Portland, ME - New Construction Continued

Saw this come up in Boulos' Twitter feed today:

http://f.tlcollect.com/fr2/813/16977/Greenstein_Portland_Back_on_the_Map.pdf

Not much newsworthy, but there is a mockup of Thompson's Point that I haven't seen before. Although didn't I just read that Forefront is applying for a change to the zoning heights in that area?

That corner of the Hyatt at Fore and Union Streets looks pretty interesting. I can't quite figure out what that material is, some sort of screen coming down at odd angles? I hope the "SIGN" placeholder doesn't end up looking like what the Hampton Inn has dangling off the side of its building.

There is some very tacky signage going on in Portland. Awhile back I emailed the GM of the Portland Harbor Hotel about the very ugly LED sign that went up on the Fore Street side about a year ago. It looks like a 1980's era technology, where you can actually see the individual pixels that compose the image. I found it actually painful to look at at night. The GM said he'd take my concerns under consideration but that the sign was a decision of the hotel owner based in Buffalo.
 
That rendering is old. Arena is near the train station now plus they wanna build a tower or two
 
First floor glass being installed at Hyatt place today. Where the hell are you Corey!
 
Corey said:
Welcome, Gervs! Some nice shots of the old can company. Does anyone know what is happening to that empty lot now?

In other planned construction news, I think I posted a link to this project called Munjoy Heights (by Redfern Properties) a while back. Seems they recently updated their website with floorplans and an map. I thought it was just one building, but apparently this is going to be 29 units spread over 6 buildings. It will be at the end of Sheridan Street where it meets Walnut Street. There is currently a neat little Portland Trails trail (Jack Path) that runs through the site. I don't remember seeing it in the planning board materials but it must have the green light because there are already units reserved. All 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, starting at $519,000.

munjoyheights-A-building.jpg


munjoy-heights-map.gif


UZWSwnH.jpg
Click to expand...

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Upscale_Munjoy_Hill_condo_project_seeks_city_approval.html
 
tazzman said:
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Upscale_Munjoy_Hill_condo_project_seeks_city_approval.html
Click to expand...

I think these look pretty decent other than the orange trim in the renderings. The area between the buildings is just a parking lot with garage entrances which is kind of bland, but I'm not sure how else they would be able to organize it. The site is on a pretty interesting incline so it will be interesting to watch this one being built.


grittys457 said:
First floor glass being installed at Hyatt place today. Where the hell are you Corey!
Click to expand...

Good to know, thanks! I've been waiting for them to start working on the glass section at the corner of Fore and Union Street before bombarding you all with more pictures. In kind of related news, I will likely have some photos inside one of the new hotels downtown. We were initially in talks to have some of my photos as part of a wall mural in every room, but they scaled it back to just getting some local photography in the lobby and fitness area. More to come.
 
Good luck with the hotel project Corey. Maybe some photos from the top of some of Portland's taller buildings would be a cool perspective. Fall foliage is on the way, let me know?
 
The completed dental school at the University of New England on Stevens Avenue (taken with my phone, almost forgot how decent the photos look when they aren't all compressed for instagram):

Ixf9pEb.jpg
 
Article on the PPH site today:

Group forms to oppose ‘out of scale’ Portland development

Residents announce creation of “Keep Portland Livable” to oppose midtown development project

“We should be creating lively, livable communities like Portland’s other neighborhoods,” said Monro, a landscape architect whose office is in Bayside. “The midtown project is a concrete canyon that will destroy our uniqueness.”
Click to expand...

BetterBayside3.jpg


The Press Herald article doesn't mention it, but I found the group's (it's two people, I guess that qualifies as a group now) website here: http://keepportlandlivable.com/Home.html. The renderings they put together actually look pretty decent to me. I'm not obsessed with skyscrapers, so I can appreciate alternative visions of Bayside that make it a livable urban neighborhood even if none of the buildings are more than five stories tall. The nine-story buildings in their rendering seem like they would block the views just as much as the actual proposal though, and would create similar winds and shadows (two of their concerns). Seeing their site also makes me want to make a parody site called "Make Portland Unlivable."
 
I agree that the renderings look pleasant, but they should have put up the money and bought the land when it was on the market and then presented their proposal for development to the city. This is their concept and idea of what they think Bayside should look like, not Federated Co's who have taken on the financial risk and has adhered to the difficult process to get to where they are now.

Mr Monro is way too late to the party and I wonder how involved him and his partner were during the numerous planning sessions and neighborhood meetings that formulated the vision for Bayside? He should dedicate his efforts in trying to secure the landscape contract for the Midtown development instead of trying to undermine what is already in the planning pipeline.
 
They talk about the "bad precedent" they feel this project will create, but have they considered the bad precedent they will create if they succeed in ruining this project and driving Federated away? No developer in their right mind will want to spend the time, energy and money to even touch this property given the fear that another group of Portland NIMBYs might band together to drive whatever development they plan into the ground.

Unbelievable...
 
Interesting, thanks for the link Corey.

I think you, Portlander and Dr. Strangehat all have it exactly right --

a. Use of the word "livable" is unfair as it implies disagreeing with this group is the same as being for Portland becoming unbearable. It's an oft-employed propaganda technique. Also, right again that the 9 story buildings would in fact block views just like the taller buildings.

b. Financial risk in the investment has not been incurred by the opposition group, so of course it is easy to critique from their vantage point.

c. The precedent here would be somewhat south of good if this continues. We shouldn't take just anything that comes down the road, but if there is a plan, that plan is adhered to even if loosely (as plans are intended to be) as the basis for elected officials changing zoning, and the project complies with zoning and other applicable documents, then we've done about as much as the public, non-owners can do. The rest belongs to the owners or soon-to-be owners (have they closed yet?). You simply can't dictate what corner of your neighbor's backyard their deck goes in, other than through broadly applicable land use regulations; and the scale of this project doesn't do anything to change this basic land use law fact -- either change the whole neighborhood to a prescriptive zoning scheme which requires a definite architectural outcome (and plenty of places have done just this), and make sure that outcome is agreeable to everyone, or stand back while this goes through the process. I have plenty of changes I'd recommend too, if this were Sim City, but it's not.
 
Saw this on the news this morning:

http://www.wmtw.com/news/maine/port...land/-/8865266/22450462/-/xpchg3/-/index.html

It's South Portland, not Portland, but I figured this was as good of a thread to post it in. I'm exctied about this possibility. It's a PERFECT location for an outdoor amphitheater, with the views of the islands and Portland. The location would remind me, in a way, of Harborlights (or whatever it's called now) in Boston. There's also a decent buffer from residential neighbors, and based on the sketch they showed on the news, the stage would be facing towards the Old Port, away from residential areas of Spring Point/Willard Beach and away from the East End/Munjoy Hill.

My only concern, and it's not a very big concern, would be traffic heading down to that spot, since there is pretty much only one in. There's plenty of available parking at SMCC, but Broadway could get clogged heading in there without a good parking/traffic movement plan. Perhaps a ferry shuttle service from Portland or dusting off Cacoulidis' aerial tramway plan could help ease congestion during concerts?
 
Not even joking, could that tramway work? I would think it would be an attraction for all the tourists and actually a way for people to get across. It would have to be super high though wouldn't it?
 
Perhaps something modeled after the Roosevelt Island Tramway in NYC would be a way to connect the Portlands. Are there still renderings somewhere from the Cacoulidis proposal from back in the day?

Unrelated - Waiting for the glass to rise on the corner:

Er4EtRT.jpg
 
Corey said:
Are there still renderings somewhere from the Cacoulidis proposal from back in the day?
Click to expand...

I found this in the blog of one of the members of this forum:

tower.jpg


I think it would work, especially is there is something to draw people over to South Portland. It would attract tourists, and it would probably also attract commuters. If I lived in the Willard Beach or Spring Point area and worked in downtown Portland, then I'd definitely take the tramway to work each day instead of dealing with the traffic getting to and off the Casco Bay Bridge, as well as avoid times when the drawbridge is up.

I'm guessing it would have to be tall enough for large ships to pass underneath but not too tall so that it impacts the flight path for the airport. There has to be a right height for that.
 
In my opinion, public comment in these planning board meetings should be limited to relevant testimony about how certain facts relate to applicable performance standards. I realize that is sort of robotic and very technical and most people would have no idea what the applicable standards are in Portland's convoluted land use chapter of the City Code, however anything more than this (like residents complaining about views) is just a waste of time because it could never, ever serve as a basis to deny this project. Thanks for posting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top