Yard | 200' | 21 floors | Complete

[tworivers]

Updated renderings from the Skylab Bridgehead proposal. I'm still intrigued, and supportive of Skylab's inclination to think outside of the box on this one, but...

I'm also having a hard time understanding the 4 levels of auto parking -- doesn't seem like any of it is below grade and there seem to be 2 levels of retail, if I am reading the design review document right. Also hard to tell from renderings. But it looks like significant above-grade parking. ?? In general it seems like they're not interested in giving us too much information about what it will feel like at ground level.

Definitely cool to see the little sliver of land between 3rd and the Couch curve being included in this proposal.

Maybe I just need to spend more time digging into the document but it's also hard to tell if if the landscaped podium will be accessible to people? Is it almost like a sculptural treatment with the parking buried inside of it? It doesn't appear that it will actually connect to the bridge, either, which I though might be the case in one of its earlier versions.

Edit --> well, this answers some of my questions right off the bat: APPLICANT: Brent Grubb, Skylab Architecture ADDRESS: Block 67 bounded by E Burnside and NE Couch, and NE 2nd and 3rd Ave Design Advice Request for a potential 21-story mixed use development with residential and commercial components including up to 300 residential apartments on top of 4 above-grade trays of parking for up to 220 spaces. Commercial spaces would be located in the podium parking structure along 2nd and 3rd avenues and on the north side along the NE Couch Street Plaza. Modifications to Ground Floor Windows and Transit Street Main Entrance development standards may be required.

[65MAX]

Looks great. The above grade parking doesn't bother me in this design proposal, especially if there's ground floor retail on the east, west and north sides. I think they've incorporated it very well. I also like the idea of a bike hub on that narrow strip. That's a perfect location for a major bike facility.

[NJD]

^ Two months ago I talked to a developer looking to put 10-15 stories of apartments on that "little sliver of land." Would be a waste to have a one-story speck there instead (protected views anyone?)

[pdxstreetcar]

Worst design I've seen proposed in Portland, Skylab is a complete joke with their rehashed failed 1970s designs. If this is approved Portland will have sunk to a new low and thrown out all its design guidelines that were put in place to avoid eyesores like this. They should go back to designing stage sets.

[RainDog]

I like it aesthetically. In general I usually like Skylabs work on a purely visual level. As far as functionality.....this proposal does not seem to interact very well on the street level (though I suppose the renderings are vague in that respect). It would be especially nice to have some retail frontage directly on Burnside, given how many people walk/bike past there.... though it would be nice to see something of this height at this location.. hmmm. It will be interesting to see how this developes.

[tworivers]

RainDog: I like it aesthetically. In general I usually like Skylabs work on a purely visual level. As far as functionality.....this proposal does not seem to interact very well on the street level (though I suppose the renderings are vague in that respect). It would be especially nice to have some retail frontage directly on Burnside, given how many people walk/bike past there.... though it would be nice to see something of this height at this location.. hmmm. It will be interesting to see how this developes.

Edit: completely removed previous comment about podium concerns. I spent more time looking at the drawings and it's pretty clear that all the car parking is thoughtfully buried inside the podium and will not be visible from the street at all. Furthermore, because of the slope, 2 of the levels will be below 3rd Ave entirely. Looks like a combination of retail at ground level and then office space above. If I'm interpreting correctly, that is.

[bvpcvm]

yeah, retail facing 3rd doesn't make a lot of sense unless it's something huge, like, i don't know, a home depot or something

[pdxtraveler]

I personally like it! Looks great, something different.

[Derek]

I like it too. We need some variety.

[urbanlife]

That looks like an amazing building for the bridgehead, I can't wait to see that area grow into a true urban district with a unique skyline and this building will definitely make an impact and be a great beginning for the area.

[MarkDaMan]

Sep 13, 2013, 9:57am PDT
PDC cuts price on Burnside Bridgehead site for apartment tower
Wendy Culverwell
Real Estate Daily editor- Portland Business Journal

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/...&ed=2013-09-13

The Portland Development Commission is expected to sign off on a deal to sell land at the Burnside Bridgehead to an apartment developer for the reduced price of $1.54 million.

The city’s economic development arm is slated to vote on the deal to sell Block 67, a 0.76-acre parcel, to Key Development Corp. when it meets today.

The price was reduced from $1.65 million to reflect environmental issues identified during the due diligence period. Key will remove approximately 2,000 tons of lightly contaminated soils from the property, at East Burnside and Northeast Third Avenue.

...

Key intends to construct a 16-story market-rate apartment tower over a five-level podium that includes commercial space and above-ground parking.

The $74 million, 340,000-square-foot project includes 276 apartment units, 21,000 square feet of commercial space and 201 parking spaces.

...

[NJD]

^ Great news! It looks like the project is moving forward. There will be a nice little cluster of new construction down there soon. I'm curious if the Streetcar actually helped get projects like the Burnside projects and the Lloyd superblock finally get financing from investors/ banks...

[maccoinnich]

It's certainly an interesting data point against the argument that the development in the Pearl was inevitable, and the streetcar did nothing to help it. In this case, we have decades of no large residential development in the Lloyd and inner Eastside, and within a year of the streetcar opening, we have thousands of units under construction or being permitted.

[2oh1]

I think both The Pearl and Lloyd Center development were inevitable. I also think anything that creates urban livability becomes a catalyst for the inevitable. The streetcar was/is that catalyst, but I think other catalysts could have done the job too. I'm not arguing against the streetcar though. I think it's fantastic and does a great job of spurring growth, but even without the streetcar, development in Lloyd and along inner SE was just a matter of time. Our urban growth boundary forces development to look inward rather than sprawling outward. Looking inward rather than outward leads to finding opportunities where sprawl cities see challenges.

[urbanlife]

Wow, 21 stories is going to a big building for the Burnside Bridgehead area. I really can't wait to watch that district grow its own little skyline and urban district.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

It's certainly an interesting data point against the argument that the development in the Pearl was inevitable, and the streetcar did nothing to help it. In this case, we have decades of no large residential development in the Lloyd and inner Eastside, and within a year of the streetcar opening, we have thousands of units under construction or being permitted.

That is pretty impressive, I can imagine seeing many more new projects popping up along that line, makes me also want to see more expansions of the streetcar system.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by pdxtraveler

Yeah, that one has been on here. But that is the first decent rendering. I like it. That intersection is going to be amazing in a couple years. Though I really think the 21 story apartment at the bridgehead will drop to 13 as all the preapp stuff stresses the option to visibly. 13 still good in that area. Look for the positive!

Just to clarify, because I was disappointed in the possibility of a 13-story proposal, the newest design review notice indicates that "option A" is 21 stories and "option B" is 18 stories - including 13 stories of apts. So in any case this will be pretty tall for that area.

[tworivers]

Updated renderings for this one. Discuss.

Overall...I'm not sure. One of the bolder projects I feel like I've seen proposed in PDX. Love the interaction/acknowledgement of the skatepark. The eco-roof plus plaza idea has potential. Materials look high-quality. Grid-defying tower has a nice, edgy feel.

Main concerns: the tower feeling like an impenetrable island unto itself, particularly with the above-ground auto parking (though attention to ground-level commercial space might offset this). And the sculptural motif continued on the sliver of land across the street seems like it could be overkill. Lastly, I'm not sure that I want to be biking westward on the bridge and have an auto-parking facility at eye level right next to me**.

On a side note, can anyone closer to the world of architecture explain to me why all firms don't produce renderings like this? Why WOULDN'T you want to produce such realistic-looking renderings showing the project couched in its surroundings? Is it a cost issue? A talent/skill issue? Do most architects not do this because they know that their designs are bad?

**One of the renderings (with the cute girl on the bike) makes it look like the roofline of the pedestal will be above bridge level. Another one seems to imply that the roofline will be bridge level or just below, which would allow for visual connection with the ecoroof and plaza.

[NJD]

Main concerns: the tower feeling like an impenetrable island unto itself, particularly with the above-ground auto parking (though attention to ground-level commercial space might offset this). And the sculptural motif continued on the sliver of land across the street seems like it could be overkill. Lastly, I'm not sure that I want to be biking westward on the bridge and have an auto-parking facility at eye level right next to me.

On a side note, can anyone closer to the world of architecture explain to me why all firms don't produce renderings like this? Why WOULDN'T you want to produce such realistic-looking renderings showing the project couched in its surroundings? Is it a cost issue? A talent/skill issue? Do most architects not do this because they know that their designs are bad?

^ The neighboring parcel is not actually part of this development, its just a placeholder as specified in the design review notice. It looks like the parking structure ends at relatively the same height as the bridge so no concern there. The bridge is kinda a dead zone, just look at the poor building across the street... As for the design: I would like to see more unconventional buildings like this built in Portland, especially the east side.

As far as renderings, most buildings (of this caliber) have nice renders made for marketing, if there is a marketing budget. Some, usually smaller, developers fear the NIMBY response to renders, and high quality renders take time (which equals money). Man, I'm with you though, I've seen a lot of local firms using Sketch Up to render... seriously.

[65MAX]

Very few projects that I can say this about.....

Love it!!