The Weave | Dead

Dougall5505 · #1 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 1:29 AM**

Pre-Application Conference: http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/in...162448&c=42264

Proposal:

The proposal is to demolish the existing structure located at 1300-1308 W Burnside Street. A new mixed-use tower is proposed. Five options are proposed. Options A, B, and C all include ground floor retail and three floors of below grade parking. For all options an automated parking system is proposed

Option A:
a 12-story tower condo tower with ground floor retail.

Option B:
a 17-story tower with ground floor retail, 4 floors of studio
space, a restaurant level that extends over the top of the adjacent
property to the west, and 11 floors of condo units.

Option C:
Option C is also for a 17-story tower with ground floor retail, 5 floors of
hotel space, a restaurant that extends over the top of the adjacent property to the west, and 11 floors of condo units.

Option D:
a 17-story tower with the first two floors retail, below grade storage, 3 levels of above-grade parking, a restaurant that extends over the top of the adjacent property to the west, and 11 floors of condo units.

Option E:
28-story tower that includes ground floor retail, below grade storage, 4 levels of parking, a restaurant that extends over the top of the adjacent property to the west, and 22 floors of condo units.

Obviously the above ground parking is not ideal but 28 stories...anyway can't wait for a real render

PacificNW · #2 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 3:01 AM**

I hope Skylab, and the developer, mutually have the desire to "push the envelope" architecturally. This project could really be a showcase for them..

sirsimon · #3 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 2:42 PM**

I vote for option "E".

Well. Glad it's settled.

PacificNW · #4 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 2:52 PM**

It looks like it's going to be built on the Eagle bar site........

CUclimber · #5 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 4:46 PM**

It's hard not to vote for Option E. It does look like it'll be even skinnier than The Benson though.

MarkDaMan · #6 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 4:59 PM**

That is a small site, it should be an interesting tower!

cab · #7 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 5:08 PM**

Who owns the more appropriate site for this building, the surface parking lot right next to this awkward site? Are would be developers so desperate for buildable land that they are forced to use small sites like this?

pdxtraveler · #8 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 5:39 PM**

I actually like the idea that there is still a building site on the block. I think multiple buildings are much more interesting the 1 huge building per block. So definitely go with the small lot.

cab · #9 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 5:43 PM**

Yeah, but the Surface parking lot stays. This building replaces a functioning building rather then an obvious eyesore. I'm wondering if this is another example of developers bending over backwards to find land to build because most of the prime underused land is locked up in surface parking lots with an owner who refuses to sell.

PDX City-State · #10 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 6:20 PM**

Cab: I know how passionate you are about this surface parking thing, but once again:

Surface parking lots provide an easy revenue stream for land that will one day be developed. Older low-rises often do not, in fact, they're often an expense. As much as I too would like to see the surface lots built out before any building is razed, that's just not the way it goes. If you owned one, you probably wouldn't sell it either--and you certainly wouldn't develop before a property that was costing you money. The Goodmans own that lot, and they will one day develop it.

zilfondel · #11 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 6:31 PM**

what parking? its for poor people.

zilfondel · #12 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 6:39 PM**

I thought this was Aura?

Wouldn't be sad to see it go...

In any case, I'm floored that they figured out a way to develop a mere 5,000 sq ft site. That's only 1/8 of a block!
Clear case of someone being creative... although if anyone could do it in Portland, it would be Kovel... other developers had better heed this news as I would like to see more creativity in redevelopment. FAR transfers in these cases could allow seriously tall skinny towers (this tower would have a smaller floor plate than the Benson!).

cab · #13 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 7:25 PM**

PDX, as always thanks for the reality check, just venting. I still wonder will they one day develop it? I mean they've sat on these properties for years during boom and bust times, what will have to change for them to do anything? Will they shoot there 1 building a decade wad on the ZGF building? How long do we as a city wait. Maybe its time that the city change some tax structures that make surface parking lots unprofitable or at least raise the bar on what is acceptable property management vs visual blight. A little rule that unless a building is present, a tree must be planted every 25 ft on any DT Surface parking lot or something similar.

brandonpdx · #14 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 7:25 PM**

I vore for B. I would hate the potential wall of 5 stories of above ground parking that proposal E has. Althought the height in E would be very interesting considering the floor plate.

westsider · #15 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 7:49 PM**

There are attractive ways of concealing above ground parking, and I generally would go for the most bang for the lot size. Option E is too unique to pass up.

rsbear · #16 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 7:54 PM**

Like my vote counts or anything, but I prefer E, as additional height in that area would provide a more interesting skyline. I would bet that they above-ground parking would be well hidden and we wouldn't even know it's there. And if you're a tenant and not at street level (retail) wouldn't you want to be up higher anyway, so that you have a view?

anp · #17 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 8:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandonpdx

I vore for B. I would hate the potential wall of 5 stories of above ground parking that proposal E has. Althought the height in E would be very interesting considering the floor plate.

I'm with BrandonPDX on this one. Can anyone think of a building that attractively treats above-ground parking floors in a high rise? I can only think of unattractive examples, such as the ODS Tower and 1000 Broadway.

cab · #18 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 9:46 PM**

Its goes against the entire theory of eyes on the street. Basically the first 4 floors are the most important part of any buildings connection to the street. Blank walls and auto air vents replace balconies, open windows...basic life. Given a choice take the shorter building with below grade parking over the taller building with above grade parking.

zilfondel · #19 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 10:06 PM**

B, C, or D. I hate above-ground parking. I recall some very vocal complaints about the Lovejoy building on this...

PDX City-State · #20 Posted **Jul 19, 2007, 10:15 PM**

Quote:

How long do we as a city wait.

Up there, not long. I would be very surprised if there are many West End Surface lots that close to the Pearl 10 years from now. They don't command the highest fees--they're just out of the CBD's core--and the Goodman's seem pretty committed to developing them.

The real question is how long will we have to wait until the lots along 1st Avenue are developed? Those are cash cows.