This Week in the Mercury

A Month of Letters

Books

A Month of Letters

Mary Robinette Kowal's Hand-Written Challenge


Buster Keaton and Time-Traveling Hipsters

Film

Buster Keaton and Time-Traveling Hipsters

Making a Little Time for Oscar-Nominated Shorts



  |  

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

City Hall / Build Out Council Questions $1.12 Million Tax Break for North Williams Apartments

Posted by Sarah Mirk on Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Neighborhood opponents of the Albert Apartment project finally got their say in front of City Council this morning. And it sounded like Commissioners Amanda Fritz and Nick Fish might have been swayed by their concerns about the 72 apartments planned for the former House of Sound lot on North Williams.

The Design Commission recommended the Albert Apartments receive a $1.12 million tax abatement over ten years from the Portland Development Commission, since the project meets the city's transit oriented development (TOD) guidelines. But, as
discussed on Blogtown in July, the project's critics say the project isn't worth a $1.12 million subsidy. The apartments are a quarter-mile from the buses on MLK Avenue and the "public benefits" that qualify the project for public money are its provision of ground-floor commercial space, LEED silver certification and a single car share space.

Also revealed at council this morning is that the open space required of the project will be mostly comprised of a surface parking lot.

"If this is truly a transit-oriented development, why are 48 parking spots being included?" Portlander Cathy Galbraith asked council.

"We have serious questions about whether the public benefit in this 72 unit building justifies the abatement. When we can’t fund schools, at the same time we’re giving $1.2 million a way," opined neighbor Tracy Olson.

Commissioner Fritz raised the same questions. "I’m concerned about the public benefits the developer was provided to choose from. They could provide one car share space or on that same list, make twenty percent of the units be handicap accessible. It doesn’t seem like those should be on the same level." Fritz also asked whether the public benefits of outweighed the unwanted impact on the neighborhood, "the height and bulk of the building on a street that is not a major transit route. " A complete list of public benefits a developer can include to snag public dollars is here.

Seemingly upset at the design note that some of the Albert's bedrooms will have no windows (and that the developer didn't know whether all the windowless bedrooms will be in the project's 18 affordable units), Fritz asked, "How would you meet LEED silver if you constantly have to have a light on in the bedroom?"

Commissioner Fish agreed that the criteria for qualifying for millions in tax breaks needs to be "scrubbed carefully." Fish asked, "Are we getting our bang for the buck? At what point do you revisit the basic ground rules?" But Fish also concluded that it would be a little harsh to submit the Albert Apartments to new criteria retroactively. "If we conclude that the developer followed all the rules and it meets our criteria and we still come away with a building that the neighborhood objects to, is it our role at this point to yank to abatement?"

Council plans to vote on the tax abatement next week.

Albert Apartments - 56 vertical feet of (technically) transit oriented development
  • Albert Apartments - 56 vertical feet of (technically) transit oriented development

 

Comments (8) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
If the developers are in good faith following the guidelines for abatement as outlined by the city code, why shouldn't they receive the tax break?

It's not the developer's fault that the city wrote up some weak-ass tax laws.
Posted by Graham on August 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM · Report
2
Sometimes I think there must be only one architect in the entire city of Portland. Why do these developments always look exactly alike?
Posted by sgp on August 26, 2009 at 4:49 PM · Report
3
#44 goes right by, #4 is a block away. But growing transport of choice for this area is bikes. What about a bike-friendly apartment? What would that entail?
Posted by J_Renaud on August 26, 2009 at 5:32 PM · Report
4
"What about a bike-friendly apartment? What would that entail?"

@pdx97217
An act of god.

Developers aren't stupid. Rain 8 months a year=a lot of fair weather bikers.
Posted by BlackedOut on August 26, 2009 at 11:54 PM · Report
5
I don't think so. There's a steady stream of bikes flowing with rush hour traffic down Vancouver and up Williams year-round now. Probably at least 2 or 3 a minute between 4 PM and dusk right now. Obviously the weather has a factor, but we're talking affiliation and not actual practice.

This is the Portland generic business plan - showcase hipsters but target young parents + tourists, Voo Doo, Powells, Mercury, Adidas, W+K, Stumptown, etc.

It's a niche. Get in it.
Posted by J_Renaud on August 27, 2009 at 10:35 AM · Report
6
"This is the Portland generic business plan - showcase hipsters but target young parents + tourists"

If the people actually coming are young parents, then why would a businessman build apartments for the "showcase hipsters".

In answer to your original point, they are building units around town with no parking to supposedly appeal to bicyclists and walkers, but I don't believe it for a second. There is no studies or hard numbers whatsoever to support the conclusion that these people don't own cars that just crowd up the surrounding blocks.
Posted by Blabby on August 27, 2009 at 10:51 AM · Report
7
Couple of thoughts. As a resident of the neighborhood I have no opinion at this point about this development as I have not studied it carefully but for Amanda to suggest it is an "unwanted impact" without asking anyone beyond a few NIMBY's who showed up to testify is pretty rich.

Also Williams is a bike highway. The 4 and 44 run up (4 turns at Freemont). I think there is plenty of transit around it and I consider bikes alternative transit.

Thirdly, it's pretty ironic that these same guidelines were used for dozens of buildings in the ultra rich Pearl and other core downtown buildings but suddenly when there is a development in North Portland utilizing the tax breaks it becomes a "controversy".

I'm no planner but it seems rather unfair to ask a developer to submit to a set of guidelines drawn up by the City and then suddenly come down on the developer for following the guidelines you wrote!
Posted by Finnegan on August 27, 2009 at 1:57 PM · Report
8
funny thing is there are a lot of architects in portland
but the developers only hire a "choice" few
hence the continuity of all the designs
Posted by iheartmies on August 27, 2009 at 2:11 PM · Report

Add a comment

Our Friends

Our Enemies

/images/adoftheweek.gif

ad of the day

The Handyman Pro - Your Honey-Do Specialist
Don’t let our name fool you. The Handyman Pro, LLC is a repair and remodel service provider with over 25-years experience. We cover all aspects of construction and repairs for residential and commercial clients.go


post an ad

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC

115 SW Ash St. Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204

Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Production Guidelines | Terms of Use