This is a case of some nobody who got on some commission and thinks he has some power going overboard. What he really wanted was to be able say "See that beautiful new building, I convinced Apple to go that direction."
Instead he alienated a major company that would have been good for businesses in that area. So now he will say "Apple wanted to build another generic store, but I stood up to them and protected the architectural and historic integrity of this town."
That's a simplistic vision. These commisions don't work that way. One duty they have is to encourage development in all areas. If one member acted as you say, the rest of the board menbers would put hin in his place. If (s)he was constantly on the outs, the board would not see that member for long.There are either votes, or a consensus.
Hmm. I just looked up when the building was built...1982.
I guess the commission thought it just wouldn't look right?
Thanks for the map link, user23! I used to live 3 blocks from there on 21st and Everett, but all of the Californians looking for something that reminded them of a quaint San Fran neighborhood, priced me out. It is kind of a place for transplants to acclimate to Pdx.
As a native of Stumptown, there is definitely the strong provincial, slightly xenophobic strain in many political discussions that surround Portland's number one indoor sport - city planning - but I think Apple might have played their hand wrong. All of the other Apple stores are in relatively new buildings in relatively new areas and basically stuck in malls ... trendy malls, but still malls. When they tried to move into an established neighborhood with a history of strong personalities, they needed to act differently. You only need to make a couple of people in Portland angry to torpedo ANY project from getting through - yeah it's small town thinking, but so what! If you don't want small town, go to Seattle or Denver.
I didn't attend the meetings and I don't know what commissioners said what, but the 23rd (Trendy-Third for those who don't like it) Street area was a rundown place not long ago and was rejuvenated by the vision of basically one guy. It has always been a difficult place to change.
An Apple store there could have been similar to the one that was one of the first in Palo Alto that I saw years ago. I don't know why Apple couldn't have done the same thing. Just like the person above suggested in SoHo, Apple also has kept the original facades on buildings in London and other places. I kind of hope Apple tries again in a few years, it would be a great location.
Anyway there are plenty of Apple stores here now, they are all busy and except for some resellers that have gone out of business the Mac market here is strong enough to keep several great resellers in business. There is a thriving community of patrons who spend time and money in the resellers and go to Apple for the Genius bars and gift card shopping.
P.S. As a native I'm afraid I must ask people not to move here. Civic planning, never using umbrellas, making fun of Californians while secretly envying them, home-brewing, awkwardly balancing blue-state and red-state tendencies, fishing in 38-degree drizzle, not using your horn because it is impolite and discouraging immigration are the Eight Pillars of Oregonianism.
Either they are intent only on coming up with any possible excuse to exclude them (for what ever reason, be it personal or political), or they are playing a game to see how many times they can get Apple to redesign, and resubmit.
Or they want something from Apple, for the government, for the people, or for themselves.
This is what you do when you want a backchannel conversation that goes like, "look, what's it going to take to get this store built?" That can be soccer fields for the kiddies or some unmarked random bills for the freezer.
I assume Apple has a fixed budget to screw around with any particular planning board and this one went over the alloted budget.
This is a case of some nobody who got on some commission and thinks he has some power going overboard. What he really wanted was to be able say "See that beautiful new building, I convinced Apple to go that direction."
Instead he alienated a major company that would have been good for businesses in that area. So now he will say "Apple wanted to build another generic store, but I stood up to them and protected the architectural and historic integrity of this town."
Uh, no. Apple already has *three* stores in the local area.
Since Apple moved in and basically drove three long-time (10+ year) Apple-only retailers out of business, why not rain some criticism on them?
Portland doesn't need another Apple store, for goodness' sake. This was just Apple trying to bully its way into a yuppie enclave with a postmodern crapbox, i'm sad to say.
Comments
Originally posted by Johnny Mozzarella
This is a case of some nobody who got on some commission and thinks he has some power going overboard. What he really wanted was to be able say "See that beautiful new building, I convinced Apple to go that direction."
Instead he alienated a major company that would have been good for businesses in that area. So now he will say "Apple wanted to build another generic store, but I stood up to them and protected the architectural and historic integrity of this town."
That's a simplistic vision. These commisions don't work that way. One duty they have is to encourage development in all areas. If one member acted as you say, the rest of the board menbers would put hin in his place. If (s)he was constantly on the outs, the board would not see that member for long.There are either votes, or a consensus.
Originally posted by user23
Hmm. I just looked up when the building was built...1982.
I guess the commission thought it just wouldn't look right?
Thanks for the map link, user23! I used to live 3 blocks from there on 21st and Everett, but all of the Californians looking for something that reminded them of a quaint San Fran neighborhood, priced me out. It is kind of a place for transplants to acclimate to Pdx.
As a native of Stumptown, there is definitely the strong provincial, slightly xenophobic strain in many political discussions that surround Portland's number one indoor sport - city planning - but I think Apple might have played their hand wrong. All of the other Apple stores are in relatively new buildings in relatively new areas and basically stuck in malls ... trendy malls, but still malls. When they tried to move into an established neighborhood with a history of strong personalities, they needed to act differently. You only need to make a couple of people in Portland angry to torpedo ANY project from getting through - yeah it's small town thinking, but so what! If you don't want small town, go to Seattle or Denver.
I didn't attend the meetings and I don't know what commissioners said what, but the 23rd (Trendy-Third for those who don't like it) Street area was a rundown place not long ago and was rejuvenated by the vision of basically one guy. It has always been a difficult place to change.
An Apple store there could have been similar to the one that was one of the first in Palo Alto that I saw years ago. I don't know why Apple couldn't have done the same thing. Just like the person above suggested in SoHo, Apple also has kept the original facades on buildings in London and other places. I kind of hope Apple tries again in a few years, it would be a great location.
Anyway there are plenty of Apple stores here now, they are all busy and except for some resellers that have gone out of business the Mac market here is strong enough to keep several great resellers in business. There is a thriving community of patrons who spend time and money in the resellers and go to Apple for the Genius bars and gift card shopping.
P.S. As a native I'm afraid I must ask people not to move here. Civic planning, never using umbrellas, making fun of Californians while secretly envying them, home-brewing, awkwardly balancing blue-state and red-state tendencies, fishing in 38-degree drizzle, not using your horn because it is impolite and discouraging immigration are the Eight Pillars of Oregonianism.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
Either they are intent only on coming up with any possible excuse to exclude them (for what ever reason, be it personal or political), or they are playing a game to see how many times they can get Apple to redesign, and resubmit.
Or they want something from Apple, for the government, for the people, or for themselves.
This is what you do when you want a backchannel conversation that goes like, "look, what's it going to take to get this store built?" That can be soccer fields for the kiddies or some unmarked random bills for the freezer.
I assume Apple has a fixed budget to screw around with any particular planning board and this one went over the alloted budget.
Oh, well, one fewer yuppie enclave to be seen in.
Originally posted by Johnny Mozzarella
This is a case of some nobody who got on some commission and thinks he has some power going overboard. What he really wanted was to be able say "See that beautiful new building, I convinced Apple to go that direction."
Instead he alienated a major company that would have been good for businesses in that area. So now he will say "Apple wanted to build another generic store, but I stood up to them and protected the architectural and historic integrity of this town."
Uh, no. Apple already has *three* stores in the local area.
Since Apple moved in and basically drove three long-time (10+ year) Apple-only retailers out of business, why not rain some criticism on them?
Portland doesn't need another Apple store, for goodness' sake. This was just Apple trying to bully its way into a yuppie enclave with a postmodern crapbox, i'm sad to say.