THE SHAPE of a historic Northeast neighborhood is about to change, unless its residents get their way. A plan to build the 71-feet-tall Irvington Squire condo tower among the Victorian-era homes on NE 15th and Hancock has been hotly debated in the area for two years, but reached a milestone recently when neighbors say they flooded the city with 150 letters of complaint—the most vocal opposition a development in the area has ever received, according to the neighborhood association.
“This neighborhood is saying, ‘no, no, and more no’ to this gigantic building sandwiched between these historic landmarks,” says Dustin Carsey, who co-owns the Lion and Rose bed and breakfast next door to the proposed condos.
At the core of the debate over the condos is the issue of density. In the city’s rezone of the Irvington area during the ’90s, the streets lined with historic houses were targeted as a good place to increase urban density, and rezoned to allow construction of new buildings up to 75 feet tall.
“We have an urban growth boundary,” notes Irvington Squire architect John Perkins. “If we can’t go out, we have to go up.”
The developer recently cut the planned six stories of condos and parking to five, but some neighbors believe the project is still too big.
“It’s not like the building is horrible. It’s just wrong. It belongs in the Pearl,” says Carsey.
The stakes are high for these condos, since all involved see them as a precedent-setting project for Irvington. The top of the Lion and Rose’s quaint Victorian cupola is 45 feet, or four stories, but if the city approves Irvington Squire, five- and six-story buildings might soon define the neighborhood.
“As it was originally proposed, it would have been the most massive structure in Irvington ever,” says Dean Gisvold, land use chair of the Irvington neighborhood’s association. Meanwhile, Perkins said he has talked to several Irvington residents who are in favor of the condos but are afraid to speak up against their neighbors.
“The area is zoned high-density residential,” says Perkins. “That zoning was a public process where the Irvington neighborhood did participate.”
The city seems to know that no matter what happens to the design, someone is going to be angry. The Bureau of Development Services has scheduled an appeal hearing for August 11, before even approving or rejecting the project.
What is being removed to make way for this planned building? It would be a shame to lose any of those old homes and apartment buildings in order to satisfy the perceived requirement for higher density living in Portland.
And, as a life-ling resident of this city, can some please explain to me why, exactly, high density living is the answer? I would prefer to buy a home with a yard and some space between me and my neighbor, rather than to be stacked one atop the other the way things are headed. This is Oregon, we have space, why can’t we use it?
“Low density living” contributes to urban sprawl by spreading development up to and beyond the growth boundaries. It increases dependency on cars to get to homes in the outer areas of town, increases public transportation times and traffic. Ultimately, the people with the money tend to live in the more expensive places, which are more convenient, and lower income earners are pushed to the outskirts. This perpetuates the racial and social divisions in towns and neighborhoods.
(Or those with the means live in the pretty suburbs, drive for hours daily, use up resources, and contribute to waste.)
Eventually, the outskirt communities, neglected by planning committees, attract opportunistic businesses like payday loan companies, fast-food joints, strip clubs, etc, but don’t attract sidewalks, bike lanes, or thriving local businesses. This spreading of development also kills off what was there before: small farms and forested lands, healthy habitat for many besides humans. Examples of this: the stretches between I205 and Gresham along Powell Blvd, along McLaughlin Blvd, etc.
On the other hand, high-density living is planful, less wasteful and more socially healthy. It doesn’t mean tearing down victorians with nice yards for concrete buildings. It means purposeful communities that promote walking, biking, public transport and don’t necessitate driving to a strip mall to get basic foods or supplies. It means local businesses rather than chains, less fast food, more healthy choices. Less traffic, less time commuting, affordable housing for people with less money not segregated and walled-off from fancy expensive condo dwellers, but rather incorporated, with financial incentives.
If we want Oregon to look like Anytown, USA and strip malls to spread from border to border, we should continue to old development practices. If we want Portland to be its own unique place, we should look to keeping development close to urban centers, and avoid spreading beyond growth boundaries.