TriMet/Metro Southwest Corridor Planning (Portland to Bridgeport Village)

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

And tearing down bungalos isn't?

Addressing a housing shortage by replacing low density with high is rocks to oranges compared to this idea of moving a campus for no reason.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Addressing a housing shortage by replacing low density with high is rocks to oranges compared to this idea of moving a campus for no reason.

It wouldn't be for no reason. bv already listed reasons and benefits, but since he didn't mention "razing bungalows" (your words) to create Mumbai in SE Portland, you're going to shout the discussion down.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Addressing a housing shortage by replacing low density with high is rocks to oranges compared to this idea of moving a campus for no reason.

There isn't a shortage of housing. We don't have a negative vacancy rate. We don't have people living in hotels waiting for apartments or condos to open up.

There a shortage of affordable housing. If that's the conversation you want to have, start a thread and have it.

You don't even know what you're arguing for, which is why your arguments are so ineffective.

The idea that developers should just build housing - anything, anywhere and everywhere - it's ignorant. It's wrong. It would drive prices UP, not down.

Portland is not Shenzhen.
Portland is not Mumbai.
Portland is not a place where we raze bungalows to build skyscrapers.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

It wouldn't be for no reason. bv already listed reasons and benefits, but since he didn't mention "razing bungalows" (your words) to create Mumbai in SE Portland, you're going to shout the discussion down.

I get you don't care about poor renters being priced out, you could stop beating us over the head with your class superiority.

You may not be overtly saying it, but protectionism is in line with what i said above. It's absurd and pricing people out of the city

I know, i know. "Entitled."

Bungalows= single family homes in portland, not mumbai.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Building housing on the campus is far simpler. MAX is needed. I don't think this location is unnecessarily complicated given the benefit.

Most of the students to PCC are from across the region. Quite a few PSU students split credit hours downtown and then commute out to the various PCC campuses, for instance.

Still others live in say Beaverton and take classes at Sylvania and the one out on 82nd. Depends on which classes are offered.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I get you don't care about poor renters being priced out, you could stop beating us over the head with your class superiority.

Quote the source or stop putting words and opinions in other people's mouths.

I've said many times on this board that one of my biggest fears is getting priced out of Portland. I'm one of the most vocal advocates for affordable housing on this board. Class superiority? I'm the guy who mockingly nicknamed Park Central Tower as Park Wealth In A Tower because it's housing for the rich (the tower has since been renamed. [edit: The Cosmopolitan]). You're so hell bent on fighting with anyone who will reply that you turn friends into foes.

Quote the source to back up your statements or stop putting words and opinions in other people's mouths.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Building housing on the campus is far simpler. MAX is needed. I don't think this location is unnecessarily complicated given the benefit.

No one said MAX isn't needed; in fact, with a lower price tag, it's more likely that that line will get built. Add in the price for the tunnel and then compare to BRT (this tunnel is proposed for LRT only) and guess which mode Metro will choose?

Here's the problem with your approach, and why you feel like everyone on this board hates you: you're far too black and white in your thinking. You've got to compromise, or else it doesn't matter how much you believe in your ideas or how right you are - no one will listen. You have to be able to concede your weak points and have a civil discussion. I understand that my idea is a bit pie in the sky, but I'm not particularly invested in it; it's just an idea that would be nice to discuss. Then, when it gets rejected, hey, we at least looked at it and compared the pros and cons. You don't seem to want to do that though; you just want your way or the highway. Real life doesn't work like that. At least if you actually want to change things.

[2oh1]

Adding to what bvpcvm said, PDXdensity, your views are so extreme that it's going to be nearly impossible for people to agree with you enough for you to not view them as enemies.

Note that every quote I'm using here is linked to your original statement, so you can't say they're taken out of context.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Single family homes need to go (be razed) in many cases for the better of the city, our surrounding farmland, and our ecology.

That is an extremist position. Even the most enthusiastic fans of development would have trouble agreeing with a position that extreme.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

we mustn't allow any *possible* development to be stymied by anyone just based on taste or ostensible parking or congestion impact.

That is an extremist position. Even the most enthusiastic fans of development would have trouble agreeing with a position that extreme.

You go out of your way to make people your enemies - even people who agree with you but aren't as extreme as you - and you go so far as to address them as enemies:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I consider the loud minority my enemy; they are the most vocal and involved.

You hurl accusations, but you never quote anyone in order to back up your accusations.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

You know this. You just have to lie by omission to get your way when espousing your political points.

You constantly claim people said things they didn't, or support things they don't or want things they don't. And, again, you never quote any text that would back up your claims.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

if you support NIMBYs (and you have repeatedly in this thread) you are against density and will promote a shortage with your opinions.

Not true.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

And you guys want to promote shortage in whatever way you can, got it.

Not true.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

You feel SF homes should be preserved even if an owner wants to redevelop it with more units for housing.

Not true.

You've even gone so far as to accuse members of the forum of some downright absurd conspiracy theories:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

It would make sense to cause shortage for everything BUT what you're developing, it inflates your returns. It would not even be a slight conflict of interest for you to try to stifle all else but what you work for, so you need to stop acting like those are credentials to progressive density planning for a city.

And you have no understanding of what makes housing prices escalate other than a shortage. Portland's housing market is tight, but we don't have a negative vacancy rate, which means we don't have a housing shortage. We do have a shortage of affordable housing, which brings me back to the most basic thing you don't understand. If you want affordable housing, using "density" as your solution is self defeating:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Demand drives density.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Demand drives up prices. Density stabilizes prices.

If demand drives density (your words, and you're right)
and demand drives up prices (your words, and you're right),
then density drives up prices.

That's really basic stuff.

[Encolpius]

If global warming causes people to buy air conditioners
and global warming causes volcanoes to erupt,
then people buying air conditioners causes volcanoes to erupt.

Do you want to re-evaluate this logic? Portland does have a housing shortage (the evidence is glaring; every week there are newspaper stories about it like this one) and therefore the obvious way to stabilize prices is to increase supply. Or implement price controls. Or ban coffee shops and microbrews within city limits, outlaw kegs and ping-pong tables in tech company 'offices' and require immigrants from California to obtain work permits and pass an exam on Oregon history and culture. Or what's your proposal?

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

If global warming causes people to buy air conditioners
and global warming causes volcanoes to erupt,
then people buying air conditioners causes volcanoes to erupt.

Do you want to re-evaluate this logic? Portland does have a housing shortage (the evidence is glaring; every week there are newspaper stories about it like this one) and therefore the obvious way to stabilize prices is to increase supply. Or implement price controls. Or ban coffee shops and microbrews within city limits, outlaw kegs and ping-pong tables in tech company 'offices' and require immigrants from California to obtain work permits and pass an exam on Oregon history and culture. Or what's your proposal?

Pretty silly when you think about it. How many on here are actually developers? You might want to contact the real folks with the $$ that do this sort of thing.Better yet, notify the city planners.BTW I think most agree that we need more affordable housing. yelling and screaming or being sarcastic on an internet forum doesn't get much results.-just sayin

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

If global warming causes people to buy air conditioners
and global warming causes volcanoes to erupt,
then people buying air conditioners causes volcanoes to erupt.

Do you want to re-evaluate this logic? Portland does have a housing shortage (the evidence is glaring; every week there are newspaper stories about it like this one) and therefore the obvious way to stabilize prices is to increase supply. Or implement price controls. Or ban coffee shops and microbrews within city limits, outlaw kegs and ping-pong tables in tech company 'offices' and require immigrants from California to obtain work permits and pass an exam on Oregon history and culture. Or what's your proposal?

You're correct that if A causes B, and A causes C, it doesn't mean that B necessarily causes C. However, you're incorrect when you (and others) say there's a housing shortage. There are no 0% vacancy rates here. All this article says is that it's a buyer's market right now. After years of a tight lending market, the banks are finally loosening the reins a bit and more people are now looking to buy after a long slump.

What there is, and I don't think anybody here has ever argued otherwise, is a shortage of AFFORDABLE housing. That's completely different. Unfortunately, more and more people are falling below the point where they can afford decent housing. But simply building more housing in a free-for-all 🞵🞵🞵🞵 of anything goes, anywhere, doesn't solve that, because developers will only build market rate housing that does nothing to raise the percentage of affordable housing available.

I don't know what the solution to the affordable housing crunch is, but I DO know that abandoning 40 years of planning here in Portland is NOT the way to solve it.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

...a free-for-all 🞵🞵🞵🞵 of anything goes, anywhere, ...abandoning 40 years of planning here in Portland is NOT the way to solve it.

You and I, at least, are on the same page here.

Originally Posted by 65MAX

What there is, and I don't think anybody here has ever argued otherwise, is a shortage of AFFORDABLE housing. That's completely different.

It may be partially semantics, but I don't think it's helpful to think of 'affordable housing' as 'completely different', nor to claim we don't have a housing shortage because the vacancy rate isn't zero. Nor to assert (as 2oh1 has been doing) that every new unit of housing built will only drive prices higher.

(Although 2oh1 rightly observes that in a few neighborhoods that have seen both new housing and massive public investment, prices have gone up… he draws the crazy inference that all new housing will drive prices up).

To clarify my claim, which I think it's hard for any reasonable person to dispute: there is a dire housing shortage in the (broadly defined) inner neighborhoods of Portland: south of Linnton/Vancouver, cis of the West Hills and Dunthorpe, west of 82nd, there are not enough houses -- hence the feverish competition between would-be buyers and renters, hence the rising cost of housing (there are other causes, but this is a big one), hence all the displacement. The obvious solution is to build more housing in those neighborhoods, which is essentially what pdxdensity is advocating (although he gets befuddled and loses everyone when it comes to specifics of how this housing should be built).

Once we agree on this, maybe this whole tedious debate can finally be put to rest.

[58rhodes]

Developers don't want to build "affordable housing" there's very little profit in it and Its going to take city and county agencies to see this type of development through. To me the priority should be focusing on a healthy strong economy.Even the poor don't like living in subsidized housing. Strong economy =strong housing market. Strip bars, bistros and brew pubs wont get it done.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

If global warming causes people to buy air conditioners
and global warming causes volcanoes to erupt,
then people buying air conditioners causes volcanoes to erupt.

You're right that, if A causes B, and A causes C, it doesn't necessarily mean that B causes C. It's easy to find cases where it's true and cases where it's false. In this case, the two are linked. It's undeniable that density causes housing prices to increase, because increasing population density means having more people in a defined place.

Demand drives density.
...the city fills in with more residents as more residents move to the city.

And demand drives up housing prices.
...more people, more competition, increased value of apartments and condos.

Thus, increased population density drives up prices.

How could anyone in their right mind argue that increased population density lowers the cost of housing? Even things like groceries tend to become more expensive in extremely dense neighborhoods.

PDXdensity wants overbuilding as a solution. That's a path toward economic ruin. The problem is that he doesn't understand what that word - density - really means. Density is just a measurement, neither high nor low. I'm guessing he read an article on the internet where the author preached about density being a cure-all for housing prices. Basic math proves otherwise. As more people move into a neighborhood, even the land beneath their feet becomes more expensive because it becomes more valuable. And that is a factor that drives up prices.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

You're right that, if A causes B, and A causes C, it doesn't necessarily mean that B causes C. It's easy to find cases where it's true and cases where it's false. In this case, the two are linked. It's undeniable that density causes housing prices to increase, because increasing population density means having more people in a defined place.

Demand drives density.
...the city fills in with more residents as more residents move to the city.

And demand drives up housing prices.
...more people, more competition, increased value of apartments and condos.

Thus, increased population density drives up prices.

How could anyone in their right mind argue that increased population density lowers the cost of housing? Even things like groceries tend to become more expensive in extremely dense neighborhoods.

PDXdensity wants overbuilding as a solution. That's a path toward economic ruin. The problem is that he doesn't understand what that word - density - really means. Density is just a measurement, neither high nor low. I'm guessing he read an article on the internet where the author preached about density being a cure-all for housing prices. Basic math proves otherwise. As more people move into a neighborhood, even the land beneath their feet becomes more expensive because it becomes more valuable. And that is a factor that drives up prices.

I think they think that if we build 35,000 plus units a year that prices will go down, and they would if the demand decreases or the economy goes bad but only temporarily.However its a moot point because between the city issuing housing permits and the banks lending, permits will be issued by year to year population projections. They are also forgetting that current multifamily owners and developers are not going to stand by and let overbuilding occur.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

(Although 2oh1 rightly observes that in a few neighborhoods that have seen both new housing and massive public investment, prices have gone up… he draws the crazy inference that all new housing will drive prices up).

No, I absolutely do not believe that all new housing will drive prices up. That would be ridiculous. I believe that as a neighborhood improves, it becomes a more desirable place to be, thus more people will want to be there, leading to increasing competition for the neighborhood's housing, which drives up prices across the board. Even things like reducing crime lead to increasing housing prices because, as outsiders start to view a neighborhood as being safer, they find it to be more desirable, they move in. This often leads to gentrification, which drives up housing prices. TV shows like Grimm and Portlandia drive up housing prices because they inspire even more outsiders to move here. New hip & trendy restaurants drive up prices. Anything that makes a neighborhood more of a desirable place to be slowly but surely drives up prices as more outsiders move into a neighborhood. And the flipside is that, as outsiders move into a neighborhood, people who were priced out of the neighborhood move into a more affordable neighborhood, which slowly but surely leads to rising prices in that neighborhood.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

No, I absolutely do not believe that all new housing will drive prices up. That would be ridiculous. I believe that as a neighborhood improves, it becomes a more desirable place to be, thus more people will want to be there, leading to increasing competition for the neighborhood's housing, which drives up prices across the board. Even things like reducing crime lead to increasing housing prices because, as outsiders start to view a neighborhood as being safer, they find it to be more desirable, they move in. This often leads to gentrification, which drives up housing prices. TV shows like Grimm and Portlandia drive up housing prices because they inspire even more outsiders to move here. New hip & trendy restaurants drive up prices. Anything that makes a neighborhood more of a desirable place to be slowly but surely drives up prices as more outsiders move into a neighborhood. And the flipside is that, as outsiders move into a neighborhood, people who were priced out of the neighborhood move into a more affordable neighborhood, which slowly but surely leads to rising prices in that neighborhood.

all one has to do is compare housing costs of smaller cities vs larger cities.
Portland vs Seattle is a great comparison.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

I think they think that if we build 35,000 plus units a year that prices will go down

I don't think that would bring down prices (though it'd still be great to see happen!). Here's why. Those 35,000 units would be priced as high as the market will bear, because developers want maximum profit, and that makes sense. Developing is business.

New housing prices often brings outsiders into a neighborhood, because the new housing prices often represent a new high for what housing costs in the neighborhood.

As people who can afford those prices move in, they bring demand for better retail, which makes the neighborhood more desirable, which brings outsiders into the neighborhood looking at the older housing stock to see if they can find a deal. In older neighborhoods, the issue becomes gentrification.

Earlier in the thread, you (58rhodes) touched on the two things needed to help deal with the rising cost of housing. Note that I said "deal with," not solve. I don't know if it's truly possible to stop housing prices from rising, excluding short term busts. You touched on two topics:

- Incentives for developers to add affordable housing stock into the mix of new housing.

- A strong economy (because incentives won't work unless the projects pencil out).

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

I don't think that would bring down prices (though it'd still be great to see happen!). Here's why. Those 35,000 units would be priced as high as the market will bear, because developers want maximum profit, and that makes sense. Developing is business.

New housing prices often brings outsiders into a neighborhood, because the new housing prices often represent a new high for what housing costs in the neighborhood.

As people who can afford those prices move in, they bring demand for better retail, which makes the neighborhood more desirable, which brings outsiders into the neighborhood looking at the older housing stock to see if they can find a deal. In older neighborhoods, the issue becomes gentrification.

Earlier in the thread, you (58rhodes) touched on the two things needed to help deal with the rising cost of housing. Note that I said "deal with," not solve. I don't know if it's truly possible to stop housing prices from rising, excluding short term busts. You touched on two topics:

- Incentives for developers to add affordable housing stock into the mix of new housing.

- A strong economy (because incentives won't work unless the projects pencil out).

I agree 100%

GO TriMeT!!

[soleri]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

No, I absolutely do not believe that all new housing will drive prices up. That would be ridiculous. I believe that as a neighborhood improves, it becomes a more desirable place to be, thus more people will want to be there, leading to increasing competition for the neighborhood's housing, which drives up prices across the board. Even things like reducing crime lead to increasing housing prices because, as outsiders start to view a neighborhood as being safer, they find it to be more desirable, they move in. This often leads to gentrification, which drives up housing prices. TV shows like Grimm and Portlandia drive up housing prices because they inspire even more outsiders to move here. New hip & trendy restaurants drive up prices. Anything that makes a neighborhood more of a desirable place to be slowly but surely drives up prices as more outsiders move into a neighborhood. And the flipside is that, as outsiders move into a neighborhood, people who were priced out of the neighborhood move into a more affordable neighborhood, which slowly but surely leads to rising prices in that neighborhood.

There's a chicken-and-egg aspect to this debate but I think it's safe to correlate Portland's growth and low vacancy rate to one thing: desirability. If this were Seattle, we'd understand the problem differently since they have major economic assets fueling their growth. Portland's assets are softer but ultimately just as effective. The new and trendy restaurants, the Portlandia mystique, and gentrification are all aspects of a city with good bones and good urban policy. Does Portland's urban policy want greater density? Yes, but only insofar as it enhances the quality of life. Can quality of life and higher density be reconciled? I certainly think so. Does demand fueled by desirability drive up prices? Of course.

The best way to lower prices would be to give developers free rein, drive down desirability, and shuck the entire Portland planning handbook. We could turn Portland into Phoenix but then we'd have a city unattractive to the hipsters, creative class, and virtually anyone with better taste than a Sunbelt retiree. If you want density above all other things, including charm and scale, you're shooting yourself in the foot.