Density

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

20 years from now, we'll say the same thing about Lloyd, though that's going to be a very different neighborhood than the Pearl. But there will be people who came after the change and won't be able to understand that the neighborhood hadn't always been a neighborhood. I don't know what it was in the 1950s....

This is a total aside, but I've been fascinated with the history of the Lloyd District lately. Given the era, one might assume that the area was once a thriving community that was destroyed by urban renewal, as happened in the Albina and South Portland neighborhoods. That doesn't seem to be the case. Historical photos I've found of it in the 1960s show the Lloyd Center site itself almost completely undeveloped.

This photo was taken in 1950 (north is to the left):

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

This is a total aside, but I've been fascinated with the history of the Lloyd District lately. Given the era, one might assume that the area was once a thriving community that was destroyed by urban renewal, as happened in the Albina and South Portland neighborhoods. That doesn't seem to be the case. Historical photos I've found of it in the 1960s show the Lloyd Center site itself almost completely undeveloped.

This photo was taken in 1950 (north is to the left):

I thought I read somewhere it was a vindictive land squatter. But I could be wrong. It definitely seems odd it wouldn't have developed that early.

[Zihua]

According to the Lloyd District Community Association website, Ralph Lloyd began buying property in the area in 1910.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

There's no overbuilding going on in Portland proper. Underbuilding, yes, because developers provide imperfect response to demand and regulations cap the market (height restrictions, etc).

Rents will continue to inflate worse than incomes unless we build more/impose inclusionary zoning.

What we are seeing now is developers playing catch up from the recession. So we all know a developer is going to building something that turns a profit, which leaves the question, what should developers be building in Portland that you seem to think is lacking?

You keep saying "inclusionary zoning," so I am to guess you mean low income housing and other limited income housing. A developer isn't going to do this willingly unless there is something there for them, that means there would need to be programs in place that subsidies low income and limited income housing for developers to be willing to building that in Portland.

Seeing that you keep using these vague terms of needing more density, how about you give us examples of what Portland should be building right now to meet this current demand for housing?

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

What we are seeing now is developers playing catch up from the recession. So we all know a developer is going to building something that turns a profit, which leaves the question, what should developers be building in Portland that you seem to think is lacking?

You keep saying "inclusionary zoning," so I am to guess you mean low income housing and other limited income housing. A developer isn't going to do this willingly unless there is something there for them, that means there would need to be programs in place that subsidies low income and limited income housing for developers to be willing to building that in Portland.

Seeing that you keep using these vague terms of needing more density, how about you give us examples of what Portland should be building right now to meet this current demand for housing?

excellent post. I think thats what everybody is trying to say.

[mhays]

Inclusionary zoning doesn't mean subsidies, typically. It means you're required to include certain things or you can't build anything, or can't build as much.

It's worth building in that scenario only if rents are high enough to make up the difference. They tend to get high enough...because inclusionary zoning keeps the supply down.

Rents always try to stay near development costs. If rents get much higher, developers will tend to overbuild which pushes rents back down. If rents get much lower, nothing will get built. Inclusionary zoning increases development costs, and therefore sets a new equilibrium for the rental market.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by mhays

Inclusionary zoning doesn't mean subsidies, typically. It means you're required to include certain things or you can't build anything, or can't build as much.

It's worth building in that scenario only if rents are high enough to make up the difference. They tend to get high enough...because inclusionary zoning keeps the supply down.

Rents always try to stay near development costs. If rents get much higher, developers will tend to overbuild which pushes rents back down. If rents get much lower, nothing will get built. Inclusionary zoning increases development costs, and therefore sets a new equilibrium for the rental market.

That is true, though it does mean it could lead to a limit in development if the profits don't pan out for a developer which means either we see a limit on unit growth or we see the city creating programs to help increase incentives to build more. I personally am not against incentives and subsidies, but I am against housing prices being heavily regulated in that manner.

[mhays]

Yes, it causes the entire rental market to move up enough to cover the added development cost.

Owners of existing buildings love stuff like that. They get to charge higher rents too. It's almost as if building owners wrote legislation on this themselves.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by mhays

Yes, it causes the entire rental market to move up enough to cover the added development cost.

Owners of existing buildings love stuff like that. They get to charge higher rents too. It's almost as if building owners wrote legislation on this themselves.

Which is one of the reasons why I am not happy about this move because it will only serve as a benefit to developers and building owners, and no one else.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Which is one of the reasons why I am not happy about this move because it will only serve as a benefit to developers and building owners, and no one else.

That happens in a growth environment.
One reason single family home ownership will always be a goal of most Americans

[PDXDENSITY]

Inclusionary zoning with linkage fees does not stifle development. This is a fallacy a few keep repeating.

[soleri]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015...gest_cities_look_like_giant_suburbs.html

Here's a very interesting perspective on what really constitutes a city. Portland's transition to genuine urbanism - as opposed to merely being a kind of urban mecca - will entail greater density over time. But I don't think this process can be hurried or compelled. It's a delicate struggle pitting the single-family home neighborhoods and the increasingly urban hoods popping up in various nodes and corridors. Portland will grow but the flash points will grow as well.

[maccoinnich]

PDXDENSITY bait.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

pdxdensity bait.

lol

[urbanlife]

Seeing there seems to be this reoccurring off topic about Portland needing more skyscrapers like other cities such as Seattle, this thread is as good as any to dump that conversation into.

While it is always a fun conversation to have, it is often times a pointless one, and often times crowds up the wrong threads.

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Seeing there seems to be this reoccurring off topic about Portland needing more skyscrapers like other cities such as Seattle, this thread is as good as any to dump that conversation into.

While it is always a fun conversation to have, it is often times a pointless one, and often times crowds up the wrong threads.

It certainly is pointless because Portland will never have that but the real question is not when but actually why?

The economy is as good as it has been in decades, plus the housing shortage we have nobody seems to know why for example the south waterfront dream prior to the recession is reviving instead of these 5 plus 1 buildings.

Just increasingly odd

[downtownpdx]

^^ From my understanding there are tighter lending restrictions on condo developments like we saw 10 years ago, thanks to the financial crisis. Even Seattle doesn't have lots of condo projects going up, mostly apartments. But the preleasing of the Cosmopolitan looks healthy... so who knows maybe there'll be more on the way sooner than we think.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Seeing there seems to be this reoccurring off topic about Portland needing more skyscrapers like other cities such as Seattle, this thread is as good as any to dump that conversation into.

While it is always a fun conversation to have, it is often times a pointless one, and often times crowds up the wrong threads.

Thanks for moving the conversation out of the Cosmo thread. I have been bemused by the conversation there but didn't want to clog up that thread.

my $0.02: I keep having this recurring thought when reading some of the comments that the emotional need for taller buildings in Portland is seemingly related to self-worth/phallus issues. it's like some people really want Portland to buy a big monster truck (ie: 40+ story towers) to look all cool and tough.

[babs]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

^^ From my understanding there are tighter lending restrictions on condo developments like we saw 10 years ago, thanks to the financial crisis. Even Seattle doesn't have lots of condo projects going up, mostly apartments. But the preleasing of the Cosmopolitan looks healthy... so who knows maybe there'll be more on the way sooner than we think.

I think the real reason is that a lot of developers and lenders got burned on the huge towers. Building a less expensive 5+1 building with fewer units is much less risky than building a 20+ story that takes much more time to come to fruition, involves more units to sell/lease, and costs per money per unit. Developers are inherently risk-takers but they are also looking for the sure-thing.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by eric cantona

Thanks for moving the conversation out of the Cosmo thread. I have been bemused by the conversation there but didn't want to clog up that thread.

my $0.02: I keep having this recurring thought when reading some of the comments that the emotional need for taller buildings in Portland is seemingly related to self-worth/phallus issues. it's like some people really want Portland to buy a big monster truck (ie: 40+ story towers) to look all cool and tough.

also: tilting at windmills, running in circles, paddling upstream, chasing rainbows, etc.