$384,000 in yearly taxes. Your reap what you sow.

Serves the crooked bastages right. When I first moved into town we checked that place out. They wanted $1800 for a crappy 2 bedroom. I reminded the agent that "this is Portland not the NYC area, good luck finding some chumps," and then we left.

Lets hope the poor chumps who actually rent there don't find themselves evicted once the bank takes back the property.

Did not pan out... what? they are at capacity or very near, in a neighborhood with great history. cultural mix of people and houses, many in the 500-600k area.

Have you noticed the economy??? Have you noticed the banking bull S...?

These are great buildings, excellent design and work well with the neighborhood and urban center just 20 blocks to the West.

Instead of being a whiny mr negative. Lets put-up some development you like???

Just for the record, I do not live in the area, but enjoy belmont very much.
Michael

Nevertheless, it's a really nice building, and a big improvement from the electrical contractor yard that previously occupied that space. At some price it will be a viable venture - but not at the ridiculous price the dumbass lender financed it for.

Um, it's, like, in bankruptcy?

It's totally out of character in that neighborhood. But hey, if you like Fake New York, go ahead down there and revel in the false glory.

Single-family homes are really cool.

$384,000 in yearly taxes...

I noticed that also. With 123 units, that's an average of about $3,000 per unit. And figure in another $200 in association dues, that totals $5,400 per year alone they'll have to service even before the bank gets involved.

Unless the developer is skipping the association dues. They can, you know.

Sorry, blew the link above. It's here, down under 100.530.

JB - You're right that this was a financial disaster for the developer and the banker. But it was a very big improvement to the neighborhood. You might prefer single-family housing for this locale - but it would have been a bunch of those ugly skinny houses that they usually cram into a property such as this, and for my taste that would not have been an improvement.

$2,275 for the larger corner apartments that boast 1,583 square feet.

That's 2x the mortgage payment on our 1600 sq ft house by Alberta arts that was built in 2005.

Frank -

Big improvement from the electrical contractor yard ---?

Tep, just what we need to be doing, drive those blue collar family wage jobs out of PDX...don't need those folks.. no how ..no way..e need creative 20 somethings...

Yeah, right.

If you're living in one of those apartments, at what point do you stop paying the rent?

I say immediately.

"Big improvement from the electrical contractor yard ---? Tep, just what we need to be doing, drive those blue collar family wage jobs out of PDX."

This was Tice Electric's former location. They moved to a bigger location on Swan Island. Last I checked, that was still in Portland.

$2,275 for the larger corner apartments that boast 1,583 square feet.

Wow....my rent for a similar sized 3br townhouse in Beaverton is $725.
People must have some serious money to throw away to pay that kind of rent.

"It's totally out of character in that neighborhood. But hey, if you like Fake New York, go ahead down there and revel in the false glory."

I'm not sure how it's "out of character" of a single-family neighborhood considering there's businesses and duplexes right next door to it.

It's too tall, too modern, too ugly. Completely out of context. So is the dopey thing some condo clown threw up at 20th and Morrison. It's a historic neighborhood, but guys like Homer Williams don't care about history -- they care only about their bank accounts.

It is a bit too tall, I don't disagree. That can block solar access to your neighbors. Though I do know of some nice apartment buildings (early 1900s) along Belmont that are the same height.

Architecturally speaking, it's a sin to design something from scratch that is not of its era. The building design does not look bad, imo, despite being modern.

Designing a brand new (not remodel) 1920s style bungalow home in 2010 is architecturally wrong -- unless it's actually in a truly preserved historic zone such as Ladd's.

There are exceptions to the "rules" of using old-style designs in contemporary times; like architectural revivalism that sometimes sweeps through cities (Greek/Roman revival architecture was very prominent in the US).

Brideport village, Villebois, Washington Square Mall renovation (ugh, The Cheescake factory and its "cracked" walls that are made to look like they're centuries old when it was actually built in 2005).

These are all fake movements that market people into some sort of "lifestyle" that is not real. Which makes sense considering Bridgeport Village is a "lifestyle center".

The Street of Dreams does this crap too, as their homes always have some sort of phony cultural setting, like a Japanese inspired home. An Asian inspired home in Portland is quite stupid, considering we don't live in Japan. Idiot developers and the suckers who think that crap is are clueless.

What I am getting at is this new development is as real as ever. It's not fake, despite your claims. London is a great example of blending new architecture with very old architecture into the same environment.

There are components that go into good design, and this building has some many of those components. It's modern, but it's not cold.

What's fake is the statement that Portlanders want, and need, more oversized and overpriced apartment complexes. If I wanted to live a New York or San Francisco lifestyle in a high-end bunker, I'd live in New York or San Francisco where I could make enough money to actually afford it.

Jack Bog:

I am not sure I understand what you mean about oversized apartment complexes? It's 5 stories high, and there are examples of similarly sized apartments along the same road. They are also amongst single-family homes, too.

What exactly is out of context regarding this building considering there are early 1900s buildings along the same road and placed in similar fashion as this.

Do you think the historic, brick apartment on the right of my link along Belmont is bad for the neighborhood?

One can walk in most Portland neighborhoods and see Victorian homes, next to apartment buildings, next to single-family homes. There's good and bad ways of mixing housing typologies in the same neighborhood, but I simply am not understanding where people like to draw the line, especially considering so many of these nice neighborhoods w/ mixed housing types were built before restrictive zoning and were built that way before people decided to move in.

The neighborhood surrounding the Belmont monstrosity was badly marred in the 1970s by Joe Weston, who tore down beautiful older homes and slapped up what essentially amounted to bad motels. Homer Williams would do the same, but fortunately for all of us, he has gone bust and is no longer telling us all how to live any more.

Jack Bog:

The link I provided of the 5-story brick apartment apartment was built in 1911. There was no destruction of an existing home. In fact, most of the apartments/commercial area along that street was built in the similar time period.

I feel as if I you evaded my question a bit by bringing up Weston. Is the picture of the 5 story apartment historic building an eyesore to the overall neighborhood?

You brought up the size of the new Belmont Apartment as an issue. I am just curious why this building (or other similar buildings) is not considered a "blight" -- in fact most people knew these types of apartment buildings were in Belmont and decided to move there anyways (they've been there since the early 1900s).

Yes, Joe Weston 1960s/1970s style architecture is disgusting. I agree.

My only suggestion for those who live in those apartments on the Morrison street side facing Lone Fir would be invest in curtains. I don't want to see your skinny ass at 8:00 in the morning when I am inbound on the #15.