Quote:
Originally Posted by DBenson
I think it’s a mistake to simply dismiss out of hand all the points that Downes-Le Guin makes. Some of the important, overlapping questions that he raises are: What does the Ritz-Carlton mean? For whom do we make our city? What does a good Portland downtown look like?
|
His answer to these questions, from the article:
Quote:
What I’d like to see driving down Burnside might not look so different from the Ritz-Carlton: a large building, but one providing affordable housing and a stack of social services. The design would be less luxurious, but original and beautiful, so that residents would be happy to live there. The building’s downtown location, and support from the public and private sectors, would reinforce its symbolic value as an inspiring civic gesture.
|
His answer is a massive vanity project. A beautiful building of affordable homes? Homes that nobody who lives there can afford, the rest of the city subsidizing the lucky few who are selected to live in them? Instead of building for the wealthy, let's build for the lucky?
Unlike a lot of folks here, I'm not a builder, architect, planner, or involved in housing construction professionally in any way. I'm an amateur hobbyist who likes big buildings and cute little parks. But there's a problem here, a choice to make, and many refuse to make it. Density, affordability, and desirability are all goals, but it's nearly impossible to have all three. (It's not quite a "choose two" but close.)
In my mind, it's because there are too few dense, affordable locations for people to live. If we build enough - and likely this would be far in excess of Kotek's desired 36k units per year - perhaps that will change. But 400 affordable units on Burnside would still leave tens of thousands out of luck.
This, to me, is the great failing of this style of politics. It's about, to quote the original author, the "symbolic value" of a building. The Ritz-Carlton is a hole in the city, instead we need a symbolic gesture? No. The purpose of building housing is
to have homes for people, all types of people, and that's what we need: homes, not symbols and gestures.