Lincoln Square, Portland's tallest proposed building

[Patrick]

Here are some interesting renderings of the final approved version of Lincoln Square, which was never built. This version is about 100 feet shorter than the initial proposals. Still, it would have been about 90 feet taller than anything else in town, and the tallest office tower. The parking garage would not have been great from a street design perspective, but the Congress Street side would have been a great addition. Look at the traditional look and feel of the entrance. There would have been four towers, built in phases, connected by a central indoor courtyard.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

I'm having trouble reading the benchmarks--what was the proposed height--220' or so? It would be interesting to see a rendering of this building in context--do you know if one exists? It seems, at least, like the site would have been great. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would have faced Lincoln Park and been on what is now a very dead end of downtown, it seems.

Postmodernism is not one of my favorite architectural movements, especially in office towers. I actually think City Hall Plaza in Manchester, built in the early 1990s and occupying a small footprint with punctured windows, etc. is a rare example of a very nice postmodern office tower. The massing of Lincoln Square seems pretty good, but the details seem a little busy and the windows out-of-scale. Still, obviously infinitely better than a parking lot. Even the ugly garage on Cumberland could have been refaced and the ground floor converted to retail or something later on.

What happened? Why didn't this go forward? The dates on the drawings look like maybe it was the real estate bubble?

 

[Lrfox]

Patrick, IMHO, you're better off without it from an aesthetics standpoint. I'd like to see a detailed color rendering, but this just looks too stumpy and squat (wider than it is tall). I would go so far as to call it a Landscraper. Sure, it would be better than surface lots, but at least there's potential for that site still. Maybe something else will coincide nicely with the Franklin Art. redevelopment? PoMo is not a great architectural style with very few exceptions. I don't think it would compliment the rest of the city well.

 

[Patrick]

Valid points. I however happen to think the structure actually looks fantastic, but I know many others have agreed with you, not me. The height of this rendering would have been 227' but the original proposal was for the tallest tower to be 330'. It was conceived during the bubble, and failed during the bust, but the developer told me in his opinion it didn't move forward because the city failed to allow TIF for parking. The company which this would have housed primarily is now in suburban Scarborough, where parking is virtually free. There is a rendering showing the larger proposal in context, but none that I know of showing the scaled down (and approved, I might add!) structure shown above. The next tallest building in town would have been Franklin Towers, directly behind this, which is 152' tall.

 

[Patrick]

Patrick, IMHO, you're better off without it from an aesthetics standpoint. I'd like to see a detailed color rendering, but this just looks too stumpy and squat (wider than it is tall). I would go so far as to call it a Landscraper. Sure, it would be better than surface lots, but at least there's potential for that site still. Maybe something else will coincide nicely with the Franklin Art. redevelopment? PoMo is not a great architectural style with very few exceptions. I don't think it would compliment the rest of the city well.

Fair points, and I agree. I would have much rather seen the initial proposal (much more slender). This is a squat building, but that seems to be Portland's trademark. Even the design of the more slender buildings are squat, because the development is broken into 4 buildings instead of one tower. The original proposal, a skyscraper...the scaled down version, something that doesn't scare residents and is barely acceptable to the developer...

 

[FrankLloydMike]

This is a squat building, but that seems to be Portland's trademark.

I agree, and I don't think this is necessarily bad. It's been pointed out before, but while Manchester has a handful of buildings significantly taller than anything in Portland, Portland's downtown has a more consistent height, which is more important in my mind. I love the smattering of a few, slender towers, but Portland's topography lends a natural feeling of height even for the squatter buildings anyway. The massing could certainly have been improved a bit, but it seems to have had a strong wall along Congress and would have given the area some height while respecting the other buildings in downtown Portland.

I still think the details, judging just from these drawings, would have been a bit kitschy leaning toward tacky and wouldn't have aged well. Still, that area of Portland (from my limited experience) feels pretty dead and this would have been a huge improvement. It's a shame it didn't happen.

 

[Patrick]

I think squat buildings are bad. There, I said it. I don't think it is a secret that i am biased in favor of tall buildings, but that being said you make valid points. I am curious which rendering appeals to your more, of the two below (the color one is of a building proposed for the same site).

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Definitely the top one. I like tall buildings too, but I like them much more if the follow the historical pattern of piercing an otherwise relatively consistent lower mass of buildings. This is similar to clock towers and steeples rising from old downtowns. I think a handful of attractive, taller buildings in Portland could be very nice; a cluster like a small Boston Financial District (even with better buildings) would not.

The other concern I have with tall buildings is more practical. In Manchester, you have two downtown office towers of 20 stories, plus a few others above 10 stories. Next door to one of these is a block of single-story retail. The wealth of office space in the Millyard is also responsible for this, but those taller buildings provide ample office space reducing the demand that might otherwise have resulted in those single story buildings being replaced by taller, mixed-use structures. I like Manchester's skyline, and I think Portland could use a handful of slender towers, I'm just saying it's a balancing act.

 

[Patrick]

I forget the name of it but the new apartment complex on the corner of elm and....bridge? its about 9 stories tall. 2005 I think. That was supposedly originally proposed as two 20 story buildings. I'd like to see renderings of that sometime. Sounds interesting. But the structure as built is nice, too.

 

[Corey]

This one would have really been something. I love the streetwall that would have been created along Congress Street. Much better than a huge parking lot. There also would have been a positive impact on Lincoln Park. Lincoln Park would do well to be surrounded by active sidewalks and engaging buildings. It could be transformed into something like Boston's Post Office Park or New York's Bryant Park (two random examples of nice urban parks).

 

[Patrick]

I think the 14th floor rooftop garden would have been cool too.

I am confused though, from the rendering, as to where the street wall would have been. Is this a rendering showing a large park fronting on congress street, or is it a rendering showing Lincoln Park in the foreground with the tower along congress street? I can't tell but it seems like we are looking through lincoln park to the tower...? I just dont see congress street running anywehre in the pic.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

I forget the name of it but the new apartment complex on the corner of elm and....bridge? its about 9 stories tall. 2005 I think. That was supposedly originally proposed as two 20 story buildings. I'd like to see renderings of that sometime. Sounds interesting. But the structure as built is nice, too.

The apartment building is called, rather uncreatively, Manchester Place. I'd love to see another two-story building in Manchester, but I'd actually rather see it a block or two back from Elm to reduce the linearity of the street there. You're right, though--I do remember the earlier proposal for the towers. I think the current building could have done a better job with street-level retail, but overall the massing is nice and it's pretty attractive. Certainly better than the empty lot that was there for about twenty years. That area used to have several old buildings (this is from images, not memory) and was the terminus of the old, arched Notre Dame Bridge. I think the replacement of that bridge with more of an overpass around 1990 was one of the biggest losses in Manchester's built environment/skyline.

 

[MonopolyBag]

I like that building. I think it could have been larger though. Haven't heard good things about the service for the apartments though. Different story though. Not to steal this thread on Portland, but I think Residence at Manchester does have ground level retail now that is trying to be sold. Nothing in there yet, so there are only signs on the empty windows. I noticed this on online sites whens searching for commercial real estate.

The Portland's towers there though IMO would have been fine. It is huge, but this is a good dense development that would help build any city. I am wondering and curious on the height restrictions at Portland ME? All the buildings seem to max out at the same height. Is this due to restrictions?

Would a city like that allow a 45 floor building?

 

[Patrick]

no, it wouldn't. The current height restriction varies by location downtown, with the tallest allowed reaching 255 feet (between a 20-23 story building). Most of the buildings were built when the height limit was 125 feet across the entire city, but many got slight variances to allow their height to exceed that limit by a few more stories. The project above was planned at 330 feet, or roughly 25 stories.

 

[MonopolyBag]

Why does a city put limits on buildings when more height equals more square footage of buildings for the city?

Purely aesthetics?

And what project is going there then if not these here?

 

[Patrick]

Why does a city put limits on buildings when more height equals more square footage of buildings for the city?

Purely aesthetics?

And what project is going there then if not these here?

I think you raise a valid question. The short answer is yes, purely aesthetics. But there are other factors, too. Some cities have concerns about their fire engine ladders not being tall enough. Others are concerned about wind tunnels and shadows. Still others are concerned with the pedestrian feel at street level, and want their cities to be so-called "livable" in the sense that people can walk around and not feel overwhelmed by surrounding structures. I share your viewpoint, and some cities (Miami, NYC, Dubai, Las Vegas, to name a very diverse group of pro growth cities) do, too. But, ironically, it was in NYC that the height limit was really developed. Zoning didn't start there, but it was heavily influenced by the structures in that city. Everyone in NYC wanted to maximize their return on investment (ROI) because land is so expensive, so they would build huge skyscrapers straight up from the foundation, dwarfing surrounding structures and not taking the greater community into account. This upset many local merchants who catered to the rich, and also caused an unhealthy environment at street level. The result is height restrictions. Other cities, like Philly, had height restrictions because of Monuments in the City, as I believe Boston had at one time almost a century ago. Many cities have copy and paste zoning codes to one extent or another, so height restrictions are probably useful in some places and a restrictive regulation which is bad for business in other places. Zoning is all about fine tuning.

And to answer your other question, nothing is planned at the moment. The color picture above was a second planned structure for this site, in 2005, but it couldn't obtain public financing.

 

[MonopolyBag]

That colored one, from the limited picture, is a beautiful building which looks like considerationw ent into the surrounding landscaping as well.

 

[Corey]

I
I am confused though, from the rendering, as to where the street wall would have been. Is this a rendering showing a large park fronting on congress street, or is it a rendering showing Lincoln Park in the foreground with the tower along congress street? I can't tell but it seems like we are looking through lincoln park to the tower...? I just dont see congress street running anywehre in the pic.

I assumed the rendering is looking through the corner of Lincoln Park but now that you mention it there aren't any obvious signs of Congress Street being between the buildings and the park. It would make sense for the tallest building to be right on the corner of Franklin and Congress and it wouldn't make sense to dedicate that much land to a new park when Lincoln Park is across the street.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

I assumed the rendering is looking through the corner of Lincoln Park but now that you mention it there aren't any obvious signs of Congress Street being between the buildings and the park. It would make sense for the tallest building to be right on the corner of Franklin and Congress and it wouldn't make sense to dedicate that much land to a new park when Lincoln Park is across the street.

I'm guessing it's on Congress Street as you've suggested, and that the street is either lost in the perspective or omitted as a rendering sleight of hand.

 

[Corey]

It is also interesting to think how this Lincoln Square proposal, either of the ones posted on this thread, could have interacted with the proposal from several years ago for a new building to be built on a parking lot on the other side of Lincoln Park (next to the County Courthouse, formerly the site of the County Jail). See this thread from 2007 (I feel old now and notice that I've been a broken record saying the same things since 2007 haha).