Buckman: "Please destroy our neighborhood with cr-apartments"
A number of residents in the inner southeast neighborhood don't want a historic district. Guess they want block after block of five-story hipster bunkers with no parking.
"I guess I’m more interested in places being energy efficient and livable than I am in them looking exactly as they did a hundred years ago," said Evans.
Yeah, those century-old single-family homes have got to go. We've got Exceptional Apartments by André.
| Posted at 9:48 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (8)
"Exceptional Homes by Andre" still has its website offline. Jack (and the poster) scared him.
Posted by Nolo | February 7, 2013 11:32 AM
I'm friends with one of the people on the anti-historic district side of things, and while I agree that the apartment bunkers are a diaster, the problem with the historic district designation is the burden it places on homeowners--just to, say, replace a window requires a ton of review and different layers of bureaucratic approval, and ultimately the cost (if your request even gets approved) is something like 4x as much as someone in an identical house in a non-historic district. So really the burden should be on the city to come up with a process that maintains historic integrity of a neighborhood while not imposing undue burdens on the people who live there and who want to make sensible improvements to their home.
Posted by Dave J. | February 7, 2013 11:35 AM
Dave J., you recount a problem endimic in city and county government, the idea that you are to serve them instead of the other way around.
Posted by tankfixer | February 7, 2013 12:11 PM
A historic district would certainly prevent the construction of cr-apartments...but it would also make life a pain in the back-side for Buckman residents.
If City Architectural Director Val Ballestrem wants to preserve the integrity of these neighborhoods, he should start by lobbying City Council to impose mandatory design review for any project larger than 2 dwelling units per 1,000 sqft of land. That would stop Remmers and Friends dead in their tracks. The City should make a good-faith effort to make their money grab of $16,000 per cr-apartment unit constructed within these neighborhoods subject to historic and architectural standards before imposing these arcane rules on piss-ant homeowners first.
It may not matter, though, because the work of Remmers has already messed up these great neighborhoods and word on the street is that new apartments aren't renting nearly as fast as these developers had hoped. This is going to be a tough year to be an apartment developer with an outstanding construction loan.
Posted by PD | February 7, 2013 12:16 PM
No, no Jack, you don't understand. The young 'hipsters' want to change what they live in as often as they change their cell phone (taking in to account the size and monetary differences). Let's see, they change their cell phones ... every five months. We can build and tear down and rebuild every 5 years.
Yeah, what is coming up behind us (in generations) is sad, truly sad.
Posted by Native Oregonian | February 7, 2013 1:24 PM
Craptacular Crapartments by Christopher
Posted by reader | February 7, 2013 2:05 PM
Can I hear more about the new apartments not renting?
The anti-car crowd can't afford 1200.00 for a one bedroom.
Those who can afford 1200 a month start to think- hey I could get a starter home for around 200k .....
Too bad the developers had to take a neighborhood down with them.
Next bubble: commercial real estate.
Posted by Oregon Mamacita | February 7, 2013 2:15 PM
Those who can afford 1200 a month start to think- hey I could get a starter home for around 200k
OR, move out of the Metro, and find the same (or in many cases better) home for as low as $125K.
Salem has a lot of cheap housing - not too bad for commuting, especially if you work on the west or south side. So does Bend right now - if you can telecommute or have your own business. And there is always Vancouver.
Posted by Erik H. | February 8, 2013 7:28 AM