The Historic District would force the developers to submit to a Demolition Review, and demolition would likely be approved. Tim Askins, the project lead for the Historic District, has agreed as much to me.

I am a home owner in Buckman. I have no ties to the development.

I also don’t understand the complaints about parking. This is an excellent parking ratio for a close-in location on a frequent bus line and near bike boulevards. Believe me, there are plenty of people who don’t want the cost of owning a car who will flock to this building, which will be more affordable by not including the cost of a parking space. If the neighbors are so concerned about people parking on the street, why not institute paid parking with an auctioned permit system? Why should the city provide you with free parking at all??

If the light industrial area of lower Buckman (Central East-side industrial zone from Water Ave to SE 11th) remains industrial then Buckman east of 12th will be the most close-in residential area on the east side of the Willamette. Does it make sense for this location to remain housing built in the early 1900s or would it make more sense to allow more people to live in the area?

I have spent significantly to renovate my house in Buckman. The renovations have been to character, and by remaining in character this work has been costly. Thus far I have repaired about 30 years of benign neglect with many more repair projects yet to be completed. However, I do not expect this structure to exist forever.

In cities which have been inhabited for centuries, how have their citizens managed various neighborhoods through their inevitable ebb and flows of good fortune? What effects have been seen in American cities with similar historical districts after 50 to 75 years (if any exist)? What are the unintended consequences of making an historical district?

We reside in a living, changing neighborhood, not a museum. The structures we inhabit serve our needs. If our needs change then so too should the structures.

The first issue that I would like to address, is the idea that design review moves power back into the hands of home owners. It does not, it actually does the opposite. I have found that going through the process is much more of a hardship on homeowners than it is on developers. There are a couple of reasons for this, first is that developers are already expecting to spend a few million dollars and a couple of years on a single project, so adding a few thousand dollars and a few months isn’t that big of a setback… Whereas for the scale of project that a homeowner is likely to do, a few thousand dollars and a few months is a large setback that many have difficulty affording. The other reason is that home owners just take these things more personally, developers tend to be able to roll with demands for aesthetic changes because most are just concerned with maintaining their ROI, but for a homeowner it can be downright offensive to have a city official or neighbors tell them how they can and cannot express themselves through their home.

In addition to this, design review does not in my experience grant blanket veto power to the neighbors. For instance, if you look at the case of development near you, it is very similar to other apartment buildings along Morrison and Belmont… Many of which are upwards of a hundred years old. These could be cited as precedent. I don’t think the current development would have had much difficulty being approved.

The second issue I would like to address is the implication that our whole neighborhood runs the risk of being overtaken by large apartment buildings. This is just not true. Most of the neighborhood is zoned R5 and R2.5 which are low density residential zones. The only areas at risk of higher density development are those that are zoned for it, most of which are along major streets, and many of those zones are not included in the historic district boundary. So if you live near a very busy intersection with existing commercial use, you might get new larger neighbors in the future. But if not, you are probably safe.

And the third issue is – if you want to maintain the quality and character of the neighborhood, why would you make it harder for people to keep up their homes? This makes no sense to me. I would be very supportive of a historic district if it allowed people to get financial assistance in fixing up their old homes, but this does exactly the opposite. It put up barriers to upkeep. Why would you want that? And why would anyone think it is appropriate to saddle their neighbors with that financial burden?

I think we all can agree that preserving the nature of our neighborhood and maintaining the vitality of our old homes is an important goal. But this effort would be a setback. Ultimately the city needs to change the way it administers historic districts, and when this happens I would welcome one for Buckman. But until then, I see these efforts as nothing short of harmful.

I suppose this is better than putting new developments on virgin lands on the outskirts, but I wish I could be more confident that they will find that many car-free renters.

And another complaint: no retail space on the street.