Portland, ME - New Construction Continued

Looks good....I think more mixed use developments should be considered for the West End.....its a great neighborhood, with a unique charachter.
 
toddc said:
Looks good....I think more mixed use developments should be considered for the West End.....its a great neighborhood, with a unique charachter.
Click to expand...

I like the idea, but the materials? I don't think what is being labeled 'progressive' in this context is in fact the true meaning of that word. Progressive would be something that progresses out of the current mindset of making buildings look "modern" (why?) and respects the neighborhood as an integrated design whole, not the sum of its many parts. However, this doesn't look to be the worst structure I've ever seen, and there is no requirement private property owners be progressive in their design, so while this may be a mediocre architectural design, the building mass and function are both great and the owners can do with it what they want within the bounds established by law, and that includes what is shown. Very good overall.
 
PortlandArch said:
I like the idea, but the materials? I don't think what is being labeled 'progressive' in this context is in fact the true meaning of that word. Progressive would be something that progresses out of the current mindset of making buildings look "modern" (why?) and respects the neighborhood as an integrated design whole, not the sum of its many parts. However, this doesn't look to be the worst structure I've ever seen, and there is no requirement private property owners be progressive in their design, so while this may be a mediocre architectural design, the building mass and function are both great and the owners can do with it what they want within the bounds established by law, and that includes what is shown. Very good overall.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree--I think this building (from the one elevation shown, at least) looks pretty respectful of its surroundings. In general, Portland does a much better job than Portsmouth of balancing contemporary design trends and building methods with respecting context and history. There is far too much faux-historicist stage dressing in Portsmouth, though Portland hasn't been spared of such mis-proportioned, pretend old blunders like the Portland Harbor Hotel.

The proposed building matches many of the patterns, scaling and proportions of the older buildings around it. Like the Bonobo building, it is a fairly utilitarian structure with relatively little ornamentation; it features punched openings in solid walls; and features residences above ground-floor retail. The other surroundings are much different buildings--smaller, wood-framed Victorian houses and apartments, and a gas station. It makes sense--and follows traditional patterns--for a corner like this to feature multiple, larger, mixed-use buildings like this one and the Bonobo building surrounded by smaller houses and apartments. I think it will fit in pretty well.

It's important to preserve and respect our historical and old buildings. As the Portland Harbor Hotel shows, once they're gone we're rarely very good at replacing them. But it's also important to accept that history, architectural styles and building methods didn't end in 1900 or any other year. New and old buildings of various styles have always existed side-by-side. In the best places, they work well together, play off each other, and are influenced by their predecessors and context. In general, I think Portland does that very well, and this project looks like just another example of why.
 
Slightly off topic but want to share this somewhere - The satellite images of Portland on Google Maps were recently updated. They are so up to date that the foundation for Elm Terrace on the corner of High and Danforth Streets is visible.
 
FrankLloydMike said:
I respectfully disagree--I think this building (from the one elevation shown, at least) looks pretty respectful of its surroundings. In general, Portland does a much better job than Portsmouth of balancing contemporary design trends and building methods with respecting context and history. There is far too much faux-historicist stage dressing in Portsmouth, though Portland hasn't been spared of such mis-proportioned, pretend old blunders like the Portland Harbor Hotel.

The proposed building matches many of the patterns, scaling and proportions of the older buildings around it. Like the Bonobo building, it is a fairly utilitarian structure with relatively little ornamentation; it features punched openings in solid walls; and features residences above ground-floor retail. The other surroundings are much different buildings--smaller, wood-framed Victorian houses and apartments, and a gas station. It makes sense--and follows traditional patterns--for a corner like this to feature multiple, larger, mixed-use buildings like this one and the Bonobo building surrounded by smaller houses and apartments. I think it will fit in pretty well.

It's important to preserve and respect our historical and old buildings. As the Portland Harbor Hotel shows, once they're gone we're rarely very good at replacing them. But it's also important to accept that history, architectural styles and building methods didn't end in 1900 or any other year. New and old buildings of various styles have always existed side-by-side. In the best places, they work well together, play off each other, and are influenced by their predecessors and context. In general, I think Portland does that very well, and this project looks like just another example of why.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the respectful conversation. I agree that you can mesh both the new and the old, and that this probably does that quite well. That does not, however, change my opinion that this doesn't "progress" out of the same old mindset that we look at buildings individually instead of as one part of an integrated design whole. To be modern is not the same as being progressive. Lots of buildings are modern, very few respect the overall design of a neighborhood. The former is not progressive, the latter is. True, this building doesn't disrespect the larger design whole, but nor does it deliberately respect it as in enhance it. For instance, if this was a master planned community, even one with a deliberate emphasis on varying designs, do you think this building would be proposed amongst the others (assuming the place was built from scratch)?

Also, the Portland Harbor Hotel gets a lot of heat, but for what? Has anyone seen the Maine mall? Does anyone remember the parking garage that predated the hotel (still there, actually)? That was hideous. The hotel provides a terminated vista down Wharf Street that is the subject of numerous photographs. It fails at street level because it is built upon a pre-existing parking garage. It may not be a landmark, but it does fit in quite well. Portland and Portsmouth, in my opinion, have one thing going for them that other cities don't -- image. They are not an NYC or a Boston that will thrive regardless of image (i.e., those larger cities [though they would notice] would likely be OK even without tourists, whereas Portland and Portsmouth would be significantly impacted). I think building on the image that makes people like Portland is important. In an area like Bayside, which is a blank slate, I am fine with the quirkiest modern buildings around -- or even at the Maine Mall, which is modern everywhere you look (progressive? Not so much. But modern nonetheless). In this context, I don't think the building should be denied (on the contrary, I am VERY much in support of this building), but I wanted to point out that it is not progressive in the literal meaning of that word.

Also, there are a number of other renderings available online for anyone interested (and these make the project look SO much better than the crummy news article rendering (probably the worst of them all) that my initial comment was based upon. So, bottom line, with the "caveats" (if they're even that) above, this is a great project, for sure.

http://www.portlandmaine.gov/planning/hppackets/hpmemo40pinest.pdf

On the Other side of the downtown is currently a VERY modern proposal for condominiums. That structure, unlike this one, proposes demolishing a half block of historic houses (on the basis that they are dilapidated) and replacing them with one large-footprint urban structure out of scale with everything else. I am not against large-scale buildings (very much for them, in fact), but I am for urban design sense. And that seems to lack it. Not only is there an historic preservation issue there, but there is the awkward fact that the public is being asked to accept that project as “progressive” because of its ‘modern’ design, when in fact it is regressive in that it is a super-block with few instances of street-level permeability/fenestration (faux windows wrap first-floor parking). It’s the same outdated idea that has ruined unique neighborhoods for years, but because the windows protrude at an angle and the façade is Miami-white, it is acceptable as “progressive”? I don’t buy it, and request others to look more closely at what exactly constitutes “progressive.” The very same building could be proposed in Bayside, and you wouldn’t hear a peep from me, because there is nothing there to respect; but when you start bulldozing the fine-grained urban detail that makes Portland Portland, you run the risk of repeating the blunder of urban planning that created Bayside in the first-place. Let’s not forget that the posh homes of the trendy Munjoy hill were “dilapidated” 15 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the respectful conversation. I agree that you can mesh both the new and the old, and that this probably does that quite well. That does not, however, change my opinion that this doesn't "progress" out of the same old mindset that we look at buildings individually instead of as one part of an integrated design whole. To be modern is not the same as being progressive. Lots of buildings are modern, very few respect the overall design of a neighborhood. The former is not progressive, the latter is. True, this building doesn't disrespect the larger design whole, but nor does it deliberately respect it as in enhance it. For instance, if this was a master planned community, even one with a deliberate emphasis on varying designs, do you think this building would be proposed amongst the others (assuming the place was built from scratch)?
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with all that. Far too often buildings are designed and rendered as though they were standing in a field. And I'll agree that progressive architecture doesn't necessarily mean modern architecture.

I also completely agree about the project you mentioned in the last paragraph. I'm assuming that's the condo project proposed for East India? Aside from my subjective opinion that it looks hideous, I completely agree with you about the regressivism of replacing actual historic buildings that make up a dense, varied urban quilt with a superblock.

Thanks for sharing those additional renderings. After looking at them, I'm more convince that, while it's not my favorite design, it's pretty respectful of its neighbors. It follows the tripartite design of the building at West and Carleton, as well as the mansard-roofed building next door. By changing the material of the top floor, it acknowledges that most of its neighbors are a story shorter. And while it's protruding windows are a bit jagged for my taste, they pay homage to the bay windows of the older neighbors.

I agree that the facade isn't what would be built in a master-planned neighborhood, but the massing is. And this isn't a master-planned, scratch-built neighborhood. And that's part of the charm and image of Portland--layers of construction; it's old, but not stagnant.

What does really disappoint me about this project, though, is that the existing storefront next door (attached to the mansard-roofed building) will be demolished. That type of storefront, like the houses in East India, will never be rebuilt. I hope, at the very least, that the city makes the developer salvage the storefront. What I'd rather see is them scale back the project and save the existing storefront.
 
The Pine/Brackett Street building in the West End looks even better now that I've seen those other renderings, thanks for sharing!

Speaking of the Hampshire/Franklin Streets condo project, it made its way into the PPH today (kudos to them for hiring the newer reporters that are writing about this sort of stuff almost every day). The article is here and it speaks about the concerns of the neighborhood and the Franklin Reclamation Authority.

portland-press-herald_3663716.jpg


Anyone else notice the new sidewalk that was just paved on the Eastern side of Franklin Street? It's a small step, but a good one. I wonder what the status is of all the suggestions that the Franklin Reclamation Authority came up with. The new project above seems to be designed for the current Franklin Street as opposed to the hypothetical new Franklin Street that will be less of a highway and more of an urban street.
 
I agree, the renderings for Pine/Brackett st look good....
And I agree with Markos Miller's comments in the PPH about the need for ground floor retail use.....Im not sure if those comments will produce any change....but ut would be nice
 
Corey said:
The Pine/Brackett Street building in the West End looks even better now that I've seen those other renderings, thanks for sharing!

Speaking of the Hampshire/Franklin Streets condo project, it made its way into the PPH today (kudos to them for hiring the newer reporters that are writing about this sort of stuff almost every day). The article is here and it speaks about the concerns of the neighborhood and the Franklin Reclamation Authority.

portland-press-herald_3663716.jpg


Anyone else notice the new sidewalk that was just paved on the Eastern side of Franklin Street? It's a small step, but a good one. I wonder what the status is of all the suggestions that the Franklin Reclamation Authority came up with. The new project above seems to be designed for the current Franklin Street as opposed to the hypothetical new Franklin Street that will be less of a highway and more of an urban street.
Click to expand...

Between the scale (superblock), lack of ground-floor retail, first-floor residences facing what is essentially an urban highway, mish-mashed facade, jagged massing, and seeming lack of regard for context, this project seems to be doing everything wrong.

I'd rather see some of the existing buildings preserved with infilll, but if that won't work, I'd much rather see something that is contextual, that doesn't fill the entire block, and creates a retail front along Franklin Street. The current landscaping berm along Franklin Street shows that, while that side may be the most prominent facade, it's certainly not an area they want to address. And why would they, if they're doing exclusively residential? Who would want to live on the ground-floor facing a highway?

Looking at the website of the architects, it's clear that they have done plenty of good work in and around Portland. So I would chalk up this project's failings mostly to the developer, who could learn a lot a lot from the other recent and proposed projects in the neighborhood. This project could still have a modern look while respecting its context and contributing something to the neighborhood other than height and new condos.
 
Wow , we need more of that in this region. It seems all the good Apartment and condo designs are out west while we get bland and sterile boxes...
 
Story in the PPH today about the re-zoning of the Williston-West Church in the West End. I'm not really familiar with zoning laws so I don't see the controversy. It sounds like this was zoned as a church and will now be zoned to allow for offices and housing. I didn't know that the city's comprehensive plan was a legally binding document, but even if it is the council approved amending it so it sounds to be like there is no controversy. Is this just a case of nimby-ism? The one comment on the article so far, which basically says that development should be in separate zones or else it all gets mixed up, is a bit funny because "mixed-use development" is a desirable outcome to most of us.
 
Corey said:
Story in the PPH today about the re-zoning of the Williston-West Church in the West End. I'm not really familiar with zoning laws so I don't see the controversy. It sounds like this was zoned as a church and will now be zoned to allow for offices and housing. I didn't know that the city's comprehensive plan was a legally binding document, but even if it is the council approved amending it so it sounds to be like there is no controversy. Is this just a case of nimby-ism? The one comment on the article so far, which basically says that development should be in separate zones or else it all gets mixed up, is a bit funny because "mixed-use development" is a desirable outcome to most of us.
Click to expand...

This definitely sounds like nothing other than NIMBY-ism and ignorance. I don't mean ignorance as an insult, but as in people who haven't considered traditional development patterns over the typical separated use zoning we see. I'm not surprised to see NIMBY-ism in a neighborhood like this, but I am surprised that neighbors would be so unaware on unwelcoming of mixed-use, traditional development.

The rezoning agreement allowed for the creation of office space for 14 employees, provided Monsour's 32 Thomas Street LLC agrees to a restoration schedule for the church, which was designed by Francis Fassett and built in 1877. The church is on the National Register of Historic Places.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many people the church employed? Fourteen employees doesn't seem like it will have much of an impact on the neighborhood, and I doubt it's more than double the number the church must have had at one point. And unlike the church, an office isn't going to be drawing in many people other than its employees. I don't see what their argument could be.
 
FrankLloydMike said:
This definitely sounds like nothing other than NIMBY-ism and ignorance. I don't mean ignorance as an insult, but as in people who haven't considered traditional development patterns over the typical separated use zoning we see. I'm not surprised to see NIMBY-ism in a neighborhood like this, but I am surprised that neighbors would be so unaware on unwelcoming of mixed-use, traditional development.



I wonder how many people the church employed? Fourteen employees doesn't seem like it will have much of an impact on the neighborhood, and I doubt it's more than double the number the church must have had at one point. And unlike the church, an office isn't going to be drawing in many people other than its employees. I don't see what their argument could be.
Click to expand...
The arguments raised in this article are legally flawed; ironic given who they are attributed to. Comprehensive plans contain no mandates, they are guiding policies, so it is difficult to cite failure to adhere to non-existent mandates as a reason something is being challenged. Likewise, a rezoning need not be necessary—only consistent with a plan—to be legal. Therefore, the argument that this isn’t needed, true as it is, is similarly flawed. Also, to say that this is being challenged because it represents a “shortcoming of reasoning” lacks the most sense, legally, because even a first year law student knows that the standard of review for appeals is not one which demands the most sensible, or best, outcome, only a reasonable one. Even if
it’s not the decision the court itself would have reached, a court will not
second guess the City unless its decision is totally divorced from all logic,
which this one is not. It may not be the best outcome from the perspective of some neighbors, but it is not an arbitrary outcome. There is well established case law across the country, which is persuasive here, that says both qualitative (what sort of place a district should be) and quantitative (specifically how tall buildings should be) standards can have pretty much any arguable zoning implementation scheme satisfy a test of consistency. See Griswold v. City of Homer, 925 P.2d 1015 (Alaska 1996) and Haines v. City of Phoenix, 727 P.2d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986), respectively. Indeed, Orlando himself is on record saying something to the effect of “one can fit anything they want into a definition of ‘consistent.’” He’s right, for better or
worse, and that’s what happened here. Now, despite knowing this sort of appeal is destined to be denied, certain attorneys have pursued non-existent legal recourse in attempts to pursue recourse of another nature—stalling the developer or at the very least imposing the equivalent of a financial jab for defense costs. That’s not what the court system is intended as a forum for. There are jurisdictions which have proposed anti-SLAPP bills (strategic lawsuits against public participation, where the neighbors are threatened with suit to avoid perceived NIMBYism); perhaps this should be viewed as a SLAD – strategic lawsuit against development—which is equally unacceptable. This effort reflects poorly upon everyone involved.
 
Thanks for the thoughts, FrankLloydMike and PortlandArch. I'm glad to know that I wasn't missing something. I just took a peek at the PPH comments. You are braver than I, PortlandArch, because I can't stand anonymous debates online.

Quick recap of the comments: One of the clever commenters pointed out that the attorney representing the anti-rezoning group lives in a building that was once part of a school which was rezoned. A less clever commenter said that we should stick with the current zoning (even though it was probably zoned something else before the church was built) because "when you have a plan you should follow it" and advised "if you want to continue to mix properties then offer up your neighborhood." They also cite their primary concern about automobile parking.

Thank you to my fellow ArchBostoners who remind me that I'm not the only one North of Boston who likes cities.
 
The Congress Sq. Redesign Committee meets tonight at 6pm to decide whether to move forward with the Eastland/Westin ballroom proposal or keep the area public space. Or maybe both. I encourage anyone who can attend to do so and comment, and to otherwise share any input you may have via electronic means for inclusion in the public record.
 
Interesting news about the hotel proposal. It's really a great spot for a "boutique hotel" and the added activity from the restaurant will be nice too. The article notes that the current owner, John Cacoulidis, will still own the old printing plant building and parking lot across the street (also connected via tunnel to the old PPH building). I don't think anything has been in the old printing building for quite some time either. I would love to see that building, and the attached parking lot, made into something new. That is some real prime real estate.
 
I appreciate how the exterior isn't just red brick. Looks nice so far.
cv1RE.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top