The Collective on 4th (4th and Harrison) | 175' | 15 floors | Complete

[maccoinnich]

-----------------------------------------------------

From this week's list of land use intakes:

PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE A MIXED DEVELOPMENT WITH RETAIL GROUND LEVEL AND 13-15 STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS ABOVE. CURRENT PLANS ARE FOR A GROCER TO OCCUPY THE ENTIRE GROUND FLOOR AND THE RESIDENTIAL TO BE A MIX OF PRIMARILY STUDENT HOUSING FOR PSU AND MARKET RATE APARTMENTS.

Site is 325 SW Harrison St (beside the Cyan). Applicant is Core Campus LLC. Their work seems to be pretty flashy, for better or worse.

[maccoinnich]

Design Commission approved this today.

[2oh1]

Awesome. Any thoughts on how soon they'll break ground?

[WestCoast]

as noted before, this will reduce my home values (removes my view of the hills, and I'll be looking into someones window).

But I'm still 100% for it.

City needs more density like this, and the open surface lots are just terrible.

Plus, I'll be able to walk to the grocery store now. Love that.


Build Build Build!

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Awesome. Any thoughts on how soon they'll break ground?

They still need to apply for building permits. I wouldn't count on anything less than 6 months.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

They still need to apply for building permits. I wouldn't count on anything less than 6 months.

I am guessing we will see ground breaking sometime in the fall.

[maccoinnich]

I'm currently listening to the DR hearing from yesterday. Three people spoke in favor, including John Russell and Don Stastny. There were a lot of people speaking against, mostly from the adjacent Harrison and American Plaza towers. Given the passion of those against the project, I'd be surprised if this didn't wind up at City Council.

[Sioux612]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

I'm currently listening to the DR hearing from yesterday. Three people spoke in favor, including John Russell and Don Stastny. There were a lot of people speaking against, mostly from the adjacent Harrison and American Plaza towers. Given the passion of those against the project, I'd be surprised if this didn't wind up at City Council.

It seems like every project is facing this.

The PTP group and even condo owners at the Benson are throwing a fit over the office/hotel proposal next to the Ladd.

Groups like this will always slow or stop development.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by Sioux612

It seems like every project is facing this.

The PTP group and even condo owners at the Benson are throwing a fit over the office/hotel proposal next to the Ladd.

Groups like this will always slow or stop development.

If a project complies with the zoning for the site, (i.e. height, FAR, uses), then neighbors should have no say on that aspect of the proposal. You can't legitimately claim a building is too high for a specific site if the zoning specifically allows that height. Any group that tries to block a project for that reason should be summarily rejected. It's a waste of time and money to entertain frivolous nonsense like that when the Code is very explicit.

[maccoinnich]

Actually, I'll add to that: the applicants really didn't like one of the conditions of approval related to active use, and even brought a lawyer to the hearing. Even though the building was approved I could see this being appealed to Council by the applicants.

[Derek]

What was it about the active use that wasn't liked?

[maccoinnich]

Oh, I knew someone would ask that. This is one of the conditions in the staff report [PDF]:

B. The areas indicated on Exhibits C.9 through C.11 shall not include back-of-house functions such as storage, mechanical, and shelving, and the glazing immediately adjacent to these areas shall remain clear and transparent.

Basically the city is trying to ensure that the glassy and transparent lower floors shown in the renderings actually look like that. The developers says that they don't have any intention of doing anything otherwise, but that it's too much of an encumbrance given that the Land Use Review needs to be recorded against the title of the property and that banks may be unwilling to finance the project if it has such a heavy restriction. The lawyer argued that the Design Commission doesn't have the power to regulate interior uses.

On a different but related note: the grocery tenant wanted to have wood cladding at the entry. (Design Commission made them change it to metal, out of concern that it wasn't coherent with the rest of the design). Can anyone think of a grocery chain whose brand standards include the use of wood at the entry...?

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

On a different but related note: the grocery tenant wanted to have wood cladding at the entry. (Design Commission made them change it to metal, out of concern that it wasn't coherent with the rest of the design). Can anyone think of a grocery chain whose brand standards include the use of wood at the entry...?

I thought we already knew it would be New Seasons. Maybe that was just an assumption. Nice to see them opening a store without surface parking for once.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Actually, I'll add to that: the applicants really didn't like one of the conditions of approval related to active use, and even brought a lawyer to the hearing. Even though the building was approved I could see this being appealed to Council by the applicants.

Originally Posted by Derek

What was it about the active use that wasn't liked?

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Oh, I knew someone would ask that. This is one of the conditions in the staff report [PDF]:



Basically the city is trying to ensure that the glassy and transparent lower floors shown in the renderings actually look like that. The developers says that they don't have any intention of doing anything otherwise, but that it's too much of an encumbrance given that the Land Use Review needs to be recorded against the title of the property and that banks may be unwilling to finance the project if it has such a heavy restriction. The lawyer argued that the Design Commission doesn't have the power to regulate interior uses.

On a different but related note: the grocery tenant wanted to have wood cladding at the entry. (Design Commission made them change it to metal, out of concern that it wasn't coherent with the rest of the design). Can anyone think of a grocery chain whose brand standards include the use of wood at the entry...?

Derp. Thanks.

[maccoinnich]

I've heard people say that it's New Seasons, but have yet to see it announced by the company or reported in the press.

[maccoinnich]

Here are the final approved images. This gets the maccoinnich "Most Improved Building" award:

[Derek]

I like this one a lot. I can't wait to see it start going up. Hopefully it doesn't get tied up by special interest groups for too long.

[cailes]

Having lived in that area, I cant see this as anything but an improvement.

People will stand in the way of the most useless stuff...

[maccoinnich]

15-story tower near PSU approved amid zoning debate



A plan to build a 15-story tower near Portland State University with 424 apartments and a ground-floor supermarket won the Portland Design Commission's approval last week, despite neighbors' contention the project may not comply with zoning code.

The commission voted 3-0 to approve the project, by Chicago developer Core Spaces. The property at the northeast corner of Southwest Fourth Avenue and Harrison Street is owned by Portland's Goodman family and is currently a parking lot.

The building has been in the pipeline since 2014, and it took six meetings between the city and developers along with large-scale changes to the design before commissioners were satisfied. Last week's hearing lasted nearly three hours.

...continues at the Oregonian.

[maccoinnich]

Final Findings and Decision by the Design Commission:

http://www.portlandoregon.gov/index....46575&a=567678

Countdown to an appeal (by both sides?) starts... now.