It's the owners of the Hungry Tiger redeveloping the spot, in conjunction with Randy Rapaport. The owners told us back in September that the Hungry Tiger will be moving back into the new building when it's complete.

"I can end all the rumors. I own the Tiger. The building has not been sold. The owners are redeveloping it. Demolition is scheduled in early January. The Tiger will be back, better than ever. Meanwhile, I am opening another loacation on SE 12th, between Ash & Pine. We will be ready by the end of September. Stop by and check out the progress.

Posted by Alan - September 2, 2006 01:07 PM"

Can't say I'll shed a tear for that particular corner--the Hungry Tiger always seemed really dive-y (and not in a good way), while FHB's shop has been closed for, what, two years?

I'm kind of mixed on R. Rappaport in general--while much of what he's done with the 26th & Div condos has been sneaky and underhanded (cutting down historic trees, going back on his word and getting a loading zone exemption, etc.) he did keep his promise to fill the retail space on the Belmont building with local businesses, even though I hear he had some serious offers from national chains.

But does anyone else worry that Portland is putting up these four story condo buildings in prime residential spaces right about the time that the national real-estate condo market is absolutely tanking?

Here's hoping the developers downtown will do the same for the Virginia Cafe, if the owner's aren't already planning to toss in the towel. The bar won't be the same, sure, but at least it will still be around.

Thanks jack for putting the bug in someone's ears about buying out Esparzas...I can hear it now:

"Damn, that is a mighty fine idea! Hollywood does need some more cookie cutter shops."

Jack,

I think they're doing it just to tick you off - that's what I think.

Seriously, I'm sure the condos will be tastefully done and enhance the ambiance of the neighborhood. You needn't fret about architectural continuity, either, since Holst gave us the virtually seamless integration of the Belmont Lofts. It's progress, Jack. After all, progressive people gotta live somewhere - and Damascus is just soooo far away so NOT funky.

"the national real-estate condo market is absolutely tanking."

Maybe if they build the big hairy condos and then can't rent them out for $2000 a month, they'll convert to "affordable housing"....ya think? Is THAT how the free market works?

Except there are no more Tony Roma's in the PDX metro area. Dammit. *sigh*

jk; High density is inherently too expensive to be affordable.
See: www.DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCost.htm

Thanks
JK

I usually agree with Jack, but the old Hungry Tiger was totally gross, and FHB struck me as a demented guy who was barricading himself in that space.

A lot of architectural effort went into the Belmont Lofts, so I'm optimistic about this development.

jim A lot of architectural effort went into the Belmont Lofts, so I'm optimistic about this development.
JK: Too bad they didn’t bother to make its size fit the neighborhood. No amount of “architectural effort” will hide that fact that it is a giant oversized pig. “Architectural effort” is just putting lipstick on the pig.

Thanks
JK

You know, I've never once ridden past the Belmont Lofts on the #15, which I've done who knows how many times, and thought, "Damn, that's a giant oversized pig".

You know, I've never once ridden past the Belmont Lofts on the #15, which I've done who knows how many times, and thought, "Damn, that's a giant oversized pig".

Ditto that. I live practically around the corner, and everytime I walk past I think that it's a pretty nifty looking building.

You want an oversized pig, try 26th and Division.

Once the Hungry Tiger corner gets sterilized, the new east side Pearlies will decide they don't like the smell of the Laurelhurst Theater and the funky shops on the southwest corner. And so out they'll go, until the whole intersection is converted into Bridgeport Village North. But hey, a Blockbuster and a Papa Murphy's!

Plus, you can always go next door to the archbishop's office for confession and a Chapter 11 discharge.

Jack, I think you're in danger of chicken little syndrome. Or maybe a bit too NIYBY. (not in YOUR backyard ...) When the least successful, most rundown business is euthanized by its owner to go condo, it doesn't make me fear the end of successful ones like Esparza's or the Laurelhurst theater.

What I do fear is another oversized pig (finally someone matched words to my feelings) like the one on Belmont. That building already is ugly from one direction, and will look shabby in ten years.

JK: I don't think that study includes land costs, only construction costs. if you pay 25% more per sq. ft, but only need to buy

Yes. For those who live in eastside the belmont lofts don't fit in the hood. The eastside is lowrise. Lowrise encourages human interaction instead of people observing other people from on "high".

how dense will we go before we've reached maximum density?

and then, what kind of "place" will Portland be?

the reason we mourn the passing of places is not because of their intrinsic value--it's because they're part of our history, our fabric, part of something less profit-maximized and yuppie-oriented.

yet we run around, yanking out the threads of community, as if we can just weave in a new one, and after all--we need *progress*, right?

right.

"You know, I've never once ridden past the Belmont Lofts on the #15, which I've done who knows how many times, and thought, "Damn, that's a giant oversized pig"."

Ditto that from me as well. My office is just down the street from the lofts on Belmont, and I think they fit into the area quite nicely.

The Hungry Tiger development is a private landowning family putting their own real estate to what they consider a higher and better use with an intent to earn a profit on their investment. This isn't the PDC giving out tax breaks or low interest loans. I also agree with those above who note that this particular corner of the intersection was getting dilapidated. I for one wouldn't eat at a place that looked so ratty for the fear of getting a serious case of the runs. Esparza's and Holman's are a totally different story, and I seriously doubt that those establishment are in any way threatened by this development.

I for one wouldn't eat at a place that looked so ratty for the fear of getting a serious case of the runs.

Ditto for the Pittock Mansion.

They probably used trans fats, too. We don't want that kind around here any more.

Sorry those are not condos. Those are Stack 'em and Pack 'em housing.
The Nickle

"I'm optimistic about this development."

I agree with Jim. If you find this new development lamentable, then you're probably just against change of any sort. It makes sense to build housing on that intersection, and what's being lost isn't special architecturally, economically or gastronomically. (Let's hear from people who've actually eaten in the Hungry Tiger.)

By the way, as long as we're casting our votes on the matter, I think the Belmont Lofts is a handsome building—better than almost anything built in the southeast neighborhoods in the last 60 years. There was a time when great buildings and fine houses were built in SE, but that was a time before most of us were alive. I think architectural standards for the outlying areas of Portland are finally on an upswing after many decades during which almost nothing but junk was being built.

Personally, I tend to prefer older styles of architecture--and I live in a 100-year-old house in SE--but I'm not troubled by the prospect of redevelopment of that corner of 28th. Maybe the independent small businesses in the area will benefit from the additional residents that the condos will bring to the vicinity. Maybe the condos will look good—even though they'll be new and different. Maybe some of the people who live in them will be "real" old-time Portlanders, and not the "fakes" that some of you seem to fear.

Gee, exactly one major intersection to the north at 28th and Glisan is an aging four story residential building with ground floor retail (Pambiche Restaurant). Take a look at the condition of that building to contrast with something of the same scale at 28th & Burnside.

PMG

NE 28th and Burnside is one of my favorite parts of town. I have only been here a bit over 12 yrs., but have made many, many, many trips to Holmans, Ezparzas, Laurelhurst, Beuhlaland. I have only visited the Hungry Tiger twice--and don't remember one visit at 1 am on Sat., my friends filled me in later.

I don't think I will miss that particular piece of the intersection. It would be nice if the rest of the businesses remained...but what are we gonna do about it if the property owners want to redevelop? Sorry to say, not much we can do.

I gotta say I got mixed emotions about this one. It is the Tiger's owners doing it to their own building, its not like they got chased out.
But still, talk about a great, cheap place to get tanked! The Tiger was a regular hangout for my pals and I back in the late '80s/early 90's. However, with all the evenings (and occasional mornings) spent there, I don't think I ever ordered anything off the menu.
When I heard it was getting torn down I figured that was probably the only way to ever get rid of the roaches. On the other hand, I'm not sure even that'll do the trick....
But I think there is some justified concern about the future of some of the not-so-high end businesses around there.
Specifically, The Laurelhurst Barber Shop (great hair cut in the classic barber shop tradition, btw) did get chased out of its former location on Burnside when the landlord decided he could raise the rent (substantially) if he had a trendy-looking hair salon in there. I'm not sure how the hair salon is doing, but the gents from LBS managed to relocate a block over on Ankenny- but at this rate who knows for how long.
By and large, I'm with Ulysses- that's my old stompin'ground and I do mourn its passing.

Welcome our new condo-owning overlords! At least now we'll get that badly needed second Starbucks. And Doug Fir#2 can open up where smelly old Holman's is. Yay Portland! (That's still your name, right?)

Ciao, 28th and Burnside, you've held out longer than most.

You guys are just arguing over aesthetics, which you'll never get anyone to agree on. Futile! :)

28th and Burnside is my neighborhood and has been for 10 years. It has changed A LOT in that period of time and mostly for the better. 10 years ago there was a grocery store called FoodValue where Wild Oats is now. Wild Oats is my least favorite of the gormet organic grocers, but it is 100% better than the FoodValue. You wouldn't dare buy any sort of fresh produce at FoodValue or really feel safe shopping there past 8pm. The Hungry Tiger is an eye sore. I've only been there once, and would never go back. Scummy doesn't even begin to describe it.
I'm all for keeping classic iconic establishments. I still miss the old Rose's and Quality Pie in NW Portland. I miss the Organ Grinder on 82nd and don't even get me started on the Pixie Kitchen. But I won't miss the Hungry Tiger or FHB's. I'm surprised it's taken this long, actually...

How about we make a website of all current and former restaurants in Portland, and we can all vote about which ones we like and which ones we don't like.

Then, depending on the votes tallied, we can dragoon the former owners of the restaurants that we like that closed into *forcibly taking over* the restaurants that are open now that we hate.

I don't know what we do with the owners of the restaurants who will be kicked out - kill them? "Re-educate" them Stalin-style? The floor is open.

Then finally, everyone will be happy. ;)

If you find this new development lamentable, then you're probably just against change of any sort.

Nice try.

It depends on what they're going to put up. If it's the Sellwood Lofts, fine. If it's the cr*p that's being installed at 26th & Division, an abomination like 16th & Weidler, or a crude joke like SE 20th & Morrison, then no, it's not an improvement over the Hungry Tiger.

ANYTHING will be better than the Hungry Tiger--although if the restaurant is coming back, that's a moot point. The two worst Chinese restaurants in Portland are within a block of each other near 28th and Burnside (there are three total, so you can guess as to the other one). As long as they don't do anything to Holman's (home of the "beige plate").

The buildings to be torn down are not exactly architectural treasures. I surely won't miss them and I'm around there all the time. The rub is that what replaces them will be the same silly or banal architecture that characterizes most new construction in Portland. When are developers going to get hip to the fact that Portlanders like a bit of character in their buildings?

Portlanders like a bit of character in their buildings

That hardly matters. The key question for the developers around here is which types of cheap schlock the dumb, rich Californians are willing to pay for. And how much of it they can slap up on one lot, with the city planning army nodding in zombie-like approval.

Gotta say, I too remember the Food Valu but, although it may have resembled a Soviet grocery store, they always seemed stocked on frozen pizza and brew- which, at the time made a complete diet.
Going further back, my folks lived on the other side of the park, I used to walk up to the Laurelhurst Theater on Saturday afternoons with my friends and watch $1.50 movies, spending money earned delivering the Oregon Journal around that part of town.
That corner has changed quite a bit over time, without question. I'd certainly hate to see Holman's or the Laurelhurst go.

"ANYTHING will be better than the Hungry Tiger--although if the restaurant is coming back, that's a moot point. The two worst Chinese restaurants in Portland are within a block of each other near 28th and Burnside"

So judging from that statement, I am guessing you have never tried the Pagoda, at 38th and NE Broadway across from the old Y; now that it the nastiest "Chinese" food this side of New England.

What if they built a Sellwood Lofts type building but it was full of rich, dumb Californians?

It depends on what they're going to put up. If it's the Sellwood Lofts, fine. If it's the cr*p that's being installed ...

Jack, I think you're often right about stupid projects that are funded with tax dollars. But here we're talking about an arguably stupid project that's privately funded.

What's to be done about it? Should we empower the city to halt projects like this with even more restrictive architectural rules?

(I remember the "snout house" uproar -- can't imagine if the city council started regulating the "Bridgeport-y-ness" of projects...)

Or are we just lamenting the loss of old Portland establishments? Sentimentality is a nice thing (I do miss Biddy McGraw's on Hawthorne - it ain't the same on Sandy) but unless you're proposing some kind of regulatory arrangement, that's all it is.

The new Biddy McGraw's is on 60th and Glisan, home of the old Sneaky Pete's. Its a pretty cool building that I hope will survive the development craze.

But here we're talking about an arguably stupid project that's privately funded.

A project not without public subsidy, however. Because its being developed on a "transit corridor" it will most likely get a substantial discount on its Transportation System Development Charges. (Unlike the evil "It's a Beautiful Pizza" on Belmont that dared to move across the street and remodel a dry-cleaner into a neighborhood pizza joint.)

And not that those SDC funds will be used to enhance transportation on Burnside...nah, gotta pay for those streets and sidewalks in South Waterfront.

But can't say I've ever been in the Hungry Tiger...it's always looked sorta grim from the outside, and there's too many great food places nearby. But I sure hope Esparza's isn't hurt in the process...

And nothing wrong with a little nostalgia, anyway. Organ Grinder? Used to drive up from Eugene so my kids could see a real organist playing music to the old silent films...ah, and the clapping monkey? Unforgettable memories.

But does anyone else worry that Portland is putting up these four story condo buildings in prime residential spaces right about the time that the national real-estate condo market is absolutely tanking?

It's not even just those four story condo boxes...we're booting out renters, from the Portland Center, to the cheesy "garden apartment" complex a few blocks from me and condo-izing those units. In the meantime, we're starting to see a shortage of rental apartments. Well, duh...

Sometimes the invisible hand of the market seems a little mystifying.

The so-called remodel of the Bridgeport Brewpub obliterated the essence of that space. It's just a pearlized version of Dennys now...the formerly dark texture has been sanded smooth, polished brightly, and coated with a thin layer of 21st Century green varnish.

I won't be going back.

As another interested, intelligent and not out-to-get-you reader, I'm weary of your one anti-condo/pdc/anything new trick, Jack pony. See ya.

I'm not against anything new. I like the Eastbank Esplanade, the Sellwood Lofts, the Belmont Dairy, the renovations that they originally did in the Pearl (as opposed to the subsequent cr*p towers, which is what the whole scam was apparently about), and the few normal, Portland-looking developments that manage to go up these days. I'm against the ugly, out-of-place, out-of-scale junk that's blighting every corner of Portland.

I think "density" is starting to show how bad it blows. I didn't move here for density -- quite the opposite. And I'm not buying that there's no middle ground between condo towers and sprawl.

As for the PDC, they do very little good for the tons of money they spend. They mostly have stolen what was supposed to go to poor people and given it away to greasy, rich crooks.

Anyone who moves to Portland, Oregon and pays upwards of a half million dollars to live in an apartment needs to have their head examined.

I'm sorry you don't share my views. Contrary to what you may read elsewhere, I don't ban people just because I disagree with them. But I'm weary of you, too, and I hope you'll find the rest you seek elsewhere.

Should we empower the city to halt projects like this with even more restrictive architectural rules?

Can it get more restrictive than what's already on the books?

The problem is not in the rules -- it's in the administration of the system. Portland has more red tape than Soviet Russia, but look, for example, at 16th & Weidler, and 26th & Division. Those are conscious decisions by our current army of planning bureaucrats to allow neighborhoods to be raped. If they're supposed to be preserving a neighborhood's architectural integrity, then somebody's on the take.

I think what Jack is saying here is that Portland is losing the cultural and architectural texture that made Portland the unusual city that it was (is?). It was always that mix of old and new, yuppie and dive, etc. that made it different from many similar cities.

The Randy R / Holst boxes all have a sameness to them - they're really just boxes coated with different materials - people like Belmont because it's wood and has a little bit of scale and texture that the average glass box doesn't have. 26th & Division will be a more typical glass box, and it appears the 28th & Division will be a stucco box.

A little variety in terms of owners, developers and designers might help maintain some of the diverse texture Portland is losing. Ditto with SoWhat District - it's the complete sameness of a bunch of glass highrises that is the real problem, architecturally.

Those are conscious decisions by our current army of planning bureaucrats to allow neighborhoods to be raped.

The folks with the ultimate power on what development is allowed in neighborhoods are the ones we elect to sit on the council. Planning bureaucrats get all of their decision making authority from the commisioners. If our elected officials wanted to stop condo towers in this city, it could happen on Monday.

I don't want to stop condo towers per se. But I don't think we need four or six stories in neighborhoods where everything else is two. And there needs to be some setback from the street, particularly for the upper stories.

Instead of condos, I would like there to be more affordable apartments built on the eastside. Nice apartments with a little charm that a single person such as myself could live in. Not Beaverton style aparments that ramble on endlessly, and not something that resembles a motel six. Is that so hard?

"I didn't move here for density"

Ah, but you did move here 30 years ago, and in the meantime, lately, many people have been moving here who are seemingly in favor of density. Or at least, they don't react negatively when density is proposed, and their market actions (buying "dense" real estate) seem to indicate there's demand for it.

I'm just asking what happens when the reasons you move to a town become overwhelmed by reasons others are moving there. What can you do when you seem to be outnumbered, as you seem to be?

Me, I have the luxury of having been born here 30 some years ago, so I didn't "move here for" anything. It's my home, no matter what kind of buildings they put up. That's why I don't get so upset about these new buildings.

Still, I'm happy to finally read some more about what you LIKE in Portland! :)

The so-called remodel of the Bridgeport Brewpub obliterated the essence of that space...

Agreed, Mister Tee. We went back once after the remodel...what a disappointment.
Heartbreaking. That used to be such a great place to hang.

look, for example, at...26th & Division. Those are conscious decisions by our current army of planning bureaucrats to allow neighborhoods to be raped.

We have a neighborhood plan that was ignored to get this through. Ignored, too, was the history that showed the zone change proposed a decade ago was to SAVE a neighborhood icon --the old Thomas House buildings-- NOT to force the site's destruction.

Galling, more, was the abject failure of staff to follow their own rules, or make any effort to help the neighborhood accomplish its Neighborhood Plan objectives. According to the main planner involved, when City Council orders something to happen to GET a zone change, as they did back then...well, the developer doesn't really have to do anything at all because the zone change happens regardless.

It's hard to nail anyone in particular with fault...in my opinion it's a systemic problem that has the city mantra now being: "get it done" instead of "does this make sense?" Some planning staff I know are awesome. The system isn't working very well because there's a fear of being seen as anti-development.

I fault PDOT staff more than anyone, because they seem increasingly indifferent to what they're allowing to take place. There is no effort at building infrastructure concurrent with infill developement...and even at that, transportation development funds are diverted off to high-profile projects that serve new development, rather than support existing neighborhoods facing increased density.

Very frustrating. Doesn't mean I don't love this city, nor find lots of things to love about it. But, too often, we're not addressing realities around here that people don't seem to want to see...like PDCs silly attempt to "save" Chinatown, when it's long since moved to SE Portland.

I don't to see happen to Portland what happened to Times Square, where I used to live. It's now nothing but a Disney mall, with nothing but chain restaurants, with hardly a hint of reality left, no heart or soul.

Let new development flourish. But let's leave some of Portland's soul intact while we let that happen, and let's have that development pay its own way, and fit in as good neighbors.

So Rappaportization is coming to Burnside too!!! The current building is beautiful. It's time to flood the city with calls to tighten up our preservation code. The eastide is low-rise, low-rise. Lowrise encourages neighborly interactions.

"Lowrise encourages neighborly interactions."

Could be, but kindly provide some backing for this claim. I'd bet sociologists study this sort of thing.

But anyway. I've lived in Hollywood just north of the business district for 14 years, and within 3 blocks of home seen a closed, fenced-off old service station replaced by townhouses; other clapped-out buildings replaced by a new branch library with apartments above (a project that got a lot of neighbors involved to force a reduction in size from what the developer and county library bureacuracy were pushing); a frequently failed, closed restaurant site replaced by a mixed-use building; and another one under way. All improvements as far as I'm concerned. Yup, one of the things lost to the library was a little Asian market that I used to frequent, but there are others nearby on Sandy.

Let new development flourish. But let's leave some of Portland's soul intact while we let that happen, and let's have that development pay its own way, and fit in as good neighbors.

This sounds fine, sort of Mom-and-apple-pie stuff, but who gets to define "Portland's soul"? I'm thinking of the snarky comments about the old Bridgeport pub, for example. Yes, I too thought it was a wonderfully funky spot 15 or so years ago in my pre-parenthood days, but you know what? Last time I went there, I had a child in tow and we sat in the family section that didn't even exist in the old days. (Fact is, the entire phenomenon of pub-as-place-to-go-with-the-family didn't even exist 15 or 20 years ago. Nice change from the days of pubs as dark places to drink and choke on sigarette smoke, in my parochial view.)

In closing, I find it more than a bit ironic when the free-marketeers of the world--the folks who don't want anyone telling them how to live their lives or dispose of their property--want the urban environment sanitized for their protection and their favorite "funky" hangouts treated as if they're architecturally and culturally irreplaceable.

"who gets to define "Portland's soul"?"

Practically speaking, we ALL get to define it, via:

* the politicians we elect, who in turn make laws and set policies and priorities
* the choices we make on where to live
* the choices we make on what to do for a living
* the choices we make on where to shop and what to buy

These choices in sum add up to what we see around us. So when we argue with what we see around us, we're really arguing with what others' choices have put in front of us.

We can either act to change it in the four ways above, or we can just talk about acting...or we can do nothing!

Morgan, good post. The only exception I would make would be for the neighborhood associations. They think that they should help define us, proclaim that they are democratic and in the end often make decions that are counter (yes, Frank Dufay I am calling you out here) to what the majority of the people who live in the neighborhoods actually want.

Frank Dufay I am calling you out here

I'm happy to come out and play.

I think Neighborhood Associations are the closest thing to grass-roots, on the ground, neigborhood-based democracy we've got going. Like any institutional framework, it doesn't always work, but BY LAW Neighborhood Associations are open to everyone, can't charge dues, and are required to keep minutes of what they do. I repeat, open to everybody for everyone to have a voice...AND always struggling to involve more people.

Defining what "the majority" wants isn't my job, or even the job of neighborhood associations. It's where the majority can step to the plate and tell the politicans and bureaucrats THEMSELVES what they want.

Neigborhood Associations don't exist to amplify MY voice, they exist to give YOU a voice, GD.

I'm thinking of the snarky comments about the old Bridgeport pub, for example. Yes, I too thought it was a wonderfully funky spot 15 or so years ago in my pre-parenthood days, but you know what? Last time I went there, I had a child in tow and we sat in the family section that didn't even exist in the old days.

That's the funny thing about life...not only does the built environment change, but we change too, as do our needs. There should be room for all of us, at all our stages.

I sorta miss the old Paramount, but appreciate that its better "saved" as the Schnitz, then lost to a wrecking ball. Same for the Bagdad, which the McMenamin's saved and honored in its transformation back to viability.

Most progress is good. But the increasing homogenization of culture, so that a mall in Paris has pretty much the same stores as Lloyd Center...that's a loss, not just of cultural identity, but it's boring. Do I want to shop at a Gap in Berlin?

Drink Pabst in Belgium?

If the Organ Grinder was still around, you'd LOVE taking your kid there. But the market had its way and, for whatever reason, the old organ from the Paramount is gone, as is the opportunity to share that experience. It's sad, that's all.

I grew up in Bethpage, Long Island, with a local amusement park next to our church, Nunley's Happyland. It's now gone, replaced by a strip mall. Long Island already had strip malls a'plenty.

Just think if Jantzen Beach was still an amusement park...or if we hadn't ripped out all those trolleys.

Not everything's worth saving. But some stuff is, and I'm not sure the market --and the likes of the Portland Development Commission-- are the best arbiters of that decision-making process.

>>Nice change from the days of pubs as dark places to drink and choke on sigarette smoke, in my parochial view

I think you're confusing two different issues here -- I hate smoky bars -- though I no longer have small children in tow... Making the air safe to breath is not a goal restricted to "family areas", or, shouldn't be. (Plus, a totally ineffective tactic, because smoke fills the whole room, regardless of the imaginary "family place boundaries" you may have designated.) And, by the way, those wait staff "choking on cigarette smoke" are also someone's children. Just, a little older. I also dislike the concept of "family areas", as if children are some sort of germ that needs to be confined away from the rest of us.

That's one of the things I've always appreciated about McMennamins' Pubs -- the kids are welcome to sit at any table in the dining area. No smoking anywhere. Our youngest is now 15, but he was born with a stern sense of self-determination and has always taken umbrage at being shunted into some dim corner, given crayons, and, god forbid, a children's menu... Since quite young he has perfected a severe, cold, dismissive look tinged with disgust -- sort of like someone looking at a dead fish that's been sitting out too long -- when coo-coed by some adnoidal wait person handing him a poorly reproduced coloring book of infantile characters "for his amusement". Ie -- to keep him quiet.

He still thinks the Captain Neon Burger is the gold standard in burgers in the entire world. There's a lesson there in building brand loyalty. I'll bet no kid in Portland will grown up with that kind of loyalty to the new Bridgeport Pub.

Frank Dufay's comment about the homogenization of culture goes to the heart of this thread. I suspect the snarky comments about the perceived good old days primarily reflect anger about this--that and the sense of powerlessness in the face of these changes.

The thing is, some people actually like the homogenization of culture. They find it a great comfort. I'm not one of them, nor is anyone else posting in this thread, I suspect, but I've encountered the "homogeneity is good" attitude with some frequency. I kind of doubt that the reason for the success of chain restaurants, for example, has to do with evil profiteering CEOs forcing independent restaurateurs out of business.
A lot of people like the bland predictability.

As for Portland's neighborhood associations, my experience with a couple fo them in NE Portland is that they become captive to a committed handful of folks with an agenda and lots of time on their hands.

You have a choice. You can curse the darkness or light a candle.

i'm curious jack, what is it you like about the sellwood lofts and the belmont dairy versus what you dislike about 28th and burnside or 26th and division?

Go look. If you can't see the difference between the Sellwood Lofts and the trashing of 26th & Division, I can't help you.

all look like expensive, mid-rise, mixed-use buildings on transit streets to me. the main difference would be aesthetics. tell me you aren't letting personal taste interfere with rational discourse?

Setback. Height. Those are not "taste."

And if they were, it would be a matter of my personal taste vs. that of the architect dandies on the design commission.

I kind of doubt that the reason for the success of chain restaurants, for example, has to do with evil profiteering CEOs forcing independent restaurateurs out of business.

Ummm...no. Sam's Haufbrau was not allowed to renew its lease so that a McDonald's could come in.

They were forced out of business.

A lot of people like the bland predictability...

Sure...and my fifteen year old would sleep 'till noon every weekend day if I let him. This morning I booted his butt off the couch with the greeting...time for work! Sometimes work is GOOD...we feel the reward of accomplishment.

I can't think of anything more lazy and bizarre then traveling to Paris to eat at at McDonalds or Pizza Hut...but you can, and people do.

Should we indulge lazy, stupid behavior? Sure, of course...I'm just being an elitist or some such thing, I s'posse, in saying that's ,well, unchallenging. But becoming broader, becoming educated, actually takes effort.

I like to think, though, we should teach our kids --and our fellow adults-- that "stretching" beyond what's "comfortable" should be encouraged.
The reward is in what we discover.

all look like expensive, mid-rise, mixed-use buildings on transit streets to me. the main difference would be aesthetics...

No. The main difference is the Belmont lofts front on...Belmont. The "Clinton" neither sits on Clinton, not even faces Division, our "transit street." It fronts on 26th. What I'll see when I come to that intersection from my street isn't the hundred year old tree and farmhouse, but a big, empty, four story wall.

I'll repeat what I've said a hundred times now...as much as I opposed this project, I hope it works out. (And even bought a couple of "Flaming Lips" albums to try to understand Randy Rappaport's aesthetic.) But when you ain't got a place to park to deliver stuff, when you build out so much that you can't "afford" to give up developable space for bicycle parking...I worry about the impact on our neighborhood.

As I've written before, we have trucks parking on the sidewalk across the street at the plaid Pantry nearly every day...and the City of Portland Office of Transportation just doesn't seem to give a rat's ass.

But powerless? Not on your life. I will see the law enforced at the Clinton. I have Parking Patrol on my speed dial.

Our youngest is now 15, but he was born with a stern sense of self-determination and has always taken umbrage at being shunted into some dim corner, given crayons, and, god forbid, a children's menu... Since quite young he has perfected a severe, cold, dismissive look tinged with disgust -- sort of like someone looking at a dead fish that's been sitting out too long -- when coo-coed by some adnoidal wait person handing him a poorly reproduced coloring book of infantile characters "for his amusement".

Wouldn't "no, thank you" work just as well...and demonstrate his impeccable manners?

Wouldn't "no, thank you" work just as well...and demonstrate his impeccable manners?

I'll answer for my wife Anne, who actually wrote that on MY log in...

No. "no, thank you" isn't sufficient. The wait staff don't ask, they presume before they even take you to the table, grabbing two adult and two child menus.

And who says these teenage boys are impeccably mannered, anyway. They're ready to challenge authority at the drop of a hat...don't know where they get all this attitude from.

"other clapped-out buildings replaced by a new branch library with apartments above"

Lin:
I agree that the new library w/ the apartments above is a pretty good use for the corner of NE 40/Tillamook, but I gotta disagree with you about the 'clapped-out' buildings thing. I lived at 2016 NE 40 from 93-98, which the landlord sold to the county to make way for the library just a couple months after we moved out. Right up until it came down it was a solid, well-built classic Portland Bungalow. (In need of a coat of paint, of course.)

I don't know what you all are concerned about.

I, for one, long for the smell of carbon monoxide spewing from the buses lumbering down Portland's narrow steet corridors, protected from the sunlight by the tall buildings now growing all over the city.

Reminds me of the landscape of a past in NYC - shadows and carbon monoxide. Feels like that landscape is coming to Portland.

We need a change of standards, as Wendell Berry says:

“The standards of our behavior must be derived, not from the capability of technology, but from the nature of places and communities. We must shift the priority from production to local adaptation, from innovation to familiarity, from power to elegance, from costliness to thrift. We must learn to think about propriety in scale and design, as determined by human and ecological health. By such changes we might again make our work an answer to despair.”

Sorry for the long post--but this quote sums it up well for me. I haven't been in Hungry Tiger for years, but that's beside the point, I think. there's a larger, deeper, more fundamental reason these changes make our stomach churn or our hands rub together.