Comments

1
I live near the Beaumont Apartments, I support building them as they are mixed use with ground floor retail. The owner has already torn down the buildings that used to be there and the apartments are already under construction, let them finish.
2
It's never too late to make a bad building.

Neighbors and business owners within a half-mile radius have been canvassed and are overwhelmingly against this type of development, one that unleashes unmitigated impact on the neighborhood in terms of public/traffic/pedestrian safety, slowed emergency response along Fremont, and lack of dedicated space for a city-estimated, expected 36 tenant vehicles, among other issues. One side of the block where the building is sited has no sidewalk so people are forced to walk in the street; combine that condition with lots of drivers looking for parking, and a low-connectivity street system already carrying too much traffic, and you've got a recipe for hazard. There's already been too many pedestrian injuries (http://bwnrg.blogspot.com).

With the LUBA appeal Beaumont-Wilshire Neighbors for Responsible Growth continue to hope for significant modifications to the building that would mitigate impact/s and/or city infrastructure that supports—and makes up for—this type of low-amenity development.
3
The sidewalk is closed during construction, it will reopen when it is done, the longer people hold up the construction the longer the sidewalk will be closed. There is plenty of parking in the neighborhood, I never have trouble finding a place within a block or two when I try to park near the development. If there is any real problem with our neighborhood in terms of pedestrian access it is the Cemetery which blocks access to fremont from the north for 10 blocks, not this apartment building. I am going to be very pissed off if this small but vocal group of neighbors ends up doing what the people over on division did, which was to remove the ground floor retail from a mixed use development.
4
" I never have trouble finding a place within a block or two when I try to park near the development. If there is any real problem with our neighborhood in terms of pedestrian access it is the Cemetery which blocks access to fremont from the north for 10 blocks, not this apartment building."

Yeah, fuck those dead people getting in the way of your beloved density and ground floor retail.
5
@chuck the cemetary, which by the way is completely tax exempt paying no property tax on around 60 blocks of high value land, could easily provide for pedestrian access through the cemetary, but they do not thereby creating a lengthy detour for anyone on foot.
6
"I never have trouble finding a place within a block or two when I try to park near the development."

So you drive to your dense walkable pedestrian-oriented shopping street?

One problem with this whole debate is people living one way but expecting that there is a great army of "others" out there who are just dying to live a life of sacrifice in 300 sq.ft. boxes. I know plenty of urban planners. They preach this stuff all day, and truly believe it, but they themselves own cars and houses.

So much of this density debate is about turning off common sense and having a religious-like faith in theories. Common sense: building giant apartment buildings without parking will cause a parking problem. Theory: building these apartments will socially engineer our populace into non-drivers. One of these is straightforward, and the other is quite a stretch. A stretch that has actually been proven wrong by a city-led study on whether or not these tenants own cars.
7
@Blabby: New buildings have to go somewhere, so should they increase density or increase sprawl?

I'm willing to accept "parking problems" over decreasing the distinction between Portland and Gresham.
8
You can increase density while still having parking requirements. You guys are like fundamentalists. "No parking or no buildings! There shall be no in between!" Even the modest, inadequate new requirements they just passed have people hollering that "we're dismantling our reputation for smart planning!"

Portland will only add density going forward. If you don't think it is like Gresham now, then you will be just fine. The point is we can add density without being car-hating jihadists about it. Planning for the actual future we're going to have instead of an absolutist new urbanist fever dream is just prudent. You might even call that "smart planning."
9
Chuck you are such a troll. Econoline describing the physical barrier that the cemetery presents is not at all the same as necrophilia. Go back to reading your Ayn Rand.
10
blabby, how much land in the city under the new rules will require 1 to 1 parking per unit? The overwhelming majority. How is that anti-car jihad?

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.