the saddest part is--they're not even built to last.

I've seen the materials and the general plans--like most buildings of this type, in 50 years, it'll either be gone or have been essentially rebuilt twice.

the house it replaced, already twice that age, was built to last about 200 years--much more, with care.

with that in mind, you can see why I laugh heartily when I hear of another "green, sustainable, LEED-certified" condo box being built. there is, in fact, no such thing.

Either you want high density urban dwellings or you don't. I ask this with all sincerity, what do you consider acceptable looking HD building?

Something in Beaverton.

"Either you want high density urban dwellings or you don't"

Well, let's see Portland is growing about 1% a year in population, so in about 200 years, we'll need them. I guess my answer is don't.

The whole "a million new people will be here next week" bit is such a line of bunk. Portland ought to lay off half its planners and sell that dopey building it houses them in down by Portland State. Use the money for gang intervention and road maintenance.

But then where would the mayor park his boyfriends?

Something in Beaverton.

That is a good example of lateral density, but that would only be possible in established PDX if you razed entire communities. Portland needs vertical density.

Portland needs vertical density.

You're putting the rabbit into the hat. At 1% annual population growth and massive condo vacancies, Portland needs exactly zero density for the next 10 years. Zero. As in none.

"Portland needs vertical density."

Darn right it does. After throwing down how many million$$$ for light/commuter rail lines so we can look eco-cool, we have to suck people in to actually ride the damn things.

"Well dahling, we bought in Tanzanook."

Sounds prestigious doesn't it? Will you be summering in the Hamptons?

Simply judging by the zoning, the Portland Plan is to replace many a single family neighborhood with such things.

"Luckily" the 100 year old homes in my single family neighborhood are only zoned to be replaced with skinny houses and duplexes. Lucky me.

Jack

I was never saying PDX does or doesn't need more housing. The point I was making is that PDX has to build UP if they are going to do "rehab" projects, as opposed to the Beaverton type of high density that is built OUT.

Increased density should not proceed until the necessary amenities for that increased density are in place.

In my neighborhood, the city has repeatedly admitted that the neighborhood is "park-deficient". Sufficient park space to accomodate everyone within the neighborhood is absolutely necessary in order to maintain a decent community.

Ergo, if the city cannot provide additional park and recreational space WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE FOR PRESCHOOLERS AND FRAIL ELDERLY, then all building permits for additional housing units in that neighborhood should be REFUSED BY THE BUILDINGS BUREAU. A moratorium on greater density until such time as ALL the necessary amenities have been put into place.

Density is not enough to maintain community livability...that's what it is about isn't it? Livability? Sustainability? Then let's hold to our principles and stop this inadequate and poorly-planned expansion of housing units in the city....NOW!

Jane Jacobs was wrong.

And here's the elephant in the room about density and "smart growth":guess what happens when you keep growing and densifying?

I've seen the materials and the general plans--like most buildings of this type, in 50 years, it'll either be gone or have been essentially rebuilt twice.

The house it replaced, already twice that age, was built to last about 200 years--much more, with care.

With a few caveats, a wood frame house of that age COULD last 200 years if you:

1. Replace the pre-WWII concrete foundation so you can tie the wood frame to the foundation to keep it from coming off in an earthquake. Concrete of that age was of nearly uniformly poor quality, and retrofitting seismic ties to crummy concrete doesn't always work well.

2. Totally replace the electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems.

3. Replace all windows to reduce energy consumption. Thicken exterior walls to accept more insulation.

4. Replace roofing every 20-30 years. Replace wood siding every 40-50 years.

Of course by the time you do all those things, all you have left is the original house frame and interior wall finishes and casework. I remember hearing carpenters who worked into the 1960s say that the wood thrown away during construction of 1930s houses was better than the framing used in the 1970s houses.

Unless we're willing to cut down the few remaining old growth trees to get dimensional lumber of comparable quality, we have to use the engineered products. The newer framing products are way more predictable and useful than stuff from the 1970s-1990s.

I do agree that most of the interior finishes of the older homes are far superior quality, and using currently available wood products for weather exposed siding or roofing is a thing of the past, even for replacements on the older houses.

mp97303, yes there are ways to increase density within CoP that can accommodate the 1% growth per year that we've experienced in the past decade-but not in the ways exhibited by Tanzanook. Let's use Tanzanook as an example:

How is the existing neighborhood's scale respected by reducing sideyards to 3 ft, and sometimes less, from 5 ft to 10 ft? How can a tree or any vegetation exist in the solar holes created by narrow spaces?

How can a site that has allowable lot coverage increased by double allow for any other landscaping, rain water absorption. A concrete, muddy cistern doesn't not make a pleasant, sustainable, real, aesthetic environment such as a simple landscape bed or lawn.

How can the so-called auto courtyard 30 ft wide with total hard surfaces equate to a fraction of what was there before? Sure, it might be called semi-pervious, but where is the real porosity?

How can the height that is totally maxed out and not fitting into the existing fabric be appropriate? Same goes for the FAR, floor area ratio. How can a development like this not providing visitor parking on site, nor even adequate parking for it's own residents be respectful to its neighbors?

There's more, but what this all says is that the balance in our zoning code has become disrespectful to our neighborhoods, and has contorted what moderation in achieving some density from the norm should mean for our city.

"There's more, but what this all says is that the balance in our zoning code has become disrespectful to our neighborhoods..."

It's strange that our revered planning system is biased so heavily towards making projected future residents happy, instead of the people who are currently here electing officials and paying the planners.

I honestly feel like our city cares more about accommodating some hypothetical person who's going to move here ten years from now from across the country, than it cares about providing services to me, the family who's been living here paying for city services.

Why do we elect people and support a system that wants to double the density in most of our neighborhoods?

It would be much more efficient (and cheaper) to ship Samadams and his band of future density planners to San Francisco, Vancouver, B.C., or NYC instead of trying to replicate that environment here. Portland (including downtown and the Inner Eastside) isn't as land-restricted and we ought not to artificially create these extreme vertical and compact housing "alternatives" in established neighborhoods where they aren't wanted.

Why do we elect people and support a system that wants to double the density in most of our neighborhoods?

Usually, my snarky answer to this kind of question is simply "Money," but I'm afraid in the case before us today, it is "Religion."

How else do you explain people's blind adherence to a creed that is refuted by simple logic, over and over and over again ?

Higher Density = Lower Quality Of Life.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the major players profiting from the hideous townhomes that increasingly crowd our neighborhoods live in large houses on spacious lots, with plenty of sunlight for their gardens.

The planning religion is not too much different than most religions, you see. The sheep believe because they feel a deep seated psychological need to do so, while the shepherds follow an entirely different set of rules, and live a far different life than that which they preach.

what I find funny is the same faction that supports higher density housing usually bemoans the obesity epidemic in our youth...hello - you pack families into condos with no yards and parks blocks away (littered with street people - i.e. not suitable for unsupervised play) and you wonder why kids are fat???

get a clue...

I live in this block, in a cute little 1911 house I've spent lots maintaining and improving.

The place they tore down was a dump. The new building looks to be about the same size. There is a big park with a couple of play structures 2 blocks away. I'm not aware of street people in this part of the neighborhood -- I play in the park with my goddaughter without worry.

Density or sprawl -- I vote for density and the urban benefits it brings.

The place they tore down was a dump.

It could have been rehabbed.

Do you miss the setback? The grass? The shrubbery? The sunlight and breeze that you had access to when you walked by? Will you miss the parking when your guests come over?

I don't believe "Laura" is real. As Jack says, "it could have been rehabbed." And his satellite shot shows the footprint before, and I believe my photos (his original link) show that the condos now take up the entire lot. And there are plenty of street people here, but not sure why she mentioned that.

The whole "a million new people will be here next week" bit is such a line of bunk.

Amen.

The asterisk the planners forget to tell you about is that 1 million people will be in the Portland area next week. If it happens, they will move to Clackamas and Clark counties.

But wait, we now have enough children in the Pearl to build a school ...

Higher Density = Lower Quality Of Life.

For you, maybe. Not for everyone. This is a matter of personal taste, why do people act as though there is a "right" and "wrong" answer here? Some people actually LIKE increased density--and want to live in that kind of neighborhood. Why is that so hard to figure out?

“It could have been rehabbed.”
Which begs the question.
Where are all those rehabbers and why didn't they?

I sort of like "Tillazania" better, as a name for the place.

"Why do we elect people and support a system that wants to double the density in most of our neighborhoods?"

Because this shallow piece of nonsense.

"Density or sprawl -- I vote for density and the urban benefits it brings."

Which is supposed to justify the chaos we witness being touted as good planning.

The idea that all other choices between the extremes of our current density mandates and nothing but rule less expansion is as disingenuous as the idea this infill is some well thought out cohesive design.

It's all Nonsense.
Over and over again plans and projects follow no central design at all. It's just cram anything anywhere and pretend it's wise.
More often than not the larger the vision the worse it turns out.
The whole "TOD", "centers and corridors" concept is a miserable failure with zero signs of it being a desired trend at all.

But it appears reality does not amount to anything around here as long as loyal followers can whistle out the anti-sprawl song so we all know there's no other choice.

It's such BS.

The irrational obsession with costly rail transit and Metro's ludicrous track record with planning makes it all a fraud.

Just as Metro's own "green" is an illusion.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/02/audit_says_metro_falls_short_o.html

The agency wastes energy and water and doesn't even keep track of their work.

"The auditors had a hard time extracting information from Metro's financial system regarding electricity and natural gas use, fleet fuel and air travel, and had to contact suppliers and utilities directly"

Instead of walking the green talk Metro
"staff point to a number of green awards and goats instead of power mowers"

Oh boy.

This is so typical of the central planning regime.
They can produce any outcome at all and turn it over to their PR people on staff to craft it into the right message.

Then right on cue comes the anti sprawl tune from the faithfully duped.

Between the various municipalities, TriMet, Metro and their various Transportation and Urban Renewal schemes the pattern of failure is stunning.
From the local neighborhood's getting the random infill to the grand money pit schemes the only results that matter are the imaginary ones.

Density or sprawl -- I vote for density and the urban benefits it brings.

false choice. the alternative to "density" is not just "sprawl".

but by pretending that it's an either/or decision, policy makers get to force the issue.

isn't a black-and-white world nice?

Density or sprawl? How about you move to the Pearl District or the Round in Beaverton and let us, the unenlightened, stay in our nice one and two story bungalows?

The Round in Beaverton is a fine example of a mamouth TOD failure.

And how about the promised
"Ped/bike/transit mini-city" at Cascade Station?
Oops,, it's an auto-oriented BIG BOX strip mall on prime farmland.

Which is exactly what planners lectured would be prohibited with the $200 million Urban Renewal plan for Airport Way.

Nice outcome planners.
A real model to keep repeating across the region, as you are.

I always find it interesting that most of the people supporting density aren't actually living in a city such as San Francisco or New York. Practice what density lovers preach.

"The place they tore down was a dump."

"It could have been rehabbed."

A lot of these old homes look better on the outside than they do on the inside. Many have been cut up into apartments over the years, and have been renovated poorly, so they've already lost much of their historic value. It could easily cost $400K to fix up a place like that, and then all you have is something that looks like the old house from the outside. A true historic renovation would cost more than rebuilding from scratch. I like preserving historic homes as much as anyone, but I've seen lots of old homes that are not worth preserving.

A lot of these old homes look better on the outside than they do on the inside. Many have been cut up into apartments over the years, and have been renovated poorly, so they've already lost much of their historic value.

"rehabbed" doesn't have to mean "historic preservation". a building doesn't have to have "historic value" to be worth leaving.

this is another fundamental problem of planning: limiting language. we try express feelings of value by using odd terms like "historic value".

in other words, there's a lot more going on than "history".

"The place they tore down was a dump" or what some people call affordable housing. You know one mans ceiling is another mans floor.

Tom gets megapoints for the zinger. I'm going to start using that (with compliments to Paul Simon, of course).

Unless we're willing to cut down the few remaining old growth trees to get dimensional lumber of comparable quality, we have to use the engineered products. The newer framing products are way more predictable and useful than stuff from the 1970s-1990s.

I can point out several thousand examples proving otherwise. it's not that engineered beams and other products are inherently inferior--it's the overall build quality and *other* cheap materials.

and most of the wood used to frame that new building is not, in fact, engineered products. and those "pre-WWII" concrete foundations are far from all being "inferior" to today's.

no building is permanent. I get that. most people do. but there's rarely a builder out there who, when pressed, won't admit just how shoddy most construction is, and how the minimal standards used to meet codes and standards is shameful.

never mind the dizzying array of short-life, high-tech rubber and metal parts required to decorate the box these days.