Grand Belmont | xx' | 7 floors | Complete

[2oh1]

Perhaps not exciting, but I think it's a major improvement over the previous design.

[cityscapes]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Perhaps not exciting, but I think it's a major improvement over the previous design.

Aside from the color of the brick I think it looks way worse it's almost like they're trolling the commission or scarier yet, giving them exactly what they want.

Loving the emphasis on heights and allowable FAR in the drawing set .

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

Aside from the color of the brick I think it looks way worse it's almost like they're trolling the commission or scarier yet, giving them exactly what they want.

Loving the emphasis on heights and allowable FAR in the drawing set .

I much prefer the original design, but I think it's a very shrewd move. The redesign responds to all the comments raised by the commission, except those relating to height and FAR. This isn't an active land use case yet, so there won't be an approval or denial next week.... but if they ultimately wind up with a denial based only on height and FAR they will be in a much stronger position to appeal to City Council.

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Revised drawings [PDF - 12MB].

Much better

[cityscapes]

A wiser Historic Landmarks Commission would in theory be able to understand that there are instances where a building that looks out of place in a historic district can enhance it. I do not feel like their role should be one that guides designs that become dull faux historic buildings that seek to blend into their surroundings. Good urban design principles include buildings that varied in design for visual interest. People are not attracted to monotonous urban spaces. This iteration of the design looks like a 15 story version of the recently approved 9th and Belmont. On Passeig de Gràcia in Barcelona the new buildings aren't Gaudi replicas. Modern glass facades and historic architecture can coexist very well and often times enhance each other by creating more visual interest. I hope the next design VCA presents takes a more modern look like the first DAR submittal rather than continuing to make the building look more drab.

A more productive function for the HLC would be to try and prevent buildings that would be too wild or detract from the historic district or character to be build.
For example, I think a building this this one in Melbourne Australia shouldn't be approved if it were to be proposed in this location:


http://www.instagram24.com/tag/mcbridecharlesryan

There's a big difference in something that harms a historic district and something that could compliment a historic district despite being a different architectural style and massing than the predominant form in the area. Cities change and over the course of time end up with a diverse array of architectural styles. This should be embraced and planned for accordingly rather than actively discouraged.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

Much better

Agreed. The red brick and massing were totally out of context and a very bad way to start off a conversation with an inherently conservative-approach landmarks commission. It just looked too bulky, which is not what you want a building begging to use the height limit to look like.

This attempt doesn't look faux historic, but includes some basic complementary architectural language. I think they could've also gone the opposite way with a very modern design with a lighter touch (more glass and less brick), but this works fine IMHO. Let the Landmarks commission disapprove based on height or FAR, I fell like they will lack the public support, particularly in an area designated for significant growth.

[curt-pdx]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

A wiser Historic Landmarks Commission would in theory be able to understand that there are instances where a building that looks out of place in a historic district can enhance it.
There's a big difference in something that harms a historic district and something that could compliment a historic district despite being a different architectural style and massing than the predominant form in the area. Cities change and over the course of time end up with a diverse array of architectural styles. This should be embraced and planned for accordingly rather than actively discouraged.

Well said! Historic District ≠ Disneyland

[PacificNW]

I remember when the Chinese Garden was built downtown the Chinese architect stated that the garden would be better served by any new development in the area be in direct contrast to the existing architecture of the area. (More modern, glass, taller towers and fewer 2-4 story, faux architecture designed buildings blending in with the existing neighborhood). I tend to agree...

[BrG]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Memo [PDF] to the Historic Landmarks Commission:

the pesky language in the code that lets either commission not approve a building do to a lack of subjective 'design coherency'.

[BrG]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

I much prefer the original design, but I think it's a very shrewd move. The redesign responds to all the comments raised by the commission, except those relating to height and FAR. This isn't an active land use care yet, so there won't be an approval or denial next week.... but if they ultimately wind up with a denial based only on height and FAR they will be in a much stronger position to appeal to City Council.

Exactly what it is.

A motivated owner who wants to move forward and isn't on board to fight for a design.

[maccoinnich]

Well, the Historic Landmarks Commission didn't like the height any better the second time they saw it. The applicant even consulted with the City Attorney, who confirmed that the height and FAR in the Zoning Code applies, absent any more specific language elsewhere (which there isn't).

Pretty sure this is ultimately heading to the City Council.

[urbanlife]

I am hoping the HLC gets shut down on this one, as well as any future buildings that go up along this corridor, they clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

[AltJ]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I am hoping the HLC gets shut down on this one, as well as any future buildings that go up along this corridor, they clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

There are (or will be soon) three vacant seats on HLC that will need to be filled. This is a chance to bring new perspective to the commission. Anyone out there??

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by AltJ

There are (or will be soon) three vacant seats on HLC that will need to be filled. This is a chance to bring new perspective to the commission. Anyone out there??

Let's hope that all three seats go to level headed architects and urban planners.

[AltJ]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Let's hope that all three seats go to level headed architects and urban planners.

There is currently only ONE architect on the commission, and he is one of the members stepping down. This is a real a opportunity for some new and more sophisticated people to step in. Anyone out there?

[Rob Nob]

The 2 members listed as "Public at Large" both work at Architecture firms, but are not listed as the "Architect" member.

[maccoinnich]

FWIW this is now 14 floors / 146' tall.

[maccoinnich]

[2oh1]

It's basically the Jefferson Safeway, tweaked a bit and with a different base. It's not exciting, but it's timeless and it would be a fine addition to the neighborhood.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

It's basically the Jefferson Safeway, tweaked a bit and with a different base. It's not exciting, but it's timeless and it would be a fine addition to the neighborhood.

will they be changing the name to the "Blah Belmont"?