The lot on SE Ankeny that currently looks like this:
Is slated to someday turn into this:
Five townhomes and one condo will make up Ankeny Row (pdf), an “urban green living” project from design-build company Green Hammer. The buildings are supposed use super energy efficient “passive house” construction and are priced at $581,200 for a three-bedroom street-facing unit. That’s definitely a price jump for the neighborhood—the 1912 two-bathroom house directly across the street is assessed at a value of $290,500.
One thing worth noting is that the builders are using the bike-and-walk friendliness of the neighborhood as a major selling point. From their pitch:
The location of the project on an urban infill site in an existing, highly walkable neighborhood, allows a car-free lifestyle to be enjoyed, with all daily needs available by foot, bike, or public transportation. These human-scaled connections to adjoining neighborhoods allow the public realm to be an extension of the living space.
That’s really excellent news. I can’t wait to see these!
Assessed value is BS. I haven’t even seen it, but a 1912 house in that neighborhood with two full bathrooms is probably worth closer to 325-375K if it’s not a total shithole.
With that said, no one is paying 580K for any of these, no matter how eco-obsessed they are.
There are a couple new homes in my neck of the woods (Alberta), and I have no idea why the builders have priced them in that same ludicrous ballpark to start with. Are they just fishing for one rich idiot for a couple months before they adjust for reality?
“Definitely a price jump”…that’s for damn sure. Well, you’ll make it up in energy savings in the next 80 years or so.
Too bad they’ll be turned into rotting subsidized housing apartments after no one buys them.
This is really excellent news! We need to push poor people out of livable neighborhoods faster!
@D, for a guy who loves the free market, you don’t seem to have a keen grasp on how one works, particularly the one for housing in inner SE.
Kudos to you for finding a way to wedge in a completely irrelevant dig at subsidized housing, though. If people don’t want to sleep outside they should have considered that before choosing to be poor.
How much you wanna bet they end up converting into rentals, like the Belmont 2121 eyesore?
My underlying point Colin is the alarming and unfair corruption of the city bureaus in favor of a handful of developers.
The vacancy rates for similar projects has been astronomical, forcing the owners to turn them into apartments.
As for many of the other bunkers, they are subsidized by the city.
Let me see the results and then I can talk….
yoga teacher training
That’s cool that they’re going to turn the road into a river of chocolate.
@lithell: Have you ever been to that neighborhood? Do you see the house in the adjacent lot? There aren’t many poors living in $400k Victorians in Buckman.
@D: Slinging buzzwords like “bunkers” just outs you as a bojack-reading, irrelevant troll. You do know that, right?
@Drunk&Write: There is plenty of non-richie housing in the area. It’s pretty mixed right now. Are you arguing that building these somehow won’t contribute to the slow driving out of low and middle class people from livable neighborhoods?
A troll’s only point is to generate more blog fodder.
My point is exactly what I stated earlier about city corruption with the accompanying ugliness.
Are you arguing for tearing out affordable mixed homes and rentals in favor of adding half-million dollar homes?
I am as the previous commenter said, for the free market – but this is not it.
This is a city manipulated, taxpayer funded effort to pay off selected developers.
I’m arguing for no such thing. What affordable mixed housing is being torn out? Everything I’ve seen shows a vacant lot.
And that house nextdoor? It’s a multi-million dollar property profiled here: http://bikeportland.org/2011/12/02/wall-st…
So really…these are low-priced for the neighborhood. And you’re still a troll.
It’s not just this project either – the two lots immediately both have buildings approved for construction on them. One tax lot has two duplexes designed by Colab Architecture, and the other lot has two duplexes by Webster Wilson, for a total of 8 units.
@Lithell. Yes, I would argue that point. Housing is like any other commodity, in that it is affected greatly by supply and demand. San Francisco is a beautiful city with great amenities and a booming economy, and very restrictive development ordinances. Therefore, supply is much lower than demand, and so prices are high. Detroit, conversely, is a city with very low demand for housing within the City Proper, and a great deal of supply. Therefore I could probably buy a house with cash in Detroit (and in Portland, I rent.)
All the developments mentioned are being built on previously vacant land, so are increasing the housing supply. Yes, they will probably all be sold or rented at prices far beyond what a person on a low income can afford, but I fail to see to see how they will push people out of the neighborhood.
@Drunk & Write – to be pedantic, the house you linked to is nearby, but not on that block. The nextdoor house(s) are these: http://bit.ly/w1y563.
People who buy half-million dollar homes want garages. Any potential buyer will see lack of off-street parking as a deal breaker, if only for resale. These are totally going to end up as rentals.
@maccoinnich You’re right! Classism is integrated into the free market and therefore it is the will of god!
Hey… I’m not Ayn Rand here. But like it or not, the housing market is a market, and there is a benefit in understanding how it works. If you’d to explain how new development on vacant lots “contribute[s] to the slow driving out of low and middle class people from livable neighborhoods” then please go ahead, I’d love to hear it.
“One thing worth noting is that the builders are using the bike-and-walk friendliness of the neighborhood as a major selling point.”
Regardless of the topic, if any story has anything to do with bikes, odds on that’s the “one thing” that’s going to be “worth noting.”
Don’t you feel kind of weird engaging in free advertising for some condo developer just because it’s “green”? I mean, there’s a guy down the street from me putting in a new walkway using reclaimed bricks. You want to come talk to him?
“If you’d to explain how new development on vacant lots “contribute[s] to the slow driving out of low and middle class people from livable neighborhoods” then please go ahead, I’d love to hear it.”
It’s called “gentrification” and it worked really well along MLK in close in NE.
I’m familiar with the term gentrification, and if it you want to slow it down or reverse it, the single best thing you can do is to make the neighborhood worse. Read this (the author’s tongue is firmly in cheek): http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv…
But go on – I’m really, genuinely, interested in an explanation of how *adding* to the housing supply forces people out of their homes. Again: no one lives where these buildings are proposed.
Uggh.