is it time for Portland to grow UP

[58rhodes]

seems to me we talk a lot about growth and density but what supports that?
Are we really ready to really become a BIG city or is it just talk?
Can this city support spendy apartments and condo's with our current job market?
How can you truly achieve city wide density with height restrictions downtown?
Can we afford excellent mass transit?
and last but not least, Can we move the Portland Building to Portland Maine?

[dubu]

Oregon needs new cities on the other side of the cascades, away from a big earthquake. Have futuristic circular cities and have them close to each other so they can be connected by train.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by dabom

Oregon needs new cities on the other side of the cascades, away from a big earthquake. Have futuristic circular cities and have them close to each other so they can be connected by train.

No, we don't need new cities in the desert where there is not enough water. We need to focus on our already-existing metro areas and not move any urban growth boundaries. The rest of the state should stay farm/wilderness to protect the ecosystem.

This means Portland will have to build up as it currently is doing but needs to be doing at a better pace.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

No, we don't need new cities in the desert where there is not enough water. We need to focus on our already-existing metro areas and not move any urban growth boundaries. The rest of the state should stay farm/wilderness to protect the ecosystem.

This means Portland will have to build up as it currently is doing but needs to be doing at a better pace.

The first thing we need to do is build higher in the appropriate areas such as downtown,The Pearl, LLoyd center,Sowa and the central eastside.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

The first thing we need to do is build higher in the appropriate areas such as downtown,The Pearl, LLoyd center,Sowa and the central eastside.

There's a lot of fallow land that is not being taxed properly to incentivize development. Surface lots should be taxed at current value.

[58rhodes]

Portland didnt make the Forbes to 20 for growth. Seattle was #5

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

Portland didnt make the Forbes to 20 for growth. Seattle was #5

Endless growth isnt the point. People are moving here anyway. We need housing. Bad. Especially, since we don't have matching wages of bigger cities. These housing pressures are much higher here, even with rents half of what they are in SF, it's still a crisis.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Endless growth isnt the point. People are moving here anyway. We need housing. Bad. Especially, since we don't have matching wages of bigger cities. These housing pressures are much higher here, even with rents half of what they are in SF, it's still a crisis.

Good luck getting the banks to agree
and why dont we have the matching wages of bigger cities?

[babs]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Endless growth isnt the point. People are moving here anyway. We need housing. Bad. Especially, since we don't have matching wages of bigger cities. These housing pressures are much higher here, even with rents half of what they are in SF, it's still a crisis.

So we have lower wages yet you want taller buildings. How does that pencil out if people can't afford the taller, more expensive buildings that you want built?

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by babs

So we have lower wages yet you want taller buildings. How does that pencil out if people can't afford the taller, more expensive buildings that you want built?

No, i want housing stock to increase. You're reading that as a reaganite red scare of commie compounds. All im saying is we should obstruct new density/housing less than we do. We can do this with inclusionary zoning and linkage fees to make it work for lower and middle class incomes. I am lobbying for them to change the new inclusionary zoning bill to include renters.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

No, i want housing stock to increase. You're reading that as a reaganite red scare of commie compounds. All im saying is we should obstruct new density/housing less than we do. We can do this with inclusionary zoning and linkage fees to make it work for lower and middle class incomes. I am lobbying for them to change the new inclusionary zoning bill to include renters.

So again, your plan to increase housing development is to make doing so more expensive.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by mhays

So again, your plan to increase housing development is to make doing so more expensive.

This is a fallacy. Linkage fees in conjunction with inclusionary zoning does not stifle development.

[mhays]

Says you and ___? So far I'm seeing two types of "experts" on your side: academics who don't build things, and building owners who apparently like its effect of increasing rents.

The only truth to your statement is that your policies increase rents, which causes the market to get back to a new more-expensive equilibrium, which causes projects to happen again.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by mhays

Says you and ___? So far I'm seeing two types of "experts" on your side: academics who don't build things, and building owners who apparently like its effect of increasing rents.

The only truth to your statement is that your policies increase rents, which causes the market to get back to a new more-expensive equilibrium, which causes projects to happen again.

Only now there will be enough units for the low and middle class. And guess what? Since it doesnt stifle development, there's no new pricier equilibrium. You build to meet demand. These policies are not going to create a shortage. Only developers that want shortage to drive up rents and couldn't care less about subsidized units would argue against it.

[BrG]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

This is a fallacy. Linkage fees in conjunction with inclusionary zoning does not stifle development.

But the cost of construction sure as heck does.

Lower the fees all you want but its a small percentage of the total cost.

High rises are FAR more expensive to build than mid to low rise.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by BrG

But the cost of construction sure as heck does.

Lower the fees all you want but its a small percentage of the total cost.

High rises are FAR more expensive to build than mid to low rise.

There are regulations that don't involve trying to create a mixed income inclusionary community that can reduce costs if removed:

Parking minimums, are a big one. So is overrepresentation of NIMBY home owners/land speculators.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Only now there will be enough units for the low and middle class. And guess what? Since it doesnt stifle development, there's no new pricier equilibrium. You build to meet demand. These policies are not going to create a shortage. Only developers that want shortage to drive up rents and couldn't care less about subsidized units would argue against it.

I'm trying to imagine what you're talking about. The fees and inclusionary zoning would involve a very small number of units, despite making the entire market-rate rental market more expensive.

Your second through fourth sentences are still based on nothing?

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'm trying to imagine what you're talking about. The fees and inclusionary zoning would involve a very small number of units, despite making the entire market-rate rental market more expensive.

Your second through fourth sentences are still based on nothing?

Yes, it's a never-ending string of non sequitors. Maddening, isn't it?

[BrG]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

There are regulations that don't involve trying to create a mixed income inclusionary community that can reduce costs if removed:

Parking minimums, are a big one. So is overrepresentation of NIMBY home owners/land speculators.

Sorry but this is not the point. This is a discussion about economics. Also, NIMBYS are present on ALL projects. Always. The cost impact of managing that factor is not relevant to construction cost.

I'm fully aware of what its like to create multi-family mixed income housing, market rate & high rise. I have done all of those.

The COST OF CONSTRUCTION is what prevents the high rise approach to achieve density... in Portland. Today. Even below 240'. Go above 240' and much changes that costs more. Go above 420' and it's a completely different ballgame.

This market's absorption rates can handle a smattering of projects. We have those now (Cosmo, PAW Tower & to a lesser extent Overton). But until average revenues come up A LOT, due to higher demand...there is NO SUBSIDY nor any fee removal, that would even come close to bridging the cost of development and construction, for this type of approach to density.

If there were, Portland would have a half dozen high rise jobs happening.