In this week’s paper, I reported on a fight between neighbors, the city and the developer who’s building the four-story Albert Apartment building on the old N. Williams House of Sound site. Neighbors are upset about a variety of things with the project — some lament the gentrification of the area, others that the building is a different design character than the rest of the street. In the article I wanted to talk about historical importance of the site, so I didn’t have space to discuss one important issue: Should this 72 unit mixed-use building qualify for a $1.12 million transit oriented tax break?
The city initially said yes. Since the design meets the city’s transit oriented development guidelines, the project was officially stamped good for transit because it’s over 10 units, makes 20 percent of its apartments “affordable” and is within a quarter mile of MLK Avenue (a rapid bus transit Main Street).
But that seems absurd to neighbor Tracy Olson, who wrote an appeal against the plan. “How is his development Transit Oriented? He is building a 49 car parking lot on the ground floor, something the City does not require and in fact a feature that in the City’s eyes discourages mass transit usage. This parking lot will include ONE car share space – for 72 apartments, ONE car share as part of the TOD abatement qualifications, Transit Oriented?”
Olson’s right – while the transit-oriented zoning means developers don’t have to put in any parking spaces for residents in a project like this, the city’s “transit oriented” criteria do not include a parking space maximum. The car share space isn’t required for transit-oriented development either, that’s just a “public benefit” a developer can putting in to qualify for the tax break. So what if Portland forced developers to build carfree housing in mass transit corridors? I wrote last year about some smart young architects who are doing density right in North Portland — their cohousing project started off with parking spaces, but ripped them out to make room for more condos.
That’s an extreme. But, hey, isn’t Portland looking to be the most sustainable city in the whole wide world?
The Albert Apartments design is up for appeal in July, drop the NE Coalition of Neighborhoods a line to figure out how to get involved.
“what if Portland forced developers to build carfree housing “
Then we’d be a whole lot closer to the totalitarian state fans of such a mindset seem to crave.
Let’s take a poll – how many of you have ever used the eeeevil personal mode of transport to get your stuff into a new apartment? Or go to the beach?
I have a simple answer for the un-realists as to when people will stop driving cars=never.
> what if Portland forced developers to build carfree housing
Then Portland would not have developers any more, or, for that matter, real estate purchasers. What a fucking stupid idea. If developers want to build that kind of housing, they are free to do so. Meddling in the economic decisions of builders and buyers is idiotic.
“what if Portland forced developers to build carfree housing”
Then all the people who move there (who WILL own cars anyway) will park in front of YOUR house Sherlock.
Tracy, be glad that you’re even getting 49 spaces. That leaves the residents of over twenty units who will be leaving their cars in front of your house for days on end.
Giant carfree apartment projects are not “density done right” – they’re a disaster for existing property owners.
Note to dipshits: This city isn’t all 20 years old. Many people in this city can’t take the time to bike commute everywhere. The people who do fit the above description are not the ones creating the economy here and keep the city chugging. There is a very high probability that people who do fit the above description owe their livelihoods to people who would NEVER rent or own a place with no parking.
“what if Portland forced developers to build carfree housing”
Then the residents (who WILL own cars anyway) will take up the street parking for three blocks in every direction.
(This town is run by children, I f**king swear.)
sadly, i have to agree with the ever-angry mr. voluptuous. at nearly .5 spaces per unit, this is a big step towards real transit oriented development. it’s not going to happen overnight, and developers have to weigh market forces when moving forward on projects like this.
also, i guarantee you that if there were no parking spaces for this project some other, equally vocal and angry, portion of the neighborhood would be up in arms because everyone would be parking in front of their houses.
GRRRR
Everyone loves the concept of the greater good and higher density sustainable infill blah blah blah until it comes to their neighborhood. I’m sure Ms. Olson realizes that one alternative is to add those 72 units into the supply as giant homes in Happy Valley that are 5 miles from any bus line (and with 3-car garage).
I would also be willing to bet that Ms. Olson has her own parking space in the driveway or the garage and that she would not try to sell her house without it.
I do not understand why ‘density’ advocates prefer to be packed shoulder to shoulder. Are they so insecure they need constant validation from other people?
Surely, they are not so dense as to know that as Sartre says,”hell is other people.”
Have they never been to Montana or North Dakota?
“I do not understand why ‘density’ advocates prefer to be packed shoulder to shoulder.”
They don’t prefer it. As rickshaws pointed out, they prefer it for other people. Density is great… in your neighborhood. Riding transit is great… for you.
What planners don’t realize is that the eventual backlash to what they’re doing right now, may well be the end of the UGB altogether. At the very least, it’s going to be a movement of people out of the city into the countryside, where they will have to drive their cars back into the city.
People like their little homes in old Pdx neighborhoods, but if you surround them with a bunch of brand new, light blocking skinny homes and triplexes with no parking, they WILL leave eventually.
They’ll take their money and political clout and carve a place for themselves in the suburbs. If the UGB system is a hindrance, they’ll end it. This state isn’t run by bike messengers and moony-eyed recent college grads. Like everywhere else, the real power is in the older richer family demographic. And if you insist on ruining their community with crappy infill housing, they’ll change the rules to what they want.
There’s a reason that this type of crap is happening in traditionally black and poor neighborhoods. Instead of cheering a new apartment complex with no parking, liberals SHOULD be asking why these projects are successfully killed in Irvington, but gets huge subsidies on N. Williams.
Yeah, planning for density is all fine and good and is one of the reasons Portland has revitalized its central core, but I think the complaint from Ms. Olson is not the density, but that this developer might be getting an unfair tax break. Those are lost taxes that do not help the city mind you for things like road improvements, new bike lanes, affordable housing and drum roll…public transportation, etc. It does seem that this project might go against the intent of transit oriented design and tax break policies in the city. I’m somewhat inclined to agree with Olson.
In addition, it’s wonderful to try to encourage transit oriented development in a city, but seems problematic when that very same city is facing transit service cuts, including completely cutting the number 4 line which serves that immediate area.
Yes, I don’t know why I forget that, Blabby.
I was going off of that ‘density done right’ link article – it’s much like the ‘co-housing’ movement (see the eyesores at Killingsworth and N. Burrage)
I have no doubt these peoples’ greatest frustration in life is keeping the seething hatred of their neighbors bottled up.
This issue is not about car-free development – it is about a huge public subsidy of a massive new development that is proposed and designed with no consideration of the surroundings. If Portland residents – especially those in long-establiahed traditional neighborhoods – are going to be supportive of growth at higher densities, then there needs to be considerable attention to what these new developments look like and feel like, and how they impact their tax-paying neighbors.
What is special or filling an unmet public need that warrants the TOD tax exemption – which means paying property taxes only on the underlying dirt/land, and nothing on the buidlding for ten years? This question should be asked for any TOD application.
How much new development should be publicly subsidized and why? It is public money so the “public” has the right & responsibilty to participate in making the decisions. That’s the way the lofy goal & intent of “citizen participation” – the foundation of Oregon’s 1970s land use planning system – was supposed to work.
Cathy Galbraith
i have been bike commuting for 3 years in portland
it takes just as long to ride my bike 4 miles as it would to drive
i am not 20 either, and i see plenty of older folks bike commuting as well
as much as i dislike the design, i would submit that this building is on one of the busiest bike commuting corridors in portland
i would also submit that us younger, non home owning, bike commuting folks do pay taxes and support our communities.
and some day we will buy homes/condos without parking spaces
so there