This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 30, 2012 8:45 AM. The previous post in this blog was Washington County getting Blumenauered. The next post in this blog is Bust in Burnside hit-and-run death. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Trashing Beaumont

We see that the greedy apartment mongers have set their sights on another nice Portland location. This time it's 44th and Fremont, where there's currently a bright pocket of moderately successful retail, and a village feel. The real estate scoundrels want to slap up a 63-apartment bunker with no parking. That ought to kill off the retail and disrupt the lives of the single-family-home dwellers nearby considerably. No doubt Stevie Novick is standing by with the parking meters.

This human warehouse is so bad an idea that it's virtually certain to be approved -- even subsidized -- by Portland City Hall. Condolences to the people who live and work in the vicinity. For them, as for so many others, the time will soon come when they start thinking seriously about moving out of the city. "They run you out."

Comments (38)

Great. Yet another great little slice of neighborhood that takes an unnecessary turn for the worse. I'm sure Beaumont Market is thrilled by the news.

Just finished a nice Memorial Day stroll up around that area with some friends, a couple of whom were from the burbs and hadn't been up there in a while, and all they did was rave about what a nice vibe the local businesses/walkable neighborhood gave. That, and enjoyed some really good Jim and Patty's coffee/snacks. So of course, the answer is to gut that and put in an apartment bunker. Love the estimate of 68 units adding 30 cars - weasel math at its best. It really makes no sense for that big of a project to be thrown in a neighborhood without parking included. The SamRands will paint this as a bunch of NIMBY snoberry directed at low income people, but that will be yet another red herring. The real issue is throwing north of 100 people into a neighborhood with no parking/planning. Let's see, no major grocery store within walking distance unless you're in pretty good shape, no parking, one bus line - I'll take the under on "5 years" until streetcar tracks are on Fremont. Hopefully, the under on "three years" on the time it takes me to sell my house without cutting the bank a check is right as well.

I'm sure that these neighborhoods feel resentment towards the developers, and that's fine and understandable.

But I hope that residents understand that it is their beloved City of Portland doing this to them. The city allows, has explicitely zoned for, and encourages this type of thing across the city.

It is just as much part of The Plan as the bikes and sustainabilty talk and Portland Loos.

Eweww! It looks just! like the monstrosity at N Ivanhoe and N York in St. Johns. There used to be some apartments there with grass and parking.
I guess neither one of those things in allowed in Portlandia planning now.

It's like a cruise liner docking at caribbean fishing village. Monstrously out of scale and out of step with its environment. And this is my village, so I'll be at the meeting (6:30 p.m. June 7 at the Bethany Lutheran Church sanctuary). As the old saying goes, you may not be interested in war but it is very interested in you.

Love the estimate of 68 units adding 30 cars - weasel math at its best. It really makes no sense for that big of a project to be thrown in a neighborhood without parking included.

Maybe they're counting on a sizable minority of the residents being homeless people.

The property is zoned CS, commercial storefront.
CS (Storefront Commercial) zone
The Storefront Commercial (CS) zone is intended to preserve and enhance older commercial areas that have a storefront character. The zone intends that new development in these areas will be compatible with this desired character. The zone allows a full range of retail, service and business uses with a local and regional market area. Industrial uses are allowed but are limited in size to avoid adverse effects different in kind or amount than commercial uses and to ensure that they do not dominate the character of the commercial area. The desired character includes areas which are predominantly built-up, with buildings close to and oriented towards the sidewalk especially at corners. Development is intended to be pedestrian-oriented and buildings with a storefront character are encouraged.

Jack. Wanna check tankfixer's URL?

Betcha it's coming from somewhere along say SW 4th and Salmon, no?

No, I think tankfixer's actually pointing out a fatal flaw in the project. There's no ground-floor retail, which is what the zoning requires.

Of course that won't stop them from just passing an exception to allow it anyhow.

Michael is, unfortunately, probably right on the money with the exception. Of course, they may put a 7-11 there to undercut Beaumont Market and drive out any vestige of local character and pleasantness this area has, that or a strip club.

Maybe we can get a twofer - a strip club AND low-income housing. Just think of how that would upgrade the neighborhood. And Beaumont Middle School is a mere two blocks away.

The trick is to hang on to your home as long as possible so you can sell to the unsuspecting and escape before the rest of the world figures it out.

Thanks to NEPDX guy for the rendering. WAY overscale for the neighborhood.

Kind of reminds me of the Ecoflats project on N. Williams (no A/C, no parking) or McCoy Village, the low-income project on NE Prescott and MLK that was extensively (and expensively) remodeled after major water intrusion problems less than 10 year after it was built.

I don't know much about the difference between "affordable" and "low-income" housing, but I do know there are tax credit games the developers can play in this arena to make things "pencil out."

Jack, you keep talking about Steve Novick and parking meters...but how long do you think it'll be before they start talking about residential parking permits in various NE and SE neighborhoods? I think that's the *real* long-term revenue plan for Hawthorne and other spots.

The Portland Climate Action Plan calls for the elimination of most single family dwellings (to save the planet), and the elimination of most private motor vehicle use (to save the planet), amongst many other behavioral changes.

You only have to let your imagination run loose to see how they're going to try to do this... rezoning, higher fees and taxes, more permits, more parking meters, new rate increases, new statutes, new fines, more stop signs, more bioswales, more street closures, one penalty or persecution after another until the demographic has changed because that's easier to alter by force than behavior.

And to top it off, it's a "win win" because at the same time climate change is being "halted", it increases revenues for The City That Works.

Think I'm raving? When's the last time anyone on City Council really objected to anything?

No, I think you're dead on.

When's the last time anyone on City Council really objected to anything?

Give City Hall some credit.

The objected to those plastic bags.

You know, the kinds that STILL litter the ground, that are still available everywhere else (just not in Portland)...the kind that is fully recyclable into a lot of other plastic goods and reusable...

"No, I think tankfixer's actually pointing out a fatal flaw in the project. There's no ground-floor retail, which is what the zoning requires."

My bad and apologies.

It is kind of funny. The Irvington, Alameda, Beaumont neighborhoods have some of the most politically liberal constituents in the city. These are the folks that voted for the current mayor and council. The new council will have the same green, PC, holier than thou bent. What you sow you reap. When it starts striking closer to home the righteous indignation festers.

Hey NEPguy,

Thanks for turning up those drawings. Our neighborhood association had asked for them, but nothing showed on the association list.


John, as a Grant Park libertarian, I have to say I agree. The political problems in this city are coming home to roost. The "progressives" in charge want everyone living in a condo/apartment bunker, no yards, no cars, no garbage cans, and lots of compost. Maybe this will motivate people to really examine what's going on before they have a parking meter in front of their house and the neighbors old home is being ripped out for a 10 story bunker next door. Otherwise, we are going to be San Francisco without the tech/financial base that is keeping that teetering city afloat.

No problem Jim. They are actually accessible by clicking on Jack's link to the Oregonian article, which has a link to the Beaumont Business Association, which then links to the drawings - just in case you have other interested folks, and the business association board reads much like the thread here. Way to run those "awful" small business owners out of town City Council, keep it up :/

I do not understand how something of this magnitude could be approved! As the past President of the Beaumont Business Association,I am very concerned for businesses in this district as well as the parking situation. Why would the city allow a project like this without requiring parking? This should only be approved with Retail on the bottom floor and parking in the rear. In fact, the city should require them to supply parking for more than the residential units, but for the retail units as well. This has not been well thought out and I hope everyone comes together to fight this.

Why would the city allow a project like this without requiring parking?

Because the developers tell them that they don't need parking because the project will be "aimed at" young hip people who ride their bike everywhere and use mass transit and car-sharing services. Some of that may be true. But the problem is that the city doesn't ever follow up to see how many people in the building actually don't use cars, and how many simply park their cars on nearby streets.

I don't mind letting developers offer reduced parking spaces if they can in fact PROVE that the residents will not use cars. But just pretending that they can somehow pitch the project to people without cars and have that hold up is really annoying.

(And of course the short answer to the question is: "because the developers make more money if they can take what would have once been parking spaces and build residential units there instead.")

Do apartments have enough parking?
Just dive by any local apartment in the late evening and observe the streets full of parked cars.

BTW, what families will live in those 380 sq ft. bunkers? Perhaps one moving up from a flat in Moscow? (Or some other worker's paradise.)

Of course deluded city planners think cars will be completely replaced by transit when oil runs out next year. (they are too stupid to realize that buses use oil too - in fact, more per passenger-mile than cars.)


Here's almost the identical thing in Tigard.

This was and is a ridiculous project that serves as an example of more to come for the SW corridor. It's right out of the Portland/Metro agenda to use tax dollars to cram anything anywhere whether it fits or not.

Heavily subsidized, infill with high density and promoted with public deceit claiming it is Transit Oriented Development. But fails to promote transit use or walking any more than the rest of Tigard. It's across busy Hall Blvd., 1/2 mile from WES, further to the library and with $30k per individual it's not even for low income tenants.

Yet city staff hypes it as some big success?

I guess if having spent the money is the only measure of success.

This TOD project is the rest of the story to go along with WES and the eco street Burnham project.

So there ya have it. The Portland Plan. High cost, heavily tax subsidized, never followed up on plan for all of the 99W corridor. Rail Transit, High density, Eco Streets producing high debt, chaos and a perpetual fiscal crisis leading to neglect of basic infrastructure and devaluing of public safety and other essential services.

Of course Mayor Dirksen is a big fan of all things Portland. Urban Renewal, Light Rail, high density and is excited about Light Rail coming to 99W.


“This is very exciting,” says Dirksen, who argues that such a line could relieve traffic congestion and attract development along Highway 99W in Tigard.

"The Knoll reflects many aspects of the vision of downtown Tigard: sustainability high quality design affordability and access to transit"
Sean Farrelly Redevelopment Project Manager City of Tigard

The Knoll- ooooo pretty!

Parking and storefront are absent so developers have things they are prepared to give up in negotiation. You can't blame them for coming to the table by over-reaching. Neighbors have to commit to keep on pushing long, long, long after the obvious sacrifices have been surrendered. Folks can fry up whatever hated ideological fish they'd like if it gives them the motivation and stamina they're going to need.

"Parking and storefront are absent so developers have things they are prepared to give up in negotiation. "
I am hearing that they are not actually required at that location.

Further, if this guy proposes trashing the neighborhood (even if it is only a negotiating position), the proper response is one of great verbal hostility, along with a promise that he will NOT BE BUILDING ANYTHING in our neighborhood. EVER. He can infest some other neighborhood with his Adams/Bluemanure bunkers.


Sorry for the confusion my posting the zoning in such a cryptic manner.
I was pressed for time and wasn't able to expand on it.
As Jack noted I was pointing out their project would not comply with the current zoning as shown in Portlandonline.
I'm a Concordia resident and have fought with the city before over their dictatorial edicts...
And no, the ip address for that posting won't resolve to down town Portland...

Portland's unofficial motto isn't "Put a bird on it," it's "Put some condos near it."

When are the citizens going to say enough is enough with the infill, and projects that are so ought of character in their neighborhoods?
I believe more people will see the flaws of the Portland Plans, and for more neighborhoods,
it will be too late. In my opinion, the mantra of millions coming and the "you wouldn't want sprawl" has been worn thin, and it is taking the quality of life from those who are living in our neighborhoods now.
I have written about much of this before.
NIMBY? What is wrong with advocating for where one lives?
I rather like the term NIABY, Not in Anybody's Back Yard!
I don't like to see these kind of projects in anybody's neighborhood and the impact they have visually and otherwise.
Say NO to the city plans period. The codes should be reverted to when we actually did have good planning in this city.

What we have here, is the proposed construction of more tenement slums of the future, and a new generation of occupation in Portland whom expect to virtually live off of government subsidies. It is likely by not including parking, the parasite developers of this project will receive a minimal ten year property tax abatement, pocketing money that should be going to the schools. With more mayhem bicyclists on the streets and not paying a share of the infrastructure they use, the city forcing more people out of their cars thus collecting less gas tax revenue, the crumbling roadway infrastructure we all use will continue to deteriorate. With cars parked in front of the neighboring residences nearly full time, and more of those little cars to go littering the streets, property values are likely to decline. With less parking for the customers that support the small businesses in the neighborhood, more business will either go under or move out, more store fronts will become empty, and the new little twit voted in on the City Council who considers on street parking a commodity will push to install parking meters. That will only further devastate the small businesses. The downward spiral then continues with more middle class families moving out of the city and into the suburbs while opportunists pick up more of the single family homes at bargain prices, turning them into un-maintained low income rental properties. With the decline of auto related jobs, the decline small businesses, the absence of rent income for storefront owners, and a lower income ratio within the city, the City Council will again have to deal with a cutting the budget, reducing services and increasing taxes on the people who already pay their share. This my friends is the future, the unintentional consequences that are prone to occur due to following the cockeyed and twisted policies of the dictatorial rein of the self-ordained Sammyboy and his cronies.

Has anyone seen the new bunkers going up next to the Hollywood theater - absolutely plain, boring, ugly. (Jim Karlock, so far they do look like what I would imagine are Moscow bunkers.) And, the building across from the Hollywood Library, where another lebenty-million bunkers will go in, has been leveled.

I still think the notion of a)the millions moving here and 2) how much this impacts climate change (none, and I'm not a skeptic when it comes to cc), need to be challenged repeatedly. Just because COP says a million people are moving here does not mean it is true.

"Just because COP says a million people are moving here does not mean it is true."
You mean to tell me that people won't abandon their 2ooo sqft homes in a low crime cul-de-sac with great schools and low taxes for a 500 sqft bunker in a gang infested, high tax, crappy school, city?

Get real! People are lining up for high taxes, high crime and crappy schools. Just ask any of our electoids or their clueless planners.


Just because COP says a million people are moving here does not mean it is true.

This mantra does need to be challenged.
In my view, some are coming in that are lured in by promoting new and sustainable, etc.
I would imagine the bicycle magazines are promoting Portland as the place to move to.
Other people are talking about having to leave because they can no longer afford to stay, they do not like the congestion and city plans, they do not like living in a city that says one thing and does another, they do not like the "behavioral control" aspects, the list is long.

These same developers are proposing to build 56 units (again with no parking) at 2943-2955 E Burnside. There were two vintage craftsman homes here (they've already torn down one). Two 50 by 100 lots. Incredible.

Clicky Web Analytics