Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.

For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.

Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!

E-mail us here.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 19, 2010 11:19 AM. The previous post in this blog was Is Wheeler being set up?. The next post in this blog is Portland table scrap composting includes a no-bid deal. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.



Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
Willamette Week
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, April 19, 2010

Another Southeast Portland corner gets a huge bunker

I see that the wrecking of Portland continues apace, with the latest atrocity going in at SE 38th and Division. I guess the disaster at SE 38th and Belmont needed a cousin. Four stories of shinola -- 23 apartments -- and plenty of room for Starbucks, Subway, and a couple of permanent "for lease" signs.

Retail sales and services that are not walk-up oriented will thrive in this south-facing development that looks onto a City run community garden. This is the perfect tranquil atmosphere for businesses such as massage therapy professionals, a counseling office, a hair stylist, etc.
Oh yeah, nothing says "tranquil atmosphere" like the corner of 38th and Division.

Completely out of character with the neighborhood, way too tall, and with no parking provided for any of its 23 new hipster tenants, I'm sure this is going to be a big plus for the lucky neighborhood. Go by streetcar!

Comments (50)

Yeah, this is a terrible, terrible idea.

"with no parking provided for any of its 23 new hipster tenants"

We really need a ballot measure to end this practice.

I could see this if it were closer in or within close proximity to that streetcar garbage that CoP crams down our throats, but on 38th and Division? What? Why on earth would anyone want to live there, especially with no parking? I'd like to meet the lenders on this project. What are they smoking?

We really need a ballot measure to end this practice.

Like that would matter. They would find a way around it and do whatever they want anyhow.

Funny enough, if the City of Portland would just walk ten blocks to the east, they would find (not kidding) hair stylists, massage therapists and counseling offices.

But there isn't a streetcar there, so they probably didn't make it that far.

And everyone is really going to want to spend quality time on those micro balconies overlooking the fumes and noise of the cars on the road!
What a disaster!

The traffic zoning thing here (and not just Portland) is absurd. When a place like Target builds a new location, they have to have a near infinite supply of parking spots, able to accommodate nearly everyone on the busiest day of the year. Yet here we have a place that is able to build 23 apartments with absolutely no parking, even though most of those apartments WILL have one, if not two, cars. I know the "car free" lifestyle thing is great, but the reality is that even most hard core cyclists own a car for long distance driving and hauling large items. I can't believe this sort of fantasy is allowed to continue.

"Yet here we have a place that is able to build 23 apartments with absolutely no parking, even though most of those apartments WILL have one, if not two, cars."

Hey, that's the neighbors' problem.

Making it "the neighbor's problem" is the Portland way...even in smaller, more tranquil areas Porltand allows this. Look at Alberta, theres been some new construction recently: a warehouse conversion to retail and live/work on 14th (which is actually very well done and 100% occupied), and a very cool 20,000 square foot office/retail development on 18th -- all this new to the neighborhood without a single additional parking space. If this keeps up, all of Portland will look like the Hawthorne district -- lots to do, but very clogged side streets full of homeowners that give you the stink-eye as you look for a place to park. Not fun.

"A local company that will last, with a long-term vision of 20 to 30 years and a commitment to making a positive, lasting impact on the future for all stakeholders."

Yep, the no parking is a gift that will just keep on giving!

How about some solutions to the parking issue?

Is putting up a huge and ugly surface parking lot a solution to the issue?

This is across the street from the proposed new apartments:,+or&sll=45.505027,-122.619029&sspn=0.000686,0.001742&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=3810+SE+Division+St,+Portland,+Multnomah,+Oregon+97202&ll=45.504956,-122.623858&spn=0.001372,0.003484&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=45.504786,-122.62454&panoid=R1jNfYCHqjo7CttamfiEFQ&cbp=12,8.83,,0,0.98

Going underground is very expensive, not to mention providing simple surface parking lots increases the cost of the units. Land consumption = cost and taxes, and parking spaces provide nothing in terms of rentable space for a developer to maximize their investment, to which gets passed off to the renter.

I can understand the issue with the homeowners, but the homeowners do not own the on-street parking. That's public right of way, though I can see their point of having a bunch of cars coming and going on their street which is a nuisance. I champion a developer to choose how much parking they want with their private property, but I understand neighbors' concerns.

In a perfect world:

1) A renter would have to agree not to use an automobile every day if they bought one of these apartments.

2) A developer would have to pay their surrounding neighbors a modest "impact fee" for externalized parking problems on their neighborhoods.

Or the zoning code could change back to when above ground parking did not count against the FAR (floor area) allowed. I think most neighbors would be ok with a larger building with on-site parking than a smaller one with no parking.

I think 38th and division would be a fine location. Better than living in Beaverton. Even without the parking. I agree that most people will have a car, but it seems like it would be a good place for someone that didn't have a car. Cross town bus on 39th. Division bus within a block. And Powell and Hawthorne not that far away. I'm not too wigged out about this one. And I'm not a bike rider, city employee, or in the real estate industry. I kind of like neighborhoods where there all all kinds of buildings, not just ones that "fit". Is the Belmont project empty?

Or you could just insist that the building be a lot smaller. But of course, the developer weasels would make a lot less money, and that's what Portland is all about any more.

Is the Belmont project empty?

There are still some empty units. And they had to resort to all kinds of giveaways to fill the rest of it. I'm sure a lot of money was lost.

ws, I understand your logic to some extent, but when a developer turns a 7,500 square foot lot into 23 apartments and ground floor retail with no parking, they're doing this KNOWING that they are going to place a burden on their neighbors...and not just a small burden -- probably at least 40 cars on any given day. Simply put, they're doing this because they can; they're trying to maximize the NOI of the project to make underwriting possible; neighborhood be damned. If UD+P were a group of smart developers that actually viewed themselves as "stakeholders" in the neighborhood as they proclaim, perhaps they'd jettison at least some of the ground floor retail and provide some parking under the structure...but that just wouldn't pencil, would it?

Look at their "Merge" project on 31st and Division...Not a bad redevelopment effort, but c'mon...8,000 square feet of ground floor retail and 13 apartment units with NINE parking spaces...? Yea, these guys really care about the neighborhood.

Portland is full of commercially-zoned property along busy hipster streets, and any monkey can build or redevelop a building with no parking; it actually makes the financial equation possible...the finesse, however, is to also minimize the impact on surroundings -- even if that eats into your rentable area.

UD+P needs to go back to the Bay Area....

"Better than living in Beaverton"

That statement pretty much says it all, which isn't saying much about this new project.

Maybe I missed something, where does it say that there is no parking? I realize the 4-5 architect drawings don't show any, but those tend to be less than realistic when the creator feels like some detail detracts from their vision.

WS: "not to mention providing simple surface parking lots increases the cost of the units."

That's the developer's problem.

WS: "but the homeowners do not own the on-street parking."

But the apartment dweller a block away does own it? Because when they park there and don't move their car for three or four days, it's like they own it.

I live in one of those bunkers in inner SE. I like it. Never thought Id be able to go back to living in an apt bldg with common halls after living in a house for 16 years, but the transition was very easy.

As far as the location of the subject in this article, why not? Inner SE is a very desirable area to live. Beats Beaverton and all the parking issues with NW.

And property values are holding up much better than many other areas... You can walk, bike or take the bus or drive.. lots of options in SE if you want to live a more green lifestyle. Restaurants everywhere and grocery store choices galore... And Hawthorne shops are just a few short blocks away.

This are below 39th between Stark and Powell used to be kind of rough, but my decision to move to the Sunnyside neighborhood was one of the best Ive made.

Don't knock it till youve tried it..

I am glad I don't own a home on Clinton St. in that general area any more. Parking was bad enough back then. This stuff is going to make it a lot worse.

As for Beaverton, property taxes are cheaper and parking tends to be plentiful. Bash it all you want but so far the developer weasels have less in roads in the Tron.

where does it say that there is no parking? I realize the 4-5 architect drawings don't show any

Of course the weasels' come-on doesn't mention that painful fact. I got it from the neighbors, who are aghast.

:"You can walk, bike or take the bus or drive.. lots of options in SE if you want to live a more green lifestyle..."

This is the problem with Portland developers like UD+P. They think that chanting phrases such as these gets them a free pass to build whatever they want...The reality is that people stiil have cars and use them. I'm sure there is a population of walkers/bikers/trimet users that don't own a vehicle, but to think you'll rent 23 units to only those people is just delusional, and what about the retail space? Why not put at lease .5 spaces per unit just to accommodate the occasional vehicle owner?

It's a good thing UD+P is providing space for "counseling offices", because those neighbors will sure need it.

comment earlier by ws: . . .
Going underground is very expensive, not to mention providing simple surface parking lots increases the cost of the units. . .

The project should pencil out with some parking, and going underground would be good, make developers be responsible. If it doesn't pencil out, then the project shouldn't be allowed to be built. Since when has the code allowed these units without any parking?

Codes are constantly being changed to accommodate developments and even if in place are "ignored" via adjustments or mitigation. Portland was noted for good planning many years ago, those planners must be ill to think of what has happened, what next? Not just one or two houses torn down or moved but an entire street at a time?

Not good, to come home after an evening out with friends only to be frustrated driving around and around trying to capture a parking space. . . and late at night, light rail or waiting for bus - service cut or eliminated. A ride dressed to go to the symphony in the rain on bikes will do.

I see no way of any of this being mitigated for the surrounding neighbors. We can visualize what the streets will look like. unduly crowded. There again, if the city wants to "call something mitigation" I guess that will do the trick. Feel sorry for the neighborhood.

Be a NIMBY, if you don't fight for your neighborhood livability, who will?

I'm getting close to retirement so I'm looking forward to someday having a smaller space, within walking distance to groceries, banks, restaurants, etc.. And no yard to mow! This part of SE is good for that. Beaverton isn't even an option for that kind of lifestyle. Also - that building doesn't look like any bunker I've ever seen. Density is obviously going to increase in SE over the next several decades. I'm not convinced that's a bad thing.

That's great, Gary. It's all about you. Screw your new neighbors and the neighborhood they thought they were living in. You can park your Prius in front of their houses, where the shadow of your butt-ugly building has killed their flowers.

Gary, I can see this sort of building somewhere closer in -- perhaps along a streetcar line in the Central Eastside now that it is there, but 23 units and ground floor retail with no parking? Really...You'd retire on 39th and Division? Really? Without a car?

That area isn't bad, and Clinton is great, but the Division corridor doesn't get too exciting until you get down the 30th or so. This project is too close to 39th to be "pedestrian" as you suggest, but there is that Rite Aid on 39th and Division where you can fill your prescriptions, I guess. And what grocery stores are withing walking distance?

There is no such street as 39th. You mean César E. Chávez Boulevard, don't you? Another gift to the neighborhood from City Hall.

Okay, the lack of resident parking is bad enough. I wonder, though, has anybody considered the even larger parking footprint for visitors? I've lived in places like this, where there was barely one parking space for every other tenant. We're talking about the joys of trying to get out to buy groceries or do anything else late night, and discovering that the space has been taken when you get back by one of the partying idiots on the fourth floor. Yeah, the one that's shaking the entire building from the noise, and where you have to take an axe to the stereo so you can ask the considerate fellow to move his car, as tenants aren't allowed to call towing companies.

Or, and I had this happen to me once, where a trip to the hospital is delayed because some pothead figured that parking alongside the resident spaces was okay because "they aren't going for the night." Thankfully, I was able to get the dolt in question to move, but it's kinda hard to keep your objectivity in check when your wife has a severe infection and you're looking at four hours in the ER. Let's see Sam Adams chirp "go by streetcar" then.

All I can say is that this condo project better have major league air intake scrubbers in front of its HVAC. Division is a parking lot from 9th to 52nd for several hours during the evening rush every day. The air pollution from all those idling vehicles is majorly nasty, especially with all that unshaded pavement to help cook it good.

Jack, your comment about the shadow of the building should not be overlooked either. The height limit on that site is 45 feet.

With four stories, UD+P is at the height limit with that project. What kind of development company "with the goal of creating attractive, useful, long-lasting buildings that will add value to a neighborhood and improve the experience of living and working there" (from their site) would maximize height but still provide no parking? What a joke.

I'm not a fan of Portland's "design review process" that encumbers many development sites because It's just another example of how CoP gets too involved in the process.

This site doesn't require "design review", which essentially robs the neighbors of their involvement in the process, which (in this case) is unfortunate because the developer is pushing the envelope in every possible direction which will result in negative impact for the surrounding residents.

UD+P likes to spout off how all their team members are SE Portland residents...not of the Clinton neighborhood appearantly.

Everyone talks about the impact on local residents, but what about businesses? That hardware store on 37th will probably see business dry up once its customer base starts to realize that they'll spend ten minutes looking for a parking space to buy a couple nails and a paintbrush.

The uber-conspiracy theorist in me also thinks this dovetails with Sam's long-range plan to install/impose pay parking in most commercial districts, like he tried to do with Hawthorne a few years back. It works like this: build condo buildings w/ no parking, sending the condo dwellers into the neighborhood and onto the surface streets. Local businesses complain that residents are taking up all their parking. Et voila! We must install meters to ensure that residents don't hog important parking for local businesses!

I think people in Portland struggle with change more than people in many other cities. Can we really expect our neighborhoods to stay the same when so many more people want to live here each year. I was born in SE Portland but I don't expect it to stay the same. It seems like a lot of people who have come here over the last few decades have the most trouble with these types of things.

I already live in another great walkable neighborhood in SE so I probably won't move to the Division area but I would never expect my flowers to dictate whether or not a project like this could be built. I would consider that too short sighted and selfish.

I remember hearing about many of the negative traffic impacts of some of the transit-oriented developments in the Hillsboro area (e.g. Orenco). One problem with lots of apartments is that they tend to have more then the typical 1-2 veh. per household because they're more often occupied by college students or just multiple roommates, often each with their own vehicle. So not only do you have many more households packed into a small area, but each household will often have more vehicles making more separate trips (where as a typical family w/ children might consolidate their trips more). Assuming those apartments fill up, the traffic impacts on that stretch of Division will likely be horrendous. Maybe worse still with Trimet cutting bus service to that area.

PD: I don't think it's that far up to Hawthorne and Fred Meyers, etc. This is definitely walkable in my book. If not, its definitely a short bus ride.

ws, you and I both know that design review is not and should not be about land use decisions...but in certain cases it is the only venue at which the public can voice concerns about such an albatross being constructed in their neighborhood.

I clearly stated that I'm not a fan of the design review process. We can agree on that. However, in this case, my feeling is that UD+P is using the absence of a design review hearing to cram this building down the throats of the neighbors. This building would never survive the public design review process because the neighborhood would have a hearing to show up to -- even if out of context -- to kick and scream and go on record as voicing their very legitimate concerns.

I don't think all developers are weasels (sorry, Jack), but Urban Development Partners seems to be spanking the neighborhood pretty hard with this one; it's a bad project.

Gary, I'll look for you walking somewhere along those twelve blocks between Hawthorne Fred Meyer and Divison on 39th (sorry, Cesar E. Chavez)carrying a bag of groceries and a jug of milk inhaling exhaust fumes.

But since you're retired, you can make multiple trips if you need to.

It seems curious to me that the two salient threads of comments on this post lament the impact of the project on car users and the effect of exhaust on air quality. A reconciliation of these would be interesting. I predict that residences without off street parking will either sell or not, and the market will have the ultimate say on that issue.

In a perfect world:

1) A renter would have to agree not to use an automobile every day if they bought one of these apartments.

2) A developer would have to pay their surrounding neighbors a modest "impact fee" for externalized parking problems on their neighborhoods.

1)Really! And where the F does the renter park the damn car when he/she isn't using it? This is about parking, not driving!

2)I suggest an immodest fee, one that when summed up over the life of the project, pencils out to prompt the garage in the first place.

"It seems curious to me that the two salient threads of comments on this post lament the impact of the project on car users and the effect of exhaust on air quality."

Huh? If this project gets built, car users are inevitable, and we're lamenting the impact by those car users, so I don't understand your point.

Gary comments: I think people in Portland struggle with change more than people in many other cities. Can we really expect our neighborhoods to stay the same when so many more people want to live here each year. . . . .

Perhaps the reason people in Portland struggle with change more than in many other cities is because we have had to deal with more negative change. There has been an agenda pushed here and it isn't to the liking of many.

Lets just say, not opposed to change, but do not want to be shortchanged.

Change for the better - Yes. Change so others can line their pockets at the expense of our quality of life - No.

You mentioned flowers, how about having to grow food, is that short sighted and selfish?

The economy, how many more will really come to this city? I hear people talking about not being able to afford to stay here. Why should neighborhoods be degraded because others might come?

As for this project, how many vacancy's are there now in our city?

The "millions are coming" line is total b.s. The City of Portland's population has been growing a just a little over 1 percent a year for many years.

Throngs of people are coming to Portland's suburbs, perhaps, but not to Portland.

Fred Meyer is a lovely 10 minute walk from Division. Caesar "East" Chavez is horrible - but you don't have to walk down it. 4 stories is too tall. I could live with the condo cars, but I do wish the Richmond OHSU people would quit parking on my street. They have a HUGE lot! I guess it's just prettier??

PD, you must be horribly out of shape to think that the ten Portland-size blocks between Division and Hawthorne are a hard walk. It's a one-mile round trip. And unlike the suburbs, there is a wide variety of routes available for people in SE Portland. Why, instead of walking up Chavez, you can walk up 38th, instead. Or 37th. Avoid traffic and Latino names all at the same time!

If you've got several bags of groceries, you can do what a lot of people in SE do which is to stick them in carriers on your bike. Or use one of them there fold-up grocery carriers the old ladies in the neighborhood are always carrying their produce home in.

Then again, if an old lady can walk better than you can, that's probably not an option.

That said, I don't see how the city can manage to let this project go through without parking for the tenants at the very least. It would be a travesty to expect the neighborhood to absorb even a portion of the complex dwellers' vehicles on-street.

Thanks for your input darrel. I'll try to make more of a habit of riding my bike to the store and packing all my groceries in my carrier...especially in the rain. Thanks.

The problem is that you like like many Portlanders seem to think that this type of development can be justified because of ill-conceived ideas like the "20-minute neighborhood" and "walkscores". Meanwhile, neighbors adjacent to these developments end up paying the price when it turns out the people like Gary actually figure out that they do need a car after all.

I have news for you. People that drive to the store because they need to fill more than just a "fold-up grocery carrier" aren't always "horribly out of shape"; that's another self ritcheous Portland myth.

Those developers...they just keep "selling the sizzle" but when the product is delivered, it's nothing but rendered fat.

The whole discussion of the parking impact of building new commercial and residential structures to facilitate "higher density" points to other impositions upon public services.

Like public parking spaces which WILL be adversely affected in the area near to the completed project, public park space near the completed project (as well as others like it) will have greater intensity of usage, and greater demands placed upon it in terms of maintenance. And, where are the public park spaces to this project? No where near, because it is smack in the center of a "Parks Deficient" neighborhood.

Again...When these kinds of increases in density are allowed by the local taxing district, then we should expect increased investments in public services in the surrounding area. Projects like this would come with the requirement of providing additional public recreational space within a quarter mile of the completed project...commensurate with the increase of residents and guests.

Make the developers carry the externality burdens they are sloughing off onto the general public. Make them pay their own freight.

Here's an idea for all you "walkable neighborhood" folks: Move to New York or San Francisco and you can enjoy as much of that "experience" as you like. And just remember if you change your mind, you will pay dearly to own a car there.

Your comments ring so true.
The neighborhoods lose because the city is more interested in assisting the developers and developments here. They really don't care about most neighborhoods. Livability for people in the neighborhoods is way down on their list if on the list at all. If it were on the list, this project would not be allowed.

Thanks for your input darrel. I'll try to make more of a habit of riding my bike to the store and packing all my groceries in my carrier...especially in the rain

The little old ladies make it just fine without melting and they don't even ride bikes. If you're that afraid of the rain then you're in the wrong part of the country.

Here's an idea for all you "walkable neighborhood" folks: Move to New York or San Francisco and you can enjoy as much of that "experience" as you like.

Why move? Inner SE Portland has been walkable for a century, ever since the first developments went in before most people had cars. The houses on my block were almost all built before 1910.

"Why move? Inner SE Portland has been walkable for a century, ever since the first developments went in before most people had cars. The houses on my block were almost all built before 1910".

It isn't 1910 anymore, and most of us have cars -- even if only guilt-reducing Priuses or dumb little Smart cars, people tend to park them somewhere which is what this entire discussion is about. It is simply impractical to perpetuate this mythical lifestyle of a "walkable neighborhood" when neighbors will inevitably have to live with the realities when tenants of these new high density developments find out that the area is just not as "walkable" as they thought.


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

Lange, Pinot Gris 2015
Kiona, Lemberger 2014
Willamette Valley, Pinot Gris 2015
Aix, Rosé de Provence 2016
Marchigüe, Cabernet 2013
Inazío Irruzola, Getariako Txakolina Rosé 2015
Maso Canali, Pinot Grigio 2015
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Kirkland, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2016
Cantele, Salice Salentino Reserva 2013
Whispering Angel, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2013
Avissi, Prosecco
Cleto Charli, Lambrusco di Sorbara Secco, Vecchia Modena
Pique Poul, Rosé 2016
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Rosé 2016
Stoller, Pinot Noir Rosé 2016
Chehalem, Inox Chardonnay 2015
The Four Graces, Pinot Gris 2015
Gascón, Colosal Red 2013
Cardwell Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
L'Ecole No. 41, Merlot 2013
Della Terra, Anonymus
Willamette Valley, Dijon Clone Chardonnay 2013
Wraith, Cabernet, Eidolon Estate 2012
Januik, Red 2015
Tomassi, Valpolicella, Rafaél, 2014
Sharecropper's Pinot Noir 2013
Helix, Pomatia Red Blend 2013
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2013
Locations, Spanish Red Wine
Locations, Argentinian Red Wine
La Antigua Clásico, Rioja 2011
Shatter, Grenache, Maury 2012
Argyle, Vintage Brut 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16 Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2014
Benton Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
Primarius, Pinot Gris 2015
Januik, Merlot 2013
Napa Cellars, Cabernet 2013
J. Bookwalter, Protagonist 2012
LAN, Rioja Edicion Limitada 2011
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2009
Denada Cellars, Cabernet, Maipo Valley 2014
Marchigüe, Cabernet, Colchagua Valley 2013
Oberon, Cabernet 2014
Hedges, Red Mountain 2012
Balboa, Rose of Grenache 2015
Ontañón, Rioja Reserva 2015
Three Horse Ranch, Pinot Gris 2014
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
Nelms Road, Merlot 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris 2014
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2012
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2013
Villa Maria, Sauvignon Blanc 2015
G3, Cabernet 2013
Chateau Smith, Cabernet, Washington State 2014
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16
Willamette Valley, Rose of Pinot Noir, Whole Clusters 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Ca' del Baio Barbaresco Valgrande 2012
Goodfellow, Reserve Pinot Gris, Clover 2014
Lugana, San Benedetto 2014
Wente, Cabernet, Charles Wetmore 2011
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
King Estate, Pinot Gris 2015
Adelsheim, Pinot Gris 2015
Trader Joe's, Pinot Gris, Willamette Valley 2015
La Vite Lucente, Toscana Red 2013
St. Francis, Cabernet, Sonoma 2013
Kendall-Jackson, Pinot Noir, California 2013
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2013
Erath, Pinot Noir, Estate Selection 2012
Abbot's Table, Columbia Valley 2014
Intrinsic, Cabernet 2014
Oyster Bay, Pinot Noir 2010
Occhipinti, SP68 Bianco 2014
Layer Cake, Shiraz 2013
Desert Wind, Ruah 2011
WillaKenzie, Pinot Gris 2014
Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2013
Des Amis, Rose 2014
Dunham, Trautina 2012
RoxyAnn, Claret 2012
Del Ri, Claret 2012
Stoppa, Emilia, Red 2004
Primarius, Pinot Noir 2013
Domaines Bunan, Bandol Rose 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Deer Creek, Pinot Gris 2015
Beaulieu, Rutherford Cabernet 2013
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
King Estate, Pinot Gris, Backbone 2014
Oberon, Napa Cabernet 2013
Apaltagua, Envero Carmenere Gran Reserva 2013
Chateau des Arnauds, Cuvee des Capucins 2012
Nine Hats, Red 2013
Benziger, Cabernet, Sonoma 2012
Roxy Ann, Claret 2012
Januik, Merlot 2012
Conundrum, White 2013
St. Francis, Sonoma Cabernet 2012

The Occasional Book

Phil Stanford - Rose City Vice
Kenneth R. Feinberg - What is Life Worth?
Kent Haruf - Our Souls at Night
Peter Carey - True History of the Kelly Gang
Suzanne Collins - The Hunger Games
Amy Stewart - Girl Waits With Gun
Philip Roth - The Plot Against America
Norm Macdonald - Based on a True Story
Christopher Buckley - Boomsday
Ryan Holiday - The Obstacle is the Way
Ruth Sepetys - Between Shades of Gray
Richard Adams - Watership Down
Claire Vaye Watkins - Gold Fame Citrus
Markus Zusak - I am the Messenger
Anthony Doerr - All the Light We Cannot See
James Joyce - Dubliners
Cheryl Strayed - Torch
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Saul Bellow - Mister Sammler's Planet
Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria Dermoȗt - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 113
At this date last year: 155
Total run in 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269

Clicky Web Analytics