The Burnside Blog
Thurman infill 3.0
There are plenty of things to protest in Portland: The grass isn’t green enough, there aren’t enough restaurants, the latte art isn’t pretty enough, and there aren’t enough dog parks. For neighbors in NW Portland, the architecture isn’t good enough.
Or that at least is what we’re led to believe by the owners of the La Torres Condominiums who have appealed a proposed apartment project slated to be constructed on the 2600 block of Northwest Portland between Upshur and Vaughn. Here’s the language of the appeal:
Site address: 2631 NW Upshur Approval of two Adjustments to 33.130.210.B and 33.266.310.D to “increase the maximum allowed height of the building within the CS zoned portion of the site from 45 feet to 60 feet and “reduce the size of one loading space from a required length of 35 feet to 26 feet and a second loading space with restricted access from 35 feet in length, 10 feet in width and with a clearance of 13 feet to 16 feet 6 inches in length, 8 feet 6 inches in width, with a clearance of 9 feet per the approved site plans, Exhibits C-1 through C-10, signed and dated March 3, 2008, subject to conditions.
In the past, some neighbors have argued that the building, which recently received a design award from the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects, is out-of-scale even though it’s right across the street from Montgomery Park, which is twice as tall; and out-of context, even though its surroundings represent a garage sale of architectural styles constructed throughout the entire 20th Century.
I for one will be very surprised if the appeal is granted, but either way this debate will continue as Portland is predicted to lure up to 300,000 residents over the next 20 years,” or so says the planning community. To be maximally sustainable, our city must grow up, not out. Portlanders love to flash their green credentials at ballot boxes and on the bumpers of Subaru wagons, but tend to oppose density and medium-scale, mixed-used projects when they arrive in their neighborhoods.
In Portland we have under-functioning public schools, a lack of vision and focus at City Hall, inadequate higher education options, crumbling infrastructure, and a high rate of homelessness. Yet consistently, no issue is more controversial than infill development. I’m inclined to say we pick strange battles.
The hearing takes place this morning. I’ll have an update later today.
By pFranzen on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 02:50PM PDT
It amazes me how people can be so protective of their old-fashioned urban neighborhoods. All it takes is one visit to a city like Chicago to see that high-density urban neighborhoods can be vibrant, beautiful, and livable.
By stuart on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 02:53PM PDT
“In Portland we have under-functioning public schools, a lack of vision and focus at City Hall, inadequate higher education options, crumbling infrastructure, and a high rate of homelessness. Yet consistently, no issue is more controversial than infill development. I’m inclined to say we pick strange battles.”
Mike, I agree with you that we pick strange battles, but your analysis of Portland sounds overly bleak. Crumbling infrastructure?
By Mike Thelin on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 10:52PM PDT
The Sellwood Bridge dude.
By eileen on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 10:56AM PDT
Err, that’s not it. Right architect…wrong site.
Mike, I can’t find the appeal.
By Mike Thelin on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 05:43PM PDT
Neither can I. I’m told the decision has been delayed for three weeks. Thanks for checking Eileen.
By Stephen on Thursday, May 01, 2008 at 11:44PM PDT
Gee, I kinda disagree that people are more worried about infill than homelessness, etc… There are plenty of people who are more worried about those issues than infill and, gee, they are not particular to Portland or Oregon but to our whole befrigged misguided nation. In addition NIMBYs aren’t only located at LaTorre, they are a vocal presence in every city experiencing growth and change. If the folks at LT were smart and not emotional basket cases, they would argue for a step down near their structure, but also promote an increased height on the portion of the block near Montgomery Park.
What I find the most disturbing about these discussions and these projects, is not infill – which is needed and going to happen – it is this ” oh lordy, we’re being done wrong” song about these projects that are primarily housing for pretty groovy and wealthy folks. This is a class based society, so the appeal etc… are most likely mute points. It would be a whole different story if the project wasn’t designed by Works and housed median or even worse, low income people. What we should be advocating and fighting for, is infill for median income and lower income people in the city, who work in the city, who rely strictly on transit and not because it is some ass design that will never be noticed beyond our boundaries anyway, and look for are policies that support such goals.
By Living On Upshur on Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 02:19PM PDT
Re. the Elysian Garden variance requests . . . situationally speaking I think it says something that there is no real resistance and much support for the proposed mixed-use project opposite Couch Park and adjacent to another very large landmark building, Temple Beth Israel. I haven’t spoken with one person who isn’t favorably disposed toward this building even though it is approximately the same height as the Hale/WPA proposal between NW Upshur & Vaughn and in the middle of the block bounded by 26th and 27th, which neighbors oppose.
The biggest differences are (1) the Couch building fits into the neighborhood where it will be built while the WPA building will stick out like a sore thumb due to its height and mass (go to the neighborhood and look if you disagree; the only other building of any size is the Montgomery Park building which is not in the same neighborhood or zone), (2) The Couch building displaces a small office and a convenience store while the WPA building will displace 38 low to middle income tenants in the Elysian Garden Apartments, some of which have been there many years, are elderly or disabled with limited options re. relocating and rely upon public transportation, (3) The building facing Couch will extend from one side of the block to the other and will not be situated directly next to anyone’s windows. The WPA building in its original incarnation would have been mere feet from the only windows on some of the La Torre Condos. The revisions resulting from meetings between La Torre residents and WPA have drawn that corner down and away but the remaining mass of the building still towers over the neighborhood, (4) much has been made of the green attributes of the proposed Couch building while I haven’t heard anything about green attributes of the proposed Upshur/Vaughn building . . . just about the latest addition of penthouses.
Infill in and of itself is not bad. It’s a matter of what is appropriate growth and situation for a neighborhood and what is not.
By Xylia Buros on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 02:41PM PDT
It amazes me that so-called urban environmentalists don’t understand or just don’t support the fact that high-density mixed-use living is the most ‘green’ solution in city planning. Infill development is exponentially more eco-conscious than suburban sprawl, and needs to triumph over the “not in my backyard” mentality.
Thanks for this post, Mike.