Yeah, this is a terrible, terrible idea.

"with no parking provided for any of its 23 new hipster tenants"

We really need a ballot measure to end this practice.

I could see this if it were closer in or within close proximity to that streetcar garbage that CoP crams down our throats, but on 38th and Division? What? Why on earth would anyone want to live there, especially with no parking? I'd like to meet the lenders on this project. What are they smoking?

We really need a ballot measure to end this practice.

Like that would matter. They would find a way around it and do whatever they want anyhow.

Funny enough, if the City of Portland would just walk ten blocks to the east, they would find (not kidding) hair stylists, massage therapists and counseling offices.

But there isn't a streetcar there, so they probably didn't make it that far.

And everyone is really going to want to spend quality time on those micro balconies overlooking the fumes and noise of the cars on the road!
What a disaster!

The traffic zoning thing here (and not just Portland) is absurd. When a place like Target builds a new location, they have to have a near infinite supply of parking spots, able to accommodate nearly everyone on the busiest day of the year. Yet here we have a place that is able to build 23 apartments with absolutely no parking, even though most of those apartments WILL have one, if not two, cars. I know the "car free" lifestyle thing is great, but the reality is that even most hard core cyclists own a car for long distance driving and hauling large items. I can't believe this sort of fantasy is allowed to continue.

"Yet here we have a place that is able to build 23 apartments with absolutely no parking, even though most of those apartments WILL have one, if not two, cars."

Hey, that's the neighbors' problem.

Making it "the neighbor's problem" is the Portland way...even in smaller, more tranquil areas Porltand allows this. Look at Alberta, theres been some new construction recently: a warehouse conversion to retail and live/work on 14th (which is actually very well done and 100% occupied), and a very cool 20,000 square foot office/retail development on 18th -- all this new to the neighborhood without a single additional parking space. If this keeps up, all of Portland will look like the Hawthorne district -- lots to do, but very clogged side streets full of homeowners that give you the stink-eye as you look for a place to park. Not fun.

"A local company that will last, with a long-term vision of 20 to 30 years and a commitment to making a positive, lasting impact on the future for all stakeholders."

Yep, the no parking is a gift that will just keep on giving!

How about some solutions to the parking issue?

Is putting up a huge and ugly surface parking lot a solution to the issue?

This is across the street from the proposed new apartments:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=3810+se+division+portland,+or&sll=45.505027,-122.619029&sspn=0.000686,0.001742&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=3810+SE+Division+St,+Portland,+Multnomah,+Oregon+97202&ll=45.504956,-122.623858&spn=0.001372,0.003484&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=45.504786,-122.62454&panoid=R1jNfYCHqjo7CttamfiEFQ&cbp=12,8.83,,0,0.98

Going underground is very expensive, not to mention providing simple surface parking lots increases the cost of the units. Land consumption = cost and taxes, and parking spaces provide nothing in terms of rentable space for a developer to maximize their investment, to which gets passed off to the renter.

I can understand the issue with the homeowners, but the homeowners do not own the on-street parking. That's public right of way, though I can see their point of having a bunch of cars coming and going on their street which is a nuisance. I champion a developer to choose how much parking they want with their private property, but I understand neighbors' concerns.

In a perfect world:

1) A renter would have to agree not to use an automobile every day if they bought one of these apartments.

2) A developer would have to pay their surrounding neighbors a modest "impact fee" for externalized parking problems on their neighborhoods.

Or the zoning code could change back to when above ground parking did not count against the FAR (floor area) allowed. I think most neighbors would be ok with a larger building with on-site parking than a smaller one with no parking.

I think 38th and division would be a fine location. Better than living in Beaverton. Even without the parking. I agree that most people will have a car, but it seems like it would be a good place for someone that didn't have a car. Cross town bus on 39th. Division bus within a block. And Powell and Hawthorne not that far away. I'm not too wigged out about this one. And I'm not a bike rider, city employee, or in the real estate industry. I kind of like neighborhoods where there all all kinds of buildings, not just ones that "fit". Is the Belmont project empty?

Or you could just insist that the building be a lot smaller. But of course, the developer weasels would make a lot less money, and that's what Portland is all about any more.

Is the Belmont project empty?

There are still some empty units. And they had to resort to all kinds of giveaways to fill the rest of it. I'm sure a lot of money was lost.

ws, I understand your logic to some extent, but when a developer turns a 7,500 square foot lot into 23 apartments and ground floor retail with no parking, they're doing this KNOWING that they are going to place a burden on their neighbors...and not just a small burden -- probably at least 40 cars on any given day. Simply put, they're doing this because they can; they're trying to maximize the NOI of the project to make underwriting possible; neighborhood be damned. If UD+P were a group of smart developers that actually viewed themselves as "stakeholders" in the neighborhood as they proclaim, perhaps they'd jettison at least some of the ground floor retail and provide some parking under the structure...but that just wouldn't pencil, would it?

Look at their "Merge" project on 31st and Division...Not a bad redevelopment effort, but c'mon...8,000 square feet of ground floor retail and 13 apartment units with NINE parking spaces...? Yea, these guys really care about the neighborhood.

Portland is full of commercially-zoned property along busy hipster streets, and any monkey can build or redevelop a building with no parking; it actually makes the financial equation possible...the finesse, however, is to also minimize the impact on surroundings -- even if that eats into your rentable area.

UD+P needs to go back to the Bay Area....

"Better than living in Beaverton"

That statement pretty much says it all, which isn't saying much about this new project.

Maybe I missed something, where does it say that there is no parking? I realize the 4-5 architect drawings don't show any, but those tend to be less than realistic when the creator feels like some detail detracts from their vision.

WS: "not to mention providing simple surface parking lots increases the cost of the units."

That's the developer's problem.

WS: "but the homeowners do not own the on-street parking."

But the apartment dweller a block away does own it? Because when they park there and don't move their car for three or four days, it's like they own it.

I live in one of those bunkers in inner SE. I like it. Never thought Id be able to go back to living in an apt bldg with common halls after living in a house for 16 years, but the transition was very easy.

As far as the location of the subject in this article, why not? Inner SE is a very desirable area to live. Beats Beaverton and all the parking issues with NW.

And property values are holding up much better than many other areas... You can walk, bike or take the bus or drive.. lots of options in SE if you want to live a more green lifestyle. Restaurants everywhere and grocery store choices galore... And Hawthorne shops are just a few short blocks away.

This are below 39th between Stark and Powell used to be kind of rough, but my decision to move to the Sunnyside neighborhood was one of the best Ive made.

Don't knock it till youve tried it..

I am glad I don't own a home on Clinton St. in that general area any more. Parking was bad enough back then. This stuff is going to make it a lot worse.

As for Beaverton, property taxes are cheaper and parking tends to be plentiful. Bash it all you want but so far the developer weasels have less in roads in the Tron.

where does it say that there is no parking? I realize the 4-5 architect drawings don't show any

Of course the weasels' come-on doesn't mention that painful fact. I got it from the neighbors, who are aghast.

:"You can walk, bike or take the bus or drive.. lots of options in SE if you want to live a more green lifestyle..."

This is the problem with Portland developers like UD+P. They think that chanting phrases such as these gets them a free pass to build whatever they want...The reality is that people stiil have cars and use them. I'm sure there is a population of walkers/bikers/trimet users that don't own a vehicle, but to think you'll rent 23 units to only those people is just delusional, and what about the retail space? Why not put at lease .5 spaces per unit just to accommodate the occasional vehicle owner?

It's a good thing UD+P is providing space for "counseling offices", because those neighbors will sure need it.

comment earlier by ws: . . .
Going underground is very expensive, not to mention providing simple surface parking lots increases the cost of the units. . .

The project should pencil out with some parking, and going underground would be good, make developers be responsible. If it doesn't pencil out, then the project shouldn't be allowed to be built. Since when has the code allowed these units without any parking?

Codes are constantly being changed to accommodate developments and even if in place are "ignored" via adjustments or mitigation. Portland was noted for good planning many years ago, those planners must be ill to think of what has happened, what next? Not just one or two houses torn down or moved but an entire street at a time?

Not good, to come home after an evening out with friends only to be frustrated driving around and around trying to capture a parking space. . . and late at night, light rail or waiting for bus - service cut or eliminated. A ride dressed to go to the symphony in the rain on bikes will do.

I see no way of any of this being mitigated for the surrounding neighbors. We can visualize what the streets will look like. unduly crowded. There again, if the city wants to "call something mitigation" I guess that will do the trick. Feel sorry for the neighborhood.

Be a NIMBY, if you don't fight for your neighborhood livability, who will?

I'm getting close to retirement so I'm looking forward to someday having a smaller space, within walking distance to groceries, banks, restaurants, etc.. And no yard to mow! This part of SE is good for that. Beaverton isn't even an option for that kind of lifestyle. Also - that building doesn't look like any bunker I've ever seen. Density is obviously going to increase in SE over the next several decades. I'm not convinced that's a bad thing.

That's great, Gary. It's all about you. Screw your new neighbors and the neighborhood they thought they were living in. You can park your Prius in front of their houses, where the shadow of your butt-ugly building has killed their flowers.

Gary, I can see this sort of building somewhere closer in -- perhaps along a streetcar line in the Central Eastside now that it is there, but 23 units and ground floor retail with no parking? Really...You'd retire on 39th and Division? Really? Without a car?

That area isn't bad, and Clinton is great, but the Division corridor doesn't get too exciting until you get down the 30th or so. This project is too close to 39th to be "pedestrian" as you suggest, but there is that Rite Aid on 39th and Division where you can fill your prescriptions, I guess. And what grocery stores are withing walking distance?

There is no such street as 39th. You mean César E. Chávez Boulevard, don't you? Another gift to the neighborhood from City Hall.

Okay, the lack of resident parking is bad enough. I wonder, though, has anybody considered the even larger parking footprint for visitors? I've lived in places like this, where there was barely one parking space for every other tenant. We're talking about the joys of trying to get out to buy groceries or do anything else late night, and discovering that the space has been taken when you get back by one of the partying idiots on the fourth floor. Yeah, the one that's shaking the entire building from the noise, and where you have to take an axe to the stereo so you can ask the considerate fellow to move his car, as tenants aren't allowed to call towing companies.

Or, and I had this happen to me once, where a trip to the hospital is delayed because some pothead figured that parking alongside the resident spaces was okay because "they aren't going for the night." Thankfully, I was able to get the dolt in question to move, but it's kinda hard to keep your objectivity in check when your wife has a severe infection and you're looking at four hours in the ER. Let's see Sam Adams chirp "go by streetcar" then.

All I can say is that this condo project better have major league air intake scrubbers in front of its HVAC. Division is a parking lot from 9th to 52nd for several hours during the evening rush every day. The air pollution from all those idling vehicles is majorly nasty, especially with all that unshaded pavement to help cook it good.

Jack, your comment about the shadow of the building should not be overlooked either. The height limit on that site is 45 feet.

With four stories, UD+P is at the height limit with that project. What kind of development company "with the goal of creating attractive, useful, long-lasting buildings that will add value to a neighborhood and improve the experience of living and working there" (from their site) would maximize height but still provide no parking? What a joke.

I'm not a fan of Portland's "design review process" that encumbers many development sites because It's just another example of how CoP gets too involved in the process.

This site doesn't require "design review", which essentially robs the neighbors of their involvement in the process, which (in this case) is unfortunate because the developer is pushing the envelope in every possible direction which will result in negative impact for the surrounding residents.

UD+P likes to spout off how all their team members are SE Portland residents...not of the Clinton neighborhood appearantly.

Everyone talks about the impact on local residents, but what about businesses? That hardware store on 37th will probably see business dry up once its customer base starts to realize that they'll spend ten minutes looking for a parking space to buy a couple nails and a paintbrush.

The uber-conspiracy theorist in me also thinks this dovetails with Sam's long-range plan to install/impose pay parking in most commercial districts, like he tried to do with Hawthorne a few years back. It works like this: build condo buildings w/ no parking, sending the condo dwellers into the neighborhood and onto the surface streets. Local businesses complain that residents are taking up all their parking. Et voila! We must install meters to ensure that residents don't hog important parking for local businesses!

I think people in Portland struggle with change more than people in many other cities. Can we really expect our neighborhoods to stay the same when so many more people want to live here each year. I was born in SE Portland but I don't expect it to stay the same. It seems like a lot of people who have come here over the last few decades have the most trouble with these types of things.

I already live in another great walkable neighborhood in SE so I probably won't move to the Division area but I would never expect my flowers to dictate whether or not a project like this could be built. I would consider that too short sighted and selfish.

I remember hearing about many of the negative traffic impacts of some of the transit-oriented developments in the Hillsboro area (e.g. Orenco). One problem with lots of apartments is that they tend to have more then the typical 1-2 veh. per household because they're more often occupied by college students or just multiple roommates, often each with their own vehicle. So not only do you have many more households packed into a small area, but each household will often have more vehicles making more separate trips (where as a typical family w/ children might consolidate their trips more). Assuming those apartments fill up, the traffic impacts on that stretch of Division will likely be horrendous. Maybe worse still with Trimet cutting bus service to that area.

PD: I don't think it's that far up to Hawthorne and Fred Meyers, etc. This is definitely walkable in my book. If not, its definitely a short bus ride.

ws, you and I both know that design review is not and should not be about land use decisions...but in certain cases it is the only venue at which the public can voice concerns about such an albatross being constructed in their neighborhood.

I clearly stated that I'm not a fan of the design review process. We can agree on that. However, in this case, my feeling is that UD+P is using the absence of a design review hearing to cram this building down the throats of the neighbors. This building would never survive the public design review process because the neighborhood would have a hearing to show up to -- even if out of context -- to kick and scream and go on record as voicing their very legitimate concerns.

I don't think all developers are weasels (sorry, Jack), but Urban Development Partners seems to be spanking the neighborhood pretty hard with this one; it's a bad project.

Gary, I'll look for you walking somewhere along those twelve blocks between Hawthorne Fred Meyer and Divison on 39th (sorry, Cesar E. Chavez)carrying a bag of groceries and a jug of milk inhaling exhaust fumes.

But since you're retired, you can make multiple trips if you need to.

It seems curious to me that the two salient threads of comments on this post lament the impact of the project on car users and the effect of exhaust on air quality. A reconciliation of these would be interesting. I predict that residences without off street parking will either sell or not, and the market will have the ultimate say on that issue.

In a perfect world:

1) A renter would have to agree not to use an automobile every day if they bought one of these apartments.

2) A developer would have to pay their surrounding neighbors a modest "impact fee" for externalized parking problems on their neighborhoods.

1)Really! And where the F does the renter park the damn car when he/she isn't using it? This is about parking, not driving!

2)I suggest an immodest fee, one that when summed up over the life of the project, pencils out to prompt the garage in the first place.

"It seems curious to me that the two salient threads of comments on this post lament the impact of the project on car users and the effect of exhaust on air quality."

Huh? If this project gets built, car users are inevitable, and we're lamenting the impact by those car users, so I don't understand your point.

Gary comments: I think people in Portland struggle with change more than people in many other cities. Can we really expect our neighborhoods to stay the same when so many more people want to live here each year. . . . .

Perhaps the reason people in Portland struggle with change more than in many other cities is because we have had to deal with more negative change. There has been an agenda pushed here and it isn't to the liking of many.

Lets just say, not opposed to change, but do not want to be shortchanged.

Change for the better - Yes. Change so others can line their pockets at the expense of our quality of life - No.

You mentioned flowers, how about having to grow food, is that short sighted and selfish?

The economy, how many more will really come to this city? I hear people talking about not being able to afford to stay here. Why should neighborhoods be degraded because others might come?

As for this project, how many vacancy's are there now in our city?

The "millions are coming" line is total b.s. The City of Portland's population has been growing a just a little over 1 percent a year for many years.

Throngs of people are coming to Portland's suburbs, perhaps, but not to Portland.

Fred Meyer is a lovely 10 minute walk from Division. Caesar "East" Chavez is horrible - but you don't have to walk down it. 4 stories is too tall. I could live with the condo cars, but I do wish the Richmond OHSU people would quit parking on my street. They have a HUGE lot! I guess it's just prettier??

PD, you must be horribly out of shape to think that the ten Portland-size blocks between Division and Hawthorne are a hard walk. It's a one-mile round trip. And unlike the suburbs, there is a wide variety of routes available for people in SE Portland. Why, instead of walking up Chavez, you can walk up 38th, instead. Or 37th. Avoid traffic and Latino names all at the same time!

If you've got several bags of groceries, you can do what a lot of people in SE do which is to stick them in carriers on your bike. Or use one of them there fold-up grocery carriers the old ladies in the neighborhood are always carrying their produce home in.

Then again, if an old lady can walk better than you can, that's probably not an option.

That said, I don't see how the city can manage to let this project go through without parking for the tenants at the very least. It would be a travesty to expect the neighborhood to absorb even a portion of the complex dwellers' vehicles on-street.

Thanks for your input darrel. I'll try to make more of a habit of riding my bike to the store and packing all my groceries in my carrier...especially in the rain. Thanks.

The problem is that you like like many Portlanders seem to think that this type of development can be justified because of ill-conceived ideas like the "20-minute neighborhood" and "walkscores". Meanwhile, neighbors adjacent to these developments end up paying the price when it turns out the people like Gary actually figure out that they do need a car after all.

I have news for you. People that drive to the store because they need to fill more than just a "fold-up grocery carrier" aren't always "horribly out of shape"; that's another self ritcheous Portland myth.

Those developers...they just keep "selling the sizzle" but when the product is delivered, it's nothing but rendered fat.

The whole discussion of the parking impact of building new commercial and residential structures to facilitate "higher density" points to other impositions upon public services.

Like public parking spaces which WILL be adversely affected in the area near to the completed project, public park space near the completed project (as well as others like it) will have greater intensity of usage, and greater demands placed upon it in terms of maintenance. And, where are the public park spaces to this project? No where near, because it is smack in the center of a "Parks Deficient" neighborhood.

Again...When these kinds of increases in density are allowed by the local taxing district, then we should expect increased investments in public services in the surrounding area. Projects like this would come with the requirement of providing additional public recreational space within a quarter mile of the completed project...commensurate with the increase of residents and guests.

Make the developers carry the externality burdens they are sloughing off onto the general public. Make them pay their own freight.

Here's an idea for all you "walkable neighborhood" folks: Move to New York or San Francisco and you can enjoy as much of that "experience" as you like. And just remember if you change your mind, you will pay dearly to own a car there.

Godfry,,
Your comments ring so true.
The neighborhoods lose because the city is more interested in assisting the developers and developments here. They really don't care about most neighborhoods. Livability for people in the neighborhoods is way down on their list if on the list at all. If it were on the list, this project would not be allowed.

Thanks for your input darrel. I'll try to make more of a habit of riding my bike to the store and packing all my groceries in my carrier...especially in the rain

The little old ladies make it just fine without melting and they don't even ride bikes. If you're that afraid of the rain then you're in the wrong part of the country.

Here's an idea for all you "walkable neighborhood" folks: Move to New York or San Francisco and you can enjoy as much of that "experience" as you like.

Why move? Inner SE Portland has been walkable for a century, ever since the first developments went in before most people had cars. The houses on my block were almost all built before 1910.

"Why move? Inner SE Portland has been walkable for a century, ever since the first developments went in before most people had cars. The houses on my block were almost all built before 1910".

It isn't 1910 anymore, and most of us have cars -- even if only guilt-reducing Priuses or dumb little Smart cars, people tend to park them somewhere which is what this entire discussion is about. It is simply impractical to perpetuate this mythical lifestyle of a "walkable neighborhood" when neighbors will inevitably have to live with the realities when tenants of these new high density developments find out that the area is just not as "walkable" as they thought.