Portland, ME - New Construction Continued

Well, there are worse things to be than an urban planning geek!

Vancouver benefits from a natural urban growth boundary, hemmed in as it is by natural features. But the rest of its surrounding suburbs still face much the same sprawl issues as other major cities. I agree the city looks nice, but there are also concerns with it. For one, there is a major pocket of poverty in one section, and there are concerns that it is developing into a 9 to 5 city with less nightlife than some would desire. There are also affordability issues. but these all should be balanced against other countervailing concerns and where the right balance is struck I just can't say--I don't know enough about the place. but as a general point, I agree building up instead of out is the right thing to do. However, you also have to keep in mind that things like view corridors and urban design are important, and I think if some of the old fashioned buildings on Congress were built on top of, it may ruin this to an extent. That's not to say that tall buildings couldn't or shouldn't be build in the empty sites nearby however. There are plenty of parking lots in town that could use a good 20 story building. PLENTY. Good luck with your plans. Are you referring to next May?
 
Good Point, Vancouver does have one of the worst cases of urban blight, referring to the Downtown Eastside, but I attribute that more to a health care system which underfunds such services as mental health, homeles, and substance abuse treatment. There are affordability issues, so you are right.
I also think some buildings could keep the historical look, and feeling, and still add on. And, there spots, which that isnt appropriate for. The last time I was in Portland, there were too many parking lots, and empty lots for a city that is revitalizing itself, so when the economic climate changes, hopefull that will change.

I am referring to next may, and I cant wait. lol
 
Well, good luck with your studies Todd, and an early congrats on being almost done with school.


121 years ago today, Memorial Day in 1889, the corner stone for the soldiers and sailors monument (Our Lady of Victory) in Monument Square was laid, sparking the beginning of a transformation of what used to be Haymarket square into a public gathering space centered around the figure. Original designs called for statues up to 7 stories tall, but funding wouldn't allow them. The first Civil War monument in a Maine city was erected out of Bronze in Lewiston. Portland's monument used to be surrounded by an ovular grass section, in addition to the grass square that is there now, and it had an iron fence around it, with old fashioned lamp posts. Looked neat. All this and more is available in the "Portland's Urban Landscape" chapter of "Creating Portland: History and Place in Northern New England" book. An interesting read for sure. Read it online here: http://books.google.com/books?id=4W...&resnum=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

or order it here: http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Portland-Northern-Revisiting-Regionalism/dp/1584655216
 
A few photos this weekend from the old Jordan's site.

portlandmainespring2010.jpg


portlandmainespring2010.jpg


portlandmainespring2010.jpg
 
Anybody know what's going on at the old Whole Grocer site on Marginal way(next to old wild oats). They have gutted out the whole inside and have a fence around it.
 
grittys457 said:
Anybody know what's going on at the old Whole Grocer site on Marginal way(next to old wild oats). They have gutted out the whole inside and have a fence around it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is going to be Maine's first "Trader Joe's" supermarket. At one time it was supposed to be a Walgreens, which would have been tacky in my opinion.
 
I thought Trader Joe's was going in where Wild Oats was, next door. I could be wrong.
 
The old Whole Grocer building on the corner of Chestnut Street is being gutted to become another Walgreens, I believe. The new Trader Joe's is going in down the block, in the old Wild Oats building that abuts Preble/Elm Street.
 
Ahhh, Walgreens, forgot all about that. I don't sit and watch their new stores all day but I never see more than a few cars at the Forest Ave location. They are known for their low priced prescription drugs so they'll fit right in on Marginal in walking distance.

Patrick, I'm a little hurt that you would think I wouldn't even know where Trader Joe's is getting. Don't think I'm slippin' son.
 
ok I got the two confused. I think it is disgusting that supermarkets and convenience stores are going into this location. What a dump. Of course, my opinion would change if there was some sort of strictly applied form based code, but to my knowledge there is not. These buildings aren't worth the time it spent to construct them and should be replaced not reoccupied.
 
Agreed. I thought that the Bayside Vision put some things in stone but perhaps it is just a rough guideline. It's going to be hard to piece together a thriving urban neighborhood in bayside with a mix of urban and suburban developments. Take for example, across from the Intermed and AAA building is a 1 story drive-thru bank. Soon we will have a 1 story Walgreens and a Trader Joe's. Down the Street is a similar suburban style Whole Foods. In between these places we can hope for some urbanity but it's a big uphill battle.
 
Well, Corey, if I had to guess, the politicians in control are a bit upset that they had to raise taxes and to make sure that the voters don't kick them out they want as much new commercial revenue as they can get with as little hassle as possible (which means letting any new business enter the neighborhood in pre-existing stores rather than benig the unpopular supporter of a new high rise which, for some reason, everyone seems to hate except a few. The Bayside plan is just as you said, a rough guideline, or a framework, which means that it doesn't have to be followed word for word, but decisions should in general be made with its broad policies in mind. Apparently even these have been forgotten. I say open the whole neighborhood up for maximum development. I am into planning, but honestly I think things would be better in many circumstances if left to the private business sector. Let maximum investment take place within certain guidelines, and leave the rest alone so things develop as they have for years prior to comprehensive planning (see i.e. the old port, congress street, etc, all of which developed naturally BEFORE there was any sort of planning in Portland). The type of planning I think is best is the City Beautiful movement, which created many of the parks and monuments Portland is known across the country for, but this very same movement has been discredited as a means of planning, and has been replaced largely by a participatory process where so called experts give the reins over to the people. This is a flawed process in my opinion because only a select few participate, and their views probably don't represent the community consensus. I think people get upset and worried about city beautiful planning styles and "grand plans" for cities because of the mistakes of a few planners (robert moses and others) over the years that used the top down planning process ineffectively and made huge mistakes, but this need not be the case everywhere, and indeed it wasn't, and portland is an example of how things can work well. Many neighborhoods in larger cities are the size of Portland, so perhaps the answer is to just switch to neighborhood planning in larger cities and keep overall comprehensive planning to smaller cities like Portland. Either way, I am a big supporter of top down approaches to planning, informed but not dictated by public input/ I think there need to be experts, even if there suggestions and mandates are tempered and potentially variable by strong public comment and opinion, but I think the public opinion should be required to have a certain number of petition signatures, not just open to being derailed by anyone. An interesting fact is that urban planning in Portland actually got started by NIMBYism, and of a very unlikely sort (coming from John Calvin Stevens, one of the City's most noted architects, responsible for many of the brick mansions in the West End). Specifically, it was aimed at blocking expansion of freight rail through the City's suburban Deering neighborhoods to preserve suburban land values and prevent blight from ruining the views of the Western Prom (which in any event was later ruined anyway).
 
Has anyone else ever come across or read the 1989 "downtown height study" commissioned by the City to study increasing the prevailing height limit of 125 feet? It is quite interesting. It was written during the boom years and is especially notable for one of its three potential recommendations (which was incorporated in the final set of suggested policy changes) which indicated that Portland should have two "growth areas" in addition to Congress street's spine: West Bayside and India Street a.k.a. the Eastern Waterfront. Fast forward to today and we have the Eastern Waterfront plan and the Bayside Vision, both of which seem to have their origins in this report. However, both have also changed dramatically since their inception/beginnings. The height limits in Bayside, for example, are much taller now. The study suggested tapering them down lower moving away from Congress street and to construct slender towers which tapered in at their architectural tops, in order to avoid a "massive bulky skyline." Nice job, Intermed, you achieved exactly what 20 years of planning said was a bad idea. This plan also resulted in adoption of the current 250 foot height maximum for downtown's core. If nothing else, this plan also demonstrates Portland's amazing ability to study things that are common sense and then to disregard the results anyway. There is no continuity of vision in this city, or hardly any with regard to items other than the arts, and I think for this reason an elected mayor would be a great idea. someone should be accountable for this ridiculous analysis paralysis of endless committee meetings and study groups.
 
Well said Patrick, I am in total agreement. Portland is obsessed with studies and reviews and it's partly due to a lack of leadership and direction from the city council format that exists. There is no one around to take charge and make a decision and it tends to get political instead of what is best for Portland and it's citizens. The only down side to having a "real" mayor is if an anti development/business individual gets elected, we could be in a worse situation than we are now!
 
I completely agree, but here is why I think that will NEVER happen. Mayors are accountable to the public/electorate, just like any elected official. I know I am stating the obvious here. But what isn't so obvious is that the vast majority of the public is, I am willing to bet, in FAVOR of new jobs and development. Only a vocal minority in the neighborhood where the project goes usually speaks up about it. So if the whole city had a say, there would be fewer NIMBYs because broadly speaking the "back yards" effected would represent a far lower percentage of the voter base. I can't imagine someone running for office let alone being elected on a platform that says "I pledge and plan to prevent all progress in the City" -- although it isn't unthinkable in this town, either.

It really bothers me how people are against development. Why? The reason people come to Portland isn't Deering Oaks (that's the reason they stay) -- its the CITY, and cities are nothing if not based upon the development that drew people to them in the first place.
 
Just my opinion. People are cautious with new development and progress because they feel it represents big business/corporations, wealthy developers, prestigious law firms, out of state banks and closed door deals. These individuals are resistant to change and normally lead their lives the same way and are easily swayed by the minority "NIMBY" clan that tend to be the most vocal at local council and planning meetings. In Portland's situation, alot of these anti development types are transplants from larger metro areas in MA, CT and NY who want to see Portland remain quaint and charming compared to the urban centers they escaped from.

Now, these same individuals will enthusiastically support a project that is related to the arts, the homeless, social services, "local only" business endeavors and any new construction that is green certified and does not block the views of a 3 story tenement building across the street. And some of these efforts are very worthy. It unfortunately comes down to what a proposed project will do for me and my agenda, which tends to be a very selfish approach instead of how a project benefits the entire city. Thankfully, Portland's desperate need for new sources of revenue to help counter layoffs, school closures and diminished city services normally defeats the naysayers.

By the way, I also have an "agenda" when it comes to new development. Have been waiting to see a signature 20 story tower added to our skyline along with a new arena for many years, but I have never attended any council or planning meeting to protest against a project that benefits the needs and desires of the other side. There is plenty of space to meet everyone's wish list in Portland, too many people have lost their civic pride these days!
 
Last edited:
Portlander said:
Thankfully, Portland's desperate need for new sources of revenue to help counter layoffs, school closures and diminished city services normally defeats the naysayers.
Click to expand...

Patrick also mentioned this economic impact earlier in regards to the re-developments in Bayside. I agree that the need for sources of revenue will almost always defeat naysayers. I see that adding a new Walgreens and a Trader Joe's in the existing structures, although not in keeping with the goals of the vision for the area, are important in adding to the city's bottom line and that in "this economic environment" it would be foolish to pass up these economic opportunities. It's a very interesting relationship between economic development and urban development. The city needs to lure new business, but we shouldn't replicate the Maine Mall in Bayside(although I would love an urban mall in Portland with big retailers, like Faneuil Hall in Boston or a small replica of Toronto's Eaton Centre).
 
All good points on an admittedly tricky subject. I think the idea behind a ban of formula businesses is in many ways a good idea, although I too would like to see an urban mall like Horton Plaza in San Diego built in Bayside. This, however, would be bad from a regional perspective. It would do the same thing to the Maine Mall that the Maine Mall did to Downtown Portland years ago. In short, the Mall would become a ghetto. Not good. Moreover, it would make Portland more susceptible to swings in national markets, whereas currently our retail base is much more local and therefore responds mostly to local trends and is therefore insulated to a degree from national economic trends.
 
Old Port is alot like a regional shopping district....if there ever was an urban mall...maybe it should be local non-chain stores....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top