Park Avenue West | 501' 7" | 30 floors | Completed

[zilfondel]

Kind of ironic, considering that every other housing development in Portland is called "luxury" even if its a cheap starter home @ $180,000.

[Urbanpdx]

True true!

Also, even the cheapest low end tract house advertises "quality" and if it is a real ugly box with a roof it is "stylish".

[alexjon]

They should shift the lower classes out to Tigard or Vancouver

[pdxtex]

^^ yes, and send all migrant workers back to mexico.....i hope you were being sarcastic......

[BrG]

Originally Posted by Drmyeyes

Yeah, "affordable". I'm still coming to an understanding of what this means, but basically, I believe "affordable" in terms of housing, is based on median family income for a given area. In other words, average family income. Obviously, if an area has a substantial percentage of very high income earners, that raises the average to a height absurdly greater than that of minimum wage earners. Can't remember the last figure for median family income that I read, but it seemed ridiculous....doesn't sound right when I think about it, but $50-$60 thousand. Could be less. I'll try do a search later.

So anyway, you can figure out what that means. Nobody with a $20,000/yr job with a family to support is going to be able to afford much "affordable" housing. But the developers keep putting up their high priced crap based on the affordable housing figure anyway, further stratifying the society and making the best parts of the city ever more exclusively available to relatively wealthy people.

And just to give urbanpdx his due, his statement "Actually, most households do not have kids.", is probably roughly true. I seem to recall reading a blueoregon person saying some time back that 20% of Portland households have school age kids. Haven't confirmed this though.

Affordable = Subsidized.

Anything market rate is reflective of the cost of construction, which has skyrocketed. That includes the cost of land, which is even more expensive to aquire. Plus, when you put together your proforma and put it in front of an institutional lender, asking to borrow 100 million dollars to build your project, you better show them that your project can cenerate a heatlhy bottom line, or the lender will laugh you out of the room.

It's actually very difficult to do any affordable project in the city these days. And without subsidies, damn near impossible. Just because the project is "affordable, doesn't make it any less expensive to build. The luxury part is really just finishes, and to a lesser extent the square footage per unit. The rest is the same on any building. You still need EVERYTHING else.

It's frustrating. When one gets completed successfully, it really is an accomplishement. Sitka being the most recent.

[BrG]

double post

[Drmyeyes]

BrG, thanks for that very clear explanation. I think I'm finally starting to get what the phrases market rate and affordable housing mean.

I might just add to the following: "Just because the project is "affordable", doesn't make it any less expensive to build." ...that it would seem as though "affordable" also doesn't neccessarily make housing from such projects less expensive to buy for people that need housing. This explanation you've offered would suggest that "affordable" housing refers to various subsidized housing that might be priced for a wide range of income levels but not limited to low income levels. Middle income levels too.

So perhaps that reflexive response on the part of some people to the idea that "affordable" housing definitively signals the arrival of unsavory low income residents to nice neighborhoods would be misplaced.

[BrG]

I should clarify that "affordable housing" if not an offical term for subsidized housing.

It it typically unfortunately only financially feasible with public subsidies, however.

Shoot. There are plenty of market rate projects that are only feasible with development tax incentives/ abatements and other subsidies.

[BrG]

Originally Posted by Drmyeyes

So perhaps that reflexive response on the part of some people to the idea that "affordable" housing definitively signals the arrival of unsavory low income residents to nice neighborhoods would be misplaced.

That is correct.

There are a number of tiers for subsidized housing. From Section 8 (heavily subsidized) to Section 42 (middle income), to projects that sell at market rate, but have 10 year property tax abatements for buyers, to FHA loans and more. Lots of levels for lots of buyers. But, clearly, there is a gulf beween the luxury housing and useful workforce housing available at market rate.

Bottom to top, many larger projects were generated from catylsts like PDC land deals on brownfeild redevelopments, to SOWA (infrastructure costs like streets/ sewer/ etc), and they still are expensive.

It sucks, but until the cost of raw materials like steel, concrete and glass come down, the cost of construction will not come down. Therefore the sales prices will only come down to a certain point based on the market.

Condo projects I design every day, are most often projects I likely wouldn't (or couldn't) purchase a unit, because they are too expensive.

Some are even too expensive to build now, as the real estate market cannot support the prices needed to make them pencil.

This new Moyer project looks typically "Bob Thompson-esqe", and while very attractive (as a mix of office and condos), it will be a difficult project to build as concieved, and still sell to buyers at something other than astronomical pricepoints.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

^^ yes, and send all migrant workers back to mexico.....i hope you were being sarcastic......

Why would I joke about something so meaningful?

Look at all these impassioned people, they have spoken... poor people drive down EVERYONE's standard of living.

[Dougall5505]

Moyer's last beautey





the buildings to be replaced













and i liked this one it has so many different types of architecture plus american spirit!

[Urbanpdx]

Originally Posted by BrG

Affordable = Subsidized.

Anything market rate is reflective of the cost of construction, which has skyrocketed. That includes the cost of land, which is even more expensive to aquire. Plus, when you put together your proforma and put it in front of an institutional lender, asking to borrow 100 million dollars to build your project, you better show them that your project can cenerate a heatlhy bottom line, or the lender will laugh you out of the room.

It's actually very difficult to do any affordable project in the city these days. And without subsidies, damn near impossible. Just because the project is "affordable, doesn't make it any less expensive to build. The luxury part is really just finishes, and to a lesser extent the square footage per unit. The rest is the same on any building. You still need EVERYTHING else.

It's frustrating. When one gets completed successfully, it really is an accomplishement. Sitka being the most recent.

I believe Sitka is subsidized.

How about:
Arbor Crossing in Quatama http://www.oregonlive.com/realestate...530.xml&coll=7
$141 per sq ft sales price

Matthew Frank in St. Johns http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/rfs/267135094.html
$178 per sq ft sales price

Sequoia Village in Clackamas http://www.seqcusthomes.com/sequoiavillage.html
$153 per sq ft sales price

None of those projects have subsidies.

When you can buy a 3 br/ 2.5 bath 1650 sq ft condo for $240,000 or a one bedroom for under $130,000 you have to say that is affordable. Affordable is possible, just not when you go over 3 floors.

[65MAX]

Great pics Dougall (as usual).

This one shows Park Block 4 (the Park Avenue West site). Not really anything worth preserving IMO. I'm all for saving historic buildings, but in this case, a 410' tower will be a much better use of this site.

[BrG]

Originally Posted by Urbanpdx

I believe Sitka is subsidized.

Yes, it is. The developer went through many iterations of the project to see it realized. It was extremely challenging, financially...as is all affordable housing in the city. The point I was making earlier, was that it was completed succesfully, in an urban setting.

Originally Posted by Urbanpdx

How about:
Arbor Crossing in Quatama http://www.oregonlive.com/realestate...530.xml&coll=7
$141 per sq ft sales price

Matthew Frank in St. Johns http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/rfs/267135094.html
$178 per sq ft sales price

Sequoia Village in Clackamas http://www.seqcusthomes.com/sequoiavillage.html
$153 per sq ft sales price

None of those projects have subsidies.

...and none are in the city of Portland. It's much easier to build affordable housing on the outsikrts of the metro area. For a myriad of reasons.

When you can buy a 3 br/ 2.5 bath 1650 sq ft condo for $240,000 or a one bedroom for under $130,000 you have to say that is affordable. Affordable is possible, just not when you go over 3 floors.

Or, when you build to the minimum zoning code in the heart of Portland. The "for sale" prices of those units don't even exceed the raw construction cost of current condos, in the city.

[Urbanpdx]

Originally Posted by BrG

Yes, it is. The developer went through many iterations of the project to see it realized. It was extremely challenging, financially...as is all affordable housing in the city. The point I was making earlier, was that it was completed succesfully, in an urban setting.



...and none are in the city of Portland. It's much easier to build affordable housing on the outsikrts of the metro area. For a myriad of reasons.



Or, when you build to the minimum zoning code in the heart of Portland. The "for sale" prices of those units don't even exceed the raw construction cost of current condos, in the city.

St. Johns is in the city of Portland. Why couldn't any of those projects (or something very similar) be built anywhere in the city? BrG, Which minimum zoning code(s) are you refering to?

[Urbanpdx]

Originally Posted by Drmyeyes

BrG, thanks for that very clear explanation. I think I'm finally starting to get what the phrases market rate and affordable housing mean.

I might just add to the following: "Just because the project is "affordable", doesn't make it any less expensive to build." ...that it would seem as though "affordable" also doesn't neccessarily make housing from such projects less expensive to buy for people that need housing. This explanation you've offered would suggest that "affordable" housing refers to various subsidized housing that might be priced for a wide range of income levels but not limited to low income levels. Middle income levels too.

So perhaps that reflexive response on the part of some people to the idea that "affordable" housing definitively signals the arrival of unsavory low income residents to nice neighborhoods would be misplaced.

Since it is expensive to build with or without subsidy, why not eliminate the building of "affordable" (subsidized) housing and use vouchers exclusively. Again, we do it with food stamps. No one suggests that government get in the grocery store business but everyone seems to want it in the real estate development business. With rent vouchers people could make the choice of where to live based on what is best for them and developers could build where and how people want units. I would imagine that people in the demographic that gets heavily subsidized housing live where the subsidies are rather than close to work, school, church, family, etc. They might also take whatever floor plan is available instead of what works best.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by Urbanpdx

Since it is expensive to build with or without subsidy, why not eliminate the building of "affordable" (subsidized) housing and use vouchers exclusively. Again, we do it with food stamps. No one suggests that government get in the grocery store business but everyone seems to want it in the real estate development business. With rent vouchers people could make the choice of where to live based on what is best for them and developers could build where and how people want units. I would imagine that people in the demographic that gets heavily subsidized housing live where the subsidies are rather than close to work, school, church, family, etc. They might also take whatever floor plan is available instead of what works best.

As far as I understand, that's pretty much what Section 8 is.

[BrG]

Originally Posted by Urbanpdx

Since it is expensive to build with or without subsidy, why not eliminate the building of "affordable" (subsidized) housing and use vouchers exclusively. Again, we do it with food stamps. No one suggests that government get in the grocery store business but everyone seems to want it in the real estate development business. With rent vouchers people could make the choice of where to live based on what is best for them and developers could build where and how people want units. I would imagine that people in the demographic that gets heavily subsidized housing live where the subsidies are rather than close to work, school, church, family, etc. They might also take whatever floor plan is available instead of what works best.

Interesting thoughts. The challenge to go in that direction would be immense.

I'm not arguing for or against that idea, BTW.

Any city, by nature, is a real estate management organization, in addition to all it's other operational duties (defender of the public welfare and protector of the public heath).

PDC orchestrates and puts money into a land deal, and a tax base increasing project comes of it. It typically spurs other unsubsidized growth as well, and the cycle of economic growth continues.

Described at it's simplest, they make money with that investment, essentially so they can do it again.

With paying for "rental rations", it seems that they would give the control of that development away. The city PTB very much wants a say in what happens within its borders.

Sorry for taking this too off topic. Mods- feel free to spilt this thread out.

[BrG]

Originally Posted by Urbanpdx

St. Johns is in the city of Portland. Why couldn't any of those projects (or something very similar) be built anywhere in the city? BrG, Which minimum zoning code(s) are you refering to?

Duh, you're right... brainfart. Sorry.

I was thinking near or within the CCPD (Central city plan district). Land costs are just so much.

Re the zoning: Nothing specific. That was a poorly worded comment I made. Zoning codes typically have min and max density/ parking/ housing/ max setbacks/ req's. Obviously dependent on the site, they vary dramatically. Often they are quite demanding. Certianly, the building use that is zoned dictates the occupancy type (retail/ housing/ office), which dictates the construction type (wood/ steel/ concrete). etc. A 3 story project in downtown Portland is often completely infeasible, based on land costs, use requirements, etc. It's not always the case, but quite often.

But... in any project I have been a part of designing, in the city, the process of satisfying some zoning as well as creating an economically viable project is challenging. It can take years...(and has) depending on the project. that part of the job wasn't covered in architecture school, I can certianly say that!

[Drmyeyes]

I think what makes this diversion relevant to Moyer's planned tower and development in downtown in general, is that it touches on whether affordable housing built here should be affordable to the income levels that would be relying on rental vouchers if they did exist, or if that is what section 8 accomplishes. I think there should be a certain percentage of decent, affordable housing units available within walking distance or a short mass transit ride from downtown, even downtown itself for persons working a full time minimum wage job.

I couldn't say about section 8 or rental vouchers because I don't know about them. It would be pretty tricky and not neccessarily helpful to indirectly suggest that through subsidized housing, affordable housing could be subject to the same kind of problems affecting the food stamp program. There's nothing particularly wrong with being a solid citizen holding down a min wage job. Efforts should be made to motivate and reward more people to do so by making decent affordable housing available accordingly. Obviously, whatever the range income level persons living near to each other may be, a fundamental requiste for success for the neighborhood would be to maintain a high quality standard of living for everyone.