The Kerby onramps--an eyesore that's the only remaining remnant of the proposed Prescott/Rose City freeway--ought to be demolished anyway.

It might not be a priority project--demolishing things costs money, after all--but there's no good transportation reason (other than inertia) for a stub freeway to exist in this place.

Will the units be completely sealed from surrounding air?

Reuters reported nearly two years ago:

"Middle-aged and older adults who live near high-traffic roads may have a heightened risk of dying from heart disease -- but the odds seem to go down if they move to a less-traveled neighborhood, a new study finds.

The findings do not prove that traffic pollution is the reason for the excess heart disease deaths, researchers say. But they do add to evidence tying vehicle-produced pollutants to the risk of dying from heart problems."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/15/us-traffic-deaths-idUSTRE66E4GT20100715

More than five years ago, ScienceDaily reported:

"According to a study that will appear in the February 17 [2007] issue of The Lancet and now available online, researchers at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California (USC) found that children who lived within 500 meters of a freeway, or approximately a third of a mile, since age 10 had substantial deficits in lung function by the age of 18 years, compared to children living at least 1500 meters, or approximately one mile, away.

'Someone suffering a pollution-related deficit in lung function as a child will probably have less than healthy lungs all of his or her life,' says lead author W. James Gauderman, Ph.D., associate professor of preventive medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of USC. 'And poor lung function in later adult life is known to be a major risk factor for respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.'"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070125185843.htm

Will the air in any residential structure built upon the site be entirely re-circulated after an initial fill of pristine gases and topped off periodically to make up for leakage?

Since Mr. O'Leary reads Jack's blog, we can let him know that it should be "distance" instead of "distant" where it says in his solicitation that the lot is "Walking Distant To Emanuel Hospital." Also interesting that he chose to highlight the hospital as a key neighborhood amenity instead of, say, the planned New Seasons. Then again, being right next to a freeway off-ramp with zooming cars and air pollution, a nearby hospital is a good thing to know about.

Thanks for the reminder,EngineerScotty. Acting from memory, I misidentified freeway names and locations in an earlier post. Here's a map from a WW article on cancelled freeway:

http://www.wweek.com/photos/3118/map.jpg

The 2005 article is here:

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-4212-highway_to_hell.html

Please, please, please, don't even talk kiddingly about removing that exit! Earl the Pearl and Sustainable Susan will take it out and send its many users down to the living hell known as the Rose Quarter interchange.

I was curious about what constituted an, "amenity bonus overlay" and the more one looks the more confusing it gets. It smells like it's related to whatever allows developers to skimp on parking spots because their new development is "near" to public transit. Who knows how many of these exceptions falls under the rubric of potential "amenity bonus" options?

There's a instance of "amenity bonus" use cited in a document applying to a Title 33 study on density, trees and Ladd's Addition. Here's the language:

"Development proposals that preserve more than the required number of percentage of trees on the site may use the amenity bonus option. Density bonus is 5% for each tree preserved in addition to those required to be preserved on the site. Each tree counted toward the bonus must be documented in an arborist report that the following are met:

"a) be at least 12" in diameter,
"b) Not be dead, dying or dangerous, and;
"c) Not be on the Nuisance Plants List."

Judging by the aerial view of this property, it's unlikely to quality for the "Amenity Bonus Option" in regards to 12" diameter tree trunks so it must be the transit proximity or other option . . .

To clarify: I'm not suggesting that the access from the Fremont Bridge be closed completely. I'm suggesting instead that the stub-freeway be removed, and be brought to grade (and intersected with N Kerby) where Kerby makes the bend.

It might even be possible to reconnect with the streets to the north, if the neighborhood doesn't mind.

But rest assured--closing the Fremont Bridge access completely is not what I suggest.

Amenity Bonus Option involves cash money in an envelope left on a city hall desk.

Sounds like FAR; first you set standards for an area, then you institute something that allows developers to circumvent the guidelines and to be rewarded at the same time for things that they should be doing as a matter of routine to enhance a property.

Sheesh.

"Scam City" in a pretty green bow.

Re: "I'm suggesting instead that the stub-freeway be removed, and be brought to grade (and intersected with N Kerby) where Kerby makes the bend."

EngineerScotty,

Would construction on the indicated site preclude the rectification you have in mind?

Would construction on the indicated site preclude the rectification you have in mind?

I'm not sure why it would; as the parcel in question wouldn't be affected by this. (Ignoring potential temporary construction impacts, but that's generally not an issue).

Doing this would free up a bunch of additional valuable land just north of Emanuel. Who should develop it and/or what should go there is an issue I'll punt on.

I have been reading this fine blog since it had a mere 17,000 hits. I can say with confidence that despite much evidence that lurkers abound, it is a rare day indeed when one who lurks or who is perhaps advised by a lurker, voluntarily outs him or herself.

A developer would build more than one story high (zoning allows up to 45 feet) just like other housing, so saying 680 square feet per unit is not accurate. Unless you mean lot area per unit? Also need to consider space for required 20% landscaped area, parking if they wanted, etc.