Blog Archives

Some high- and lowlights from the 3425 SE Hawthorne demolition, Oct 15th and 16th, 2015

12095273_10153271226117857_4221473136380438364_o 12095200_10153271226122857_7049000108260198017_o 12106829_10153272868552857_1302143878824778828_n

Top left:  Day 1 of demolition.  At this point,  a protester was on the roof, having climbed the Monkey Puzzle Tree, and the crew went around back and pulled the back porch off just to make a point (and possibly so the crew would actually get paid for something).

Top right:  Day 1 of demolition, across the street.  The woman in white and blue stripes with blonde hair was extremely entertained, asking others near her if Oregon often has protests over home demolitions.  She said she was from out of state and then expressed happiness that she could have “lunch and a show”.  I told her that was a terrible thing to say.  She did not enjoy hearing that.

Bottom right:  Day 2 of demolition, taking the front of the house.  By this point the back wall house is gone, they’ve been smashing windows. I saw no evidence of salvage.  As far as I know, all this debris went to a landfill.  They filled the red truck with debris by 2:45 PM.

Advertisements

Hemorrhaging historic housing on Hawthorne

I stopped blogging because I couldn’t keep up with the demolitions; I neither had time to visit the sites nor the brain energy to face the depressing downslide of affordability coupled with the skyrocketing rents and property values.   In August, I heard that the foursquare-style house on SE Hawthorne Blvd just east of 34th was going to be demolished.  This is right by where I live.  There was an initial protest, but then nothing happened and nothing kept happening till yesterday.  I will post a few pictures from yesterday and today with descriptions.

One blogger sets us straight about tossing that g-word around.

I’m not actually sure what I just read.  I think I just read the blog post of someone who got paid to tell me I don’t know the underlying issues contributing to gentrification, and while I’m no urban planner, I think I kind of do!

The deeper problems we miss when we attack ‘gentrification’

While not directly an infill issue, this is a driver to clearing the space to then pack “infill” onto.

I sure would like to see a city where they’re doing what this blogger says brings jobs into historically-poor neighborhoods, yet doesn’t displace long-time residents.  Is that possible?  Because in Portland, outside investment in historically neglected neighborhoods does bring grocery stores, but recently, those are along the lines of Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods and New Seasons, none of which are affordable relative to the area and not even for people like me.   They may employe some long-time residents hanging on for dear life, but that doesn’t mean they can shop there.  The blogger also complains that it’s good if a sit-down restaurant moves in where a vacant storefront was, but isn’t that ignoring that maybe the storefront is vacant because the neighborhood businesses were not supported and had to close?  How about an effort to bring those businesses back, or can the blogger acknowledge that the pricing-out of people fundamentally changes neighborhoods in such a way that businesses move to less expensive areas and the die is cast?  That sure has happened in Portland.

Tanzamook: It’s like pink ribbons, but for high density* infill development.

It’s like pink ribbons, but for high density infill development.

Granted, that is also a wobbly comparison, but it has NPR practically oozing from its seams or pores, however you want to picture the beast that is infill.  This is how I’m parsing it.  So.

Irvington, despite being called a historic neighborhood (I know Irvington is not terribly uniform as such; bear with me), is not protected against incremental deposits of new construction in keeping with the Portland Plan.  This is much to the surprise and chagrin of some.  As such, newer developments have already happened in Irvington, including the development of housing at NE 11th and NE Tillamook.  Said development is lauded in a couple of articles I’ve read as being quite virtuous:  Efficient, wired for the future, and socially sustainable.

What’s that?

Apparently, within the context of the 11th and Tillamook development, aka “Tanzamook”, a portion of the proceeds of sales of said units will go to help schoolchildren in Tanzania, ostensibly by funding the construction of dormitories for schoolchildren, possibly girls.

So if you buy a unit at 11th and Tillamook, think less of it as living in a totally un-period and aesthetically dubious pocket of Irvington and more of it as doing a…do-good thing.

The obvious problem is, to me, that this is at least a little bit obfuscate-y, considering that the real issue is exploiting loopholes to develop against the character of the neighborhood, no matter how much you say you worked with your (immediate) neighbors.  Add to this the idea that a socially-responsible project to help people against significant obstacles halfway around the world seems slightly misplaced when the impacts and reverberations of decades of systematic redlining, discriminatory lending, and outright displacement happened almost next door to such a development.  I can’t tell the developer and the architect to stop having an emotional connection to Tanzania, but maybe…look closer to home if you really want to do socially-conscious development.  Repeatedly, I’ve read about a wish to re-settle Albina with some displaced black residents. How about that?

The Tanzamook story is already six or seven years old, so why bring it up now?  Because as we’ve seen in the interim, these developments are becoming more numerous.  As we also saw with the trouncing of the proposed Trader Joe’s in NE PDX, there was a pushback from the black community then and also with the subsequent development of Natural Grocers, which would provide fresh groceries at affordable prices (food desert problem solution?), but would possibly not use the land to re-settle displaced individuals.

There are plenty of vacant lots in NE PDX where the damage to the look of the neighborhood is done.  There are plenty of people needing good housing minus exclusionary prices.  Sounds like a good opportunity for developers and locals to me, but what does one blogging complainer know?

NOTE:  This was written when I knew a lot less about the infill situation in Portland.

Displacement study from 2013

The City of Portland issued this study on the effects of gentrification and displacement.  By now, this data will be out of date.

Displacement study

Seattle-Ballard reporting in: The Density Debate

I was searching for actual data on the real impact of high density and infill development, because while income inequality and demolition angers me to no end, this is really still a blog about density…right?

So it is with much enthusiasm that I read this.  I didn’t know Seattle had a displacement *coalition*.  I must see if Portland does.  We sure need one.

The Density Debate

Inclusionary development as a terrible millstone? According to this Oregonian op ed, anyway.

This is fresh.  As of *today*.  This runs counter to most things I assume to be true about inclusionary zoning, and it’s so new I’m still reading it, but it seems to like to play devil’s advocate.

Having said that, I have read that even the definition of “affordable” can be arbitrary when the topic of affordable housing comes up, and I have also seen in some documentaries and read in recent articles that the reaction to mixing social strata in close proximity is discomfort and resentment.  Make of that what you will.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/05/builders_are_right_to_fear_inc.html#incart_river

This just in: Short film on density –

Very pleased to see this today.

http://vimeopro.com/strawbalefilms/straw-bale-films/video/126277917

I’m still watching it.  More later.

RIP House:  2808 SE Belmont

I drew this February 10th and I’m not sure why it’s not in archived posts.  The lot has been split in two , apparently.  At least the new units aren’t big cubes, but the echo of old styles, just built quickly and with lesser materials. The old house was “nice”; I wonder if any of it was salvaged.

According to the notes scrawled on the page, this may have initially been the house of one E. W. Ring.  According to portlandmaps.com , it was built in 1908, making it 104 at the time it was razed.  I have no idea why it was sold.  It was a huge house.  I doubt that splitting the lot and making two smaller houses actually surpasses the number of people who could live there, and my understanding of tree replacement would mean a LOT of trees must be planted to offset the loss of those old trees.

I am bad at trees, so here’s the old Street View:  Click here

Too little too late? City of Portland just now considering how it manages infill development?

Very recent development.  Does the study equal a moratorium?  Judge for yourself.  http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/04/portland_considers_downsizing.html#incart_2box