South Waterfront News

[urbanbydesign]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

This is where, morally, I completely disagree.

If everyone lives in the nice hood, what's the incentive to work harder and save money and rise up?? It completely distorts reality.

When you live in a crappy room (I started in this town ~11 years ago renting a room in a mess of a house in North Portland for $300/month). I wanted OUT, so I worked my tail off, and 5 years had saved enough scratch to buy a a house.

Now, if I was living in a fancy nice place for below market rent.... why would I work hard to leave again?? What would be my incentive?

I'm completely in the same boat. Came from a poor family, worked 2 jobs to save up for a down payment for my house, opened a business, and all that other "I pulled myself up by the bootstraps" Americana that we've all grown to love & embrace.
*Some* housing is set aside for those who will never be able to take care of themselves. Whether they're disabled, mentally ill, old, etc. There are those in society who just won't be moving up the economic ladder, ever. So they are supposed to live where? If I remember correctly, some of that affordable housing was targeted specifically to veterans who were suffering from physical/mental issues. God forbid.
For those that can move up the ladder I'm sure living next to a building with a 30th floor penthouse could provide some sort of incentive if that's what you're looking for.
Or, we can close all of the public housing and put the homeless out on the streets of those posh neighborhoods and see how people like that.

[urbanbydesign]

What you call groupthink, I would call decades of research on planning, urban poverty, and sociology.
So, what's your solution for the working poor and where would you like us to put them?

[maccoinnich]

I like that logic: almost everybody disagreeing with you is just evidence of "groupthink".

Anyway, I mentioned the Pearl earlier, and thought I'd look up some of the statistics. As of 2014, the River District—not quite the coterminous with the Pearl District, but close—has 2,200 units of affordable housing, all created since 1994. (Just by contrast, New Columbia has 854 housing units). Pearl Court was built in 1997, so if we were to expect massive problems to arise from this mix of incomes, I think we would expect them to have happened by now.

You can rant anonymously about this all you want on an internet forum, but if you don't vote and don't engage in Portland's public process, why should anyone take you seriously?

[2oh1]

The idea that poor people in poor neighborhoods see rich neighborhoods as something to strive for is ignorant. I came from a poor family too. Of all the places my family, my mother's favorite home was a doublewide trailer. I never realized I didn't have to be poor until I was an adult. Frankly, I'm not sure I even knew I was poor when I was a kid. I just thought everyone lived the way we did. I'll never forget the first time I went to Chicago. I only got to spend a few hours in the city, and I felt like I was in a dream... like I was in somebody else's world. In a sense, I was. Being poor and seeing Michigan Avenue is a lot like, yet the reverse of, being an American and visiting a third world country. You see it, but it isn't yours. You feel like there's a barrier. You feel like everybody else can see that you don't belong. I could travel to France if I wanted to, but that wouldn't make me French. When you're poor and you see affluent places, you're likely to feel like an outsider. In France but not French, in a sense.

That sense of a barrier is wrong, but it exists. It exists because knowledge is learned. Success is often not learned by those who have no access to success. Advancement is often not learned by those who have no access to advancement. Let me be clear: I'm not suggesting the solution is to give people success or give them advancement. I'm not. I'm saying that in a diverse neighborhood, where success and advancement opportunities exist, people can see those things. Diversity breeds opportunity because diversity breeds more diverse knowledge. It's easier to imagine possibilities when you see possibilities in your neighborhood.

By having diverse neighborhoods, we end up breaking down barriers. The girl working at a coffee shop has a better chance of becoming the woman who is a doctor or a lawyer. The guy ringing up your groceries today may someday be the man designing a grocery store with housing on it. It's easier to get from here to there when you live in a neighborhood with others who have gotten from here to there.

I have no patience for anyone who advocates discrimination, regardless of whether it's discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, disability or income. Period. WestCoast asked about "forcing 'rich people' to tolerate 'less rich people' just for the sake of inclusivity." Tolerate? That's a question of bigotry, which means the real question is whether or not we tolerate bigotry.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

The idea that poor people in poor neighborhoods see rich neighborhoods as something to strive for is ignorant. I came from a poor family too. Of all the places my family, my mother's favorite home was a doublewide trailer. I never realized I didn't have to be poor until I was an adult. Frankly, I'm not sure I even knew I was poor when I was a kid. I just thought everyone lived the way we did. I'll never forget the first time I went to Chicago. I only got to spend a few hours in the city, and I felt like I was in a dream... like I was in somebody else's world. In a sense, I was. Being poor and seeing Michigan Avenue is a lot like, yet the reverse of, being an American and visiting a third world country. You see it, but it isn't yours. You feel like there's a barrier. You feel like everybody else can see that you don't belong. I could travel to France if I wanted to, but that wouldn't make me French. When you're poor and you see affluent places, you're likely to feel like an outsider. In France but not French, in a sense.

That sense of a barrier is wrong, but it exists. It exists because knowledge is learned. Success is often not learned by those who have no access to success. Advancement is often not learned by those who have no access to advancement. Let me be clear: I'm not suggesting the solution is to give people success or give them advancement. I'm not. I'm saying that in a diverse neighborhood, where success and advancement opportunities exist, people can see those things. Diversity breeds opportunity because diversity breeds more diverse knowledge. It's easier to imagine possibilities when you see possibilities in your neighborhood.

By having diverse neighborhoods, we end up breaking down barriers. The girl working at a coffee shop has a better chance of becoming the woman who is a doctor or a lawyer. The guy ringing up your groceries today may someday be the man designing a grocery store with housing on it. It's easier to get from here to there when you live in a neighborhood with others who have gotten from here to there.

I have no patience for anyone who advocates discrimination, regardless of whether it's discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, disability or income. Period. WestCoast asked about "forcing 'rich people' to tolerate 'less rich people' just for the sake of inclusivity." Tolerate? That's a question of bigotry, which means the real question is whether or not we tolerate bigotry.

I really resonated with your story about Chicago. We really shouldn't have exclusive playgrounds for the rich. It's why I get a bad taste in my mouth when I visit SF. All these folks worked together, preservationists/investors as well as activists, to fight for a specific ambiance. What did they end up with? A playground for the rich. I don't want Portland to become San Francisco because we want to preserve suburban 100 year old street car suburbs. They're pretty, but they aren't the true fabric of the city. The true fabric is the people. And tons of people want to live here as continued evidence in our housing shortage and spiraling rents/mortgages...

We must build, and we must build inclusively. This means not subsidizing drive through auto communities and not creating rich-exclusive compounds, either. We need income integrated neighborhoods with density of services and housing. That means, sometimes that streetcar suburbs gets a few 6 story apartment buildings and traffic calming with bike lanes and some form of transit improvement. All hoods deserve this. If you're fighting back against development due to concerns about parking or aesthetics or whatever, I feel you are increasing the inequality of this city.

[PacificNW]

Previous:

[PacificNW]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

The idea that poor people in poor neighborhoods see rich neighborhoods as something to strive for is ignorant. I came from a poor family too. Of all the places my family, my mother's favorite home was a doublewide trailer. I never realized I didn't have to be poor until I was an adult. Frankly, I'm not sure I even knew I was poor when I was a kid. I just thought everyone lived the way we did. I'll never forget the first time I went to Chicago. I only got to spend a few hours in the city, and I felt like I was in a dream... like I was in somebody else's world. In a sense, I was. Being poor and seeing Michigan Avenue is a lot like, yet the reverse of, being an American and visiting a third world country. You see it, but it isn't yours. You feel like there's a barrier. You feel like everybody else can see that you don't belong. I could travel to France if I wanted to, but that wouldn't make me French. When you're poor and you see affluent places, you're likely to feel like an outsider. In France but not French, in a sense.

That sense of a barrier is wrong, but it exists. It exists because knowledge is learned. Success is often not learned by those who have no access to success. Advancement is often not learned by those who have no access to advancement. Let me be clear: I'm not suggesting the solution is to give people success or give them advancement. I'm not. I'm saying that in a diverse neighborhood, where success and advancement opportunities exist, people can see those things. Diversity breeds opportunity because diversity breeds more diverse knowledge. It's easier to imagine possibilities when you see possibilities in your neighborhood.

By having diverse neighborhoods, we end up breaking down barriers. The girl working at a coffee shop has a better chance of becoming the woman who is a doctor or a lawyer. The guy ringing up your groceries today may someday be the man designing a grocery store with housing on it. It's easier to get from here to there when you live in a neighborhood with others who have gotten from here to there.

I have no patience for anyone who advocates discrimination, regardless of whether it's discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, disability or income. Period. WestCoast asked about "forcing 'rich people' to tolerate 'less rich people' just for the sake of inclusivity." Tolerate? That's a question of bigotry, which means the real question is whether or not we tolerate bigotry.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by 2oh1
You're the one defining a person's value based on their income.

Originally Posted by WestCoast

And I would add, I never defined it based on income. But on what people could afford.

WestCoast, basing a person's value on what they can afford is still discrimination. There's no "discussion" here, it's very simple.

Originally Posted by WestCoast

I'm still curious if people think homeless/subsidized housing belongs in every neighborhood.

So let's replace "homeless/subsidized housing" with "housing for Jewish senior citizens", or "housing for gays". Do you understand why your question is repulsive?

Originally Posted by WestCoast

And the follow on is, does the opinion of the local home owners matter, or not at all? I think it does, but it seems I am in the minority here. (which I am, frankly a bit surprised by considering this is a development/architecture forum)

You're surprised that this forum doesn't tolerate discrimination? Really?! Trying to frame this as an intellectual discussion is like trying to discuss the pros and cons of concentration camps. Nobody is agreeing with you because it's an insane premise.

[Rob Nob]

People should have the option to live near where they work and it benefits the city by reducing stresses on the infrastructure and creating REAL community. So when you have all these people working in jobs downtown(or in SoWat), we all benefit by them being part of the community and living nearby as well. If you can tolerate a "not-rich" person to fill your tank, ring-up your groceries, cook your food, teach your kids, but you don't want them living next door, I question your whole concept of "Community".

[Rob Nob]

I also find the concept of "pulling oneself up by the bootstraps" completely unbelievable and egotistical. Anyone who says that should talk to a therapist ASAP.

[RED_PDXer]

SoWa, more than most neighborhoods in this city, really needs affordable housing, because there's such a great opportunity for it. Unfortunately, I don't see any potential for new affordable housing going into Laurelhurst, Irvington, or Eastmoreland - the most obnoxious, elitist neighborhoods in the city.

SoWa property owners are getting a golden parachute with the City and TriMet building all the infrastructure that makes that land so valuable. At the very least, the City should've negotiated a few acres of land at low or no cost to the public to construct affordable housing. Perhaps they have? I don't pay enough attention to know details of the arrangements.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

SoWa, more than most neighborhoods in this city, really needs affordable housing, because there's such a great opportunity for it. Unfortunately, I don't see any potential for new affordable housing going into Laurelhurst, Irvington, or Eastmoreland - the most obnoxious, elitist neighborhoods in the city.

SoWa property owners are getting a golden parachute with the City and TriMet building all the infrastructure that makes that land so valuable. At the very least, the City should've negotiated a few acres of land at low or no cost to the public to construct affordable housing. Perhaps they have? I don't pay enough attention to know details of the arrangements.

That I do agree, with running the streetcar and light rail through the SoWa to the new bridge, it should come with pushing for more affordable housing to be near a high transit spot.

[pylon]

Perhaps combine student with affordable housing down in SoWa. Multiple funding sources could unite in something like that.
It would get more folks into the same building volume than would large luxury condos. More folks = more demand for business.

[philopdx]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Originally Posted by 2oh1
You're the one defining a person's value based on their income.

WestCoast, basing a person's value on what they can afford is still discrimination. There's no "discussion" here, it's very simple.

So let's replace "homeless/subsidized housing" with "housing for Jewish senior citizens", or "housing for gays". Do you understand why your question is repulsive?

You're surprised that this forum doesn't tolerate discrimination? Really?! Trying to frame this as an intellectual discussion is like trying to discuss the pros and cons of concentration camps. Nobody is agreeing with you because it's an insane premise.

I'm invoking Godwin's law. "What you believe is the same as hurting elderly Jews and discussing the merits of concentration camps!!!!!!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

And with that, ladies and gentleman, /thread.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by philopdx

I'm invoking Godwin's law. "What you believe is the same as hurting elderly Jews and discussing the merits of concentration camps!!!!!!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

And with that, ladies and gentleman, /thread.

I said nothing about Nazis or Hitler. You're the one that made that leap. But you do realize that anti-semitism is not exclusive to mid-20th Century Germany, don't you? It's pervasive throughout the world and has been for centuries, millennia actually.

Also, concentration camps occur everywhere, including right here in the good ol' US of A.

Anyway, the point is "discussing" whether or not you want homeless or poor people in your neighborhood is vile, just like anti-semitism, racism, homophobia, islamophobia, you name it.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Anyway, the point is "discussing" whether or not you want homeless or poor people in your neighborhood is vile, just like anti-semitism, racism, homophobia, islamophobia, you name it.

WestCoast took it further than that. For him, the debate was whether the rich should have to tolerate living among the non-rich.

[PDXDENSITY]

If I really wanted to start such a flame session, I'd have just said my real opinion: Housing is a human right. Period.

[WestCoast]

I can't believe I'm responding. But it's like watching a car crash.

Originally Posted by 2oh1

WestCoast took it further than that. For him, the debate was whether the rich should have to tolerate living among the non-rich.

And 2 oh 1 took it 'dumber' than that.

(I assume by your self-righteousness that you have opened your own warm house to the less fortunate tonight. So the homeless can get out of the cold Mr. Equality?

--

I never said anyone had to 'tolerate' anyone.
(Which, by the way, legally or morally, they don't)


I was curious about the rights of homeowners vs. the rights of those given free or subsidized housing.

Somehow a few of you turned this into rich vs. poor, or that I didn't like poor people or thought I was better. None of which was germain to the discussion at all.

--

The group think here is 10,000% sure that everyone has equal rights to live wherever they want. Or at least wherever the government decides to put them.


In SoWa in particular, the theory is the government subsidized the development, therefore, the rich and poor should co-exist and no one get preferential treatment.
That seems, perhaps a reasonable trade off, and a home buyer should understand and have that disclosed before they chose to buy.
Fair enough if the developer is using government money.

My point remains bolded above, and the discussion got way away from that.

--
In short: you could almost compare my comment to discussion of the merits of eminent domain.

That would be less emotional I guess, and you guys couldn't make a mess of the discussion.

Instead, people without cognitive skills created a witch hunt to stifle conversation and scare off anyone who could dare(!) challenge their great tax payer supported utopian vision.
By assuming your moral high ground was relevant here, it makes it hard to have a fair exchange of ideas.

I am reminded of trying to discuss science with overtly religious people.
Nothing accomplished and everyone is just angry at everyone else.
Maybe I should have known better than to try to have some discourse on an open forum. I guess I hoped it wouldn't just be a reddit type barrage of *dumb*

--
Kudos to the few select posters that gave good insight.
To the rest of you, way to lower the bar.

If you are still interested:
I remain curious if those that bought and own homes/property, have the same, less, or more rights than those who are given property.

[soleri]

West Coast, your argument that the poor somehow feel entitled to live anywhere is a straw man. It's a ridiculous assertion that no one here is making. People are saying that when a new neighborhood is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers, it should offer a range of price points. It doesn't mean the poor get to wallow in undeserved luxury. It simply means the housing stock is diversified for the benefit of the city itself. Portland is a better city for having citizens of different economic strata intermingle. Instead of a monochromatic neighborhood, you get some different colors. Really, is anyone besides you and some disgruntled Republicans in Clackistan complaining about this?

Portland is a liberal city as are all great cities. There are no good conservative cities for a reason. They're full of people like you. I can't imagine anyone in South Waterfront or Pearl wanting to live close to someone who sounds like Sean Hannity.

Tigard? Maybe.

[Zihua]

Does anyone know the amount of subsidies for south waterfront? I know the tram was partially paid by the City of Portland.