Comments

1
I'm really tired of the term, "affordable housing," because it means precisely nothing useful. By definition, anyone who can "afford" to live in the residence they currently live in is already a resident of "affordable housing," e.g. millionaires in mansions thus live in affordable housing.

You mean "low income housing." Sorry if you find it pejorative, but that's what we're talking about.
2
If they're not going to come through with the housing they should just move some low income people into those condos. I mean, aren't they like 70% empty or something?
3
I don't know about the entire district but the John Ross is 74% sold. A lot of those condos were sold at steeply discounted prices.
4
Yeah, makes sense to keep building when they can't move what they already built....
5
BlackedOut - "Sold" isn't the same as "occupied".

Those buildings are ~20% occupied. I believe the John Ross is the most occupied at a whopping 30%.

There are very, very few lights ever on in those buildings. I can see them easily from my pad at night.

That being said, the majority of the high-end condos Downtown are that way, not just these on the South Waterfront.
6
It seems like a single building with 400 units of low-income housing would sure be a strange place, especially surrounded by much more expensive buildings.
7
@ Reymont, I'm sure the would-be low-income occupants would be happy to live in even a "strange" place. Pretty much all of close-in Portland features the same "phenomenon" of long-time working class residents becoming surrounded by the more affluent.

It's definitely a shame that this never happened. Regardless of the specifics of why it never went up, this shit rightfully pisses people off. It's like every time a group of businesspeople want public money for a sports stadium, and then promise all of these public-friendly extras will be provided, and then inevitably, for whatever reason, those things don't happen.

The only question is why every city in the country eagerly swallows the same swill over and over again.
8
The tried putting projects in a high income area in Chicago--they called it "Cabrini Green." Google that for a horror story.
Lack of ownership=lack of care.
9
Thanks for the name, Spartacus - I just read the Wikipedia entry. Pretty wild.
10
Seriously?!! Cabrini Green?!! When the hell are people going to give up that ghost? That isn't at all what we're talking about here. Not even close. Has anyone looked at the nonprofit affordable housing in Portland?!!

The Watershed? Station Place Tower? Madrona Studios? I'm saddened that you don't know about those.
11
They are actually redeveloping Cabrini Green with high end housing and allowing low income people an opportunity to buy in, or at least they were when I lived there 10 years ago. If you were low income you could get a new rowhouse at below market value, but when you sold you got the appreciation only on what you paid, the city kept the rest as they were considered part owner. Also they had some of the most racist sounding CC&Rs ever to 'protect' higher income people who paid full market value; no hanging out on the stoop, no leaning out your window and yelling at people on the streets, no basketball in the street and so on. It was an innovative mixed income housing model at the time, I have no idea how it worked out.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.