December 10, 2004

Towards A Burnside Bridgehead Philosophy

Developers Offer Strikingly Different Visions For Project

Click To Enlarge

If, when choosing one of the three proposals for the Burnside Bridgehead which were submitted in response to the Portland Development Commission's RFP, one were to do so based upon the underlying philosophy, there simply would be no contest.

By a margin so wide it would more properly be termed a chasm, the locally-oriented concept from Beam Construction & Management far and away best reflects what some might consider to be the Portland Way, if there is such a thing.

Late yesterday afternoon and into the evening, the three RFP respondents offered public presentations of their proposals for the first time, to a standing-room-only (well, overflow, really) crowd in a meeting room at the State of Oregon building in Northeast Portland.

Presented at this meeting were the proposals from Gerding/Edlen Development Company, Opus Northwest, and Beam Construction & Management. During each team's presentations, members of competing teams were asked to leave the room.

As we begin writing this report, we're unsure of just how comprehensive it's going to be. Reportedly, the PDC will be posting each team's presentation to the Burnside Bridgehead website by Monday, so anything we don't cover may well be available to everyone next week. What we mainly want to focus on here are the clear differences in concept and approach -- philosophy, really -- that we think make it clear how we need to handle this redevelopment project.

Before going any further, it's important to note that the process for considering these proposals has been altered and extended. According to the revised schedule available at the above Burnside Bridgehead project page, here is the new timeline:

• December 13: Evaluation Committee Public Workshop
• January 7: Committee Findings to Commission and Executive Director
• January 12: PDC Commission Work Session Project Briefing
• January 26: PDC Commission Hearing Public Testimony
• February 9: PDC Commission Action

A few additional notes about this revised timeline. First, the original process called for PDC's Executive Director to determine the winning proposal, if any. But the full Commission has decided that it wants the decision to be theirs, hence that final item. Second, if we heard this correctly, there may be an additional and currently-undetermined opportunity for public input not reflected in the above schedule.

Finally, these changes may or may not be related to an item in today's "City Matters" column which says that Commissioner Dan Saltzman "is asking the Portland Development Commission to slow down a bit on its process for what happens to the east end of the Burnside Bridge" and "wants at least one public hearing after the holidays."

Gerding/Edlen (Home Depot)

The team from Gerding/Edlen (who announced they were "a little overwhelmed by the crowd") said they were "excited about a mix of uses" and in response to concerns about their past projects asserted that they "almost see this as an anti-Pearl project."

(We should note that we managed not to catch the name of who gave the Gerding/Edlen presentation, although there are quotes in the Oregonian article from Mark Edlen which accurately match some of what we have in our notes.)

The Gerding/Edlen team touched on concepts such as "richness" and "diversity" and said their proposal would offer a "contextual response to the industrial heritage" of the Central Eastside. And while they argued that the heart of their proposal is "not necessarily a large-scale retail tenant" and stressed the live/work component, they said that it was important to be "careful to stitch the Home Depot component" into the overall project.

Gerding/Edlen also claimed that their proposal was not dependent upon Home Depot, and that if a process of engaging with the community made it clear that the retailer was not wanted, their project could still go forward without it. They did not, however, offer any sense of what their concept would be for a proposal without a Home Depot, and their presentation appeared to rely upon a large format retailer being part of the project.

Whether or not the following characterization accurately reflects their intent, the impression their presentation left with us is that the talk of not necessarily needing a Home Depot was little more than an attempt to weather the storm of public opposition to that idea. If this is not their intent, then they should have actually made some sort of effort to describe just what a non-Home Depot proposal from them would look like. And this they did not do.

During questioning by members of the evaluation committee, the Gerding/Edlen team continued to repeat that they looked forward to a "spirited" public debate over the Home Depot element, which they claimed was "neutral" and "actually a negative" in terms of how the financials for the project pencilled out. Nonetheless, they stressed that Home Depot had an "open mind" as to the urban context and that the location would be a "one of a kind store" amongst the company's stores.

In an echo of one of the fears expressed during the drafting of the RFP for this project, the team also said that they had interpreted that RFP as the City having a "strong interest" in looking at large format retail at the site.

"We figured if they could do it in Manhattan, they could do it here in Portland." That's an actual and direct quote from the Gerding/Edlen team, which seems to reveal little more than a bizarre sense that urban locales are more or less interchangeable and directly comparable. Sorry, but Portland is not Manhattan, nor should it be.

And speaking of imposing an uncharacteristic, well, character upon the area, the Gerding/Edlen team also announced that the Little Italy Portland people had expressed an interest in being involved in the development. Now, we've mentioned the Little Italy Portland project before, and we certianly have no inherent objection to the idea. But plunking down a Little Italy in the midst of a district that is industrially and artistically inclined seems as out-of-place an idea as, well, plunking down a big box retailer.

This sudden announcement only secured for us our growing sense that for all their talk of respecting the character of the Central Eastside Industrial District, the Gerding/Edlen team's approach is to assemble a collection of elements which in fact impose a new character upon the district.

They were asked directly at one point what they would propose if the public pressure was great enough to eliminated Home Depot from the project. Their response -- mainly something of a reshuffling of the remaining elements -- seemed rather perfunctory.

And in fact that's how their entire proposal seemed to us: Perfunctory. It's as if, when faced with the prospect of a major Central Eastside redevelopment opportunity, Gerding/Edlen simply thought that it might be a professional embarassment if they failed to at least submit some sort of proposal.

Opus Northwest (Lowe's)

The presentation for the Opus Northwest proposal was given by Bruce Wood of Opus Northwest (responsible for Bridgeport Village in Tualatin) and architect Gary Larson, a partner and co-founder of BML Architects, whose credits include the KOIN Tower and our World Trade Center downtown. We should admit that we cringed at the mention of the KOIN Tower, which we particularly loathe.

Larson called the project site "remarkably located" and said that it wasn't just a gateway to downtown (the way the project has been described) but also a "connector" which could "make the whole area bright, shiny, and full of life". He cited the area's existing unique architecture and the need for what he called engagement: "We want people in it."

The Opus proposal calls for using the anchor Lowe's and accompanying parking structure as the foundation for a "platform" or "podium" which would extend the street level on the east side of the side across the project and serve as the base for the development above, which he said would be "at the scale of the neighborhood". There would be enough "density" and "vitality" for the development to "make its way" but "not so much that it overwhelms the rest of the neighborhood".

For us the most compelling specific of the Opus proposal is its intent to "extend Couch as a visual corridor" so that if you were standing to the east of the development and looking west down Couch, you would look clear down Couch, between the buildings, across the river and more or less directly at Big Pink (the US Bancorp Tower).

"These projects lie and die by what happens at street level," said Wood. He also spoke of the connections between this development and the opposite side of the Willamette River, which, he said, explains the presence in the Opus designs of a giant Lowe's sign. It's meant to reflect the presence of the giant White Stag (now "Made In Oregon") sign at the other side of the Burnside Brudge.

Wood also argued for what he said was on of the advantages of the Opus proposal. "When we do a project," he said, "it's just one firm." (We mention this mainly because it will come into play later in comparison to the Beam proposal.)

On the mater of big box retail, Wood said that it's not necessarily that a large format retailer is needed, but that "something of that type brings energy to a project, and you've got to have that." He also argued that it brings the necessary financial credit -- which perhaps seems an interesting distinction to the Gerding/Edlen presentation, where they argued that their own large format retailer choice pencilled out as a financial neutral, if not a negative.

Committee members began their questioning by asking that if Opus was not necessarily committed to Lowe's, have they spoken to any other large format retailers. "They've talked to us," Wood said, turning the directionality around. "We know who the players are," he added. "It's not just a retailer, it's the right retailer."

Further questioning asked for an explanation of the term "organic programming" which appearsi n the Opus proposal. Larson explained that it was meant in part to describe how "any shops at ground level can at some point spill out into the open space" -- that open space, including a sort of central plaza area, being made possible by the street-level platform/podium upon which the development rests.

Wood and Larson were pressed on the question of live/work space, which is deficient in their proposal as compared to the others. Wood said that "we would love to be able to put some live/work units" into the development, but challenged them as too expensive. In what appeared to be a swipt at the Gerding/Edlen proposal, he insisted that "we've got to keep this open" and defended the platform/podium approach as opposed to putting in "a bunch of live/works that create a wall".

They are pressed again on the question of how to proceed if the community does not want big box retail at the site. "We've designed what we think is financially viable," said Wood. He cited as the problem with going with a number of smaller businesses that "those tenants tend to [have] smaller, local, regional credit". He repeated his view that large format retail brings both people and energy.

It's certainly not the way to make a final judgement on a proposal, but we must say that we were rather more than a little put off by Wood's, well, performance (for lack of a better term). His public speaking persona, if nothing else, comes across as the slick salesman who always has some sort an answer at the ready, if only to disarm, if not actually answer or engage, the question.

We don't at all mean by this description that he's somehow actually doing something improper. Rather, it's just very difficult to get past the feeling one gets from this type of performance that you're being sold something you won't be comfortable with afterwards.

We don't, in the end, cast our opinion on the Opus proposal based on that demeanor. And, as we said at the start, elements such as the "visual corridor" down Couch are interesting. But given things such as Wood's insistence on big box retail and his dismissal of the live/work concept that many feel is a perfect fit for the Central Eastside, we don't feel the Opus proposal lives up to the need for the Burnside Bridgehead project to earnestly engage with and reflect the industrial and artistic character of the area.

Beam Construction & Management

Which brings us, finally, to the only proposal not to include big box retail, and the proposal which (as we teased at the beginning of this item) best reflects the Portland Way. Beam's presentation was given by Brad Malsin (of Beam itself) and Peter Stark, president of the Central Eastside Industrial Council.

Stark, saying that "this district has an incredible opportunity for a lot of development," said that Beam's approach was "to maximize the amount of employment we can bring to the area". Citing the need for diversity, he said the proposal includes many different types of uses. "In fact," he said, "there are eight."

Malsin said that he believes "in working within the context of the district" and "making the businesses in the district feel supported and encouraged". He said the Beam proposal deals with business, jobs, and smaller tenants. "I don't believe in a big bo retailer at this site," Malsin stated. He added that if he were told that the development must include a large format retailer, "I would reject it."

"I live, breathe, and function in the Central Eastside," he said, adding that the "local mentality" was to "tie everything together instead of separate things apart".

Malsin also admitted that he was "not the largest developer out of the three" which submitted proposals for the site. Further, while saying that he didn't have "the experience the other developers have" on his own, the team he's assembled "has the experience collectively" and brings with them "diversity, interested, creativity, and passion". Calling the project "an important development, a gatway development" he said that Beam's proposal "will stand for what I believe Portland stands for".

Citing the variety of architecture, and the distinct and different uses, in the Central Eastside, Stark said the "approach to this site would be similar" and that Beam was "bringing in three different firms with three different backgrounds" so that the development would not be "homogenous in design" and would have "compatability with the neighborhoods".

Calling the district "edgy" and "a place for opportunity,' Stark added that there is "a lot of character still here [and] we'd like to try to retain it if we can".

Malsin said that he already has "serious" letters of intent for 65 percent of the commercial and retail space in Beam's proposal, calling it a "diverse group". In the wake of a recent trade-oriented trip to China, he also announced that he had convinced a "multimillion-dollar" corporation to move its headquarters -- and the 250 jobs it brings with it -- to Portland and to the Burnside Bridgehead.

"We are very committed to working with the public," said Stark, acknowledging that the project needed to have public and community support to be successful.

Malsin specifically called attention to the "artist incubator" live/work element included in Beam's proposal -- what he called "minimalist spaces" of 500 square feet -- saying it was his "attempt at supporting those kind of endeavors."

Stark, meanwhile, called attention to something else: "We haven't forgotten the skatepark." He called it a "landmark" and in doing so also became the only member of any of the development teams at the meeting to go out of their way to mention the skatepark in their presentations, despite the dual facts that skatepark supporters have attended many of the meetings of the Central Eastside Urban Renewal Advisory Committee and that "sensitivity" for the skatepark was specifically mentioned in the RFP.

(For what it's worth, Chuck of the Burnside Skatepark weblog told me after the meeting that he had later spoken with the Opus Northwest team about the skatepark. While they apparently said that they had also not forgotten about the skatepark, Chuck told them that between their plan for the podium/platform and the plans for a building across the Burnside Bridge to build itself up another story or two, the skatepark would in essence become a dark and hidden cave. Based on how the conversation was related to us, they apparently didn't have much of a response to this.)

"The way these buildings and spaces attract the public and pedestrians is absolutely critical," said Stark. To that end, the Beam proposal creates a series of public spaces.

It's impossible to see it in the Beam segment of the picture at the top of this item, but these include (amongst others) rather wide pedestrian areas along both Burnside and MLK sides as well as a small island of sorts in the midst of that intersection, featuring a small monument-like tower which creates a marker of sorts at that end of the Burnside Bridge. Hopefully, the material PDC is expected to have posted to the project website will include views of these and other features.

Concluding the presentation, Malsin -- citing "new vision" and "new attitude" -- said that "not everything can go to the big guys".

Committee questioning began with a request for clarification on the role of multiple architects in the Beam proposal. Stark said that specific assignments haven't yet been made, while Malsin make a larger argument: "This City has to be about collaboration." And this project, he said, shouldn't be abuot "one hand" or "one firm".

Malsin and Stark were also asked how they could build a project "this expensive" with "so many below-market uses".

Malsin replied that elements of the site's use would be handed off to other entities experienced (and therefore, presumably, comparatively efficient) in those types of uses. For example, the affordable housing would be the responsibility of REACH Community Development and the artist space the responsibility of Housing Northwest. "Everything is not about making the most profit here," Malsin said, but about "doing the right thing".

Stark said that part of the approach is also to "design space that is not really built out" which then allows the tenants themselves to decide what to incorporate that best serves their individual needs. (Malsin at various times referred to this as a "menu-driven" approach, wherein tenants are given choices rather than simply given a pre-determined one-size-fits all space.)

Committee members wanted to know about the level of public subsidy requirements, given (for example) the fact that the Central Eastside Urban Renewal Area expires in 2006.

Stark said that the Beam team "recognizes the need to spend as little urban renewal funds as possible" and get "the most bang for the buck". He argued that PDC's real role simply is to make property developable. "Our proposal," he said, "said that we are willing to pay for the property ar market rate" once it's been made developer-ready. Malsin's addition: "We're looking for win-wins here."

They were also asked to address the percentage of office space in their proposal, given that at least one of their competitors had said that office space was the wrong way to go, from a cost perspective.

Malsin explained that "it's not office space, it's work space" -- returning to the flexibility of the spaces being proposed. That flexibility, he said, means more choices for prospective tenants, and more affordability in general.

That conversation continued when another committee member asked if all the "office" space was the more flexible work space or if any of it were actual built-out office space of the traditional type.

Stark called it "a different type of office space" and that the flexible approach permits it to become any sort of space the tenant wants. But at the start, he said, it's a "less expensive construction type with fewer finishes". Malsin said that the space can be "like every other class-A office" but that the format they are proposing "allows different levels of build out".

Answers to additional committee questions established: That the "artist incubator" spaces would be rentals, in part because of concerns that an ownership model might "drive the market up" and prevent tenancy in the development from being "as affordable as possible"; that when it comes to "most of these tenants" from which Malsin has letters of intent he can "solidify leasing as soon as I have the project"; and that, while the Beam proposal is the largest in terms of square footage of all three proposals, there is a plan of some sort in place to scale back if that's the community's interest.

One of the final questions from the committee involved a particular proposal (discussed earlier, but we haven't mentioned it yet) for what was termed a "chef's market" and how it would relate to the proposal for a Portland Public Market at the other side of the Burnside Bridge at Ankeny Plaza.

Malsin explained that the "chef's market" idea is meant as a kind of compliment to the public market proposal (perhaps tying into the idea of the Burnside Bridgehead project as a "gateway" between the east and west sides of the river), and would not be a place, like the public market, for selling produce and the like, but a place for prepared food "allowing chefs to showcase their talents" within the limits of developing skill, business ability, and a following.

He went on to position that particular proposal as an example of the larger framework of how he sees the area surrounding the Burnside Bridgehead. "The future of portland is going to be very largely based on the Central Eastside," he said, "because that's where we're growing businesses."

In the end, it was clear that at least among those in attendance the Beam proposal was the favorite. Certainly, it was the only one to generate applause during its presentation. We don't expect that public response to vary all that much as the public discusson about Burnside Bridgehead continues.

That response, we don't believe, is due solely to the Beam proposal's rejection of big box retail.

While that unquestionably is the first thing that grabs people's attention, it seems fairly evident to us from the three proposals presented yesterday evening that the Beam proposal exhibits the deepest understanding of and appreciation for the historical and developing character of the Central Eastside Industrial District. It incorpates -- indeed, focuses -- not only on "mixed-use" in the traditional sense of retail/housing/office, but on a broader sense of the term by planning for a mix of types of tenants. And its approach of using a collaboration of different architects should help ensure that the Bridgehead doesn't become a monolith of similar forms thrust down into the midst of the Central Eastside.

It's clearly the philosophical front-runner in the battle for the Burnside Bridgehead, and the benchmark against which all discussions of the development should be measured. As with all such developments, the financial questions (one of the elements of these things for which we are woefully ill equipped to fully grasp, at least at such an early stage) need to be answered in substantial detail.

But one thing above all else is clear to us at this point: Our first impulse as a City should not be to reactively and dismissively think that we could never successfully pull off this proposal. Rather, our first impulse as a City should be to commit to exhausting every possible option for making this proposal happen before we even think of casting it aside.

Posted at 06:21 PM | PermalinkComments (8) | TrackBacks (0)
More In Burnside Bridgehead, Design & Development, Livability

« Previous Next »