Uh, there's on street parking all over the place in that neighborhood. Not providing dedicated spots simply means those on-street spots become even more valuable. This is developers trying to squeeze every last buck out of their buildings, which means not having to use space on parking.

71 unit buildings with 15 parking spots. We'll NEVER regret that! What could possibly go wrong?

It's weird when kool-aid-drinking bike-riding ecofascists like Mirk become the biggest cheerleaders of private property developers.

Hey I bet after he squeezes on all those extra units he'll share the profits with you! Or maybe he'll just stuff the money in his pocket while laughing at all you green twits for making him rich.

This town used to look historic and cool with character.

Now EVERY damn place to eat, drink work and freaking sleep is exactly the same shade of bland.

Thanks kool-aid-drinking bike-riding ecofascists!

Isn't that the building Discourage Records is (was?) in? Across from Wolf & Bear? I haven't lived in SE in a couple years, so memory is hazy.

I was going to write you an email yesterday asking if you knew what was going in there. I drive (hehehehehehe) past this spot every day.

So...someone finally builds real urban housing that has the approval of the neighborhood association...and Portland Mercury readers are against it? Really? I guess I can't talk though, because I live in Northwest Portland, where *nobody* has parking and where we *actually* take public transit instead of just complaining about it.

You should see the planned apartment building going in on Mississippi next to Pistil's Nursery; A smaller (but equally dense) four-story condo building that isn't planning for any off street parking.

Chris, yes we should force property developers to provide for the parking needs of the people they plan to bring into the area. If they don't then everyone else "pays" for it. There's a reason that every other city in the country does it that way.

Kollontai, looking at the parking situation in NW, why should/does the city intentially set out to create the same situation in other parts of the city? New development is the one time when you can try to alleviate the additional cars being introduced. After that, it's too late.

The buildings that inspired this (boring nostalgic) design had ZERO tenant parking. Buildings like this one: http://g.co/maps/zxw2y Somehow THAT worked.

Yeah, lots of old buildings don't have parking because they were built before common car ownership, so now their tenants park all over the street for blocks around. Should we return to sending messages by telegraph as well? And delivering ice with a donkey cart?

Should we continue to have the mandatory subsidization of an environmentally destruction method of transportation - one that isn't even accessible to some people with disabilities, working-class people, the elderly? Why should buildings be forced to build parking spaces for a specific demographic - if that isn't even the demographic they're targeting as tenants? Not everyone drives, and not everyone wants the city to look like a suburb.

Can we please face and accept reality? Most of those people are going to have cars. Even if only half have cars, that is still at least 35 parking spots. Rather than absorb those cars into the footprint of the building, the builder has been allowed to cast them out onto the public. Talk about a subsidy.

Lolz @jake and @pork chop. Learn how to park and walk a block to get home. They do it all the time all over on the east coast.

@7, Some of these guys would be against a super cute baby being born, if it was written up in the Mercury.

C and B,

Discourage is in the building a block down.

Walking and biking is NOT a substitute for a car. Telling us to "walk a block" or take public transportation is moronic - why are you assuming that we are only driving for a block? Why assume that we don't have to go further than a bus can take us?

I live in SE - bought a little apartment building there, and have to do "owner occupied" for a while. I work way out in Hillsboro. I also work at the Sylvania campus of PCC. And I take classes at the Rock Creek campus. And I volunteer on Mississippi. Think I could replace my car with a bike or a bus pass?

I'm telling you that MY story is a LOT more common than you slackers who get through your week by slouching along for a block at a time, or by setting aside an hour every time you need to ride the bus a couple of miles. You're living in a bubble, and the idea of force-fitting that bubble on other people is ridiculous.

@Reymont

I also live in inner SE and have a similar situation to you in regards to work location and my extracurricular activities. I park my car where I can and walk a block or so to my house. It's not that inconvenient.

BlackedOut, I think his point is that you still drive frequently. The car-free lifestyle is unrealistic for most people.

And when they build something like this, a large share of the tenants will own cars. Maybe a smaller share than the general public, and more power to them, but still a big share. So regardless of where the cars are eventually accommodated, the building comes with a parking quota, period.

So why do we put that additional parking burden on the existing neighborhood, instead of requiring the developer to address the burden that he is creating? The developer's profit margin is not a public concern. If addressing the parking situation that he causes with his private property is expensive, tough for him.

what a bunch of car-parking pussies we have here.

here's a thought: once the area is saturated with cars parking on-street some genius can come in and build a garage for you poor souls and make a fortune. that's going to take a while, though. in the meantime the market will decide whether it's a good idea to try to sell/rent places like these w/out parking. my guess is they'll have no problems. that's how things go in the big city.

"come in and build a garage for you poor souls and make a fortune."

That's the certainly one issue. Good luck getting a free-standing parking lot built in this city.

If part of your lease/sale agreement is that you can't own a car and live in this complex, then Sarah's kudos stand. I'm guessing that isn't the case though. I mean, if New Seasons opened a store and said "Hey, we want people to ride or bike to our stores, so we're not going to provide parking!!" the neighborhood would go bananas. This is a much smaller scale, but nevertheless.

Bottom line: no one is NOT moving into these apartments because there's no dedicated space to park. If the price is right rent/mortgage wise, people will park on the street, probably much to the chagrin of the existing neighbors and businesses.

@ Chuck: Existing neighbors & businesses: that would be the huge Qwest - oops, Century Link - switching facility right next door. It's a telecomm warehouse with little to no parking needs, and its not going anywhere anytime soon.

@ everyone else: don't like the results? Ask the City to change the code. Or, buy the property yourself and build the parking. Otherwise, these are the rules. I live in the neighborhood and have zero problem with the project, or any others like it that may come along.

They're Predator trees! I wish we had those in my neighborhood...

@23 - who let the Mayor of East Haven in here?

I don't have a car, so I have no need for a parking spot. If you had a need for a parking spot, this would not fit your needs. Simple, isn't it? I'll be scoping this place out to see if it fits my budget. And Tri-Met passes too? Awesome, right?