Neighborhood opponents of the Albert Apartment project finally got their say in front of City Council this morning. And it sounded like Commissioners Amanda Fritz and Nick Fish might have been swayed by their concerns about the 72 apartments planned for the former House of Sound lot on North Williams.
The Design Commission recommended the Albert Apartments receive a $1.12 million tax abatement over ten years from the Portland Development Commission, since the project meets the city’s transit oriented development (TOD) guidelines. But, as
discussed on Blogtown in July, the project’s critics say the project isn’t worth a $1.12 million subsidy. The apartments are a quarter-mile from the buses on MLK Avenue and the “public benefits” that qualify the project for public money are its provision of ground-floor commercial space, LEED silver certification and a single car share space.
Also revealed at council this morning is that the open space required of the project will be mostly comprised of a surface parking lot.
“If this is truly a transit-oriented development, why are 48 parking spots being included?” Portlander Cathy Galbraith asked council.
“We have serious questions about whether the public benefit in this 72 unit building justifies the abatement. When we can’t fund schools, at the same time we’re giving $1.2 million a way,” opined neighbor Tracy Olson.
Commissioner Fritz raised the same questions. “I’m concerned about the public benefits the developer was provided to choose from. They could provide one car share space or on that same list, make twenty percent of the units be handicap accessible. It doesn’t seem like those should be on the same level.” Fritz also asked whether the public benefits of outweighed the unwanted impact on the neighborhood, “the height and bulk of the building on a street that is not a major transit route. ” A complete list of public benefits a developer can include to snag public dollars is here.
Seemingly upset at the design note that some of the Albert’s bedrooms will have no windows (and that the developer didn’t know whether all the windowless bedrooms will be in the project’s 18 affordable units), Fritz asked, “How would you meet LEED silver if you constantly have to have a light on in the bedroom?”
Commissioner Fish agreed that the criteria for qualifying for millions in tax breaks needs to be “scrubbed carefully.” Fish asked, “Are we getting our bang for the buck? At what point do you revisit the basic ground rules?” But Fish also concluded that it would be a little harsh to submit the Albert Apartments to new criteria retroactively. “If we conclude that the developer followed all the rules and it meets our criteria and we still come away with a building that the neighborhood objects to, is it our role at this point to yank to abatement?”
Council plans to vote on the tax abatement next week.
- Albert Apartments – 56 vertical feet of (technically) transit oriented development
If the developers are in good faith following the guidelines for abatement as outlined by the city code, why shouldn’t they receive the tax break?
It’s not the developer’s fault that the city wrote up some weak-ass tax laws.
Sometimes I think there must be only one architect in the entire city of Portland. Why do these developments always look exactly alike?
#44 goes right by, #4 is a block away. But growing transport of choice for this area is bikes. What about a bike-friendly apartment? What would that entail?
“What about a bike-friendly apartment? What would that entail?”
@pdx97217
An act of god.
Developers aren’t stupid. Rain 8 months a year=a lot of fair weather bikers.
I don’t think so. There’s a steady stream of bikes flowing with rush hour traffic down Vancouver and up Williams year-round now. Probably at least 2 or 3 a minute between 4 PM and dusk right now. Obviously the weather has a factor, but we’re talking affiliation and not actual practice.
This is the Portland generic business plan – showcase hipsters but target young parents + tourists, Voo Doo, Powells, Mercury, Adidas, W+K, Stumptown, etc.
It’s a niche. Get in it.
“This is the Portland generic business plan – showcase hipsters but target young parents + tourists”
If the people actually coming are young parents, then why would a businessman build apartments for the “showcase hipsters”.
In answer to your original point, they are building units around town with no parking to supposedly appeal to bicyclists and walkers, but I don’t believe it for a second. There is no studies or hard numbers whatsoever to support the conclusion that these people don’t own cars that just crowd up the surrounding blocks.
Couple of thoughts. As a resident of the neighborhood I have no opinion at this point about this development as I have not studied it carefully but for Amanda to suggest it is an “unwanted impact” without asking anyone beyond a few NIMBY’s who showed up to testify is pretty rich.
Also Williams is a bike highway. The 4 and 44 run up (4 turns at Freemont). I think there is plenty of transit around it and I consider bikes alternative transit.
Thirdly, it’s pretty ironic that these same guidelines were used for dozens of buildings in the ultra rich Pearl and other core downtown buildings but suddenly when there is a development in North Portland utilizing the tax breaks it becomes a “controversy”.
I’m no planner but it seems rather unfair to ask a developer to submit to a set of guidelines drawn up by the City and then suddenly come down on the developer for following the guidelines you wrote!
funny thing is there are a lot of architects in portland
but the developers only hire a “choice” few
hence the continuity of all the designs