4 stories, 77 units over retail, uderground parking. At least there is some parking, but it will be interesting to see the design as this is a site that does not require design review.

A sad implication of "redevelopment. Curious, was the photo taken with an iPhone using the panorama option in iOS6?

"Urban Planning" in Portland is a deceit that uses taxpayer revenue to fund corporate real estate development while fooling the public into thinking they're saving the world.

No design review? How will the city collect its excessive system development fees?
Are the system development fees waived for the crap-artments?

It is funny that we all want property rights until of course our neighbor decides to put a cell tower next door. Or a gargantuan apartment complex or a porn palace. I guess it comes down to who is who is cashing in and who is having to live with it.

A friend noted to me that this is an odd town, that places the needs of who they think will be coming over current residents, who should be their constituency. Don't question the new urbanism mafia. They know what's best for your neighborhood.

Only good news, it appears PDC is not involved.

It is funny that we all want property rights until of course our neighbor decides to put a cell tower next door.

And what's wrong with that? We want the right to bear arms as well, but make it illegal for someone to own a RPG or an anti-aircraft gun.

That picture is what should represent the best of Portland - beautiful homes somewhat close to the urban core.

This, unfortunately, is what Portland seems to feel is better for everyone:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/13/north-korea-real-life-press-bus

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128948/The-North-Korea-want--North-Korea-saw-press-bus-took-wrong-turn.html

"Are the system development fees waived for the crap-artments?"

No. That's why the CoP loves crap-artments: they generate $15k per unit in SDC's and other fees. The CoP can push the virtues of "sustainability", "car-free living", and "20-minute neighborhoods" all they want, but this hyper-densification via crap-artments is simply a revenue generator for them. If you think the CoP will re-examine on-site parking requirements (which will make crap-artment construction much less viable), think again; it will never happen.

This is Oregon's land use planning system for you. Ruin existing neighborhoods in order to "save farmland," which is code for allowing a few farmers to rip off their neighbors by leasing their land for pennies on the dollar ("here's my offer - since your land is farmland, you can't do anything with it, so I'll rip you off and make you an offer you can't refuse").

The "protected" land is then covered with pesticides, and used to grow such valuable products as grass seed, nursery stock (i.e. potted plants) and christmas trees, creating a bunch of $9/hour "jobs" for farm laborers (today's indentured servants).

The select few farmers who run this racket and profit enormously then join groups like 1000 Friends and con the sheeple in Portland into believing that "saving farmland" is the only thing that ensures that we have food to buy at the store. These same sheeple then vote for the candidates that perpetuate this hoax under the guise that this is exactly what Saint Tom McCall had in mind when he created our land use system back in 1973.

You can't separate rural and urban land use planning in our state controlled system. Your neighborhoods get screwed, the majority of rural property owners get screwed, the farm laborers get screwed, so that a few large farms and the pesticide industry can make out like bandits and continue to produce crops that aren't even edible. But until people in Portland and the suburbs demand change, you can continue to expect your neighborhoods to be apartment bunkers. Have fun with that - it's what Tom McCall wanted - trust me.

I support much of the high density development that many here on the blog oppose. But it does seem to me that there are plenty of surface lots throughout Portland that would better support an apartment complex. I'm not sure the city is so dense that we need to start tearing down 100 year old homes.

note to Walter,
It's Google street view, same cars and everything. Just enter an approximate address, like "2601 Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland, OR" into Google, click on "street view" and scroll around.

While I love old houses, and live in one not too far away from here, these are now commercial buildings. If they're being moved close by, ideally their beauty won't be lost. And yes, it sounds like it will increase density right on Hawthorne, where that denisity belongs. Walk across the street to Safeway; grab the 14, which comes by every 10-15 minutes. Or bike anywhere.

After living in Irvington for over 0ver 25 years, we moved bought a home and shop on 5 acres east of Oregon City. I can't begin to tell you how pleased we are to be out of Portland although we loved our turn of the century home and neighbors. If I want to plant of cut down a tree, I just do it. If I want to burn cut blackberry vines and weeds, I can easily get a permit. The only problem is Clackamas River Water but we manage to keep the government out of our daily lives out here. We don't have two good for nothing politicians running for mayor. We don't have unfunded police and fire pensions. We don't have homeless and aggressive folks bothering us downtown and we don't have morons tearing down perfectly good homes to build apartments, most of which have no off street parking.

But it does seem to me that there are plenty of surface lots throughout Portland that would better support an apartment complex.

I agree, but I suspect the answer lies with the zoning restrictions attached to those lots--it's not a simple matter of converting them to a large residential building without a lot of complicated (and expensive) code changes, reviews, etc.

...these are now commercial buildings...

That's due to planner's zoning. Where you live right now can be "rezoned" on a whim without your consultation.

Re: Jonathan, "If they're being moved close by..."

If you're reading "...the owner intends to start the dismantling the day after they all move out" as the whole buildings being moved, I'm thinking not.

Dismantling as in, tearing down and saving small bits and pieces.

In my neighborhood down near the Milwaukie border, when an old bungalow gets torn down to make way for a shiny new one twice as big and twice as high, they just send in a large backhoe to make quick work of turning it into kindling and wall plaster dust (including leaded paint dust, no doubt).

I think it's become cheaper to destroy them than move them. Besides the old craftsman homes aren't environmentally "sustainable" by current Portland standards.

Question: what happens to all the splinters and debris from this kind of demolition? It turns from house to rubble in a day and I don't believe much of anything is going to a reclamation center.

A) Can someone confirm if they're being moved or demolished?

B) Who is the developer?

C) Where do I report vandalism to the city, because this is what it is if they're being demolished?

Answered my own questions:

http://portlandpreservation.wordpress.com/