Portland, ME - New Construction Continued

The top floor rooms are all being turned into larger suites which will include balconies on both sides of the hotel.
 
They must really want it done fast, I have seen them working on the project on Saturdays and Sundays.
 
Thanks, Portlander. That seems like a good use of the space on the roof. I'd love to see the inside of the building someday.

Article in the Forecaster about the J.B. Brown West Commercial Street development:


Portland West End residents remain unhappy about proposed zoning amendment
http://www.theforecaster.net/news/p...t-end-residents-remain-unhappy-about-p/113344

During a series of neighborhood meetings and a Planning Board public hearing from September, 2011, through January, residents of the area expressed concern that the mixed use zoning tag, which allows buildings up to 65 feet tall, would result in over–sized new developments out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood.
Click to expand...
Jo Coyne, who said that some Planning Board members seemed out of tune with area residents during public meetings on the proposed amendments, agreed that development, fit to scale, is appropriate to the site.
“I and many people believe we're not opposed to development on West Commercial Street, but it should be limited to 45 feet,” Coyne said.
Click to expand...
 
It depends on what the Comp Plan Has in mind for that area, not what a few residents at the public meeting say. Studies routinely show that public meetings are perhaps the worst form of public engagement. They are at dinnertime, when people with families are eating, well, dinner, and it is also a time when people are either still at or getting out of work. That being said, finding better alternatives is hard. But it shouldn’t be a logical leap to say that the results of a public meeting represent the views of the “public” more broadly defined. It is just one piece, an important piece but just one piece nonetheless, amongst a variety of factors which should be considered. Again, the pre-established plan for the area—which was also formed on “public” input—should be the guiding factor here. If that should change, that’s another question. As for the zoning, 65 feet isn’t too high in my opinion, because the “neighborhood” presumably referenced is on a hill, making it equivalent to a high rise neighborhood with respect to this site. No shadows can be cast upward. Moreover, there is no connectivity really, so there’s no issue there. Western Commercial Street is, in my mind, functionally distinct from the West End. Also, 45 feet is an arbitrary number, as I suppose 65 is as well. But if an arbitrary number is to be decided, it should be by a more comprehensive effort, not one person. I understand the need to respond to constituents, but this seems odd.
 
Good points, PortlandArch. These types of meetings certainly tend to bring out people who are opposed rather than people in favor or people who don't have a strong opinion in either direction. There was an article about this meeting in the PPH a few weeks ago too, here. There is a ridiculous/funny quote about this project being a "Berlin Wall" in the article:

West End residents said a 65-foot building would block their views of the Fore River and Portland Harbor, and thereby lower their property values.

"I realize that I don't own my view, but this building would have a significant impact on my view of the river," said Michael Curtis of Danforth Street. "It will definitely have an impact on the values of our homes and our equity if it's 65 feet."

Warden Dilworth, another Danforth Street resident, said he would like for his children to have a chance to sell his home one day, but with a "Berlin Wall" obstructing river views, Dilworth said "we may find ourselves locked in because no one will be able to sell their homes."
Click to expand...

I also consider this stretch of West Commercial Street to be distinct from the West End and find people's concerns about spoiled views kind of humorous. This isn't even a scenic part of the waterfront. It is an overgrown urban jungle on the Portland side and is just oil tanks on the other shore. Obviously, proposing a 600 foot tower here would be inappropriate (zoning laws and proximity to the airport aside), but a 45-65 foot multi-story building sounds like a perfect fit.
 
Not that it's necessarily relevant in your case, but I believe the standard distance between buildings in Boston Proper is 80 feet.
 
JohnAKeith said:
Not that it's necessarily relevant in your case, but I believe the standard distance between buildings in Boston Proper is 80 feet.
Click to expand...

JohnA Keith, what do you mean by standard distance between buildings? I have a hard time believing that a distance of nearly 8 residential stories is equivalent to the horizontal distance which on average separates structures in a dense city like Boston. Did I misunderstand you? Aren’t most structures in the back bay sharing common walls (zero separation) and all or most other parts separated by a driveway at most?
Corey, you’re absolutely right. Moreover, it would be difficult to locate any urban designer anywhere in the world who said a street wall—which is what this development will in theory help create over time—is a bad thing. Hardly the “Berlin Wall,” a dividing line between cultures. If anything, the hill of trees is the Berlin Wall. I have my reasons for disliking the proposal, namely the inordinate amount of parking and the inconsistent street wall by permeated building footprints, but the reasons cited in the article are not amongst them. The resale value argument is the weakest—people move intown to be intown. Not to look at abandoned and overgrown tracks. Again, this isn’t even remotely close to those houses, which are safely nestled into the hillside above. Moreover, I have serious doubts any view corridor would actually be impacted. Has anyone checked I wonder? If so, the neighbors can buy the development rights, which they could probably afford and which may be worth the investment.
 
I took this the other day on my phone. Best view from the law library.
12222f.jpg
 
Be sure to check out my article in the latest edition of Portland Magazine "Before the Old Port gets any older, reimagine us with New Urbanism" -- I didn't select the title...
 
Nice snapshot of the skyline, Patrick. Can I just walk into the law library or is it just for law students? I'm a USM student but have never tried going in the building before. I imagine there are some good views.
 
Corey said:
Nice snapshot of the skyline, Patrick. Can I just walk into the law library or is it just for law students? I'm a USM student but have never tried going in the building before. I imagine there are some good views.
Click to expand...

Hi Corey, thanks. It is open to anyone, not just law students and not just USM students. It is a completely free library. There are a few private-ish areas on the top floors (the library is only floors 2 and 3, that pic was taken from the third floor), but you can always go up to the top-ish floors and take some pics from the men's bathroom. I always enjoy the view from the bathroom on the fifth floor, and it's probably better even higher up.

On an unrelated note, my magazine article is somewhat less than I expected it to be. There was substantial editing, much to my surprise given that I worked for nearly three months on it, including revisions. Most notably, there were substantial quotes that I inserted from Andres Duany, one of the greatest urban minds of our time, who called me on my cell phone for the express purpose of this article, and NONE of them made it into the final draft. This guy is like the President Obama of progressive urbanism, and he didn't make it into the article. Not my decision I suppose, but would have added a lot. Moreover, the discussion of the design principles was limited, but I guess that was to be expected given the intended light audience.

Overall, the pics are great though. I didn't do them, they were done by a collaborative effort between Portland Magazine and a design firm I recommended known as "Urban Advantage." Google them to see more of their outstanding work.
 
^That was a good read, I forgot about a few of those projects. Looking forward to the "Spring 2012" groundbreaking of the Bay House!

PPH article today on the J.B. Brown & Sons West Commercial Street plan:

http://www.pressherald.com/news/zoning-changed-after-deal-on-height_2012-02-23.html


Zoning changed after deal on height
Residents and the developer of the Commercial Street parcel reach an accord on size limits.

Veroneau spoke after the City Council voted unanimously to change a 6-acre portion of the 10.5-acre parcel from an industrial, water-dependent zone to a less restrictive business zone.

The developer initially wanted the limit to be 65 feet -- the standard in the business zone -- but agreed to 55 feet between the Star Match Co. building and the section of the parcel that is in line with Fletcher Street, and agreed to 45 feet for the portion of the parcel east of Fletcher Street.

A 55-foot limit would allow a five-story building. A 45-foot limit would allow a four-story building and possibly a five-story building, city planners said.
Click to expand...

A few thoughts - Most of the talk around this project has been about height. Based on the original renderings (not sure if those are still relevant) it seems it would be beneficial to look at how this building, regardless of height, interacts with the street, sidewalk, and surrounding environment as well. But I can see how the neighbors of this project aren't as concerned about those issues as they are with height because this stretch of Commercial Street is kind of in its own world. Also, I wonder if some pedestrian/bike connection could be created to connect this new development to the West End (maybe from the end of Emery Street)?
 
I wish J.B. Brown would concentrate it's efforts and resources on developing their property at Commercial and Maple Street. The proposed structure for that lot is impressive and would serve as a true anchor to the west end of Commercial Street. Myself, along with most people I have talked to could care less about the stretch to the west of the bridge when it comes to office/commercial development.
 
Corey,

You are absolutely right. Also, for commercial buildings I don’t believe a 45’ height would allow 5 stories, and it would be doubtful if it allowed 4. For residential structures, 10’ seems to be a general norm for an average floor to ceiling height, including a foot or so for “in between” space. For commercial structures it has to be more because there are commercial building standards and utilities which are different, and bigger, than residential ones. More space needed between floors for extra stuff, basically. You figure at least 8’ ceilings (which is very short for commercial space), and then 3 extra feet for utilities, and you’re at 11 feet best case scenario. That squeezes a tight 4 floors into that limit, but if higher ceilings are needed (probably not unlikely), you’re back at 3 floors.
This isn’t altogether bad, because look at Exchange Street—primarily 3 floor structures—but again, as you say Corey, it comes down to how the structure interacts with the street more than it does to height. Height is such an arbitrary concern of people, which makes ZERO sense. Some of the most expensive residential real estate in the country is located next to the tallest building in New England (the new John Hancock).
I also think your post points out the irony here—the neighbors don’t care about street level action because, well, they are nowhere near this street. So, why, then, are they complaining or even weighing in on it? There was no tower proposed here, simply some low-rise office space, regardless of if it was 65’ or 85’. For an urban center, it wouldn’t be surprising to find a 45’ minimum norm.
I agree with Portlander that efforts should be focused on the center of town, but at some point Western Commercial will develop, and when it does it should do so in a way that continues the business presence and strength of downtown Portland forward, not backward. There is no view there to complain about losing, and even if there were, it wouldn’t be blocked by a 6 story building because these folks are up on a 20-story hill. Also, even if it were, they can always buy the supra-adjacent air development rights, which is what they should have done here. Change the zoning to 65’ and then sell 10’ to the neighbors. This is not a case of the City beating up on the poor, it is the rich complaining about progress because they don’t need it.
 
Corey said:
Also, I wonder if some pedestrian/bike connection could be created to connect this new development to the West End (maybe from the end of Emery Street)?
Click to expand...

This brought a memory back when the very end of Emery Street did have a set of wooden stairs that went all the way down to Commercial Street. I imagine the railroad built and maintained them as a way for workers from the neighborhood could get down to their workplaces in the waterfront area. When I lived on Emery Street, I used these stairs many times to get to the State Pier.
 
"Also, even if it were, they can always buy the supra-adjacent air development rights, which is what they should have done here. Change the zoning to 65’ and then sell 10’ to the neighbors."
This is a great idea, but why make people buy air to keep building height down to their acceptable level? Alas, I do not live in the affected area of Danforth Street, but do know someone who lives there, I will stop by when I have time and ask him what his thoughts are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top