I have friends who rent an condo-turned-apartment in that area. They moved here last fall from Arizona. They are astonished at the number of homeless that dwell on the streets and under the bushes in that area that cause trouble at night. There is police activity every night, but the disturbances never decrease. It is endlessly upsetting for them. They regret moving there and are angry that they were not warned by the property managers. They can't afford to move elsewhere at this time so they're stuck. Not too much havoc during the day when they signed the lease, but when the sun goes down, the creeps come out at night.

I wonder what the earlier buyers think of the depressed value of their units?

As much as transit oriented development has a negative meaning to many, this development captures the anti TOD reality: car dependency,no stores or services in walking distance, no transit, no commons ( parks, schools,playgrounds,libraries,etc).

You couldn't pay me to live there.

Does anyone know where the Coalition For A Livable Future stands on these kind of developments or other important issues that will affect our future?

Were they in favor of the SoWhat as well? It just seems to me that a positive future use of this Waterfront land would have been the greenspace provided for the public use. Were there advocates for the future that the waterfront be retained as a greenway at that time? I heard others commenting here about a type of Greenway Dist/regulations in that SoWhat area that were not paid attention to and certainly height restrictions that were ignored.

Does this Coalition For A Livable Future approve of the loss of quality of life that is happening within our city? I do not understand the mission of this group.
I believe they are still around. I would like to know what they stand for, and am asking simply because I have had an interest in any actions that will have an impact on our future. Are they a group with this name, but somehow a different group than what I would envision with such a name?

I don't get buying such a unit because to me, it's no different than renting an apartment in a multiplex. Except renting is actually better because you don't have to deal with a home owner association, which is kind of like having a more intimate relationship with a portland cityhall like body. Selling a used condo is usually not very rewarding either. At $165k to $300+k you'd be better off buying a single house detached somewhere else in Portland or just across the bridge in Clark County. Or else, just rent until you can afford a single detached house.

These overpriced boxes were also advertised in this week's Wall Street Journal. Wonder if the ads will entice a few New Yorker's with no clue about the Portland condo market..

I haven't toured this condo development, but it seems likely that every unit has a view of the Columbia River. That's something you won't typically find in the sub $300k single family residence.

That said, I wouldn't drive in the Katz/Adams bottleneck on I-5 North unless you gave me a driver and a limo.

Coalition for a Livable Future? Good question. What do they do? Do they get CoP money like almost every other activist group enjoys? Hayden Island seems to be forgotten except by the good people at Audubon Society. Given the imminent coal impact where is Physicians for Social Responsibility and their anti-coal progam? Or Oregon Environmental Council? Probably rubbing elbows with City Hall.

Polka King,
If the CoP gives money to any activist group, perhaps would only give to those who go along with their agenda and won't stand in their way.

Still can't get over the silence on so many dire issues within our city from these groups. Glad that the Audubon Society came to speak out to save the West Hayden Island treasure.

clinamen, as I've posted before, not one present environmental group belonging to the Coalition testified in any hearings on SoWhat on the disregard to heights, use of a waterfront in a flood plain, seismic fault, traffic, etc. Mike Houck, then with the Portland Audubon Society, did speak at some hearings about having a wider Greenway than 25 ft. from top of bank. CTLH (South Portland) Neighborhood Assn. had meetings with the Coalition to address the height/density/traffic and above environmental issues, but they refused to speak out because they represented so many diverse groups and they advocated SoWhat density and heights because it saved the environment. They also wanted to be a "team player" with CoP because in many ways their bread is buttered by CoP.

Lee: . . not one present environmental group belonging to the Coalition testified in any hearings on SoWhat on the disregard to heights, use of a waterfront in a flood plain, seismic fault, traffic, etc. .

Thank you for the information.
Your mention - use of waterfront in a flood plain - just saw an announcement by the city of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability on FEMA Flood Map Update Project: Update Maps and Titles 24 (Building regulations) and 33 (Planning and Zoning)

Under Background: . . . When communities adopt flood-control regulations that apply within the areas mapped by FEMA, people in those areas are eligible to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) The regulations limit the kinds of development allowed in the areas likely to flood, and specify building regulations that limit damage when there is a flood. . .
FEMA has updated the maps for parts of Portland. The changes to the maps are primarily because of better information. FEMA was able to map contours and potential flood areas using recent and more accurate technology called LIDAR. . .

A copy of the report, The FEMA flood Map Update Project:Proposed Draft will be available the week of Oct. 4th. You can pick up a copy at 1900 SW 4th Ave. 7th fl.
or call 503 823-7700 to have a copy mailed to you. . and on website: PortlandOnline.com/bps/femaupdate.

This may be something for others who want to know more about this to look into.

I saw this and wondered again why the SoWhat Development was ever built there - in a flood plain? Would it have been allowed to be built there with the updates?

clinamen, the feds did have reservations about SoWhat in the flood plain in the planning process, but CoP even held sway over those conversations. That is why the south/central area of SoWhat has been raised on average over six ft. in elevation at the cost of Portland taxpayers.

The north portion including Schnitzer/OHSU/Zidell properties are to be raised even higher since it is slightly lower than the south. The second reason for increased heights to 14 ft. is to accommodate the Milwaukie Light Rail (very questionable that it will be funded now). MLR needs the 14 ft height to decrease the approach grade to the proposed MLR Bridge. Again, the Portland taxpayers will be paying for the fill to the benefit of the property owners.

The feds have become more vocal about the flood plain/environmental issues concerning the proposed Greenway Path/Bank enhancements costing over $40 Million. These concerns have held up the project, besides that there is no money for the project. SoWhat is broke and doesn't have the sources for the project.

The ongoing boondoggle: Malarky Light Rail©2010