A proposed development at 815 W Burnside St has gone in front of the Design Commission three times to receive Design Advice. The 7 story building is being designed by Ankrom Moisan Architecture for LMC Development, and would include 144 residential units, ground-floor commercial space, 50 below-grade parking spaces, and a rooftop outdoor deck.
The project could be the first Central City development to be approved that is subject to the city’s Inclusionary Housing requirements, which were introduced in February 2017. Buildings in the Central City are required to provide either 10% of the units at prices affordable to people earning 60% of area median income or 20% of the units at prices affordable to people earning 80% of area median income.
The project will be located on the southern half of the Pearl District block bound by W Burnside St, NW Park Ave, NW Couch St and NW 9th Ave. The site is currently occupied by a Firestone Tires shop. The northeast corner of the block is occupied by the Arthouse student housing, which was completed in 2013 on the site formerly occupied by Powell’s Technical Books.
DAR #1
The first Design Advice Request (DAR) hearing for 815 W Burnside was held on April 19th, 2018. As proposed at the time the primary material for the building would have been a light colored brick, with projecting oriel window elements in a dark metal or fiber cement panel. Other materials proposed included vinyl windows, painted steel canopies and storefront glazing at the ground floor.
Comments received from the Design Commission, summarized in a staff memo, included that the ground floor felt compressed, and that a stronger base was needed; that the projecting oriel windows made the building feel “heavy”; that the building would benefit from the introduction of balconies facing the North Park Blocks; and that parking and loading functions dominated the ground level facade along NW 9th Ave.
DAR #2
The project returned in front of the Design Commission for a second DAR on May 17th. In response to feedback received the previous month the oriel windows were removed; Juliette balconies were introduced on the north and south elevations; and the base of the building was reworked to create a double height expression. The primary material was also changed to öko skin or Equitone fiber cement panels.
DAR #3
Changes made at the third DAR, held on June 5th 2018, included consolidating the parking and loading access on NW 9th Ave; extending the retail space on NW 9th Ave further north; expressing the volume that extends over the sidewalk on NW Park and 9th as a framed element; and creating a consistent two story base datum along W Burnside St.
815 W Burnside St is set to go in front of the Design Commission for its Type III Design Review this coming Thursday, the 23rd of August. If approved, the building will then need to be submitted for building permit review before construction can start.
Drawings
-
- DAR #1 | Plan | Parking
-
- DAR #1 | Plan | Ground
-
- DAR #1 | Plan | Level 2
-
- DAR #1 | Plan | Levels 3 to 6
-
- DAR #1 | Plan | Level 7
-
- DAR #1 | Plan | Roof
-
- DAR #1 | Elevation | South (W Burnside St)
-
- DAR #1 | Elevation | East (NW Park Ave)
-
- DAR #1 | Elevation | North
-
- DAR #1 | Elevation | West (NW 9th Ave)
-
- DAR #3 | Plan | Parking
-
- DAR #3 | Plan | Ground
-
- DAR #3 | Plan | Level 2
-
- DAR #3 | Plan | Levels 3 to 7
-
- DAR #3 | Plan | Roof
-
- DAR #3 | Elevation | South (W Burnside St)
-
- DAR #3 | Elevation | East (NW Park Ave)
-
- DAR #3 | Elevation | East (NW 9th Ave)
-
- DAR #3 | Section
-
- DAR #3 | Section
They should be forced to build a much taller building with more units in the central city. You can build a building almost as big as this in a neighborhood.
This city is run by the developers, for the developers. The nit picking about materials is an attempt to obscure up the corruption in the zoning an planning process. The builders decide their maximum profit building and the commission gets to pick what color it is.
At the time this project was submitted for review the maximum height allowed on the site was 100′.
Did you say build much taller ?? Unfortunately this is Portland. As much as they say we have a housing crisis, pushing UGB, this city is allergic to tall
Here you have a downtown location in a major spot but you get a proposal that’s seen on Williams avenue lol
It’s a joke of a city when it comes to vision
I read all of the business press and see regular articles about the rental glut. Renters get at least one month of rent free if they sign a lease. New units are sitting empty. The housing crisis has subsided. So maybe the market is also saying that a max ht of 100′ is enough at this W. Burnside site. Furthermore, this site faces the North Park Blocks. A lower scale should be a prerequisite for any building on this site.
Another kind of housing crisis has not subsided. There is still no housing for the homeless. That is the crisis.
I’ve asked numerous homeless people if they wanted a job at my business and they’ve all declined
Unfortunately a lot of the homeless wish to live that sort of live and take no responsibility for their life
I enjoy seeing the evolution of this building, through the design process, all in one post. For as much grief as the commission gets (sometimes, though certainly not always, rightly) for curbing some bolder architectural moves, this is a clear example of the commission’s guidance taking a thick-ankled frump of a building that glowered at the pedestrian interface, and coaxing it into something altogether more handsome and approachable.
As for the complaints regarding its height; I hear that complaint. It does make sense to build vertically where it is allowed, but there are myriad factors at play. Even though this lot is zoned for 100′ (roughly 10 stories), to build to that height would add a substantial amount to the cost of construction. As current code stands, seven stories – built as five wood framed stories over 2 reinforced concrete stories – is the tallest that can be built using wood frame construction. To go any higher would require the entire building be built from steel reinforced concrete, making it virtually impossible for a half-block, ten-story development to pencil out – especially given inclusionary zoning requirements.
Now, one can argue whether zoning should allow taller buildings on that lot, or whether inclusionary zoning might be curtailing development; but given current zoning and regulation, and the fact that erecting any private building ultimately boils down to profit concerns, this is a fine and handsome, if not aspirational building.
Personally I think the third version is a lazy building that looks like too many other ones we already have. I’d like to see the design commission start pushing something different instead of more of the same old crap we have too much of.
I don’t think it’s bad at all. It is so much more humane and thoughtful than most of the construction from the 1950s through the ’90s along that section of Burnside . For some perspective, just look at the building across the street: an unfriendly, unimaginative, sidewalk killer best experienced in a passing bus.