Any thoughts from North and Northeast PDX residents regarding Trader Joe's? (Portland: apartments, foreclosures)

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by oldtintype

Trader Joe's isn't really a suburban style grocery store. The NW location barely stands out at all and just as many people walk and bike there as drive (hence the tiny parking lot). I think they would have been a good neighbor. There is TONS of new housing going up in the area the Trader Joe's was going to go in. And there are tons of small stores but no anchor. The way that area is developing there will be too much housing and not enough amenities. I understand why Trader Joe's pulled out, but the neighborhood won't get anything better.

Trader Joe's themselves is a fine grocery store and can work in urban and suburban settings very well, the problem isn't with Trader Joe's, it is with the development company. They were basically a national company that tends to build nothing but office park and suburban developments where ever they go, and this development was planned to be a single story, single use grocery store with a large parking lot.

I would rather see a 6 story development providing a mixed income of housing, with retail surrounding the building and a grocery store within the building. That would have been a better fit and would have been a great development for being the location of a potential future streetcar stop.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Minervah

I didn't know about the New Season's being so near because I not all that familiar with the area. I was just trying to think of an example of a more upscale store.

I certainly agree, Trader Joe's is a good store and not an expensive one. I can walk out of their store with two full bags of groceries having paid the same amount I pay for one at my Safeway for similar items. The short interview I saw on the news with one of the people who campaigned for the TJ's not to go in refereed to the TJ's as bringing in greater gentrification to the neighborhood causing rent increases and housing costs. I don't agree with him that TJ's is the type of store that would do that.

I think that is a false assessment on that person's part, I definitely don't think Trader Joe's would have done anything to the gentrification that hasn't already happened on Alberta, Mississippi, and Williams. The site is basically already seen new development from all around it and it was just a matter of time that this site was redeveloped as well.

While I disagree with those that think that this would have cause gentrification, I am happy to have them be the loud voice to shoot down a project that wasn't right for that location. Personally I have no problem with Trader Joe's being involved in a future development on this site if it is done as a mixed use development.

[Minervah]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

27th and Hawthorne? Which apartment building is that? I only know of the Safeway that was recently built there.

This site where the Trader Joes is a site that should be a mixed use building rather than a suburban style grocery store.

It's being constructed on the northeast corner of 27th and Hawthorne. The two 102 year old houses that had been converted to offices are gone. One was saved at the last second by the neighborhood when some people bought it and moved it around the corner, the other was destroyed. The little grassy area with the bushes and trees have been demolished. The buyer promised the seller he would keep the property as is. He blatantly lied.

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

That is a good thing because it means you aren't the only person on the sidewalk because the commercial street is active and growing.

Even in the larger cities they leave some space between the larger apartment buildings and the sidewalks in many neighborhoods, and at least have a parkway or grassy space between the curb and the sidewalk. The only ones that don't are the old tenement neighborhoods. Building the ugly building right up to the sidewalk makes it even more ugly.

That building on 27th and Hawthorne is built on lies and deceit. From the very beginning it's history was tainted. It's shameful. I think it's very interesting that they have had nothing but one problem after another building it with delay after delay after delay. They even changed the name of the building probably because it became associated with such a bad reputation. And it's still not ready. I hope the owner loses his shirt. There is a special place in Hell for what he did to acquire the property.

I am not a superstitious person, but I think that building is jinxed because of the way it came or I should say is coming into being. I wouldn't live there for free, let alone pay $1300 for a 350 sq ft studio apartment in it.

Go Google it if you want to read it's history. It was on the news and in the papers all throughout the controversy last year.

[turquoise1]

That's not what I meant, urbanlife. Have you tried to walk between SE 39th and 26th on division lately? It is all torn up and a hazard for pedestrians.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Minervah

It's being constructed on the northeast corner of 27th and Hawthorne. The two 102 year old houses that had been converted to offices are gone. One was saved at the last second by the neighborhood when some people bought it and moved it around the corner, the other was destroyed. The little grassy area with the bushes and trees have been demolished. The buyer promised the seller he would keep the property as is. He blatantly lied.

I just found the development you are talking about, the rendering doesn't look bad, it looks average and a good infill for an area that could use more density. It is always sad to see homes be torn down, but that location was underused and it makes sense that whoever that bought it would want to do something more than what was on it. It is good to hear one of the homes were saved; I always support that when that can happen. As for the seller, it doesn't matter what the seller did and didn't say, the seller is selling the building, it is the buyer you have to listen to when it comes to the future of the house. For all you know, the seller could have been telling the truth, and the buyer in turn had no interest honoring that truth.

Even in the larger cities they leave some space between the larger apartment buildings and the sidewalks in many neighborhoods, and at least have a parkway or grassy space between the curb and the sidewalk. The only ones that don't are the old tenement neighborhoods. Building the ugly building right up to the sidewalk makes it even more ugly.

That building on 27th and Hawthorne is built on lies and deceit. From the very beginning it's history was tainted. It's shameful. I think it's very interesting that they have had nothing but one problem after another building it with delay after delay after delay. They even changed the name of the building probably because it became associated with such a bad reputation. And it's still not ready. I hope the owner loses his shirt. There is a special place in Hell for what he did to acquire the property.

I am not a superstitious person, but I think that building is jinxed because of the way it came or I should say is coming into being. I wouldn't live there for free, let alone pay $1300 for a 350 sq ft studio apartment in it.

Go Google it if you want to read it's history. It was on the news and in the papers all throughout the controversy last year.

Division is a commercial street, the new development you are seeing is called commercial developments that are treating the street accordingly. What you are wishing for is what you would see on a residential street. Chicago is a great example of this, its residential streets all have trees and grass separating the buildings from the sidewalk and the sidewalk from the road, while their commercial streets are all sidewalk from building to curb.

You saying the building on Hawthorne and 27th is ugly is just personal opinion, I disagree, I think it looks average and average and is a good infill building. If you want buildings that are set back from the street, that is what the suburbs are for.

Actually it seems the building on Hawthorne and 27th was built on your assumptions of what was and wasn't going to happen, not reality. Also a developer doesn't care if you think a building was built on deceit and lies because at some point that building was put up to the design review commission and neighborhood commission and was approved for construction, so enough people were fine with it.

My guess is they have only been working on the actual building for about a year, that falls within an acceptable timeline with construction and for all we know there might have been a delay with loans or a delay with materials. These technical problems can happen.

You can hope all you want about the developer, I personally hope he makes enough of a profit to want to invest more in the city which is good for the city because the developer turned a very underused lot into something more fitting for that area.

It sounds like you have a hard time adapting to change, yet you live in a young city that is rapidly growing. Portland isn't going to stay the same forever just because you like the way things use to be.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by turquoise1

That's not what I meant, urbanlife. Have you tried to walk between SE 39th and 26th on division lately? It is all torn up and a hazard for pedestrians.

Not lately, I haven't been in Portland since August and even then I was too busy with a wedding to really get out and explore, but I plan on seeing all the new development at the end of the summer when my wife and I move back.

Is there construction going on? Is this bad sidewalks? Is it street repair? Or is it something else that you are referring to?

[yellow925]

Originally Posted by pdwpdx

I lived in North Portland until very recently, am in the SE now. What I don't understand is why does every part and parcel of land have to be "developed" (a dubious term at best)? Why not turn it into a park or urban garden? Same for the Belmont goats. It's nice to have some urban green spaces, even if they're just empty lots!

I was thinking this exact thought... I don't get why they are throwing so much money at N,NE when the east needs HELP!!! I think TJ's would've been an asset however is it needed over here? No.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by yellow925

I was thinking this exact thought... I don't get why they are throwing so much money at N,NE when the east needs HELP!!! I think TJ's would've been an asset however is it needed over here? No.

I agree, it is a lot that PDC should be using to get a market rate value from in order to help add funding to do other projects. The area is already a hotspot and eventually a developer is going to come along willing to pay the price for this site.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by Deezus

Part of the controversy was that PDC was selling the land to Majestic Realty (for Trader Joe's) for $500,000 when the land was appraised at $2.9 million. The developer supposedly hosted an even at the El Gaucho steakhouse downtown that was attended by PDC officials prior to the deal being signed.

This needs to be said again. It's getting really bad with these back room deals, where developers are being given huge amounts of money (property/tax breaks) to move in to already highly desirable areas.

Yes, it worked for the Pearl District, but does anyone really thing we need to do that anymore? Especially since there are plenty of areas where it hasn't worked. (Lents)

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by hamellr

This needs to be said again. It's getting really bad with these back room deals, where developers are being given huge amounts of money (property/tax breaks) to move in to already highly desirable areas.

Yes, it worked for the Pearl District, but does anyone really thing we need to do that anymore? Especially since there are plenty of areas where it hasn't worked. (Lents)

Discounts on property and tax breaks makes sense where it is needed. Projects in St Johns and Lents make sense to offer some sort of incentive.

Lents has a long way to go before it is anything really desirable, but it has come a long way from where it use to be like. I think we will see Lents come into itself in the future, but it will be at a much slower process than people like.