Portland Infill | Northwest Portland

[AdamUrbanist]

We can't save every historic building in the city and still keep Portland an affordable place to live. If you're planning to meet housing demand purely through infill development (like we are) you have to make it very easy and predictable to develop. Infill comes with a lot of costs and complications that get compounded by restrictive land use policy, particularly when its unpredictable. These are nice historic houses, but they're not architectural gems. We should really be focusing our resources on saving buildings that are particularly notable and built to the scale of their surroundings, like the Temple building. If we get up in arms every time a mediocre bungalow is torn down we're going to end up with a city that preserves its physical character but loses its diversity and all the people that make it interesting.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

Thank you. The "if you don't like it then buy it" attitude seems cavalier, '50's era, and dismisses any value in preserving a lil of Portland's history while its neighborhoods go through massive gentrification. The charm and detailed style of many older buildings is a huge part in what made these neighborhoods desirable in the first place. Not every building must be preserved. But these 130-year old homes, on the city's historic resources inventory no less, provide a unique scale and aesthetic that oughta be protected. At least try to move them to another lot.

Gentrification can happen regardless if buildings are torn down or not. Sellwood is a cute little old neighborhood full of old homes, yet due to gentrification, you would be lucky to find any of those cute old homes for under $300K. And while I think there needs to be tighter restrictions in place to protect buildings listed as historical, the old saying in Oregon is still true today, if you don't want something torn down, then buy it and don't tear it down. Property owners have rights as well and it is important to protect those rights.

So yes, I do think these old homes should be near impossible to tear down because they are registered as historic, the building owner should have to submit a petition or request or something to a committee explaining why something listed as historic needs to be torn down. I feel like once we get to that point, it is the only way we will have a good balance between growth and preservation. We can't save every building, but we can't tear down every building and expect to preserve the character of the city.

[Abide]

Originally Posted by AdamUrbanist

We can't save every historic building in the city and still keep Portland an affordable place to live. If you're planning to meet housing demand purely through infill development (like we are) you have to make it very easy and predictable to develop. Infill comes with a lot of costs and complications that get compounded by restrictive land use policy, particularly when its unpredictable. These are nice historic houses, but they're not architectural gems. We should really be focusing our resources on saving buildings that are particularly notable and built to the scale of their surroundings, like the Temple building. If we get up in arms every time a mediocre bungalow is torn down we're going to end up with a city that preserves its physical character but loses its diversity and all the people that make it interesting.

Spot on. These houses are very attractive. I'm not sure what the ugliness is that Leo's seeing. But they're not architectural gems and are actually fairly common for their era. A rapidly growing city needs to be focused on preserving the unique and exceptional.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by Abide

Spot on. These houses are very attractive. I'm not sure what the ugliness is that Leo's seeing. But they're not architectural gems and are actually fairly common for their era. A rapidly growing city needs to be focused on preserving the unique and exceptional.

I agree. but... I would be interested to hear if there is any significance to the (mixed-use!) building at the corner.

[maccoinnich]

(Last week)

WDC Properties have requested Early Assistance for a project at 2220 NW Pettygrove St:

New 44 Unit , 4 Story Multi-Family Apartment Building. No parking – THIS IS A AFFORADBLE HOUSING PROJECT

[maccoinnich]

Early Assistance has been requested by Kehoe Northwest Properties for a project at 1902 NW 24th Ave:

Proposal is to demo existing residence and build a 29 unit four story apartment building.

[cailes]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

(Last week)

WDC Properties have requested Early Assistance for a project at 2220 NW Pettygrove St:

Curious if this encompasses the entire medical complex or just the decrepit looking building on the corner?

Would almost have to be the whole complex for 44 units...

[maccoinnich]

Design Advice has been requested and a Pre-Application Conference scheduled by Works Partnership for a project at 404 NW 23rd Ave:

Proposal is for a new four story development with basement and surface parking. The roof will have a deck and be used for mechanical storage.

Proposal is for a new four story multi-unit development with basement parking and a provision for additional at grade surface parking. The roof will include a deck and mechanical storage.

(The above project is in the Alphabet Historic District. Should be interesting to see what Works Partnership propose.)

A project at 1825 NW 23rd Ave has been submitted for Type III Design Review by Works Partnership:

Type III Design Review for a 5-story mixed use building with ground-level retail. Project includes basement parking.

[bvpcvm]

404 nw 23rd... google maps says that's the kitchen kaboodle building, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. Is it possible this is the planned for restoration hardware? (Couldn't tell if google was certain about the 404 address)

[maccoinnich]

The parking lot to the east of Kitchen Kaboodle shares the same address. I assume it's just that site.

[twofiftyfive]

PortlandMaps shows some recent permit applications for minor upgrades to the residential units in the Kitchen Kaboodle building, so I think mac is probably right about it being the parking lot. I certainly hope so.

[maccoinnich]

A project at 2012 NW Vaughn St has been submitted for building permit review:

Construct new, 3 story plus basement, self storage facility, includes parking, landscaping and site utilities

[maccoinnich]

Notice of a Pre-Application Conference for 404 NW 23rd Avenue

[maccoinnich]

Greenway trail will soon be continuous at Fremont Bridge:

[maccoinnich]

[maccoinnich]

Drawings [PDF - 152 MB] and Staff Report for Derby NW, at 1015 & 1033-1039 NW 16th Ave.

[maccoinnich]

Housing growth? Not in my backyard



Housing advocates are concerned that as Portland prepares for more condominiums and apartments to accommodate more than 200,000 new residents during the next two decades, city officials plan to cut back the size of new buildings in parts of the affluent Northwest, pushing the new growth elsewhere.

However, the proposal to lower the allowed density in much of the Northwest’s Historic Alphabet District could open up the city to $30 million or more in legal claims from landowners, one lawyer says.

Property owners in much of the district — mainly between 17th and 24th avenues north of Northwest Couch Street — recently received notice that any new projects would have to be smaller. That’s because the city plans to cut the maximum floor-to-area ratio — the area’s density, in other words — in half.

Martha McLennan, executive director of Northwest Housing Alternatives, says the recommendation, which was issued by the Portland Planning and Sustainability commission on Aug. 23, would kill the group’s plans to build a 160-unit project at 1727 N.W. Hoyt St. It would provide 60 years of affordability for seniors making $15,000 or less.

...continues at the Business Tribune.

[DMH]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

...continues at the Business Tribune.

Unfortunately the author of the piece, Mr. Budnick, did not interview enough parties involved in this issue. The old RH zoning with FAR of 4:1 is a zoning remnant that existed before the Historic Alphabet District was established in 2000. It was noted at that time that the 4:1 FAR was incompatible with development in a historic district. Now there is the chance to correct the allowable FAR to be compatible with the design guidelines of the Historic Alphabet District.

[maccoinnich]

How, exactly, is 4:1 FAR "incompatible" with the Alphabet Historic District? There are many historic buildings that are contributing to the district, and are built to more than 2:1 FAR. A number of buildings, including the Tudor Arms (itself individually listed on the National Register), are built to more than 4:1.

Northwest Portland isn't Irvington or Eastmoreland.

[athorak]

"We have a housing affordability crisis!"

"I know, let's limit supply!"