Metro loves the Portland "water house"
Thus confirming that they have no common sense. Hey, Tom Hughes! Clean this junk up, will ya?
| Posted at 11:48 AM | Permalink |
|
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 25, 2011 11:48 AM.
The previous post in this blog was Feed me, Z-more.
The next post in this blog is Change of story.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (11)
Wow, was that written by Mr Puff-Piece Reporter?
Posted by Steve | January 25, 2011 12:47 PM
"It's green!"
"But it cost three times what another house would cost."
"But, it's green!"
"So cost is literally no object? Would it still be worth it for $1 million? $1.5 million?
"Green!"
"What does that mean exactly?"
(Fingers in ears) "Green, green, green, green!"
Posted by Snards | January 25, 2011 1:16 PM
Steve, the proof is in the puffing.
Posted by Gardiner Menefree | January 25, 2011 1:32 PM
Green is the color of money in this country.
Posted by Mr. Grumpy | January 25, 2011 1:34 PM
What they should really be doing is finding a way to build "green" houses in ways that are not cost effective. You can build something green for 3x the cost of a normal house, duh. Who doesn't know that already? The challenge is finding ways to reduce the cost of those things so that they trickle down to average people who are building/renovating a house.
Posted by Dave J. | January 25, 2011 2:25 PM
What's really sad is that under the mismanagement and poor execution is a decent idea.
For instance, they could have spent a fraction of the money on a partnership with Habitat for Humanity. The water bureau could have purchased water saving products to be installed in Habitat homes and then invited the public to open houses to check out ways that they could incorporate water saving features in their homes.
It's cheaper, generates some good press, accomplishes the stated goals, and helps some people in need save on a water bill.
Posted by Pragmatic Portlander | January 25, 2011 2:50 PM
"they could have spent a fraction of the money"
Only problem with your idea, right there.
Posted by John Fairplay | January 25, 2011 5:19 PM
That's the problem right there. Portland pols think that first spending more money creates jobs, and not jobs creating tax dollars.
Posted by lw | January 25, 2011 6:51 PM
Pragmatic....don't give them any good ideas!
Posted by Old Shep | January 25, 2011 7:22 PM
How many old, native doug firs were axed for this "green", ugly-ass snout style house?:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1616+NE+140th+Ave+portland,+or&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=56.724997,135.263672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1616+NE+140th+Ave,+Portland,+Multnomah,+Oregon+97230&ll=45.53445,-122.519118&spn=0.001559,0.004128&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=45.534581,-122.519279&panoid=VHh0kLlaOmGSBFsXn5ntjQ&cbp=12,87.18,,0,-1.5
It appears a few of them were chopped down. Can someone confirm this based on the Google image?
Posted by ws | January 25, 2011 8:29 PM
Is anybody else bothered that we spent over $400,000 on a house nobody lives in?
Portland: the city that talks.
Posted by Mister Tee | January 25, 2011 8:32 PM