Portland Bayside

[Cosakita18]

Well how elitist can we get? We're going to dump ALL 201 affordable rate apartments into ONE building and be done with it. We would HATE to have to mingle with THOSE people.

From my understanding...All the parcels in this master development plan were originally going to be separate projects advancing individually, but the only way to make them work with tough IZ requirements was to put them all under one master plan so that the 25% IZ requirements could phased a bit differently.

I've also heard that the development team is applying some gentile pressure to the city to advance the design and construction of the parking garage on the former Midtown site. I guess they anticipate a lot of the parking demand for Phases 3 and 5B (the two parcels on Chestnut St) being met by the future city-owned Bayside garage.

 

[TC_zoid]

In NYC and Boston, or that I know of, some new upscale residential buildings have been criticized for designing their mandated affordable units with a separate elevator and entrance in the back. It's definitely elitist and we know why. I think we need to be more creative with assisting how residents live in affordable units--especially families. Otherwise, we are back to the same old model of sectioning off the poor. I think one main problem is loitering. Do something about that. Wealthy people don't loiter as much as the poor, or outside their dwellings. They do it somewhere else, because they can (lol). They have options. The lower income class need more options. In Manhattan, there are a few low-income housing projects (I used to walk past a massive one, Peter Cooper Village, at 1st and 21st) that is well kept and integrates nicely for the city. It's rent control, of course, and somehow there is a formula here to encourage residents to not toss trash and loiter. They are hard-working and respectful residents in this housing. It can work if the right structure is put into place. I believe an option to rent to own can be one.

 

[cneal]

Well how elitist can we get? We're going to dump ALL 201 affordable rate apartments into ONE building and be done with it. We would HATE to have to mingle with THOSE people.

And yet they're still proposing to build more affordable housing than has been built in the entire West End neighborhood in the past 30 years.

 

[Urban World]

From my understanding...All the parcels in this master development plan were originally going to be separate projects advancing individually, but the only way to make them work with tough IZ requirements was to put them all under one master plan so that the 25% IZ requirements could phased a bit differently.

I've also heard that the development team is applying some gentile pressure to the city to advance the design and construction of the parking garage on the former Midtown site. I guess they anticipate a lot of the parking demand for Phases 3 and 5B (the two parcels on Chestnut St) being met by the future city-owned Bayside garage.

Where did you hear this? I heard that Tom (Watson) was self-parking in the old pub market garage ... I think the Midtown saga is fascinating as the City messed up such an opportunity there, and the project will continue to languish until both parties find something workable (not affordable housing!). This neighborhood has so much potential its a shame.

 

[nomc]

Where did you hear this? I heard that Tom (Watson) was self-parking in the old pub market garage ... I think the Midtown saga is fascinating as the City messed up such an opportunity there, and the project will continue to languish until both parties find something workable (not affordable housing!). This neighborhood has so much potential its a shame.

Public Market Garage is 1C on the MP that @Cosakita18 posted - 595 spaces. Nobody has mentioned this yet, but I very much like that the garage may have ground floor retail - and that they're proposing some could be pop-up/incubator space. This is going to help the transition from the Congress St spine down to this new development.

 

[matt.greeson]

In NYC and Boston, or that I know of, some new upscale residential buildings have been criticized for designing their mandated affordable units with a separate elevator and entrance in the back. It's definitely elitist and we know why. I think we need to be more creative with assisting how residents live in affordable units--especially families. Otherwise, we are back to the same old model of sectioning off the poor. I think one main problem is loitering. Do something about that. Wealthy people don't loiter as much as the poor, or outside their dwellings. They do it somewhere else, because they can (lol). They have options. The lower income class need more options. In Manhattan, there are a few low-income housing projects (I used to walk past a massive one, Peter Cooper Village, at 1st and 21st) that is well kept and integrates nicely for the city. It's rent control, of course, and somehow there is a formula here to encourage residents to not toss trash and loiter. They are hard-working and respectful residents in this housing. It can work if the right structure is put into place. I believe an option to rent to own can be one.

In DC (where I work a lot), we engage in a lot of very complicated legal antics to make buildings mixed as between market rate and affordable. It's not easy or cheap but when it works it's a great product. A lot of it is driven by certain requirements for land sold by the city.

 

[Urban World]

Public Market Garage is 1C on the MP that @Cosakita18 posted - 595 spaces. Nobody has mentioned this yet, but I very much like that the garage may have ground floor retail - and that they're proposing some could be pop-up/incubator space. This is going to help the transition from the Congress St spine down to this new development.

Right, but this is different from the mid-town garage right? That garage is I believe up on Cumberland ave, but the mid town garage (site) is down closer to Intermed and whole foods etc. So do you guys think that's part of there project?

 

[cneal]

Right, this is the Public Market Garage on Cumberland Avenue.

The so-called "midtown" garage is absolutely dead. The city does have about $9 million in uncommitted "Section 108" loans from HUD that had previously been earmarked for a new parking garage on Somerset Street, but that money was granted based on 2010 construction pricing, and costs have doubled or tripled since then.

It's also become more clear, since 2010, that this entire area needs to be raised up 3-5 feet to avoid flooding from sea level rise, which also wasn't accounted for in previous plans. So it's likely that the city will need to use all of its Sec. 108 money (and then some) just to fund basic street infrastructure.

 

[Urban World]

Right, this is the Public Market Garage on Cumberland Avenue.

The so-called "midtown" garage is absolutely dead. The city does have about $9 million in uncommitted "Section 108" loans from HUD that had previously been earmarked for a new parking garage on Somerset Street, but that money was granted based on 2010 construction pricing, and costs have doubled or tripled since then.

It's also become more clear, since 2010, that this entire area needs to be raised up 3-5 feet to avoid flooding from sea level rise, which also wasn't accounted for in previous plans. So it's likely that the city will need to use all of its Sec. 108 money (and then some) just to fund basic street infrastructure.

That's insane, can this City get anything right? Also, so I'm clear, is the Watson development using teh old Mid town site for its garage? in other words has the city agreed to give them that land? i thought the city took the land to build a garage, but nothing has happened since that happened in 2019 or 2020 ... what gives?

 

[Cosakita18]

That's insane, can this City get anything right? Also, so I'm clear, is the Watson development using teh old Mid town site for its garage? in other words has the city agreed to give them that land? i thought the city took the land to build a garage, but nothing has happened since that happened in 2019 or 2020 ... what gives?

No, the city isn't giving away the parcel they acquired by eminent domain. From my understanding, Watson & Port Properties are trying to push the city to get the garage built on that site. I guess they're hoping for some kind of public-private partnership to get it built. But like Cneal said, it's far from a certainty.

My personal thought is that if the developer wants to build a parking structure... they should do it on their own dime. The city shouldn't be sinking public money into building another new parking garage. It's inconsistent with all of the city's climate and mobility goals.

 

[DanielPWM19]

New PPH Article

Additional details on the Bayside Development

 

[GIL]

New PPH Article

Additional details on the Bayside Development

For those of us without a subscription, what are the latest details, please?

 

[nomc]

This article is from Jan 24, all the info looks like it has been discussed previously.

 

[nomc]

Here's my attempt at what this will look like - I took more time figuring out length and width in addition to height this time:

 

[mainejeff]

Very cool nomc! Great work.

 

[DanielPWM19]

Looks awesome. Wish they were taller. Would be cool if Midtown was also built with the original heights.

I wonder/predict if the houses/apartments between Cedar Street and Wilmot/Pearl will be gone within the next 20 years? If Bayside is where things are going to be built, it makes sense to me.

Anything from Alder to Forest might remain or be consolidated. These are in better shape. So between High Street and Franklin we'll see a more defined taller housing core. This leaves the East and West End as denser peninsula neighborhoods.

 

[Cosakita18]

Here's my attempt at what this will look like - I took more time figuring out length and width in addition to height this time:

I love these perspectives! This will definitely be a massive change to the skyline.

Forgive me if this is derails the conversation, but how do you make these massings within Google Earth?

 

[nomc]

I love these perspectives! This will definitely be a massive change to the skyline.

Forgive me if this is derails the conversation, but how do you make these massings within Google Earth?

It's actually pretty easy - you have to have a little knowledge of SketchUp, though. I hadn't used it since it was first released (didn't Google own it back then?) but it came back pretty fast. Did some screen shots in case someone else wants to play around with it.

First you use the Geo-location feature in SketchUp (in the File menu) to select any location on earth:

Then you hit the "Import" button to bring it into the SketchUp project:

Then you use the line tool to draw the footprint of the building right on top of the location - SketchUp shows you how long your line is and it seems like the scale imported with the geo-location is relatively accurate.

Then you use the push/pull tool to set the building height (once again, SketchUp shows you how far you're push/pulling)

Then you go File > Export > 3D Model and save it as a .kmz - this is what you open in Google Earth. I couldn't get it to work in the online version so I downloaded the desktop version and it worked there. In Google Earth you just go to File > Open and poof, model placed in the right location. Then you can fly around it, etc...

I think adding a surface material is pretty easy, although I haven't tried it yet. Someone with more skill (and time) could add windows too. I would assume all of that would import into Google Earth, but I haven't tried it.

 

[nomc]

Oh, and I had to do this whole process for each building individually because of the elevation change. The blue marker in the geo-location window sets the insert elevation, so it's best to set it to the lowest elevation. If you draw other buildings and they are at a higher or lower elevation they will either be floating or submerged. Not sure if there's a way to do it all in one geo-location import, that's beyond me at this point.

 

[nomc]

MDP workshop coming up for this on the 14th - looking forward to hearing more details. Anyone else feel like this whole development should be a separate thread? They're referring to it as 196 Lancaster St in the PB agenda.