Cuba Diaries: Houses in Cuba

Vedado... (4.00 / 3)

Looks eerily like MLK or South Orange Avenue in Newark.  Or a thousand other American cities, for that matter.  Hell, it's even reminiscent of Portland's South Waterfront 'district' from a certain angle.

Really makes me wonder why if we were so virulently anti-communist/totalitarian back in the mid-20th Century, why did we pave over our cities and copy their 'architecture'?  A stark example of just how anti-human the Corbusian ideal is.  

Do you know if any neighborhoods were demolished to build those soulsucking, reinforced concrete human filing cabinets, or were they just plopped down randomly on any vacant space that just so happened to be around?

Beautiful houses, though.  I like the street wall in the fourth picture.  Looks like they even have a break for a nook and a cranny here and there, ideal for child's play as Jane Jacobs noted long ago.  

The sidewalks below seem extremely narrow, though.  Is that a main commercial strip, or is it a secondary neighborhood street?  How wide are the vehicle lanes in relation to the sidewalks?  And for that matter, how is traffic controlled / managed in the city?  Is it generally a pedestrian-friendly environment?

Oh, so many questions...

;)

Great to see Cuba still has a nice urban fabric to work with if they should so happen to get things straightened out eventually economically.  I'd pull a San Francisco, bump those sidewalks out by 4 or 5 feet by taking away on-street parking, and add cafe tables, spaces for street vendors, alternating benches in front of the storefronts facing out and at the street-edge of the sidewalk facing the storefronts, etc...

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Wed May 19, 2010 at 02:47:26 AM UTC

For that matter... (4.00 / 3)

I received an email a couple of weeks ago regarding a question I asked on pedestrian infrastructure in Havana.  The person told me cracked and broken sidewalks are a major problem there for many people.  Not surprising really, that they have trouble keeping up such infrastructure these days.

Did you and your group generally find that an issue in the cities?

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Wed May 19, 2010 at 02:54:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not going to be good at answering (4.00 / 3)

I didn't walk around much. I got an infected ingrown hair in my leg that turned into a huge welt and kind of immobilized me once the farm tour part of the trip ended. So I was only up and around again at the end. However, here's the deal. Traffic is MINIMAL because nearly no one has cars. You see bikes but Cuba's not a biking society like China is. They use bikes if they have to but it's nowhere near what you see in China. Outside of Havana you see horses and carts a lot. And you always see people crowded in the back of the blue govt trucks (and once in a while they even have a pig along for the ride too). But really it's not a ton of traffic.

As for the rest, they don't have a lot of money to do things so in terms of building preservation, much of it is just a lack of ability to demolish and rebuild buildings if they wanted to from what I could tell. A lot of the buildings are in really bad shape, and in "Old Havana' they are doing what they can to restore buildings so that it's a tourist-friendly district that retains its old historic look. Elsewhere I don't know what their plans are.  

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Wed May 19, 2010 at 03:06:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, that was our problem... (4.00 / 3)

As for the rest, they don't have a lot of money to do things so in terms of building preservation, much of it is just a lack of ability to demolish and rebuild buildings if they wanted to from what I could tell.

Too much wealth burning a hole in our pockets, so we paved over our cities and built a flashy, coast-to-coast amusement park along the lines of the cartoonish Epcotian "World of the Future" fantasies, etc...

"The greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world." - James Howard Kunstler

And then the Saudis grabbed us by the balls when Texas' and Oklahoma's oil ran out, and they're still holding a tight grip.

It's really interesting to me how Europe (for the most part, with some exceptions of course) chose not to go that route, even though they obviously had the opportunity right around that same time what with the massive destruction of WWII and all.  They didn't even need to demolish and rebuild, they just needed to clean up and build.  

Still wondering how and why our societies made such different choices re: our physical landscapes and land use patterns.

..................

On another note, some of those houses have me longing for another trip to Key West!

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Wed May 19, 2010 at 03:24:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You talk about the Saudi's having us by the balls (4.00 / 2)

you should be sniping at Canada, Mexico and Venezuela, our 3 biggest sources of oil. They're the ones who have us by the balls.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Wed May 19, 2010 at 04:31:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They're not brutal dictatorships though, are they? (4.00 / 3)

And as far as I know, neither of those 3 countries are worldwide sponsors of radical terrorist groups, either.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Wed May 19, 2010 at 04:36:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Talk to some of the people living in Mexico (4.00 / 1)

especially in the outlying areas where they've been having problems with the government. Brutality comes in many forms. And, whether a government is a brutal dictatorship doesn't have anything to do with whether they 'have us by the balls' as far as oil prices go. The ones who drove up the price of oil so high a couple years ago were the oil speculators, not the Saudis.

Stats on oil imports to the USA -
Crude Oil and Total Petrolium Imports Top 15 Countries

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Wed May 19, 2010 at 14:47:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again... (4.00 / 1)

Does Mexico fund international fundamentalist terror groups?

And no, Mexico is not a dictatorship and their government is not 'brutal'.  I don't know where that comes from.  By that definition, you could also say the US government is brutal because police officers sometimes shoot and kill innocent people.  And last I checked, women didn't have to walk around in full body cover, and Morality Police or whatever don't patrol the streets of Mexico City enforcing Shar'ia 'law'.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Thu May 20, 2010 at 02:50:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

brutal (4.00 / 1)

I think government treatment of indigenous people in Chiapas state has been brutal, another wonderful consequence of NAFTA. Is brutality in the eye of the beholder?

I suppose one could say that, if the people had just shut up and stopped causing trouble, the government wouldn't have had to massacre them, so it wasn't really the government's fault.

---

by: count @ Thu May 20, 2010 at 03:17:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And I'll add to what you said about NAFTA (4.00 / 1)

The US and Canadian governments weren't the only ones who signed NAFTA. The government of Mexico signed it too. Everyone wants to go beating us about the head and neck regarding NAFTA and how it's impacted the people of Mexico, as if the Mexican government was an innocent bystander.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Thu May 20, 2010 at 05:01:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't particularly care what kind of government Mexico has (0.00 / 0)

or if the Saudis follow and enforce Sharia law as far as the discussion on oil dependancy. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with our situation in this country regarding oil imports from or dependance on a foreign country.

And then the Saudis grabbed us by the balls when Texas' and Oklahoma's oil ran out, and they're still holding a tight grip.

When you said that in your post above I thought you were talking about our dependance on Saudi oil. My apologies if you were actually talking about them having us by the balls because they are a dictatorship, follow a set of religeous laws, make women wear berkhas, or fund terrorism.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Thu May 20, 2010 at 05:07:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I see... (0.00 / 0)

So Saudi Arabia, though being in the Top 5 in the link you provided yourself, (and Top 3 in 2009) is inconsequential.  And we didn't become BFF as a nation with a terror state because they had oil, and Dubya didn't dance through the garden of the Crawford Brush Ranch just a few years ago holding hands with a terrorist-financier-posing-as-a-statesman?  That's quite an interesting case to make.

And in case you didn't notice, there's a little bit of a historical context here, if you'll allow me to just move a bit further up and quote myself in the original context of the discussion -

Too much wealth burning a hole in our pockets, so we paved over our cities and built a flashy, coast-to-coast amusement park along the lines of the cartoonish Epcotian "World of the Future" fantasies, etc...

And then the Saudis grabbed us by the balls when Texas' and Oklahoma's oil ran out, and they're still holding a tight grip.

You do realize we paved America over and became a car-centric society prior to 2010 oil import statistics, right?  You do realize Mexico didn't build Orange County, CA andNew Jersey, right?

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Thu May 20, 2010 at 05:28:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So what's your answer? (0.00 / 0)

If being car centric is a result of 'having too much money burning a hole in our pockets' what would you have us do?

And please realize that it's not just cars that are dependant on oil. Our whole society is dependant on oil for manufacturing, growing, harvesting etc.

You do realize Mexico didn't build Orange County, CA andNew Jersey, right?

Neither did Saudi Arabia.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Thu May 20, 2010 at 16:12:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Was"... (0.00 / 0)

We had too much money, and after WWII no real enemies or even competition anymore (since Europe was a bombed out shell of its former self), back when we paved America.

That's not the case any more.

That's why many of us consider that whole project -

"The greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world." - James Howard Kunstler

And please realize that it's not just cars that are dependant on oil. Our whole society is dependant on oil for manufacturing, growing, harvesting etc.

The problem with sprawl and auto-centricity is that those were the single worst possible uses of oil.  Not all uses of it (say, for manufacturing) were or are bad, and I never said that.  But society doesn't benefit from 45-mile daily commutes and 20-mile trips to WalMart and McDonald's in SUVs.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Thu May 20, 2010 at 20:27:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey, I got an idea (0.00 / 0)

how about we let people in the outlying areas go ahead and build businesses and manufacturing so that people who don't want to live in the 'big fancy city' live where they want to without having to drive to the city in order to work.

Of course that would involve in paving over some of your beloved farmland. God forbid that anyone not live in the city and be chauffered around in a 40' bus.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Thu May 20, 2010 at 21:45:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmmm... (0.00 / 0)

You know, I just typed like a 1400 word response, but then I deleted it.

I have no time for arguing with somebody who attributes false motives to me, builds nonsensical strawmen, makes fantastic claims that nobody can build anything outside of cities (have you ever seen America outside of Clackamas County?), and etc...

Bye.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Thu May 20, 2010 at 23:26:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's OK (0.00 / 0)

But I have absolutely no intention of not responding to attacks on the fuel and transportation infrastrure, especially when you are using a transportation system that is every bit as dependant on oil, either foreign or domestic, as I am. Instead of providing your own vehichle, your own insurance and fuel you ask everyone else to buy all of that for you and then bash on the people who are driving on the same roads and using the same oil infrastructure that your bus uses.

I also wish that you could understand that not everyone wants to live in a city like you do. You like the city, I get that, I don't have a problem with that.

But just because you like that lifestyle doesn't mean that anyone who lives differently than you do is bad or misguided. It also doesn't mean that other areas are bad or misguided. Some people don't want to live in the city, but because of the way our land use laws are in this state, it's extremely difficult to do any building and job development anywhere but in a city. So, in general, if you want to work and don't want to live in a city, or in a particular city where your work is, you're going to have to commute.

Right now, unless you live in a city like Portland, and work in that city, commuting on public transportation means spending a lot longer on a bus or max train than you would in a car or pickup. And God help you if you're working construction, a type of work where you may very well be working in a different area on a monthly, weekly or even daily basis. In construction you almost never work close to home. I worked construction full time from 1985 - 2008. In all of that time, I worked close to home very little.

You talk about me putting up strawmen, which I may do from time to time, although I do try to avoid them. All I ever hear from you, when I ask you what you'd do to solve some of these sprawl and transportation problems, is silence.

You talk about running for Portland City Council. I don't know if you're serious or if you're just kidding. If you're serious, you would do well to come up with some real and realistic ideas to combat some of the issues you talk about. Otherwise your opponents will hang you up and gut you like a dear in the fall during your race.

For all that we go to loggerheads on issues like these, I like you and I think you're a good person. I see your passion in these issues and I'd hate to see you get smacked down in a race for office.  

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 01:30:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, okay... (0.00 / 0)

Now we're talking again!  Apologies if I come off snippy at times, obviously we both do.

;)

especially when you are using a transportation system that is every bit as dependant on oil, either foreign or domestic, as I am.

Walking doesn't use oil, and I walk to get around much more than I use public transportation.  As you know, I live in a long-established walkable urban neighborhood, a timeless model of human habitation once we figured out the agriculture thing.

Cities and towns were around for thousands of years prior to the car, WalMart, and exurban subdivisions, and cities and towns will be around for thousands of years after all of those things disappear.

Turning more farmland into subdivisions and strip malls is not a solution, rather it's more like asking for a band-aid for the scratch on your thigh after falling to the sidewalk upon getting hit by 6 rounds from an FBI issued .40 S&W.

There's no such thing as 'better sprawl' or 'better suburbanization'.  It's a wasteful lifestyle (and I'm not blaming the people who live it for now, I'm blaming the so-called "developers" and the disastrous government policies since the 1950's that have encouraged it), and we need to be adults as a society and come to the realization that the suburban motoring lifestyle was a few-decades-long historical anomaly only made possible by the recovery and insane overuse of millions of years of stored carbon energy, and it can't be sustained.  We have to realize that we fucked up, and it's time to fix it.

Silence from me about sprawl and trans issues?  Wtf am I ever silent about?  Lol, come on now...

My solution is simple, and I've stated it endless times already - sprawl is a cancer, it needs to be killed.  Agree or not, my position is clear and always has been.  This needs to stop.  I'm not in the business of proposing pseudo-solutions to ease from one deadly lifestyle into a slightly less deadly one.

And btw, I may or may not be serious about running for City Council (leaning towards the former, actually), and the description is in the job title itself.  Portland City Council, not "sprawl accommodator for Beaverton homebuilders, Washington State tax refugees, road pavers and 12-lane bridge builders".

I also wish that you could understand that not everyone wants to live in a city like you do. You like the city, I get that, I don't have a problem with that.

Where and when did I ever say that everybody has to live in a city?  I'm still waiting for you to point that out to me.  As a matter of fact, I actually prefer small towns surrounded by working farmland over large cities, and I think they're the most sustainable option for the future.  You've never seen me defend something like Manhattan or Chicago, and I never will.  I think even Portland in its current form is slightly larger than it should be, but it's for the most part the ideal American model for a sustainable urban future.

Some people don't want to live in the city, but because of the way our land use laws are in this state, it's extremely difficult to do any building and job development anywhere but in a city.

Again, back to "wants".  My nephew used to want a dragon.  That's as realistic as suburbanites "wanting" horribly destructive 10,000 sq. foot McMansions with lawyer foyers on what was just recently rich farmland.  We have to realize as a society that we can't always have what we 'want'.  That's part of being an adult.  And frankly, if one ain't farming that land then one shouldn't be living on it.

And God help you if you're working construction, a type of work where you may very well be working in a different area on a monthly, weekly or even daily basis. In construction you almost never work close to home. I worked construction full time from 1985 - 2008. In all of that time, I worked close to home very little.

Where did I ever suggest that people who work construction shouldn't have access to vehicles?  Seriously, show me.  Because I keep asking you where you think I say these things, and "all I ever hear is silence".  Sound familiar?

Instead of providing your own vehichle, your own insurance and fuel you ask everyone else to buy all of that for you and then bash on the people who are driving on the same roads and using the same oil infrastructure that your bus uses.

Bullshit.  Cities are basically 'human economies of scale', where people who don't farm make it possible for those who do to sell their products in a concentrated central location.  I don't ask anybody to 'buy me' shit, so please spare me the victimization.  The wealth of cities subsidize the rest of the region in financial terms, cultural terms, and every other term.  It's patently ridiculous to claim that, say, somebody living in a Forest Grove subdivision is 'buying fuel and insurance and vehicles for me'.  Wtf?  Ummm, no.

And as for Oregon's land use laws, if you lived in 49 other states you wouldn't be farming and running a CSA on your current land right now, as close to a Top 30 American city as it is.  You'd be at least another 40 miles out, and even feeling pressure there from the next round of sprawl and exurbanization.  Seriously, look up the price for 6 or 7 acres of land 25 miles outside of New York or Atlanta or Miami or Oklahoma City or Los Angeles or San Diego or Denver or Chicago or Milwaukee or St. Louis, or hell even Seattle.  And tell me if you can make the economics in those places work like you can in Portland.  "Developers" aren't your friends, Jo.  They'd just as soon stick a knife in your ribs as anyone else's who had land they could build a few cheapshit houses on to flip over to the first gullible young couple who could sign for an ARM.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 02:52:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

FYI (0.00 / 0)

I've worked in Portland; Salem; Seattle, WA; Santa Monica, CA; Miami Beach, FL; St. Louis, MO. In addition, I've visited cities all over Oregon and Washington when I was a horse show photographer and traveling artist, and I've spent time in Orange County, CA; San Diego, CA; Springfield, MO; and Lebanon, MO.

So, yeah, I've been out of Clackamas County....

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 01:35:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

infection (4.00 / 2)

Tell, tell - did you stoically endure, or did you seize the opportunity to trust yourself to the tender mercies of the Havana medical system? (Maybe the hotel had a staff nurse?)

---

by: count @ Wed May 19, 2010 at 05:01:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually the woman in charge of our trip (4.00 / 2)

was an American living in Havana who was a physician. So she took care of me. If it got worse I could've gone to see a Cuban doctor but it wasn't serious.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Wed May 19, 2010 at 05:15:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Narrow is the way to go in a hot, sunny climate (4.00 / 4)

Hi Jay, just a quick comment on why the narrow streets work to the pedestrians' advantage in Cuba (as with many other hot climate cities). It's best to walk in the shade, and with the big "modern" boulevards, the sun will eat you up. Think Barcelona..where the streets are barely wide enough for a truck to pass through, but you can walk in the shade on BOTH sides of the street at most times during the day. I agree, the parking on the street is not ideal, but narrowing the streets rather than widening them is the way to get more pedestrian-friendly in these places.

---

by: foodgirl @ Wed May 19, 2010 at 15:21:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good to be talking again :-) (0.00 / 0)

I'm going to sift this over to a new comment so things don't get so squeezed.

Where and when did I ever say that everybody has to live in a city? I'm still waiting for you to point that out to me. As a matter of fact, I actually prefer small towns surrounded by working farmland over large cities, and I think they're the most sustainable option for the future.

If people are going to live in small cities surrounded by farmland, where are they going to work? In the fields? This is one of the questions that was asked when I was on the county's reserves policy advisory committee. If there are not jobs other than field work in the small cities, then people living in the small cities will have to commute to the larger cities for work, which is what happens with the suburbs as well. I live on HWY 213, the main road between Molalla, through Mulino, Carus, Oregon City and it also serves Beaver Creek. Most of the people traveling the highwy are commuting from those cities and unincorporated areas to jobs in Milwaukie, Portland, Tigard, etc. Molalla, which is exactly what you describe, a small city, surrounded by farmland, would like to attract business to employ the people who live in the area. The only way to do that is to give those businesses a place to build. Unless they demolish homes and other businesses, the only place for those businesses to build is on some surrounding farmland close to the city. In fact, the city of Molalla has designated urban reserve land for just that purpose, to grow into, and I'll bet they'd like that growth to include a manufacturing facility of some kind. The land designated as an urban reserve has, since we've been out here, grown cucumbers, grass seed, and hay. It's nice and flat, close in to the city so it has access to city water, power, sewer, etc. On another piece of land between where the hay/grass is being grown and the developement on the north side of the city, is another small acreage that is producing cattle. I can understand where Molalla's coming from. Without jobs in the area Molalla is essentially a bedroom community for Portland, Oregon City, Canby, etc.

Where did I ever suggest that people who work construction shouldn't have access to vehicles?

I interpret your constant haranging on people driving in that way. If driving is bad then it's bad. I hadn't seen you differentiate between people driving for something to do, or even because it's more convenient than taking the bus, MAX or any other form of public or mass transportation, and those people driving because the very nature of their work necessitates driving.

Cities are basically 'human economies of scale', where people who don't farm make it possible for those who do to sell their products in a concentrated central location.

I would say that cities are areas where people are concentrated in order to work for others. I understand that cities have been around for a long time, and they're not going away. But in the past, the majority of the population lived out of the cities, now things are reversed. Remember what the population figures were from 60-80 years ago? The bulk of the US population was rural and agricultrual. Now it's urban and suburban and non ag. That's what the industrial revolution brought us. It's not just the cars and cheap oil. It was manufacturing and trade. The US used to be a major exporter of finished goods. You can't manufacture at that capacity with the bulk of the population living on the land and farming. You have to move them off the land and into the cities and suburbs. That's what's going on in China right now, or at least it was until the global economy slowed them down. I know that when the jobs in the cities started disapearing there was something of an exodus out of the cities and back onto the farms for those who still had farms to go to.
Also, with new fuel/power sources for personal vehicles even the end of cheap oil isn't going to stem driving and people living in one area and working in another. Not by much. Look at all the hype over electric cars, scooters, motorcycles, and hybrids when the gas prices were up around $4/gallon. That's what's going to happen when the oil prices go back up, not a great parking of the cars. And if people have a good income, a lot of them will want a house. I don't think they'll want to pay $500,000 for a little house and extra lot like my dad's place (which is what Multnomah county says is the real market value for that place).  Some would, but not most I think. Especially if, for the same amount they can have a nice new house, on a large lot, with the ammenities they want, the carpet they want, etc. There are other advantages to not living in a city like Portland, or Vancouver for that matter. You know those old scraggly peach and nectarine trees that are almost dead from leaf curl over at dad's? Pete and I are probably going to have to purchase a special permit from the city arborist just to cut the damn things down. Several years ago they were going to make people get a permit to till the damn garden for cryin' out loud. You move out of a city into a subdivision, especially in an unincorporated area and you usually don't have to deal with that kind of baloney, although you may still have a home owner's association to deal with.

I understand the land value issues in some areas around the country. But it's not just developers who drive ag land prices up. Try pricing prime vineyard land around Dundee lately? $40,000/acre sound good? I was just looking at properties in LA county, it's hard to find something within 25 miles of LA city on the search engines, especially if you're looking for actual ag land, and not a piece of property with a high end 'ranch' house on it because the realtors all have the things listed as 'ranch or farm' property. So you might find something in a city with an oversized lot, that some realtor has listed as a 'farm'. But if you look, you can find suitable ag land near to customers for not too much money. The trick is to not be in a hurry. I just found 10 acres in the Malibu hills all set to build a house on for $250,000. Which, considering the area is pretty reasonable I'd probably have to pay about that for 10 buldable acres out here. The owner will even do a land sales contract so you won't have to go through a bank. BTW, if you're setting up a small CSA you don't have to sell into a large city, even a 'large' city like Portland, if it wasn't for dad dieing and my brother wanting to keep the place and garden this year I would not be selling produce in Portland. I was all set to sell into the Molalla/Mulino and Canby/Aurora areas. If it hadn't been for dad's death I wouldn't be setting foot in Portland. It's too far for me to drive to for business, there isn't anything I need to buy, I have more and better suppliers out here, and there's a wonderful customer base out here.

When determining land prices you shouldn't just look at developers. You need to look at the local and/or state economy. Look at Detroit. I could buy vacant land in Detroit right now for a lot less than vacant land in Portland. I could also buy acreage close in to St. Lois, MO for a lot less than I could buy close in to Molalla, and almost 40 miles from Portland. I'm a little familiar with Missouri prices because Harold dreams of moving back there and we almost did 15 years ago. We could have gotten a section of land for $125,000, with a landing strip, private drive, surrounded on 3 sides by federal forest land, over a mile of river frontage, and other goodies too numerous to mention. But I digress, and that was out in the middle of the sticks.... But close in to St. Louis I wouldn't be surprised if I couldn't get a section for less than you would the same distance, say 10 miles, from Portland. St. Louis is definately bigger than Portland, and I'm pretty sure it's developer friendly.

Developers aren't necessarily anyone's enemy (although there are horse's asses in every type of business). Working in construction as I have, I've known developers, I've worked for developers. Developers don't build unless they think there's going to be a market for what they're building. I know what it takes to build a development. No one invests that kind of money and time unless they think they can sell the homes. Just take a look at the spec homes that went on the block at auction last year. No one throws money away by building. All of those spec homes were built because the developers thought there would be buyers for them. And there would have been if the economy hadn't taken a sudden nose dive. Then too, there's the need to reinvest the money or loose most of it to taxes. Did you know that if you sell a property that you haven't lived in for at least 2 years you have a certain ammount of time to roll all of the profits into a like property or pay a high (I think it's over 50%) capital gains tax? So if you are a developer and you build a spec home, you have two choices - send the money to Uncle Sam, or roll it over into another spec home. It's like my uncle's accountant told him when he finally started making good money - "Roll it back into the business or send it to the IRS, but you don't get to put it into the bank".

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 05:33:03 AM UTC

Work... (0.00 / 0)

If people are going to live in small cities surrounded by farmland, where are they going to work?

How about in the same occupations we always have?  Like manufacturing and local commerce, based around shopkeepers and businesspeople providing the services of daily life which used to make for solid middle-class livings, and heading towards building local communities that work again?

Pardon my 'French', but fuck China and fuck WalMart and fuck Warren Buffett and fuck the Wall Street Bunko Boyz and fuck Goldman Sachs and fuck Lloyd Blankfein and fuck so-called "free" trade and fuck "our" politicians who push that shit.  I'm not interested in building a society around the diktats of those economic terrorists.

It's time to change the rules.  Again, agree or not, that's what I believe in and that's what I'll stand on until I can no longer stand.

Molalla, which is exactly what you describe, a small city, surrounded by farmland, would like to attract business to employ the people who live in the area. The only way to do that is to give those businesses a place to build.

How many people live in the area specifically for proximity to Molalla?  How many of those people on the outskirts of town just wanted a cheap house within easy driving distance of Milwaukie or Tigard?  How many of those people identify themselves as Molallans?  Has Molalla done anything to discourage people from using it as a virtual bedroom community for Tigard office park workers?

Or did Molalla see easy money during the suburban boom, and take that money and run during the "greed is good" days of the 1980's while saying 'damn the consequences'?

Is Molalla really ready to move into the 21st century, or is it just jealous because Wilsonville beat them out on the business park game over the past decade?  Do they really want to become an actual self-contained livable city, or do they just wish they could become the next Aloha?

Will Molalla dedicate itself to providing affordable housing for a diverse population, will Molalla build mixed-use communities on a human scale, will Molalla link itself into local and regional transit systems, will Molalla accept the fact that whether they like it or not Portland is the vital cultural and economic anchor which makes our region viable in the first place, and that they'll have to work with us for the good of everybody?

Remember what the population figures were from 60-80 years ago? The bulk of the US population was rural and agricultrual. Now it's urban and suburban and non ag. That's what the industrial revolution brought us.

Sorry, the industrial revolution did not bring us suburbanization.  I grant you the benefit of the doubt on ag issues Jo, and here's where I'm gonna have to ask you to grant me that same consideration to me on urban issues based upon my own experiences on the other end of the human experience - please, don't try to pass that off on somebody from Passaic / Newark / Paterson, NJ.  The American Industrial Revolution literally started in my great-grand / grandparents' backyards.

Industrialization did not bring us suburbs.  Yes, it brought folks from the farms to the cities (and even some of that had to do with the racial policies in the Jim Crow South more than anything else), but it did not create sprawl.  That was brought about by disastrously misguided government policies and the influence of lobbyists from the 1950's onward.

Also, with new fuel/power sources for personal vehicles even the end of cheap oil isn't going to stem driving and people living in one area and working in another.

Careful on the Amory Lovins-style fantasies.  There is no fuel source that is ever going to replace the current system, and frankly the sooner those so-called "environmentalists" give up that ghost, the better off we'll all be.  The Interstate Highway System will never run "green", and on top of all of that... who's going to maintain the roads?  State DOTs are already going broke, and things ain't getting better anytime soon.  And you can't patch potholes with prayers...

I don't think they'll want to pay $500,000 for a little house and extra lot like my dad's place (which is what Multnomah county says is the real market value for that place).

But see, the thing is that I can find an apartment for $600 a month right down the block from your dad's place.  And eventually, prices on city lots will come back to a reasonable level as well.

Btw, why do you think your dad's lot is valued so high right now in the first place?  Might that be because it's in a great city that still works, built on a human scale in a wonderfully walkable, attractive neighborhood with all urban amenities?

Doesn't that just go to prove that we should be building more dense places like Portland, since the demand is obviously there?  Rather than the sprawling crap we see in, say, Gresham or Troutdale, which is what always seems to be the proposed "solution" whenever reserve discussions open back up?

Hey, maybe we can even build them in Molalla rather than Helvetia!

;)

Really, I don't think we're that far apart in the end.  I don't think you want a subdivision in your backyard (where your new suburban neighbors would also certainly eventually call the authorities on you for being a 'nuisance' whenever you engaged in ag activities!  There's a bunch of farmers in Hillsboro who can tell you all about that, as you may have read in the papers lately).

And is your and Harold's land not currently protected from Vulture Developers by Oregon's land use laws?

Detroit is a special case, and I've made my feelings known on Detroit before.  I think we as a nation all owe Detroit for what our national policies pushed economic forces in that city to pursue to extremes at the expense of all residents.  The car (and national sprawl policy) killed Detroit in pretty much every way, and isn't it funny how urban ag just might be the thing that brings it back to life?  But again, Detroit is a case all in and of itself, and can't be compared to anything else going on right now.

Developers don't build unless they think there's going to be a market for what they're building.

But "developers" also create illusive markets, through their lobbyists and ownership of Congress and state transportation agencies.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 09:44:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm gonna do this in sections. Good questions BTW (0.00 / 0)

First regarding Molalla and the surrounding areas, why people buy land outside the cities, etc.

Here are the stats for Molalla from the city's website. The city's urban renewal plan, report, enterprise zone and a information for their downtown economic improvement district are on the website as well under Economic Development in the menu on the left hand side of the page.

As far as surrounding population, in Mulino we have around 2,400+ for the population. The Hamlet of Molalla Prairie surrounds Molalla city, but I don't see any population stats on their website, but here's the Hamlet of Molalla Prairie website.

Molalla has 2 'new' housing developments, Big Meadow to the north and west along HWY 213, and another on the north end of Molalla but I forget what it's name is. Big Meadow is at least 10 years old, and the other one is close to 20.

As far as Molalla being walkable, the whole city occupies a mere 1.9 square miles. and has only 2 main streets (Molalla Ave. and HWY 211). There is one light in town, a 4 way stop at the Molalla ave./211 crossroads. Speed limit almost everywhere in town is 25 mph, and even on streets which don't have sidewalks it's safe to walk and bicycle. That's about as pedestrian freindly and walkable as you can get in a city.

I agree with you on supporting local businesses. As to whether Molalla is ready to move into the 21st century or not, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I do believe that Molalla would like to be a self contained city, which is why I think they'd like to attract more businesses with decent wages. Molalla has a population of 7,800. I know for a fact that there are more people than jobs in the area, which is one reason for the commute.

Another reason is that, at least in the outlying areas, such as the hamlets, a lot of people move out here because of lower housing prices, and also because they want to have livestock. Can't do that in a city. Harold and I picked this place because of proximity to my work, at the time half of my work was in the Portland area and half was in Salem  (Harold is retired), price (Harold bought this place for $120,000, which was very low even for the location, because the house was in bad shape as was the property), and because we had gotten into the emu business. We originally had the emus in a little unincorporated pocket in the Milwaukie area (Jack rd. just off Linwood and the 2nd or 3rd road south of King rd.). The house was on a half acre lot. While the neighbors thought the emus were pretty cool when they were very young, where we were located 6 adult emus would have been problematic.

Molalla is already part of a public transportation system, an independant one. Tri-Met works fine for Portland and it's surrounding areas in the Tri-Met service district which stops somewhere around Carus. Personally, I don't want it out here, I'm not enamoured of paying a self employment tax to Tri-Met, which is what would happen if that thing got extended out here. Part of what we like out here is that we're not a part of Portland or Metro. The Metro UGB stops somewhere around Carus or the edge of Oregon City. We don't want either out here. Don't believe me? Come to a hamlet meeting (Molalla Prairie or Mulino) and bring up the possibility of either Tri-Met or Metro expanding into these areas. That's one reason why the areas out here wanted to be declared rural reserves, to stop all of that, and to put a cap on any land use changes that would have enabled development.


Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 15:50:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On suburbanization and increasing the size of cities, property values, etc. (0.00 / 0)

While I agree with you that industrialization didn't cause, in and of itself, suburbanization, it did make it possible. Suburbs were being built long before people could afford personal transportation in the form of automobiles. Commuting from a suburb, or even a bedroom community like Sellwood, was enabled by public transportation in the form of trollies and street cars. My dad said that his father commuted to work in Portland from Sellwood, which at the time were two seperate cities/communities, via the streetcar. His mom used to go shopping in Portland for things they couldn't get in Sellwood using the streetcar.

If people hadn't been needed to man manufacturing plants during the industrial revolution, there wouldn't have been an influx of people into the cities. Oh sure, there would have been people moving into the cities, but not at such a high rate.

I also agree with you that this accelerated from the 50s onward, but I don't know that the government policies were misguided, although I'll grant you the influence of lobyists. Suburbanization at the scale from then till now was also made possible by people having enough money to buy property and a house of their own. Many people want to live in a stand alone house, but don't because they are too poor to do so. In some cities, the property prices are so high that they can't afford to buy in the city limits. Eugene/Springfield has been having this problem for years. A lot of the people who work in the city can't afford to buy a home in the city. They don't want to live in an apartment, so they buy outside of the city and commute. This, in addition to adding commuters/increasing the commute distance, is having an impact on the schools, as the student base is moving out of the school district(s) in the city limits.

Many people also want to live in an apartment or condo. I've done work for a lot of condo owners who sold their house/lot or property and moved into a condo. That's fine, those people are happy living in those environments.

And eventually, prices on city lots will come back to a reasonable level as well.

The RMV on that piece of property in SE Portland will only go down in value if the economy goes further into the tank than it already is, and there is lower demand for a house with an oversized lot. One of the few really sound (over the long haul) investments a person can make is property. It may go down in the short term (the county's estimated RMV from 2 years ago was about $20,000 higher than it is now), but over the long term it almost always goes up. If/when the economy in the Portland area picks up, the RMV on that property will rise. Prices on lots in that part of the city will not come down significantly. Fortunately or unfortunately, reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. We've already had 3 inquiries from people wanting to buy the house and lot. Some may be interested in buying because it's got an oversized lot for a large yard or perhaps to keep the garden going. Others are no doubt interested in removing the garden and building a house on the site, or tearing down the existing house and building two new houses on the site, or perhaps tearing down the house and building an apartment on the site.

But see, the thing is that I can find an apartment for $600 a month right down the block from your dad's place.

I'm sure you can, but look at what you're renting. What's the square footage living space vs the square footage living space in that house? I don't know which apartment building you're talking about, there are several within 4 blocks of the house. As an excersize in arithmetic, think about the apartment you're talking about and try to remember or estimate how many units are in that complex/building. Multiply that by $600 and it'll give you a ballpark estimate of what the property might be valued at. I think that apartment buildings/complexes are valued as commercial property, not necessarily residential properties, but I'll have to check into that. When estimating what to charge in rent on a stand alone house, the rule of thumb is to charge 1% of the RMV of the property. Which means that according to that formula, I should charge $5,000/month to rent dad's house, which equates to around $1,250/room (the house has 4 bedrooms and 2 full baths). Now, personally, I don't think there's a snowball's chance of getting $5,000/month for that house. If a person could afford that they'd be better off to buy property. But even if I were to charge 1% of the tax assessed value, which is $220,000, I'd still have to get $2,200/month, which I think is still high.

As a side, what I'm really afraid of is when the will clears probate. At that time, the property will pass into Pete and my hands. When that happens (change of ownership) I'm pretty sure the county will want to reasses the property. The taxes on it right now are $5,000/year and if it were re-assesed at the estimated RMV those taxes could go up to $10,000/year, which means I'd have to charge close to $850/month just to cover the property taxes if I were to rent the house out. At that point, $2,200/month for rent doesn't look too unreasonable....


Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 16:44:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's not forget... (0.00 / 0)

The RMV on that piece of property in SE Portland will only go down in value if the economy goes further into the tank than it already is, and there is lower demand for a house with an oversized lot.

We're still quite early into The Great Recession, and I believe this is more like the beginning of a new era and a new reality, more so than just some temporary 'blip'.  Who says this pattern has to continue -

but over the long term it almost always goes up.

There is no inviolable law of economics that says "real estate prices will always go up".  We have to consider the possibility that all real estate pretty much everywhere in the US (in some more than others, obviously) has been vastly overvalued / inflated for 30 years now, and that soon things will shake themselves out to a more reasonable and realistic level.

I'm sure you can, but look at what you're renting. What's the square footage living space vs the square footage living space in that house?

This is what mixed use is all about, and how it's a good thing to have a wide range of people of various income levels living within close proximity of each other.  I never claimed that I could rent a house for $600.  But there's nothing wrong with renters, either.

My point here is that Sellwood is actually pretty well set up already, in that over the years it's still mostly maintained the one thing that made it a thriving neighborhood in the first place, over 100 years ago.  Diversity, the key to great towns, cities and neighborhoods.  I was pointing out that not everybody who lives in Sellwood has to be a lifelong resident for many generations, or a millionaire.  And that's a very good thing.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:43:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

100 years ago Sellwood wasn't a neighborhood (0.00 / 0)

it was a seperate village. It got swallowed up by Portland as the city grew.

I never said you implied that an entire house could be rented for $600. I was trying to give you an idea of how to calculate the actual dwelling cost to live in that area, so that you could see if it was actually cheaper to rent or if the costs were comperable, not counting interest on a mortgage.

As far as prices always going up in the long term, in general yes they do over time. My grandfather bought that place in 1928. He put down $500 earnest money and I think he paid the place off in around 10 years. At the time he was making around 35 cents/hour in wages. I don't think the RMV will ever be that low again. I could see the RMV dropping down to $400,000, but, short of a catastrophic collapse of the economy, I don't expect that it'll ever go down to the tax assesed value of $220,000.

My uncle bought a cabin at Tiera del Mar on the Oregon coast. He paid $2,500 for the place in the 50s or 60s. In the mid 90s my cousin sold it for $75,000. I don't think that was a drop in value. Harold bought the place here in Mulino for $120,000. The RMV estimate for this place is somewhere around $250,000. That doesn't look like a drop either.

Now, given that the examples I gave for dad's place and our place in Mulino are RMV estimates, I have looked at actual sale prices for properties recently (in the last 3 months), in the Sellwood/Moreland neighborhood. I did that because I absolutely couldn't believe that dad's could be worth that much. Sales in the past 6 months or so of comperable homes lead me to believe that the place actually is worth that much.

In the past couple months we've had 3 inquiries from people wanting to buy the place. People who make inquiries like that quite often will have looked up the tax info on the house and lot. They'll know what the taxes are, the specs on the property and the estimated RMV. And they're still inquiring.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 16:24:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Neighborhood, city... (0.00 / 0)

Technically, it was a neighborhood 100 years ago since Sellwood was annexed by the City of Portland in 1893, but I know what you mean...

;)

Sellwood did develop as an independent village, you're right.  But that doesn't detract from my point, of course.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 18:01:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On the land value of dad's place (0.00 / 0)

Btw, why do you think your dad's lot is valued so high right now in the first place? Might that be because it's in a great city that still works, built on a human scale in a wonderfully walkable, attractive neighborhood with all urban amenities?

I think it's the neighborhood more than anything else. Plus Portland keeps promoting itself and trying to draw in as many new residents as possible. Advertising is as much to blame as anything else. But there's also the very low crime rate. As far as walkability in the neighborhood goes, if you're looking at grocery stores, or pretty much anything else food related that's not a cafe, you're looking at about a 2 mile round trip. It's a quiet old neighborhood. It's stable, there are very few apartments and rental houses in the neighborhood, which means that once someone moves in they stay, which contributes to the stability of the neighborhood. It's close to Mcgloughlin Blvd, a major arterial, has good schools (Sellwood, the grade shool I went to, and Llewelyn, which supply Cleveland, the HS I went to). Firestation in the area, close toWestmoreland Park, Sellwood Park, Oak's Park, Oaks Bottom wildlife refuge and hiking area, and then there's Sellwood Pool, etc.

I was still shocked when I looked at the property tax statement and the estimated RMV. The assessed value seems more realistic to me, but I'm used to ag and rural residential prices and even then I'll look for a place with an absolutely run down house on it so I could get the property for cheap and still live on it. You should have seen some of the places I was looking at 10 years ago. The worse was a property with a house that had a 'stream' running under it that had just about ruined the foundation. 2 storey, would have had to be jacked up and completely rebuilt. But a residence none the less with power, a functioning septic system, a good well, and 20 acres for under $100,000.

But in Oregon, if you want to live on the property you're going to farm, you have to buy something with a house on it, even if you'll be forced to live in a tent and remodel the house one wall at a time. You can't just buy land out here to live on and farm if it doesn't al ready have a house on it. You aren't even allowed to camp on the property. Otherwise you have to show $80,000 in gross farm income and then you get to start the rather byzantine process to build.

If you really wanted density, you'd get rid of all of those single family homes in the Sellwood/Moreland neighborhood and put in appartments and condos. That'd be easy enough to do with tax breaks to developers. You wouldn't even have to condem anything, just make it much easier financially and zoning wise for apartments than single family dwellings. Of course that would ruin the neighborhood in my opinion.


Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 17:09:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Groceries... (0.00 / 0)

As far as walkability in the neighborhood goes, if you're looking at grocery stores, or pretty much anything else food related that's not a cafe, you're looking at about a 2 mile round trip.

There's a QFC on Milwaukie Ave about a mile away, and the New Seasons on Tacoma is also about a mile away.  That's not bad at all.  Also, there's two TriMet bus lines (the 70 and the 19) which both run seven days a week, and at times the 19 is a pseudo-frequent service line.  And beginning in 2015, the Orange PSU-Milwaukie MAX Light Rail (which I'm not too keen on, but that's for another discussion) will have a train station on Tacoma, just past the park.

And then there's the Milwaukie Avenue / 13th shopping district, local indie hardware stores, drug stores, cafes, restaurants, coffee shops, etc etc etc...

I agree on the residential stability, it's one of the best things about the neighborhood.  Every city needs a neighborhood (or preferably, ten) like Sellwood.  But my point is that it's not monolithically single-use wealthy residential, either.  Sellwood was the first Portland neighborhood I lived in (an apartment), and since then I've met more than a few guys who are also just struggling to get by, working temp jobs at warehouses and factories, who rent rooms in converted homes and live in apartment buildings in the area, and in the classic apartments-on-top-of-retail in the business districts, etc.

That's the diversity and mixture of income levels I'm talking about, which make thriving cities and neighborhoods possible.  Paper wealth can disappear in a day, but when all kinds of different people get to love and claim as their own a neighborhood, that takes much longer for any economic forces to destroy.

I never once proposed that we should destroy homes in Sellwood and turn them into apartments, and I never would.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:00:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Groceries, Part 2... (0.00 / 0)

Oh, I should also mention that where people rent in that neighborhood, the New Seasons and the QFC are generally only a few blocks away, or 1/2 mile at most.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:03:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Groceries, Part 3... (0.00 / 0)

Also, let's not forget the Wednesday evening Moreland Farmers' Market is a couple blocks from Milwaukie & Bybee (the urban center of the neighborhood) as well!

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:13:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I never said that you suggested that homes be destroyed and replaced with appartments (0.00 / 0)

however you have advocated many times for greater density in Portland than exists right now. The only way to do that is to encourage multiple dwelling units as opposed to single family units. That's the only way to get the stocking rate higher in a given acreage.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 16:28:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Link? (0.00 / 0)

however you have advocated many times for greater density in Portland than exists right now.

No, I haven't.  I think what you mean, however, is that I've said (and still do) that if there is going to be large regional population growth (frankly, I'm dubious about that) from here on out, it should be directed towards existing neighborhoods and urban areas, whether they be in the City of Portland (preferred), or even the more built up areas of say, Beaverton, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Gresham or Hillsboro.  

And as far as Portland goes, we have enough empty space here right in the inner city to probably fit in at least the most 'optimistic' projected growth numbers.  Look at how underutilized (and currently misutilized) all those hundreds of acres of land are in the South Waterfront area, and imagine what we could do with that land if some people with brains would actually get to work on making things happen there.  Oh, and of course take to heart some lessons from the miserable failure of the disconnected hideous high-rise crap they already built there, admit they're wrong and try something different.  Like, building an actual neighborhood there.  Like the one that existed 60 and 70 years ago.  Wasn't that (and the Keller Auditorium area) the old South Downtown (might have the name wrong), the ethnic Jewish and Italian neighborhood from the early 20th century bulldozed in the 1950s during Portland's own (brief) 'urban renewal' period?

And there is also already more than enough room (especially in Gresham & Hillsboro & Beaverton) already existing in those areas as to where no more reserve land needs to be opened up to sprawling residential and industrial developments.  Enough to build thousands of new McMansions and office 'parks'?  No.  But that's not what we should be aiming for in the first place.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 17:53:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you on those monstrosities in the SoWat development (4.00 / 1)

I think they're over priced too, especially the way they've been discounting them over the past year or so. I had an oportunity to do some tile work in those buildings and I wouldn't touch that work with a 10' pole. Too much of a pain in the ass logistically. I don't even like working on the Lincoln tower and it's easier logistically.

Regarding density, I think you just supported my statement. Those empty spaces you speak of would need to be built in multifamily housing units, to accomodate the projected increase in residents over the next 40 year period. You're not going to be able to do it with single family dwellings with yards, especially not if they're yards like dad's place has. If the house were to be torn down, and an apartment were to be built in it's place over the whole double lot, you could house easily 4 families instead of one. The value on the property would go up, and the county would make a lot more in property tax revenues than it would from a single house with a garden.

On the population estimates over the next 40 years, I agree with you that it's dubious that that many people will come into the area, and even if they do, they won't all go to Portland.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 18:39:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Overall density vs. neighborhoods... (0.00 / 0)

Well yes, if we did things my way overall density would increase in the city as a whole of course, but building out underutilized areas like South Waterfront would not impact density (and existing neighborhood character) in places like Sellwood.  I wouldn't touch places like that.

I'm not talking about doing infill in Sellwood, I'm talking about redeveloping the many brownfields around the city, and where necessary continuing doing infill in places like Lents and Hazelwood.

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 18:50:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heh... (0.00 / 0)

I had an oportunity to do some tile work in those buildings and I wouldn't touch that work with a 10' pole. Too much of a pain in the ass logistically. I don't even like working on the Lincoln tower and it's easier logistically.

So I'm assuming they're even as cheap on the inside as they look on the outside?

:)

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Sat May 22, 2010 at 18:57:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, (4.00 / 1)

I wouldn't say they're cheap, although I haven't seen the insides other than a few photos for advertising. Pete has done work in some of them, and his work is very high end. He's not innexpesive and he usually has a 5-8 week waiting list.

I don't like working on structures like those because of the logistics. You have to haul your equipment up the elevators to the unit you're working on, issues with timing, leaving the truck, often with equipment in it, way far away where I can't keep an eye on it (a prime environment for me to loose several thousand dollars worth of equipment unless I haul it up there in case I need it), gotta be careful of the hours I work, haul water for the saw up, then haul it back down to take home to dispose of, etc.

Working in structures like these is just a pain in the butt and not worth the money as far as I'm concerned. I won't work on buildings in the core downtown area either for the same reasons. No parking, no way to secure my equipment, have to haul everything all over the place, etc.

The only reason I did repair work on the Hatfield Federal Courthouse in 2000/2001 was because they gave me a store room to stage in, and a key card to the parking garage in the basement of the building. I gave them a choice - let me park in the garage under the building or let me carry concealed in the courthouse. Or they could find someone else to do work that I was qualified to do and no one else wanted but needed to be done. I was working nights and was absolutely not walking to my truck at 2:00am unarmed. So they gave me a key card....

I prefered to work on single family houses, preferably ones with a back yard where I could lock up my saw while I was using it, or at least a driveway that I could back into, then I'd have my saw chained into the truck. I use a case hardened heavy chain with a cam lock that has a case hardened pin. Short of a plasma cutter you won't open that lock without the key, and God help you if you loose the key or break it off in the lock, 'cause you ain't gonna cut throught the chain with out a torch either....

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Sun May 23, 2010 at 01:41:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

About developers and developing land (0.00 / 0)

But "developers" also create illusive markets, through their lobbyists and ownership of Congress and state transportation agencies.

In a way you're right and wrong. Part of that is due to the way the capital gains tax laws are written. If you are a developer, and you make a profit on the land you've developed, be it residential or industrial, if you do not roll the profit from that venture into a like property within, I think it's two years, you must pay a high capital gains tax on that profit.

As to the state transportation agencies, I don't know about that, at least not in this neck of Oregon. I can't say about other areas.

Really, I don't think we're that far apart in the end. I don't think you want a subdivision in your backyard (where your new suburban neighbors would also certainly eventually call the authorities on you for being a 'nuisance' whenever you engaged in ag activities! There's a bunch of farmers in Hillsboro who can tell you all about that, as you may have read in the papers lately).

We are essentially in a subdivision, albeit a failed one that was started in the 40s I think. There are undeveloped platted roads all over the place out here. We've probably got one running through our place. We have 8 -10 neihbors. The closest is 100' from the house, the furthest is probably 400' from the house. That's why I'm careful of the stocking rate, dust, spraying, what kinds of animals I have and where I keep them. For instance, I don't think that our neighbor on the north side of us would be too pleased if I put my buck goat in the north emu pen which has a fence that is just 30' or so from his house which is downwind from us, especially when Snow Man is is full rut....
I don't drag the arena when it's dry and windy. The chickens I'm going to put in the front pens this year will be hens only, the roos will be locked up near to our house/barn and out of earshot of the neighbors. I do my best to maintain the fences and keep the livestock off the neighbors' property, etc.
For that matter, if I had a development put in behind me, which there has already been a push to rezone this property commercial, I'd either petition to develop this property or I'd work to develop an ag market for the people populating a new, nearby development.
Personally, if this property were to be developed, I'd do it myself and make a couple million off of it, then buy a bigger acreage a few miles off. Hell, if I'd had access to 2 mill, I could have bought Larry Heinz's half section 4 miles from here last fall.... 4 houses on the property, potential to make money hand over fist in small scale direct to consumer ag, close in to as much of a market as one could supply. God, what a money makin' oportunity! But I don't have the credit to swing that kind of deal. Harold does, but he's all talk and no walk....

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

---

by: JoanneRigutto @ Fri May 21, 2010 at 18:06:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]