There won't be any more building any time soon. The latest numbers of PDX real estate show that inventory is now at 19 months - an extremely high number:

http://www.rmlsweb.com/temp%2Fdocuments%2F1500-1699%20Market%20Action%20and%20Statistics%20Menu%2F1501%20Market%20Action%20-%20January%202009%2FPortland%20Market%20Action.pdf

People are just starting to realize how bad things are going to get.

Unfortunately, Tanzamook is about three stories tall in all its boxy glory:
http://globalgreenie.org/?p=27

It will be hard to stifle my laughs when they don't sell. And they won't.

As you clearly pointed out before, it's all about the underlying zoning (9-20 unit multi-family), not the present land usage. And this hasn't changed. Local real estate will stay down a while - a year, two years, pick a number - but the idiotic zoning lasts forever. Unless changed, a future owner could still apply for the same out-of-proportion monstrosity on this corner as before.

As you clearly pointed out before, it's all about the underlying zoning (9-20 unit multi-family)

no, not really. zoning's a tool that developers and the powerful modify and "interpret" all the time, often with government help.

in other words, some zoning's better than none, but in the end, it rarely stops monied interests determined to succeed. in other other words--zoning's a speed bump, not a roadblock, to the powerful and connected.

take South Waterfront, for example.

"Now if only someone can come forward and spruce up what's there, leaving the grass, the trees, and the sky" ... framing a few 3-meter-blade wind generators, parceling electricity around the micro-grid neighborhood.

Neighborhood overlay zones and rules are the only things that seem able to save neighborhoods from these monstrosities that are not of the style or size of the rest of the area. If the location happens to be just outside an overlay area, anything goes.

I wish that it were not possible for developers to exchange or buy the FAR rights of other areas or their environmental points.

Each project should be judged on its neighborhood placement alone. And any goodies given for being near a bus line or rules that say that developers need not provide adequate parking if that is the case should also be struck down. Parking, traffic pattern and appropriate size and design of the structure should always be taken into consideration. As it is, everything is weighted on the side of the developer and if the building comes in within the height allowances for the site (or can trade for greater height or ask for a variance . . . which is nearly always granted) there is little the neighbors can do.

Ecohuman: I was speaking only of the inability of the present zoning to place any further restrictions on what's already allowed, not the abuse that goes on behind closed doors and without public involvement to upzone a parcel. Try to do the former, and you'll hear the word "takings" uttered so fast that your head will spin. When the latter happens, they're strangely silent - after all, who wants to step forward and be required to compensate the public for the loss of neighborhood liveability?

Why are their property taxes so low? This is rental property, correct?

I have a 1,900 square foot house in SW Portland (purchased in 1995, brand new) and my taxes are nearly 25% higher than what they're paying at 1510 Hancock for three times the square footage (5,880 square feet).

Why didn't the taxes reset when the developer bought it?

Why didn't the taxes reset when the developer bought it?

Measure 5.

Don't get too het up.

Announced recently that some dimwit is intent upon building a four-story structure with 23 apartments and ground-floor retail at 38th & Division. NO PARKING.

Not only will they create demand for automotive parking in the peak realm of 70 cars daily, they'll actually destroy the existing off-street parking to move the current main house around on the lot and 'save' it.

Word on the street is that there is no city barrier to proceeding, other than getting a variance for a street-side courtyard.

I'm just ticked that in a city which pushes the acceptance of higher density living does absolutely nothing to alleviate the already dysfunctional lack of recreational and open space in the neighborhood. In a neighborhood like Richmond, there should be a moratorium on building additional living units in the neighborhood without providing more and improved park space. I think they should bring the per household park space in the neighborhood should match that of those in the southwest part of the city...s**t, almost ANY other part of the city.

I'm just ticked that in a city which pushes the acceptance of higher density living does absolutely nothing to alleviate the already dysfunctional lack of recreational and open space in the neighborhood.
JK: The simplistic goal is high density. Nothing else matters.

Gridlocked streets are OK.
Unaffordable housing is OK.
Higher pollution is OK.
No parks are OK (we even sell them off)
No green spaces is OK.
Destroying neighborhood character is OK

Only higher density matters - it is the only goal. (high density is defined as more livable.)

This is what Metro did not tell us when we signed on to build UP not out.

Thanks
JK

JK, when did "we" sign on to build UP?
I don't recall any vote.

Sure, Metro might have sent out some glossy colored mailers asking how high you want to go in one particular neighborhood, and not even asking the question, "you want it to stay like it is?". Then about 159 people responded, maybe.

I think you meant 'the developer has thrown in the trowel.'