« Crosstown Traffic and Big S | Main | Boston's Charles Rose Selected ForOCAC Expansion »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Why assume that this developer needs to be the actor in this play? This thing has been thoroughly botched.

Scrap it. Start over. It won't be hard to find someone who will do something terrific. Just don't let the dominant players let PDC take all the risk/merde. The usual suspects are on the prowl on this one, wanting/expecting to be enriched by the city taking the first steps in the area. That shouldn't matter all that much.


Brian, it seems your point of view is simply in favor of progress--at least the type that brings good looking builidings--but with PDC recently I see a process that needs to be halted, not adjusted. Leonard ought to be praised for demanding an explanation, on the citizens' behalf, of developers' gaming the system and partnering with PDC this way.

Given Portland's present gentrification situation, to control the price of a decent number of the units should be fundamental. Planning/design considerations have to work with serious and enforceable affordability mandates if we are at all interested in preserving community diversity and managing the gentrification spiral. Or do we not care about that any more?

The "condition" you mention regarding affordability is typical of recent projects. But when discussing this it's much more clear to use real numbers rather than these percentages. For example, 120% of MFI, if based as is common on a family of four, is $80,300. If the developer was going to live up to this agreement (in itself hardly a given; see "SoWa") with the smallest studio units the MFI, based on an individual, is still $56,200. In other words, this is housing affordable only for people who can spend something like $1500/month on rent or a mortgage.
We're very likely talking about 20 or so 150K studios and 148 larger units costing several hundred thousand and more.

This project has always sounded to me like a developer tells PDC what's going to "pencil out" and PDC considers how to meet that goal. Frankly it's starting to stink.

Frank Dufay

I'm certainly not advocating that the developer be given an unacceptable amount of breaks to get the deal done, but since those issues have already been brought to light...

What's the "acceptable" level of "breaks"? Taxpayer money was already used to pay a shell corporation nearly DOUBLE the price it they'd paid for the property, which the seller encumbered with a 297 year "lease" for a parking garage for $1 a year. Then after that purchase...PDC wants to give the property away?

There has to be accountability for how tax-payer money is spent.

All this "deal-making" has done has kept this property undeveloped and a neighborhood blight for all these years.

Randy Leonard

Whatever project is proposed for any publicly owned piece of property should be approved or not based on its own merit. A project should not require appraisals that intentionally low ball a publicly owned property's worth in order to justify the project. On a number of different levels, that is wrong.

The issue is not the proposed project but, rather, a public agency that does not appear to understand how it should manage and dispose of publicly owned assets.

Had PDC proposed giving the property to Trammel Crow while acknowledging its actual value, I may not have agreed with the project but I certainly would have never questioned the integrity of PDC's processes or passed a resolution requiring a review of the entire history of the 3rd and Oak property.


Thank you, Randy.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Lead Sponsors


Portland Architecture on Facebook


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

Paperblogs Network

Google Analytics

  • Google Analytics

Awards & Honors