocks from my house, so I should be able to provide some photos during construction if anyone is interested. It's a block from the Orenco/NW 231st MAX station, one of a few remaining lots between the MAX line and Cornell Rd, where the Orenco Station "Town Center" area is located. They have the lot fenced off and have been moving dirt for a couple weeks now. I'm happy to see this getting underway, as it's the first thing built at Orenco since 2007 or 2008.

It was designed by LRS Architects, which I know many on here seem not to be too fond of. This is the first rendered drawing I've seen and it's fine with me. I don't know anything about architecture, I'm just happy to see something built on this lot, especially something with a few retail spaces on the ground floor.

Here's a link to a City of Hillsboro development notice with a PDF showing the site plan. http://www.ci.hillsboro.or.us/Planni...es/ddp2-11.pdf

JoshYent · #**242** Posted **Sep 22, 2011, 3:18 AM**

So excited =D

NJD · #**243** Posted **Sep 22, 2011, 3:43 AM**

^^ Better than some developments in that area*. I think it will be good for that location.

*From an urban design or architecture perspective this thing can be seen as terrible, cheap and defeating. If Orenco Station wasn't previously made into such a poster child for 'urbanism' this kind of project would be more welcome, but as it stands today the Orenco area will never be an actual urbanist success in most designers, planners and architects eyes. The developers are following basic suburban market rules: prefab construction, off-the-shelf design, loads of car parking, dull color palette, hodgepodge of faux architectural elements, etc... no surprises here. The ground floor retail aspect is great for the continuation of the original Orenco Station Blvd. design, especially closer to the actual MAX station.

I believe we will only be able to truly judge the success of Orenco after 20-30 years of people actually living there, and build outs like this only improve the area.

I welcome any photo updates on this project, it'll be interesting to see how it comes together. Thanks for the info!

2oh1 · #**244** Posted **Sep 22, 2011, 5:55 AM**

I always wanted to live in an outlet mall. Where's the food court? </snark>

That comment is strictly about the design. Ugliness aside, this is a good thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJD

I believe we will only be able to truly judge the success of Orenco after 20-30 years of people actually living there, and build outs like this only improve the area.

Absolutely.

eric cantona · #**245** Posted **Sep 23, 2011, 3:45 PM**

Architecturally this is horrific, but typical of the area. I'm too lazy to look up Hillsboro design standards for Orenco Station, but I'd guess that there are requirements to lessen massing by using different materials and colors to make a large building look like several different structures. To me this will always produce designs that are, at their core, dishonest. Everything ends up looking fake, like walking down Main Street, USA at Disneyland. I'm sure architects more concerned with rigor and aesthetics (LRS? Ha!) could come up with a more innovative solution, but at it's heart the development still relies on deception to alleviate a perceived negative (bigness).

For me, the sad thing is that we're producing more urban developments in the suburbs (the good) but those jurisdictions continue to codify this level of design response (the ugh). Throw in a developer who could give two shits about design and an architecture firm with little/no imagination and we'll continue to see this type of development.

RED_PDXer · #**246** Posted **Sep 25, 2011, 8:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric cantona

I'm too lazy to look up Hillsboro design standards for Orenco Station, but I'd guess that there are requirements to lessen massing by using different materials and colors to make a large building look like several different structures.

It really is ironic that this is the outcome. The zoning regs favor large lot development and actually require it in many ways (parking requirements, ever increasing minimum lot sizes, higher densities with large lots, etc.). Yet planners attempt to also require developments to not look so bulky and simulate the type of development that would occur naturally in a built up urban area over time. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Sekkle · #**247** Posted **Sep 28, 2011, 2:36 PM**

a quick article about this on the Oregonlive website...
http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/...n_new_mix.html
In addition to the retail space, it mentions "a recreation center, a clubhouse, swimming pool and sports field." A recreation center and "clubhouse" I could see... and possibly a small pool (though I doubt it, and don't see it on the site plan), but a sports field? Unless they're building a small putting green or something, I don't see how there's any room for a field on this site.

Anyway, here are some drawings for your critiquing enjoyment (from a PDF found here)...

MarkDaMan · #**248** Posted **Sep 30, 2011, 7:08 PM**

45 Central begins site work for Beaverton mixed-use development
Published: Friday, September 30, 2011, 6:00 AM Updated: Friday, September 30, 2011, 9:29 AM
Dominique Fong, The Oregonian

BEAVERTON -- In the past month, bulldozers have crushed the last of a former mobile home park and torn away graffiti-marked fences on vacant land across from Nike headquarters.

They're clearing the way for 45 Central, a 26-acre mixed-use development that could include office space, housing, a hotel and shops.

The property, formerly known as Murray Village, at the corner of Southwest Jenkins Road and Murray Boulevard has an assessed value of $5.8 million and was annexed into the city in March 2010.

Though developers Metropolitan Land Group and Edwin Kawasaki have not confirmed an official groundbreaking date, construction equipment has been busy.

"Infrastructure is being put in," said Don Mazziotti, the city's director of community development. "They intend to begin building demo units and a clubhouse that will serve the development in the near future."

The city is paying for the initial groundwork to meet the developers' tight, aggressive timeline, according to staff reports.

In August, the city approved spending $800,000 of water contingency funds for a contract with Landis and Landis Construction of Marylhurst. The company is building a 2,900-foot-long off-site pipe extension that will connect the city's water system to that of the development.

The pipe may eventually also serve undeveloped land south of Jenkins Road, between 153rd Drive and Murray Boulevard, according to staff reports.

In addition, developers will receive water "credits" for building an on-site pipeline. The credits will be applied against system development fees that the city charges on new construction.

Developers already have $146,284 in water credits they previously negotiated with Tualatin Valley Water District.

Once improvements to the water system are complete, the developer expects to begin building 140 condos and 220 detached homes in clusters, no later than Nov. 1, city documents show. The high-density development includes more residences than the former Beaverton Mobilodge, which had 225 homes and closed four years ago.

"We're still on schedule to start vertical construction," said John O'Neil, vice president of Metropolitan. "We anticipate residents, homebuyers, in the spring."

Preliminary plans for the detached housing aim for a neighborhood feel, according to Matt Sprague of SFA Design Group.

Plans include homes with porches, columns and balconies. Condos will range between 500 and 1,300 square feet, and cost up to $170,000.

Single-family homes, 1,500 to 2,400 square feet, will be priced at $230,000 to $350,000 and have three or four bedrooms, according to Megan Talalemotu, a real estate broker at Crandall Group.

Interest has already boomed among young professionals who work at Nike, Intel and Tektronix, Talalemotu said.

Trees will be planted to screen the neighbors who live in single-family homes north of the development, and third-floor balconies have been nixed to assure that privacy, according to Don Sowieja of Myhre Group Architects.

45 Central residents will be within the boundaries of the Beaverton School District and the Five Oaks/Triple Creek neighborhood association. The Merlo Road MAX station is less than a mile away.

The second phase of construction -- developers have not confirmed a date -- includes 116,000 square feet of commercial development, managed by Kawasaki of Beaverton Mobilodge.

Mazziotti said the second phase would include either a hotel or office building.

No plans have been proposed yet, Mazziotti added. Documents show a preference for boutique-style shops, rather than franchise stores. Developers said the largest building would be 80,000 square feet.

-- Dominique Fong

http://www.oregonlive.com/beaverton/...e_work_fo.html

MarkDaMan · #**249** Posted **Sep 30, 2011, 7:14 PM**

from http://www.45central.com/photos.html

NJD · #**250** Posted **Oct 1, 2011, 5:18 PM**

^Well, look at all that 'new urbanism:' high density, mixed use, mixed architecture, homes fronting non-auto pathways, playground, community assets, street fronting businesses, connecting existing street grid, near a school, near mass transit, near major employers, etc... there is a sea of auto parking (suburban market driven by 80 years of government regulations), and an overall feel of mundaneness, but a good project nonetheless.

2oh1 · #**251** Posted **Oct 1, 2011, 5:54 PM**

Note that the condo section of the development isn't connected to anything but parking lots, as if people who own want nothing to do with people who rent.

zilfondel · #**252** Posted **Oct 2, 2011, 1:32 AM**

360 units on 26 acres = 13.8 units/acre, not all that dense. They should phase in the condo buildings so they can eventually fill it in with more units.

NJD · #**253** Posted **Oct 2, 2011, 11:07 PM**

Sarcasm does not come out well when typing...

I need a new term for 'new urbanism' projects like this, i.e. a word that describes how non-urbanist it actually is... "greenwashing" is perfect for faux-sustainable building (LEED certification), so perhaps "urbanwashing" or "new suburbanist" or "bandwagon suburbia" or "new autocentricity" or ... ...

I feel very critical about projects like this, but at the same time I feel like it's a step in the right direction (but, just A step).

jaxg8r1 · #**254** Posted **Oct 3, 2011, 9:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel

360 units on 26 acres = 13.8 units/acre, not all that dense. They should phase in the condo buildings so they can eventually fill it in with more units.

Thats very dense for suburban standards. Approximately 9000 units per square mile (and at a reasonable 2-3 people per unit, almost 20000 ppsm). Sure, its not quite where we would want it to be. But I'll take it.

Also, its ugly.

zilfondel · #**255** Posted **Oct 4, 2011, 12:51 AM**

I don't understand why these developments inevitably always have a swimming pool. Who in this state actually has a pool? I have yet to meet anyone.

eric cantona · #**256** Posted **Oct 4, 2011, 4:10 PM**

to quote the movie "suburbia":

the slums of the future

bvpcvm · #**257** Posted **Oct 5, 2011, 4:04 AM**

^ i think this is a point that's frequently forgotten. any time you have a large development like this (and i suppose this applies somewhat to sowa as well), the whole thing ages and becomes obsolete at the same time, when tastes change. you don't get that in the city where you have a diversity of styles and eras. look at east multnomah county; it's not a subdivision, but, like a subdivision, it was mostly built up in the 40's and 50's and a huge portion of the housing stock out there just isn't what people are looking for. consequently it can't command the prices houses closer in can and it's replaced north portland as the area's ghetto. we can only guess what people will be looking for in 20 or 30 years but unless this development happens to fit well with what they want, it too will be part of the area's slums. and without that actual urban diversity it won't have the resilience urban areas have.

RED_PDXer · #**258** Posted **Oct 5, 2011, 6:17 AM**

The problem here is single-use zoning. This is no different than any other suburb. Is it really a mixed-use development just because there's multiple uses on the entire 26 acre site? I can pull 26 acres from bumfuck most places and come up with two different types of land uses. It's also a joke to call single-family homes high density. A developer could double the density and still end up with single-story courtyard apartments. This development barely exceeds the minimum average density sought by Metro.

Not saying this development is horrible or inappropriate for its location, but it's hardly noteworthy, even for Beaverton.

MarkDaMan · #**259** Posted **Oct 6, 2011, 2:54 AM**

Any development in 2011 is noteworthy. I miss the days of posting 10 stories about towers a day, but times have changed.

Perhaps for the better?

It's good to look at these infill projects in our suburbs and see what they are doing right, and see what can be improved.

davehogan · #**260** Posted **Oct 15, 2011, 7:55 AM**

The only reason I can see for the layout of the retail and parking lots is for land banking. In the future the developer probably feels that road facing area can be redeveloped into a more mixed use environment. If that area grows as much as it could given the available spaces nearby, they could eventually redevelop some of the parking/retail areas along the main road into offices or condos over retail.

I'd be interested to know who owns the retail land and parking once construction is complete. If it's the developer, they probably have a reason for leaving so much parking in place for now. It would make sense why the retail and residential is split so cleanly by the street as well.

If the land value increases enough some parking garages mixed into redeveloping the area occupied by the retail (which generates revenue for now) could be a great investment. It might be 40 years out, but it seems like a possibility to create that layout.