Portland Renderings

Completely agree with that post. I think the issue for me is that a few more steps toward downtown would be a marginally higher cost but produce a tremendously higher return on investment. And the fact that this thing is surrounded by parking is a bit unbelievable. It's like people either forgot how to, or are afraid to, design urban places that "work,"

This would be a slight improvement, but it would really, like you said, require some substantial ped infrastructure improvements. That stretch of commercial is not attractive at all. There was a proposal for a waterfront "festival marketplace" similar to Faneuil Hall in that area in the 1980s, but that idea was too good. Also, people start to stop being inclined to walk places once you get at or over the half mile mark, with virtually no one walking a mile or more. So for those wanting to say spend some time on Munjoy Hill or (someday) in Bayside, this station won't be attractive. Hopefully it changes before the idea is finalized.
 
Patrick said:
There was a proposal for a waterfront "festival marketplace" similar to Faneuil Hall in that area in the 1980s....
Click to expand...
Wow, that could have been great if it was designed right.

I agree with your views on the Pearl Place phase 2 design as well. Buildings like this (well, buildings in general) will be around for the indefinite future, so let's built it right the first time. As you mentioned, there are some pretty simple design standards that could help turn this around.
 
Corey said:


Wow, that could have been great if it was designed right.

I agree with your views on the Pearl Place phase 2 design as well. Buildings like this (well, buildings in general) will be around for the indefinite future, so let's built it right the first time. As you mentioned, there are some pretty simple design standards that could help turn this around.
Click to expand...

I have a rendering of it, Corey. Although it encompassed a large parking garage and surface parking, there were elements of it that would have been enjoyable, and I picture the surface parking to have been developed into something else by now. It had a hotel, restaurants, etc. Almost like what was proposed for the MSP, but in the west, by the PFE.
I have to scan the rendering to get it on here, and I got it from Portlander.
 
This is a rendering of a large mixed use project planned for the Dimillos parking lot along the waterfront before the zoning changes.

scan00022.jpg
 
This is Marginal Way as I'd like to see it. This view is looking at what Walgreens is now, with the high rise put where Trader Joe's is now.
mrginalway.jpg
 
Looks good! Makes me want to reinstall Google sketch up, also. I like that you went with a collection of smaller buildings. It seems like most retail/office/condo buildings proposed these days involve a huge footprint. Although each case is different, I'm assuming this sometimes has something to do with land values and zoning. Buildings with large footprints can be successful and are good to have in moderation, but I can think of several positive reasons to build on a slightly smaller scale as you appear to have done in your rendering.
 
Thanks Corey. This was a final for my urban design class. You are absolutely right about the footprints. That is something that I have not figured out, and which is kind of odd...on one hand I really like skyscrapers and large construction projects (the building shown is 24 stories, not unrealistic for Portland), but I don't like walking around them as much as Exchange Street, which has a row of 3-4 story buildings mostly. I guess what it comes down to is the urban-ness of the building, which I've heard (but not really seen) can be achieved in big buildings by breaking up the facade, allowing for permeability (with things like public spaces inside that allow someone to walk through the building to the other side, and with high degrees of "fenestration" (windows) on the first floors. I imagine it is more difficult to have a high level of fenestration in a high rise, because the building is heavier by nature and probably needs a stronger base, but I'm sure it could be done with the right design. In my model above, I allowed a public walk way straight through the ground floor lobby of the high rise that lets out on the Bayside trail, where I imagine alfresco dining and more of a pedestrian only area. I also wanted a really big high rise there because if I had to keep one busy street, Marginal or Preble, I'd keep Preble since that lets people get to the City, and Marginal is a side to side, not ingress-egress route...so marginal in my model becomes a boulevard, Preble stays as is. Another reason for the high rise is that I wanted something to rise above the intermed's blocky figure to make for some variation. Final reason is that it would create a gateway to Marginal Way, which is now odd looking with Trader Joes on one side and a huge building on the other. I'll post some more pics.

unled1an.jpg

unled3h.jpg


The recessed area in this next image is of what I believe is Hamilton Marine now...it has not been destroyed, but built around. The alley way is a ped connection (one of two) linking Marginal Way to the Bayside Trail.
unled5tp.jpg

unled6z.jpg

unled7o.jpg

Rooftop dining
unled9o.jpg

unled10j.jpg

unled11m.jpg

unled12v.jpg

unled12v.jpg

unled16p.jpg

unled17.jpg

unled18o.jpg

unled19.jpg

unled20s.jpg
 
I agree with Corey about the smaller buildings as opposed to mega projects. Occasionally, larger projects can be broken up successfully to look like smaller buildings, such as this one in Market Square in Portsmouth, but I think that's rarely as successful. I also don't really like the hokiness of it--buildings can fit in and even harken to earlier structures without the sort of stagecraft that pretends the building has always been there. A better approach with larger projects, in my mind, is simply breaking down the massing, which I think has been done successfully in several recent projects in Portland.

In any event, I'll be curious to see how the economic downturn and recovery (hopefully taking hold) will change the development patterns. I could be wrong about this, but it seems like developers had been less interested in small or infill projects before the recession. I don't know if this will change at all, but I wonder if the reluctance of banks to make big loans and a bit more trepidation on the part of developers will lead to smaller projects more in keeping with historical development patterns. The obvious downside with that is that, while often not as nice as a collection of distinct, older buildings, a large new project usually fills a site all at once; smaller projects may mean a building here or there separated by empty parcels or parking lots for several years. We'll see.

I think one thing that can help tie smaller projects together, which is not evident in Patrick's rendering, are some sort of design guidelines that help unify such architectural elements as floor lines, window openings and so on, in addition to more urban-scale elements like setbacks, sidewalks and so on. There are plenty of examples of how this can be done too rigorously, but I think fairly open guidelines are helpful.

I'd also love to see a rendering of the area with the Walgreen's in place. I know we'd all like it to be gone, but since it's there and probably will be for awhile, I'd be curious to see a rendering making the best of it. I think it would also help show why it's so important to thwart such projects before they're built, since they stick around for a long time.

I'm hoping to do a rendering (probably more massing even), some plans and other drawings for the former Flat Iron/McGregorville district of the Notre Dame neighborhood on Manchester's West Side, discussed a bit on this page in the Manchester thread. This area was once a dense, mixed-use neighborhood that was razed in the 1960s/70s for a drab strip mall and hospital expansion. I'd like to envision what the area, which is considerably smaller than Bayside, but very well located and surrounded by burgeoning development, might look like if it was restored to some sort of mixed-use area.
 
Patrick said:
Thanks Corey. This was a final for my urban design class. You are absolutely right about the footprints. That is something that I have not figured out, and which is kind of odd...on one hand I really like skyscrapers and large construction projects (the building shown is 24 stories, not unrealistic for Portland), but I don't like walking around them as much as Exchange Street, which has a row of 3-4 story buildings mostly. I guess what it comes down to is the urban-ness of the building, which I've heard (but not really seen) can be achieved in big buildings by breaking up the facade, allowing for permeability (with things like public spaces inside that allow someone to walk through the building to the other side, and with high degrees of "fenestration" (windows) on the first floors. I imagine it is more difficult to have a high level of fenestration in a high rise, because the building is heavier by nature and probably needs a stronger base, but I'm sure it could be done with the right design. In my model above, I allowed a public walk way straight through the ground floor lobby of the high rise that lets out on the Bayside trail, where I imagine alfresco dining and more of a pedestrian only area. I also wanted a really big high rise there because if I had to keep one busy street, Marginal or Preble, I'd keep Preble since that lets people get to the City, and Marginal is a side to side, not ingress-egress route...so marginal in my model becomes a boulevard, Preble stays as is. Another reason for the high rise is that I wanted something to rise above the intermed's blocky figure to make for some variation. Final reason is that it would create a gateway to Marginal Way, which is now odd looking with Trader Joes on one side and a huge building on the other. I'll post some more pics.
Click to expand...

I love all these ideas. I also think the idea of one or a few high-rises mixed in is great. I don't think there's any reason why an area of predominantly 3-to-6-story buildings can't also be home to a 24-story tower or too. I always come back to this, but to me that's the ideal reinterpretation of the old, dense tower punctuated by belfries and steeples.
 
Yeah I kind of agree that a tall building can work with lower buildings, too. Kind of like John Hancock (the new one) in Boston. The idea is go big or go home, though, because if it is just a little taller, it looks weird, so I think it needs to be much taller to have an iconic look. The Chard London Bridge Tower (now under construction) was designed to match the historic spires of the London skyline.

The question of whether there is enough demand for a build out like this always comes up, but I guess my answer would be--preemptively--that if all the office space and residential units built in the greater Portland market were added up each year, it would probably far surpass that depicted in this rendering. We should be capturing suburban growth, and building this sort of city instead of what we have. That's how it used to be done.
 
Yeah, the window lines are important to line up. In sketch up it is really easy to get bogged down by the details, so I didn't have time to perfect this, but that is something I was definitely trying to keep in mind especially for the streetscape. The design guidelines are a right place to start, but I am not a fan of them. They should be actual requirements (instead of suggestive only), because otherwise they are free to be disregarded. FBC mandates the things you referred to...setbacks, window lines, etc....but doesn't have to be overly restrictive from a design perspective because the idea is that it is merely urban "form" that is being regulated.
 
Those are from the urban design RFP put out by the developers to subcontractor architects. They date to last August I believe. I enjoyed the article from the paper where the Bayside neighborhood group is quoted as saying something to the effect of "we spent a lot of time on the design guidelines for this area, and as long as those are followed, we can't even spell NIMBY" (referring to not in my back yard). The neighbors are actually for development, for once, and moreover it is development which will in all likelihood be the biggest proposal/project Portland has ever seen. This is really encouraging, and shows that if the time and effort is spent up front, to ask a community what it wants, and then the answers become requirements through codification, we can avoid the time-consuming bickering which usually characterizes real estate development later in the process, after substantial money has been spent and when it is most critical to keep things moving so as to not lose bank financing due to market changes. A similar process should take place for other areas in the city. The BNA should be commended for its input, as well as for its support of this project, which will create hundreds of new and sorely needed intown residents.
 
If this project goes through, Which it seems it will, I cant wait to see jow this impacts future development in Portland.
 
Here is a proposal by the City of Westbrook for what they would like to see a developer come forward with on their Main Street:

portland-press-herald_3611326.jpg

westbrook1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top