The Burnside Blog
Thurman Infill 2.0
In January, Burnside Blog weighed in on a proposed infill condo development in NW Portland. The project has been approved and will move forward, which has renewed interest in this topic so I’ve moved it to the front of the queue. Here’s my original post followed by a flurry of new comments. Thanks to Jen Dz. for the heads up.
Yesterday, Tyler Graf in the Daily Journal of Commerce did a great job of telling one side of the story about Developer George Hale and Works Partnership Architecture’s proposed condominium in Northwest Portland. Here’s the other side.
The proposed building in question, which in the article (and headline) is referred to as a “brutal” intrusion, is a six-story building that was recently given a design award by the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects. See photo.
Graf’s article doesn’t describe the project—other than a fleeting mention of its aluminum sheen—and nearby residents were given an unholy swath of DJC column inches to voice critiques with minimal space for rebuttal.
What the article doesn’t mention is that Hale and Works Partnership Architecture, according to that firm’s Principal Bill Neburka, had met with the neighborhood association twice. This Saturday, WPA will again hear concerns of the homeowners association at the adjacent LaTorre Condominiums, whose residents are most vocal in the DJC article. According to Neburka, Hale and WPA have also made great efforts to incorporate the concerns of the neighboring LaTorre Condominiums into the massing of the building, even offering to increase the minimum required setback required by zoning.
And check out these quotes:
“This whole thing makes you wonder what (architecture) school they went to,” said Joan Gratz.
and…
“We have a duty to act and preserve the value of the building, and we have serious concerns about the devaluation of our property,” [Zan] Tewksbury said.”
Residents have every right to be concerned about the aesthetics of their surrounding built environment, but neighborhoods like NW Portland have a lot to lose in the long run if every piece of architecture must conform to the set of prescribed faux-historic ideals to which many infill developers in NW Portland have aspired.
For one, the only thing possible to build would be housing for the rich. And, I’d invite Tewksbury to find one instance in the history of real estate where a well designed high-density mixed-use project in the neighborhood has ever devalued real estate. As someone who used to appraise commercial real estate, I can’t think of any.
In the case of scale—the proposed building is slightly taller than its surroundings at six stories—this condo is by no means gigantic. Plus, the price of land alone dictates that shorter buildings—two and three stories—cannot be built at a price point that most can afford. With land prices north of $150 per square foot in these hoods, building taller is not just a good option for affordable market-rate housing: it’s the only option.
It’s certain that the neighbors’ vocal concerns are well intentioned, but they’re not taking into account the economics necessary to both preserve the UBG and a diversity of economics in the city.
Portland in 2008 is in many ways fortunate. The majority of Portland buildings are still bankrolled by Portland developers and conceived by Portland architects. Firms like Works Partnership Architecture—who routinely contribute to the local dialog on architecture and urban design through its Project Cityscope have as much at stake regarding city aesthetics as any neighborhood association. There’s nothing wrong with disliking a piece of architecture. There’s also nothing wrong with liking it, so how about both sides for a change? Works Principal Bill Neburka says he wasn’t even contacted by the DJC prior to publication.
The article mentions the neighborhood’s history and that it was very recently not such a nice place. All neighborhoods, like this one, routinely change. This is what makes a city dynamic. I for one didn’t choose to live in a fast-growing city because I sought stasis. The neighborhood, like many of Portland’s central hoods, is in pretty good shape these days, and more changes are coming.
Local municipalities estimate that excluding the suburbs, Portland’s population could swell by 150,000 to 300,000 people in the next 25 years. That every building must blend and adhere to the scale of the previous century and still be affordable is not only ludicrous, it’s neither logistically nor economically possible. These debates are only beginning. So now is the time to start hearing the pro-density and pro-architecture side.
By zan on Friday, January 18, 2008 at 03:46PM PST
Mike, I was misquoted by the DJC; never did I refer to the Upshur project as a brutal intrusion, but what neither this blog nor the DJC article mention is that the project would demolish 38 existing affordable housing units…affordable as in below market for renters. This type of housing is fast disappearing from NW Portland. Displacing lower income residents (some of them years in residence in this 1926 bungalow court) to erect a massive and overscale building does not sound all that noble to me. There are massive amounts of completely undeveloped, hardscape property all over NW Portland (Conway property East to 405, e.g.) in which to build this type of project, as opposed to 2 blocks from Forest Park in a historically-significant neighborhood with much smaller-scale new development (we totally disagree with your statement that this development is only slightly larger than existing structures). Please do not belittle the “faux” historical nature of our neighborhood. it’s called being neighborly toward the existing architecture. Our condominium building by the way, designed by Art DeMuro, won an award, too, in 1996, the Governor’s Livability Award.
By Mike Thelin on Friday, January 18, 2008 at 03:53PM PST
Thanks for your comments Kevin and Zan. I’m going to snap a few photos this weekend of the surrounding buildings to help paint a more accurate picture of context. Zan, I had no intention of belittling. I personally think your neighborhood is beautiful. I also believe that good, modern infill wouldn’t detract from that. My comments relating to faux historicism were not specifically directed toward your hood. I love historic architecture as much anyone.
By Another Mike on Friday, January 18, 2008 at 05:36PM PST
Mike, I think it’s a great idea for you to visit the neighborhood and observe its architectural and residential nature firsthand. In the interest of a fairness Re. photos, you might consider posting architectural rendering #6 from the WPA site page re. 2631 NW Upshur which gives quite a different impression from the renderings which have already been posted with this thread (view from Montgomery Park) – http://www.worksarchitecture.net/html/project6_6.html. Unfortunately, the architectural firm has removed several images that appeared earlier on the page (including a view from NW 26th and Upshur looking west with the La Torre building in the foreground). Thanks, also, to zan for mentioning that the site in question is not an empty lot but a garden apartment complex with 40 units housing numerous long-time, low-income tenants who – since they are renters – still have not been told a word about the new building or variance hearings because the city is not obliged to contact anybody but property owners within 150 feet of the site. I noticed that the DJC article identified the proposed development as “condo.” This is the first time I have seen anyone state the nature of the building. Whether the building is to be condos or rental units makes a big difference in how much notice current tenants must be given before eviction. Can anyone confirm that this is, indeed, a condo project?
By Another Mike on Friday, January 18, 2008 at 05:36PM PST
Mike, I think it’s a great idea for you to visit the neighborhood and observe its architectural and residential nature firsthand. In the interest of a fairness Re. photos, you might consider posting architectural rendering #6 from the WPA site page re. 2631 NW Upshur which gives quite a different impression from the renderings which have already been posted with this thread (view from Montgomery Park) – http://www.worksarchitecture.net/html/project6_6.html. Unfortunately, the architectural firm has removed several images that appeared earlier on the page (including a view from NW 26th and Upshur looking west with the La Torre building in the foreground). Thanks, also, to zan for mentioning that the site in question is not an empty lot but a garden apartment complex with 40 units housing numerous long-time, low-income tenants who – since they are renters – still have not been told a word about the new building or variance hearings because the city is not obliged to contact anybody but property owners within 150 feet of the site. I noticed that the DJC article identified the proposed development as “condo.” This is the first time I have seen anyone state the nature of the building. Whether the building is to be condos or rental units makes a big difference in how much notice current tenants must be given before eviction. Can anyone confirm that this is, indeed, a condo project?
By zan on Thursday, January 24, 2008 at 12:45PM PST
the development at 2631 NW Upshur is slated for apartments, not condominiums.
By NWneighbor on Friday, January 18, 2008 at 08:52PM PST
I would like to comment on all of the comments that have been made since the article came out in the DJC regarding the new development on Upshur and Vaughn.
First, I believe that quite a few people were miss quoted and there was a high level of inaccuracy in the article. From my conversations with the neighborhood, the primary concern for this building is that, at least initially, there was a 7’ to 13’ high concrete wall that spanned the majority of the street frontage along Upshur. Upshur is a quieter one way street but still serves a connection through to Macleay Park. This building may have won design awards and the courtyard is admirable – however a blank wall that spans for more than 100’ is not desirable. Through a conversation that took place at one neighborhood meeting the architect seemed responsive to the concerns regarding this and seemed willing to address the situation. Additionally, the issue that people seem to be having with the massing is in regards to the request to increase the height limit on the Vaughn side of the site – from 45’ to 65’. This area originally had a lot more split zoned lots and there was an attempt a few years ago to create a transition between the Industrial Sanctuary to the North of Vaughn and the residential area to the South by intentionally changing the zoning along Vaughn to be CS for the most part. The lot that La Torre Condominiums is on is being inaccurately represented by the architect – it is a CM (not a CS) zone and the building footprint has been there since 1905 – predating any zoning requirements of today’s scale. The request for a height adjustment has neighbors concerned as it may set a precedent for future sites if the request is allowed. If it is in fact desirable to have 65’ tall buildings up Vaughn, then request to change the zoning code. Lastly, there is a concern that the architect is going beyond the intentions of the code (which, depending on who talk to may be the only way to push the envelope of design). The Upshur side of the site is RH; allowed 65’, FAR 2:1. However, this site is not included in any maps that allow any sort of increase in FAR. Meaning that at most, the building would be about 2 1/2 stories high assuming maximum of 85% site coverage. Due to the use of the parking structure not being included in the FAR and the use of an internal courtyard, the building is 4 stories on top of a conc plinth/parking structure. Again, this concrete plinth goes from 7’-2” above grade to approx. 13’ above grade from the latest renderings.
The courtyard theme is definitely a step forward in trying to design buildings that celebrate healthy living – from the renderings seen so far, it seems unfortunate that the building is completely introverted and does not share any of the ‘courtyard celebration’ with the street and the neighborhood.
Additionally, this is not meant to be a condo building. It is being designed as apartments.
By Richard Helton on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 08:13AM PST
Looks like another CYAN building to me….come on guys get a little more creative. Is a shifted grid facade all your imagination can envision??? I guess the shifted grid facade is “in” right now and these architects certainly want to follow suit. I’m not saying historic replication but get real. Would you really want to live here or have this in your neighborhood?. The blank walls at street level and the introverted exterior spaces do everything to turn its back on the nieghborhood and say “I don’t care about you, it’s ALL about money. I would give it an F. It looks like a first year design school project. I know you can do better.
By eileen on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 10:21PM PST
Ms. Valk asked you how far from the property line the new development is.
The light and air rights issues being tossed around these blogs are over stated, at best. The intent of these rights is not absolute access to an unencumbered view. This is grasping at straws.
I read a lot about the condo tenants trying to defend their own property rights. Has anyone done a performa on property values in the area? Perhaps every building should be razed and redeveloped to maximize value.
These neighbors fear change. What they should fear is alienating a rightful developer and not being invited to the table.
By Kevin on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 01:13PM PST
Eileen, i asked how close La Torre was to the property line not the new development, as I would assume it is setback it’s required distance, but I don’t believe that the La Torre has the setbacks that the current code requires.
By Where is HOME? on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 01:56PM PST
So let’s destroy the whole neighborhood and start from scratch? Are you an architect? Have we any thought in regards to people’s ‘homes’? Have we read the current Portland Spaces magazine? Is living close-in supposed to be reserved for people that are either extremely wealthy and probably without children and/or for renters? What happens when people decide to have kids (you dont need 1000+ sf, but more then 1 bedroom may be in need)? Oh, I guess we will all move out to the burbs or some place more affordable.
The home is the fundamental, primary function of human beings. As Heidegger says, it is a fundamental characteristic of human beings to dwell. Once a dwelling or home is created humans can begin to expand themselves in other areas of their lives, but without a home, they are nothing. “Making a home is the first mark humans make on nature” – where are we as designers in regards to making a “home” for people? Making places that they will be proud of and will want to support, developing community and not moving around every 2-5 years? Shouldn’t we be concerned that there seems to be a focus on design for design sake and not design for community sake?
In the west we tend to see homes that dominate over nature and that show man’s control, power, and manipulation over a site. There is also a large variation of styles and forms for a residence.
The emergence of cities occurred with the development of homes and permanent residences. For up to 300 yrs. ago the city was an entity which was self-contained, outside of it was nothingness. Once dwelling units are built the formation of cities begins to occur.
What is the overall moral implication of everything that is being built today? Have we thought about it?
On another note; What is the role of representation in architecture? How do we determine what a building will look like? Do we get regional clues from the site and culture – or do we just build what looks cool? The conflict with representation and architecture is: what should architecture represent? If architecture is about building something in order to give meaning or to say something about the building, then how do we determine what it is that should be said? Does the architecture represent an airplane, a tree, binoculars or a computer? Does it become a box with a skin? Or, does the architectural representation come from trying to say something about the space and a certain aura (which can come from certain materials, scale, spatial relationships, etc.)? Going back to Heidegger, perhaps when buildings get at the primal act of dwelling, and the essence of what it is to dwell, then we can begin to understand such spaces and how to achieve them.
By Supergadfly on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 04:55PM PST
I think eileen’s comment about razing the neighborhood was sarcastic, pointing out the hypocrisy of so many posts on this page. People seem to cite property value as a reason to stop this project, but it will in fact greatly increase their value. If they were really so concerned with value, they would tear down the old buildings and max out their zoning. Property value is a straw man for Not In My Back Yard. Property value is not the issue, growth/change is.
Regarding your tired quotes from old man Heidegger: don’t tell ME how to dwell! Maybe I would like living in this building. Does this not make me part of your mythical “community”? Is there a taste test I need to take before joining your harmonious, nature-embracing, aura-creators?
By eileen on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 10:03AM PST
H was talking about connection to earth, to sky, to the glowing orb, to an impassioned awareness of this mortal toil. When he spoke of “setting up” he needed the thing-set-up. Heidegger was unconcerned with stuff that might Be. He concerned himself with Being.
H cared not about the bridge. He saw the banks. His thinking cannot help us build the bridge…it can only help us stop fixating on it as mere object.
Today, we are talking about mere objects that look pretty or don’t, allow growth or don’t, cast shadows or don’t, balance the books or don’t, exceed 45 feet or don’t, make the neighbors smile or don’t, look like their neighbors or don’t, raise taxes or don’t, respect what came before or don’t.
Mike’s next blog, “Apartment Building Undermines the Being of Dasein.”
By thedude on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 06:47PM PST
What year is it? We have an award winning architecture that dedicates its entire street front to a concrete wall. How modern and wonderful. Did the firm describe this placemaking space as “simple and clean”? Pathetic that in this day and age we have firms that don’t understand that the most important part of any building is how it meets the sidewalk. Maybe if the architectural community would stop for a moment and understand that the public doesn’t want faux historic design they want GOOD modern design that respects the fundamentals of urban design. Time to break up the architectural circle jerk??
By John Q Public on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 05:27PM PST
Hey, wait a sec…who said you get to speak for “the public”? As an apparently homogeneous body of enlightened modern urbanists (that doesn’t include architects), shouldn’t we have gotten together and voted? Or did I get left off the mailing list?
By Mary Garden on Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 10:11AM PST
I came over here from the DJC article. Based on the pix, I can’t imagine wanting to live next to this building. It looks like a prison.
By zan on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 03:05PM PST
thanks, Mary. Too bad the city did not listen to our rational arguments against the development and approved it. 200 by 200 by 60, right next door.
By Eves on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 04:50PM PST
zan, It would be impossible to meet the FAR on that site with a 200 by 200 by 60ft building. Why are you falsely claiming that the development will be that large? It seems that with claims that are not based on the facts, your argument against the development is not rational at all.
There are so many false claims being made on this blog regarding this development. Many are simply emotional reactions to the densification of Portland – a planning goal. Land Use Reviews are public record and available for viewing at the Bureau of Document Services. I would encourage anyone that really wants to know the facts about this project to view the records for themselves.
NIMBY reactions to infill development in Portland are all too common. I would suggest that zan and others bring their concerns to the Planning Department who create / apply the zoning and allow height adjustments to those areas instead of attacking architects and developers working within the allowed criteria.
By Supergadfly on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 04:58PM PST
So don’t.
By Supergadfly on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 05:18PM PST
Sorry about that last one, it got away from me…
Eves- good points. This whole thread really seems to be a about a larger argument surrounding densification in one’s neighborhood. Sure, the Urban Growth Boundary and the benefits we all enjoy because of it are well and good until you have to help shoulder the burden.
Specific to this project, it is hard to comment before seeing exactly what is being asked for. Are there images to be found? Doesn’t the city post its applications online?
By eileen on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 10:08AM PST
No, this is not about any larger issue like urban development. This is not about public taste. This is not about broad topical discussions. This isn’t even about good or bad architecture.
This is about Condo owners not wanting the site next door to have a bigger building on it.
All the other arguments are red herrings…or wedge issues.
By Eves on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 02:19PM PST
Yes. You can view recent Land Use Review Decisions online:
http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?c=42259&
The desicions are organized neighborhood. The Thurman decision has not been posted yet.
By intheknow on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 04:27PM PST
wow.. so much good material – i’m not even sure where to start. so architects should design primal dwellings that represent binoculars and meet the street well
By Greg on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 08:03PM PST
More excuses. The publics distaste for this project and many others is not about density or modernity its about good design. Architectural firms continue to fail and then blame the public for wanting to go backwards. Its totally insulting. The pubic wants quality not rehashed 70’s kitsch. Come to the table with something of quality that respects the existing neighborhood and the problem will be solved.
By truth on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 08:40PM PST
Greg, I’m dying to hear some examples of what you consider to be “quality”
By Mike Thelin on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 08:10PM PST
I took a walk several weeks ago to check out this site and was surprised that neighbors found it so out-of-scale. One thing that no body has said yet is that this development is just a block from Montgomery Park, which is what, nine or ten stories tall?
I’m convinced that the neighbors will like this building once it’s constructed. Neighbors in the Belmont hood feared Holst’s Belmont Lofts before it went up and most neighbors love it.
By Greg on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 07:23AM PST
Tough one :) Actually there are many. I think some of the library’s built by hacker? a few years ago are very well thought out and fit each location well. For some reason I love the fire house right off West 26 on skyline. The use of colored glass gives it some nice details. The hated white box building on Glisen and 23 works because it contrasts the buildings around it so well and the scale is similar to a house.
Mike scale is only being used to kill the project for bad design. It’s there best chance. If the project was designed correctly (like not having an entire city block one long concrete wall or siding that wouldn’t look dated two days after completion) then size wouldn’t really matter.
By eileen on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 10:14AM PST
this building is not yet designed. it’s not designed. Concrete? Who said concrete? Siding? Out of date? It has no date. Right now, today, it’s a chipboard model, a computer rendered diagram, and some scaleless doodles. There is no detail, no materiality, no humanizing effects, because today this building is a big diagram. All that stuff comes later when the architect begins to actually design the damn thing.
the arguments about whether this building is good or bad needs to wait until the building begins to emerge as a series of ideas about “building”. I mean, how many finials is this thing going to have? We don’t even know yet.
By truth on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 07:45AM PST
Greg, Aside from the fire house, which I personally think is ugly (only my opinion, they have a right to build what they like) I agree on the libraries, and Allied’s Ann Sacks building. However I question what you are basing your opinions of this being a bad design on. Are you simply looking at the image at the top of this blog and reading the misinformed diatribes of scorned neighbors? The reality is that Works did themselves no favors with the images they used to portray the design, and I think that’s causing some of this backlash. But my understanding is that there is in fact no “entire city block one long concrete wall” and that the siding hasn’t even been finalized. Design is a process, and because of the time and money it takes to traverse the city and neighborhoods approval process, things evolve. Calling a building “brutal” or “a bad design” based on an early, undeveloped model photo, is unfortunate and naive. With that said, i wonder what types of images Works would use if they had to go through this process again?
By Greg on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 08:28AM PST
Simple contrast. Beyond the insular nature of the design and the bored to death double skin trick, the building doesn’t try and fit into that spot. Its basically screams “I exist alone so look at me” It doesn’t mesh or take any visual hints from its surroundings. Its the same mistake many architectural firms make. They view the building as a picture, a whole, to be admired from afar. This works for a house on a hill or the largest tower in a city, something you can see as a whole, but as an infill project in an established neighborhood the first job of the building should be to continue the positives of that neighborhood. This just doesn’t cut it. What about this box compliments the west hills behind it? Or the housing next to it? Or the colors of the mature tree’s around it? Or the sidewalk feel of the street? Its a box with random windows that looks cool on a computer screen. Thats it. There is nothing distinctly NW about it.
I’ll add that I think this building might be pretty neat filling an entire 200 by 200 foot block in the Pearl (maybe with a bit more height.) so you can see it in its entirety, but as infill it fails.
By Eves on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 09:10AM PST
Greg: So why would this work better in the Pearl and not as infill? I have noticed many people saying this building would work better in the Pearl District and not in NW. Are you suggesting that the Pearl is a mere mix of scenographic buildings which don’t make a real neighborhood like Northwest?
By eileen on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 11:23AM PST
Greg,
I just don’t know how you can claim object-hood for this building yet. It’s way too early. The double skin trick? Visual hints from its surroundings?
But more to the point, there is no design overlay for this site so your opinion regarding the design, while it is part of a worthwhile and ongoing discussion, has no bearing on the current issue: approval of the height change.
I look forward to seeing this process and discussion go on. I have strong faith in the skill of these Architects. They are concerned and talented. They are not circle-jerkers…though they do have stalkers.
By Stuart on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 08:53AM PST
Greg: Bad design? Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it bad. Coming from a guy who can’t write a sentence without poor constructions and misspellings, your opinion of what’s good and bad in the realm of design doesn’t much resonate with me.
Wanna talk about bad design? There are terrible examples of design directly across from the site on Upshur Street. Most of the snout houses on Thurman Street are terrible. This building will improve the area and that’s why it was approved. If Portland is ever going to have any international role, there needs to be more good architecture.
By Mike Thelin on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 08:56AM PST
Stuart: Stay on topic. I appreciate your comments regarding infill, but insulting other forumers won’t be accepted on this forum.
By Greg on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 09:18AM PST
Stuart, how does this building compliment both the natural and built environment around it? Other then being the hot style of the architectural circle jerk, what about it improves the neighborhood? Horray its not a snout house isn’t enough.
Oh and you got me, I do suck at writing quickly, but I do understand urban communities and have spent years in many inner neighborhoods around the country. I didn’t take architecture 101 or “how to make cheap cool” where they taught you to dress up crap with lines like “its a jewel box” and “simple clean lines” :) But I’ve walked these Portland streets hundreds of times and understand the sites, smells, sounds that make this area special. Do you?
By eileen on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 10:49AM PST
So, Stuart, you understand the built world better than anyone. Architects are concerned with coolness, jargon, and auto fellatio…nothing more.
“But I’ve walked these Portland streets hundreds of times and understand the sites, smells, sounds that make this area special. Do you?”
Wipe that junk off your chin.
By eileen on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 10:51AM PST
oops, greg…damn.
By intheknow on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 09:34AM PST
there is a comment that got posted up there a ways that i found very, very interesting.
"Zan… In fact your property asked for a zone change from RH to CM in 1994. At that time, your developer asked for and was granted at least 3 different adjustments to the zoning requirements including setback waivers that involve setbacks required from R zoned sites and was granted the right to back auto traffic out of your garage. From the notice that was mailed, it’s clear to me that the developer of the property next door to you has given much more thought to the impact his project will have on the neighboring sites than yours did… Even giving your building much more space than required. Count your blessings… You may not want a building built… But as options go- this seems like a pretty good deal."these WPA folks are great at what they do – progressive – yes – but arguing against this project just because you personally can’t get it, yet – seems like a silly emotional response.. or another type of architecture circle jerk.
By intheknow on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 09:37AM PST
that didn’t work well… try again…
Zan… In fact your property asked for a zone change from RH to CM in 1994. At that time, your developer asked for and was granted at least 3 different adjustments to the zoning requirements including setback waivers that involve s etbacks required from R zoned sites and was granted the right to back auto traffic out of your garage. From the notice that was mailed, it’s clear to me that the developer of the property next door to you has given much more thought to the impact his project will have on the neighboring sites than yours did… Even giving your building much more space than required. Count your blessings… You may not want a building built… But as options go- this seems like a pretty good deal.”
By eileen on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 11:09AM PST
So, wait, you’re telling me that the existing condos exceeded zoning requirements at the time of construction in 1994?
GASP
They overstepped their rightful foot print?
Hm, the new proposal doesn’t over step its rightful foot print…true? In fact, if I recall correctly, it makes significant concessions to the condo building in the form of increased set backs.
So, if the height adjustment weren’t granted could the architect simply maximize the footprint with complete disregard to the condo’s air and light and with no recourse for the condo group?
fascinating
By Stephen on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 09:37AM PST
I walked around this site on Sunday and I understand the residents concerns regarding the scale of the building closest to La Torre. That said, the site borders Vaughn and Montgomery Park on the NW where scale shouldn’t be an issue.
I believe the lack of good contextural renderings for this project have furthered the antagonistic relationship between the stakeholders. I haven’t seen a good perspective of the relationship to La Torre viewed from Upshur and 26th. Possibly they exist but haven’t been posted.
By Greg on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 12:32PM PST
Not at all eileen, I just find it amusing that the so called “Professionals” can be so out of tune with basic urban functions. Who are some of these buildings being built for? Sure as hell not for the pedestrian walking two or three feet from the “simple clean lines” of concrete walls. Did something in this area inspire the double wall? Does the window pattern mimic or complement forest park behind it? Why is this building designed as it is? What makes this building right for this location?
Can we the poor schmucks with out architectural degrees simple ask these questions? Or should we just defer to our betters and accept the patronising line “you just don’t understand”
NW Examiner actually has been covering this topic for the last few months. The 50 year war between Architects and everyone else. Some good stuff
I do need to add that I actually hope this building gets built, its not perfect, but it IS better then what exists already. Hopefully this concrete wall gets reworked.
By eileen on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 01:24PM PST
Greg,
“I just find it amusing that the so called “Professionals” can be so out of tune with basic urban functions. Who are some of these buildings being built for?”
You obviously have a broader (and probably valid) axe to grind with urban, architectural design. I just don;t think you’re being fair to this particular project. You should point to the concrete bunker walls and the poor pedestrian experience on THIS project. Show us.
I don’t see it. I think you’re imagining it.
By Eves on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 03:30PM PST
The article pertaining to this project in the NW Examiner is full of false information. It makes me question how true the statements are about the 50 year war between architects and everyone else.
By truth on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 12:44PM PST
Greg,
This where I loose trust in your argument: There is NO full, length concrete wall at the street, and I can assure you that there is no “double skin”, unless these are going to be the most expensive apartments in the NW. You should definetly question what you feel like questioning, no one is perfect and no one is above commentary. But you should at least have the facts straight before you criticize. Also, why must a building mimic or complement the park, I don’t see a connection there. Must a building have the same widow patterns as it’s neighbors to fit in? and if so which do you mimic, the victorian houses, the industrial bunkers, the one story garden apartments?
What I find funny is that this massing and layout basically mimics all the old courtyard style apartment buildings that the NW neighbors seem to have a fascination with. And none of them are very street friendly.
By eilee on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 01:19PM PST
truth is dead on.
if we want to have a thorough conversation about how this proposal responds to the existing fabric then we should. and as this design evolves we can do so.
By Greg on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 12:58PM PST
Sorry I assumed that an architect would be inspired by the natural landscape that one is building in. Since Forest Park and the west hills define that area… Well just thought it would matter. Maybe someone can educate us all and tell us what inspired this design?
By eileen on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 01:14PM PST
Well, if you look at the architect’s website one could assume moss and rocks and such. Regardless, Wpa has done enough work with complex enough issues to bet they are working on more than a one-liner.
Don’t assume that Wpa or any other architect thinks the public is a mass of schmucks. Quite the contrary, actually. And I’m sure Wpa is offended by the accusation. I know I am.
As for actual inspiration and such you’ll have to ask Wpa…that’s a novel idea.
I suspect that much of the conversation here is tainted by the imagery presented. These images are intended for the review process regarding the height adjustment…not whether the hills or views or construction or pedestrian is served. That’s yet to come…when these architects actually “design” the building.
I expect that windows are not in their final locations. Materials are not selected and detailed. No concrete has been located.
Again, we don’t even know how many finials there will be.
(shrug)
A lot has been said at this point about things that are not remotely decided.
By Greg on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 01:56PM PST
Ok, then maybe the entire conversation should really be about early renderings and there impact on a projects perception.
Sorry if I offended anyone. This neighborhood is very important to me.
By eileen on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 02:24PM PST
Uh, well, that kind of representation conversation might be interesting…to someone.
But the conversation about what ought to be built needs to take place. In order for it to be productive it needs to be open and in good faith. I think that the condo folks have not necessarily been acting in good faith.
As for style, again, this isn’t a design overlay area so take that into account. Hale has as much right to like a building of a certain character as do the owners of LaTorre. Is this building going be a good design or a bad one? That remains to be seen. We know almost nothing about it at this point.
Concerns about views, materiality, pedestrian experience, the fundamental character of dwelling…these are all a part of the conversation. But really, the work needs to get under way first.
I wonder if Mike would provide a forum for us to follow Wpa and Hale in their ongoing work?
By on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 02:52PM PST
Now that’s a worthwhile debate. How do early renderings impact a neighborhood’s perception of development? Should architects present early renderings to a neighborhood at all?
Would the neighbors have been more likely to grant a height adjustment based on the zoning criteria if there were no images associated with the request to scare them about development in the area? Do frilly, watercolor renderings showing a building populated by several children carrying balloons tone things down enough for neighbors to react to the request?
In all fairness watercolor renderings don’t accurately portray materials and relationships to the street at the early stages of design either.
And BTW Greg, don’t be sorry about offending anyone. Architecture is a subjective craft and everyone has their opinions. These opinions vary greatly even within the profession. That’s what gives these forums momentum.
By eileen on Friday, March 07, 2008 at 07:27AM PST
These conversation about what ought to be built are crucial. It’s how a vital community goes about creating itself.
I will say, however, that Greg’s “circle jerk” and broad-stroked dismissal of Architects is well beyond the pale. It’s insulting at best, destructive to the conversation at worst.
As professionals and as a community we owe each other far more respect. If Greg or others are looking for a school yard I suggest they go here … http://www.sportsline.com/mcc/messages/thread/6846649
By Corbu on Friday, March 07, 2008 at 09:25AM PST
And War analogies, especially at a time when our neighbors are deployed amongst hostiles, are reprehensible.
By Monforts on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 02:52PM PST
Actually Greg, no one really answered your question because it is a difficult and subjective answer. Not to mention site specific. As an architect, I can assure you that there is a lot of debate within the profession over the role of natural environment, construction technology, and history in determining a building form.
There is no doubt that the architects are inspired by the local environment, otherwise they wouldn’t live in Portland. But does that mean that they put pitched roofs on? Brick? Paint it green? I’m asking very honestly, not making fun. Most of the building stock in the area was influenced by styles and tastes inherited from the east coast, so I’d be interested in hearing what specifically you mean by honoring the west hills.
By Monforts on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 02:57PM PST
Also, from the Northwest Neighborhood Design Guidelines:
“The [Vaughn] corridor’s architectural diversity reflects the historically dynamic, changing relationship between industrial and residential uses in the area….While a more unified street orientation along NW Vaughn Street is desired, new buildings should contribute to the architectural diversity of the area.”
I just wanted to point this out, before we condemn this building for not “fitting in”.
By WPA on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 03:21PM PST
We have worked hard to stay out of this commentary because so much of what is said here is speculative and subjective, and not actually rooted in the facts of this particular adjustment application.
Just a few actual facts. This isn’t a design review process- it is a requested 15’ adjustment to the height of the north half of the site (fronting NW Vaughn Street) from 45’ to 60’. The requested height adjustment looks to more closely match the allowable 65’ height on the south side of the site- The RH portion fronting NW Upshur. The “ask” has been mitigated by additional setbacks, penthouse level setbacks, façade treatment, and a list too long to repeat here. I encourage anybody who is interested to review the findings that support the planning department’s approval of the adjustment request.
We want to be absolutely clear- This proposal is actually building significantly less square footage (bulk) than is allowed by current zoning on the CS portion of the site. In addition, the amount of square footage relocated above the 45’ height limit is LESS than the buildable square footage the proposal is forsaking to provide the additional setbacks alone. We are giving back more than we are asking for. These are facts that are available for anybody to review.
As for the design, including how the building addresses the street, and contextual relationships and references- those discussions will need to wait for a later date. I agree with Truth that our office was ill served in releasing preliminary design drawings and studies into such a contentious and loaded atmosphere. We believe in the quality of the ideas alluded to in those early studies, but they weren’t appropriate for the level of detail scrutiny they are being held to. I would have to say that design commentary or criticism based only on those images is niave in its own way.
We look forward to continuing the design process and ultimately building this building, if and when that time comes.
By eileen on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 03:40PM PST
Oh look, the Architect deigns to speak.
What? Worn out from all the circle jerking?
By Gary Kercheck on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 10:01PM PDT
Surprised to see this debate still going but since I’m pretty familiar with the proposal and there are a few new developments, I’ll chime in.
First of all, the property in question is for sale and the Elysian Gardens apartments that currently sit on it are undergoing minor renovations so it’s not entirely clear, when (if?), this building will see the light of day.
Second is that the La Torre HOA has filed an appeal to the adjustment that the city granted so the process hasn’t reached closure yet.
Third, I’d like to address a few of the distortions and misconceptions still floating around here.
In terms of the adjustments & zone change requested and granted for the La Torre building circa 1994, those were largely to preserve and align with the ground floor which dates to the turn of the century and is a remnant of the World’s Fair. None of those adjustments push the density envelope the way the WPA building would. Not by a long shot. La Torre is a three story, 10-unit condo with retail space on the ground floor versus a six story, 140+ unit apartment megaplex. See any difference in scale or density there? I’ll also point out that height is the primary means of controlling mass when building short & fat vs. tall & skinny (and with unlimited FAR in a zone where height is the only cap) so all adjustment requests are not equal.
“Intheknow” also raised the notion the La Torre building somehow imposes upon its neighbors more than the proposed building would. This is fairly ridiculous, especially if one is brave enough to look beyond our west facing setback and bring the subject of street parking and congestion into the discussion. Again, this is a 140+ unit complex that provides 57 parking spots. In comparison, La Torre is a 10 unit building (with retail) that provides 14 parking spots. Tell me, where are the 80+ residents of the WPA building who don’t pay for covered parking, and their friends and family who visit expected to park?
Eileen pointed out that the La Torre building “oversteps” its allowable footrpint whereas the WPA buidling does not. While technically that may be true, it overlooks the rather glaring issue that the WPA building, if allowed the height adjustment would overstep the vertical ceiling of the CS zone by 15’ as measured from the adjacent right of way (Vaughn). And I’ll guarantee you the WPA building’s floor area above the 45’ height line would far exceed what our building uses in the west side setback we built on. Again, consider the relative scale of these two buildings before rushing to judgment.
She also asked if the height request weren’t granted, could the architect build to the edge of the La Torre building to make up for it. The short answer is, no, not without radically changing the design of their building (lopping off floors). The height request is only for the Vaughn street side. Mass in the RH zone (the zone that abuts La Torre) is mainly controlled by a 2:1 FAR limit and they are at the maximum 40,000SF allowable even with the additional setbacks they claim as mitigation.
Next, I saw WPA chime in on the issue of bulk being used vs. bulk allowed. They claim to be conceding a large amount of square footage in comparison to what they are asking for. It’s not nearly as cut-and-dried or as absolutely clear as they make it out to be. I too encourage anyone to take a close look at their bulk massing diagrams. Bear in mind that the penthouse floor they mention is on the sixth floor, whereas all other buildings on S. Vaughn are four floors or less.
Lastly, sidestepping the whole issue of aesthetics because I still don’t have a good feel for what the actual facades are going to look like, one has to take a hard look at this building and see if it really makes much sense in this location. Everything around this site has already been developed to a low to medium density scale. People that want the high density experience are generally looking for amenities like light rail, shops, restaurants, night clubs, etc. Think the Pearl, South Waterfront, close-in 23rd. Vaughn and Upshur don’t quite fit that picture. Also, drive over the Fremont bridge and count the number of brand new or half built high-rises going up. I have a hard time believing Portland isn’t overbuilding, big time. I don’t think this building, tucked back at the gateway to Forest & Macleay park, can really compete. So, and this is addressed to Mike Thelin, while the UGB might drive central policy, it doesn’t make every high density development a great candidate for every site.
Flame away ,
Gary
By Kevin on Friday, January 18, 2008 at 03:37PM PST
Mike, you changed the title. That’s unfortunate, as I thought the original was perfect.
Zan, how close is the La Torre to the property line adjacent to the proposed development? Does it meet the setback requirements of the current code? Also, Art DeMuro is a developer, not a designer. Any thought to the fact that he made a poor decision to set-up condo units that only had windows facing an adjacent property, fully knowing that the adjacent lot could one day have another building. Whether the new building was taller than the La Torre or not it would block views, are you suggesting that a property owner can never build a taller building than it’s neighbors? I love the argument about losing the affordable housing, how about you turn your $400k+ condo over to the needy as well. Some people don’t realize it but not every open site that you see is available for sale or development, developers don’t get to pick any site with a surface parking lot that they want.
By zan on Thursday, January 24, 2008 at 12:55PM PST
kevin, the original design has the development 14 feet from three of our building’s 10 residential condominiums; that’s a 65 ft wall blocking the only source of light and air for 3 residences. While I appreciate your point about turning my condo over to the needy, I don’t see you stepping up to offer your residence. Light and air are property rights the law recognizes. Plus, whether a legal right exists or not, the mantra of high-density infill development should have an undertone of neighborliness to it, as a matter of principle. it will be far less expensive for developers in the long run if they show some respect for the existing property owners and design projects (or hire architects to design them) that address the project’s surroundings. It appears that WPA and George Hale have now done this with a redesign that pulls the project’s eastern facade on the Upshur side back from our building 26 ft, drops the height of that part of the development about 12 ft, and pulls it back from Upshur 30 ft (as opposed to 5 feet as originally designed). The new design also appears to address the giant, barrier-creating plinth wall on Upshur, though it is still hard to say how much.
By zan on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 03:02PM PST
La Torre’s footprint was erected in 1905 right after the demolition of the L&C Exposition site. There was no setback and there is none now under CM code. which our building carries. So, that is not the question. We have been here for over 100 years.
By Not so on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 10:25PM PST
Zan… In fact your property asked for a zone change from RH to CM in 1994. At that time, your developer asked for and was granted at least 3 different adjustments to the zoning requirements including setback waivers that involve setbacks required from R zoned sites and was granted the right to back auto traffic out of your garage. From the notice that was mailed, it’s clear to me that the developer of the property next door to you has given much more thought to the impact his project will have on the neighboring sites than yours did… Even giving your building much more space than required. Count your blessings… You may not want a building built… But as options go- this seems like a pretty good deal.