1510 NE Multnomah St Phase II | Multiple Buildings | Dead - Page 2

2oh1 · #21 Posted **Feb 8, 2017, 11:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

This is going to feel like Riverplace at build out. Odd, no character, short, temporary, suburban.

I agree ten thousand percent, especially in terms of the interior of Riverplace, which does feel very suburban despite being next to downtown. There's no sense of place in Riverplace, which seems bizarre for such a wonderful location along the river with Waterfront Park and streetcar access.

I remember walking along the stretch of shops at Riverplace nearly 20 years ago & thinking "This is going to be amazing."

...NOPE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamUrbanist

What gets me is the lack of longer term planning or vision for this area.

That's it, right there. There's nothing big picture happening here. Phase I and II are a stretch of what... 8 city blocks? Maybe more? There's nothing bringing it all together other than that the buildings all have wacky angles when viewed on a map. Look at all of the bits of green spaces. The shapes look more like they're building an industrial park or office complex than a neighborhood.

MarkDaMan · #22 Posted **Feb 9, 2017, 3:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

I like tall buildings as much as the next guy, but I don't think a development that will add 520 units on roughly three city blocks can be described as "suburban". Some of the world's most intensely urban cities are primarily formed of mid rise buildings.

This isn't about "tall buildings". The repetitious, sprawling 5+1 buildings of phase I and what appears to be repeated in phase II, all of the same height and style built to maximize as many housing units as can be fit on the property using the cheapest construction method available, screams Orenco Station and Riverplace not worldly urban neighborhoods. The density is great, the execution is not. I'd be more forgiving if this was being built and marketed as a more affordable option to other city center housing, but I'm assuming they are going to maximize their rent potential too.

DMH · #23 Posted **Feb 9, 2017, 6:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Drawings [PDF - 50MB]. Shows a new cinemas (by others) where Sears is now.

This appears to be another attempt by a developer to create a delightful walking experience punctuated by surprise as one comes around each corner, such as one would experience when wandering in Olde Towns of charming European cities. But when all of the buildings are of one era and one architect, the result is almost always contrived and without delight.

subterranean · #24 Posted **Feb 9, 2017, 7:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

This isn't about "tall buildings". The repetitious, sprawling 5+1 buildings of phase I and what appears to be repeated in phase II, all of the same height and style built to maximize as many housing units as can be fit on the property using the cheapest construction method available, screams Orenco Station and Riverplace not worldly urban neighborhoods. The density is great, the execution is not. I'd be more forgiving if this was being built and marketed as a more affordable option to other city center housing, but I'm assuming they are going to maximize their rent potential too.

I find it funny that you call out Orenco Station of ALL the stations with MUCH worse buildings. At least Orenco has different developers (non-profit and for profit), have varying facades composed of brick or wood, most of it is mixed use, all of the buildings are incredibly different, and the ones done by REACH are the largest passive house buildings in the country. My only complaint is that they didn't go big enough. However, stops like Elmonica or Quatama or any other dozen or so stops that are completely uninspiring, that is where I agree with you, but definitely not Orenco. Hells, there is an actual excellently executed new urbanist neighborhood by New Seasons in Orenco, something I've rarely seen anywhere else.

MarkDaMan · #25 Posted **Feb 9, 2017, 7:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by subterranean

I find it funny that you call out Orenco Station of ALL the stations with MUCH worse buildings. At least Orenco has different developers (non-profit and for profit), have varying facades composed of brick or wood, most of it is mixed use, all of the buildings are incredibly different, and the ones done by REACH are the largest passive house buildings in the country. My only complaint is that they didn't go big enough. However, stops like Elmonica or Quatama or any other dozen or so stops that are completely uninspiring, that is where I agree with you, but definitely not Orenco. Hells, there is an actual excellently executed new urbanist neighborhood by New Seasons in Orenco, something I've rarely seen anywhere else.

The other crap apartments along the other MAX stations don't even qualify as neighborhoods, IMHO. The only successful TOD would be Orenco (that said, I haven't rode the blue line out that way for a long time and perhaps there are other successful TODs.) I do have lunch with my dad in Orenco often and am underwhelmed with the development, but as you mentioned at least there is variety amongst the architecture due to several developers contributing to the neighborhood, unlike this 1510 Multnomah development.

tworivers · #26 Posted **Feb 10, 2017, 1:29 AM**

I was hoping for the tower, or towers, on the site where the theater is now. I think that would have provided a strong visual anchor to the whole project.

I think Phase 1 is interesting and I'm taking a wait-and-see approach before passing judgment. With the addition of even more 6-story Holst-designed structures I find myself agreeing with some of the concerns here.

Still going to be amazing to see these parking lots get turned into residential development!

RED_PDXer · #27 Posted **Feb 11, 2017, 3:56 PM**

This seems like an OK approach for the perimeter of the Lloyd District adjacent to Sullivan's Gulch. Not opposed to the massing and am glad they are using all of the allowable FAR. This is a lot of units to be adding and since they are just in Design Advice (not formally vested under prior code), they would required to provide 20% affordable I think?

Now, when the mall goes away (however long that will take), I would be expecting some exciting towers to go in.

maccoinnich · #28 Posted **Mar 18, 2017, 6:23 AM**

maccoinnich · #29 Posted **Oct 16, 2017, 7:17 PM**

This is now on Design Commission agenda for a second DAR on November 30th.

maccoinnich · #30 Posted **Nov 23, 2017, 1:12 AM**

DAR #2 Drawings [70 MB] and memo

MarkDaMan · #31 Posted **Nov 23, 2017, 4:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

DAR #2 Drawings [70 MB] and memo

What a mess.

maccoinnich · #32 Posted **Dec 28, 2017, 1:18 AM**

Summary memo

maccoinnich · #33 Posted **Jan 26, 2018, 8:57 PM**

Request for Response

johnliu · #34 Posted **Jan 30, 2018, 7:48 AM**

Anyone heard of plans for the parking lot currently between this site and the soon to be defunct Sears?

maccoinnich · #35 Posted **Feb 23, 2018, 4:46 PM**

Notice of a Public Hearing

hat · #36 Posted **Feb 24, 2018, 1:22 PM**

Does this project mean no more impromptu bike ride short cuts through the garbage tunnel at 2am?

clint_ · #37 Posted **Mar 2, 2018, 11:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hat

Does this project mean no more impromptu bike ride short cuts through the garbage tunnel at 2am?

That's my three year old's (and my) favorite short cut in town!

maccoinnich · #38 Posted **Mar 10, 2018, 1:48 AM**

Drawings [271.2 MB] and memo.

cityscapes · #39 Posted **Mar 10, 2018, 2:06 AM**

Surrounding the mall with a long stretch of similar looking low rises isn't going to make the Lloyd District feel any less monolithic. At least the two projects combined will add a ton of units.

RainDog · #40 Posted **Mar 10, 2018, 6:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Drawings [271.2 MB] and memo.

Eek. That took a step backwards.