"The difficult parking situation on Hawthorne Boulevard in Portland already makes us hesitant to shop or hang out down there."

Don't forget, Portland will soon be transformed into "20-minute neighborhoods", so there will soon be no reason to go to another neighborhood.

Which will be just as well, since there will be no way to go to another neighborhood via private vehicular transport.

Guess the Hawthorne folks didn't rally any opposition to this monstrosity.
Or they did not know.

...and yet another reason why electing our city government on an at-large basis allows this kind of thing to continue. If we had someone who actually represented SE Portland, there would at least be one person who would stand up to this kind of garbage.

Don't forget, Portland will soon be transformed into "20-minute neighborhoods", so there will soon be no reason to go to another neighborhood.

The city sure chooses a funny way to tribalize and segregate neighborhoods from each other.

Divide and conquer?

We used to live on 41st just off Hawthorne. That area was built before the era of the automobile, so many of the homes don't have off-street parking. Add an additional 30+ cars (assuming that at least half the households will have at least one vehicle) to the nearby side streets...I miss the Hawthorne vibe, but I sure don't miss the traffic and parking headaches!

As I recall Hales was for the "20 minute neighborhoods."

Anyway, the plan may be for most of us to stay in our neighborhoods,
that frees up the roads and the rest of the state to enjoy for those
who can easily do get a ways from the city.

Looks like folks are getting organized to fight this type of development. I'm all for bike friendly, walkable neighborhoods - however, to design large projects like this as if not one resident will have a car is insane.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/09/northeast_portland_neighborhoo_2.html#incart_river_default

A few years ago, when I first met and talked to Steve Novick, he was running for the U.S. Senate against Jeff Merkley. I remember running across the street to shake his “hand.” I thought at the time, that he cared about the “little guy.” Low and behold, I was right! He takes good care of himself; unfortunately, he takes even better care of the big guys!

If the City of Portland wants to be "bike-friendly" and "car-free" it can start with the city's own massive motorpool.

Even Sam Adams himself admitted that TriMet's great bus system doesn't work for him...so why should I sacrifice my freedom when clearly he is the posterboy for automobile necessity in Portland - the bike capital of America (where only 5% of trips are taken by bike) and the transit capital of America (where only 5% of trips are taken by public transit)...that leaves 90% AUTOMOBILE!!! (Which, by the way, is a higher percentage than Los Angeles, the "auto-capital of the world".)

That area of Hawthorne is already a mess--on a weekend you'll have to park several blocks deep in the surrounding residential area to find a spot. So this sort of development is just going to turn it into even more of a clusterfork.

There's a brouhaha starting in north Portland off Interstate Ave regarding the same thing as Hawthorne, 65 units to be built with no off street parking. See page 3 of this Overlook paper.
http://www.overlookneighborhood.org/newsletters/2012/FALL2012.pdf

As a decades-long resident of the Buckman neighborhood, I was secretly hoping that the (now vacant) lot at 30th & SE Hawthorne would become a Food Cart Pod. It seems a no-brainer what with the Hostel next door.

Another case in point: our spiffy new Hawthorne Safeway with its ever-so-handy underground parking. It is a business, so would have the City of Portland allowed Safeway to build that store without any parking? I think not! So how is a 50-unit apartment complex—someone's business providing residences—any different than Safeway? You figure...

The comments on the article are running about 50/50, which isn't surprising. The brainwashing has gone nuclear and for many young people they can't afford to own a car, so why should anybody else?

Here is the blurb (propaganda) from the development group:

"As with all of our projects, 3339 SE Division is on the bus line and has an excellent walk score. There is no parking, and we describe the building and location as “bike intentioned”—not just bike friendly, but actually built with bicyclist (and pedestrian) tenants in mind."

I'm fine with that as long as they refuse to sell to any tenant that owns or drives a car.

It sounds like the development does include bike parking. Does that count?

oregbear, Safeway wouldn't build without parking because they are a smart business, from outside the Portland bubble.

In normal places, where people have their heads on straight, developers include parking because they know it is an amenity which increases the value of their property. It's not because they are forced to by zoning. They know that a property with convenient parking for users is literally worth more than one without. In Portland, people have actually convinced themselves that parking is a negative.

Sure, they might attract enough tenants who can bike (although I don't think it's a requirement or that there's even a monetary incentive) but how long can that go on? With prices rising and the population aging, many of these places will have to rethink their philosophies a few years down the road . . . except they DON'T have to because I doubt the city can retroactively compel them to build parking. Especially when there's no place to put it.

I thought I heard some rumbling about redoing the design requirements regarding parking for anticipated tenants in a new building. Maybe all these Borg Cubes are accelerating because they're trying to make the window before construction of parking spaces is once again required.

A question about these "20 minute" neighborhoods the planning class so loves.
Should we expect them to put up fences around each one to keep the residents in ?
You know, like the Warsaw Ghetto of WW2...

Perhaps having to pay a toll to get out on the road to go to another "20 minute" neighborhood!!

It's obvious, the purpose of apartments with no offstreet parking is to eventually force people (encourage people) out of owning a car, so they are required to use mass transit, walk, or bike.

A "carless" community.

Has that purpose or result (however you want to phrase it) been clearly communicated to the public as a whole and the effected neighborhood specifically?

Is this an issue that has been articulated in City of Portland election contests for office?

Would it make any difference?

We've got an agenda here and until we can break though
the lock step insider game here, heaven help us!