Portland Bayside

[Corey]

[Corey]

Photographic update from today:

[PortlandArch]

Last night the council approved tax increment financing for credit enhancement for Opechee (Fore India Middle) and Village at Ocean Gate (Bay House), which means Bay House will be starting in 6 weeks or sooner, or else it looses its contract zone (which allows for taller height). So look for some BIG changes in that neighborhood soon. Also, in the fall, the Cit is commencing a new planning study for the India Street neighborhood (like the Eastern Waterfront plan, only up the hill because that plan really applies to the waterfront parcels and up to just south of the Bay House, but doesn't include anything north of that).

http://www.pressherald.com/news/coun...012-08-07.html

[Matt68]

Thanks fo Pearl Place II Pics Corey. I really like this project. Keep em coming

[PortlandArch]

This is a terrible project. While it may add housing (great), and may look good from a dense-city perspective (good for aesthetics), it will add nothing to this neighborhood while taking away much. The people who live here will in all likelihood walk straight up to the COngress/Old Port areas, rather than into Bayside (for now, at least), and anyone walking bt will be met with a giant blank wall around nearly the entire perimeter. That's bad for urbanism, bad for community, bad for Bayside.

Does parking really need to be accommodated here? If I'm not mistaken, this is low income housing, and other projects like that have designed buildings on the peninsula with parking waivers and responsible first floors. What's the difference here? Also, other low income projects have designed first floor residential (out by the loop by Amtrak, next to Logan Place, there is one). This type of design should be banned. I know this sounds a little harsh, but I went by the building today and couldn't believe how dominating that brick wall at street level is. I'll reserve final thoughts until the project is complete but I don't like what I am seeing so far in this project/building.

[John_French]

Making good use of the wide-angle lens Corey.

[grittys457]

I'm sorry but I'm really sick of Avesta housing in this city. They seem like just a big scam to me. They're getting funding to building more expensive housing for lower income people. I know a guy working on phase two right now. Said phase one had gotten invested with bedbugs and they had to bring in all these special trucks the other day that pump the heat up to like 140 degress in each apartment to kill the bugs.

Please for the love of God no more low income housing in neighborhoods we're trying to rebuild and rebrand please. And yes that is harsh but that is the truth. They've already destroyed most of the housing in riverton and kennedy park, why build buildings this expensive to just have the cabinet doors ripped off to store live chickens or new stoves that will be used as wood stoves and destroyed.

[John_French]

Originally Posted by grittys457

I'm sorry but I'm really sick of Avesta housing in this city. They seem like just a big scam to me. They're getting funding to building more expensive housing for lower income people. I know a guy working on phase two right now. Said phase one had gotten invested with bedbugs and they had to bring in all these special trucks the other day that pump the heat up to like 140 degress in each apartment to kill the bugs.

Please for the love of God no more low income housing in neighborhoods we're trying to rebuild and rebrand please. And yes that is harsh but that is the truth. They've already destroyed most of the housing in riverton and kennedy park, why build buildings this expensive to just have the cabinet doors ripped off to store live chickens or new stoves that will be used as wood stoves and destroyed.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on that statement. Once the properties are "destroyed", the taxpayers will fund another rehab to make them pretty again.
Anyone who has driven down Franklin Street in the winter only has to look over at the Bayside Terrace complex, and see the windows wide open because the places are too hot. Money going out the window after it leaves the taxpayers pockets.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by John_French

I agree with you wholeheartedly on that statement. Once the properties are "destroyed", the taxpayers will fund another rehab to make them pretty again.
Anyone who has driven down Franklin Street in the winter only has to look over at the Bayside Terrace complex, and see the windows wide open because the places are too hot. Money going out the window after it leaves the taxpayers pockets.

Especially in this State, and in this economy, where people work hard and get little pecuniary gain from it, the tendency to complain about subsidized housing which is not being used in a way we would normally expect to see our money be spent is understandable. However, I think if you take a hard look at the numbers, housing of this sort saves money from a net perspective. The same is true for places like Logan Place or Florence House (especially for these places, actually). For instance, if a homeless alcoholic stumbles into the ER for intoxication, he or she cannot be turned away by a not for profit (tax exempt) hospital. Part of the ‘social good’ these places provide in exchange for tax exemption is this type of open door policy. Guess what costs a lot? Treating those people. Guess who pays for it? Everyone else. One study found it would actually be cheaper to pay for a chronic ER visiting homeless alcoholic patient to have a condominium than it would be to foot the bill in higher pass-thru rates to everyone else. But then the ethical dilemma kicks in. I’m not talking ethics, though, just numbers here. The same may be true for affordable (as opposed to fully subsidized) housing. There have always been people that are not making much of themselves and are not ultra productive members of society, and this changes overtime. In fact, the perceived ‘low class’ people of today might have been the most educated people around 1,000 years ago. They may still be more educated than societal leaders in some struggling countries. So, the status of these people is only relatively bad, not so in absolute terms. And, more importantly, they are the ones who accept the necessary service sector jobs that support the industries the more well-heeled people enjoy (restaurants come to mind). True, some don’t work at all, but all of the aforementioned jobs which are worked at draw from this class of people. Locate their housing outside of the city, and the places that depend on them either evaporate or the roads to get them here are used more (expensive again). So, while I see your perspective, the net gain here may still be more than one is led to believe by a simple examination of the ROI on the structure itself based on the use to which it is being put and the care with which it (and its fuel resources) are being handled. Also, visit any city which caters exclusively to the rich, and you’ll find (I assume, anyway) that it is much less exciting/interesting than those cities which welcome and house a variety of people. Portsmouth, NH and Burlington, VT are two good examples. They feel more like Freeport than Boston. Freeport is probably the best example. Is that a city? No, it’s a hollywood stage set. These people have their value to the city, direct or indirect. My beef is with the building design (terrible).

[Corey]

I agree with the concerns about Pearl Place. It is built like a bunker with all the brick at the ground level. I think the designers built it without thinking at all of the possible future neighborhood, and instead looked around for the current environment for inspiration (a hideous parking garage on one side a recently closed scrap metal yard on the other). And that former scrap yard is the planned site for a new parking garage, right? Or maybe it's the next lot over towards Marginal Way. The fact sheet for Pearl Place notes that the average commute for residents is under three miles, which does make an argument for having less parking and perhaps figuring out a way to directly tie in mass transit into the project or something.

Subsidized housing is a big topic and one that I'm not sure how to talk about in a paragraph or less. It seems like there should be a way of providing affordable housing instead of building huge housing projects (such as Pearl Place) that separate lower-income families from the rest of the city. Just like "mixed-use" makes sense from an urbanist perspective when determining uses for a building, "mixed-income" makes sense to me when it comes to housing and more successful neighborhoods. Segregating people geographically based on income seems to do more harm than good. And as the only "big city" around, it seems like providing housing to lower-income folk is a burden that most of the state pushes onto Portland's shoulders, similar to the related issue of homelessness. I'm not sure what the answer is.


Edit - 1,000th post!

[Corey]

[Patrick]

awesome, thanks! Look for Bay House to begin construction within a few weeks because September is their deadline before the contract zone expires.

[cneal]

The city's also currently soliciting bids to reconnect Somerset Street across Elm, from the Bayside Glacier to the bowling alley.

While they do that, they'll also conduct a study about rebuilding or realigning Kennebec Street to Deering Oaks as a way to continue the Bayside Trail all the way to the park. There's talk of re-establishing Elm and Preble as 2-way streets as part of that.

More details here:
http://rightsofway.blogspot.com/2012...et-street.html

[Matt68]

Simply Awesome Shot Corey - Thank You

[grittys457]

Hopefully I'm just misremembering them being on the there, but I noticed there are no "Under Contract" signs for the Maritime Landing lots behind Planet Fitness/Trader Joes. I swear they used to be on there. Please don't tell me the city has f'd up negotiating a million square foot development

[PortlandArch]

Would you be surprised? Deals like this fall apart all the time. It's one of the problems with mega projects. From what I understand, the P&S contract is pending some due diligence issue resolutions, and some other kinks may have been getting worked out, but the general direction was that it wouldn't derail, only delay, the project. Maybe the City took down the signs to show that it wants to speed things up and will entertain other proposals unless the developer proceeds? Don't know.

[grittys457]

Well good news but three years?

Portland to take up $38 million Bayside development
The plan calls 40,000 square feet of retail, up to 176 apartments and a 700-space parking garage.

By Edward D. Murphy emurphy@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

PORTLAND – The city and Federated Companies are moving ahead with a major redevelopment plan in the Bayside section of the city.

The Portland City Council's Housing and Community Development Committee is scheduled to take up some changes in the contract with Federated and recommend zoning changes on Wednesday.

If approved by the committee, the contract changes will go to the full City Council, while the zoning changes would go to the city Planning Board and later to the council.

The committee is expected to look at plans for a parking garage with at least 700 spaces that will be paid for in part with federal grant funds that would be repaid by capturing increased property taxes generated in the area, which stretches along Somerset Street, parallel to Marginal Way.

The proposal said the garage would cost about $15 million, with about $9 million coming from federal grants and the rest from Federated.

The committee will also look at a two-phase development plan that calls for building the parking garage, up to 176 apartments and about 40,000 square feet of retail space to be completed in about three years. The city said the value of the development will be about $38 million.

The second phase, for which no timetable or estimated value was provided, calls for nearly 500 apartments, another 340-space parking garage and nearly 50,000 square feet of additional retail space.

The committee will meet in City Hall room 209 at 5:30 p.m.

[Patrick]

Things are difficult in the development industry. My guess is that if the market changed, the 3 year time period would become smaller. I think that's a cushion, because if I recall there are time constraints on the construction timetable in terms of when it has to be commenced by...and if they are not adhered to the City retained the right to repurchase the land. So, maybe 3 years is a max, and not necessarily the actual complete date. I don't believe the land has ever been purchased, so it sounds like the company probably wants to extent what I remember as a 2 year commence/complete date to make it a three year one. Phase one, also if I remember correctly, would be the garage, and a ten story building along Chestnut/Somerset on the West side of the street (across the street from the gym's parking lot on the same side of the road as Walgreens). News of a second parking garage is something I've not heard of before. Also, it appears the total residential might be up to nearly 700 now? This is a very good thing, and a longer build out won't be overall bad. If this popped up in the middle of virtually nowhere overnight, the only people who would be excited are urban enthusiasts (including me), but the rest of the city might say things were happening too fast in Bayside (see Eastern Waterfront). Longer build outs are fine, as long as the development is consistently urban (and as long as it happens!). Imagine if the Boulos project had a 7 year build out. No one would have liked that, yet at the same time it would have been completed last year already or possibly this year (proposed in 2004, nixed in 2005). Instead we have the grand top of the old port. Overall could be better, but I agree with you this is still good news.

[grittys457]

Details for the arch geeks

www.portlandmaine.gov/cdc.htm

[cneal]

Despite Councilor Leeman's bluster (which was transparently political theater, and frustratingly cynical — she'd been involved in these negotiations for a year now, remember, but now that everything's public she wants to make a stand? Methinks she doth protest too much. It was clear to most people there that she's cynically hedging against the possibility that the project might still not happen, so she's holding a door open to say "I told you so" in the future), the Committee endorsed the sale agreement last night.

My impressions here: http://rightsofway.blogspot.com/2012...ng-update.html

And here's an updated sketch plan of the project. Sorry for the quality (fluorescent light in the meeting room):



We won't have real details of what the buildings might look like until Phase 1 (east of Chestnut St) goes for planning board approval sometime in the next year or so. They're under a deadline to finish Phase 1 within 3 years, so I'd expect planning approval would need to happen relatively soon to meet that schedule.