The Collective on 4th (4th and Harrison) | 175' | 15 floors | Complete - Page 8

cailes · #**141** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 7:39 AM**

Truth!! Looks about 1000x better than the prior design

cab · #**142** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 3:03 PM**

Kudos to the design team on this project. They really turned it around. Almost shockingly. The originally design was so bad, to get here deserves a lot of respect. I think this building is going to do wonders for activating the internal parks. That entire area is so close to critical mass of uses to create an actual vibrant area. The parks in particular are underserved Jems. A very important project.

ORNative · #**143** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 4:19 PM**

For those who may not recall, this development company (HUB) builds luxury student housing adjacent to college campuses around the country. The Portland Design Commission did a great job steering the design of this building away from the original concept (lets hope they can do the same with the OCC Headquarters Hotel). UO's HUB on Campus opened this fall. I had business in the area last week and am pleased that their building is not in Portland.

A Eugene blogger took a tour, took photos and provided his opinion on the UO's newest student housing project. Take a look and decide for yourself whether Portland dodged a bullet:

http://sworegonarchitect.blogspot.co...l#.VryyFFgrLIU

zilfondel · #**144** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 6:42 PM**

Wow. The whole project just seems like a terrible idea - having actually attended the University of Oregon, I'll just lay out the bullet points:

Programmatically, the project seems to focus on outdoor common areas filled with bikini and swimsuit-clad students. Dorms feature a large kitchen as the focal point.

When I was a student, my experience was:

-we never hung out outdoors without at least a fleece, and never saw any woman on campus wearing less than a jacket and pants
-school is open September through June, which are the rainy and cold seasons. Eugene can get colder than Portland, and is foggy from November through about March or so
-none of my student friends actually cooked
-we played lots of video games and hung out on the couch and drank beer during parties. I don't see any sofas or group seating in the dorms, kind of a shame (are wealthy kids going to be cooking? I think most simply eat out at the various cheap restaurants around town)
-during summer, 90% of all students leave the city. Apartments and dorms are empty, as students go on summer vacation and get out of Eugene

I think that my experience was pretty universal, and can't imagine the weather and student body has changed to the point of playing beach volleyball in the middle of winter. Most students are also not from Eugene, hence getting the hell out of there as often as you can!

I just can't imagine anyone actually using that rooftop deck at any point during the actual school year. Sure, it might look nice during the pre-lease parent/offspring tours during the spring and summer campus tours to lease the units, but its just wasted money. I should also add that it should make a great place to get a view of the city and the surrounding valley - high vantage points are few and far between in Eugene.

However, the indoor lounge area looks fantastic. Should get a ton of use.

zilfondel · #**145** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 6:53 PM**

Looking at the design pdf...

Holy crap, they are going to have a grocery store (!) - with a terrace overlooking the park!

Also, the facade and massing looks outstanding.

The renderings are pretty cool, too. Love the detail in the grocer.

Plus, 636+ bike racks is pretty cool. Interestingly, the streetcar catenary wires will be connected to this building.

Photogeric · #**146** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 7:34 PM**

Can somebody post the renderings of this thing? The download isn't working for me. Thanks!

MarkDaMan · #**147** Posted **Feb 11, 2016, 8:09 PM**

^sure, here's two...

cailes · #**148** Posted **Feb 12, 2016, 2:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel

Interestingly, the streetcar catenary wires will be connected to this building.

This was the case even with the old design.

zilfondel · #**149** Posted **Feb 12, 2016, 2:43 AM**

maccoinnich · #**150** Posted **Feb 14, 2016, 5:32 PM**

Staff Report and Recommendation to the Design Commission [PDF], which now recommends approval.

maccoinnich · #**151** Posted **Feb 19, 2016, 12:53 AM**

Design Commission approved this today.

2oh1 · #**152** Posted **Feb 19, 2016, 1:41 AM**

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

WestCoast · #**153** Posted **Feb 19, 2016, 3:51 AM**

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 · #**154** Posted **Feb 19, 2016, 4:49 AM**

Quote:

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 · #**155** Posted **Feb 19, 2016, 7:19 AM**

Quote:

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 · #**156** Posted **Feb 19, 2016, 7:45 PM**

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.

maccoinnich · #**157** Posted **Feb 20, 2016, 3:00 AM**

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 · #**158** Posted **Feb 20, 2016, 3:08 AM**

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

maccoinnich · #**159** Posted **Feb 20, 2016, 3:48 AM**

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

Quote:

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 · #**160** Posted **Feb 20, 2016, 4:17 AM**

Quote:

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.