The Burnside Blog
Centennial Mills Proposals Vary
Last night three competing developers unveiled their proposals to reinvent what is perhaps Portland’s most iconic riverfront property, Centennial Mills. Each of the three proposals champion a variety of uses, but the scale of the projects differ enormously.
I talked with a few local developers and politicos following the event, and the favorite among them seemed to be the proposal by Lab Holdings, a company whose developments in the Minneapolis waterfront Mill District looked pretty impressive. Lab had obviously done its research on Portland, and its solution calls for maximal open space, public market stalls, office space for eco-driven businesses and many dining options. Lab is responsible for some stunning projects on the Minneapolis Waterfront.
The Cordish Company seemed about as good as a fit for Portland as a new NASCAR track in Pioneer Courthouse Square. Cordish, incidentally, happens to be the developer in charge of NASCAR’s entire restaurant chain plus other gigantic developments in Kansas City, Louisville, and its most famous, Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, which is essentially a waterfront shopping mall. The scale of the Cordish Development is immense, maximizing the square footage of the property with several new housing and office towers, a museum and a music venue. The architecture seemed a bit ordinary. During the entire presentation, Cordish reps rarely addressed context or said much about Portland at all. Instead, its reps touted the company’s gigantic themed developments in other cities, and seemed to have an attitude that what has worked in Louisville and Baltimore would work for Portland too.
The third developer, Nitze-Stagen and C., calls for a larger-scale development with two tall housing towers, a hotel and housing. The proposal, which was designed by the local firm ZGF, seems to be a compromise between the other two: an eco-focused mixed-used development with lots of buildings and less open space. The proposal in spirit, reminds me of the Brewery Blocks. It’s large-scale, but not-cookie cutter in any way. The amount of new office space could really expand the job base, which alone could drive the amount of daytime amenities that the development could support.
Expect a more detailed overview of the three projects this weekend.
By Mike Thelin on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 10:59AM PST
Eileen: That’s very true. But Cordish, I believe, also committed to long-term ownership. However, is the size of a development always related to ownership? Gerding Edlen owned the Brewery Blocks until last year, and that’s a pretty big development.
By jeff on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 11:23AM PST
just to clarify, i think LAB is from california, and their architect is from minneapolis…and i don’t think LAB was involved in the project they showed in minneapolis. i do agree with the general sentiment though – in this case less is more.
By John on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 11:39AM PST
I think the LAB proposal is the best of the 3. I like it’s focus on preserving and using the Mill and keeping open space. LAB’s architect is a great one and my choice of the 3 architects. Their project in Minneapolis is stunning and very similar to this project. I think this project has soul and the potential to be modest although strong.
I agree that Cordish is a terrible fit for this project and would result in a large, banal project.
The Nitze-Stagen project has a strong professional team and is thoughtful. It’s also just huge and commercial and not as clear or inspired as the LAB project. If it’s density were lowered some I think this would be a stronger proposal. The mix of uses and density could help assure that the Mill has vitality although my sense is that in creating so much vitality the Mill and the riverfront is lost.
By eileen on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 01:55PM PST
Mike: I don’t know the answer to your ‘always’ question beyond, “Um, that seems unlikely.”
I meant my size comment as a wondering, certainly not a statement of fact.
I do think it interesting that Lab Holdings is willing to do such a small project. And I suspect a developers’ inclination (especially an alien developer) is to go big if they’ll flip it.
I believe Lab Holdings is the the strongest and most appropriate response to this site, this community, and this challenge. I also submit that theirs is the one with the biggest up side in the event of failure. By that I mean, if it does fail, of if any of them fail, Lab Holdings will leave Portland with the lowest demolition overhead (tongue-half-in-cheek).
By Peter Franzen on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 03:46PM PST
I would like to see something that falls between the LAB design and the Nitze-Stagen proposal. There are a lot of aspects that I like about LAB’s proposal and it does feel very ‘Portland’, but I think that the entire district would benefit from more commercial/office space too. LAB’s design just seems a little bit too granola right now.
By John on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 04:18PM PST
I prefer LAB’s sensitivity although I agree that it may be lacking in intensity and density. Ultimately they have the land to increase program and other uses. I think the decision is to select a team and a vision and then work with the team to refine their proposal. I think growing the LAB concept is more likely to lead to success than trying to shrink the Nitze-Stagen one.
By eileen on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 05:00PM PST
I John makes a great point.
By Mike Thelin on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 05:05PM PST
I agree.
By eileen on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 10:29AM PST
I particularly like that Lab Holdings will own the property rather than flip it. As they said, if the project fails then they fail. THAT is investment. It also raises interesting questions about developer M.O. If their profit is in developing the site developers will go big. If their profit is in maintaining and owning the site developers will go small. The size of the development is driven by the developer’s profit, not what’s appropriate to the site and community.