HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Downtown & City of Portland

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 8:15 AM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccoinnich View Post
Who is proposing to take away your car?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58rhodes View Post
I hope nobody, I dont want to die--yet
Tha'r comin' fer our gunz!!!
LOOK OUT! The crime train is comin'!
The'r cummin' fer our jahhhbs!!!
THAT DINGO ATE MUH BAYBEEE!!!

...what's going on with this forum? Can we try actually discussing what's going on at 1510 NE Multfrigginomah? I'll start!

In this city with absolutely no increase in population density (despite the THOUSANDS of housing units being built at this very moment) there are nearly 1,000 apartments more new apartments being proposed for the site that currently houses a big screen movie theater multiplex along with a bigass nasty parking lot directly across the street from the struggling Lloyd Center mall. We haven't confirmed that the theaters are going to be demolished, though some of our local "news"papers apparently think so. Any thoughts? [facepalm]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 1:53 PM
58rhodes 58rhodes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
Tha'r comin' fer our gunz!!!
LOOK OUT! The crime train is comin'!
The'r cummin' fer our jahhhbs!!!
THAT DINGO ATE MUH BAYBEEE!!!

...what's going on with this forum? Can we try actually discussing what's going on at 1510 NE Multfrigginomah? I'll start!

In this city with absolutely no increase in population density (despite the THOUSANDS of housing units being built at this very moment) there are nearly 1,000 apartments more new apartments being proposed for the site that currently houses a big screen movie theater multiplex along with a bigass nasty parking lot directly across the street from the struggling Lloyd Center mall. We haven't confirmed that the theaters are going to be demolished, though some of our local "news"papers apparently think so. Any thoughts? [facepalm]
Ive read reports that both theaters are being turned into office/flex space. I think its great that the parking lot is being developed into Housing. I wonder if it will be one tall tower or a few shorter buildings?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 1:53 PM
PDXDENSITY PDXDENSITY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
Tha'r comin' fer our gunz!!!
LOOK OUT! The crime train is comin'!
The'r cummin' fer our jahhhbs!!!
THAT DINGO ATE MUH BAYBEEE!!!

...what's going on with this forum? Can we try actually discussing what's going on at 1510 NE Multfrigginomah? I'll start!

In this city with absolutely no increase in population density (despite the THOUSANDS of housing units being built at this very moment) there are nearly 1,000 apartments more new apartments being proposed for the site that currently houses a big screen movie theater multiplex along with a bigass nasty parking lot directly across the street from the struggling Lloyd Center mall. We haven't confirmed that the theaters are going to be demolished, though some of our local "news"papers apparently think so. Any thoughts? [facepalm]

The issue isn't that we're adding density; the issue is we aren't adding enough. The nuance might be above your current hysterics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 8:02 PM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY View Post
The issue isn't that we're adding density; the issue is we aren't adding enough. The nuance might be above your current hysterics.
You say these things again and again, but you never cite anything specific. What specifically do you want and where specifically do you want it?

"WE" don't add density. Population density occurs when people move here or, to a lesser extent, when people have children at a faster rate than family elders pass away.

You've spoken about "putting them" someplace. It doesn't work that way. Newcomers decide for themselves where to live, just as you did when you moved here.

You've spoken about density driving down prices. It doesn't work that way. Demand drives density. Those are your own words, and they're correct. But demand also drives up prices.

Overbuilding - creating a supply of housing that exceeds demand - that's what would drive down prices, but I really hope it's not what you're proposing as a solution for the rising cost of housing.

I'm guessing that you moved here somewhat recently, perhaps during the recession. That would explain why you don't see how rapidly Portland is becoming more dense. I used to take the MAX out to Hillsboro a decade ago. Even with the recession, the number of new homes built over the past decade has been dramatic. That's a real life example of rapidly increasing population density. Or, consider NW Portland. Look at how many units of housing Conway alone is going to add. Or look at the Pearl. As I said, consider the population of the Pearl District in 1995. Compare that to its population in 2005, and 2015, and it's still growing. Or look at Lloyd, where a developer just announced plans to add nearly a thousand more units. Or look at inner SE. I'm an inner city guy, but I'm sure others here could talk about places like Gateway, and NE and NOPO.

You say these things again and again, but you never cite anything specific. What specifically do you want and where specifically do you want it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 10:33 PM
PDXDENSITY PDXDENSITY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
You say these things again and again, but you never cite anything specific. What specifically do you want and where specifically do you want it?

"WE" don't add density. Population density occurs when people move here or, to a lesser extent, when people have children at a faster rate than family elders pass away.

You've spoken about "putting them" someplace. It doesn't work that way. Newcomers decide for themselves where to live, just as you did when you moved here.

You've spoken about density driving down prices. It doesn't work that way. Demand drives density. Those are your own words, and they're correct. But demand also drives up prices.

Overbuilding - creating a supply of housing that exceeds demand - that's what would drive down prices, but I really hope it's not what you're proposing as a solution for the rising cost of housing.

I'm guessing that you moved here somewhat recently, perhaps during the recession. That would explain why you don't see how rapidly Portland is becoming more dense. I used to take the MAX out to Hillsboro a decade ago. Even with the recession, the number of new homes built over the past decade has been dramatic. That's a real life example of rapidly increasing population density. Or, consider NW Portland. Look at how many units of housing Conway alone is going to add. Or look at the Pearl. As I said, consider the population of the Pearl District in 1995. Compare that to its population in 2005, and 2015, and it's still growing. Or look at Lloyd, where a developer just announced plans to add nearly a thousand more units. Or look at inner SE. I'm an inner city guy, but I'm sure others here could talk about places like Gateway, and NE and NOPO.

You say these things again and again, but you never cite anything specific. What specifically do you want and where specifically do you want it?

You're going on quite a merry go round of thought. Demand drives up prices. Density stabilizes prices. This isn't anything that needs to ne cited, but I have reprleatedly. NYC and SF are examples where more housing (density) would stabilize rents. STABILIZE. This is the point to making these places more accessible to people with less disposable income. Further, inclusionary zoning can drive income inclusive meighborhoods-- again this has not been proven to hinder development. Article upon request.

The point is density saves the ecosystem and stabilizes the market in a city. Prevebting density is what makes an area in demand spiral out of control-- see: building heights, parking minimums, NIMBYs. Landowners want their values inflated because it's a windfall for them.

Further. Density is the only way services work in a city. Sprawl cannot be sustained by taxes and that leads to decline. Density =vibrancy, not necessarily "too expensive."

Build to meet demand and rents will approach inflation of wages.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 10:49 PM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY View Post
NYC and SF are examples where more housing (density) would stabilize rents.
Would, meaning it has not yet. This is just something you believe to be true if only somebody somewhere would do it.

Demand drives density.
Demand also drives up prices.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 10:57 PM
PDXDENSITY PDXDENSITY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
Would, meaning it has not yet. This is just something you believe to be true if only somebody somewhere would do it.

Demand drives density.
Demand also drives up prices.
Again, you have it backward. Would, if they were allowed to build. SF has crazy restrictions, and NYC is only recently opening up to more development. The issue is stifling of density, not density itself. Tgese places became dense because they were popular, exactly as we should. But we'll probably get bogged down by good-enough politics as you seem to be espousing a logically backwards argument.

Density means a place is desirable, not that density made it so. Density does not drive up costs, it stabilizes them in a in demand location.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 11:11 PM
PDXDENSITY PDXDENSITY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland
Posts: 619
Anyway. Back on topic? 1510 NE Multnomah.

My two gripes:
1) too much parking. It needs less.
2) I'm ok with the theater going away, but if they're reviving it in the development, that's still too much parking.

I hope for:
1) a new Lloyd tallest.
2) density without need for a "square"
3) the eventual death of Lloyd Center and ressurrection as a mixed office/retail/housing high rise district going over 700'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 11:13 PM
PacificNW's Avatar
PacificNW PacificNW is offline
"Made In Oregon"
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florence, Oregon
Posts: 3,067
Can this density discussion be a part of the "Density" thread and this particular thread remain on the topic "1510 NE Multnomah"?

Last edited by PacificNW; May 15, 2015 at 4:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 11:16 PM
PacificNW's Avatar
PacificNW PacificNW is offline
"Made In Oregon"
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florence, Oregon
Posts: 3,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY View Post
Anyway. Back on topic? 1510 NE Multnomah.

My two gripes:
1) too much parking. It needs less.
2) I'm ok with the theater going away, but if they're reviving it in the development, that's still too much parking.

I hope for:
1) a new Lloyd tallest.
2) density without need for a "square"
3) the eventual death of Lloyd Center and ressurrection as a mixed office/retail/housing high rise district going over 700'

Thanks for bringing this back to the topic of this thread. I, for one, appreciate the effort..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 6:06 AM
PDXDENSITY PDXDENSITY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificNW View Post
Thanks for bringing this back to the topic of this thread. I, for one, appreciate the effort..
No problem. I'm excited about this development and being critical about getting it right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 8:03 AM
cityscapes's Avatar
cityscapes cityscapes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 572
Is the theater really going to be torn down? I am almost positive I saw maccoinnich post a design review PDF or something on the plans to renovate it into office space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 1:52 PM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 5,979
That would have been for the other Regal cinema, in the mall itself. Despite much speculation, nobody outside of the project team knows if the theater is staying or going. Regal don't own the property, so it's possible they'll continue to operate as tenants. It's certainly feasible to build the number of units they're talking about using only the parking lot.
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

www.twitter.com/maccoinnich
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 6:58 PM
Snowden352's Avatar
Snowden352 Snowden352 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 236
Anyone else worried about the "redesign" of Holladay Park?

Something like that, to me, screams "cut down a bunch of trees! Put in banal public 'art' and make as inaccessible to the general public as possible!"
__________________
"Δεν ελπίζω τίποτε. Δεν φοβούμαι τίποτε. Είμαι λεύτερος"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 7:03 PM
PDXDENSITY PDXDENSITY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowden352 View Post
Anyone else worried about the "redesign" of Holladay Park?

Something like that, to me, screams "cut down a bunch of trees! Put in banal public 'art' and make as inaccessible to the general public as possible!"
Oh! NO! I agree. The park needs to be left alone!!! That's a gross reappropriation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 7:30 PM
Abide's Avatar
Abide Abide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 385
I highly doubt any of those very large trees would be removed unless they're found to be rotting and in danger of falling over. I wouldn't put some banal art past them, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 7:50 PM
rsbear's Avatar
rsbear rsbear is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowden352 View Post
Anyone else worried about the "redesign" of Holladay Park?

Something like that, to me, screams "cut down a bunch of trees! Put in banal public 'art' and make as inaccessible to the general public as possible!"
No
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 9:44 PM
PacificNW's Avatar
PacificNW PacificNW is offline
"Made In Oregon"
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florence, Oregon
Posts: 3,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowden352 View Post
Anyone else worried about the "redesign" of Holladay Park?

Something like that, to me, screams "cut down a bunch of trees! Put in banal public 'art' and make as inaccessible to the general public as possible!"
I read somewhere that they want a Holladay Park that encourages "mothers/dads and their children". I seriously doubt the trees (unless diseased) will come down. Bringing families into the mix seriously diminishes the criminal element is the thought.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 10:01 PM
hat hat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificNW View Post
I read somewhere that they want a Holladay Park that encourages "mothers/dads and their children". I seriously doubt the trees (unless diseased) will come down. Bringing families into the mix seriously diminishes the criminal element is the thought.
I hung out there yesterday before a movie in the early eve. It's pretty dead still. A tween broke some glass bottles in the concrete area in the center. I don't want trees removed, but a children's play area is a must, preferably a kids fountain like Director's Park or Jamison Square. There may be enough room in the center to keep the trees.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 10:27 PM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,214
Hat, you nailed it in terms of the challenge of fixing Holladay park.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hat View Post
I hung out there yesterday before a movie in the early eve. It's pretty dead still. A tween broke some glass bottles in the concrete area in the center.
The location of the park is outstanding, and the trees are great. The challenge is how to fix the fact that the park isn't particularly safe after dark. I suspect there will be talk about open spaces and lighting. The park faces the Doubletree, and that's fantastic! But it isn't exactly welcoming from that vantage point. The park faces an extremely active MAX platform. YAY! But it's fenced off from it. Boo. Those old trees are marvelous - they're a treasure - but they also provide cover for hoodlums and they create a major challenge for fixing the park's issues.

Have any potential plans for the park been shown yet?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Downtown & City of Portland
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:10 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.