April 27, 2005

(Updated) Opus Northwest Gets Burnside Bridgehead

PDC Unanimously Votes Against Clear Community Opinion

Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.

The staff summarized their report. The developers made their final pitches. The public once again had their time to testify. And after more than two hours, the Portland Development Commission unanimously voted to select Opus Northwest as the preferred developer for the Burnside Bridgehead project.

Most of those in attendance left in a quiet daze. Bruce Wood, formerly of Opus but who will continue to head up the project, appeared emotional.

On our way out, someone chuckled as we muttered, on our way through the lobby, "Let's see Matt Hennesse get elected to something now."

Detail and such things to come later. For now, we drink. Feel free to discuss in the meantime.

April 27, 2005

Update

More material for your meantime: PDC's press release (pdf) on the selection of Opus.

April 28, 2005

Update

One of the curious aspects of last night's meeting was the first segment of the Bridgehead discussion, which we didn't mention above. Each of the Commissioners detailed their potential conflicts of interest on the Bridgehead decision, despite advice from their attorney that they were not required by law to disclose any of what they were about to report. That discussion may or may not have been the subejct of the executive session to receive legal advice which the Commissioners held prior to last night's meeting, which we forgot about and so did not attend.

Chip Lazenby, their General Counsel, in addition to saying the disclosures were not required by law, also went out of his way to defend any interactions the Commissioners may have with any of the interested parties as "democracy with a small d" and that at this stage of the game there was a "public record that can sustain the decision you will make".

This early part of the Bridgehead agenda item was unexpected to us, and so we admit that we hadn't quite geared up for the amount of typing that was going to be required to properly capture all of the disclosures the Commissioners were about to make.

So here's how we're going to address that problem: In the comments to this item, we're going to post verbatim from our notes of these disclosures. Any of our readers who were there who can help flesh out what they mean are invited to do so here.

April 28, 2005

Update

Posted at 07:54 PM | PermalinkComments (10) | TrackBacks (2)
More In Burnside Bridgehead, Design & Development

« Previous Next »

Comments (10)

  1. Brian Libby on 27 Apr 2005

    This was NOT the way for PDC to reform people's negative opinion of the agency. No disrespect to Opus, but I just simply think the committee screwed up. They took the conservative and most traditional route. They didn't support the overwhelming local favorite or the consensus best architecture. They didn't dream big. Burnside Bridgehead will be OK, I guess. Gary Larson is definitely a good architect, and the people behind this are solid business men and women. But with such a landmark project, I think I and a lot of other people desired more than the easy, uninspired choice. No matter how many millions of dollars are at stake, it's not enough to erase the memory of what might have been.

  2. Lily on 27 Apr 2005

    I was astounded at the behaviour of Bruce Woods at today's meeting. He acted like a swaggering obnoxious frat boy. Spent his 6 minutes running down Beam, and when his time was up spent another 4 or 5 minutes talking. What an asshole. As usual, the East side gets screwed again.

  3. Lily on 27 Apr 2005

    P.S. MattHennessee admitted after the meeting that it (Opus) was already a done deal before the meeting. Nice. When is Potter gonna break up this good ole boy monopoly for good??

  4. Lily on 27 Apr 2005

    P.S. Matt Hennessee admitted after the meeting that it (Opus) was already a done deal before the meeting. Nice. When is Potter gonna break up this good ole boy monopoly for good??

  5. The One True b!X on 27 Apr 2005

    I don't think it should have surprised anyone that it was a done deal before the meeting no matter who was selected. There was nothing new that was going to come out at this evening's meeting, they had all the information and input they needed one way or the other.

    The fact that they went into the meeting knowing the outcome is not the same as insinuating that they've known for months how they were going to vote.

  6. Jack Bog on 27 Apr 2005

    Surprise, surprise. The people who dared to stand up to the PDC didn't get their way. No one was seriously expecting legitimate public process from those birds, were they?

  7. keri on 28 Apr 2005

    I am happy that Opus Northwest won the project. The Beames group, while the underdog fav, didn't have the experience nor the financials to support this project. After carefully reviewing the Pro-forma's for each group, it was a clear choice for Opus Northwest.

    Just because the Beames group had the idea not to put in the Big Box, doesn't qualify them for a project. This project is largely public funded, either through taxes or bonds... I personally don't want to pay more for this project because of a developer trying to cut their teeth on it. I want proven experience for large multi-million dollar development, the Beames groups simply does not have this type of experience.

    my two cents.

  8. Craig on 28 Apr 2005

    I tend to agree with keri. Opus will do fine. The only problem I have is with the BS public meetings. Its obvious Opus was the choice all along in PDC leaderships eyes (Hennessee) Why insult the public with fake choices. The only good that came out of the meeting was Opus having to change somethings to please the public. Lets hope they keep to their word.

  9. The One True b!X on 28 Apr 2005

    What follows is a verbatim copy of my notes from the Commissioners making their disclosures of potential conflicts of itnerest when it came to parties involved in the Bridgehead competition. I post them here, as I said I would in an update to this post, in order for people to help me, well, decode them.

    CF
    "chamber will not directly gain from the decisoon here"
    (starpark, part of beam proposal... part. in nonprofit board is an exception under the law)

    CP
    ceo of standard insurance omcpany
    "many occasions with walsh constr, ... wehave sol propertis to opus... finance projects for GED" ... test. on behad of opus, spouse/beam development test.
    i do not have any interest financial or otherwise

    CB
    "my list goes on alittle longer, im sorry
    attorney afford housing ... had the priv of rep SOJ ... partner who rep'd reach ... was pres/bard nonprofit housing/walsh constr ... clients has baord memebrs lawyer, memebrs of AFRIEND ... another memebr of that board who isretired ceo of (opus architect) ... also rep homestead capital/advising portland hab/catholic charities/opus ... partner on board of PHC ... i suppse it is posible that if opus were seleced and phc and cc applied for wither tax credits or ... and they selected homestead cap ot be the investor ... on that i would prolly

    longer more tangled andi m still planning on voting

    CW
    mine is shorter
    GED ... worked with edlin wife/marketing dept for bank ... opus/lois known fo ryears ... beam, known walsh even longer ... reach ... barry schlesinger/starpark ...

    CH
    ive always known and loved bob walsh, i will love him no matter what
    i have contratced in the past TC 3com comapny
    met/worked with clev and cohen on brieifng of the new mayor
    and as far as inknow my name is MH and i am not an alcoholic
    no fin int or gain from anybodys win tonight

    other than celv, i dont have a clue about aby of them ppl from opus

  10. paul gronke on 29 Apr 2005

    I also agree with Keri. PDC made the right decision here. To those who say that the PDC didn't listen to the public, if that were true, why did Beam get such serious consideration during the whole process?

    Let's not forget that the Beam proposal, while endorsed by the Citizen's committee, received the *lowest* score on capabilities.

    This is a large and important project. Beam, and the community, contributed mightily by screening out the big boxes and altering the makeup of the proposal.

    Now we have a competent, well funded firm handling this critical development.

    I think this all worked out fine.

Trackbacks (2)

  1. PDC to community: Process this on 27 Apr 2005

    Well, just as I predicted four months ago (scroll down for first comment). The developer who came in with the best original proposal for the east side of the Burnside Bridge -- the only one who didn't call for big...

  2. The question's not who was in his pocket, but what on 03 May 2005

    The decision of the Portland Development Commission to award the Burnside Bridgehead project to Opus Northwest has sparked a lot of comment and criticism.