bikeportland is lobbying for racks out front.

Where the Subway is on the south side of B-side or are they going to take out some of those lovely old mixed-use houses on the north side? Let me guess...

Parking over there is already pretty miserable. This should just about kill off Music Millennium.

The Laurelhurst movie theater already uses most of the neighborhood parking. I love that theater (and the prices! and the pizza!), but if 50 more cars move in, I won't be going there any more.

Remember Music Millennium has off street parking, that tiny, tiny driveway behind the building. Funny but in all the years I've gone there (going back to around 73') I've always managed to find a spot back there.

Depends on when you go -- I've never had much luck there.

Parking? We don't need no stinking parking!

The so-called Carbon Footprint is looking a lot like the Carbon Jackboot to your throat.

I'm sure the response from the developer is the standard response: we're pitching the project towards people who don't own cars, and who bike and/or use transit. Well, great. Good for you. And I'd be more sympathetic to this approach if the city actually required that the developer follow up in a year or two (or immediately) to see how many of the people who actually do buy one of the units have a car. Because I guarantee you that it is more than 75% of the units that in fact do own one car, if not two. 50 units will mean at least 50 new nightly parking spots in the neighborhood (more if those people are sociable and ever have friends over) that are required.

These are the Arbor Custom Homes guys that are putting up schlock / garbage apartments everywhere. Years from now, they will be known for the high density, cheaply built slum-houses that can be found in what were some of Portland's nice neighborhoods.

Here's their business model: Over pay for land by knocking down two $400k homes on adjacent 5,000 sq ft lots and build the crappiest apartments possible. Repeat.

I also just became aware of a similar situation in North Portland. There is currently a plan for a 5-story, 65-unit apartment building adjacent to Overlook Park and Kaiser off of Interstate Ave. The building is slated to fill the two lots at 3707 & 3711 N Overlook Blvd which are currently occupied by two homes that were recently sold to the developer. The plan is to demo the two homes and build another apartment bunker that will not include any on-site parking. Although the yellow line is just a stones throw away, parking can already be difficult due to people who park in the neighborhood and ride the max to downtown and constant sporting leagues that utilize the park.

With the many vacant lots down Interstate Ave you would think it would be more green and appropriate to build at these sights rather than to demolish two perfectly good houses.

Two new apartment buildings in NW and SW downtown will also be going up without any parking at all, except for bicycles. From what I can tell, this was apparently OK with the city because they've already cleared several hurdles. I'd like to know two things: First, how can such a situation exist and a building still be in compliance with accommodations for the disabled who probably won't be biking and might need a vehicle with a larger-than-average parking space to get around? Second, has ANYONE challenged this hairbrained development policy and have they been able to get anywhere with the challenge?

You had a chance to vote on it, actually. It was called the mayor's race. Sorry, but you lost.

Neighbors, be sure to thank your beloved City of Portland and "Smart Planning."

Remember that it isn't your livability, it's the next guy's that counts.

My conspiracy theory, incidentally, is that this is part of the long-term agenda to install parking meters (and, subsequently, to require parking permits) in residential areas. It goes like this:

Step 1: max out free parking by building high density buildings with no parking

Step 2: install parking meters and cite business complaints that people are parking all day long and depriving them of customers

Step 3: require neighbors with on-street only parking to buy a parking permit to park in front of their own house.

It satisfies the "smart growth" crowd, and builds revenue through meters and permitted parking.

Missoula never looked so good.

"The so-called Carbon Footprint is looking a lot like the Carbon Jackboot to your throat."

When Jeffy wins the mayoral race the jackboots will be applied to your nuts.....

I agree with Jack, "you had a chance to vote on it". For me it's "I told you so".

In the past 20 years to now we've had so many opportunities to understand the meaning of Density by Planners. Neighborhood associations and many others bought into the so called "common good" without realizing the details. Many of us tried to fill in the details in the Planning tricks employed in Neighborhood Plans, Urban Renewal, up-zonings, Title 33 revisions. You name it. Many times we were laughed at, said we're using hyperbole and misinterpretation. It's come home to roost.

Now what do we do? Invest the same amount of time-years probably-as that used to get us here to better define how much and how to fine tune Density. Parking and the FAR/scale would be the first things to attack.

As long as the City of Portland earns $15,000 in fees per dwelling unit at the permit counter, they have no incentive to stop the construction of Crapartments brought to you by Wally Remmers and the like.

Jack, please take note: the term for Arbor's projects (and similar) shall be known from here forward as "Crapartments"...cheesy stick-framed, dinky, Hardi-sided, vinyl-windowed, high density crap with no parking that sucks the life out of everything around it...

Neighborhood Associations?
Over 90 in our city, as far as I know, there are a few who object to plans, but I would expect an uprising to the downward spiral of our neighborhoods. In my view, something is wrong. Is it that they still buy into that their neighborhoods have to be sacrificed for the "common good?"

It is doubtful the developer (Remmers) will have a no car requirement policy for renters? So lets see, bike racks for this new tenement slum, but no off street parking with 30 to 50 more cars continually parked on the street thereby reducing economic vitality for area small businesses and making the nearby single family homes significantly less livable. And then too if there is a request and the City Council grants a ten year tax abatement, the rest of us along with the schools will also be paying the price. I guess this is what Bicycleboy Sammy calls “for the common good”.

Tenement Slumtown units are springing up all over the Eastside:

N Interstate & Sumner – 46 units
N Williams & Beech – 22 units
N Mississippi & Failing – 25 units
NE Freemont & 44th – 56 units
NE Sandy & 41st – 47 units
NE Tillamook & 41st – 47 units
NE 30th & Burnside – 50 units
SE Division & 37th – 81 units
SE Division & 33rd – 31 units
SE Hawthorne & 30th – 50 units
Plus some additional projects on SE Division between 31st & 43 with 12 to 29 units each. There is one planned near Milwaukie Avenue in the West Moreland business node.

For the autocrat politicians that control Portland, its full steam ahead implementing social engineering programs that create more debt at the expense of the 99.percent, with both the short and long term effects being an overall decline of the quality of life. These types of tenement buildings are allowed in various types of zoning near frequent transit routes. They are cheaper for the slum lords to construct. One possible way to reverse course long term is to have mass citizen input testimony at the PEG meetings on residential for the updating of Portland’s comp plan.

"You had a chance to vote on it" sounds like someone thinks I didn't . . . or voted for the jackass we have in office . . . or didn't sign the recall petition (I did). Yep, I lost but not for lack of trying to avoid the train wreck.

I wonder how many people today regret not signing that recall petition.
How bad do things have to get around here before people get engaged?
Perhaps some areas have been beaten down, they have just given up.
This is a good mode of operation to push agendas to be continually bombarding us with problems and so many meetings that heads spin.
Those who get paid and/or benefit, and then those who like the scene and can keep up with the agenda attend. Those who do attend and disagree and try to intervene with "unwanted questions or information" can easily get marginalized.