Comments on: Neighbors oppose Alphabet District apartment project

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 11 May 2011 23:08:50 +0000

This is NIMBY-ism at its best. Look at both of the adjacent structures and a few across the street. They are exactly to scale with what the developer is proposing here, and it is consistent with the zoning. So, what’s the problem? It the proposed setbacks are close to what exists on the adjacent parcels, what’s the problem there?

While some may balk about the density (26 units on a 5,000 sqft lot)…that’s been done for decades…just look at the adjacent structures.

I’m not biting on the “historical structure” BS either.

By: Carl B

Carl B — Wed, 11 May 2011 19:20:50 +0000

The hard part of these articles is they never go far enough. There is so much impact to a neighborhood by replacing a SFR with 26 units. What does that street look like now, and how would it accommodate 26 new households.

What really gets me is a comment where Sowieja mentions that we should all be going by the code not what it means for future development but just before is proposing a plan that already goes against codes. You cant have it both ways… either follow the code… in its exact form.. and get an exact review of it on its merits alone or take the gamble, pay the money, and allow discussion of what circumventing the code would mean for the neighborhood. Any change or variance offers a potential future where of course other developers would be clamoring for “fairness” in being able to have that same variance for themselves.

As a developer myself there is inherent risks in any project, and while we want to decrease them as much as possible some things need to be done in view of the whole community. The debate here is not a kneejerk reaction of anti development, its a concern about breaking codes and what that means to the livability and future of a neighborhood.

By: Peasant Pundit

Peasant Pundit — Wed, 11 May 2011 18:13:20 +0000

Agree with Mark W. that painting opponents as a certain group undermines Brian’s arguments, and, futher reflects more a developer’s “move aside and let me do it my way” attitude.

And why in seeking increased density, must we move towards extremes? Portland has dozens of dozens of wonderful garden apartments, with far greater density than single family housing, yet allowing common greenery and access to light.

So I’m not opposed to replacing a severely altered old house with something, but does the economics of development preclude anything but a 26 unit project? Even 12 units would be a huge boost in density for that particular lot.

By: Mark W.

Mark W. — Wed, 11 May 2011 16:23:54 +0000

I was nodding my head in agreement with Brian’s comments until he went off and said,

“The “no change, keep Portland Weird and unemployed” group needs to let go and let progress happen.”

Joy Strand, who lives in a house built in 1885 just doors down from the proposed development has the right to have her views heard, as does the neighborhood. I don’t remember reading in the article that Joy and the Northwest Neighborhood Association have an agenda to keep Portland Weird and unemployed.

It’s people like Brian who stir up the pot with negativity and divisive statements that gives developers and those advocating for increased density, a bad name. Shame on you Mr. Owendoff!

By: Jeff Myhre

Jeff Myhre — Wed, 11 May 2011 16:08:24 +0000

Thank you for your well stated comments Brian and Michael. We very much appreciate your support and perspective. Vertical urban infill is the future of quality sustainable development in Portland, Oregon. This means that buildings that are well past their useful life must be replaced with new code compliant structures. However, we recognize that change is always hard for most people to accept and endorse. It’ll take time, but eventually folks will come to realize that if we don’t like sprawl, urban infill is the only viable alternative to meeting the needs of a growing urban center like Portland.

By: Michael C

Michael C — Wed, 11 May 2011 15:31:01 +0000

Brian’s comments are on-target. I used to live right across the street from the Ladd Carriage house; it is a gorgeous historical building, which the construction company took tremendous care to preserve. But not every old building can be preserved as-is. Hopefully some of the materials in this building can be reused and salvaged, or at least donated to the Rebuilding Center in North Portland.

The Urban Growth Boundary exists so that we can build upward and increase our density. Northwest is a lovely district that should, by all means, work to preserve its historic character. But it also must do its part to help Portland continue to grow and mature into a modern city.

By: Brian Owendoff

Brian Owendoff — Wed, 11 May 2011 05:42:02 +0000

I toured the property. It is a run down fire hazzard. Unfortunately it has been so altered from its original design that it is not salvagable. I am all for historic renovation. In my prior position as head of Opus NW, we renovated the Ladd Carriage House (read: a barn) at the cost of almost $2.8 million. It will be sold for a huge loss from what was invested. I love historic buildings, but this is a long stretch to call a historic property. This is akin to declaring a building that Billy Carter (Jimmy’s alcoholic brother) once slept in a historic building. The “no change, keep Portland Weird and unemployed” group needs to let go and let progress happen. Our UGB does not let us grow out, so we must grow up. This is a great opportunity for “addition by substraction”.