First Look: New development at 20th & Morrison

by

At our most recent general meeting on December 8th, David Mullens from Creston Construction visited us to speak about the new residential apartment building development going up at SE 20th & Morrison. Some may remember this location as the site of another proposed development project that aroused quite a bit of ire among neighbors several years ago. That project eventually fell by the wayside as a result of neighborhood input and the weak economy.

This new project appears to face no such hurdles. Although Mr. Mullens faced some significant questioning from the neighbors present at last week’s meeting, the general consensus seemed to be that this project represents an improvement over the last one. The main area of concern was around parking. The development will only have 12 on-site parking spaces, although it boasts over 70 units. Mr. Mullens stressed that the developers will be aggressively marking this property to tenants without cars, and will also be offering some perks to its residents such as TriMet passes. As for economic factors, the project is apparently well-funded enough that Mr. Mullens was able to speak with some confidence of a planned late-January/early-February start to construction. Construction is expected to last about a year.

Mr. Mullens shared some images of the plans with us. These can be viewed below.

 

 

Advertisements

8 Responses to “First Look: New development at 20th & Morrison”

  1. ws Says:

    This is terrible. What’s being proposed is the destruction of, what appears, three separate and historic structures for a not very imaginative, cheap development.

    I take no issue with this development on vacant land, but this is disrespectful the neighborhood.

    Why is this not a bigger deal and why are more residents in he neighborhood not protesting this?

    There’s a vacant lot across the street for crying out loud. Wouldn’t that be cheaper than paying for the demo cost? Totally unimaginative development — plus it keeps the ugly parking lot in tact behind the building on Morrison.

  2. teresa mcgrath/nat kim Says:

    why tear down a beautiful building to make way for creston deveolpment, when it’s obvious they are bypassing the proposed national historical designation.

    why not build these in a vacant lot?

    people are passive, and won’t fight creston.

    we used to live here and now live in irvington/sabin, where protections are in use.

    pure greed.

    not a sustainable plan.

    a waste of a pefectly fine building.

    why not re store the existing building?

  3. teresa mcgrath/nat kim Says:

    we like what ws says above…good ideas are brought up, and there is a lack of vision in this….not much p.r. on this proposal, except in the hollywood star…

  4. Carter Says:

    It looks like it belongs in Northwest Portland. And, speaking of Northwest, it will have 58 units, some with more than one person, without parking spaces. Street parking in that area will be just like it is in Northwest: unobtainable.

    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.

  5. teresa mcgrath and nat kim Says:

    what a waste of resources still….to tear down a historically important structure speaks of greed and unsustainable practices….can’t wait for buckman to obtain national historic protection, so more stringent measures are taken to preserve beautiful buildings….how selfish, and not very visionary….don’t mind real infill, but you are razing a buidling….where’s the outcry?….where’s the resistance and dialogue?

  6. Zef Wagner Says:

    Are people really trying to argue those were historically significant buildings? I completely disagree! “Old” does not equal “historically significant.” Those were crappy buildings when they were built and they were crappy when they were torn down. Save your energy for something with some actual aesthetic or historic value. In exchange for a couple old, ugly, decaying commercial buildings we get a couple functioning apartment buildings with a classic design and high density. I can’t speak to the quality of the building materials, but neither can any of you unless you have some special insight.

    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??

  7. teresa mcgrath Says:

    it’s a waste to raze a building…rehab it….you must have ties to the development….if it were a vacant lot, i wouldn’t have any criticism of the planned erection

  8. Greg Moulliet Says:

    I would like to address a very common misconception, namely that the proposed Buckman Historic District would prevent the demolition of these old buildings. Quite simply, it won’t.

    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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: