March 23, 2005
Final Countdown To Burnside Bridgehead Decision Begins
An Open Thread
This evening at OMSI, before yet another full house, the three developers vying for the Burnside Bridgehead development presented their revised proposals to the Portland Development Commission and the public.
To be perfectly honest, we've grown rather weary of the debate over this project. Perhaps that's reflective of the general mood at this stage, since PDC Chair Matt Hennessee at one point referenced the schedule leading to the "final decision" -- a phrase he then repeated several times over to emphasize the point.
So this time around, rather than an exhaustive and exhausting recapitulation of the three-hour session, we're simply opening the subject up for discussion in the comments to this item.
Well, okay, we will offer some brief thoughts of our own.
By all rights, this contest should be down to the choice between Beam Development and Opus Northwest. This evening, as has always been the case, the presentation from Gerding/Edlen seemed rather pro forma and demonstrated little true enthusiasm for the possibilities of the project.
Instead, their pitch often was a buzzword-laden string of architectural and design jargon that likely was lost upon most people in attendance. It was as if they were so used to being insiders that they only understood how to talk to other insiders.
As for what we then consider to be the only two proposals worth the time and consideration of the evaluation committee and the PDC Commissioners themselves, we do continue to give our support for the Beam proposal. However, we feel it's very likely that the committee and the Commission alike will give serious attention to the movement in Opus' approach since their original proposal.
In the final analysis, we continue to believe that Beam not only was closest to the mark from the beginning, but that they have done the best job expressing a vision for the project which best matches the Central Eastside.
Additionally, we consider it worthy of specific note that so many of the partners on the Beam proposal intend themselves to move into the development. As they said this evening, they are not "merchant developers", but "investor developers". Not only do we think that counts for something, we think it counts for a great deal.
So that's it from us on the subject. We spotted several of our readers at tonight's meeting, so we invite them to take the lead this time around, and launch this discussion of the Burnside Bridgehead development as it moves into the final month before PDC, finally, selects the developer.
Readers, the floor is yours.
Posted at 11:57 PM | PermalinkComments (8) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Burnside Bridgehead, Design & Development, Livability
Trackbacks (1)
-
What Did Onward Oregon Learn from Defeating a Big Box on 28 Mar 2005
By Lenny Dee of Portland, Oregon. Lenny is a long-time progressive activist and a co-founder of Onward Oregon. [Editor's note: Recently, the Portland Development Commission decided to ask the three developers producing plans for the Burnside Bridgehead...
Comments (8)
Sir Willups Brightlymore on 24 Mar 2005
Did anyone see that story in the NY Times today about how there's no kids left in Portland? B!x, you need to start rectifying this situation immediately. Please begin reproduction procedures forthwith. Maybe after your move is finished.
Sir Willups Brightlymore, Esq.
James Dineen on 24 Mar 2005
I went to the meeting last night at OMSI and it was an interesting showcase, to say the least. I think that you are right in saying the real choice will come down to Beam and Opus. The Gerding/Edlen folks had some great ideas, but also seemed rather unsure of a lot and didn't seem like they truly had a grasp on the project. I liked both the Beam and The Opus proposals.
I think it was very interesting that Brad Malsin, the spearhead of The Beam Team, was not at the meeting last night, but in China, supposedly tying up financials with Shanxi Jierui. I thought they were already a done deal. I question the wisdom of not appearing at a truly important meeting like last night's when you are heading the team. I asked a question regarding the parking spaces and the answer from the Beam Team stumped me. I asked if they were truly thinking about selling parking spaces for $180 a month (which is what it says in their proposal) and they said no, maybe they'd sell them for $18,000. Confused yet? Me too. I think Beam was right in nixing the big box concept from the get go. But the other teams have nixed it too, coming into agreement with the neighborhood and Eastsiders who wanted it that way. To me, it doesn't matter who thought of it first, as long as they all end up in the same place.
The Opus guys won me over. I really liked hearing two things. Bruce Wood, the leader of the Opus team, lives in the immediate area, therefore, has something to lose if this go wrong. Second, I REALLY liked hearing that if something DID go wrong, Opus had the financial backing to take the burden on their shoulders. Neither Gerding/Edlen nor Beam made that statement. As was said last night, many things can go wrong in a construction project, all the way from design to management. Opus was the only team who stepped up and said that they would take responsiblity if things went wrong.
I wish I knew why the selection comittee wasn't there in full! To my count there were only three selection comittee members there.
Lily on 24 Mar 2005
Several meetings ago (I can't keep track of them anymore) no one from G/E showed up, which I thought was pretty weird.
The three teams gave a presentation at the Buckman Community Association general meeting several weeks ago. Most noticeable- several key elements from the original Beam proposal that have been "adapted" by the other two teams.
All these meetings and emails and so on have shown that the public clearly favours Beam. It will be a true travesty if Hennessee chooses one of the other developers.
As far as finances- I'd much rather see monies going into the Beam proposal. The taxpayers of this city have watched our dollars "bail out" bad renewal projects again and again. Let's give the little guy a try.
Speaking of travesties- I find it very upsetting that Whitmore Chevrolet rec'd urban renewal funds (vis a vis Burnside project monies) to build a solid block car lot. How is that in keeping with the idea of making the area more pedestrian friendly and visually pleasing? How does that parking lot present a solution to one of the four corners of a key site? And why on earth would a multi-millionare car lot owner qualify or deserve urban renewal funds?
The One True b!X on 24 Mar 2005
Please begin reproduction procedures forthwith.
Don't hold your breath on this one.
shannon on 24 Mar 2005
"To me, it doesn't matter who thought of it first, as long as they all end up in the same place."
Ah, but it does matter.
There's a large difference between a proposal crafted with genuine thought toward the needs and values of an existing and future community and that which began by imprinting a standard cookie-cutter design program onto a unique area of opportunity (oh man, i said "program"!).
I won't comment on the last presentations, as i did not attend, but simply reading through the final proposal pdfs one finds an enormous difference in tone and approach. Beam's latest statement (in my view) further demonstrates the earnestness and community commitment that has been the foundation of their approach from day one. More importantly (to someone who has to kicked out a design proposal or two) it has a voice -- a true voice, rooted in emotion as well as theory -- and one that resonates with those of us who are hungry for something different than a low-rent Pearl District 2.
Opus, conversely, should consider engaging a copywriter with at least a modicum of soul. Page 2 in particular, nearly put me to sleep. Why? because it's obvious that they didn't care enough to prepare a document unique to the project -- a project that a large community of people feel they have a stake in -- but instead recycled and tweaked something from one of their many other pitches. Allow me now to call them out: This document is souless, and your proposal bores me! (That was actually a bit cleansing.)
Copywriting issues aside, I believe that the way people speak about their design (even in print) is just as important as the design itself. AND, to return to the initial point, I also believe that there is a huge difference between an entity that possesses vision and one that simply follows the polls. So yes, it's possible that if both firms might "end up in the same place," but i doubt it. If Opus is chosen, with Beam no longer sparking innovation they'll revert in all the numerous small and large decisions to exactly the same vanilla design solutions that they began with.
Humph.
James Dineen on 25 Mar 2005
I still disagree with Beam. I personally see Opus' failure to not use the Big Box concept as an oversight in research, nothing more. They're not using the concept, so the whole big box idea is moot now anyways. I believed a lot more in Opus because they sounded a lot more human and frankly much more pragmatic than Beam. Did you know that Beam wants to set up a full recycling center at this complex? Great idea in theory, but let's just break this down. Who is going to want to live in a complex with a recycling center in it? And having a glass blowing facility on the site? Sound like a large fire hazard to me.
I don't think Opus was "just following the polls". I think that they may have been off the mark at first, yes, but I think companies, like human beings, are allowed to change their minds.
Here is an email I recieved from David Gabriel from Colab Architecture (part of the Beam Team) trying to answer my question that I asked at the meeting about the parking spaces:
"James,
I wish that we had more time to explain the parking numbers to you. I can assure you that there is not
a more experienced expert in Portland Parking than Barry Schlesinger of BPM.
Do you think the number is too high or too low?
From your question at the meeting and your post, I assume that you think that it is too low and would be a purchase price.
The $18,000 dollar figure is a rough estimate of what a space may sell for...meaning that it is yours.
The revenue shown on the chart is what income is expected from the space. This is modeled on multiple (approx. 3 turnovers) per day.
A very well established model that BPM current experiences in their downtown garages."
I appreciate the follow up. I think the idea of an $18,000 parking space on the East side of Portland is laughable. There are people who live and/or work there that are going to have to pay 18 grand for a parking spot? I may be totally off base, but it seemed to me like they pulled that 18 grand number out of thin air at the meeting. I think that some of the folks at the Beam Team are assuming that the rest of Portland has as much money as they do.
shannon on 25 Mar 2005
Yes, yes, Pragmatism-- all successful projects require the financial nuts and bolts tuned tight, However, as we're currently in the Concepting and Vision Phase of the project (you know, the part where the architects imagine a brilliant technicolor future for the Burnside community, inquiring "What does the community need? What can it become? How can we give form to the special qualities of the eastside? ") perhaps the overall vision and intent of the plan is a bit more important than the banalities of say, parking space pricing.
(Of course Finance schematics are important, crucial even, but we all know that at this point they're fluid-- they'll evolve with the plan and it's infinite future revisions.)
I can't help but quote this as it cracks me up:
Who is going to want to live in a complex with a recycling center in it? And having a glass blowing facility on the site? Sound like a large fire hazard to me
Sometimes one should absorb the overall vision rather than focus on tiny details that are meant to illustrate tone and potential. One person's fire hazard is another person's entertainment, isn't it?
For what it's worth, I'd like to live in a community that promotes the interaction Beam's proposal envisions-- where people can engage with a variety of others on the street level, where a Hot Shop resides next to a retail store, or my neighbor's business intersects with someone else's needs or whim. Do i want to pay 18K for a parking space? Of course not, but c'mon, that's a tiny detail within a much larger choice: creating a unique public space in cadence with the eastside populace vs. instituting yet another generic living plan trimmed to fit the given square footage.
James Dineen on 25 Mar 2005
It's the details that add up. That's all I can say in response to that. And, yes, Beam did paint a nice picture of what life would be like in their project. So did Opus and so did G/E. However, in keeping with the philosophies if the Portland Eastside, building a LEED certified project is of tantamount importance, I'd say. But Beam has never built anything LEED certified.
"where people can engage with a variety of others on the street level, where a Hot Shop resides next to a retail store, or my neighbor's business intersects with someone else's needs or whim."
Funny, that's exactly what Opus is envisioning. Only they truly have the financial backbone to support it. How long has Beam been in business? Answer? Three months. How long has Opus been in business? Over 50 years. I'm all for giving the little guy a shot. But this is to big a project to take the risk with an unknown that does not make the claim that if something goes wrong, they will have the financials to make it right. Beam has simply said that they will house their business there. That only means that people will have someone a mile closer when something goes wrong.
As far as offering up the possiblity that some people might not want to live next to a recycling center, I fail miserably to understand why that would be funny. Would you move in next to the recycling plant on SE 28th (or is it 26th?). I certainly wouldn't. The noise, the smell, neither particularly palatable really.