A Changing Portland

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I think neighborhood groups get given too much microphone time and should have little to no power to prevent density.

The things you advocate for are extreme. If two neighbors in Ladd's Addition decided to sell their houses together to a developer who wanted to build a huge high rise, that would drastically change the neighborhood. And it wouldn't be a change for the better.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

You [65MAX] feel SF homes should be preserved even if an owner wants to redevelop it with more units for housing. If you agree with me on this and are going to say im misquoting you, then youre truly just trolling.

You weren't talking to me, but... Don't tell people what they think. Either quote them directly, or find another way to make your point. The fact that you followed up that tirade with "If you agree with me on this" shows you know you're misrepresenting his opinions. That approach for a debate turns your allies into enemies. The vast majority of people in this forum are pro-density and pro-development, but your approach is so extreme, and so militant, that you're turning people who should be allies against you.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

The key here is youre a home owner and youre going to make "wherever appropriate" anything that matches your random tastes, and I think that's poor planning in every regard.

But dropping high rises or even skyscrapers into Ladd's Addition just because a few neighbors decided to sell together and cash in on a windfall wouldn't be evidence of what happens when there's a lack of planning??? Holy cow.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Any slowdown for this absurdity swirling around neighborhood associations claiming we need to be "thoughtful." It's just a wrench to slow things down because homeowners donMt want anything built anywhere in their popular neighborhood.

Planning should always - I repeat, ALWAYS - be thoughtful. Period. That point shouldn't even be up for debate. Portland wouldn't be what it is today if not for a lot of thoughtful planning.

Wow.

[PDXDENSITY]

Youre setting up a situation that will not happen. There won't be a high rise in Ladd's. Midrise would be great, though. The fact that you think this is extremely unveils your point of view which is quite against density if it doesn't match your random tastes or where you think it should go. The reality is, I can have similar opinions: i say we raze anything that would be to be replaced with more housing. No, that won't result in high rises in Ladd's. Midrises, maybe, and that'd be fucking awesome, in my opinion. That hood is a bastion of rich feudalists.

We sinply disagree obviously, and you keep misrepresenting my position. I'm just as thoughtful. I'm thoughful about our ecosystem and poor. Not greedy landowners trying to continue an unnecessary shortage.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

you keep misrepresenting my position.

Here's your position, in your words:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I think neighborhood groups get given too much microphone time and should have little to no power to prevent density.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I'm saying anyone who wants to raze their house to add housing stock should be allowed to.

Regardless of what they want to put there? That's not urban planning.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

no, we're not building for non existent people. They will move here. It's where we decide to put them that's important

Urban planning isn't about putting people where we want them. Yikes.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

We are going to fall to the american god of sprawl if we don't get rid of the complacency I've seen from members of this board.

No one on this board - I repeat - No one on this board is suggesting anything that would allow sprawl or even lead to urban sprawl in Portland. If you feel otherwise, QUOTE THE SOURCE. Oh, wassat? You can't quote the source? That's because nobody said it.

[PDXDENSITY]

Your opinion that we should not let housing happen if it doesnt match your taste is precisely going to perpetuate a shortage and impose sprawl.

Onviously, you won't agree with me. But you obviously have a point of view that is detrimental in the big picture.

Allowing all development doesnt mean no consideration for design. The problem comes about when people argue a neighborhood can't support a certain scale. Bullshit. Make it work. Parking permits. Beef up transit.

I'm not against planning. I'm against stopping needed housing stock in a shortage. NIMBYs should have little power when it comes to housing beyond fighting for affordability-- we need inclusionary zoning.

And a step further-- urban planners DO tell people where to go; it's called zoning.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

If we allowed new buildings without opposition because we raze a bungalow things would be better in terms of inflation. This does not mean throwing the process out, youre misrepresenting me.

Wow!!! Do you not realize that you're contradicting yourself? You want people to be able to indiscriminately tear down bungalows to build multi-family housing anywhere they want, anywhere in the city, regardless of zoning. But then you say you're NOT throwing out the process? How does that make ANY SENSE whatsoever?!

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I think neighborhood groups get given too much microphone time and should have little to no power to prevent density. The argument is ALWAYS parking and congestion-- make permits required.

Nobody has the power to "prevent" density. That's like saying you want to "prevent" trees from growing. Trees will grow regardless of what you want, just like population, and therefore density, will continue to grow. It's ironic that you call yourself PDXDENSITY, but you really don't understand the concept or the mechanisms involved. And you obviously have zero understanding of how the planning process works here. What you want is what they have in Houston. Unchecked development (sprawl) without zoning. That is the complete opposite of how we do things here.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

The key here is youre a home owner and youre going to make "wherever appropriate" anything that matches your random tastes, and I think that's poor planning in every regard. We need housing. It can be planned, but seen as foregone in general if it is desired to be built. The city needs the housing, not our farms.

Any slowdown for this absurdity swirling around neighborhood associations claiming we need to be "thoughtful." It's just a wrench to slow things down because homeowners donMt want anything built anywhere in their popular neighborhood.

So your alternative is being thoughtLESS? OK, thanks for clarifying that. Now your ramblings make sense.

[PDXDENSITY]

Further misrepresentation. I'm against people being against housing where zoning allows it. i also think density zones should expand. Still in the framework, despite trying to discredit my point.

Plenty of homeowners have power, even as a minority with a particular niche opinion, to stop development that includes housing in this city. It happens and continues to. It's pushing demand toward the periphery. If you deny this, you are completely disingenous.

Again, im arguing against people being allowed to oppose projects that make sense for a city in terrible shortage of housing. Greedy homeowners do exist, and I will not refrain from calling them such. They will destroy our city with a spiral inflation due to strategic obstruction.

It's easy to argue from your position, because yours is the position of power-- for the landowners. Remember that. Renters are a minority that deserve a market not controlled by greedy speculators. That includes homeowners who want nothing built next to them ever.

Keep trying to discredit my position by calling it thoughtless-- it isnt. I consider our farm land, our ecosystem, our poor. Those of the opinion of stifling building because of taste are the thoughtless ones. Of course, this is opinion, same as yours.

And claiming I want Portland to sprawl like Houston means you're just intentionally trolling. Which is fine. I'm going to defend my opinions. I'm pretty idefatiguable in that.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Your opinion that we should not let housing happen if it doesnt match your taste is precisely going to perpetuate a shortage and impose sprawl.

If you can't quote the source where I said that, it's because I never said that.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Allowing all development doesnt mean no consideration for design.

Wow.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I'm not against planning.

You can't be for "all development" and for urban planning.

[PDXDENSITY]

I can be for development when it's needed. We have a shortage. You can still have a framework while streamlining the process for a NEEDED resource. I think you need to just relax and stop trying to misrepresent me.

And, again, you are being silly. Ypu disagree with my point of view, so you very much are for a continuation of shortage due to restriction. We are not moving fast enough to counter inflation causing housing to spiral out of the reach of the poor.

I think the main thing going on here is that I'm slightly more liberal about certain topics within the idea of portland planning, and you simply want me to stop having thise opinions. Sorry, not happening.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Further misrepresentation. I'm against people being against housing where zoning allows it.

But you're also for ALL DEVELOPMENT. I quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Allowing all development doesnt mean no consideration for design. The problem comes about when people argue a neighborhood can't support a certain scale. Bullshit. Make it work.

Wow!

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

It's easy to argue from your position, because yours is the position of power-- for the landowners. Remember that.

Remember that?!? Who are you to tell anyone what to remember? My position?!?!?!? I'm not a landowner. I'M RENTING A SMALL SPACE IN A HIGH RISE. Technically, my home isn't even a 1 bedroom.

Your positions are so extreme that you've turned people who are living the life you advocate for into your opposition.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

And claiming I want Portland to sprawl like Houston means you're just intentionally trolling.

Quote the source where anyone said you want sprawl.

Quote the source.

Can you quote the source of that claim?

You can't quote the source, because no one said it.

Who said you want sprawl, like Houston? Who said that? Your views are so extreme that you have to make up claims that exaggerated to make your points.

[PDXDENSITY]

You live in a high rise and you still wabt to protect bungalows even if the homeowner wants to develop the land. That's beyond absurd. You have no stake in a far away hood, yet you still feel your opinion should lord over it.

I don't care if you live in a high rise, you have a point of view that is detrimental to other renters. You keep asking me to point out where i said you were against density: if you support NIMBYs (and you have repeatedly in this thread) you are against density and will promote a shortage with your opinions.

And let's go further since you claim density will just happen. So you want slum lords like in SF to overcrowd their uncared for properties? Protect history, right? Forcing people (who want to live here anyway) to move somewhere without adding housing stock despite demand is absurd-- you can claim people can decide to live in squalor, but this is what Im trying to avoid by advocating what I do. We will have better housing conditions if we add housing stock, not prevent it at every turn like SF.

No, Portland isnt that extreme, but NIMBYs do make things worse here. I want to stop sprawl. You can claim it's envy for wanting to live close in, but services make more sense with more density.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

You live in a high rise and you still wabt to protect bungalows even if the homeowner wants to develop the land.

Quote the source or stop misrepresenting what people said, want or believe. If you can't quote the source, it's because what you're saying isn't true.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

So you want slum lords like in SF to overcrowd their uncared for properties?

Quote the source or stop misrepresenting what people said, want or believe. If you can't quote the source, it's because what you're saying isn't true.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

if you support NIMBYs (and you have repeatedly in this thread) you are against density and will promote a shortage with your opinions.

Quote the source or stop misrepresenting what people said, want or believe. If you can't quote the source, it's because what you're saying isn't true.

Either quote the source or stop saying it. It isn't true.

Your views are extremist and show a lack of understanding of even basic principles of urban planning.

[PDXDENSITY]

So you support allowing building housing whenever a landowner wants in a zone that allows it? You want to Remove height restrictions and allow more dense zones?

No, you don't. I'm not misrepresenting you, and you're honestly just trying to make my points discredited because they are slightly left of yours. It's kind of endearing. I will repeat, your views stifle needed housing more than my views. You continue to claim we should allow NIMBYs to prevent development.

[65MAX]

PDXDENSITY, I'm sorry that your rent is too high and you feel you need to attack everybody who you think caused your high rent. Nobody on this forum is anti-density (whatever that means, since density is the ratio of population/sq mile and it's kinda hard to be against a ratio). Nobody here is anti-development, but not every development can or should be built in every neighborhood. You have a gross misunderstanding of how planning works, of how the scale of a building affects its surroundings, how market conditions and desirability affect housing prices, on and on and on. And yelling louder and becoming more and more combative doesn't make anything that you're saying true. It just makes you look like a raving lunatic. Not saying you ARE a lunatic, just that you're acting like one.

I would encourage you to take some courses that explain how urban planning works, and how different market conditions affect housing prices. Some of us actually work in these fields and know what we're talking about. You obviously don't.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

PDXDENSITY, I'm sorry that your rent is too high and you feel you need to attack everybody who you think caused your high rent. Nobody on this forum is anti-density (whatever that means, since density is the ratio of population/sq mile and it's kinda hard to be against a ratio). Nobody here is anti-development, but not every development can or should be built in every neighborhood. You have a gross misunderstanding of how planning works, of how the scale of a building affects its surroundings, how market conditions and desirability affect housing prices, on and on and on. And yelling louder and becoming more and more combative doesn't make anything that you're saying true. It just makes you look like a raving lunatic. Not saying you ARE a lunatic, just that you're acting like one.

I would encourage you to take some courses that explain how urban planning works, and how different market conditions affect housing prices. Some of us actually work in these fields and know what we're talking about. You obviously don't.

No. I feel all of you are misrepresenting my nuanced point. That we have a shortage, and all density and housing should be allowed. I will concede design reviews. Height limits for districts. Density zoning. In reality, only few bungalows will be razed. But we mustn't allow any *possible* development to be stymied by anyone just based on taste or ostensible parking or congestion impact. Planners have set zones for density. This is what is done and it is legal to max that out. I am against letting neighbors fight against zoning. They are promoting sprawl.

Nothing there is nonsensical. We indeed have a shortage. I am sure we will still have a shortage after this housing being built comes online. I agree many lots downtown lay fallow. I believe that's because owners are sitting on cheap taxes. They have no incentive to build at all. Building density where it is ALREADY planned, to the max, will even reveal it is not enough to meet demand. We are becoming a big city; as property values rise, I think more people will sell out to developers. I'm saying we should let them, lest we end up with SF rents. Again, there's a real example playing out to our south of imposed shortage with unceasing demand.

I am simply sharing my opinion, which I believe is realistically possible, and you are trying to discredit me by making my suggestions out to be extreme or entitled.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

No. I feel all of you are misrepresenting my nuanced point. That we have a shortage, and all density and housing should be allowed.

Nothing "nuanced" about it. You are stating it right here, "all density and housing should be allowed". How is that misrepresentation?

Also, your whole argument is based on your perceived "SHORTAGE" of housing. Shortage, shortage, shortage, shortage..... Show us ONE statistic that says our vacancy rates are below ZERO, thus there is not enough housing for the people that are living here. Not for the people who will soon be moving here or 10 or 20 years from now. Today. You can't do that because the facts don't back up your repeated assertions.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Nothing "nuanced" about it. You are stating it right here, "all density and housing should be allowed". How is that misrepresentation?

Also, your whole argument is based on your perceived "SHORTAGE" of housing. Shortage, shortage, shortage, shortage..... Show us ONE statistic that says our vacancy rates are below ZERO, thus there is not enough housing for the people that are living here. Not for the people who will soon be moving here or 10 or 20 years from now. Today. You can't do that because the facts don't back up your repeated assertions.

You and I have different definition of shortage. Mine is of the poor and middle class. I guess everyone else has got theirs, so bug off? If rent is rising faster than inflation, there's a problem. I call that a shortage, as it is kicking people out of their homes if they decide they don't want to keep paying rising rent. There is a shortage for affordable housing in Portland. We should be promoting income inclusive neighborhoods with inclusionary zoning.

And you failed to include the rest of my argument after chopping the meaning of my quote in totality. So... again, stop misrepresenting me. There was a nuanced argument there.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Also, your whole argument is based on your perceived "SHORTAGE" of housing. Shortage, shortage, shortage, shortage..... Show us ONE statistic that says our vacancy rates are below ZERO, thus there is not enough housing for the people that are living here. Not for the people who will soon be moving here or 10 or 20 years from now. Today. You can't do that because the facts don't back up your repeated assertions.

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Some of us actually work in these fields and know what we're talking about. You obviously don't.

Since you know what you're talking about, you'll realize that landlords won't actually allow vacancy rates to hit zero. Even amidst a dire housing shortage, they'll evict low-paying tenants and raise rents. Anyway, here are some statistics, courtesy of Jes Larson, director of the Welcome Home Coalition:

Why do 68 percent of families with very low incomes spend more than half of their checks on rent and risk losing their home to another rent increase? Why are more than 5,000 people sleeping homeless every night of the year, in our shelters, in their cars and hidden among our urban landscapes? Why do case managers everywhere say, “We can help; here’s a wait list”?

Like many cities around the country, we have a severe shortage of affordable housing. In Multnomah County, the shortage is 23,000 affordable homes. In the tri-county metro region, the number tops 40,000. This means families trying to get by with less than a $15-per-hour waged job have a 3 in 5 chance of finding a home they can afford. For retired grandparents living on Social Security pensions, the odds are much worse.

And here's a nifty graphic from the Oregonian:



And here's a map from the Portland Business Alliance that helps explain the graphic above:

[65MAX]

There is a difference between being nuanced and being contradictory. You can't be FOR all development and densities, but in the same paragraph be FOR design reviews, height limits and so-called "density zoning". Those are contradictory statements. Zoning is ALL of the things that you're railing against.

And while we're at it, since when is it OK for you to express YOUR viewpoints, but not OK for "greedy landowners" (your words) to express theirs? You should be thankful that we live in a city where everybody (renters and homeowners alike) has a say in how their neighborhoods develop and are not beholden to a few out of state mega developers. But also, nobody has the power to tell somebody they can't build a 4-6 story building if the height limits and the FARs on their lot allow it. They DO have the power to object to a project if that project doesn't abide by the local building codes and zoning requirements. Some NIMBYs are indeed against ALL development and they don't want to see ANY change in their neighborhood at all, but those types of people almost always LOSE the fight. But most NIMBYs just want new development to be of a higher quality and to be an asset to their neighborhood, not a detriment or an eyesore. That is an entirely legitimate position to take and you shouldn't begrudge them that, especially when you don't even live in their neighborhood. You apparently fail to see that not all NIMBYs are evil xenophobes who are out to destroy our great city. Everything is not so black and white as you make it out to be. And that's why people see you as extreme, precisely because you cannot grasp nuances.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Nothing "nuanced" about it. You are stating it right here, "all density and housing should be allowed". How is that misrepresentation?

Also, your whole argument is based on your perceived "SHORTAGE" of housing. Shortage, shortage, shortage, shortage..... Show us ONE statistic that says our vacancy rates are below ZERO, thus there is not enough housing for the people that are living here. Not for the people who will soon be moving here or 10 or 20 years from now. Today. You can't do that because the facts don't back up your repeated assertions.

Thank you.

Good grief already.

In a thread about transportation, a member started a conversation about the cost of a proposed tunnel to PCC Sylvania ($515 million) and he presented the idea of relocating the campus for less money and potentially greater results. It was a really unique idea. Far fetched? Sure... but it also might have been crazy enough to be brilliant. At the very least, it was worthy of discussion. Instead, it was quickly shouted down by off topic madness about shortage density shortage density. And what could have been a fascinating conversation died before it even began.

In the Convention Center Hotel thread, mods are deleting off topic posts because the madness of shortage density shortage density shortage density shortage density shouted down the topic of the hotel.

I'm surprised the airport and bicycling threads haven't turned into shortage density shortage density shortage density shortage density shortage density shortage density. Maybe the parks thread is next.

The worst part of it is that a discussion about the skyrocketing cost of housing really does need to be had. I'm going to repeat that, because it's important: A discussion about the skyrocketing cost of housing really does need to be had. But it can't be had, because it'll get shouted down by density density density nonsense. I've even tried to steer some of the density conversations toward discussions about affordable housing. That conversation can't be had, because one member believes the only answer is density density density and razing bungalows. He'll shout down any conversation unless everyone agrees that the only viable solution is, and I quote, that "all density and housing should be allowed." That's quoted and linked back to the source, so there's no way to suggest it was taken out of context.

Portland is not Shenzhen. An all development anywhere approach is beyond ridiculous, especially since it would drive housing prices up, not down. That's basic math. But if you don't believe me, go to Shenzhen. Go to Chongqing. Go to Mumbai. You'll see it with your own eyes before you reach your hotel.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Portland is not Shenzhen. An all development anywhere approach is beyond ridiculous, especially since it would drive housing prices up, not down. That's basic math. But if you don't believe me, go to Shenzhen. Go to Chongqing. Go to Mumbai. You'll see it with your own eyes before you reach your hotel.

I was in Chongqing three days ago. No one in their right mind would want to live there. Which points out a fact about Portland we need to keep in mind: people are moving here precisely because of its quality of life. Destroy that quality of life with inappropriate or overscaled development and the allure will dissipate.

Portland's destiny is not Manhattan-level density. It never was. It's going to grow to be sure but only if we keep the focus on quality rather than quantity. I can easily see this city doubling in population but I wouldn't want to live here if developers rather than citizens called the shots.