Maria Baker got a call from a nervous neighbor one Friday morning: The house two doors down was about to be demolished. Did she know?
The Eastmoreland resident did not. She screamed and ran outside.
“I marched over there and I stood between the tractor and the house,” she said.
Baker couldn’t stop the demolition, and now two new homes are being built on the property.
Cases such as Baker’s lie at the heart of a fight arising in some of Portland’s most established close-in neighborhoods.
The number of single-family home demolitions has skyrocketed since the end of the recession. City regulators have approved more than 230 demolitions so far this year, up 40 percent from all of 2011.
Now neighbors are pushing back, arguing they deserve ample advance warning when a house is about to come down.
“The whole permitting process is set up for developers,” Baker said. “There is no protection for us.”
Builders say home buyers are eager to live close-in, but want newer, larger houses. They’re ready to build, and they’re ready to do it quickly.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sound familiar? What neighborhood hasn't experienced the phenomena of the monster house built in a neighborhood of modest homes? Couldn't the new one be a little less obtrusive? Whatever happened to the less is more, downsizing, living-small trend? Maybe it isn't a trend after all, just a response to the expense of buying and owning a home. People want big homes, and it looks like there is no neighborhood where the bigger newer homes aren't being built.
Question: When the new neighbors move in, will they like the neighborhood they chose to live in now that it has changed? Or did they want to change it to something "better?"
Having built a house at a tear down site in the last few years I believe that Lake Oswego is somewhat protected from this Portland "disease". Our building codes are quite detailed to prevent just such a thing from happening. Two houses were built on the lot and there have been no complaints from neighbors who like the size and style of the houses.
ReplyDeleteIn the Oregonian article it appears the neighbors were asleep at the switch. Didn't they see the house was vacant? Was there a for sale sign on the property?
There are some neighborhoods of older, small homes that are (were) cute and quaint but look dwarfed and a shabby after the big, shiny new home appears. It's the same with gentrification everywhere - once it happens on a block, the value of the remaining homes goes down because they become just lots and not a home anymore. That's progress - or maybe just inevitable.
DeleteOh, my. Gerald, one senses from your comments that perhaps your time as a Lake Oswegan has been somewhat limited.
DeleteLake Oswego has indeed seen it's share of tear-downs over the last decades-long before the "disease" appeared in Portland.
In response, neighborhood activists sought, struggled and ultimately secured today's Infill Standards. These standards though not providing the same level of safeguards found in communities such as Palo Alto and Santa Rosa do limit harm to adjoining neighbors and help to secure some form of neighborhood compatibility.
Also, Lake Oswego tear-downs have included the demolition of architecturally significant properties, including houses designed by Charles Ertz, James Van Evera Bailey, Roscoe Hemenway and Morris Whitehouse; as well as, market-place "starter homes". Overall, significant losses indeed.
In reviewing the Oregonian article, it appears there had been excellent notification standards in Portland, ones wholly superior to Lake Oswego...The challenge arose when builders/developers began using an exemption to the standard. Indeed, beware of exceptions or exemptions.
Additionally, looks like the effected neighborhoods-such as the beautiful Eastmoreland neighborhood-are responding with the proposed new Code language. One wishes them well in safeguarding their most lovely neighborhoods.