HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Downtown & City of Portland


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2013, 10:33 PM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,471
All you need to do for proof is walk around downtown and look at the older buildings. So many apartments and condos were built over the last 15 years, meanwhile rent in the older buildings went up, not down, even when adjusted for inflation and even with the recession. The more desirable a neighborhood becomes, the more people from outside the neighborhood will want to move in. They don't just move into the new buildings. They move into the older ones as well, driving up competition for those apartments, which drives rent in the older buildings up not down. Rent in the older buildings won't go up to the levels in the new buildings, but it does go up, not down. The idea that when new housing is built, people from the old housing in that neighborhood switch to the new, which drives down prices at the old... it's silly.

Last edited by 2oh1; Jan 1, 2014 at 1:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jan 1, 2014, 9:49 PM
RED_PDXer RED_PDXer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
All you need to do for proof is walk around downtown and look at the older buildings. So many apartments and condos were built over the last 15 years, meanwhile rent in the older buildings went up, not down, even when adjusted for inflation and even with the recession. The more desirable a neighborhood becomes, the more people from outside the neighborhood will want to move in. They don't just move into the new buildings. They move into the older ones as well, driving up competition for those apartments, which drives rent in the older buildings up not down. Rent in the older buildings won't go up to the levels in the new buildings, but it does go up, not down. The idea that when new housing is built, people from the old housing in that neighborhood switch to the new, which drives down prices at the old... it's silly.
Are you suggesting that without infill development, rents won't rise to the levels they have been? I believe that new infill helps support more retail and services in the neighborhood, which become an amenity for everyone, regardless of the quality of the apartment you live in. This may result in increasing rents to some extent, but very little I imagine compared to growing demand. Without new infill, I suspect rents would raise even more and there would be even more displacement than without.

Landlords aren't blind to demand. If I was renting out apartments, I would certainly raise rents if I noticed 50 applicants for a single vacant unit. I would also probably make improvements to the units to increase the attraction of the higher paying tenants, because generally they take better care of the units. This is irrespective of new development in the neighborhood. This is simply supply and demand.

However, with a glut of new housing options, I'm gonna see fewer applicants for my vacant units and probably less so if I can't offer the same level of amenities (gym, on-site parking, new kitchen with D/W, etc..) to compete at a certain price point. I see a lot of single-family homes and low-density developments torn down for much higher density. The single-family homes were not affordable at all to the average single person or median income household, so I don't see how people are necessarily being displaced at a higher rate because of the infill. There's also quite a bit of new development going in on vacant lots, such as the 99-unit building just getting started at 39th and Stark, which is primarily an unaffordable single-family neighborhood. I don't see how anyone loses from this..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jan 1, 2014, 10:13 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by RED_PDXer View Post
Are you suggesting that without infill development, rents won't rise to the levels they have been? I believe that new infill helps support more retail and services in the neighborhood, which become an amenity for everyone, regardless of the quality of the apartment you live in. This may result in increasing rents to some extent, but very little I imagine compared to growing demand. Without new infill, I suspect rents would raise even more and there would be even more displacement than without.

Landlords aren't blind to demand. If I was renting out apartments, I would certainly raise rents if I noticed 50 applicants for a single vacant unit. I would also probably make improvements to the units to increase the attraction of the higher paying tenants, because generally they take better care of the units. This is irrespective of new development in the neighborhood. This is simply supply and demand.

However, with a glut of new housing options, I'm gonna see fewer applicants for my vacant units and probably less so if I can't offer the same level of amenities (gym, on-site parking, new kitchen with D/W, etc..) to compete at a certain price point. I see a lot of single-family homes and low-density developments torn down for much higher density. The single-family homes were not affordable at all to the average single person or median income household, so I don't see how people are necessarily being displaced at a higher rate because of the infill. There's also quite a bit of new development going in on vacant lots, such as the 99-unit building just getting started at 39th and Stark, which is primarily an unaffordable single-family neighborhood. I don't see how anyone loses from this..
39th and Stark? Where at that intersection? I had no idea anything was going up there or where it could even go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2014, 1:36 AM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
All you need to do for proof is walk around downtown and look at the older buildings. So many apartments and condos were built over the last 15 years, meanwhile rent in the older buildings went up, not down, even when adjusted for inflation and even with the recession. The more desirable a neighborhood becomes, the more people from outside the neighborhood will want to move in. They don't just move into the new buildings. They move into the older ones as well, driving up competition for those apartments, which drives rent in the older buildings up not down. Rent in the older buildings won't go up to the levels in the new buildings, but it does go up, not down. The idea that when new housing is built, people from the old housing in that neighborhood switch to the new, which drives down prices at the old... it's silly.
Correlation does not equal causation. If there are new buildings being built in a neighborhood, and the rents are because rising, it's not the case that new buildings are causing the rise in rents. It's the rise in rents that's making it financially viable to build new apartments. Anecdote doesn't change that.

Here's a well written article by Dan Bertolet. Or another from Matt Yglesias. Or another, from the blog Austin contrarian, about older housing gets more expensive if there isn't enough supply at the high end to satisfy the market.
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

www.twitter.com/maccoinnich
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2014, 2:56 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
I think part of the equation is that rents in Portland were for a long time extremely low, compared to other growing cities. It took awhile, and I'm not saying its good for people who have already been established here, but the large influx of people to the city are competing for a scarce resource - housing. Which drove up prices.

Without new development, prices would be higher - but new development is not the reason (or main reason) why people move here: its the quality of life and jobs.

Look to SF and the Bay Area if you want to see what happens when you put up roadblocks to new development - prices go literally skyhigh.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2014, 5:47 AM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by RED_PDXer View Post
Are you suggesting that without infill development, rents won't rise to the levels they have been?
Oh, GOD no!!! I'm not saying that at all!!!

I want all of this development. I want it badly even though I know it's going to lead to increased prices for housing. That's the rub, really. This development creates more density, and more vibrant neighborhoods, both of which I want very badly. But the more vibrant a neighborhood becomes, the more people will want to live there. In turn, older housing that was perhaps shabby is suddenly considered charming, and even though its prices increase compared to what those already in the neighborhood are used to, outsiders moving into the neighborhood think of it as a bargain compared to the new developments with their sky high rents.

We need the coming development. All of it, really. We need it badly. I just worry about the rising cost of housing in Portland. I don't have any answers though. I wish I did.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2014, 7:02 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
Oh, GOD no!!! I'm not saying that at all!!!

I want all of this development. I want it badly even though I know it's going to lead to increased prices for housing. That's the rub, really. This development creates more density, and more vibrant neighborhoods, both of which I want very badly. But the more vibrant a neighborhood becomes, the more people will want to live there. In turn, older housing that was perhaps shabby is suddenly considered charming, and even though its prices increase compared to what those already in the neighborhood are used to, outsiders moving into the neighborhood think of it as a bargain compared to the new developments with their sky high rents.

We need the coming development. All of it, really. We need it badly. I just worry about the rising cost of housing in Portland. I don't have any answers though. I wish I did.
What everyone is saying is that these new developments aren't the reason why rents are going up, Portland being an attractive place to live combined with an extremely low vacancy rating is what makes the rents go up. The new developments just help with expanding supply.

In theory adding more units is what makes the rent go down, but that would require more units than demand for that to actually happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2014, 9:21 AM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
What everyone is saying is that these new developments aren't the reason why rents are going up
Agreed. They're only part of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
Portland being an attractive place to live combined with an extremely low vacancy rating is what makes the rents go up. The new developments just help with expanding supply.

In theory adding more units is what makes the rent go down, but that would require more units than demand for that to actually happen.
Exactly. And building more units than the demand isn't possible, especially when you consider how development leads to even more demand in a specific neighborhood because, with more housing comes more people which leads to more pubs and shops and restaurants and action, which leads to more people wanting to live there - all of which, I should add, is good. We want vibrant walkable neighborhoods.

Portland is an attractive place to live, and that brings more people from across the country to the city as a whole, and each specific development increases the vibrancy of its specific neighborhood.

I'm surprised some seem to be misunderstanding what I'm getting at, so, let me put it this way:

In my experience, it seems that people from across the state and the country move to the Portland area. They move from Ohio to Beaverton, or Idaho to Vancouver, or maybe from New York into NW Portland. They arrive. That's stage one.

In stage two, people shift locally and settle into a neighborhood as they try to find where the action is, at least for a while until they shift and settle again. Maybe they moved to Vancouver because it was cheaper, but then after a year they realized Hawthorne is where they want to be, so they go there. Then, as new development starts popping up all over inner SE, they decide that's where the action is, so they move to be part of it. But they can't afford the shiny new high end apartments that rent for $1500 and up, so they jump on a sweet bargain they find for 900 in an older building. What they don't know - or even care about - is that the $900 apartment used to rent for $500 before the neighborhood became the Next Big Thing. And inner SE is going to be the next big thing. It has to be, frankly. There's too much opportunity there, and that's good. Hell, it's great! I've been wondering for over a decade why it hadn't happened already. There's so much potential there. But an unfortunate byproduct of all of the new development and the new pubs and shops and eateries and whatever else comes with an influx of new people is even more people. Nothing draws a crowd like a crowd. And that means even more competition for not just the new housing, but the old housing too. It drives prices up.

It's like when an Apple Store opens. All of a sudden, the retail spaces around that store become more valuable because foot traffic goes up.

Sadly, the only way I know of to push down prices is for an area to become undesirable - and none of us want that to happen. Obviously. I'm cheering for the new development that's on the way. BRING IT! I'm excited about Portland's future, but I'm nervous about the increasing cost of housing.

The challenge is, how do we keep Portland from pricing out Portlanders? I don't have an answer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 14, 2014, 5:03 AM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,788
LOCA @ Goat Blocks | Multiple Buildings | U/C

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 14, 2014, 5:56 AM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by bvpcvm View Post
There's a lot going on in that proposal. Personally, outside the new grocery store, it doesn't do much for me.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 15, 2014, 2:00 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by bvpcvm View Post
I like it, it will add good density to that area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 15, 2014, 2:13 AM
Derek Derek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,540
I like it too. I like the stairs.
__________________
Portlandia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 15, 2014, 4:36 PM
cailes cailes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Seattle
Posts: 314
Nice to see the effort to reduce the block size.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 15, 2014, 7:20 PM
downtownpdx's Avatar
downtownpdx downtownpdx is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,672
Fun development, nice to see the inner eastside filling in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 15, 2014, 9:59 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by cailes View Post
Nice to see the effort to reduce the block size.
I am happy about that too, I don't mind them not opening the street up because it is not an important street, but having it be a walkway between the buildings will be nice. Overall I think it will be a good complex, I don't remember the zoning code for around this block, but I hope we see more development like this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2014, 9:43 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
Unfortunately this is all the DJC will allow me to see...

Goat Blocks design requiring more work
By: Jeff McDonald in Scrolling Box June 13, 2014 1:54 pm

Quote:
The Portland Design Commission is seeking more changes to plans for the Goat Blocks project.

Read more: http://djcoregon.com/news/2014/06/13...#ixzz34qCeoxVs
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 12:34 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
Unfortunately this is all the DJC will allow me to see...

Goat Blocks design requiring more work
By: Jeff McDonald in Scrolling Box June 13, 2014 1:54 pm




Read more: http://djcoregon.com/news/2014/06/13...#ixzz34qCeoxVs
They probably want them to put up awnings on the windows. I wonder what work they want them to do because the design of the complex actually looked really nice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 4:04 PM
CouvScott CouvScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washougal, WA
Posts: 1,107
[QUOTE=MarkDaMan;6620742]Unfortunately this is all the DJC will allow me to see...

Goat Blocks design requiring more work
By: Jeff McDonald in Scrolling Box June 13, 2014 1:54 pm

Goat Blocks design requiring more work

By: Jeff McDonald in Architecture and Engineering June 13, 2014 1:54 pm





The Loca development designed for the Goat Blocks in Southeast Portland would include 87,000 square feet of retail space and 247 apartment units. Portland Design Commissioners last week criticized the plan for public space. (Ankrom Moisan Architects)
The Loca development designed for the Goat Blocks in Southeast Portland would include 87,000 square feet of retail space and 247 apartment units. (Ankrom Moisan Architects)

With signed lease agreements with a grocer and a hardware retailer in hand, the team planning to develop the Goat Blocks in Southeast Portland is eager to gain approval from the Portland Design Commission.


But that won’t come until at least next month, after several issues were brought up Thursday during a roughly six-hour hearing before the commission. Approximately nine months have passed since developer Killian Pacific filed its request for a pre-application conference with the city.


“The bottom line is we need an approval,” said Tom Moisan, president of Ankrom Moisan Architects. “We need to keep this moving.”


Killian Pacific is planning to add 87,000 square feet of retail space and 247 apartment units on a three-block area. The seven-building development would include a grocery store and a hardware store, and several smaller retail spaces, Killian Pacific Managing Director Noel Johnson said.


“We’re pretty adamant this is not the next Pearl District,” he said. “It works hard to diversify and complement an already rich built environment.”


At the heart of the discussion Thursday was the use of public space and how the building would interface with the neighborhood at street level. The property, previously used as pastureland by a herd of goats, could mark the east-to-west transition from the leafy Buckman neighborhood to the grittier Central Eastside.


That transition presents a design challenge because the property slopes 24 feet from the northeastern corner at Belmont Street and 12th Avenue to the southwestern corner at Taylor Street and 10th Avenue.


Killian Pacific and Portland-based Ankrom Moisan Architects, the project architect, have proposed building an alley through the property from Yamhill Street. The alley would essentially cut the property in half and take advantage of the slope with a set of stairs rather than a flat surface.


One commissioner, David Keltner, said he would not vote for design approval unless the developers were to build Yamhill into a continuous street that would encourage more pedestrian and bicyclist traffic through the development. Otherwise, the steps would create a “weird dead end,” he said.


“The kinds of spaces they are making are creative and inventive, but you’ve got to be sure that you’re doing everything else to make sure that they actually work,” he said.


The Yamhill steps would provide some dramatic views of the city’s skyline and also provide more room underneath for the hardware store, Johnson said.


“We simply disagree that it’s better to slope smoothly,” he said. “We think it’s better to basically hold it level and then go down stairs. It creates an iconic viewpoint of downtown.”


Commissioners who reviewed the project wanted to know how the Yamhill alley and another smaller pedestrian walkway would contribute to public space, which is a requirement for superblock projects.


“My point of view is that there is a lot of corridor circulation, but there is no place to get off the path and be in public space,” Commissioner Jane Hansen said.


Commissioners also repeated concerns issued in February about a lack of coherency in some of the planned materials and complexity of forms.


“The biggest issue is that so little changed in response to our original comments,” said Keltner, a principal architect at THA Architecture.


Buckman resident Kenneth Diener, owner of KJD Architecture in Portland, wondered whether a second-floor restaurant space could be set back farther from the street and an internal corridor could be moved to the perimeter.


“That would allow the grocery to expand upward, and it would activate the walkway on the west side,” said Diener, who submitted 25 pages of testimony stating concerns about the project. “There is no reason that can’t work.”


Making suggested changes, including leveling the Yamhill alley extension and setting back second-floor retail space, could lessen the appeal of prospective tenants, said Jeff Mitchem, an Ankrom Moisan urban designer.


“The moment you do one of those things, you lose the second-floor viability and views to the west of the city,” he said.


Killian Pacific will return with suggested changes at a July 17 hearing. Its goal is to start construction in August, Johnson said.
__________________
A mind that is expanded by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2014, 2:42 AM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,389
Goat Blocks are in for permit. Not sure how that works, given that they haven't completed Design Review yet, but I'm sure the architects working on it know the process better than I do.
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

www.twitter.com/maccoinnich
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2014, 3:47 PM
hat hat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 381
As of Monday the goat area in Lents hasn't been moved/built (they're using previous parts of the Belmont shack and building a taller structure from new stuff). I spoke with those guys at the Lents fair. Should take a while longer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Downtown & City of Portland
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:33 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.