- Dirk VanderHart
- The 37th Street Apartments, stalled since February
When city council considers whether to require parking at Portland apartment developments later today, expect emotion from both sides of the fractious debate. Expect testimony from dozens of speakers, and expect policies to move forward that would hamper future projects with no on-site parking.
Don’t expect those changes to take root right away, though, as they might if council voted to make the matter an emergency ordinance. And don’t figure new policies the city eventually adopts will apply to the SE Division Street development that’s drawn so much attention in this debate.
According to Commissioner Nick Fish, a leading voice on city council in this heated discussion, commissioners aren’t likely to treat the measure as an emergency, nor require Dennis Sackhoff—developer of the stalled 81-unit project at SE Division and 37th Avenue—to abide by new minimums for the building.
“My sense from my conversation with my colleagues is council is unlikely to require whatever we do tomorrow will apply to that developer,” Fish told the Mercury on Wednesday. “In some ways there’s been too much attention paid to one developer and one building. The proposal we’re taking up tomorrow applies city-wide.”
That’s good news for Sackhoff, whose 37th Street Apartments project is already partially built, but sits dormant due to a ruling from the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals and neighborhood pressure. It might also figure into Sackhoff’s reasons for setting up a meeting with his chief nemesis in the matter, the group Richmond Neighbors for Responsible Development Growth.
Another thing to count on at today’s hearing: The proposed policies to shift.
As first reported by Willamette Week, Fish plans to toughen up the proposed minimums a bit, assigning requirements to smaller buildings than initially proposed, and upping requirements for larger buildings. He tells the Mercury he’s got the votes to get those measures passed.
“I think we’ve hit the sweet spot,” Fish said. “I expect the vote to go forward.”
Other commissioners may have a say, too. Fish expects one of his colleagues to float an amendment that will limit the amount of parking developers can offset by offering car share spaces, bike parking and other perks.
That notion—giving developers ways to offset building expensive parking spaces—is one Fish hopes to explore further in the future. He’d like to offer developers reduced minimums if they designate a certain percentage of units as affordable housing.
“None of these apartments are affordable; let’s just be clear,” he said. “I think we can be creative for coming up with voluntary mechanisms for encouraging affordable housing for these units.”
We expect that will add to this afternoon’s discussion.
UPDATE, 12:08 pm: Or if you want to know how today’s council meeting will go, just consult the proposed ordinance posted to the Auditor’s Office website. It contains this bit of omniscience:
I hate these buildings, but of course the new rules shouldn’t apply to those already underway. I agree with Fish that there has been too much focus on this one project, rather than the larger issue.
Creating minimum requirements is a start. But then allowing them to be peeled away by putting in a couple extra bike rakes is an insult to our collective intelligence.
These parking requirements are actively stymying new developments and dramatically decreasing the available pools of low-income housing. There is no way we can have the housing created that we need and still have these requirements. Boo-fucking-hoo, you have to walk for 30 seconds to your car because there’s not a spot directly in front of your house. If you have real mobility issues that make walking difficult, the city has avenues for getting those needs addressed.
“…the city has avenues for getting those needs addressed”
Very reassuring, Graham. Glad you’re offering such a clever solution for those who two weeks ago you were calling “NIMBY PIECES OF SHIT.”
Actually Graham, there are no parking requirements right now, so they aren’t “actively stymying” anything.
Portland enviro airheads: people drive. Your friends drive, your coworkers drive, you probably drive. It’s just how it is. Accommodating parking is common sense, because people own cars. Pretending that people don’t own cars when 80% do is living in dreamy dreamy land. You are devising solutions for a world you wished exists, but doesn’t exist.
Also, these apartments aren’t affordable. They are brand new market-rate apartments. They will cost more than older apartments.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN, “THESE BUILDINGS?” BLABBY’S A FUCKING ARCHITECTURAL RACIST.
In actually responsive news, are any of these buildings’ apartments considered “affordable?”
Just because people drive doesn’t mean developments should be required to provide parking. If anything it means we should apply market principles to deal with the scarcity of street parking. Loosening your belt and losing weight and all that.
I hate you all.
Sorry, but I agree with applying the “NIMBY PIECES OF SHIT” label here. It’s so accurate.
While it’s obvious that this has been handled poorly all around – by the city, by the NIMBY PIECES OF SHIT, and by developers – it is all headed in the right direction.
Despite what Blabby may think, we won’t always have 3 cars for every 2 people. Building for the future can and should start now. Yes, this awkward transition period may be…well awkward. But I just bet we’ll muddle through it.
Car share, bike parking bonuses are appropriate, as are diminishing parking requirements with nearby transit. If people can’t hang with a 3 minute walk to their cars, they’ll not rent there. And if people can’t stand not having a dedicated spot in front of their house, they should have bought one with a fucking driveway.
Finally, I wish I knew the future like the Auditor’ site. Oops.
@TODD: YOU’RE A DIPSHIT AND NO ONE LIKES YOU. In other news, for those people who have permanent mobility issues and have been issued a handicap placard for their vehicle, the city will work with you to get a handicap-only parking zone installed in front of your home. For more information on this program: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportati…
Well, Graham, we can’t all be as popular as you are. But somehow we still carry on.
“Despite what Blabby may think, we won’t always have 3 cars for every 2 people.”
Why not? What empirical evidence are you basing that statement on? 50 years from now there may very well be just as many cars. Besides, no one is asking for three spaces per every apartment unit. But how about one?
Everyone hates NIMBY’s until something shitty happens next door to your home. Then it will be your turn to say “hey, wait a minute, this doesn’t seem right”. Only to be an answered by a bunch of sanctimonious little shits who tell you “your concerns aren’t valid and you shouldn’t even be expressing them. You’re just a fucking NIMBY!” Despite having arrived three years ago from the Midwest, they will then lecture you on what Portland is all about and tell you to move to the suburbs.
NIMBYs happen to be neighbors who understand what is happening on the street level, because they live there. That’s why they have opinions on it. You are someone sitting across town moralizing from the 30,000 foot level, telling strangers what is acceptable to think about something which is actually happening next door to the house they raise their kids in.
An 80-unit building without a single parking space is preposterous. Everyone should laugh out loud at the very concept.
“What empirical evidence are you basing that statement on?”
@Blabby: There’s tons of evidence, here ya go:
Shows long-term trends and opinions
http://business.time.com/2012/05/02/gen-ys…
Raw Data, a bit over-whelming
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot…
A synopsis of data from the previous link
http://cars.lovetoknow.com/Car_Ownership_S…
More evidence of declining automobile ownership rates
http://www.fastcompany.com/1508894/us-car-…
And more and more of the same.
http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/…
Graham all of those data sources show ownership falling slightly during the recent recession. Not the stuff long term predictions are made of.
I’m with Blabby on this.
The cars of the future may use different energy, but they will still need parking.
Even if a building provides spaces for only a third of its’ renters, it will still be a great relief to neighbors.
THANK YOU, DINK THUNDERHEART!
I…have nothing to add to this debate.