There's one over there with a rusted metal facade on the Division side. It looks like they made it out of the hull of the New Carissa.

I trust you are referencing the abomination on Division @ SE 26th, rather than at Clinton.

I like the Clinton but that is beside the point. GP built what they were given. If a developer & architect designed a building and hired them they build what the plans say. Without them it will be someone else (Anderson, Hoffman, Seabold, Walsh, Howard S. Wright, Deacon, R&H, Robinson, Yorke & Curtis, Lorentz Bruun, Todd, Lease Crutcher, etc., etc., etc.) if people ever start buying them for big $ again.

I've got that old Schadenfreude feeling. I see you do, too.

Well, then, John, I guess they just got a lesson about the people they associate with, then, huh?

If a project looks like it will piss lots of people off AND not market well to anyone with any sense, then perhaps they'd better not take on 'developing' them. Don't you think? (Evidently he doesn't.)

Lets put the blame where it belongs:

Metro. City Council

Metro decided that the region should grow by increasing density, instead of land area. This is the result. The city council is gung-ho to fall in line.

If you don't like this garbage, vote against Metro's forced density and that means vote against the urban growth boundary, vote for property rights so that people can choose to live in regional places OTHER than cramming themselves into our neighborhoods (as current policy demands.)

Start with Sam. Then every other city hack that advocates high density or its stealth partners: light rail, streetcars, compact cites, complete neighborhoods, downtown urban renewal. It is all B.S. to keep the downtown land owners rich.

Too bad these politicians care more about some crack pot theory of urban form than they do about our quality of life. They have given us more traffic congestion, overpriced public transit, un-maintained streets (while feeding millions of road money to transit & bikes) and unaffordable housing.

They all need to be replaced at the city, Metro and State. Unfortunately the Republicans are too concerned with our bedrooms to notice things that really hurt people.

Thanks
JK

Note that the "bankruptcy" link indicates that Mike Purcell filed personal bankruptcy after loaning the company $2 million. It appears that was necessary to pay his subcontractors and suppliers after the developer stopped paying the company.

Well, personally, I think Metro makes more sense than the counties and, if we were to do away with any level of government, counties would be my choice to have their functions shifted to other governmental levels.

If you replace the ones you have now, you'll just have another set of jerks. The problem is to get whatever set of jerks you have to make sensible decisions. (By the way, in my book, this disqualifies you, Jim, as you look ready to pave the whole stinkin' metro area with asphalt or concrete).

Lets put the blame where it belongs:

No. let's all take responsibility for our own actions.

In this case, Metro didn't build the building--Purcell and the team did.

saying that government agencies are responsible for development is like saying the City Hall men's room is responsible for Sam Adam's behavior in it.

saying "if we didn't build it, somebody else would have" is one of the most cowardly and childish excuses I've ever heard for adult behavior.

So let me get this right - if others are offended at the appearance of my property, I need to "take responsibility for it". How so - by burning it to the ground? Taking my own life?

Are you saying there should be diversity in the populace of the city, but no diversity in the appearance of a given area of the city? Should everyone live in little bungalows that appear the same?

When you take out one of the more picturesque properties in the commercial corridor and replace it with a piece of **** like that thing on the corner of SE 26th & Division, you shouldn't commit suicide, you should be tried, convicted and hanged.

If that thing were levelled, it would improve that corner immensely. So, if it's yours, then, please, proceed to burn it down. I'm sure that an appreciative crowd would gather from the surrounding neighborhood....and I'll be amongst them, clapping loudly and whistling my approval.

And...I do think that diversity in appearance is nice....if it's aesthetically pleasing.

As for aesthetically pleasing and that property at 26th & Division? FAIL. Squared.

you should be tried, convicted and hanged...

Anxiously awaiting your views on private property ownership...

So let me get this right - if others are offended at the appearance of my property, I need to "take responsibility for it".

no. I didn't say "take responsibility for the feelings of others." I said "take responsibility for our own actions." in other words--the decision to build and the building.

Are you saying there should be diversity in the populace of the city, but no diversity in the appearance of a given area of the city? Should everyone live in little bungalows that appear the same?

let me quote Frank Lloyd Wright here: "Every building is a moral statement."

does that make sense? or are you looking for a reason to be snarky?

Every building is a moral statement.

Although I don't really care for the appearance of the said building either, consider this potential view of a potential occupant of the building:

"Gee, I can live close in to my work, not own a car, and make a really tiny eco-footprint on this good Earth if I live here."

That person might consider that to be a moral statement as well.

That person might consider that to be a moral statement as well.

they might, but what does that have to do with taking responsibility for one's own actions?

It's about visual aesthetics and not standing out like a sore thumb mostly.

Lots of communities have anti-McMansion ordinances regulating the size of homes and situation on the lot.

The newer multi-family buildings in Portland are the McMansions of condos. Most of them are placed flush with the sidewalk even when adjacent buildings are set back. And they don't have any style. None. Most of them don't incoporate any of the local architectural features which would help them fit in visually.

They're just big, ugly boxes, like the newer homes in Forest Park.

I meant Forest Heights.

JK,

Why do you hate density again? I don't see how this harms your property rights. If you owned a farm outside the urban growth boundary and wanted to sell it to a developer to turn it into suburban tract housing, then I guess I could see your point. Otherwise, unless you're arguing against all forms of zoning, it's more a question of what encumbrances you want on your property rights, not whether or not there will be any encumbrances. But if you want to live in a libertarian wonderland without zoning go for it. Just don't be annoyed if a Exxon buys all the land around your house and decides to build an oil refinery.

Now that you mention it, the building does look like a series of Wright's "Usonian" houses stacked upon one another.

make a really tiny eco-footprint

How many raw materials were used to make this "tiny" eco-footprint? If that's really a concern, perhaps potential buyers should consider buying an existing small home.

the one truth that nobody wants to acknowledge--even me--is this:

Cities are not and have never been sustainable. They can't be.

It's such a dissonant, jarring idea that even to hear it makes people angry and confused and dismissive.

For a city to exist today requires an ever-expanding area of resources to consume--water, raw materials, food, goods. A denser city isn't more sustainable--it's just more a more concentrated consumer of those resources.

large cities around the world--New York, Sao Paolo, London, Beijing--are at the limit. power outages, 24-hour a day traffic james. massive housing shortages. massive job and infrastructure problems. worldwide *water* shortages.

and water's a finite resource. you can make more people, but you can't make more water.

anon,
There's a gargantuan distance between our Metro zoning and none. Trying to cast our only choices as what we got or nothing is smelly crap.
There's at least 49 other versions that are likely preferable.
None of which allows a refinery next to a neighborhood.

But then you're just echoing an anti-M37 canard.

This condo is at SE 26th and Division a block over from the Clinton Street shop/neighborhood gathering spots. I've been wondering how this new development was doing because they have like a restaurant in the first level. There's been a flood of new upscale restaurants in this area, and so when I go by this new condo restaurant, it is mostly empty with maybe one or two customers. Maybe this is one of the last "easy money" developments. Then again it looks like the politicians in DC and Oregon think the solution lies in doubling down with more newly printed money.

As for Metro, it's a bureaucrats dream job where actual productive action is let out only in drips and drabs. The big pay checks keep coming and you just use the same playbook of bureaucratic quaqmire maneuvers you have used on countless other occasions.

Serves the condo-bunker builders right, methinks. That thing is uglier than sin. That can be said for most of the "smart" growth garbage that has gone in in the area in the past 15 years.

As far as land use goes, Metro needs to go away. It is basically just functioning as a means for downtown "densitists" to imperialistically impose their dominion over Washington and Clackamas County.

There are many studies that demonstrate that density like NY, London, Hong Kong,etc. consumes more energy/resources than lower profile/dense cities.

Even in the 30's thru 1950's when means of collecting data were not sophisticated, there was reasoned thought that recognized the deficiencies of density. It is one reason that concepts like "Garden Cities" promoted by Wright and Le Corbusier's urban concepts had credence.

There needs to be more balance than what Metro, CoP are demonstrating by destroying some of our inner city neighborhoods with doubling(or more) density and no respect to the existing scale.

Aw, cut Metro some slack. Several of their minions including Metro Council President Bragdon were involved in important business at the Oregon Zoo today, taking advantage of an awesome photo op with Portland's version of Puxatawny Phil, a female hedgehog named "Chriki" whose weather predicting capabilities are admittedly abyssmal.

Bragdon enjoyed a couple of minutes of air time talking about the hedgehog on this evening's news. The Council President has "overseen the hedgehog festivities at the Oregon Zoo" for several years now in his official capacity.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2032-Portland-FamilyFriendly-Events-Examiner~y2009m2d2-Move-Over-Punxsutawney-PhilChriki-the-Hedgehog-is-at-the-Oregon-Zoo

The Clinton is on property zoned CM with an "m" overlay

That's not quite the whole story. The CM zoning was originally granted specifically to allow the Clay Rabbit to exist in what was residentially zoned property. There were requirements, however, that were never met, and the property was assesed for all those years as strictly residential by the County. (Maybe we can get Willamette Week to look at what happens with assessed valuations some day, instead of, well...yeah, I know, sex sells.)

The property was bought on the cheap, and it gutted a historic farmhouse property...in fact, the last of them on Division. What squats there now leaves rust stains on the pavement...

There are many studies that demonstrate that density like NY, London, Hong Kong,etc. consumes more energy/resources than lower profile/dense cities.

@ Lee: Got any links to those "many studies?"

Granted it's probably pretty easy to show that Des Moines consumes less energy/resources than Chicago and Vancouver, WA less than Portland, but per capita? I await enlightenment.

George Anonymuncule Seldes Granted it's probably pretty easy to show that Des Moines consumes less energy/resources than Chicago and Vancouver, WA less than Portland, but per capita? I await enlightenment.
JK: Why don’t you show us evidence countering his claim that There are many studies that demonstrate that density like NY, London, Hong Kong, etc. consumes more energy/resources than lower profile/dense cities.

I can show you evidence that high density costs more, is more polluted and travel times to work are longer. Also mass transit costs more than driving and uses more energy per passenger-mile. In fact, much of what the planners tell us is simply wrong! See PortlandFacts.com

Thanks
JK

JK: I thought someone who stated that there are many studies showing X might be able to provide some pointers to those studies purporting to show X. As for providing evidence to counter his claim, absent some substantiation -- links to the studies cited -- there's nothing to counter, just a hollow assertion.

Ben,

My argument was in response to JK whining about property rights. Property rights can only exist in the context of a broader regulatory regime, so of course the question is what regulatory regime should we have, rather than just growsing bout the guv'ment tak'n way my rights.

Regarding the complaints about Metro / UGB, I still don't understand what the beef with increased density is, other than Jack and some others find certain multifamily dwellings unattractive.

Jack and some others find certain multifamily dwellings unattractive.

Cute.

JK: I think you should give a lot more emphasis to the abiotic oil link on your site. It really captures the spirit of the whole thing perfectly.

George Anonymuncule Seldes JK: I thought someone who stated that there are many studies showing X might be able to provide some pointers to those studies purporting to show X. As for providing evidence to counter his claim, absent some substantiation -- links to the studies cited -- there's nothing to counter, just a hollow assertion.

JK: Nothing to counter? How about countering his key point:
density like NY, London, Hong Kong, etc. consumes more energy/resources than lower profile/dense cities.
That should be easy: it is frequently claimed that high density saves energy. Why not show us that this is correct? (We already know that other claims about high density are easily proven false. Examples include high density reduces congestion, high density reduces commute times and high density lowers cost.)

Thanks
JK

So how much do those condos cost? Now big are they? Have they all sold?

I have no trouble with people building condos (I'm not interested in being the design police) but my guess is the units' individual sizes (small) and price (large) do nothing to advance Portland's vaunted livability.

I'm always amused by the fact that the city and developers think MOST people would pay the same premium prices outside of downtown and the Pearl for a few hundred square feet and (maybe) a balcony of outdoor space.

If I'm going to pay that kind of money in a neighborhood, I'm gonna buy a house with a small yard where my kids can play.

Yes, I know condos used to sell like hotcakes. Not so much anymore.

JK: I doubt that I would be able to prove anything to the satisfaction of someone who puts abiotic oil in the category of "facts." As I've said to "Billy," I don't debate with creationists, astrologers, climate change deniers, or abiotic oil theorists -- they're all the same.

The city continues to operate under the flawed assumption that merely locating condos and other dense infill projects within a stone's throw of a bus line means that the residents will shun their cars and magically hop on the bus, MAX or the streetcar. This proximity to mass transit is constantly used to justify otherwise inappropriate projects and provide rewards to developers. Yet where, in urbanized Portland, is a developable property NOT within the dictated distance of a bus line? OK, maybe some places in Lake Oswego and the SW hills but folks living there are probably going to drive anyway.

The result is that, rather than less traffic there is more. More vehicles parked on the street, more wailing for parking garages (because developers are not required to provide adequate parking for tenants if the project is near a transit line), etc.

I am not against sensible infill projects but there is so much wrong with the process as it stands. Infill often abruptly displaces the low income without compensating them in any way for relocation (unless the project is a condo - easily to get around, especially with almost no market for condos now), can be undertaken without providing adequate parking, taking it away from the existing residences and businesses in the neighborhood, and in the case of a hearing, the City is only obligated to notify property owners within a certain number of feet of any projects impacting a neighborhood. Which means that even if you have a stake in the neighborhood as a renting or leasing tenant of 40 years - EVEN IF YOU LIVE ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION - what you have to say matters not at all.

Which is nothing new.

George Anonymuncule Seldes JK: I doubt that I would be able to prove anything to the satisfaction of someone who puts abiotic oil in the category of "facts."
JK: You should sharpen your reading skills. That link is under “other stuff”. There is no implication of it being correct, just that a it is getting some level of interest. In any case you left out peak oil from your list of nutty beliefs.

George Anonymuncule Seldes As I've said to "Billy," I don't debate with creationists, astrologers, climate change deniers, or abiotic oil theorists -- they're all the same.
JK: Good to see you finally admit to having NO FACTS behind your rhetoric (and a closed mind.)
How come you didn’t win the $500,000 prize for proving that man causes global warming?
See: ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
Do you deny natural variations as the cause of warming?
Do you deny that no one has proved that CO2 can cause dangerous warming?
Do you deny that CO2 causes, at most, 30% of any warming effects.
Do you deny that man’s CO2 is less than 5% of the total CO2 emissions?
Do you deny that Al Gore’s temperature and CO2 curves prove that CO2 FOLLOWS temperature.
Do you deny that the famous “hockey stick” temperature curve has been proven false?
(note to the casual reader: the last five of the above”Do you” statements are provably true and the first is most likely true.)

Thanks
JK