Oak Street

He must mean actually signs in front of the area where they are building the new apts/retail. I haven't looked yet. There is a giant sign in front of the new student housing on Marginal way and Intermed is going up fast.
 
I thought Oak Street just ran from Spring Street to Cumberland. Does it extend down to Marginal Way now, or is there actually development going on up on Oak Street?
 
It still just goes from Cumberland to Spring as far as I can tell. I'm assuming it's some sort of condo related development? And it must be between Cumberland and Congress. I'm curious now.
 
three story condo and retail project in an empty parking lot between congress and cumberland

signs are up now
 
I hope I am not bringing back this thread from 2007 in vain. As we learned since the original posts, this is an affordable housing project on Oak Street between Congress St and Cumberland Ave. I know we've talked about it here but I didn't find another thread dedicated to it. According to the developer, Avesta, occupancy will be December 2011. The Oak Street Lofts site is here.

I noticed they have started work recently:

april2011portlandmaineo.jpg


A rendering:

oak%20st.JPG
 
I am liking the residential development that has happened in Portland over the last few years.
 
The scale and massing look perfect in that rendering. The building looks pretty nice, too, though it's hard to tell about the details and such in that rendering.

I've got to say, though, that I think architects and builders in Portland over the last several years have done a remarkable job of building contemporary structures that complement their existing neighbors without mimicking them. Copying old styles rarely works and often ends up looking cheap and pastiche, but taking inspiration from them, being sensitive to the place, and balancing contemporary design and needs with vernacular forms and tradition usually yields beautiful buildings that are of both their time and place, and which are enjoyed by architects and the public alike. I honestly can't think of a city in New England, including Boston, that has done this as consistently well as Portland has in the last several years.
 
Agreed with FrankLloydMrite.

I think that Portland has done a good job with residential units in the center of the city (I assume this is form what I read) It brings people into the center of the city making ti a more living community.

I agree that the more modern style is kind of good looking. I am a fan of the changing architecture and do not want older buildings to be recreated in the design of new ones. However I do like to see older buildings kept up in shape or renovated (like in Boston or the mill cities) but any news buildings I think should be built with current day architecture.

That rendering above makes that building look very good and appealing that fits right it.

I am surprised though that even now a project is being done now. I would expect only in Boston would any projects be done now during this economy.
 
From yesterday, some concrete starting to shape up:

june2011portlandmaineoa.jpg
 
I can't help but feel sorry for the windows of the other existing buildings that are going to be blocked out shortly. How long has this property "been ready" for construction start?
 
I attended a lecture by one of the development officers at Avesta on this project and raised the same exact point about the views of the neighbor. Not that I really care too much because I am more in favor of density, but it was something I thought about. The guy said as long as the building is within zoning and unless the other property owner wanted to buy the land to protect their view, the new building was totally OK, and he's right. But I brought it up because I thought about the opposition it must have caused. Apparently, the neighbors in that building were amongst the toughest opponents of this project, but are now more cooperative and on board with the final plan, which has been adjusted to attract "artists" instead of just low income tenants. It was really quite interesting to hear about the funding for this project, which would not have been viable as affordable housing in this urban infill location were it not for a state bond.

The site itself was probably developed before, but I don't know for sure. Then I imagine it sat around for a while, with no interest when the suburbs were the center of attention. Then there was interest in this site for a larger market rate proposals (the Oak Street Lofts) in 2007, which ultimately never was built because of the recession. Avesta then got the site and proposed a very attractive looking building that is now under construction.

This site is also, I believe, one of the properties depicted in the downtown vision renderings by C. Michael Lewis with new construction.
 
Interesting, Patrick. The idea of protecting views isn't something that comes all the time is Portland as it's not super-dense, but I'm sure it's more common than I presume. I recall that issue being raised during the planning stage of the new residential building on Waterville Street on Munjoy Hill. I think it was also mentioned during the planning of the Waterview (are they going to take the site down? http://www.waterviewatbayside.com/) because residents at the Back Bay Tower wanted to preserve their views. In the case of Oak Street, I'm glad they worked it out. I think views are more debated for residential projects, but I do see the concern for office and retail dwellers as well. In the case of Oak Street, the building that is losing the view isn't very wide and has windows on the other side which overlook another surface parking lot.
 
Yeah, you are right about the waterview project. The Back Bay Tower company thought it would lower property value to have that thing blocking views (of what?). They tied it up in court for long enough that the economy soured and then the project lost financing (and another big issue was the parking, which was necessary for financing as well, ultimately being secured by leasing (or having a contract to lease) parking spaces in the Eastland's garage). The fee in lieu ordinance may have skipped that hurdle at the city level, but I wonder if the banks would have still required it for financing? Anyway, the ironic thing is that if anything is bad for Back Bay's property value it is a vacant and unkempt lot next door, rather than what would have been an attractive building with plenty of residents. The views being blocked from the federal street town houses is a primary reason why the Village at Ocean Gate (Bay House) is so much smaller than originally proposed now, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top