Portland Bayside

grittys457 said:
Got so mad reading that last night. I heard from a friend that has dealt with federated before that they said Portland was the hardest city they've ever dealt with planning a project. That was a year ago, can't imagine what they think now. I hope the board will be Proud of themselves when federated pulls out and that remains a dirt pile for another decade. I'm so sick of councils and boards here acting like Portland is some unearthed ancient Mecca . It's a regular friggin city... With an ugly skyline at that. Buildings are tall, buildings block other buildings, buildings cast shadows. This Portland on top ten lists fad isn't going to last forever. These boards need to stop sniffing this elitist air and get stuff built while we can. Even just phase I would make a huge difference down there and jump start the residential boom of that area
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your "take what we can get" attitude. You don't just build stuff......any stuff.......to get "stuff". My fear is that this becomes the ultimate low income housing project.........and a very visible one at that.
 
portlandneedsnewarena said:
If they cared so much about blocking the skyline view why did they allow the atrocity that is Bayview Apartments next to the Intermed building? Also, the unfinished look of the back of the Merrill Auditorium is another gem!!
Click to expand...

Good questions. Bayview Apartments should be imploded.
 
"I don't agree with your "take what we can get" attitude. You don't just build stuff......any stuff.......to get "stuff"."

This isn't something they proposed yesterday and we approved today. Bayside master plan was years in the making and this project has been over a year with tons of redo's and meetings. They gave us what we asked for and we're going to dick around with stupid details. If this project magically appeared today everybody would say how great it looks, not "Oh my god it casts a shadow on that tree over there"
 
grittys457 said:
"I don't agree with your "take what we can get" attitude. You don't just build stuff......any stuff.......to get "stuff"."

This isn't something they proposed yesterday and we approved today. Bayside master plan was years in the making and this project has been over a year with tons of redo's and meetings. They gave us what we asked for and we're going to dick around with stupid details. If this project magically appeared today everybody would say how great it looks, not "Oh my god it casts a shadow on that tree over there"
Click to expand...

You seemed ticked off that Portland doesn't have a "bunch of tall buildings". You call them "stupid details".........I call them important details. These buildings will be here long after we are.........would be nice if future generations don't end up saying........"what were they thinking???" (sound familiar?).
 
I don't care how tall they are, I care about the city acting like ten extra feet would make fire hail from the sky

Name a building over 8 stories in Portland that would look better than this one assuming the sketch is accurate? I can't name one. So we're going to drive a company out over a building that would instantly become the premier looking building in the skyline? Our future generations are going to be upset at that building? That doesn't make sense. I'll ask you a simple question . When's the last time somebody brought up how much they don't like back bay tower in a conversation. It was a big deal before they built it. How about now? When's the last time one city center ruined someone's day by being there?
 
Thing is, mainjeff, there is "due process", and then there is "over-due process"...where's the line?

I personally think a fear of this becoming the ultimate low income housing project is a little on the pessimistic or cynical side of things. The probability of that happening has to be a fraction of a percent. Heck, even in the ridiculously remote chance that it does, just look at the low-income housing projects we have now and compare those normal low-income housing projects in other cities. Portland's low-income housing projects are not nearly as decrepit or derelict as those in other cities.

There is no way to predict what use a building will have 30-50 years from now, regardless of how it's built or the quality of the construction. All we can predict is what use a building will have for the next 10-20 years. This is not going to be a ghetto or low-income housing complex. It’s going to cost too much to build for it to become that.

I don’t think pessimism, cynicism or unsubstantiated “what-ifs” should dictate public policy when it comes to land development, as it has to date in this area. Yes, it should provide direction, but it shouldn't jam that direction down the throat of developers to the point that developers build-and-run or run altogether. That is how you end up with unfinished developments that seem out of place, vast empty parking lots that were leveled for potential development that never became anything and empty dirt lots for once planned high-rises that will now become low-rise low-income housing. That is also how you end up with out-of-state investors that care little about the area owning buildings and letting then fall to crap.

Who knows, Federated probably had every intention of building all two (now three) phases of this when they initially decided to buy the land. Now they probably only want to build Phase 1 and jump ship after dealing with the City.
 
grittys457 said:
I don't care how tall they are, I care about the city acting like ten extra feet would make fire hail from the sky

Name a building over 8 stories in Portland that would look better than this one assuming the sketch is accurate? I can't name one. So we're going to drive a company out over a building that would instantly become the premier looking building in the skyline? Our future generations are going to be upset at that building? That doesn't make sense. I'll ask you a simple question . When's the last time somebody brought up how much they don't like back bay tower in a conversation. It was a big deal before they built it. How about now? When's the last time one city center ruined someone's day by being there?
Click to expand...

You're barking up the wrong tree with the building height thing........I could care less about building height. I'm more concerned about the overall design and viability of the project. Is this thing going to end up as one big subized housing project???? Hmmmm......???????? The last thing Portland needs is more low income housing for Catholic Charities of Maine and out-of-state drug dealing interests to build their nests! Is this thing going to be THAT attractive to mid and upper income dwellers to fill this many units???? Is Bayside.......errrr, "midtown" going to attract the types of residents to grow area businesses (not fast cash marts and liquor stores!).
 
Come on MaineJeff, you're better than this.

Is Back Bay Tower a low income slum? Is Baxter Place low income?(I lived there and paid over 1300 a month).

Of all the places that could turn slum, why would a sparkling new high end development surrounded by retail and amenities in the heart of the fastest growing and developing neighborhood turn to one?

Portland needs to grow and it needs to grow without Avesta and Catholic Charities doing it all. We have to finally start getting young professionals with money to live downtown. That is how you really make things work. Will they fill the whole place in a month after opening? Not sure, I think pretty close. Hell I'd live there if I didn't have kids. I would love to be able to not use my car except to drive to work and a few other things. It's all right there. Really the only spot in the whole city where you could honestly live without a car and a bike......unless you're supercorey.
 
Dr. StrangeHat said:
Thing is, mainjeff, there is "due process", and then there is "over-due process"...where's the line?

I personally think a fear of this becoming the ultimate low income housing project is a little on the pessimistic or cynical side of things. The probability of that happening has to be a fraction of a percent. Heck, even in the ridiculously remote chance that it does, just look at the low-income housing projects we have now and compare those normal low-income housing projects in other cities. Portland's low-income housing projects are not nearly as decrepit or derelict as those in other cities.

There is no way to predict what use a building will have 30-50 years from now, regardless of how it's built or the quality of the construction. All we can predict is what use a building will have for the next 10-20 years. This is not going to be a ghetto or low-income housing complex. It’s going to cost too much to build for it to become that.

I don’t think pessimism, cynicism or unsubstantiated “what-ifs” should dictate public policy when it comes to land development, as it has to date in this area. Yes, it should provide direction, but it shouldn't jam that direction down the throat of developers to the point that developers build-and-run or run altogether. That is how you end up with unfinished developments that seem out of place, vast empty parking lots that were leveled for potential development that never became anything and empty dirt lots for once planned high-rises that will now become low-rise low-income housing. That is also how you end up with out-of-state investors that care little about the area owning buildings and letting then fall to crap.

Who knows, Federated probably had every intention of building all two (now three) phases of this when they initially decided to buy the land. Now they probably only want to build Phase 1 and jump ship after dealing with the City.
Click to expand...
After the City is done with them I will be surprised if Federated ever even builds Phase 1. They will get fed up with the bullcrap and move on to another City. Remember what a clusterF the Maine State Pier project became with the final 2 developers. Haven't heard from Ocean Properties looking to develop anything in Portland since. Any of the large projects that Boulos Co. proposed too.
 
Yep, I know somebody fairly high up in Boulos and he said Joe is pretty much done with the city. He's one of the nicest guys you will ever meet and they strung him up with the civic center/convention center/hotel proposal. That project was awesome and that pos Baldacci lied to their faces about supporting a tax to help it out.

Although finally approved by the council, it took so god damn long and so many meetings for the Westin at Jordan's Meat to go through that it finally missed it's window. That's the thing here. The more time you let projects linger, the more time that opens for something to fall through. Seriously, hotels go through in a couple meetings. What is the issue with office towers and housing?

Sometimes I wonder if the Press Herald takes all the bad parts from meeting and headlines them. When you see other sources it doesn't look as bad. PH has had a bad habit of that in the past

http://munjoyhillnews.bangordailyne...-tweaking-says-planning-board-workinprogress/
 
grittys457 said:
Yep, I know somebody fairly high up in Boulos and he said Joe is pretty much done with the city. He's one of the nicest guys you will ever meet and they strung him up with the civic center/convention center/hotel proposal. That project was awesome and that pos Baldacci lied to their faces about supporting a tax to help it out.

Although finally approved by the council, it took so god damn long and so many meetings for the Westin at Jordan's Meat to go through that it finally missed it's window. That's the thing here. The more time you let projects linger, the more time that opens for something to fall through. Seriously, hotels go through in a couple meetings. What is the issue with office towers and housing?

Sometimes I wonder if the Press Herald takes all the bad parts from meeting and headlines them. When you see other sources it doesn't look as bad. PH has had a bad habit of that in the past

http://munjoyhillnews.bangordailyne...-tweaking-says-planning-board-workinprogress/
Click to expand...
Maybe they should put up a row of 4 Hotels. That would be sure to pass through the Planning Board.
 
grittys457, I have know Joe Boulos for years. He is a quality indivdual, a former Marine Corps aviator and always has a smile for everyone he comes in contact with. Not only was he disappointed with his proposed arena project not materializing, he was equally frustrated with the 12 story office building he was going to build on the land beside the County Courthouse that failed for no fault of his own.

Sadly, Owen Wells (Libra Foundation) will probably never introduce any new projects for Portland after his arena proposal for Bayside was slammed by the PPH (Bill Nemitz) and numerous NIMBY and low income advocates in that area. Both men are class acts and were extremely passionate for Portland and it's future.
 
I'm not convinced the company actually wants to develop the whole site. I think they want to develop part of it (phase I) and are skeptically open to the possibility of phase II but want a back out plan in the form of selling the land at a higher price due to denser development rights.

The rents are lower in Portland than elsewhere? Portland tied with Chicago for the tightest rental market in the country (or second tightest) recently, and everything is relative, meaning the price of the land should reflect the market. Land in Manhattan, where rents are higher, costs more (for that reason). I don't buy that argument. Also, the high rent costs in Portland were previously cited as a reason why this project would work...because there are no decent apartments in Portland, the market is so tight, and the cost (and therefore profit) from such high demand makes it a profitable project. If rents were low, this project wouldn't even be on the drawing board.

As it stands, the whole things is evolving in an altogether less than satisfactory manner. I do like the detailed sketches, but it seems the company has folded already and just wants to present something workable rather than visionary. This site, however, is meant for more. A parking garage fronting on what was envisioned as a destination? We need garages but the location is so obviously misguided. And what views are preserved here? The project didn't have to be 7 similar height structures, but neither does it have to be four fatties clustered behind another chunkah (Intermed). Where is the top rate urban design potential of the hired firm?
 
Whoa gents, calm down. One workshop where planning board members raise some questions about a huge project does not constitute the city "dragging its feet." There are some legitimate infrastructural issues to be figured out, and the entire project is still very much in the conceptual stages. The developers clearly need more time to fit together all the moving parts; a rubber stamp isn't going to do them any good at this point.

The Bayside Village student apartment building some of you are griping about happens to have generated $9 million in profit for Federated Companies last year when they flipped it at double the price they bought it for after just 14 months of ownership (http://www.pressherald.com/news/company-sells-bayside-village-student-housing_2012-03-15.html).

So do you really think they're down on this city after netting a quick $9 million here? That one planning board workshop where people expressed support for their project and raised reasonable questions about unresolved design issues is enough to make Federated forget about their 95% annualized yield from their last Bayside investment, and rue the day they set foot in Portland?

Joe Boulos was a broker, not a developer, and his project failed because he expected the government to pay for too much of it; Owen Wells is a lawyer whose made a career out of spending Elizabeth Noyce's money (Portlander, I've heard lots of stories about Mr. Wells and can honestly say that what you wrote was the kindest thing I've ever heard anyone say about the man). These guys, on the other hand, are professional developers with a long track record and the early makings of a serious committment here.
 
cneal, am very aware of the actual professions of Joe Boulos and Owen Wells but I think it would be fair to say they both had their developer hats on during those time frames : )
 
cneal said:
Whoa gents, calm down. One workshop where planning board members raise some questions about a huge project does not constitute the city "dragging its feet." There are some legitimate infrastructural issues to be figured out, and the entire project is still very much in the conceptual stages. The developers clearly need more time to fit together all the moving parts; a rubber stamp isn't going to do them any good at this point.

The Bayside Village student apartment building some of you are griping about happens to have generated $9 million in profit for Federated Companies last year when they flipped it at double the price they bought it for after just 14 months of ownership (http://www.pressherald.com/news/company-sells-bayside-village-student-housing_2012-03-15.html).

So do you really think they're down on this city after netting a quick $9 million here? That one planning board workshop where people expressed support for their project and raised reasonable questions about unresolved design issues is enough to make Federated forget about their 95% annualized yield from their last Bayside investment, and rue the day they set foot in Portland?

Joe Boulos was a broker, not a developer, and his project failed because he expected the government to pay for too much of it; Owen Wells is a lawyer whose made a career out of spending Elizabeth Noyce's money (Portlander, I've heard lots of stories about Mr. Wells and can honestly say that what you wrote was the kindest thing I've ever heard anyone say about the man). These guys, on the other hand, are professional developers with a long track record and the early makings of a serious committment here.
Click to expand...
I would say Boulos was most definitely the developer on the Arena/Conv. Ctr./Hotel/Office Bldg. project as well as the 12 story building next to the courthouse. At the time, I also thought that Boulos was asking way to much $$ from the State/City and that he needed to find a way to come up with a larger percentage of the cost of the project. I think he was going to finance around 1/3 of the project and wanted the State/City to come up with the other 2/3. To bad that they couldn't find a way to make that project happen. I thought it was a fabulous design. Now we are putting millions of dollars into the Civic Center which will be an improvement but won't come anything close to what a new arena would bring to the area. See the new Bangor Events Center on the www.cianbro.com website. Very impressive.
 
cneal said:
Whoa gents, calm down. One workshop where planning board members raise some questions about a huge project does not constitute the city "dragging its feet."
Click to expand...

Yes, but we have a history of projects, one after another, failing to be built in Portland due in large part (not wholly, but significantly) to the burdensome review process set by Portland's Planning Board and City Council. Yes, other factors have contributed to these failures, but we can’t ignore the fact that Portland’s review process is completely over-the-top sometimes.

So, we have reason to be frustrated that this project seems to be potentially heading towards the same fate.

Should they just rubber stamp and green light everything that is proposed? No. But they do seem to take it too far, with too many demands and too many review meetings.

I'm not in favor of a total laissez-faire approach, but occasionally you need to let the market dictate development rather than try to micro-manage and actively dictate development (note - I have a degree in Economics). I think a “glass is half full” approach would be much more favorable to the “glass is half empty” approach that is many times taken towards development around here. I see it every day in my line of work. Those that nitpick the details and focus only on what could go wrong have less success than those that look at the larger picture and focus more on what could go right.
 
PortlandArch said:
I'm not convinced the company actually wants to develop the whole site. I think they want to develop part of it (phase I) and are skeptically open to the possibility of phase II but want a back out plan in the form of selling the land at a higher price due to denser development rights.

The rents are lower in Portland than elsewhere? Portland tied with Chicago for the tightest rental market in the country (or second tightest) recently, and everything is relative, meaning the price of the land should reflect the market. Land in Manhattan, where rents are higher, costs more (for that reason). I don't buy that argument. Also, the high rent costs in Portland were previously cited as a reason why this project would work...because there are no decent apartments in Portland, the market is so tight, and the cost (and therefore profit) from such high demand makes it a profitable project. If rents were low, this project wouldn't even be on the drawing board.

As it stands, the whole things is evolving in an altogether less than satisfactory manner. I do like the detailed sketches, but it seems the company has folded already and just wants to present something workable rather than visionary. This site, however, is meant for more. A parking garage fronting on what was envisioned as a destination? We need garages but the location is so obviously misguided. And what views are preserved here? The project didn't have to be 7 similar height structures, but neither does it have to be four fatties clustered behind another chunkah (Intermed). Where is the top rate urban design potential of the hired firm?
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
This comment isn't directed at anyone in particular, but is a response to and collection of thoughts about everything written above.

I think there are a number of us on here that have studied economics in depth (including myself) and the thing with that is, like anything almost, wildly different conclusions may be drawn from the same facts.

Also, I think CNeal's point was that Joe and Owen are not fulltime developers although they were developing property at that point.

With that said, I don't agree that either of those projects were a bad idea, and therefore there is no reason, in my opinion, to attribute anything to their "novice" status (I use that term loosely because, without knowing either person directly, I know Joe's reputation and experience speaks for itself. Whether or not he is a fulltime developer, he probably knows more about real estate development, in light of his true fulltime occupation, than most people who are in fact "fulltime developers."). Both Boulos projects were absolutely positive projects, nothing less. The amount of the funding Boulos sought for the 2004 proposal shouldn't matter, because it was to be levied from a slight increase in meals and lodging taxes (precisely the expenditures that would increase from that sort of development). Ever stay at a hotel in Boston? Check your bill and compare it to the nightly rate. The marked difference is due to a convention center tax. Know what Boston has that we don't? A huge arena (and ferraris, lots of them).

Also, the Bayside arena proposal seems pretty simple: free land + $20 million donation...who wouldn't refuse that? Obviously, made sense to reject. After all, we needed some reason to spend hundreds of thousands on consultants to consult with each other and then the City and then re-consult different people all to tell us what we already knew: the Civic Center is old and needs to be renovated and will be costly to do so.

The Civic Center and the rise of the Old Port parallel each other, and that's because the whole point of a civic arena is not to be self-sustaining but rather to have positive spinoff benefits for surrounding businesses. Does the Old Port need this now? Nope, because it can stand on its own as a destination.

Does Bayside? yep. Did we locate it in Bayside? nope. Draw your own conclusions about whether this makes sense.

This project (midtown) has a lot of potential, and needs further refinement, yes, but should not be subjected to a barrage of negative comments from people who are anti-height for no reason. Curiously, those who are against height are probably also against sprawl (you won't, in other words, catch them at Walmart...they'll be at Micucci's). But you only get urban atmospheres with density. And density requires height.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top