Dr. StrangeHat
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 812
- Reaction score
- 931
Here's the full side-by-side-by-side. Subtle changes, but I think it works better. Now I just need to send it to Archetype.
Did you also notice that the top two floors do not appear to be as wide as the 1963 effort. I always disliked the overhang above the original 12 floors and I think the new design may correct the eyesore. Appreciate your efforts!
Plans have been submitted to the planning board, but there are no attachments as of today.
View attachment 3357
Martin, I think you are adding the 100' that is the portion of the building that is below grade which also includes the actual height above sea level on page A4.03 (rear elevation). The approximate height of the signage appears to be close to that of an actual floor which I'm guessing is 10-12 feet. So my prediction to the top of the sign would be around 168'8"-171' which is just shy of Franklin Towers. I'm also not sure if the 175' height for Franklin Towers includes the rooftop mechanical level which looks like it's around 10-12 feet, have never been able to view the actual blueprints to confirm. But roofline to roofline appears to give FT a 29' advantage over the T&TB.We at least now know the actual height of the building, 146' to the roofline, 159' to the top of the mechanical level and I'm guessing another 10' to the top of the signage
Martin, I think you are adding the 100' that is the portion of the building that is below grade which also includes the actual height above sea level. The approximate height of the signage appears to be close to that of an actual floor which I'm guessing is 10-12 feet. So my prediction to the top of the sign would be around 168'8"-171' which is just shy of Franklin Towers. I'm also not sure if the 175' height for Franklin Towers includes the rooftop mechanical level which looks like it's around 10-12 feet, have never been able to view the actual blueprints to confirm. But roofline to roofline appears to give FT a 29' advantage over the T&TB.
Parking garages are very expensive and generate little to no rent! Thread:Refern is asking for no TIF and the rents look more affordable for a 18 story building. 477 is asking for a TIF and the rents seem higher with only a 7 story building on top a 2.5 story garage on Cumberland ave. Am I missing something here?
Great thoughts Portlander and everyone else. This garage has been an eyesore for a long time. It'll be nice to see it replaced with something more attractive and with housing units above. I agree - we'll take what we can get, but it'd be nice for developers to start going to the maximum height too. There are so many empty lots in the Bayside area that need to be filled in as well (entire blocks with one building on them? What a waste). I'd really like to see Portland raise the ceiling on building heights.Another nice find Cosakita. While I agree it would be nice to have a few extra floors, it will still make an impact on the skyline and will replace a decaying garage leftover from the 50's. With it's planned ceiling heights it should still exceed the 100' mark and will be a little taller than the Allen's Storage Building next door. In addition, Presidium has the resources to complete the project and this will add some new investment in an area that could use some new life and vitality.