Beam him back to Burnside Bridgehead

Oregonian columnist Steve Duin reports today that Brad Malsin's Beam Development may be in the running to eventually kick-start the moribund Burnside Bridgehead project. 

Beam, as you may remember, was recommended back in 2005 by an advisory group to the Portland Development Commission  for the Bridgehead commission, but PDC's board instead selected Opus Northwest, an offshoot of Minnesota-based national developer Opus Corporation. (Kind of like choosing a McDonald's burger over one from McMenamins.) But Opus abandoned the project after the economy turned. They had some quality architects working on the plan, such as Gary Larsen and company at Mulvanny G2. But it was not to be.

Mayor-elect Sam Adams told Duin, "Hindsight is 20/20," referring to that decision. "But I wonder if it would have been different if they'd chosen Brad."

Obviously no construction will begin anytime soon given the current economy. And PDC cautioned in Duin's article that talks with Beam are "...very preliminary." If the talks go well, a development agreement might be signed in late 2010.

Even so, once the economy rebounds, Burnside Bridgehead is such a prominent site that it needs to go forward. On the other side of the bridge to the west, the University of Oregon's White Stag block and the new Mercy Corps headquarters, as well as a new Saturday Market site, are invigorating the area. To the east of Burnside Bridgehead, the lower Burnside area is home to a cluster of popular restaurants and retail, including three of my absolute favorites: Le Pigeon, Simpatica, and Biwa, as well as Doug Fir and the Jupiter Hotel. Then we'll also have a new streetcar line going along Burnside over the bridge. If it's not the time to build on the bridgehead, it's at least time to start planning again.

The slower, more natural pace of development in the lower Burnside area may have actually benefitted from the delays to the Bridgehead project. The cluster of businesses here haven't been dwarfed. Even so, that's not a proper argument to halt Bridgehead. Eventually they will grow together. After all, there shouldn't really be any under-utilized land this close in. The days of low-density industrial sanctuaries without any housing in central cities will ultimately end, whether it's over thirty years or ten or three. That's true in Portland just like it's true in Cleveland or Manchester.

A separate Oregonian article today by Ryan Frank also confirms that Danish wind-turbine manufacturer Vestas has agreed to locate its North American corporate headquarters in Portland. The company is eying South Waterfront for its planned office building, which will hold several hundred employees (if not more). Vestas would be a huge gain for South Waterfront, where OHSU's bio-science campus plans are not as ambitious as they once were. But wouldn't Vestas perhaps be better off in the heart of downtown -- maybe overlooking the Willamette from the east side of the Burnside Bridge? After all, part of why this development has fizzled in recent years, beside the economic downturn itself, is the inability to secure an anchor tenant. What anchor could be better than Vestas? If they do end up in SoWa, though, that'd be great too. (And with apologies to locals, I'd be intrigued if they brought a talented Danish architect in to design their SoWa office tower.)

With the possibility of PDC gearing up to eventually re-start the Bridgehead process, I also wonder if their way of going about it merits some question. Is the Portland Development Commission in the best possible position, through its requests for proposals, requests for qualifications or other processes, to assure not only that something gets built, but something of lasting architectural quality? Is it right to always be selecting a developer for these jobs, and then allowing the developer to select the architect? When I look at PDC projects around town, I see some noble efforts to spur economic development, but I also see some ugly buildings. Take a look at the concrete-block lighthouse of a mixed-use building at Fremont and MLK and you'll see what I mean.

When it comes to Burnside Bridgehead or any other big city-funded project, it's not enough just to get something built or to do so with a transparent, open process. More than ever when taxpayer dollars are involved, we need to build quality. But luckily, this is something Malsin and Beam Development understand. The developer's experience comes mostly from renovation of old Central Eastside buildings, like the Olympic Mills Commerce Center or the Eastbank Commerce Center. Yet Malsin's recent collaboration with fellow developer Randy Rapaport and white-hot architecture firm Works Partnership suggests that he knows something about creating compelling new architecture as well. If PDC does choose Beam, it's a good move. If only someone had told them that in the first place!

Comments

[Alexander Craghead]

While the Burnside project could probably use an anchor like Vestas, if it goes nowhere or fails completely, the urban fabric is not particularly damaged. The city will go on and the financial loss (in the grand scheme of things) will not be that bad.

On the other hand, South Waterfront is a massive investment. If it fails, it will be one of if not the biggest development failures of Portland history. It far more desperately needs anchors such as Vestas.

[t]

If you think that Malsin can waive a magic wand and make the Bridgehead project pencil after Opus failed to do so, you are hopelessly naive. Numbers don't lie. Opus walked because the project wasn't viable economically and could not be financed. And, sadly, great architecture won't make the numbers work better(usually makes them far worse). If PDC pumps enough tax dollars into a project on the site, maybe something may happen some day, but don't kid yourself into thinking that somehow Malsin can finance a spec project banking on a bunch of upstarts with no money or credit to fill it up. It simply won't happen.

[Stan]

I know it sucks that the bridgehead is still lingering after all of these years, but it's probably best that Opus fell flat on it's face. Their projections were really unrealistic even at the height of the bubble. I'm really liking how Lower Burnside is developing project by project. If Opus had been successful that area that would of turned into another Pearl, probably with an eastside location for Anthropologie. The bridgehead plans stuck out like a sore thumb. The delay increases the likelihood of a better project happening.

[pdx2m2]

I enjoy that you are always draming of new young architectural firms or foreign firms getting opportunity for Portland work. It aspirational and fun (or funny). The truth is that it generally won't happen, especially in commercial work.

If Vestas is going to South Waterfront the architect will be GBD. There could be an associated design firm with GBD although I'm betting that this is another GBD project. It's great for the density and urban vitality of South Waterfront (God knows they need it in this wasteland of a place). It will be highly sustainable - Platinum LEED or better..that's great. This probably won't be architecture that we will hold in high esteem.

[Aneeda]

pdx2ms - Why would you assume the firm for Vestas is GBD just because they've done most (or all?) of the other projects down there? I would argue that the most likely client for a high end architecural firm would be commercial. I think the better and more successful private developers have used the better architectural firms in town. Witness the utter failure of LRS's building on MLK and Fremont to see why regressive (and plain bad) architecture hurts the bottom line.

[windy]

GBD would be an excellent choice - check out their webpage and you will see they have plenty of commercial experience (OHSU/Conway/Liberty/200 Market). they rose to the top with the condo market like every other successful architectural firm that changes with market influx - call it survival. If Vestas wanted to bring european design aspirations to Portland, then with the sustainability and LEED record of GBD, then i bet GBD would be a wise choice.

[pdx2m2]

I think GBD will do the Vestas project if it is in South Waterfront because Gerding Edlen will be the developer and Gerding Edlen works with GBD on most projects. There isn't anything wrong with this - it's just the condition of things.

In Portland the most likely architects for commercial work are not high end architectural firms...local or otherwise. These kind of firms may be doing commercial work in NYC or Asia or the Middle East although they aren't doing it in Portland and probably won't be. Local developers seek firms they are comfortable with, firms that are competent and that do good design. Local developers haven't sought outside big name architects and probably won't in the near term.

GBD isn't a bad choice for Vestas. I think they are a good firm and do good work. In some areas such as sustainabilty they do great work. They generally don't do great architecture. Maybe they will. Maybe there is a Santa Claus.

[Brian Libby]

GBD could undoubtedly deliver a LEED platinum office building of real quality to Vestas, in South Waterfront or otherwise. They are a hugely capable firm. However, they have already designed a lot in SoWa in particular. Practically every building in the neighborhood they werer involved in, at least as architect of record. Why not pair GBD with another architect to get a LEED building that perhaps looks a little different from the other ones in the neighborhood - and maybe a little more striking?

[GLV]

"Witness the utter failure of LRS's building on MLK and Fremont to see why regressive (and plain bad) architecture hurts the bottom line."

That building is failing but it has nothing to do with the architecture.

Terroir failed because the owner was a buffoon who was shamed out of business after plagiarizing reviews for himself. Belly may still be in business but probably won't be for much longer, for 2 reasons: 1) the economy and 2) location location location.

This is one of the most blighted and downtrodden sections of town. Who wants to go out of their way for a fancy and expensive meal across the street from an open air drug market? I've lived in the neighborhood for 5 years and I stopped going to the Chevron after dark because I got sick of being offered crack. I'm not kidding. That type of retail is not pioneering, and won't be successful on that stretch of MLK for another decade, regardless of who designed the building it sits in.

[Stan]

Never went to Terroir, but I don't live too far. The demographic is there to support a quality restaurant. To call that neck of woods one of the most blighted or downtrodden sections of town is a little much. It's one edge of Irvington for crying out loud. All the new places on Williams b/n Shaver and Fremont seem to be doing all right. A good restaurant will draw people, Nicholas' down the road on Grand has tons of customers while the immediate area leaves a little to be desired.

[Stuart]

This is good news. Brad Malsin is a great guy, and he is definitely the right guy for the job.

Where I completely disagree with Brian is that Vestas should somehow choose the Bridgehead over SOWA. South Waterfront is the logical choice to create a business hub. There could be collaboration between OHSU and PSU on the waterfront. The Bridgehead, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily need that type of momentum to be viable. I imagine Malsin could succeed based on what he already does best, which is attracting small Portland-based tenants. I recently toured the B and O Warehouse and was so impressed with the impressive roster of tenants they've attracted...everything from advertising firms to architects to acupuncturists. The formula seems to be working already. South Waterfont, on the other hand, cannot afford to fail. The costs of failure measured monetarily are colossal.

[GLV]

"To call that neck of woods one of the most blighted or downtrodden sections of town is a little much. It's one edge of Irvington for crying out loud. All the new places on Williams b/n Shaver and Fremont seem to be doing all right."

Well, I was referring specifically to MLK between Fremont and about Alberta or so. That's a world away from Irvington. If there's a more blighted corridor in PDX, I don't know where it is. The pizza shop in the new development between Shaver and Failing closed in the last 2 months. I've been to the adjacent coffee shop/hot dog place several times, and every time I was the only customer. The PDC building across the street is still vacant. My point is that, on MLK at least, it's too early for these types of retail. Too many empty storefronts/graffiti/drug activity/vacant lots to attract pedestrians, which is what they need, especially since they provide little to no off street parking. Maybe once PP goes in and there an influx of employees, but not yet.

Regarding Williams: with the exception of Pix and the Lompoc, those businesses are less than 6 months old. And one restaurant, Nutshell, already went under.

[Rob]

I know this is an architecture blog. But for something to get built the developer and the architect need to work very well with one another and complete the project quickly before market conditions change.

This is a different equation than who's hot or how cool a drawing looks.

For the Burnside Bridgehead a fundamental question is whether it relates in the short term more to Lloyd Center and the Convention Center by the MLK-Grand streetcar or to the industrial, design, retail, entertainment, living mix immediately to its South and East.

[Brian Libby]

Well of course, Rob. The Bridgehead project has to work urbanistically and fit congruently into the urban fabric in a way that integrates with and stimulates existing patterns of commerce, transit, etc. I do confess to being interested in the visual look of the buildings as well, which once built I and the rest of Portland will be driving and walking by and visiting for many years to come.

It's superficial to care a lot about the exterior look of buildings if that's the only thing you care about. But it's also unacceptable to build wonderfully functional but otherwise ugly buildings.

[ka]

brian, i don't know maybe i am wrong, or maybe i am just projecting, but i think you lost Rob's point. Of course we all care what something looks like - why else would we even care enough to read your blog? the point is more, can a team get the job done? all the urban challenges, and fit and continuation of context are part of the task. Malsin has put together some nice, yet smaller, retrofit projects - this is a different game. i think Beam would be a good partner, but giving the burnside project to Beam would have the same results as Opus - rather than too removed - i bet they would struggle with the complexities of such a politically charged, urban, ground up project and would fail as well. PDC should pick a master developer with experience to handle the project and/or split it up.

[Jon]

Vestas America's HQ is already located in Portland at 1881 NW Naito Parkway. Both their current office TI and expansion TI were done by Holst. There is an established relationship between the two so if we're going to speculate on who will get the job I'd like to throw that out there.

[Aneeda]

Can anyone give me an example of a hot young design firm who was handed a large commission and they didn't get the job done?

[Agustin Enriquez V]

"Can anyone give me an example of a hot young design firm who was handed a large commission and they didn't get the job done?"

I can think of a handful of projects in Portland this has happened on. One in particular stands out to me as being similar (if I understand the implication of your question). But I don't see the good that comes from talking about that. I think a better conversation would be to think about why this doesn't happen very often.

To me there are two fundamental challenges to overcome: the first is the trust / working relationship between client and architect that was touched upon by Rob above; but the second is probably even more difficult to overcome -- and that is the sheer amount of work to produce. Take a hypothetical 400,000 sf office building with both a Core and Shell design task and a TI buildout. At its peak, there could be months where 20 - 30 architectural staff members will be working on it. A small office simply could not staff that size of project. A medium sized office with a staff of 30 - 40 would barely be able to handle the work flow and it would be taking a huge gamble on attempting that size of project. If the project is put on hold during design or worse, is abruptly canceled, the office now has zero dollars coming through the door. Even if all goes well, there will be a time when the project runs its course and the office will have to find work for everyone all at once (rather than having a dozen smaller projects that start and end at varied periods of time).

The idea of a young firm getting a big gig is romantic to think about (this is what happened for Norman Foster and I believe that is the way Allied Works really got going), but is so logistically difficult to work that it seldom happens.

[truth]

Agustin, I disagree...
Having 20 or 30 persons staffing a project of this size may be indicative of the bureaucratic and dysfunctional process that exists in big firms like ZGF and GBD.
But a smaller, nimble team of 10 people in a talented and well oiled firm could handle the job and very likely result in a clearer and tighter project.

[Agustin Enriquez V]

Its easy to toss bombs at offices that do large scale, corporate work. But as a sincere question, anonymous Truth, have you worked on a project of this magnitude? I have worked on two from the beginning of design to the end of construction. Layer in lofty LEED aspirations (Gold or Platinum), and there is a huge amount of work that is completed after the initial design effort. Neither of these projects was accomplished by 10 people (and I don't think they could have been given the time frame). I could envision a strong team of 10 putting a Core and Shell of this size together given enough time, but not also the TI--you would have 6 people working on the C&S and 4 on the TI. That just does not seem plausible for a high rise class A office building.

[Brian Libby]

Augustin is right. It takes a whole cadre of team members to deliver a LEED-rated or otherwise green office, condo, etc. A firm like GBD is very valuable in that regard. It's not a given that a building project will work out well inside and out, and they make it happen regularly. I'd just like to explore the possibility of GBD paired now and then with an other architect, as was the case with the Meriwether condos and Atwater Place condos. Otherwise SoWa is a GBD ghetto. The firm has earned its prominent place in local architecture. I just like to see some balance, and some chances for other firms that may not have the same experience but can add a fresh look.

[truth]

No, I have not worked on a project of this magnitude.
However, I have a great deal of experience with the "smaller" office culture and work process. As well as many friends who have told me countless stories about the "corporate" work flow. The reality is that that smaller offices function differently than bigger offices. The small offices that I have experience with tend to have a greater percentage of experienced work staff, many of whom are longtime employees and thus with 10 or perhaps 15 individuals can produce as much work, as a 30 person project team in a corporate office consistently of a bigger percentage of less experienced staff. I agree that it takes a TEAM effort. I just don't agree that that team needs to be 30 people from a corporate office. Agustin, do you have experience working in a well functioning smaller office, since you are a GBD employee? Are you currently working on this project?
I do agree however that it would be silly for any firm to have only one project, and not be diversified, but i think that's a given regarding good business practices.
And I'm only anonymous to those who don't know me.

[Rob]

Into what an interesting discussion this has turned.

Some great points have been made on sf detailing required vs staff size, including the complexity of LEED, foundations, Class 1, City interface and the like. I was very peripherally involved on the client side with a rising star architect project that nearly crashed and burned.

I was speaking of the factor - has the architect staff worked with the client staff and is there mutual trust for the complex and stressful interaction required?

All matter. Not sure though of the value of celebrity culture applied to architecture. Specifically, hypothetical discussion of Renzo Piano designing Vestas or Skylab designing the Burnside Bridgehead at ~750000 sf is tiresome. (Can't specifically remember those suggestions, but plenty like them)

[Agustin Enriquez V]

For the record, I know next to diddly-squat about Vestas as a project (pretty much what I read about from the newspapers and this blog). I am not working on it and all my comments are about a hypothetical large scale project. I also was not lobbying for any particular office to get or not get this project, just lobbing my experiences on large scale work into the conversation. I think my remarks above indicated that, but in the event they did not, now they do.

I have not worked at a smaller office, but the characterization shared about a corporate office being like a bureacracy doesn't ring a bell based on my experiences.

I also have to respectfully disagree that all experience is equal (if that inference was read correctly). Someone that has 15+ years of working exclusively on smaller scale projects would be only marginally more useful than someone that had 4-5 years of experience working on large scale work (and vice versa). They are quite different code-wise, from a structural and mechanical point of view, and the ever present pro-forma point of view (at least that is my observation having been involved in both). In fact, I have seen numerous employees with signicant experience at other offices struggle with the speed at which a large scale, developer oriented project moves. Its entirely possible that is more about our office than a particular kind of project, but it seems useful to toss that into the conversation as well.

I also would like to mention that I don't think a large office is better than a small office or that corporate design is inherently inferior to a build to suit office project. They are signifcantly different from each other that I don't personally see much value in comparing them to each other. I have made some version of that comment from time to time on this blog over the last few years, but I'm probably due for another.

I talk too much, sorry about that. Someone else can re-commandeer this post topic.

[ben]

i've worked in very large firms and relatively small firms and it has been my experience that there is a big gap in productivity between the two. small firms learn fast and work fast, plain and simple. they also tend to have better chemistry because everybody knows each other well. large firms require big jobs to keep paying the bills, and throwing a lot of staff at a project isn't as big a deal for them, even if they aren't being very efficient as long as the bills are getting paid. it really is true. for those of you that work in large firms, think about how much "fat" there is with people drawing stairs or bathrooms for weeks (or months) on end, or one person dedicated to specs and schedule for the entire project. that doesn't happen at small firms because it isn't financially feasible. and if you take a large spec office building with a lot of repetition, it really isn't much more complicated than a smaller building. i've done both, it's true. the engineers are the same, the codes for both are written in plain english, all that really changes is the budget and the schedule.

also, and probably more importantly, design is both secondary and sacrificial at large service firms. clear concepts rarely make it through the hurdles of bigger, bloated teams that don't understand why decisions are being made and what the overarching goals are for a project. also, you usually have senior and junior designers that battle it out for this part or that part, winding up with a camel of a design with one hump pointing one way and another hump pointing the other. you get my point.

anyway, the reason why big firms with experience get the jobs is perceived risk, nothing more. i'm not saying small firms can't blow it, but i'm definitely saying they can succeed. you want safe, you get safe. you want design, find someone you believe in.