When the Brewery Blocks and the Armory were undertaken – the thought wasn’t ‘boy we are going to lose money on this project but let’s do it anyway.’ As “Edlen says his firm lost money on the brewery renovation, but the preservation work added value to the overall redevelopment of the Brewery Blocks, which have made money.”

One has to remember that the Armory has Edlen’s name on it because of the theater. And that armory was substantially supported by TIF dollars and the hijacking of the benefit of the census track that is nearly 99% in Old Town; thus giving him access to the NMTC and the financial rescuing of his building adjacent to the armory.

The University of Oregon buying into the move to the three buildings raises also issues of proper use of public money. One argument for rehab of old buildings is that it generates property taxes, jobs, etc. But these building do not generate property taxes nor did they create new jobs beneficial to the city. Frankly, despite the hype, they have not brought the ‘promised’ redevelopment of Old Town.

Are historic buildings important to the community? It seems easy to say yes, but what part of the community? Would it have made any particular impact on 99% of Portlanders if the buildings were demolished and a new development was put into its place?

Are these projects cost effective? That takes definition. A lot of public dollars go into these projects so the developers can make their profit. Thus, a developer profit is protected because the public subsidizes it. Developer welfare?

Is preservation too expensive. Dollar wise – yes. Without public subsidies, these projects would not provide a positive dollar return on the developer’s investment. It isn’t clear though that a ROI in terms of livability, or other intangible, exists, mostly because of difficulty in measurement.

For the preservationist developer – it is still the bottom line, a subsidized one.

A Perspective