Oak Street

[Corey]

[Corey]

Today:

[Corey]

http://www.pressherald.com/news/one-...011-11-28.html

One lofty idea
Construction of affordable housing geared to artists draws 200 applicants for 37 units.

Local residents will get a chance to see what the buzz is about at noon Saturday, when Avesta holds an open house at Oak Street Lofts. More than 75 contractors are rushing to finish the job, with occupancy planned for January.

Oak Street Lofts costs $6.4 million to build, or $172,000 per unit. Monthly rents range from $506 to $760, including heat, hot water, electricity and a shared Wi-Fi connection. For example: 21 of the units are available to a single person earning 50 percent of median income, or $25,350. Those units rent for $637 a month.

[Corey]

I was able to attend the open house today. I hear they are doing it next weekend too if anyone is interested. As you are aware, I am a fan of this project. The units are going to fill up quickly, based on the amount of applications they have received already. The fact that it doesn't involve the construction of a parking garage and that there are only 8 on-site parking spaces (within the first floor, along with bicycle/moped parking) is a plus. I was surprised to learn, however, that every unti comes with a parking spot. People who don't have a parking spot on site will be able to use a spot at Avesta HQ, which is down the street on Cumberland Avenue & Elm Streets. One of the Avesta persons said that this was a requirement by the city. I assume this was actually to avoid the fee-in-lieu of parking ordinance? Anyhow, the units, studios, seem really nice and the shared space and gallery on the first floor are great additions. This building should be a model for future development in the area.



















Gallery Space on ground floor:


Ground floor garage:

[Patrick]

Thanks for your great pictorial updates Corey. I agree this should be a model for infill and is a nice looking structure. You are right that the parking requirements are to avoid the fee in lieu, although I've never heard it put that way. Usually it's said the other way around, but I guess it makes sense both ways! Really don't think there should be any parking requirements at all. If the developer can sell units that have no parking, why shouldn't it be able to?

[MonopolyBag]

Parking requirements are weird. But, at least this place is doing something that most developers do not, ground floor parking rather than parking behind. Much better use of land. Goes to show that all of the single level paved parking lots could serve more than just parking if they simply build over them. Instead developers choose to build in undeveloped natural areas... leaving the abandoned lots in cities and towns to just look ugly.

This building is really coming along and really has little negatives about it. Should be a good addition to the city.

[Corey]

[Matt68]

Thanks For Update Corey. Im Curious To See How Building Lights Up.
Happy Holiday To All !

Matt

[FrankLloydMike]

That building looks great... contemporary, yet respectful of its neighbors. I hope people in Portsmouth will see that such a thing exists, and that the importance in a new building is not in mimicking details, but respecting massing, material palate and so forth.

[Patrick]

I agree, and you're absolutely right. However, I personally like the Portsmouth new developments MUCH better than Oak Street, architecturally. It builds on the great vibe already in place in that city. Portsmouth has a niche--old sea town with traditional feel. Anything super modern would, in my opinion, be out of place. Would it work? Definitely. But it might be out step with what people (tourists) expect of the town. Until Portsmouth becomes more than a tourist town, I think it needs to create more of what people expect. Towns mainly dependent on tourism generated by a romanticized image of what they are or should be should continue to encourage development that looks like what people like so much. Just my opinion. Towns with more diversified economies don't need to worry about this as much, and can get away with the super modern or other variety or structures. Just my opinion, though.

[John_French]

IMO the facade of the building looks much better that I thought it would. Someone already said it fits in well, and is respectful of its' neighbors, that is true. I have yet to go by and take photos.

[FrankLloydMike]

Originally Posted by Patrick

I agree, and you're absolutely right. However, I personally like the Portsmouth new developments MUCH better than Oak Street, architecturally. It builds on the great vibe already in place in that city. Portsmouth has a niche--old sea town with traditional feel. Anything super modern would, in my opinion, be out of place. Would it work? Definitely. But it might be out step with what people (tourists) expect of the town. Until Portsmouth becomes more than a tourist town, I think it needs to create more of what people expect. Towns mainly dependent on tourism generated by a romanticized image of what they are or should be should continue to encourage development that looks like what people like so much. Just my opinion. Towns with more diversified economies don't need to worry about this as much, and can get away with the super modern or other variety or structures. Just my opinion, though.

I wouldn't argue about many Portsmouth developments being better than Oak Street overall, but I think an important distinction is that Oak Street is on a relatively obscure side street--it's not a showpiece project, just one that does an excellent job of helping to complete the urban fabric and complementing its surroundings. It would look underwhelming in Portsmouth's Market Square, just as it would in the heart of the Old Port or Congress Square, but it looks great on a side street.

I also think your point about Portsmouth needing to build on its romanticized image is important and accurate. It's more than a tourist town, but its strength--like Portland's to a lesser degree--depends on tourism. Maybe it's because Portland is bigger, but I think it does a good job of accommodating contemporary design in a historic context. That said, I am definitely not advocating for some radically modern structure in downtown Portsmouth. I don't think that's always a bad thing in older cities, but Portsmouth's strength is in its cohesiveness more than any individual buildings. Still, I think there's plenty of room for buildings that are respectful without looking like stage sets; buildings can fit in without pretending to be old.

There's even a strong example of this right in Portsmouth at the corner of Hanover and Market Streets. The building that houses Banana Republic among others follows the form, massing and language of its neighbors, but subtly alludes to its time with steel lintels in place of granite ones, copper awnings and so forth. I think it works really well:


photo from Philip Case Cohen on the Daily Portsmouth

[Patrick]

Great points.