Portland Square Redevelopment | Portland

If they're worried about views for the office building and don't want it to be taller than 8 stories ... then switch the office building to Fore Street.

Then build a smaller garage with commercial/retail space on Spring Street and 10-15 stories of housing.

That way the office views aren't blocked by a residential building, and the residential building will be taller than the office building with their own views (2-13 stories).
 
nomc said:
GND?
Click to expand...

Yeah that could be a factor. But for instance the developers of 385 Congress are going to have to adhere to GND and they've tentatively said they want to build the affordable units on site. I would think if you could build something on a massive scale like they could at this site then perhaps you could dampen the impact of the GND on the project's finances. Make up for it in volume, so to speak.
 
Max said:
Yeah that could be a factor. But for instance the developers of 385 Congress are going to have to adhere to GND and they've tentatively said they want to build the affordable units on site. I would think if you could build something on a massive scale like they could at this site then perhaps you could dampen the impact of the GND on the project's finances. Make up for it in volume, so to speak.
Click to expand...
Yes, AND if a tower this size were to be residential it would likely require fewer parking spaces so then they’d have space for the required GND units — and rental feels appropriate given the uptick in interest rates for mortgages.
 
GIL said:
Yes, AND if a tower this size were to be residential it would likely require fewer parking spaces so then they’d have space for the required GND units — and rental feels appropriate given the uptick in interest rates for mortgages.
Click to expand...
That said, with the right-scaled development between Cotton and Centre streets we might not even see the big bald side of that heinous parking structure (tho I still agree that 800+ spaces is an over-supply and could be chopped by at least a floor).
 
For those of you who haven't been paying attention...
https://www.mainebiz.biz/article/re...mits-in-portland-down-82-since-green-new-deal

I think they have to wait for the 5 year mark when the results will speak for themselves and this will be repealed. Then maybe you'll see an uptick in new housing again.

"The reason it was voted on was a very legitimate housing problem. Housing is a big issue. Voters hoped it would increase the amount of affordable housing but it ultimately led to fewer units altogether,” John Finegan, an associate with the Boulos Co., told Mainebiz.
 
Max said:
Yeah that could be a factor. But for instance the developers of 385 Congress are going to have to adhere to GND and they've tentatively said they want to build the affordable units on site. I would think if you could build something on a massive scale like they could at this site then perhaps you could dampen the impact of the GND on the project's finances. Make up for it in volume, so to speak.
Click to expand...
I guess I assumed that 385 submitted the original MDP in 12/2020 so that the development would fall under previous regulations?
 
nomc said:
I guess I assumed that 385 submitted the original MDP in 12/2020 so that the development would fall under previous regulations?
Click to expand...

I think because they came back with a new MDP this year they are subject to the 25% of units at 80% AMI requirement.
 
DZH22 said:
For those of you who haven't been paying attention...
https://www.mainebiz.biz/article/re...mits-in-portland-down-82-since-green-new-deal

I think they have to wait for the 5 year mark when the results will speak for themselves and this will be repealed. Then maybe you'll see an uptick in new housing again.

"The reason it was voted on was a very legitimate housing problem. Housing is a big issue. Voters hoped it would increase the amount of affordable housing but it ultimately led to fewer units altogether,” John Finegan, an associate with the Boulos Co., told Mainebiz.
Click to expand...

We need more housing in general, but if the housing we are building is doing nothing more than pushing rents up that's no good either.....if affordable housing isn't being built on its own something had to be done
 
  • Like
Reactions: GIL
ctsketch said:
....if affordable housing isn't being built on its own something had to be done
Click to expand...

The mistake that you and many others make is believing that the brand new housing is what's supposed to be affordable. It's the brand new housing that keeps the market rate from skyrocketing on the existing stock, and hence allows the older housing to be more affordable when you don't have to compete with people much richer than you for it.

"Something needs to be done" is usually what people say right before things take a turn for the worse. I read the book linked below about 2 years ago. People here have a lot of criticisms of this book, but it's been like a literal crystal ball where I have known in advance every time an economic policy was doomed to fail. Based on historical precedents in many other cities over the years, this "Green New Deal" with housing was so clearly doomed to fail that I couldn't believe the voters of Portland would ever fall for it. Notice how the demand is still there, but more construction has apparently shifted a town over to Westbrook.


Really, the biggest fallacy is the belief that developers won't change their habits when new policies would cut directly into their bottom line.
In fantasyland: "By increasing the affordable housing from 10% to 25%, we're going to end up with 15% more affordable housing!"
In reality: "We, the so-called greedy developers who put millions upon millions of our own dollars on the line for a process that takes years, have decided to spend that money where we expect a better rate of return." (ie in this case they moved their next projects a town over, or maybe further)
 
DZH22 said:
The mistake that you and many others make is believing that the brand new housing is what's supposed to be affordable. It's the brand new housing that keeps the market rate from skyrocketing on the existing stock, and hence allows the older housing to be more affordable when you don't have to compete with people much richer than you for it.

"Something needs to be done" is usually what people say right before things take a turn for the worse. I read the book linked below about 2 years ago. People here have a lot of criticisms of this book, but it's been like a literal crystal ball where I have known in advance every time an economic policy was doomed to fail. Based on historical precedents in many other cities over the years, this "Green New Deal" with housing was so clearly doomed to fail that I couldn't believe the voters of Portland would ever fall for it. Notice how the demand is still there, but more construction has apparently shifted a town over to Westbrook.


Really, the biggest fallacy is the belief that developers won't change their habits when new policies would cut directly into their bottom line.
In fantasyland: "By increasing the affordable housing from 10% to 25%, we're going to end up with 15% more affordable housing!"
In reality: "We, the so-called greedy developers who put millions upon millions of our own dollars on the line for a process that takes years, have decided to spend that money where we expect a better rate of return." (ie in this case they moved their next projects a town over, or maybe further)
Click to expand...

I agree that this approach won't fix the issue but I disagree with the notion that the alternative was working. this sounds a lot like people who still believe in trickle down economics. Developers were building fine before the green new deal and has that didn't keep enough affordable housing available in the first place. so whats option C? because what we are doing before wasn't working. in my city where we don't have any affordability requirement for developers (but they can get a hefty tax credit is they do build some) . residents continue to be priced out of housing. I moved here in 2017 and what was once $850 is now $1500, and new apartments were once $1,300-$1,800 are now $1800 to $2500. thats just 5 years and no green new deal involved

www.wgbh.org

Worcester's housing market, once affordable, is squeezing out many residents

Dave Vespucci fears he’s on the verge of homelessness.
www.wgbh.org www.wgbh.org

and I'm no economic amatuer here.. I'm doing pretty well and I own rental units in the city as well but I see both sides of the issue
 
  • Like
Reactions: GIL
ctsketch said:
I agree that this approach won't fix the issue but I disagree with the notion that the alternative was working. this sounds a lot like people who still believe in trickle down economics. Developers were building fine before the green new deal and has that didn't keep enough affordable housing available in the first place. so whats option C? because what we are doing before wasn't working. in my city where we don't have any affordability requirement for developers (but they can get a hefty tax credit is they do build some) . residents continue to be priced out of housing. I moved here in 2017 and what was once $850 is now $1500, and new apartments were once $1,300-$1,800 are now $1800 to $2500. thats just 5 years and no green new deal involved

www.wgbh.org

Worcester's housing market, once affordable, is squeezing out many residents

Dave Vespucci fears he’s on the verge of homelessness.
www.wgbh.org www.wgbh.org

and I'm no economic amatuer here.. I'm doing pretty well and I own rental units in the city as well but I see both sides of the issue
Click to expand...
The wage gaps in Portland (and in general) are blatantly obvious as well. Portland needs to provide competitive wages as a de facto sub-city of Boston to attract talent and retain the younger folks fleeing the state. Not to mention corporations making exorbitant profits aren't "trickling" it down to equitable wages.

Portlanders are paying Boston rental prices without Boston wages. In 2004 I had an apartment in the Marlborough building on the top floor - the size of a small ranch and paid $800 p/m. In 2015 my rent went from $1100 to $1800 when the ownership changed. That's when I was lucky to buy my house. Some landlords are jacking up prices on apartments simply because they can, not because they need to. In other cases, property taxes, cost of heating, water, and other things account for increases understandably.

I further hate news articles regarding new housing developments where they claim unit rental prices will be affordable/based on median income at $1500-$1800 for a studio, $2500 for a 2br, and so on. I don't know about you, but I don't know ANYONE in the area that can afford that on the current wages in Portland. If you want to keep Portland the cool and interesting place it once was ... that attracted people to it ... you can't price out the people who made it interesting in the first place. Artists, musicians, performers, service industry workers ... they can't afford the peninsula anymore.

Some new developments were balked at by NIMBY's who were literally only part-time Portland residents. They didn't want the riff-raff (or racial minorities) in their neighborhoods up on the East End by their expensive new condos. Many of these same MISGUIDED people fought against Midtown and Portland Foreside. One of which didn't care when her own new house (with an elevator mind you) blocked views of the people behind her. The hypocrisy was obvious. Now we have no Midtown and likely never will. Portland Foreside I doubt will ever see completed.
 
DanielPWM19 said:
The wage gaps in Portland (and in general) are blatantly obvious as well. Portland needs to provide competitive wages as a de facto sub-city of Boston to attract talent and retain the younger folks fleeing the state. Not to mention corporations making exorbitant profits aren't "trickling" it down to equitable wages.

Portlanders are paying Boston rental prices without Boston wages. In 2004 I had an apartment in the Marlborough building on the top floor - the size of a small ranch and paid $800 p/m. In 2015 my rent went from $1100 to $1800 when the ownership changed. That's when I was lucky to buy my house. Some landlords are jacking up prices on apartments simply because they can, not because they need to. In other cases, property taxes, cost of heating, water, and other things account for increases understandably.

I further hate news articles regarding new housing developments where they claim unit rental prices will be affordable/based on median income at $1500-$1800 for a studio, $2500 for a 2br, and so on. I don't know about you, but I don't know ANYONE in the area that can afford that on the current wages in Portland. If you want to keep Portland the cool and interesting place it once was ... that attracted people to it ... you can't price out the people who made it interesting in the first place. Artists, musicians, performers, service industry workers ... they can't afford the peninsula anymore.

Some new developments were balked at by NIMBY's who were literally only part-time Portland residents. They didn't want the riff-raff (or racial minorities) in their neighborhoods up on the East End by their expensive new condos. Many of these same MISGUIDED people fought against Midtown and Portland Foreside. One of which didn't care when her own new house (with an elevator mind you) blocked views of the people behind her. The hypocrisy was obvious. Now we have no Midtown and likely never will. Portland Foreside I doubt will ever see completed.
Click to expand...

NIMBYS are alive in well. We have an 80 unit 7 story affordable unit going up and some complained that they were building it near the nee ballpark...like as if people making 30 and 60 AMI don't deserve to be in a clean neighborhood? A neighborhood which is like 25% poverty rate btw
 
Taking a look today, I've noticed that 3 Portland Square has been removed from most major commercial listing sites.

Not exactly an encouraging sign.
 
Office usage is a tough sell in todays work from home full time or even in a hybrid format. I think it also halted or delayed the construction of the proposed 7 story office building at 170 Fore Street. The lot has been turned into parking for the time being but at least 3 structures were completed out of 4 which is still a positive.
 
With talks about Herald Square, I was wondering about this development as well as the properties next to this on Cotton Street. Any updates, timelines, progress?!
 
NR2Portland said:
With talks about Herald Square, I was wondering about this development as well as the properties next to this on Cotton Street. Any updates, timelines, progress?!
Click to expand...
Nope, nothing to show for it so far but the loss of Brian Boru.
 
Pity that doesn't include the area on Congress next to City Hall (Top of the Old Port)
 
Anyone have insight into this draft becoming reality? If the parcels get rezoned to 325', that should motivate a new development plan. The right mixed-use residential/commercial/hotel/office project could make this the heart of Portland. (can we say that after the soccer announcement? :unsure:) ...could make this the "center" of Portland!
1714791576229.png
 
This map is Planning staff's recommendation's for the new downtown height overlay as part of ReCode. Right now the city is hoping to get this (and many, many other zoning and land use changes) through Planning Board and City Council by October. Unless the PB or Council specifically recommend that this map be amended it will become official by the end of the year.

As far as I know ,there haven't been too many public comments regarding the downtown height overlay. The majority of public comments have focused on dimensional changes within the residential zones, but there will be public meetings on ReCode with Planning staff in June and July so if you want to voice your support for these changes that would be the place to do it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top