Wave of evictions leaves renters few options in record-setting apartment market (Portland: middle-class, 2014)

[VelouriaPDX]

More than the UGB, Portland's issue is that it is not a densely built city. It just isn't. Not relative to other popular cities. That will change slowly over time, but even with new development squeezed in here and there, Portland will never have block after block, mile after mile of the 3 bedroom, 1.5 bath town homes that other cities have. That's part of Portland's charm, but will also keep prices high for the foreseeable future.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Exactly.

The UGB is nothing more than a boogeyman when it comes to prices in close in neighborhoods. It's simple economics. Lots of people want to live close in, thus prices climb.

Sticking up a new housing development in Forest Grove or wherever it is people don't want to live doesn't do jack to the price of a condo in the Pearl because the people who want to live close in simply do not want to live far out. It's not even looked at as an option.

You keep prices in close in neighborhoods in check by building more high density housing close in.

Lots of people want to live close in?really then why is Portland no more populated then it was 40 yrs ago?

back in the 70s Portland had a population of 387,000 but only had a land area of 67 sq miles--compare that to todays population of 619,000 but 140 sq miles--you guys need to do some research--we arent growing by that many people its all about the family breaking into pieces and the need for housing units. and BTW the metro is far outpacing the city in actual numbers--prove me wrong--I dare you--Portland HAS GROWN by area expansion

[VTHokieFan]

Originally Posted by thedownlow

I hope you're joking.

You should hope that because you'd be proven wrong if it wasn't. Go ahead and look up the cost of living in Salem versus Charlotte, NC.

[CanuckInPortland]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

Lots of people want to live close in?really then why is Portland no more populated then it was 40 yrs ago?

back in the 70s Portland had a population of 387,000 but only had a land area of 67 sq miles--compare that to todays population of 619,000 but 140 sq miles--you guys need to do some research--we arent growing by that many people its all about the family breaking into pieces and the need for housing units. and BTW the metro is far outpacing the city in actual numbers--prove me wrong--I dare you--Portland HAS GROWN by area expansion

It's grown by annexation and infill. There wasn't much additional annexation in Portland after 2000, but it's grown by 90,000 people since then.

But the idea that Portland really hasn't grown by that many people sort goes against the usually promoted idea that Portland is more crowded than ever and that "too many people move here".

The actual growth rate of Portland itself might get exaggerated(it's not much higher than other cities in the west and much much lower than many Sunbelt suburbs). Though there is very high demand to live in the limited amount of older close-in neighborhoods that fit the image of what a lot of people want to live in(old Craftsman homes, steet car suburb commercial districts)--with amenities like...sidewalks.

[SyraBrian]

Originally Posted by VTHokieFan

You should hope that because you'd be proven wrong if it wasn't. Go ahead and look up the cost of living in Salem versus Charlotte, NC.

West coast housing, even without urban growth boundaries, is considerably more expensive than southern housing.

The Metro planners have an interesting map that shows that 92% of new housing starts are taking part in Portland metro's original 1979 growth boundary. Only 8% of the housing starts are taking place between the 1979 restrictions and the current restrictions.

[jjpop]

I think it's really overstating it to say that the UGB has NO effect on housing prices. When you look at the UGB line on a map, there's a very large tract of land just south of Lake Oswego outside of the UGB that is enticingly close to downtown Portland. If that land was opened up for development it would certainly have an effect on housing prices.

Too far out of town, you may say? It's about the same distance as Gresham is to downtown, or Happy Valley, and there is plenty of development in those areas. Infrastructure would need to be improved though, since it's all country roads (except for I-205).

For the record, I'm a proponent of the UGB because of the farmland protection aspect. I think as we move forward in time Portlanders will benefit from having agricultural land very close to the city.

[Koale]

Noticing that even though LL's are now only raising rents as 'allowed' under the new 90 day law...in order to compensate themselves they are raising pet rents...a lot. Go figure...
Koale

[SyraBrian]

Originally Posted by jjpop

I think it's really overstating it to say that the UGB has NO effect on housing prices. When you look at the UGB line on a map, there's a very large tract of land just south of Lake Oswego outside of the UGB that is enticingly close to downtown Portland. If that land was opened up for development it would certainly have an effect on housing prices.

Too far out of town, you may say? It's about the same distance as Gresham is to downtown, or Happy Valley, and there is plenty of development in those areas. Infrastructure would need to be improved though, since it's all country roads (except for I-205).

For the record, I'm a proponent of the UGB because of the farmland protection aspect. I think as we move forward in time Portlanders will benefit from having agricultural land very close to the city.

Looking at the satellite map of the area, I would make a case for the section above Rosemont Road. Most of the area below looks a little too forested to build in and make a solid profit.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by jjpop

I think it's really overstating it to say that the UGB has NO effect on housing prices. When you look at the UGB line on a map, there's a very large tract of land just south of Lake Oswego outside of the UGB that is enticingly close to downtown Portland. If that land was opened up for development it would certainly have an effect on housing prices.

Too far out of town, you may say? It's about the same distance as Gresham is to downtown, or Happy Valley, and there is plenty of development in those areas. Infrastructure would need to be improved though, since it's all country roads (except for I-205).

For the record, I'm a proponent of the UGB because of the farmland protection aspect. I think as we move forward in time Portlanders will benefit from having agricultural land very close to the city.

If the area you are talking about were to be developed, it would probably be filled with homes starting at $300K.

If people are wanting to live in the Buckman neighborhood, they are not gonna care about the price of house on the outskirts of the UGB.

[CanuckInPortland]

Originally Posted by jjpop

I think it's really overstating it to say that the UGB has NO effect on housing prices. When you look at the UGB line on a map, there's a very large tract of land just south of Lake Oswego outside of the UGB that is enticingly close to downtown Portland. If that land was opened up for development it would certainly have an effect on housing prices.

Too far out of town, you may say? It's about the same distance as Gresham is to downtown, or Happy Valley, and there is plenty of development in those areas. Infrastructure would need to be improved though, since it's all country roads (except for I-205).

For the record, I'm a proponent of the UGB because of the farmland protection aspect. I think as we move forward in time Portlanders will benefit from having agricultural land very close to the city.

I think the UGB has a much greater impact on prices or homes in suburbs out towards the boundary of the UGB than closer in, though it does affect inner Portland housing to some degree as well.

Housing prices are way up in Beaverton and Hillsboro these days as well--my wife and I considered buying a home in the suburbs, but the neighborhoods and homes we liked weren't really that much of a bargain compared to just buying in Portland on the edge of the inner neighborhoods(we ended up just past NE 60th which is pretty close in)--and since we work in Portland we preserved our easier commute. But since Washington County adds homes at a slower pace--many areas are fairly desirable locations for both work and living--it's going to be at a premium to live in many neighborhooods out there as well. Portland Metro with the UGB doesn't have the situation of other metros like in the SunBelt where there was a huge glut of new construction before the housing bust--that was more than needed after the recession hit--but then you in the aftermath you had a ton of cheaper new homes in exurbs. I think it also drives up prices more in the closer-in suburbs that in other metros might end up cheaper.

All the same though, a lot of places are seeing big jumps in prices over the last few years--even places that built out a lot more before the housing bust. I have co-workers in Denver and Houston(places that expanded much more than Portland) and they are seeing big increases in prices closer-in recently as well.