« What To Do With POVIC (That Old Blue Building at Waterfront Park) | Main | Imagining Katrina's Waterlines In Portland »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Donald Trump

But is a 750 sq ft cell really going to sell for $290,000 ?. I noticed the other day when a drove by that only 11 of 32 units have sold ?.


Beautiful building - but I have a question: Mississippi is 'close-in?' I'm still trying to get the knack of Portland's neighborhood nomenclature; recently I was firmly told that my home at E. Burnside & 78th (on the cusp of 'Northeast & Southeast,' no less) was definitely not 'close-in.'

I was standing next to a couple who were being ragged on about living in the 'burbs of Mt. Tabor' at the time...


it would be interesting to compare the original elevation with the new one to see how it developed. i am not familiar with it, but the current one looks a bit like the old western front main street with stuck on facades.

the website indicates that the exterior wood will be ipe - a beautiful and durable wood showing up on numerous local projects (belmont lofts, firstenburg comm ctr, etc). although the ipe may recall the wood siding of the area and may be an appropriate choice, it is a south american hardwood and not really a true celebration of oregon's native materials.


The Kurisu project is not handsome. It is total yuck, as if the architect was so beaten down by the design commission that they just gave up.


yes, i admit it. i am in favor of this project for the pastaworks alone.

the height is a little scary, it will take away a nice skyline view that i get in the winter from my back alley.

but i sold my soul to the devil for a bottle of wine and some ravioli.

mississippi resident

As an architect and resident of the neighborhood, I can tell you much of the controversy surrounding this project was how it was presented to the community. While the developers did come to many neighborhood meetings and present their project, input from the community was not actively sought until late in the project's development. As the first of what will likely be several mixed use condo developments, neighbors were wary of a larger residential project in what has been until recently a neighborhood of mostly single family homes.

I think many neighbors were concerned about a variety of factors including height of course, but also parking,(as the neighborhood becomes more developed it is becoming harder to park in front of one's own house, and this development's limited number of parking spaces for residents of the building threatens already limited street parking in the area) and alley access (the project shares an alley with single family homes).

If the developers had worked harder to notify the community of the buildings development earlier in the process and actively sought and responded to neighborhood concerns, I think there would have been less controversy with the project. Not everyone would have been happy, but a greater majority would have felt their voices had been heard, rather than ignored, which was the mood in the later neighborhood meetings where a larger number of residents were notified.

in response to keith d.: I think many consider close-in neighborhoods to be those inside of 39th on the east side (just my opinion) mississippi while in north portland, is comparable in proximity to downtown with irvington. It takes me about 5-10 minutes by car and about 15-20 mins by bus to get downtown.


This is a small neighborhood. Underground parking should be encouraged for these large housing structures.

Brian Libby

Seems to me with parking they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they build a building that includes enough parking for everyone, it becomes a bigger structure and would set off neighbor concerns about size. But if they cut down on spots and emphasize use of mass transit, which incedentally is a perfectly laudable goal, then they're taking spots on the street away. To me these are the standard growing pains that seem to happen with a lot of multi-family housing projects sprouting up in existing neighborhoods of single-family homes.

As for involving the neigbhorhood, I think it's always nice if it happens, and probably a good strategic move to avoid trouble later. But they're also not obligated, nor should they be.


Does the building get bigger if the parking is underground? I suppose they might have to go deeper if they wanted a basement too, but underground parking utilizes mostly unused space where almost nobody would want to live. Seems like that would help to keep a building from needing to be bigger.

And obviously, if say for example, the Mississippi Av lofts doesn't have a big parking space in the back of the building, then that space will be available for other desperately needed building amenities such as lawn, play area, garden, and so forth.

Of course developers would not like to endure the burden of installing underground parking because that would lengthen the time in which it would take for their investment to pencil out. Given that this is a neighborhood where people hope that a high quality of life will continue to be available, it only makes sense that their concerns in that respect would be worthy of more than an optional congenial gesture on the part of developers with plans for the limited supply of land in the neighborhood.


Keith, if you can ride a bike into downtown Portland within 15 minutes (at a reasonable person's pace) of your home, you are "close-in."

Or, perhaps the walking test: can you get from downtown to your home in an hour?

mississippi resident

As for involving the neigbhorhood, I think it's always nice if it happens, and probably a good strategic move to avoid trouble later. But they're also not obligated, nor should they be.

Of course they aren't obligated, but like I said, as the first larger scale mixed-use development on the street, there was going to be some resistance built in to the process. By getting the input of the residents earlier in the process, the resistance would have likely been lessened.

I agree that encouraging public transit is a laudable goal, but I think many area residents feel that the clientele moving into newer developments like this one are going to be more wealthy, more likely to have more cars, and less likely to use public transit. They may walk to local businesses, but it remains to be seen how many of the residents will actually ride the bus to work, no matter how convenient. This isn't the developers fault, just a general opinion of those in the neighborhood. (I hate to speak for everyone, but that was the nature of the comments at some of the neighborhood meetings.)


Thanks for all the responses to the close-in question, I'm still trying to get used to all the variations in addressing parts of the city.

As for the other part of this discussion, I'm in a neighborhood that would love to have the kind of developer & city involvement that Mississippi (and others) has, I wonder if that aspect is given any consideration?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Lead Sponsors


Portland Architecture on Facebook

More writing from Brian Libby


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

Paperblogs Network

Google Analytics

  • Google Analytics

Awards & Honors