I used to live a block from there (26th and Sherman). That house was the only decent thing on that corner. Kitty-corner is the Plaid, across 26th is a cruddy old mechanic's shop, across Division, I don't even remember.

What they put in now is just plain hideous.

They are gonna have the whole city looking like that unless we stop them. Cuting off the subsidies would be a good first step.

Thanks
JK

Belmont in the 20's is next.

Speaking of development gone wild; some of you folks should see what's being built on Powell east of 122nd Avenue. In an area already loaded with apartments with "For Rent" signs; they are building more tacky townhouses and apartments. There is one place, a fourplex around 160th that was completed nearly six months ago that has been VACANT since it was built. It is becoming an eyesore - with graffitti all over the fences. Who do these planner loons think will occupy these places?

I've lived within blocks of 26th and Div for 25+ years, and the sight of that lovely old house was always a pleasant one. It looks nice in its new setting, but not like it did. The new "condo bunker" so far looks horrid, but I'm willing to reserve judgement until it's finished.

Speaking of development gone wild; some of you folks should see what's being built on Powell east of 122nd Avenue. In an area already loaded with apartments with "For Rent" signs; they are building more tacky townhouses and apartments. There is one place, a fourplex around 160th that was completed nearly six months ago that has been VACANT since it was built. It is becoming an eyesore - with graffitti all over the fences. Who do these planner loons think will occupy these places?

I doubt it's the planners - I suspect that along Powell it has been zoned for multi-family housing for a long time. It sounds more to me like the property owner misjudged the market.

You wouldn't think there was much of a market for a hundred or more attached townhouses out along SE 282nd at Lusted Rd (south of Powell), right across from farmland, but they all appear to be sold. Go figure...

I'm willing to reserve judgement until it's finished.

Even the developer's own pictures are hideous.

I thought the current look of the place at 26th and Division (which is proceeding at a snail's pace and continuing to tie up traffic by taking over one lane of traffic on Division) was bad. But the projected finish project looks even worse.

So guys, if you don't like the look of these developments like Div & 26, what do you suggest for accomodating population growth?

I like this guy in Madrid:
http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/07/09/sustainable-public-housing-by-foreign-office-architects/#more-4889

Maybe I knew --and loved-- that house in my neighborhood for too long, but it looks absurd to me, propped up like that above a garage. Like putting a dog's head on a cat and thinking, well, at least it's breathing. Sorry, that grand old house has lost all its context, and it is sad to see it like that, with its carriage house destroyed.

The folks next door to "The Clinton" on Division haven't been successful in trying to sell their house. Gee, go figure. And across the street is a new proposal for yet another condo building, but one that at least looks to have a little more style and is intended to embrace and enhance the existing art studio.

As for the question posed as to how we "accomodate growth," we do so with intelligence and grace, and not by squeezing every last square inch of profit out of every square inch of "allowable" land use. The irony of this particular project was that the zoning was orginally changed to "save" a neighborhood icon and historic site.

Our neighborhood association was told the Clinton's exterior will have panels that continually change color. I can hardly wait.

The driveway and garage feature is pretty bad. But given what infill is doing to parking, I don't blame the homeowner for wanting it.

And don't forget this one, about to go in at Division and 48th. Maybe not quite as bad as 26th, but still an eyesore.

I've got no connection to RR, but I like his projects, including this one. I'm not nostalgic about that part of Division Street. The dozen or so houses I've looked at in that area all had serious structural problems, were too hot in the summer, too cold in the winter, etc. The neighborhood residents are mostly great people, but that quality doesn't require living in an old Portland home. Anyway, at least Randy worked through the process of moving the old home. He's one of the good guys - a developer that makes concessions to the neighborhood, pays SDCs, and doesn't get the massive subsidies like WD.

He's one of the good guys - a developer that makes concessions to the neighborhood, pays SDCs, and doesn't get the massive
subsidies like WD.

God help us.

given what infill is doing to parking, I don't blame the homeowner for wanting it.

Yeah, I can't disagree with that. But it still looks bizarre to me.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong, and I wish Randy Rappaport well in having the Clinton turn out to be a success. But the traffic on Division is really getting to be a problem, and I just have a hard time not seeing an awful impact on this corner of our neighborhood. And with a new condo project going in across the street from Randy's...even the Plaid Pantry guy has called expressing his concern. And his delivery trucks already park on the sidewalks kids are supposed to walk on to get to school.

Randy asked for --and got-- a buy off from having to provide a delivery spot. And he bought his way out of providing bicycle parking for guests and visitors to the planned retail spaces. It just doesn't feel like a good fit, and Randy's tearing down the Carriage House, and ripping up the site while we had the project under appeal still feels like a poke in the eye.

I live in that area, and that project has been like watching a car crash in slo-mo. The developer was too cheap to hire a crane, so the erection has taken forever. In the meantime, we all pay due to the congestion the project causes.

When it is all done (the image is n "artist's rendering" we will have the glories of a huge modern eyesore in a neighborhood in which it fits in about as well as a rhino in a china shop.

Jack, take a look at the corner of SE 20th and the street just one block S of Hawthorne. A beutiful yellow house on a double lot. Until it was sold to a couple who I understand, the rumor is (all the usual disclaimers apply) perhaps, maybe kinda may have been slightly less than honest about their intentions, who promptly split the lot and built a Monstrosity next door. A house that truly looks as if it might not even pass muster in Beaverton. A gawdawfully ugly monstrosity. You'll know it when you see it.

The City That Works!

The dozen or so houses I've looked at in that area all had serious structural problems, were too hot in the summer, too cold in the winter...

these will be too, unless you crank up the heat or cooling. their energy efficiency is not that much better than a well-insulated 1910 house.

He's one of the good guys - a developer that makes concessions to the neighborhood, pays SDCs, and doesn't get the massive subsidies like WD.

ugh. Rappaport came here in 1993, and quickly began his career flipping houses. before long, he moved to doing dense infill, waxing poetic about Mondrian and whatever abstract concepts caught his fancy. his idea of thoughtful design is based on reading magazines and repeating the words "eco" and "green", not on any sort of community, local or "good guy" ethic.

here's what he said about the goal of the 26th & Division building:

"“I gave John [Holmes of Holst] keywords like randomness, glass, matching materials at vertical and horizontal plances. A piece of art: that’s what I wanted."

notice the absence of "keywords" involving concepts like sense of place, scale, neighborhood coherence, community...and so on.

i've read many quotes by this fellow, and heard him speak. he is, in the end, all about *his* vision for what Portland *should* be.

he is, in other words, about making icons and "pieces of art" to satisfy his ego and his pocketbook--the same as most (but not quite all) developers and architectural designers i've ever encountered.

I say enough with this newfangled modern architecture and high-density living. I'm moving to Phoenix!

JB and Eco, I see where you're coming from, but Portland developers come a lot worse than RR. The delivery access variance he got hurts me less than the millions in subsidies our city pays to larger developers for even more controversial projects.

Eco, I'd like to see your sense of place, scale, and community development. Seriously, that might work here. Nobody is stopping you from competing with guys like RR. Since you aren't looking to make a profit, you'll have a competitive advantage. Your vision of neighborhood coherence could spread like wildfire.

Eco, I'd like to see your sense of place, scale, and community development. Seriously, that might work here. Nobody is stopping you from competing with guys like RR. Since you aren't looking to make a profit, you'll have a competitive advantage. Your vision of neighborhood coherence could spread like wildfire.

it's not about "me" and not about "RR", either. the ethic of the self-serving "building as icon" has done more to trash communities, environments and the community concept than maybe any other force.

and, profit isn't a right or a virtue.

i think we need new standards of living--not based on what technology is capable of providing but, as Wendell Berry says, standards derived from “the nature of places and communities.”

and, we need new standards of design.
those standards must place human and ecological health first, always. not fads, not efficiency, not cost, but health.

you might notice that that doesn't fit well with the paradigm under which RR and others operate. it's going to be a tough change.

Eco, I like what you're saying. You're talking big change, though - more than saving old houses. Do you think there's any chance that in 100 years, people will make the same arguments about preserving the Belmont Lofts from being razed to build a more healthful development with the new design standards you're talking about? Wouldn't that be a strange twist?

Do you think there's any chance that in 100 years, people will make the same arguments about preserving the Belmont Lofts from being razed to build a more healthful development with the new design standards you're talking about?

doubtful, i think. the Belmont Lofts (and most modern buildings of its category) aren't built to last 100 years, unlike many older buildings. it's built with cheap materials and cheap processes. if that building's still there in 100 years, it'll have been rehabbed several times over.

many houses around it, however, will still be there, going strong at ~200 years old.

same goes for most single-family houses built these days--they're not built to last even half as long as the houses around the building in question.

most of all, aesthetics is only part of the picture, and its unfortunate we focus on that issue instead of the larger issue.

i should add i love design, both the old *and* the new. but i'm not a historic preservationist or a postmodern acolyte.

if i had to pick a label, i'm finding myself to be more of a "communitarian."