Washington County (Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard, Forest Grove, etc.)

[Nunya]

Originally Posted by eric cantona

the bland leading the bland.

While I agree the developments in the area are pretty bland I don't know that you can really expect much better. At least it is fairly dense development (for the area) around a transit stop unlike immediately opposite the same tracks to the South which is single family residences and the like.

I'm looking forward to seeing how active the street level is once it is built out and the plaza is completed. The bigger disappointment to me is the other side of the transit stop south of the tracks which seems like a much bigger waste.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

...continues at the Oregonian.

Great to see new high density in Hillsboro, especially next to MAX, but since when is 6-stories a "skyline"?

[RED_PDXer]

Orenco is a huge success story in my opinion. Lots of good density and housing options for a relatively far out station. I don't think there's another MAX station (outside of Central City/Lloyd) out there with as much high density development since MAX opened.

[philopdx]

Embassy Suites

[philopdx]

Apt off Cornell

[philopdx]

Orenco Station:

[philopdx]

Orchards at Orenco:

[maccoinnich]

Nike doubles headquarters-expansion plans, will build two office buildings totaling 1.3 million square feet



This is an aerial view of the Nike World Headquarters campus, looking north. The planned construction is expected to be in the northeast corner of the campus. (Doug Beghtel / The Oregonian)

By Allan Brettman

Nike is planning to build two office buildings and two parking garages on the northeast side of its World Headquarters campus near Beaverton, doubling the scope of the headquarters-expansion project it originally envisioned two years ago, The Oregonian has learned.

The largest of the two buildings will have 649,000 square feet with 238,000 of auxiliary space, and the other building will have 412,000 square feet of office space. One parking garage will have 1,400 spaces and the other 1,100 spaces. Another 500 parking spaces will be located under one of the two office buildings.

The 1.3 million in office space more than doubles the 550,000 square feet in office space that company had previously planned.

...continues at the Oregonian.

[Nunya]

Here is a link to the Washington County case file for the Nike project.

http://washims.co.washington.or.us/G...Value=L1400414

Nothing much there yet other than the public notice, but hopefully they'll have additional documents soon. Here is a link to the public notice:

http://washims.co.washington.or.us/c...lic_Notice.pdf

[maccoinnich]

Emphasis mine:

Nike expansion project: It's big, it's bold and the Swoosh doesn't want to talk about it



Nike’s plans, on file with the county’s Department of Land Use and Transportation, suggest it will build two office buildings starting next year that are huge and could accommodate as many as 2,500 employees. (Michael Lloyd / The Oregonian /2013)

By Allan Brettman | abrettman@oregonian.com

A long-awaited expansion of Nike's 270-acre headquarters complex snapped into sharper focus Wednesday, when planning documents surfaced that the company filed last month with Washington County.

The expansion of Oregon's highest-profile company triggered a special session of the state legislature in December 2012, and eventually pitted the City of Portland against suburban Washington County for the project. The plans Nike filed Oct. 22 would more than double the size of the project it had spelled out during that initial process.

.....


There are some hints, however, as a handful of drawing appears to display a sharp, angular profile to the office buildings. The exterior of one building showed an "aluminum curtain wall system," incorporated with a substantial number of windows.

Zimmer Gunsel & Frasca of Portland designed the smaller office building and a nearby garage; Skylab Architecture of Portland designed the larger building; SRG Partnership designed the other garage; PFS Studios of Vancouver, B.C., produced the landscaping plan.

...continues at the Oregonian.

[downtownpdx]

Great news ... just imagine if they had expanded to SOWA. Wouldn't mind seeing a sleek, tall Nike tower with a swoosh in downtown area!

[maccoinnich]

A look at Nike's futuristic building plans (Photos)



Nike is known for boldness and ambition. Two proposed new buildings on its corporate campus continue that tradition and feature a daring and angular architectural design with lots of exposed glass and metal.

On Wednesday, the company's plans for more than 1.3 million square feet of new office space surfaced. The plans call for two new buildings and two parking garages. The company also plans to extend a giant grassy berm around the southwest corner of its sprawling corporate campus.

Zimmer Gunsel & Frasca designed the first building and first garage. Skylab Architecture designed the second building. SRG Partnership designed the second garage.

...continues at Portland Business Journal.

[philopdx]

It looks like a 21st-century Noah's Ark for recent college graduates.

[bvpcvm]

Hillsboro's AmberGlen neighborhood buzzing with construction, new apartment buildings, potential MAX stops

The Orenco neighborhood isn't the only one in Hillsboro where a new skyline is emerging.

Construction is underway on a 352-unit, 10-building apartment complex in Hillsboro's AmberGlen area, and a recently completed 203-unit development is now leasing.

Developer Arbor Custom Homes is behind both projects. The just-completed complex, along the west side of Northwest 206th Avenue between Cornell Road and Amberwood Drive, boasts a pool and is pet-friendly, and the surrounding sidewalks smell of freshly laid mulch. There are studios, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units available.

The incoming complex is farther south, on the northeast corner of 206th and Wilkins Street.

I hate to say this, but I can't really see developments like this doing much more than working to support pro-sprawl arguments, when it comes down to it. Since the rest of the suburbs is unwalkable, few of these residents will be using transit or riding bikes. Well, maybe some, but at first very few, which means most people will be driving to their jobs at Intel or, worse, the dental office over by Washington Square (in other words, somewhere transit-inaccessible), raising congestion.

It's nauseating to say this, but Steve Buckstein made the point somewhere (a few years ago) that increasing density requirements means that density, to some extent, will appear at the edges of the metro area, where cheap empty land is still available. Which doesn't get you to the goal of dense town centers. I know that Metro's density requirements are higher in town centers, so this is only partly true, but you can easily find higher density developments in transit-unfriendly places like outer Powell or along Murray Blvd. But I don't know what could be done about it. OTOH, density has to start somewhere, right?

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

Hillsboro's AmberGlen neighborhood buzzing with construction, new apartment buildings, potential MAX stops



I hate to say this, but I can't really see developments like this doing much more than working to support pro-sprawl arguments, when it comes down to it. Since the rest of the suburbs is unwalkable, few of these residents will be using transit or riding bikes. Well, maybe some, but at first very few, which means most people will be driving to their jobs at Intel or, worse, the dental office over by Washington Square (in other words, somewhere transit-inaccessible), raising congestion.

It's nauseating to say this, but Steve Buckstein made the point somewhere (a few years ago) that increasing density requirements means that density, to some extent, will appear at the edges of the metro area, where cheap empty land is still available. Which doesn't get you to the goal of dense town centers. I know that Metro's density requirements are higher in town centers, so this is only partly true, but you can easily find higher density developments in transit-unfriendly places like outer Powell or along Murray Blvd. But I don't know what could be done about it. OTOH, density has to start somewhere, right?

I think the way to solve this is to make the urban growth boundary stronger than it currently is. That way, density that occurs within is still for the greater good- polycentricism is desirable. It just must be uniformly implemented.

The big fly in the ointment will always be Vancouver. Until we can unify planning rules across the bi-state metro, there will be sprawl. I do agree anout the west side. We should try to ease off, but people like phil knight WANT to fight density. So it's always going to be a convoluted battle. Our biggest employer is really a shuckster when it comes to city planning-- sad really.

[colganc]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I think the way to solve this is to make the urban growth boundary stronger than it currently is. That way, density that occurs within is still for the greater good- polycentricism is desirable. It just must be uniformly implemented.

The big fly in the ointment will always be Vancouver. Until we can unify planning rules across the bi-state metro, there will be sprawl. I do agree anout the west side. We should try to ease off, but people like phil knight WANT to fight density. So it's always going to be a convoluted battle. Our biggest employer is really a shuckster when it comes to city planning-- sad really.

The barrier is not Vancouver. You must make the llifestyle that you are demanding a majority take to be appealing to them. No amount of "planning" UGBs or government organizations will help if people don't want to live like you want them to live.

If people don't like it, they won't move there or they won't support the zoning changes or the enforcement agencies (like Metro) to force it to happen. If you did convince a majority, you won't even need to force zoning changes, people will refuse to buy new homes, they will only buy condos or remt apartments. Even more directly: you only need to convince new home buyers.

Forcing people to do what they don't want to do is crazy and unproductive. It won't work.

Get a majority pf people thinking that it is cool to live in a condo or apartment in a mid-rise, that is your answer.

[zilfondel]

I fail to see how Vancouver plays into the success of the Metro's westside development. Obviously Nike and Intel are huge economic drivers, and it is counterproductive to have everyone who works there use Portland as a bedroom community for suburban employment.

Unless you want Nike and Intel to go away (which they won't), the suburbs are important players in Portland's economy and therefore I think it is totally appropriate to improve those areas through redevelopment and increased densities. Heck, most European and Asian suburbs have fairly dense developments well served by transit and other services, and often are extremely walkable.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

I fail to see how Vancouver plays into the success of the Metro's westside development. Obviously Nike and Intel are huge economic drivers, and it is counterproductive to have everyone who works there use Portland as a bedroom community for suburban employment.

Unless you want Nike and Intel to go away (which they won't), the suburbs are important players in Portland's economy and therefore I think it is totally appropriate to improve those areas through redevelopment and increased densities. Heck, most European and Asian suburbs have fairly dense developments well served by transit and other services, and often are extremely walkable.

Im all for increasing density around our suburban work clusters. Polycentricism works. Make it more like a downtown in several locations. It's already heading that way out there. Kind of like a Seattle-Bellevue relationship.

As for my Vancouver criticism, I just wish they were part of metro.

[hat]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Im all for increasing density around our suburban work clusters. Polycentricism works. Make it more like a downtown in several locations. It's already heading that way out there. Kind of like a Seattle-Bellevue relationship.

As for my Vancouver criticism, I just wish they were part of metro.

The city and Metro's focus on density is not simply a bulls eye where the concentric circles toward the center are more dense. As we know it is rather more where corridors and small town centers are the focus of development.

On the other hand, I remember an article on the potential for a streetcar in Tanesbourne, something I find to be a terrible idea. If I were to say, work at Laika or go to a baseball game at the ballpark out there, I would most certainly not transfer from the MAX and ride a streetcar through Tanesbourne and Amber Glen at 10 mph. Using the existing MAX system would serve both commuters and density here. A line extension of the Red/Blue up 185th and West on Evergreen or 26th would probably get me to a ball game.

One of the arguments against a MAX to Forest Grove when Metro was deciding on its corridor priorities was similar to the density thread here. That we should not encourage density outside the Portland city center ignores people who live in places like Forest Grove with a distinct identity from Portland (and heavy on students), but do not wish to commute by car. I can imagine a huge change in lifestyle if they were offered something else.

[colganc]

Originally Posted by hat

The city and Metro's focus on density is not simply a bulls eye where the concentric circles toward the center are more dense. As we know it is rather more where corridors and small town centers are the focus of development.

On the other hand, I remember an article on the potential for a streetcar in Tanesbourne, something I find to be a terrible idea. If I were to say, work at Laika or go to a baseball game at the ballpark out there, I would most certainly not transfer from the MAX and ride a streetcar through Tanesbourne and Amber Glen at 10 mph. Using the existing MAX system would serve both commuters and density here. A line extension of the Red/Blue up 185th and West on Evergreen or 26th would probably get me to a ball game.

One of the argued ments against a MAX to Forest Grove when Metro was deciding on its corridor priorities was similar to the density thread here. That we should not encourage density outside the Portland city center ignores people who live in places like Forest Grove with a distinct identity from Portland (and heavy on students), but do not wish to commute by car. I can imagine a huge change in lifestyle if they were offered something else.

Given the numbers of people involved, wouldn't a bus serve just as well, but for much cheaper? At max capacity the ballpark(s) hold around 4k people.

The total commute time for someone in Amber Glen would be terrible with MAX. 15 to 20 minute walk and then 15 minute ride (including wait time for MAX) to the area near the ballpark.

Potentially a couple of bus lines could create a 5 minute walk, 10 minute wait, 10 minute travel time scenario for someone living in Amber Glen or other nearby high density population center.