Portland, ME - New Construction Continued

Wow Corey, you keep topping yourself with these pics.

They are gutting the hell out of the Pavillion spot on middle street and the little permit says Urban Outfitters so that's a go.

Also have you guys seen the Bank of Maine on canal plaza now? It's all lit up blue at night on the bottom floor and their are double white line lights going up the corners of the building. Looks pretty cool.
 
Corey said:
The new mega-berth at Ocean Gateway in action:

september2011portlandma.jpg
Click to expand...

Is that a wide angle lens of a pano cam?
 
Thanks Gritty's! I have seen the night lighting at the Bank of Maine, looks pretty good I think. The bank livens up that corner of Canal Plaza, even it is only open for typical banker's hours.

Patrick - It's actually several photos stitched together (6 photos if I recall correctly) which give it that panoramic/wide angle effect. Good eye! I would love a true wide-angle lens but need to save up for one of those as they are pretty expensive. I've started taking pictures like this when I need those extra wide shots and also when I want to do a bokeh-panorama type shot [also known as the Ryan Brenizer method] like my moped picture on the last page.
 
Corey said:
Thanks Gritty's! I have seen the night lighting at the Bank of Maine, looks pretty good I think. The bank livens up that corner of Canal Plaza, even it is only open for typical banker's hours.

Patrick - It's actually several photos stitched together (6 photos if I recall correctly) which give it that panoramic/wide angle effect. Good eye! I would love a true wide-angle lens but need to save up for one of those as they are pretty expensive. I've started taking pictures like this when I need those extra wide shots and also when I want to do a bokeh-panorama type shot [also known as the Ryan Brenizer method] like my moped picture on the last page.
Click to expand...

cool you can't even tell they are stitched together!
 
I just spoke with someone in Augusta -- they said they constantly interview people to make sure things are ready to go if they decide to move down this way, and she suspected it had something to do with Borders closing, but it was not a misprint. Sometimes Portland means south portland, too, in job ads. Would have been great in either the urban outfitters space or the public market building. Somewhere along commercial street would also be nice, near the Deering Lumber area. I can't see new construction in Bayside right now. Not for that sort of space alone--although, what about Federated's property?
 
grittys457 said:
Found this by accident.

http://jobview.monster.com/Store-Manager-Job-Portland-ME-US-101235663.aspx

Wow, that would be huge to land that intown somewhere. I would guess a new building on Marginal Way. Can't see any spots downtown where it could be successful.

Sent the daily sun an email to look into it. No it's not the old borders location cause that's going to be Books-a-million
Click to expand...

Wow, nice catch!

Patrick - I agree that a bookstore like Barnes and Noble would have been great in the public market building or perhaps where Urban Outfitters is going. I'm a frequent customer of Longfellow Books in Monument Square and I think they would still be successful with a chain bookstore in town so I welcome Barnes & Noble.
 
I think I heard that Pierce Atwood is moving in this weekend. It looks really nice down here, they even did some landscaping around the parking area. From today:

september2011portlandma.jpg
 
From an urban design standpoint, this is truly an underutilized/wasted property. Actually, in this economy probably that is all there is demand for right now--replacement of the former dumpy looking structure, so perhaps it is not a waste in the strictest sense of that word. But I sure would like to see something better there in the future, when the market can support it. Fortunately, the new construction is all wood--easily replaced with something better when feasible.
 
From the PPH today:

http://www.pressherald.com/business/polluted-waterfront-property-for-sale_2011-09-28.html

Polluted Portland waterfront property for sale
There's no asking price for the Fore River sites. But a buyer will likely spend a fortune to clean them up.


"There's no listed price," said Alec O'Meara, media relations manager for New Hampshire-based Unitil Corporation, the properties' owner. "It's extremely negotiable."

O'Meara said the land is contaminated with coal tar, and that the new owner will likely need to spend several million dollars to clean up the tar or contain it.

"It needs to be dealt with. You can remove (coal tar) through excavation, or you can cap it and buttress the land to make sure it doesn't seep into the ocean," he said.

Unitil acquired the property in 2008 with the purchase of Northeast Utilities. From the 1800s to 1965, the property was the site of a coal gas manufacturing plant.
Click to expand...

portland-press-herald_3579075.jpg

PPH photo
 
The China Clay Docks (the powdered clay was used in paper making) were at the water's edge for many years as well. When the market went away for the clay, the docks/warehouses were abandoned, burned, used for storage, and were eventually torn down in the 1990's. The railroad tracks (Portland Terminal RR) covered the entire area seen in the photo as well.
 
Damn and I thought this was going to be a nice addition...

Portland Planning Board denies Canal Plaza changes,

PORTLAND — The Planning Board on Tuesday denied a developer's request to build a restaurant at Canal Plaza in the Old Port.

Instead, the board issued an alternative recommendation to the City Council to allow the developer to add a floor to two buildings, in exchange for permanent protection of the pedestrian square.

The board also questioned the potential impact on traffic from a proposed events center at Thompson's Point, which now may include an amphitheater.

Developer Tim Soley, of East Brown Cow, asked the board for a conditional zone change that would allow him to add executive penthouses to 1 and 3 Canal Plaza, plus a single-story restaurant in what is currently the pedestrian gathering area.

Soley said zoning laws would allow him to build a 35-foot building, but he sought a conditional zone change to build smaller and further away from the sidewalk.

Soley said the pedestrian plaza is under-utilized, even though his three office buildings are 91 percent occupied. Few people use the square after business hours, especially in the winter months, he said.

"Such voids are usually filled with elements that are not controlled," he said, noting his staff often has to shoo away skateboarders and bicyclists.

Adding a restaurant, he said, would make it inviting, pedestrian friendly and "feel alive.

But several tenants of the Canal Plaza office buildings opposed the change, saying the plaza was never developed into a proper open space in the 1970s.

"It's a key open space on Middle Street," said Sarah Witte, a landscape architect hired by the tenants. "Once you lose an open space you never get it back."

Witte said siting a restaurant in the square would come with a host of practical problems, including planning for delivery areas, emergency access, trash storage and fumes.

Rebecca Farnum, of the Thompson & Bowie law firm, said she has a corner office overlooking the plaza. She agreed the square is under-used, but said a restaurant is not the answer.

"I would suggest (the lack of use) is a result of the condition of the plaza," she said.

Attorney Herb Henryson said existing tenants should be allowed to opt out of their leases if the restaurant is approved.

"I think we're looking at a bait and switch," he said.

The board ultimately denied the request, saying it is inconsistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan, which encourages protection of downtown open spaces and enhancing the pedestrian experience.

The request will be forwarded to the City Council, which has the final say. The board issued an alternative recommendation for the council to consider that would allow the additional penthouse suits, in exchange for preserving the square.

After the meeting, Soley said he was disappointed, but he would consider the
 
Both interesting stories.

1. From an environmental liability standpoint, I believe the federal government could, if it chose to do so, clean up the property by the bridge right now, then forward the bill to Unitil, under the CERCLA or sometimes known as the "Superfund" Act. Although it interests me and I have studied it, though, I am not an expert in environmental law, and there must be something I am missing that would explain why the owner is so open about the contaminated nature of the site. Even if it is well documented, why publicize it? Especially when this is the site Amtrak is looking at for its future downtown extension platform? Here, let us clean it up, forward the bill to your company, or we'll buy it from you at a price reduced accordingly.

2. I spoke to a former classmate of mine and member of the planning board, who is generally very pro-urban and wise when it comes to investing in Portland's urbanism--he told me a while ago he was very opposed to the middle street plaza addition because of height (the minimum height required in that area, which I believe falls under the PAD (ped activity overlay district) is 35 feet, or roughly 3 residential sized floors. While this generally makes sense, I don't see the restaurant violating the intent of the ordinance (urbanism) given that it is surrounded by three towering structures and is at present occupied by, as Solely said, a greatly underutilized void. The fact is that, no matter what the tenants in adjoining office space think, this plaza is a waste of space--has anyone ever seen it used to the extent Post Office park or Tommy's Park are?

Also, the comment about "once you lose open space, you never get it back" is likewise off the mark. The plaza itself is built on the footprint of former buildings, and so is Post Office park (hence its name) as well as, I believe, parts of if not all of Lincoln Park. Moreover, this is not a public space, it is semi-public, and the owner should be able to do what he wants. In this case, although the building would be less than optimal from a height perspective (which I totally agree with), it would more than make up for that fact, in my opinion, by the fact that it extends the street wall directly in line with the Bank of Maine portion of Canal Plaza, thus creating a more continuous pedestrian walking environment. Currently, plazas like Canal Plaza are widely recognized, here and across the country, as failures in urban architecture. The whole bait and switch argument is not one I would have expected to hear from an attorney.
 
With regards to the cleanup, Superfund litigation is a tricky subject.

1) The govt. could only do as you have suggested if the site is on the national priority list. This is a pretty small site, and although at this point the govt. has cleaned up the vast majority of large sites, the number of small contaminated site is exponentially larger. My guess, this site still hasn't been identified as a priority. And if the site isn't on the list, and poses no immediate threat, frankly the current owner is under no obligation to clean it up.

2) There is always he possibility that Until was a buyer w/o notice or (innocent buyer/inheritor) OR a bona fide prospective purchaser, both of whom receive fairly extensive protections from CERCLA (to facilitate the transfer and cleanup of the land)

3) I'm not sure what Until's relationship with the site is, but neither it nor a new purchaser would necessarily be liable for all cleanup costs. The major focus of CERCLA is to identify potentially responsible parties (PRP's). This includes (1) any current owner - Until, (2) any owner/operator at the time the contamination was done, (3) any "arranger" who arranged for the dumping/contamination, or (4) even any transporter who transported the contamination to the site.

The vast majority of superfund litigation actually stems from these parties suing each other for indemnification or contribution costs. Any party who decides to do the cleanup may sue any other PRP. Same goes if the govt. does cleanup and lumps all the costs on one party. The real issue is who was (or were) the original polluters. If they are still in existence in some form (questionable), they are likely to bear the brunt of the cleanup costs. Then again it is entirely possible Until or a new prospective buyer is entirely screwed.

4) As for being open about the contamination - it's there, people know about it, and it seems any routine environmental testing would reveal it. Why try to keep it on the down low then? If anything I think being upfront about it is a better sales tactic, it builds community support for the sale.
 
Hutchison said:
With regards to the cleanup, Superfund litigation is a tricky subject.

1) The govt. could only do as you have suggested if the site is on the national priority list. This is a pretty small site, and although at this point the govt. has cleaned up the vast majority of large sites, the number of small contaminated site is exponentially larger. My guess, this site still hasn't been identified as a priority. And if the site isn't on the list, and poses no immediate threat, frankly the current owner is under no obligation to clean it up.

2) There is always he possibility that Until was a buyer w/o notice or (innocent buyer/inheritor) OR a bona fide prospective purchaser, both of whom receive fairly extensive protections from CERCLA (to facilitate the transfer and cleanup of the land)

3) I'm not sure what Until's relationship with the site is, but neither it nor a new purchaser would necessarily be liable for all cleanup costs. The major focus of CERCLA is to identify potentially responsible parties (PRP's). This includes (1) any current owner - Until, (2) any owner/operator at the time the contamination was done, (3) any "arranger" who arranged for the dumping/contamination, or (4) even any transporter who transported the contamination to the site.

The vast majority of superfund litigation actually stems from these parties suing each other for indemnification or contribution costs. Any party who decides to do the cleanup may sue any other PRP. Same goes if the govt. does cleanup and lumps all the costs on one party. The real issue is who was (or were) the original polluters. If they are still in existence in some form (questionable), they are likely to bear the brunt of the cleanup costs. Then again it is entirely possible Until or a new prospective buyer is entirely screwed.

4) As for being open about the contamination - it's there, people know about it, and it seems any routine environmental testing would reveal it. Why try to keep it on the down low then? If anything I think being upfront about it is a better sales tactic, it builds community support for the sale.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information, Hutchison. Are you an attorney, real estate developer, or planner of some sort? As I said, my exposure to CERCLA has been in the classroom only, and that was a while ago, so your points cleared up some of my confusion. Previously, I thought it was any site the government could enter, clean, and charge to the owner (who would then be able to sue the other PRPs)...and that is why I was confused about publicizing the issue. It's not that I thought or was suggesting it should be kept a secret, merely that I was confused as to why it would be publicized (thinking it might trigger some sort of government clean up and immediate liability). Are you an environmental lawyer? I practice land use (mostly zoning and municipal regulations) in Maine.
 
Any idea which 2 buildings will be eligible to receive the addtional story?
 
One Canal Plaza (10 floors) and Three Canal Plaza (7 floors). Current floor counts are based on the structure's lower elevations.
 
Here's a photo of 2 Canal Plaza (the building that isn't part of the proposal for additional floors) with the new lighting scheme that Grittys457 had mentioned.

september2011portlandma.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top