The Antiplanner

5th May 2009

Portland: The City That Redevelops

posted in News commentary, Urban areas |

Portland blogger Jack Bogdanski points out that, thanks to Portland’s great land-use laws, the city was able to replace this eyesore:

with this beautiful, mixed-use development:

It is hard to tell from the photo, but the eyesore was wasting a lot of land, being surrounded by grass and trees and black-and-white picket fences. By contrast, the new building is green-certified, having been built with decorative woods imported all the way from Africa and Malaysia. I guess Oregon woods just weren’t “green” enough.

“The north and south-facing exterior is covered with Cor-Ten steel,” says the condo’s web site. “The vertical panels of steel will rust over time to a rich, organic patina.” Some people complain that the rust “looks grim” and is staining the sidewalk, but that’s okay — it’s organic rust.

Though it is on Division Street, the condos are called the Clinton Condominiums, probably because Clinton Street is considered a more tasteful location (if you can’t have the location, at least you can have the name). It is located right across the street from one of the Joe Weston specials that I mentioned in yesterday’s post.

There is some debate over whether the Clinton Condos or Weston specials are more aesthetically pleasing. But think of it this way: If you live in the condos, you’ll have a view of the trees and shrubbery that surround the Weston’s parking lot. If you live in the Weston special, all you’ll have a view of is the rusty wall of the condos.

Condo prices range from $275,000 for a 880-square-foot one-bedroom to $589,000 for a primo 1,469-square-foot two-bedroom. That’s a range from just over $300 to nearly $400 per square foot.

That’s a bargain considering that the Weston specials rent for around $600 a month for a one-bedroom and $750 for a two-bedroom. Only seven of the 27 condo units are left, so if you want one, better move fast.

Who knows how many more of these masterpieces will be built? After all, one of Portland’s great proponents of such mixed-use housing, Mayor Sam Adams, has gotten himself into more trouble by running over a couple of energy-efficient compact cars while driving his GMC pick-up to a local Car Toys store. Given allegations that “he smelled like beer,” Adams may not be in office for much longer.

(To be fair, Portland’s police chief says that the police need “reasonable suspicion” to demand a sobriety test, and officers at the scene did not have such a suspicion. I guess slamming into a car, pushing it 50-70 feet across a parking lot and into another car, and then “peeling out” another 100 feet away before stopping isn’t suspicious.)

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 5th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under News commentary, Urban areas. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 50 responses to “Portland: The City That Redevelops”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

  1. 1 On May 5th, 2009, D4P said:

    thanks to Portland’s great land-use laws, the city was able to replace this eyesore…with this beautiful, mixed-use development

    To clarify, the replacement was done by:

    1. the city

    or

    2. a private developer

    …?

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 3:43 am

  2. 2 On May 5th, 2009, dmccall said:

    “The city” has to approve such a demolition and zoning change, don’t they?

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 5:27 am

  3. 3 On May 5th, 2009, D4P said:

    Presumably.

    Is the Antiplanner arguing that the city should restrict private freedom by not allowing the property owner to demolish and rezone?

    Is the Antiplanner arguing that the city should decide what’s best for the property owner and not allow him/her to make that decision him/herself?

    Funny how these arguments only surface when the Antiplanner doesn’t like the decisions made by private individuals.

    Which leads us to today’s lesson from the Antiplanner Dictionary:

    1. Freedom: When government regulates land use in a way that the Antiplanner likes.

    2. Planning: When government regulates land use in a way that the Antiplanner doesn’t like.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 5:47 am

  4. 4 On May 5th, 2009, Dan said:

    Apparently we don’t like what The Market came up with. Maybe the code was too flexible.

    Maybe a small-minority ideological group should decide what is good for everybody (maybe the instructions could be from, say, a novel or something. Fizzbin!).

    DS

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 7:08 am

  5. 5 On May 5th, 2009, Dan said:

    Who knows how many more of these masterpieces will be built? After all, one of Portland’s great proponents of such mixed-use housing, Mayor Sam Adams…”smelled like beer” .

    Glad to see we’re back to conflation and hasty generalization.

    DS

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 7:11 am

  6. 6 On May 5th, 2009, craig said:

    I talked to the owner of the house about a week ago and he fought the change. He was not supportive of the zoning change and has moved about 50 mile out of Portland.

    He is still mad about the bulling of the planners and the city.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 7:30 am

  7. 7 On May 5th, 2009, craig said:

    oops
    being bullied by the
    instead of the bulling of the

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 7:33 am

  8. 8 On May 5th, 2009, D4P said:

    More from the Antiplanner Dictionary:

    1. Progress: When government plays a role in replacing single-family housing with freeways.

    2. Bullying: When government plays a role in replacing single-family housing with multi-family housing.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 7:41 am

  9. 9 On May 5th, 2009, craig said:

    I think that comes from the D4P dictionary sense you just wrote it

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 8:06 am

  10. 10 On May 5th, 2009, Dan said:

    Progress: removing land-use rules across a state so people can build what they want on their property.

    Bullying: changing land-use rules in neighborhoods so people can build what they want on their property.

    Progress: stating that you want The Market to guide land-use decisions

    Bullying: actually allowing The Market to guide land-use decisions.

    DS

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 8:07 am

  11. 11 On May 5th, 2009, craig said:

    Bullying

    The Government and planners change the zoning and land use rules. Without the property owners permission.

    Changing the rules after the property bought the property .

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 8:36 am

  12. 12 On May 5th, 2009, Dan said:

    Yup. Nothing ever changes, ever. No need to fix anything, update anything, adjust anything.

    Everything is just like a novel most got over in Jr High, especially the chapter that says every single person is on the same page. snork

    DS

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 8:58 am

  13. 13 On May 5th, 2009, craig said:

    What makes you thing nothing will change if the property owners have the power instead of the planners and government.

    That is how Portland was for many years, as it changed.

    The problem was the stupid property owners were not asking for high density, smart growth, transit oriented developments, like the planners and government wanted.

    You are throwing out a straw man argument

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 9:06 am

  14. 14 On May 5th, 2009, D4P said:

    How many property owners have asked government to tear down their houses so Freedom-ways and other patriotic, auto-oriented infrastructure could be built in their place?

    And why don’t we hear the Antiplanner complain about such events?

    I guess he only complains about what he gets paid to complain about.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 9:13 am

  15. 15 On May 5th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    The Autoplanner: Who knows how many more of these masterpieces will be built? After all, one of Portland’s great proponents of such mixed-use housing, Mayor Sam Adams, has gotten himself into more trouble by running over a couple of energy-efficient compact cars while driving his GMC pick-up to a local Car Toys store. Given allegations that “he smelled like beer,” Adams may not be in office for much longer.

    THWM: In a strange way that makes sense. http://www.samueladams.com/

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 9:33 am

  16. 16 On May 5th, 2009, Dan said:

    The problem was the stupid property owners were not asking for high density, smart growth, transit oriented developments, like the planners and government wanted.

    So all folks were asking for dumb growth? snork

    A loud minority isn’t everyone like the small-minority wishes to portray or wishes to tell themselves how things work, according to a a novel most got over in Jr High.

    DS

    In the video, residents praise the convenience of the transportation and store-owners remark on the increased business from foot traffic, but perhaps more impressive are the environmental benefits that have resulted from this new pedestrian-friendly Portland. Since 1990, Portland has reduced greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation by 14% and per capita vehicle miles traveled by 17%…

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 10:14 am

  17. 17 On May 5th, 2009, ws said:

    THIS IS A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.

    Why the hell do you care what someone does with their property?

    Personally, the Plaid Pantry across the street is more of a nuisance. Where do you think the locals get their drug deals at?

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

  18. 18 On May 5th, 2009, mathieuhelie said:

    This in fact a property conflict as the situation in a city is one of two properties, the individual building and the city as a whole. Whose property rights are to trump the other’s? Antiplanners like Randall O’Toole and Wendell Cox want the property rights of the city to rule in order to maintain the suburban model, while they want the property rights of land speculators to rule in order to extend the suburban model indefinitely, and thus avoid the affordability issues of zoning in the city centers.

    Smart growthers, on the other hand, want individual property owners to rule against the city’s property rights in order to maximize affordability and density, and want to curb the property rights of land speculators in order to stop the suburban model.

    In effect, this conflict is the centuries-old battle between the class of land lords and the class of tenants. On the side of the land lords are the ruling cities and land speculators.

    There is really only one rational solution to this conflict, and that is to desocialize cities and make cities available to be bought and sold on markets so that planning regulations will be established on a rational basis that gradually increases density. That way the land speculators won’t be able to profit from further suburban development, and no urban growth boundaries will be needed.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 2:08 pm

  19. 19 On May 5th, 2009, Francis King said:

    Unfortunately the article fails to explain itself very well.

    Apparently –

    The city decided to make this area a mixed-use zone. This is a good thing, as it reduces the length of trips from one usage to another.

    Then either a) the owner sold the house to a developer, or b) the city compulsorily bought the property.

    If a) the owner has the right to do this. If b) this is a blatant infringement of property rights.

    Then, the developer built an eye-sore. Excuse me, but isn’t that what planning is supposed to stop? The planners should examine how well the design fits into the surroundings and block bad designs. That is what planners do in the UK, and any UK developer who tries to build something different to what is agreed is likely to find the council turning up with a bulldozer, a warrant, and a large part of the local police force.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

  20. 20 On May 5th, 2009, lgrattan said:

    The Grand Kids are in College and will soon be looking for their first home. They will drive until they can find a home on its own lot with room for a Swing set, Sand Box and a Dog. The solution is Stockton 60 miles away.
    They are not going to live down town in a high-rise and ride light-rail.
    Should their needs be planned for???
    From San Jose, #2 Smart Growth City.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 2:52 pm

  21. 21 On May 5th, 2009, ws said:

    Apparently Stockton is not the solution: It was a major epicenter for the housing bubble.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 3:10 pm

  22. 22 On May 5th, 2009, ws said:

    “Then, the developer built an eye-sore. Excuse me, but isn’t that what planning is supposed to stop?”

    I don’t think it’s an eyesore. Not to mention most new architecture appears to be an eyesore once built, but comes into itself in later years. Remember, the Eiffel Tower was hated by Parisians at first. Not saying this is iconic in that example, but look around that area and there’s so much more to complain about.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  23. 23 On May 5th, 2009, mathieuhelie said:

    It’s a myth that the Eiffel Tower was hated. The pseudo-byzantine palace across from it was, but it was demolished.

    This building is an eyesore, but it’s standard for architecture these days. Non-eyesores are banned.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 3:41 pm

  24. 24 On May 5th, 2009, D4P said:

    If planners call buildings “eyesores”, they get accused of elitism.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 3:50 pm

  25. 25 On May 5th, 2009, ws said:

    mathieuhelie:It’s a myth that the Eiffel Tower was hated. The pseudo-byzantine palace across from it was, but it was demolished. This building is an eyesore, but it’s standard for architecture these days. Non-eyesores are banned.

    ws:It is well documented that the Eiffel Tower was well criticized by many Parisians. Hated may be an exaggeration, but it was nonetheless controversial but is not an iconic landmark. Point being, sometimes buildings aren’t well accepted until they age or grow into a space. Hell, modern and brutalist architecture was often well received, look how that turned out.

    PS:Have you seen this building up front and close and in real life (the one you think is an eye-sore), or are you just basing this off of the computer generated rendering present, or its concrete shell shown on Google earth? Honestly, in the world of architecture, it ain’t bad.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 4:26 pm

  26. 26 On May 5th, 2009, ws said:

    “…but it was nonetheless controversial but is not an iconic landmark”

    Correction: I mean tot say but is now, not but is not.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

  27. 27 On May 5th, 2009, craig said:

    Francis King said:
    Apparently -

    The city decided to make this area a mixed-use zone. This is a good thing, as it reduces the length of trips from one usage to another.
    ——————————–
    The owner of the house did not like what was going on and moved away from the area to Washington. Increasing the length of his trips to get away from the high density mandates and Portland’s politics.

    This is often over looked.
    How many Portlanders just move away from Portland’s transit oriented, high density, nirvana.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 5:49 pm

  28. 28 On May 5th, 2009, ws said:

    Craig: “The owner of the house did not like what was going on and moved away from the area to Washington. How many Portlanders just move away from Portland’s transit oriented, high density, nirvana.”

    ws: Except Portland has added 100,000 new people to the city since 1990. People are “moving away” from anything. Where is there documentation of the previous owner and his/her opinion of the area? The person clearly had a development opportunity and more than likely capitalized greatly on it.

    posted on May 5th, 2009 at 6:20 pm

  29. 29 On May 6th, 2009, craig said:

    Where is there documentation of the previous owner and his/her opinion of the area?
    ws

    I didn’t document the conversations that I had with him, about a week ago

    posted on May 6th, 2009 at 6:06 am

  30. 30 On May 6th, 2009, Dan said:

    This is often over looked. How many Portlanders just move away from Portland’s transit oriented, high density, nirvana.

    No its not. People look at this all the time. Why bother to create jobs, then, if you want to be a no-growther? Don’t we decry this in other threads? Why here, why now? Because someone made money off their property?

    DS

    posted on May 6th, 2009 at 7:41 am

  31. 31 On May 6th, 2009, craig said:

    DS

    When did I say I was a no growther or I did not want to create jobs?

    You can put words into my mouth, but you can’t make me believe them.

    posted on May 6th, 2009 at 8:02 am

  32. 32 On May 6th, 2009, Dan said:

    I’ll type slowly.

    o In general, as cities age, they get denser. I’m not aware of a large city that hasn’t (oh, wait: Detroit).

    o In general, people moving to cities in general don’t seek yards or lawns, and the ones who do are willing to have smaller yards.

    o In particular wrt PDX, creating knowledge jobs attract a certain demographic. This will change the makeup of the city. Some will move because of it.

    Welcome to planet Earth, where all this has been going on for ~9000 years now.

    DS

    posted on May 6th, 2009 at 8:38 am

  33. 33 On May 6th, 2009, craig said:

    DS
    You don’t have to type slowly unless you are having trouble understating what you are writing and confusing it with what I’m writing.

    When you say I believe something that you wrote, it is not my problem

    posted on May 6th, 2009 at 8:53 am

  34. 34 On May 6th, 2009, bennett said:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehuffingtonpost%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2F06%2Fsomalia%2Dlibertarian%2Dparad%5Fn%5F197763%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded

    posted on May 6th, 2009 at 9:39 am

  35. 35 On May 6th, 2009, ws said:

    craig: “I didn’t document the conversations that I had with him, about a week ago”

    ws: Let me get this straight: The previous homeowner sold his house to developers for a mixed-use development (and presumably made a lot of money in the process) but is distraught at the direction Portland is going with mixed-uses, TODs, etc?

    The way I see it, the guy aided something that he is against. I do not know the entire circumstances of this case, but that sounds like a hypocrite to me.

    posted on May 6th, 2009 at 11:13 am

  36. 36 On May 6th, 2009, ws said:

    Bennett:

    That video was just too good!

    posted on May 6th, 2009 at 11:16 am

  37. 37 On May 6th, 2009, craig said:

    WS

    He did not like the direction the neighborhood and city was going and had no say in the zoning and mandates, so he moved to where he felt it was more to his liking.

    I know it is hard to believe!

    posted on May 6th, 2009 at 11:39 am

  38. 38 On May 6th, 2009, Dan said:

    ‘He had no say’.

    Bullsh–. But how often does the minority drive land-use and zoning in a city? One guy gets to say single-fam while others are looking for housing? snork Maybe we can just spot-zone all over the place to make the individual happy until they are unhappy that their neighbors are developing.

    This isn’t quite as incoherent as your argumentation upthread about static growth, but it’s still incoherent.

    DS

    posted on May 6th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

  39. 39 On May 6th, 2009, craig said:

    It’s OK DS

    I don’t expect you to understand

    posted on May 6th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

  40. 40 On May 6th, 2009, Dan said:

    I don’t understand how a novel most ignored after Jr High gets fetishized and wished to be true on the ground. Fizzbin!

    DS

    posted on May 6th, 2009 at 5:22 pm

  41. 41 On May 6th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    bennett said:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehuffingtonpost%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2F06%2Fsomalia%2Dlibertarian%2Dparad%5Fn%5F197763%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded

    THWM: That was fantastic!

    posted on May 6th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

  42. 42 On May 6th, 2009, ws said:

    craig:He did not like the direction the neighborhood and city was going and had no say in the zoning and mandates, so he moved to where he felt it was more to his liking.

    I know it is hard to believe!

    ws:But he sold his property to developers, did he not? If so, he was not helping his stance.

    posted on May 6th, 2009 at 8:32 pm

  43. 43 On May 7th, 2009, Dan said:

    ‘Libertarian magic dust.’ Priceless.

    DS

    posted on May 7th, 2009 at 6:45 am

  44. 44 On May 7th, 2009, craig said:

    So if you don’t like the way the city is rezoning your property and the mandates they place on you. You should stay and live with it. That makes no sense.

    But I understand why DS and WS don’t get it.

    Maybe that is why, most of the people moving into the Portland Metro area, are moving into the burbs. Not downtown.

    posted on May 7th, 2009 at 8:20 am

  45. 45 On May 7th, 2009, Dan said:

    So if you don’t like the way the city is rezoning your property and the mandates they place on you. You should stay and live with it. That makes no sense.

    This is your conclusion to your typical incoherent conversation with yourself. Or maybe your incoherent comments were made to spam the thread.

    Either way, The Market is being attacked in the post. The Market drove the development. And a small-minority ideology suddenly doesn’t like it.

    Fizzbin!

    DS

    posted on May 7th, 2009 at 8:57 am

  46. 46 On May 7th, 2009, craig said:

    DS

    The market did not rezone the neighborhood, the planners and polititions did.

    Insults and foul language seem to be your fall back when you run out of arguments. But that’s OK, we are use to your ad hominem attacks.

    posted on May 7th, 2009 at 9:23 am

  47. 47 On May 7th, 2009, craig said:

    incoherent conversation with yourself
    —————-
    On May 7th, 2009, Dan said:
    ‘Libertarian magic dust.’ Priceless.
    DS
    ————–
    # 40 On May 6th, 2009, Dan said:
    I don’t understand how a novel most ignored after Jr High gets fetishized and wished to be true on the ground. Fizzbin!
    DS
    —————–
    Fizzbin!

    posted on May 7th, 2009 at 9:28 am

  48. 48 On May 7th, 2009, ws said:

    craig:So if you don’t like the way the city is rezoning your property and the mandates they place on you. You should stay and live with it. That makes no sense.

    But I understand why DS and WS don’t get it.

    Maybe that is why, most of the people moving into the Portland Metro area, are moving into the burbs. Not downtown.

    ws:What mandates specifically?

    It can’t be a “mixed-use” zone if he doesn’t sell his property, doing so in contingent on that person selling his/her property. If he didn’t want to sell he didn’t have to – nobody does. It’s not an eminent domain issue, the city can’t condemn the property unless it’s vacant land, structurally deficient, or there’s “public good” at bay.

    As far as I’m concerned, the person was approached to sell his/her property, the owner did so willingly, zoning got changed by the city, and the developers came in and put up their “creation”.

    You need to give me some more background information on this, otherwise I am lost as to how this is bad. He sold his property and the city changed the zoning. Although the area is already zoned for other uses anyway, like the drug gathering spot…I mean Plaid Pantry across the street.

    If you want my personal opinion, I liked the house and the nice trees more than this building. I don’t think it’s an eyesore, though. There seems to be better condo opportunities in the neighborhood than taking a nice house that adds character to the neighborhood. I agree with you on this.

    posted on May 7th, 2009 at 11:34 am

  49. 49 On May 7th, 2009, bennett said:

    Craig,

    Pay attention. see #34. re: “libertarian magic dust.”

    posted on May 7th, 2009 at 7:43 pm

  50. 50 On May 7th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Dan said: ‘Libertarian magic dust.’ Priceless.

    THWM: Mr.Karlock must be snorting kilos of that “dust” every morning.

    posted on May 7th, 2009 at 8:29 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.