Central Eastside News - Page 93

AdamUrbanist · #**1841** Posted **May 19, 2018, 1:13 AM**

I don’t usually say this, but I think I’d rather have a parking lot.

tworivers · #**1842** Posted **May 19, 2018, 2:52 AM**

This looks like a junior high project. An utterly incoherent faceplant. This is still Ankrom? Can't they at least afford better rendering software?!

MarkDaMan · #**1843** Posted **May 19, 2018, 3:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric cantona

well... not as horrific as before, I guess. looks like someone might have an architect's crush on WPA. still a hot mess, though. the fucking stripes are killing me!

I disagree. The renderings from the previous design could be improved upon. There were some appreciative aspects. This...this...where did this come from?

johnliu · #**1844** Posted **May 19, 2018, 4:11 AM**

It has a third world vibe.

2oh1 · #**1845** Posted **May 19, 2018, 6:25 PM**

Wait. What? Whoa.

This became THAT?

Quote:

Originally Posted by QAtheSky

What the heck happened?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxsg34

That's... jaw-droppingly bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnliu

It has a third world vibe.

Absolutely. Oh my god.

johnliu · #**1846** Posted **May 20, 2018, 12:28 AM**

Besides the regression in design, the downsize from 15 to 8 floors is striking. Does anyone know why that happened? Was there pushback on height? Is the 8 story building going to be much cheaper to build? Was that a review/zoning driven decision or an economics driven decision - any guesses?

johnliu · #**1847** Posted **May 20, 2018, 12:37 AM**

Another strange thing is the sudden adoption of truth in rendering. I'm referring to the weedy brown grass, the old pickup truck, dull gray skies, dirty roadway - the image is only missing a shopping cart, two tents, dirty streaks on the building and some smokers huddled below to be uncomfortably true to life. I sort of preferred the glossy style of rendering with dramatic dusk lighting and slim figures prancing to gleaming cars. Lets you dream a little.

QAtheSky · #**1848** Posted **May 20, 2018, 3:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnliu

Another strange thing is the sudden adoption of truth in rendering. I'm referring to the weedy brown grass, the old pickup truck, dull gray skies, dirty roadway - the image is only missing a shopping cart, two tents, dirty streaks on the building and some smokers huddled below to be uncomfortably true to life. I sort of preferred the glossy style of rendering with dramatic dusk lighting and slim figures prancing to gleaming cars. Lets you dream a little.

I have to imagine they didn't spare nearly as much budget for the revision and assumed that they would be making smaller adjustments to the initial rendering as opposed to starting from scratch.

urbanlife · #**1849** Posted **May 20, 2018, 7:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnliu

Besides the regression in design, the downsize from 15 to 8 floors is striking. Does anyone know why that happened? Was there pushback on height? Is the 8 story building going to be much cheaper to build? Was that a review/zoning driven decision or an economics driven decision - any guesses?

I am wondering that too, it seems like a number of projects along 99E have all seen downsizing with the height of the buildings. Its as if there can't be anything taller than 8 stories along that stretch.

maccoinnich · #**1850** Posted **May 22, 2018, 1:15 AM**

Quote:

Searching for Intrinsic character in Central Eastside

The first time developer Michael Tevis toured Southeast Portland’s Ford Building, it was 14 percent occupied, not including the pigeons that had taken up residence via some broken windows.

Today, it’s a bustling creative office building with a hip ground-floor café.

Now Tevis, president of Intrinsic Ventures, which is in the process of moving from Menlo Park, California, to Oakland, plans a round of ground-up construction to add to Portland’s Central Eastside Industrial District’s growing tech-office scene.

Tevis has completed big projects in the Central Eastside Industrial District before. He redeveloped the Ford Building, an 82,124-square-foot former auto plant built in 1914, into offices. He also redeveloped the former 65,000-square-foot warehouse at a retired Darigold site into a creative office structure known as the Dairy Building.

Intrinsic Ventures’ two new project proposals would add more than 185,000 square feet of mixed-use space, mostly creative offices targeted at tech tenants, to the fast-changing Central Eastside. Tevis has commissioned preliminary designs, but has not requested an early application meeting with the Bureau of Development Services.

...continues at the DJC (temporarily unlocked).

zilfondel · #**1851** Posted **May 22, 2018, 7:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnliu

Besides the regression in design, the downsize from 15 to 8 floors is striking. Does anyone know why that happened? Was there pushback on height? Is the 8 story building going to be much cheaper to build? Was that a review/zoning driven decision or an economics driven decision - any guesses?

The only thing that I could possibly imagine is the developer VE'd the design. Down to like, nothing!

zilfondel · #**1852** Posted **May 22, 2018, 7:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnliu

Another strange thing is the sudden adoption of truth in rendering. I'm referring to the weedy brown grass, the old pickup truck, dull gray skies, dirty roadway - the image is only missing a shopping cart, two tents, dirty streaks on the building and some smokers huddled below to be uncomfortably true to life. I sort of preferred the glossy style of rendering with dramatic dusk lighting and slim figures prancing to gleaming cars. Lets you dream a little.

I'm assuming the "rendering" is a google streetview image with photoshop filters applied.

maccoinnich · #**1853** Posted **May 26, 2018, 12:24 AM**

Given that 203 NE Grand never moved forward as a high rise I've moved the discussion into this thread.

Here are the drawings [14 MB] presented to the Design Commission last week, and a staff memo.

Derek · #**1854** Posted **May 26, 2018, 2:58 AM**

They’ve got to be trolling the Design Commission. How did that project devolve so much?

2oh1 · #**1855** Posted **May 26, 2018, 6:32 PM**

Even the color scheme is awful. It's as if someone stood up during a design by committee meeting and said "OK, now that we've achieved maximum hideousness, we need a color scheme for the exterior to highlight the fact that we will never step foot in this neighborhood once we've architecturally spat at it. How do we say 'This is not our problem' with colors? Find a a shade of neutral that hits the spot between filthy beige and vomit. Oh, and the dirtiest orange you can find. Not rusty. More like dusty and abandoned."

This thing is so many different kinds of bad that I'm almost impressed they managed to bring them all into one concept.

Sheesh.

That presentation screams of "Here's the concept you bitched about, so here's what you're gonna get instead."

I'm amazed they didn't come up with a middle finger logo for it.

tworivers · #**1856** Posted **May 26, 2018, 8:31 PM**

Some good news: the Hacker-designed building at MLK/Stark (SW corner) is U/C.

urbanlife · #**1857** Posted **May 27, 2018, 7:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tworivers

Some good news: the Hacker-designed building at MLK/Stark (SW corner) is U/C.

I saw that today, gonna be interesting to see how the dynamic of MLK/Grand change when you add more pedestrian traffic to the area.

johnliu · #**1858** Posted **May 28, 2018, 1:58 AM**

Crossing MLK and Grand has to be much improved for the activation of the new buildings to have full effect. Ultimately I think that area will need the downtown treatment with lots of signals set to 20 mph.

johnliu · #**1859** Posted **May 31, 2018, 5:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel

I'm assuming the "rendering" is a google streetview image with photoshop filters applied.

Yes, but couldn't the original renderings be re-used, remove the previous building and insert the new building? If you're going to model the new building anyway, why drop it into a Streetview instead of the environment you already modeled?

zilfondel · #**1860** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 5:48 PM**

From what I've heard from architects, developers and contractors, construction prices have increased so much lately that only 5 over 1s are economic to build.

I think we have seen a 10% price inflation over the past year? Something like that.

Plus the new tariffs will be mighty painful. Lumber and steel in particular.