Maybe there won't be a shitfuckton of NIMBY dickholes in Kerns and we can start to get more affordable housing built.

Not Spunky Monkey! I hope they could relocate.

Yep, get those "affordable" $1,000/mo. 400 s.f. studio units built. You know, for the working man.

Can we just stop using the term "Nimby"? It's cliche for one thing. It's also reductive and dismissive. People care about what is happening near to their homes. That doesn't make them monsters - it means they are engaged citizens of their neighborhood.

@Blabby: Nope. Monsters.

"That's the last one without parking." I'm sure that makes the residents 'round 20th & Couch feel much better.

Mr. Sackhoff conveniently lives outside of Portland where they don't have such ridiculously permissive zoning.

Suck it up or build a driveway, NIMBY turds. There is no default right to street parking.

No is saying there is. Strawman.

I love Spunky Monkey. It will make me sad when they're gone. Then what's left in my neighborhood? Heart? Meh. Green Beans? That place is gross. Uggghhh.

@Graham, I'm OK with "NIMBY," but "dickholes," really? I'm getting really tired of your constant urethra-shaming.

Let us take pride in our wee holes.

@Colin

Who said anything about a "default right"? It's urban planning. More street parking makes it easier for people to visit businesses, which allows them to thrive, which makes for a better community. Is that really a difficult concept?

I live 2 blocks away and I'm YIMBYing the shit out of this one. Where do I sign the petition to say hurry up and build this thing?

@ Aestro: More housing equals more customers in close proximity, making it easier for businesses to thrive.

Blabby, "nimby" expresses the fact that people are motivated by parochial concerns. Making "I need a place to park" the sole basis for one's opinion on a big issue is pretty darn short-sighted.

I moved to this city 18 months ago in part because I was sick of all the driving time I was putting in living in Silicon Valley. If you think trying to accommodate more cars solves any problems, I suggest you move to the smog-choked neighborhood I left. Building more parking undos a lot of what makes PDX desirable. And it raises the question: where are those additional cars going to drive? The road grid between 39th and the river is already overburdened.

If people think the system is broken, let them propose a real solution, not something that makes life easier for them and makes the overall situation worse. Minus that attitude: nimby, nimby, nimby, nimby.

Isaac does a great job summing up why I support the neighborhood association.

AMA, why are you are you so excited to see this built out of curiosity? I can see being neutral about it, or generally in favor, but why do you really really want a new apartment complex two blocks away? Just curious.

No business can survive on just the people in the immediate area. Any successful business has people driving to it. They could be ten of these within a block and they wouldn't support a retail business by themselves.

ISAAC, LET ME HELP YOU OUT A BIT: "I JUST MOVED HERE FROM CALIFORNIA" IS NOT A GREAT WAY TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY IN THIS TOWN. NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN.

Isaac, not even sure where to start with that one. First, never loudly declare to a group of Oregonians that you just moved here a year ago from California. You'll understand why someday.

Second, the point is that the tenants of these buildings WILL own cars. Allowing them to be build without parking does not reduce driving. They will own cars and drive anyway. That being the case, make the private, for-profit developer deal with the parking side-effects of his building. He will be keeping all the profit and sharing none with you. So why should we (the public) take the costs of the cars his project is bringing? The public right of way has value. We're essentially handing the value of that right of way to the developer for as long as the building is there.

You guys need to get over the urban planning myth that these buildings will reduce car ownership and usage and help save the planet. They won't. This dispute is about where to put those cars, because the tenants WILL own them.

"... the tenants of these buildings WILL own cars." Right, because everybody in Portland owns a car.

No Isaac, not everyone, just the vast majority of Portlanders, especially those who can afford to live in new condos.

Blabby:

For several reasons -

I support new housing in the central city because it increases the tax base.

I support new housing in the central city because it is located near existing infrastructure that has already been built - including transit, schools, and hospitals. These all work better when the population/tax base are dense enough to support them, and we aren't crapping money away on shiny new stuff when perfectly good stuff is already there.

I support new housing in the central city because it helps keep existing housing affordable. The people moving in to these relatively expensive condos/apartments will be moving out of somewhere else, freeing up that space for people who can't afford new construction. More supply drives down cost.

I support this particular building because this area is already having a little mini-boom of great walkable businesses, and more customers means more cool stuff near my house. More cool stuff means my house gets more valuable.

I'm not looking to destroy the bungalow belt and replace it with 10 story condos. But a very underused (i.e. a 3/4 vacant lot) near 2 busy streets and several excellent transit and bike options is the perfect place to build something like this.

I have weighed the issues with parking, and I would rather have the benefits of living in a neighborhood with a higher density of people than an open space in front of my house.

If the city wants to charge me for a parking permit, I'll pay it. It means that my house is becoming more valuable and the neighborhood has an increasing population and choice of walkable cool shit.

Long story short, parking isn't really that big a hassle. Even if we get to NW 23rd levels of parking issues, the tradeoffs in increased property values and great amenities make it more than worth it.

@ Isaac: What everyone else has said to you so far. Plus, eat a bag of dicks.

I'll second AMA. I live near an arterial street that's basically at capacity. Putting housing with parking along it would pose major traffic and safety issues in the absence of dedicated traffic lights. The area has multiple frequent service bus lines, multiple grocery stores, and a walk score of 88. Despite that long sections of the street are significantly underutilized if not outright blighted, and pedestrian traffic is nil.

Given those circumstances how can it make sense to say that housing shouldn't be allowed along this main street without parking?

BJ, you're ignoring the fact that many of the people who buy those condos WILL OWN CARS. You don't like that fact, you want to wish it away, but you can't.

I love it! Build more houses without parking and people end up on TriMet. Which is reliable if you look at their states. Except "on time" means less than 10 minutes late.

I can't possibly see how this could go wrong.

I think fewer people will own cars if they can live in areas where they don't need them, and I think the street I've described is one of those areas. At the same time I think the quality of life for neighbors would be significantly improved by more pedestrian oriented development along that street. That's a win all around.

Unfortunately, parking requirements make it less likely to occur. They mean fewer sites can be developed or they will house fewer people than they could. Buildings with parking will be taller upsetting neighbors, less likely to have ground floor retail making pedestrian use less likely, and to boot will have problems getting vehicles in and out because of current traffic flows.

How does requiring parking on this street make a lick of sense?

@BJ Are you high? I live in NW. Even though TriMet has seriously gone downhill we still have: the streetcar, two frequent bus lines that go right through the neighborhood. Plus the MAX and the 20 within walking distance.

Also, A TON OF PEOPLE WITH CARS.

@tcraighenry: and your neighborhood is pretty great, no? I think we are a LOOOONG way away from worrying about a lack of on-street parking caused by 1 or 10 or even 100 condo developments/apartment complexes. I'd be fine with limiting parking to 1 hour, except by residential permit, with no long term parking on arterial streets or something like that in my neighborhood. That would ensure parking space turnover in front of businesses, and put some money in to programs like street furniture or other beautification/improvement efforts.

There is no neighborhood in Portland where parking is that serious a problem. Even in NW, where the problem is the worst, it's not really that big an issue. It's more a sign of how great the neighborhood is and how much awesome stuff is there. It might be kind of a hassle if you live in the area, but I think the hassle is worth it for the amenities you get as a result. I think property values in NW show this. If it was really such a problem, then wouldn't it be driving down property values?

People will drive. People will park nearby. If a developer builds more housing without parking because they see a better return on investment, that's fine by me. I think the benefits of more people and a livelier neighborhood outweigh the inconvenience of occasionally parking a block away from my front door.

Um. My neighborhood is a neighborhood. I'm not sure you've ever lived somewhere that's urban/mixed use. And there's no on street parking. That's pretty much it.

You clearly live in the suburbs.

@tcraig - Yeah. The suburbs. The suburbs that are 2 blocks from the development in question (which I guess technically is in an old streetcar suburb, but I don't think that's what you meant).

"I JUST MOVED HERE FROM CALIFORNIA"

Congrats to D&W + Blabby for the best Blogtown BURRRRN of 2013.

Well, your neighborhood is going to become mine soon. Good luck with that.