6 Comments

  1. jim
    September 30, 2016 @ 2:29 pm

    ” Thompson said prospective tenants were expected to be young and reliant on public transportation and bicycles.”
    UTTER CRAP. They will flood the neighborhood with parked cars. Few people use transit unless they work downtown.

    Reply

  2. Isaac Dixon
    October 1, 2016 @ 1:41 pm

    Okay here we go. Most people cannot afford the rents of new units. How about setting aside up to 6 units as affordable housing please?

    Reply

  3. Pat
    October 5, 2016 @ 11:52 am

    How about making all these units affordable for lower income Portlanders? If the developer was serious when he claimed “prospective tenants were expected to be young and reliant on public transportation and bicycles.” Then he’ll need to build for people who cannot afford to own cars, or afford to rent/lease pricy upscale yuppie apartments.

    The developer’s claim that the “number of spaces being provided was in compliance with city regulations” will be utterly inadequate in parking spaces like every other big ugly unaffordable infill development disaster that the city allows. Notice how the developer side stepped the issue of adequate parking in favor of hiding behind the city’s inadequate parking regulation for new development. Just look around this city and you’ll see how all these large upscale new developments leave the surrounding neighborhoods with crowded impassable streets, congestion, hazardously designed parking entrances and exits, increased hazards for pedestrians, and parking wars.

    I’m really fed up with the city pandering to these greedy upscale developers who only want to get their money and get out, leaving the neighborhoods less livable for both new and old residents in their wake. This kind of development is destroying Portland.

    Reply

  4. Richard Helton
    October 7, 2016 @ 8:42 am

    Would someone tell me why all of the new buildings have to look the same.
    This building design ( or lack of ) takes no cues from its neighborhood or site. Instead it snubs its nose at them.

    When will the neighborhood associations start demanding more community and neighborhood design sensitivity instead of getting another generic metal panel and glass box that could be anywhere.

    It’s time to demand the architects provide designs more sympathetic to the community instead of being economically driven by developers greed and their own egos ignorant of those who have to live and around in their homogenized aesthetic world.

    Reply

  5. Rheinlander will make way for Portland Clinic – with parking | Hollywood Star: Northeast & North Portland Neighborhood News
    October 11, 2016 @ 9:00 pm

    […] the White Stag Block and Ladd Carriage House downtown. After last month’s announcement of a six-story, 89-unit multifamily project on the former Taco Time property across the street, the scope of this project is significantly […]

    Reply

  6. wnordeck
    October 12, 2016 @ 4:19 pm

    How can the developer or the city possible think that 19 parking spaces is enough for 89 apartments AND retails space?? First of all there’s no guarantee that the tenants will be young, take public transit, or bike! Most bike commuters I know also have a car. It’s simply ludicrous, but if the city doesn’t require it the developer isn’t going to go pay the extra expense to provide it. If you’ve ever tried to eat at Laurelwood you know how bad parking is in that area already. I live near the Whole Foods on Sandy and the two new apartment buildings that went in near the Library have completely overwhelmed the neighborhood. It’s almost impossible to park in front of your own home, or anywhere near the library. At least one of the units was required to offer parking however they charge for it on top of rent, so most don’t use it. If a developer is required to build parking it should be included in the rent or it’s a moot point. If the City of Portland doesn’t start requiring parking with these large developments the parking will soon rival San Francisco.

    Reply

Leave a Reply