Okay, it is one thing for someone who wants to live within a block of Central Park to pay $700 a month for a 90-square-foot “apartment.” But now a major homebuilder, D.R. Horton, is building 364- to 687-square-foot micro-homes in Portland.
“You can’t just keep going farther from the city and acquiring farm land,” says Portland advertiser Jim Beriault. Well, actually, you could if it weren’t for that pesky urban-growth boundary. Oregon (which is 98-percent rural) has plenty of land, and there are plenty of urban areas that are much bigger than Portland.
Nursing mothers also need the medical advice for discounts on levitra the safe and effective treatment of ovulation problems. Kamagra oral jelly is also known as Sildenafil side effects viagra jelly. It invigorates the whole body by order generic viagra complementing it with essential minerals and vitamins. Many patients around the world have tried it before I bought it? You always try a shoe before you sale on viagra buy it, try a drapery before you zero in on a particular dress so why not ED medicine. “There are neighborhoods that are needing to be turned over and revitalized,” Beriault asserts. Sounds like it is time for someone to write another Death and Life of Great American Cities. Oh wait, the Antiplanner already did that.
These micro-homes are supposed to sell for $120,000 to $180,000, or roughly $300 a square foot. Let’s see: in Houston, $180,000 will buy you a 4-bedroom, 2-1/2 bath, 2,600-square-foot home, while $120,000 will buy a 5-bedroom, 3-1/2 bath, 3,200-square-foot home (you read that right–perhaps it’s not in as nice a neighborhood).
I understand the dream of the ’90s is to live next to a bike path rather than a freeway. But even near downtown Houston you can buy this 4-bedroom, 3-bath, 2,500-square-foot house for $180,000. Or, if you prefer something smaller, for the same price you can get this 3-bedroom, 2-bath, 1,700-square-foot home just two blocks from a planned light-rail line. If you want something really micro (Texas-style), how about this brand-new 3-bedroom, 2-1/2 bath, 1,450-square-foot home for just $120,000?
I don’t wish ill to D.R. Horton, but any Portlandia residents crazy enough to buy Horton’s micro-homes are fooling themselves if they think they are somehow morally superior to people elsewhere who can buy much nicer homes for far less money. Oregon’s elite has created an artificial land shortage and is using that shortage to stick it to young people and other newcomers to the region. That’s plain disgusting.
Though O’Toole, you want to reduce choice and force everyone to drive cars.
Randal please quit calling it the urban growth boundary. A better name is:
metro’s little Berlin wall
Thanks
JK
Jim Karlock wrote:
Randal please quit calling it the urban growth boundary. A better name is:
metro’s little Berlin wall
Though the late (and not lamented) Berlin Wall (built by Communist politicians in search of a (supposedly) better future like the late (and not lamented) Erich Honecker and Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev) did not feature an easy escape route across the Columbia River into the state of Washington, well beyond Metro’s jurisdiction.
First, farmland. 1.5 million acres of farmland is “developed” every year. That’s an area larger than Olympic National Park. Every year.
Second, let’s consider that prices in Houston are cheaper than Portland because the land is flat and because Houston sucks and isn’t close to Mt. Hood, the Columbia River Gorge and its 70-something waterfalls, the Pacific Ocean and Haystack Rock, Forest Park, Mt. Saint Helens, Crater Lake and beautiful summers.
Frank,
Let’s not forget about Houston’s cancer clusters, dismal public schools and high violent crime rates…
To Frank. Aren’t all of those same area attractions available to people who live across the river in Washington?
“I don’t wish ill to D.R. Horton, but any Portlandia residents crazy enough to buy Horton’s micro-homes are fooling themselves if they think they are somehow morally superior to people elsewhere who can buy much nicer homes for far less money. Oregon’s elite has created an artificial land shortage and is using that shortage to stick it to young people and other newcomers to the region. That’s plain disgusting.”
Funny enough, the morally superior residents of Houston, did this way before Portland. Of course they took it even farther integrating communitarian ideals and equity, but hey, it’s about time Portland steals some ideas from Houston 😉
http://projectrowhouses.org/
thislandismyland says: “Aren’t all of those same area attractions available to people who live across the river in Washington?”
Is Portland’s sister city to the north (Seattle) a bastion of unrestricted free market principles with no growth management, no SG or NU style developments and super affordable housing? I don’t think so.
Oregon (which is 98-percent rural) has plenty of land
This is another of ROT’s famous, “gotcha” statistics.
2/3 of it is desert/mountainous.
Buildable land with water infrastructure, etc. is nowhere near 98%.
Anyways, even in the Willamette Valley where there is more land to build on, some people do not want to keep chopping down forests and paving over farmland — in fact it’s quite contentious even for farmers.
I am surprised to see these projects come from DR Horton, of all building companies. Personally, when you get into the 300 sf range — you might as well just build a condo/apartment.
These homes are going to look weird to their surrounding buildings I’d bet, given their tiny footprint. We’ll see.
Bennett:
I believe all Washington cities must adhere to their version of= growth control called, Washington Growth Management Act. I am not sure if there is an explicit growth boundary line, and my knowledge of the act is limited.
But I find it funny that people make arguments that Vancouver, WA is growing like crazy because of Portland’s urban growth boundary…when in fact they have growth control mechanisms as well.
ws,
Maybe my point about WA wasn’t clear, but you and I are on the exact same page. Well stated.
Urban Growth Boundaries and Smart Growth always provide high housing costs and road congestion, always has and always will.
The view from San Jose.
ws,
Don’t worry about the Willamette Valley. According to a publication put out by the Willamette Valley Livability Project–a pro-planning group–only about 5.9 percent of the valley has been urbanized.
Moreover, as I noted here, the Livability group hired a consultant to project the future of the Willamette Valley. The consultant estimated that, under current planning rules, 6.6 percent of the valley would be urbanized by 2050. If we got rid of all planning rules and let the “free market rule,” then 7.6 percent of the valley would be urbanized by 2050.
So the rules that make housing so costly are only protecting 1 percent of the valley from development. I don’t consider that a worthwhile trade off.
Say, lgrattan, every time you make that claim and I ask for evidence of how much lower prices would be if everything was paved over, you scuttle away, not answering – as if there wasn’t some free-market think-tank out there with those numbers. Then you pop up again, I ask again, you scuttle away again. How long will this little dance with evidenceless statements and asking for evidence go on?
Nonetheless, WA has a GMA and each city planning under it has a UGB.
DS
@Antiplanner:
Actually, stating *only* 5.9% of the Willamette being urbanized is more affirmation that we need to get even tougher on sprawl. If a good percentage of Portland metro residents are against sprawl as is now at 5.9% urbanization rates — image theirs and my anger at urbanization rates of 10, 20 or even 30%!?
I’ve grown up in the suburbs of Portland and have witnessed first-hand the impact that sprawl has had on the land.
Anyways, what’s the percentage of virgin land is in the Willamette Valley? Urbanization is only one category of development. How much land has not been turned over to resource uses like timber or agriculture?
Let’s cut the numbers and use our eyes. Let’s see the impact from above:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=portland&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=56.506174,135.263672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Portland,+Multnomah,+Oregon&ll=44.939529,-122.731018&spn=1.600029,4.22699&t=h&z=9
I ain’t see no 5.9%. I see most of the land in this region being utilized in some way or another.
Great to see the racist Professional Planners being so proud of how their plans to keep Mexicans out of Oregon and Washington results in better educational scores and less crime. Why aren’t they blaming the politicians for the better educations scores and less crime? Oh, that is just self-serving Planner BS.
Why pay 300 dollars a square foot to live in a shoebox. You can buy very nice trailers the same size and better constructed for 40 dollars a square foot. When the trailer depreciates fully you can cart it to a landfill and start over with something new and still be financially ahead of the game over these site built houses.
Bennett, I wish you would stop trashing Houston. You don’t live here anymore and there are so many interesting things to trash in Austin. Everyone knows that the only reason to move to Houston is 1. for the job. 2. for the big house 3. restaurants and shopping. Nobody in Houston really cares about crime, cancer clusters, or schools. Those are things only liberals in Austin worry about.
You can buy very nice trailers the same size and better constructed for 40 dollars a square foot. When the trailer depreciates fully you can cart it to a landfill
Why yes, I hear the din of all those Realtors marketing to young hipters, extolling the dream of so many trailer parks centrally located proximate to services, if you count floodplains as ‘amenity rich’. And ‘throwaway culture’ – trashing something so large into the landfill is sooooo central to Gen X-Yers, yessir.
But I will agree with you that a charming, monthly dinner party double-wide is probably better built than a Horton. As I look at the wavy walls and our neighbor on either side having recently called plumbers for two-day stays, and look at the scar on my thumb from flux.
DS
Jardinero1 says: “Houston is 1. for the job. 2. for the big house 3. restaurants and shopping. Nobody in Houston really cares about crime, cancer clusters, or schools. Those are things only liberals in Austin worry about.”
I couldn’t have said it any better. My point in trashing Houston is to explain why housing, particularly McMansions, are so cheep there compared to, well basically every other major urban area. It’s not because there are no planners in Houston so there’s substantial housing supply. It’s because, as you point out, Houston has 2 basic amenities (jobs and shopping/eating). No duh housing in Portland, Seattle, etc is more expensive. Those cities/regions have so much more to offer. I trash Houston for one reason on this blog, to refute the bogus claims about the city’s antiplanning as a causation for affordability. Houston’s affordability is directly related to it’s lack of desirability. When my opponents stop trumpeting it as some bastion of utopian randianism, I will stop trashing it.
p.s. notice I do not trumpet Portland as some great planning experiment, (as some planners do) like Mr. O’Toole and others continually gush over Houston… And, as I’ve stated before you won’t see me defending Austin either.
well at least you can walk or take transit in Portland, unlike Autoplanner wet dream cities like Houston!
At least you can walk down the streets of Portland without seeing Mexicans. You have to see teenage prostitutes, drug users, and suicides, but at lest they are white people in Portland.
All those white teenagers killing themselves, directly or indirectly, but at least they aren’t Mexicans like Houston!
It looks like DR Horton has taken it cue form Ikea’s “substaiable” showcase. both Ikea and this development reminds me what Sustainability is about: the control and limitation on human freedom and mobility.
Dan, I have seen trailers that don’t look like trailers and they are better built than most site built stick houses. Yes, they can be taken to a land fill at the end of their useful life, all houses end up a landfill over their useful life, a piece at time, if not in toto.
Bennett, Houston is cheap because builders can go from closing on the land to move-in in about fifteen months. Builders have the freedom to pick the labor, materials and construction methods which are most appropriate for the buyer. Don’t forget that Houston has great museums and cultural facilities, all centrally located to the rail line and in walkable areas. Also, Houston has the most park space per capita of any city in North America. We have Galveston Bay, lakes, bayous and the beach is forty five minutes down the freeway. The heat which everyone likes to berate, lasts about four months, is less severe than that in Austin or Dallas, and about the same as the summer heat in the Philly – Baltimore corridor.
Jardinero, my point is that the rents of the micro-dwelling units are at equilibrium for that place, as the place is amenity-rich, which is what the market there wants. Trailer parks are amenity-poor, hence the low price. Similar to the discussion just upthread about Houston.
Amenity-rich** places cost more. That is reality.
what Sustainability is about: the control and limitation on human freedom and mobility.
Excellent parody! You’ve captured the paranoia well. Props.
DS
**http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a788921239
Dan, I make no reference to trailer parks only trailers. You can put them anywhere. They can be used as urban infill at one eighth the cost of the proposed in the video.
I am curious, when commenters say amenity rich, what amenities are they referring to? Starbucks? Seattles Best? Barnes and Noble? Help me out here.
Still waiting to hear what the amenities are. Hello, hello…
Birds chirping.
I do agree that several companies making modular homes do a good job, altho I doubt final cost anywhere near central cities are around the price you gave upthread.
I am curious, when commenters say amenity rich, what amenities are they referring to? Starbucks? Seattles Best? Barnes and Noble? Help me out here.
Those and libraries, bars, restaurants, theaters, music, dancing, etc – all those things people move to cities for to be near.
DS
Jardinero1 asks: “I am curious, when commenters say amenity rich, what amenities are they referring to?”
Frank says: “…let’s consider that prices in Houston are cheaper than Portland because the land is flat and because Houston sucks and isn’t close to Mt. Hood, the Columbia River Gorge and its 70-something waterfalls, the Pacific Ocean and Haystack Rock, Forest Park, Mt. Saint Helens, Crater Lake and beautiful summers.” etc. etc. etc.
Some might say, “but Galveston has beaches,” but they can’t even compare to the OR coast. These are the types of amenities I prefer. I suppose I shouldn’t hate on Houstonians for enjoying Chicos, fancy eateries, German SUV’s, St. Arbucks, etc, but I’m not ready to call these “amenities.” I guess it’s that I enjoy life beyond the retail experience.
p.s.
The Galveston Coast:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1207/536672029_a07b2b66fb.jpg
The OR Coast:
http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/oregon/images/s/oregon-coast.jpg
Dan – “Those and libraries, bars, restaurants, theaters, music, dancing, etc – all those things people move to cities for to be near.” I agree with you Dan, those are what I characterize as amentities, Houston also has those in spades and many of them are in desirable walkable areas, some of which are served by rail, most of which are reachable by car or bus. And they don’t make Houston expensive to live in. Bennett, “Mt. Hood, the Columbia River Gorge and its 70-something waterfalls, the Pacific Ocean and Haystack Rock, Forest Park, Mt. Saint Helens, Crater Lake” are not amenities. Furthermore, your typical pacific northwesterner in Portland or Seattle visits them only occasionally maybe once every view years if at all. And they are not what make Portland expensive to live in.
Much urban econ work was done years ago on quantifying the variables in amenities – important and near the top of the list is ‘moderate climate near the coasts’ and ‘natural resources and recreation’. I lived in Dallas for nine long, hot, humid bug-filled months. I won’t be moving to Houston for the important climate and natural resource amenities, trust me.
But thanks for sharing your preferences. They aren’t everyone’s. Just as cities aren’t everyone’s. Or auto-dependent suburbs. Or rural martini ranches aren’t everyone’s. And so on.
DS
“Furthermore, your typical pacific northwesterner [sic] in Portland or Seattle visits them only occasionally maybe once every view years if at all. And they are not what make Portland expensive to live in.”
Please provide evidence that the “typical” (whatever that means) PNW inhabitant only “occasionally” visits the multitude of natural wonders in the PNW? A peer-reviewed systematic statistical analysis published in an academic journal would be great. Thank you.
My anecdotal evidence hints at the opposite. Perhaps my friends and I are not “typical”, but last year, I and my friends made dozens of visits to the Columbia River Gorge. All my transplant friends stated that the natural environment factored highly in their decision to relocate to Portland and/or Oregon. While the environment may not technically be considered “amenities”, this quibble is essentially semantic. Certainly, the environment is a draw for many, and certainly immigrant demand contributes to higher housing prices. (If Portland faced a net outward migration, housing prices would fall.)
I look forward to reading the evidence you provide.
Frank,
I grew up in Denver and have heard Jardinero1’s critique applied to Denver’s “typical” resident. That must be why there’s bumper to bumper traffic on I-70 heading west every weekend during the ski season right? It also make you wonder why Denver, Portland and Seattle are some of the fittest cities in the fittest states. Could it be that they actually go out and enjoy the geographic and natural “amenities?”
Conversely, Houston and Texas residents are not known for their fitness. But I can’t blame them for that. In between ATX and Houston there is the worlds most f’ing amazing BBQ, and Houston is home to the world’s best fried chicken… and there is no geographic/natural amenities to actually enjoy fitness.
There is a distinction between cities which are manmade and the countryside which is not. Cities are where people live and work and entertain themselves and where people spend ninety-nine percent of their daily lives. Cities contain amenities which people use on a regular, if not daily basis. I make a distinction between that and the surrounding geography which may or may not contain attractions to travel to on an occasional basis. Those are not amenities.
The fact that some northwesterners may prefer to leave their cities on weekends speaks as much to the lack of amenities in their cities as to the desireability of the attractions outside their cities.
Dan and others suggest that the fullness of amenities in politically planned cities like Portland, is what makes housing expensive. I say it does not. I also state categorically, that geographic attractions like “Mt. Hood, the Columbia River Gorge and its 70-something waterfalls, the Pacific Ocean and Haystack Rock, Forest Park, Mt. Saint Helens, Crater Lake†are not what make cities like Portland and Seattle expensive. What makes those cities expensive is a political process that impedes real estate development. I don’t blame planners. I blame the the politicians who pander to the anti-growth crowd.
Frank, via the internet, you can lookup yourself the daily attendance of any of the attractions you name, factor out the non-native visitors(which are numerous), compare to the metro population, and see just how infrequently your local population uses them. It is a very small subset of the whole that makes any regular use of those things.
I say it does not…etc.
Ho-leeeeee COW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A true breakthrough in urban economics, right here on Randal’s site!!
Whoo-hoo!!
Let us know when you publish. If you write a book, will you come to Denver? Tattered Cover downtown is near the Wynkoop, I’ll buy you a beer afterward.
DS
Beauty comes with a cost to it, whether it is natural or man made.
Beautiful cities will always cost more than ones that are not.
Portland is not lacking housing on the market, in fact there’s too much supply as is. Prices are falling (kind of good) because they were nowhere in line with Portlanders’ salaries.
San Fran, well, there’s another story regarding supply.
“…where people spend ninety-nine percent of their daily lives.” There you go making up statistics again. Anecdote: .99×365=361. Four days a year spent by residents of cities in cities? Not for me. I’m perhaps an anomaly, but for 2011, I’ll be spending far more than 4 days vacationing in the national parks, national forests, start parks, and other and natural features within just a few hours of my city. I believe this is possibly true for a large subset of the population of both Portland and Seattle.
I’m haven’t claimed that this is the ONLY factor that drives prices in these cities, but it is a significant factor, probably more significant than urban growth boundaries and a multitude of other factors, not the least of which is housing supply in hip areas.
And does Randall stay in Oregon for the natural amenities (which is defined as “any feature that provides…pleasure”)? I suspect so. He champions Houston while living in the Metolius River Valley, one of the most beautiful places I’ve ever been–and I’ve visited and lived in some of the most beautiful spots in North America and Europe.
There are many reasons why Houston is cheaper than Portland and Seattle. One factor is the proximity to natural amenities.
Wynkoop is one of my favorites. There’s another amenity: Number of breweries in an area.
bennett: I agree with you completely. And appreciate your comments.
ws: Interesting concept. Do you have anything that supports the declining price and income levels assertion?
“Frank, via the internet, you can lookup yourself the daily attendance of any of the attractions you name…”
Yes I can. Look what I found about Mt. Hood and the Columbia River Gorge:
Wynkoop is one of my favorites. There’s another amenity: Number of breweries in an area.
I will say, though, I’m not a Colo microbrewery fan; too bitter out here. CA first, WA next. WA west side microbrews make the 8 months of gray somewhat bearable.
Another amenity: backpacking in blueberry/huckleberry/thimbleberry/salmonberry/berry/berry/berry/berryberryberryberryberry country. Here, though, boletes. Booo-ooo-letes!
DS
You GOTTA LOVE how Professional Planners think they know where people should live. At least they know that wealthy couples with no kids like to live where there are no Mexicns or blacks.
The facts don’t get in the their way — Texas, Arizona and Florida attract all the population growth. They also attract diversity. Unlike the segregated NW.
Really interesting is how the racist Professional Planners are proud they drive away blacks and families with children. The Professional Planner creed is to build a utopia for just one generation of white people. Leave the minorities and children to the suburbs.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-08-10/bay-area/17121007_1_african-americans-black-families-public-housing
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25south.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp
“Total visitation to the MHNF is estimated to be four to five million visitors annually… many of the MHNF’s visitors are from the Portland metropolitan area, including Vancouver, Washington.” Metropolitan Portlan-Vancouver is 2.23 million people. Assuming Portlanders are the only visitors, which they are not; each Portlander visits an average of twice a year. More likely Portlander are a third to half of all visits, in which case each Portlander visits an average of once every two or three years. These kind of amenities, which are not amenities, are not well utilized by locals.
Now, micro-breweries, that’s an amenity.
“I will say, though, I’m not a Colo microbrewery fan; too bitter out here. CA first, WA next. WA west side microbrews make the 8 months of gray somewhat bearable.”
Sierra Nevada was my first micro; it was the keg of choice at college parties in Chico in the early ’90s. Portland has my some of my favorite beer, though, and I like the hoppy and bitter. If you make it back to the grey of Seattle, I’ll buy you a beer at Fremont or your favorite as we bury the hatchet and laugh at the comments like #44.
@#45
First, the number is an ESTIMATE as the USFS doesn’t keep seasonal statistics. That should clue you in right there that there is possibly a severe undercounting, especially of locals who go off the beaten path.
“These kind of amenities, which are not amenities, are not well utilized by locals.”
You still don’t have anything but weak and original statistical “analysis” to back up your claim. Show me proof. Empirical evidence, please.
MHNF is just ONE area close to Portland. Add in the Coast and other amenities (you can deny the semantics all you want, but according to the dictionary, they are in fact amenities) and observe the Friday traffic patterns, and you’ll see you got nuffin.
/ignore
You went to Chico State?! I have lots of backpacking & …ahem…stories up there. Ishi WA. I’ll buy you one at Hale’s, or maybe one at Big Time on the Ave. Thought I was coming up there in August to deliver a paper, but they aren’t ready for me yet, so we’ll have to wait ’til next year when I’ll speak up there.
DS
Frank, I used the numbers you put out there. Now you say they aren’t good enough. Let’s say they are off by a factor of two. Now what? Every city has outdoor attractions in its proximity. Even Houston has great outdoor attractions within a hundred miles, 27 differents state parks, wetlands, lakes, bays, fishing, birding, hunting, beaches, surfing, sailing, camping. No there isn’t a volcano to go to. No, there isn’t skiing in the winter here. Nor is there winter here in the winter.
I am glad you like Portland to live in. I like Portland as a place to visit. I am happy keep it that way. As I have said before, I am glad that places like Portland and Seattle and San Francisco and even Austin exist. They are fun to visit. More importantly, people of a certain affect have a place to live with others similarly affected and not live near me or vote in my precinct.
I think it’s safe to say we can all agree on “to each their own.” I actually have no problem with the fact that Houston exists, though the only reason I ever go there any more is to watch UT whomp up on Rice. What I think we’ll never agree on is the notion that the natural/geographic amenities in the HGAC region can hold a candle to what exist in the Pacific NW or the Mountain West. I do enjoy going to Texas State Parks, the Gulf, the big ass man made lakes and the hill country, and I do so regularly and have a good time. But in comparison to what’s available in CO, OR, WA, MT etc. IMHO Texas can’t compete. It’s fun in TX, but it’s epic in these other places (again, IMO).