Modera Main Street (MAC Block 7) | 158'-00" | 16 floors | Proposed - Page 2

maccoinnich · #21 Posted **Jun 28, 2021, 5:16 PM**

Request for Response

maccoinnich · #22 Posted **Jul 16, 2021, 4:31 PM**

Notice of a Public Hearing

Rhome · #23 Posted **Jul 30, 2021, 2:45 AM**

Staff Report Recommending Approval

curt-pdx · #24 Posted **Jul 30, 2021, 5:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhome

Staff Report Recommending Approval

Queue neighborhood appeal in

3 . . .

2 . . .

1 . . .

maccoinnich · #25 Posted **Jul 30, 2021, 10:40 PM**

Drawings [198 MB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by curt-pdx

Queue neighborhood appeal in

3 . . .

2 . . .

1 . . .

And 126 pages of emails from the public.

pdxsg34 · #26 Posted **Sep 23, 2021, 3:16 PM**

Permits now under review

maccoinnich · #27 Posted **Oct 7, 2021, 10:34 PM**

This was approved September 23rd. Will almost certainly be appealed.

subterranean · #28 Posted **Oct 8, 2021, 12:31 AM**

Any drawings?

maccoinnich · #29 Posted **Oct 8, 2021, 12:38 AM**

Three posts up

subterranean · #30 Posted **Oct 8, 2021, 1:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Three posts up

Thanks, must’ve breezed right by it because of the quote.

RED_PDXer · #31 Posted **Oct 8, 2021, 6:01 PM**

8 levels of garage is a lot of parking for a downtown development, but they did a good job hiding it from what I see in those drawings. It should be an improvement compared to most of the mid to late 20th century development in that area IMHO.

DMH · #32 Posted **Oct 9, 2021, 8:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

8 levels of garage is a lot of parking for a downtown development, but they did a good job hiding it from what I see in those drawings. It should be an improvement compared to most of the mid to late 20th century development in that area IMHO.

Just a gentle reminder that the site is not in Downtown but is in either Goose Hollow or King's Hill neighborhood.

urbanlife · #33 Posted **Oct 10, 2021, 5:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

8 levels of garage is a lot of parking for a downtown development, but they did a good job hiding it from what I see in those drawings. It should be an improvement compared to most of the mid to late 20th century development in that area IMHO.

Keep in mind that this is also owned by the MAC, so I imagine some of this parking will be for the MAC...or every unit is getting 2 parking spots.

RED_PDXer · #34 Posted **Oct 11, 2021, 2:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMH

Just a gentle reminder that the site is not in Downtown but is in either Goose Hollow or King's Hill neighborhood.

Central City would also work... if we are studying city planning documents.

RED_PDXer · #35 Posted **Oct 11, 2021, 2:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Keep in mind that this is also owned by the MAC, so I imagine some of this parking will be for the MAC...or every unit is getting 2 parking spots.

Yes. It's quite obvious that parking for the MAC is a primary motivator behind the development, having a connected below-grade garage level with MAC and the history of development proposals at the site. Regardless, the point is they did a good job of hiding it all. The wrap around units get more windows in this layout, so they may actually be nice places to live.

MNTimberjack · #36 Posted **Oct 11, 2021, 5:35 PM**

I'm hoping with the additional parking that this may allow them to redevelop the current lot to the north and possible free up the space south of Providence Park to stadium expansion.

I know the MAC has to have their view protected of the stadium, but I think that could be replaced in kind with dedicated club space for the MAC.

subterranean · #37 Posted **Oct 11, 2021, 6:16 PM**

Treatments look pretty similar to ART Tower.

Rhome · #38 Posted **Oct 12, 2021, 4:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by subterranean

Treatments look pretty similar to ART Tower.

Astute observation. The Design Commission mentioned the same thing with the vertical grouping of the windows and the white brick.

As for parking, the MAC's need for parking is driving the size of this project. Growth Parking (33.510.261) allows 1.2 parking spots for each residential unit. With 336 apartment units wedged into a 9.9 FAR project (RM4 projects are allowed base 4:1 without bonuses and other allowances), Growth Parking would allow up to 403 parking spots. Guess how many parking spots they are building? 225 spaces are dedicated to the MAC and accessible through the single garage entrance, or via a tunnel under SW Main that connects to the MAC's main garage. The remaining 178 parking spaces are for the apartment building tenants. Another "coincidence" is that the value of the Block 7 property that the MAC is deeding over to the developer is approximately the cost/value to bury 225 parking spaces. The intent, I believe, is for those 225 spaces to be "condoized" and owned/run by the MAC, with everything above including the 178 residential parking spots and 336 apartment units owned by the developer.

Ian (maccoinnich) made an earlier comment about how the intent of this code was to allow shared use parking, and cut down on the amount of new parking built, but that the effect here seems to be making it legal to build a parking garage in a high density residential zone, as long as it has some residential units over it. It is insightful comments like these that has me coming back to this forum time and time again.

maccoinnich · #39 Posted **Oct 12, 2021, 4:52 PM**

Thank you - I really appreciate reading that.

uncommon.name · #40 Posted **Oct 12, 2021, 5:33 PM**

I like the look of it. As mentioned already, very ART Tower-esque but fits that area. I appreciate the effort to conceal the parking garage portion and tie the look together.