Developer Responses

Over the past number of months, I have been attending meetings concerning a development that will have a direct impact on the skatepark. It is called the Burnside Bridgehead Development. If you haven't heard about this, then scroll down and read the last 3 or 4 entries. If you have, then you know that we are all over this.

At the last meeting, which was an open house with the developers, we had a chance to talk one-on-one with these guys. I walked out of the meeting with mixed views. Out of the three developers, there are only two that I trust. I won't say which because I may have to work with any one of the three in the future, but let's just say if a certain developer gets picked we may have to bring out the big guns to get what we want, no matter what double-speak comes out of their mouths. Anyhow, to get back on track, while at the last meeting, there were question boards for each developer and we were to write a question for the developer on their board. We were told that the questions would then be sent to the developer to answer and then posted on the PDC website. Well, 2 of the 3 developers have done just that.

The first response is from Beam Development. This is the proposal that does not have a "big box" anchor tenant. It is also the most skatepark friendly developer of the lot. Here is the response to our question:

16. One of the design requirements is to be sensitive to adjacent uses. How is your design sensitive to the skateboard park which is directly under the bridge? The Burnside Skatepark has been developed over the last 14 years by Portland’s skateboard community. PDC has stated on record that the successful proposal will a) not adversely impact the skatepark, b) complement it. How does your proposal complement the skatepark? What about the skatepark? What changes?

We see, as many do, the skate park under the Burnside Bridge is a national monument. Prior to our submittal we contacted Skate Park Board Members to express our support and we will continue to work directly with the skateboard community to insure our project not only protects the park but enhances it.

Specifically, we have designed the buildings on block 67 in a way that will allow natural light to reach the park on the north side of the bridge, while adding better pedestrian connections to the park. The buildings step back from the Burnside Bridge at 2nd Avenue. Where the buildings give way to the park, a new grand public stairway down to 2nd Avenue will be built. This will allow light to reach the area and will better serve the park with new pedestrian connections. This stair will also no doubt serve as a viewing area for the skate park, almost its own built-in grand stand. The Beam proposal has also been designed to minimize the traffic impact on 2nd Ave. We do not anticipate any major traffic increases on 2nd Avenue, thus maintaining the current character of the street and park.

In addition we recognize the opportunity to do more. Lighting and other features come to mind. We plan to work directly with the skate park community to community to do what we can to preserve this national monument.

I think that is a pretty good response, and as you can see, they are very sensitive to the park and it's needs. (See Beam Development PDF response here) Next we have the response from Opus Northwest. This is the proposal that uses "Lowes" as it's anchor "big box" tenant.

16. One of the design requirements is to be sensitive to adjacent uses. How is your design sensitive to the skateboard park which is directly under the bridge? The Burnside Skatepark has been developed over the last 14 years by Portland’s skateboard community. PDC has stated on record that the successful proposal will a) not adversely impact the skatepark, b) complement it. How does your proposal complement the skatepark? What about the skatepark? What changes?

Our proposal doesn't currently incorporate the skatepark, however we will do so as the design develops. We see this as an excellent opprotunity and look forward to working with the skatepark users to celebrate this unique characteristic of the development.

On the surface, this response doesn't look too good, but after speaking with the OPUS development team, (See OPUS Development PDF response here) I think we will be able to work with them. The final development team, Gerding/Edlen Development, has not yet sent their replies to PDC for posting. I will update this post when they get around to it.

There are a few more meetings coming up in the next month as we get into the final strecth for the choosing of a development team, and I am looking forward to being able to sit down with the chosen developer and going over our needs. If you want to attend an upcoming meeting or get involved with the skatepark, feel free to e-mail me or visit the PDC website for the upcoming schedule.

Update: I have been keeping an eye out for the Gerding/Edlen Developement teams replies to public questions and as of January 20, none have been given. They have responded to the PDC questions with an updated design which adds a plaza of sort to the north side of the Burnside bridge. This updated design would have a more negative impact on the park then the original. I will continue to watch for the answers to the public questions and post the relevant question/answer when available. There will be a PDC roundtable meeting this coming Saturday and I will give my thoughts on the outcome next week.

That's it. Go skate!