Why does Portland even have planners? Just post a notice that the developers can do whatever they want, and let them get to work. Why spend the money on a planning department that does nothing to protect livable neighborhoods?

On the other hand, I don't see why bad infill in Irvington is any worse than bad infill in, say, Park Rose. Those of us living in outer NE would like livable neighborhoods also.

This is what you get when the UGB drives up land values - density becomes economical, so they tear down the old stuff and build crap.

This is all in the overall plan and the key is the UGB, so if you want to keep the UGB, you get this.

Simple economics: Land shortage = higher prices. Higher prices = build denser. Here is what one metro-commissioned report said:

• The primary reason for underbuilding in urban areas is the lack of financial feasibility. There is little evidence to support the conclusion that the high densities required in Urban Centers, in the absence of public assistance, are profitable under current market conditions, and that developers and property owners are either unaware that they could make more money by building denser, or prohibited from doing so by physical or policy constraints.
• Land values are good indicators of when density becomes profitable. If land values stay low, density does not work financially. If the public sector wants the private sector to build more densely it must do something to affect demand and supply conditions so that land prices increase,1 or it must subsidize development cost so that there is profit to developing more density before the market would otherwise provide it.
• Zoning is still ahead of the market. Market conditions and public policy have not made land scarce enough, have not made central locations superior enough in terms of transportation or amenity, and
have not seen demand great enough to cause land values to rise fast enough in Urban Centers that rents can be demanded that make high density profitable without public assistance (e.g.,land assembly, fee
waivers,tax abatement).
• The fact that zoning is ahead of the market is not a condemnation of public policy. Planning is looking ahead to encourage the metropolitan area to be a metropolis it is not quite ready to be. Getting lower than planned densities should be expected.

Above is from metrourbancentersreport.pdf, page 8 (http://www.portlanddocs.com/metrodocs/metrourbancentersreport.pdf)

Lets all hear it for preserving Goldschmidt wineries and Rod Park’s nurseries by calling it “valuable farmland.”

Thanks
JK

It's all about needlessly overcrowding all of our communities without any real plans to address the detriments this causes. There's no plans for the rat race chaos with traffic. Only a perpetual pretense that toy trains will someday make it all better.
Transportation planning has become senseless transit/ped/bike advocating.
Land use planning has become high density advocacy without any recognition of it's problems.
Affordable housing has become yet another government program to be funded and an entitlement for those getting subsidized housing.

All for a green and sustainable fantasy.

Heard about this project a couple of weeks ago and drove by, that house by outward appearance isn't in that bad of shape. The proposal is out of scale to everything that is around it,there's an old garden apartment building nearby, but this new thing will be massive.

I'm usually pretty laissez faire about these things, but man I'd hate to wake up to that across the street from me.

No one required that house to be torn down but the zoning code for that lot is what Portland planners call "medium density residential". Under this zoning the MINIUMUM density for that lot is 5 units. The codes says "the minimum density standards ensure that the service capacity is not wasted and that the City's housing goals are met."

So, if a developer wants to build there and has to do at least 5 units, what kind of big setbacks and "breathing room" can he do there?

It is the planning an zoning you don't like, not the developer trying to make a living (many are not making it these days).

The garden apartment across the street is quite lovely because it's from the same time period as the surrounding structures. If the developer were willing to use a plan based on the look of the garden apartment, I'd have no problem with 10 sets of new neighbors.

The other structure Jack posted above from street view is a blight compared to the lovely house that got moved off of that lot. I remember when they had a line drawing of the five townhomes on the sign before they started building. They even referred to it as a Victorian-looking structure. Then it got built and it's a crappy box made of siding.

Finally, has the developer noticed that condos aren't selling in this neighborhood?

Note that in the conceptual picture, he's made the big tree in the foreground look like it's going to now appear behind the new building. It will actually be cut down.

Ah, but all this density helps combat suburban sprawl, so that we don't need a bigger Interstate Bridge but can get by on three lanes each way plus a rail track or two.

If the City changed its zoning to allow the developer to put up 20 units on this site, instead of requiring a measly five, and did the same for the rest of northeast Portland, we could probably cut the new Interstate Bridge down to a two-laner.

Look, blaming the developers is misplaced. They are going to build what they are allowed to build that will make them the biggest profit. They're in business to make money. Why is that so hard to understand?

Voters in Multnomah County have been electing the people who are making the rape of our neighborhoods possible for 2 decades. They send them to Congress, to the Legislature, to Metro, to the County Commission, and to the City Council. Until you all wake up and realize that you've done it to yourselves, it's hard to have much sympathy.

What Alan said.

Isaac Laquedem : Ah, but all this density helps combat suburban sprawl, so that we don't need a bigger Interstate Bridge but can get by on three lanes each way plus a rail track or two.
JK: Where is your proof of a cause and effect there?

Are you suggesting that all those people who fled Portland’s crummy schools and high cost would suddenly move back if we INCREASED COSTS EVEN MORE. That is exactly what high density does - it increases costs and pollution and traffic congestion.

Isaac Laquedem : If the City changed its zoning to allow the developer to put up 20 units on this site, instead of requiring a measly five, and did the same for the rest of northeast Portland, we could probably cut the new Interstate Bridge down to a two-laner.
JK: If so, only because it would take a hour or two just to get to the bridge through all the congested streets because density causes congestion and pollution. Is that really what you want?
See: PortlandFacts.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm

Thanks
JK

John, you make a good point. Voters who keep electing politicians that promote these kinds of densities through planning hiring/edicts, then rezoning, upzoning are the culprits.

How many citizens realize that just a few years ago Portland planners sneaked through a major zoning tool that increased density in the most simplistic manner for many of our residential zoned neighborhoods. It was the allowance of two housing units per each corner lot of a block. For a typical 200 ft x 200 ft block zoned R5 (5000 sq ft=50' x100'), the number of houses for the typical block increased from eight houses to twelve-a 50 PERCENT increase in density.

But there is more. Recently the city planners have interpreted this zone change so loosely that they are allowing even stairs, sidewalks in mid blocks to be considered as "public r.o.w's, meaning that the midpoints in a block also created a "corner lot". This occurs many times in north/south west Portland and some in north/south east Portland. So this ruling effectively increased density by 100 PERCENT.

This recently happened in the Fulton Park neigborhorhood in the South Portland area.

But developers have been involved and complacent in just this one example of "rezoning" without proper public imput, besides the CoP Planners and Director Gil Kelly. This example is really a "rezoning" by definition in Title 33-Portland Zoning Code, but it did not have the required processes of public hearings for this major disaster for our neighborhoods.

I for one find the existing home unremarkable , and a reasonable prospect for replacement. This is America still , right ? a person can do with his property as he/she sees fit.
The proposed design is well composed , with major and minor design elements , arranged in a scale that is residential.
viva la differance!

arranged in a scale that is residential.
JK: Last time I heard that xrap was from a planner or developer.

Which are you?

Thanks
JK

Isaac was joking, JK.

What John Fairplay said.

If you think this is bad, just wait for the streetcar line. The streetcar is just an excuse to cram our neighborhoods even fuller. I pulled this from the city’s web site:

"A successful Streetcar System will ... Provide an organizing structure and catalyst for the City's future growth along streetcar corridors" and a "successful Streetcar Corridor will ... Have (re)development potential [and] community support to make the changes necessary [redevelopment & growth] for a successful streetcar corridor."
Assembled from: portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=46138&

Thanks
JK

It's time for guerilla tactics, folks.

I nominate the atrocity at the southeast corner of SE 26th & Division for this month's "BUTT-UGLY BUILDING of the MONTH" and that posters be stapled up on utility poles in the immediate vicinty urging locals to vote for it, rather than other nominees in other parts of the city.

I'd rather have some adventurous modern infill than any more of this "Truman Show" fake craftsmanish schlock. However, there are things like setbacks and landscaping that have to come along for the area to remain livable. That doesn't maximize density, though, so out the window those old-fashioned ideas of the last century go.

What's hardest to take is how the bigger the fat-cat, the more lee-way they get. The average person who wanders in to the Permit Center gets completely reamed with every rule they can find. However, fat cats can always write their own ticket. Then the powers that be pat themselves on the back for being "flexible". I think they call that corruption in some places.

We do keep electing the same crew, however, so I guess we must like it this way.

BILLB writes "I for one find the home unremarkable." I for many, find most homes are somewhat unremarkable when viewed from the side.

I would note, for the record, that there are what appear to be multi-family dwellings on 3 of the 4 corners at 11th and Hancock (the streetview pic). Since the other two buildings look fairly old, it is a fair point that multi-family-unit density is nothing new to this neighborhood. And don't try to tell me that the Koteen box that stands there now is worse looking than whatever that blue thing is across the street.

Now I don't know much about planning, and I can only hope that developers aren't getting special breaks for these conversions. But it is a fact there is a higher demand for living 'close-in' on the east side. Not everyone wants a yard to take care of, or a garden apartment with fixtures and plumbing older than my parents.

It is also a fact of life that the population of Portland is going to continue to grow. If we weren't growing, wouldn't that make us Detroit? (I understand the neighborhoods there are not crowded at all)

My great-greats came from Germany (around the Horn with 5 kids) in the 1870s and built their dream home down the street at 7th and Tillamook. It's the blue house with the large palm trees in front. I like to think they brought the palm seedlings with them from their layover in the Sandwich Islands. Then the family built houses for each of 3 sons (number 1 son stayed in the original home), right next door and onward to the east. My great-grandfather (a handsome red-headed barber) lived with his lovely and sweet wife (a daughter of an 1852 Oregon Trail pioneer) in the last house in the compound. All of those houses still stand. I would hate for those houses to end up like this. That would be a shame. The history is too real and too wonderful.

When I was born (back in the Truman administration, my parents lived in a fine old craftsman on Tillamook near 42nd. That was torn down many decades ago to make way for an office building. This kind of junk has been going on for a long time.

A question: Jack says the house to be torn down has been chopped up into apartments. So how many people live in the house now (or if the place isn't fully rented, how many could live in it)? And how many people will live in the new development? If it's close to a wash, why destroy the old house? I remember from the Morford row house battles of 20 years ago that his rowhouses were displacing about as many people as would be moving into the new units. The rub is that the people buying up the row houses were a lot richer than the people who rented apartments in the good old houses.

I was not exactly joking (well, maybe a little bit), but taking the reasoning of our "planning community" about sprawl and the Interstate Bridges to its logical conclusion.

"It's all about needlessly overcrowding all of our communities without any real plans to address the detriments this causes. There's no plans for the rat race chaos with traffic. Only a perpetual pretense that toy trains will someday make it all better.
Transportation planning has become senseless transit/ped/bike advocating.
Land use planning has become high density advocacy without any recognition of it's problems.
Affordable housing has become yet another government program to be funded and an entitlement for those getting subsidized housing.

All for a green and sustainable fantasy."

"We do keep electing the same crew, however, so I guess we must like it this way."

....game, set, match. I can't say it any better. You PDX'ers should quit whining and embrace your future....you chose it.

The density has got to go somewhere. Complaints abound on this blog about density in the Pearl, SoWa, SE, Irvington, Interstate Ave, and on and on. From some of the comments above, NOWHERE is appropriate for this. No one to my knowledge has suggested ANY workable alternative, besides ravaging rural Oregon for the insatiable appetite of unsustainable sprawl. Assuming that reasonable and informed commenters agree this is a bad alternative, what is your alternative???

Otherwise, we're simply whining about change. I'd like to hear some constructive suggestions.

"This is America still , right ? a person can do with his property as he/she sees fit."

Your in Oregon Bro, things are different here. Ever hear of Land Use Laws, Measure 37 and Measure 49.
One cannot "do as they see fit" with their
property

Any form of expansion or building in less dense areas is always cast as ravaging rural Oregon for the insatiable appetite of unsustainable sprawl.
Always with the presumption there just isn't enough land anywhere.

The entire area between the valley and the coast is essentially vacant. If you ever drive north or south on the country roads it's open county of every type of land mile after mile after mile.

Yet the pandamoniumists clammor for more density to stop sprawl.
There's no plan for what density brigs and can't provide but so what.
We need more SoWa and others to stop sprawl.

As if we couldn't have reasonable and regulated expansion to provide genuine land supplies and more choices.

Then there's the claim that sprawl costs too much. It doesn't cost as much as supporting multiple agency's planners, and all the subsidized development.

But none of this matters because Metro and the rest will continue to insist their planning works.
Despite multiple examples of it's failure on all fronts.

Unit: The density has got to go somewhere.
JK: No, it doesn’t. People may have to go somewhere, but they don’t have to add to density. All we have to do is wake up to the fact that density is destroying Portland’s neighborhoods and all it is accomplishing is keeping land cheap for Neil’s wineries and his fellow travelers.

Unit: Complaints abound on this blog about density in the Pearl, SoWa, SE, Irvington, Interstate Ave, and on and on. From some of the comments above, NOWHERE is appropriate for this.
JK: That is correct, density is never appropriate when the government has to give away taxpayer’s hard earned money to make it happen, where otherwise it would not (Pearl, SoWhat, TODs - see saveportland.com for the whole list and how it is costing us close to $100 MILLION per year)

Next, density is not appropriate when the only reason for it is that land prices have been driven higher by government policy. Get rid of the artificially overpriced land, and you will see little density and a more livable Portland.

Let me repeat:
Density redues livibility.
Density causes traffic congestion.
Density increases pollution
Density increases cost
Proof is at Debunking Portland.com

Unit: No one to my knowledge has suggested ANY workable alternative, besides ravaging rural Oregon for the insatiable appetite of unsustainable sprawl.
JK: You are exaggerating. All we need is to open up about ONE PERCENT of Oregon’s land for jobs, people and prosperity.

Unit: Assuming that reasonable and informed commenters agree this is a bad alternative, what is your alternative???
JK: You assumption is wrong. Reasonable and informed people agree that density is bad. It is the steady stream of lies from the planners that has made most people un-informed. See PortlandFacts.com/Smart/SmartGrowthLies.html for a partial list of lies planners tell.

Thanks
JK

"Density redues livibility."

That's why everybody HATES living in Europe. Oh wait, that's right, they don't!

There you have it ladies and gentlemen. That stream of lunacy from Karlock and friends sums up the choice: the Pearl or Portsalem. To some the idea of a bit of density in the center of town and along transportation routes (i.e. a city) sends them into spasms of fear. They turn to the Portsalem dream of a paved Willamette valley filled with “normal” houses and wide freeways filled with cars powered by something to be named later. As long as the Chinese will continue to lend us trillions of dollars, and we don’t run out of farmboys willing to die so that we can continue to pretend that gas is cheap it’s a viable, if soul destroying, choice.

Unit and Sherwood, the world is not black and white. There are many options for adding density that aren't so objectionable as poorly-planned, heavily-subsidized mega developments like SoWa, or out-of-place condo buildings on NE Tillamook. One idea: instead of shelling out hundreds of millions per year to subsidize large developments, we could streamline permitting and eliminate development charges for developers who add density while keeping setbacks and off-street parking. That alone would piss off a lot fewer people.

Thanks Jim for your suggestion. You are of course right that the world is not black and white. You are the only one here who has suggested a realistic alternative. Everyone else complains about everything without an alternative.

Some rich man came and raped the land, nobody caught 'em,
put up a bunch of ugly boxes and, Jesus, people bought 'em.

Who will provide the grand design, what is yours and what is mine?
'Cause there is no more new frontier, we have got to make it here.
We satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds
in the name of destiny and in the name of God.

And you can see them there on Sunday morning
stand up and sing about what it's like up there.
They called it paradise, I don't know why.

You call some place paradise - kiss it goodbye

Everyone else complains about everything without an alternative.

Bye.

chris: "Density redues livibility."
That's why everybody HATES living in Europe. Oh wait, that's right, they don't!

JK: Then why are so many Europeans immigrating to the USA?

Are Americans scrambling to move to your European paradise?

Thanks
JK

One word. Tanzamook! Tanza-f****ng-mook! A fourth bedroom in Africa! Yes!