When neighbors of the green space located between N Shaver Street and N Mason Street, at 4008 Mississippi Avenue, recently noticed a “Private Property, No Trespassing” sign and caution tape at the entrance, they became worried that they might soon lose the space they have used as an “unintentional” park for many years due to a proposed development by Chris Rogers of Phase Two Development.
Located next to the green space is the Mississippi House, which is a part of Portland Collective Housing, a nonprofit that provides low income, sustainable housing. The residents of this community are working to stop the proposed development.
The developer, Rogers, proposes to build 35 apartments on top of 3,500 square feet of retail space. The space was brought to his attention by a real estate broker who was in contact with the listing agent.
“Initially, I met with the neighborhood to discuss the project and find out if there were any concerns they may have. Neighbors brought up issues about parking, street dedications, and setbacks on the alley side of the building. I have incorporated all of those concerns into my design,” Rogers says.
According to Jonathan Irwin, the Kurisu family (known for Kurisu International, a landscaping design-build firm) owns the green space adjacent to the Mississippi House that he has lived in for three years, as well as the property at 3987 N Mississippi Ave. Kurisu International was unavailable for comment.
“The park has a very public history, although it is privately owned, and it’s been owned the last few years,” says Irwin. “Before the Kurisu family owned it, the Native American Youth Association owned it, and they had a climbing structure there. It was a very public space.”
In an effort to keep the space development-free, the residents of the Mississippi House are exploring the possibility of purchasing the land from the Kurisus as well as sponsorship through a Portland Community Gardens Initiative program, 1,000 Gardens, which has planned to build 1,000 garden plots by 2012. As a result of commercial zoning laws in Portland, it has been difficult for the residents to fight the development from a zoning standpoint.
The green space is privately owned, though. “They have branded the site as a park and feel that it is not the right of the seller to sell the property in the open market,” Rogers says. “In reality, it’s merely a crusade against capitalism. The fact is that Mississippi has already undergone a significant change. This is by no means the first project of its kind in the area.”
Rogers isn’t the first to attempt development in this space. “The current owners had slated a condo development on the site and pushed their plans all the way through the design review process,” he says. “They spent a lot of time and money getting to that point but due to market conditions the project was scrapped a few years ago.”
Aside from losing green space next to their home, Irwin says the project will “plunge a high-density, low-income house into darkness.” The building project would remove the capacity for the house to use solar panels and hinder residents from growing food in their own yard.
Rogers feels differently. “Urban development of this nature helps up preserve the green space we have surrounding our city,” he says. “In addition, it promotes the use of mass transit and bike transportation as well as pedestrian traffic. These are all tenets of the city and the regional government’s plans to reduce carbon footprints and keep Portland green.”
Rogers is still in negotiation for the sale of the land, and the residents of the Mississippi House are still informally using the space.
So what if the neighborhood has already been going down this path Mr. Rogers? Your argument here is like saying that people shouldn't try to stop deforestation because so many trees have already been cut down. Yes, you're right, this project would be only the latest chunk of gentrification. It still matters whether it gets built. Talking about the property owner's 'right' here is also very one-sided. What about the property-less people who live in this neighborhood? Why don't they have a 'right' not to be economically displaced? This proposed project just deprives them of the only public green space on the street while contributing to ever increasing housing prices. If you want bars, boutiques, restaurants, a 'market rate' apartment or a condo this street has you covered already. The Mississippi neighborhood doesn't need Rogers' building -- Rogers just wants to make money while deluding himself that he's being an environmentalist. I can understand why someone who makes money from high-priced, 'dense' developments would believe that these developments are great for the environment. I can agree that it's definitely better than building mcmansions (like Chris Rogers' house). But this idea is incomplete on its own. Wouldn't it be even better for everyone (except Chris & the Kurisu's) if people who could afford to moved into the almost empty LEED certified towers dotting the south waterfront? Oh, i forgot, because when rich people want to make money or build something anywhere or at any time it's their right! Poor people have been living densely in this neighborhood long before people built expensive LEED certified buildings. Can we please count the added impact (travelling further for everything) when we get displaced to far eastside Portland and the suburbs? While we're at it let's take into account that there are brownfield sites in the neighborhood where a new project wouldn't be killing a bunch of mature trees and locking up a lot of healthy soil.
I'm all for green spaces however, its privately owned lot in an urban setting regardless of whether it has a history or not. The homes the neighbors live in were once empty spaces too. We need more affordable housing in this city and there are still designated public parks in the area to walk to. People are very lucky they have been allowed to trespass on this private property. Now these people complain as if they have rights to this property. Ungrateful, inconsiderate and selfish. Sounds vaguely like those who plead "squatter rights". Let the land owners do what they want with it...it's their land. As a next door neighbor who doesn't want a building going up next door....well, that's the chance you take when you buy a home next to a privately owned lot.
The writer perhaps inadvertently revealed a bias by the initial characterization as "a green space". Yes, it's green, but it's really a vacant lot, that is, a privately owned lot, zoned for building, not parkland. Many vacant lots are green.
The other rather curious statement by the writer is :"As a result of commercial zoning laws in Portland, it has been difficult for the residents to fight the development from a zoning standpoint." Isn't that like every other city in the country that has zoning? It's zoned commercial, so the owner is allowed to build a commercial building on it. How are "Portland's commercial zoning laws" something notable? Anywhere that has zoning would make it hard for people to oppose something that complies with the zoning! It sounds like the writer is trying to imply that Portland zoning laws are somehow harsher. Perhaps that's not the case, but it comes across that way.
Doug,
Thanks for your comment.
This plot of land is referred to as a green space because it has been used for recreational enjoyment like most green spaces, even though “intentional” and privately owned.
The statement about zoning was meant to convey that as a result of the space being zoned for commercial, they cannot fight it from a zoning standpoint. It is an obvious statement, assuming readers know about zoning. The reiteration of “Portland” isn’t meant as a comparison to other cities or state zoning laws.
-Karen
Once again, capital seizes common space in the name of property rights & profit. Where's the peoples rights in this? Maybe another People Park struggle is in order? Mississippi Ave. has become the play ground of the upper middle class, the rich & the young. Who gives a damn about the displaced communities of color & working class folks?
Bob Davis
PS: To Karen Locke, FYI; I'm from Cedar Rapids also.
Native American Youth Authority did not own it, they rented from the owner prior to the Kuriso's. Also , this is neither a park or a green space it is an empty lot. I think it very sad that this collective didn't act much earlier(it's not like everybody in the hood didn't know this would happen eventually) and work toward turning it into a real park . There are plenty of examples of this , one being Two Plum Park on ne 7th. Now, these collective members are acting like immature, spoiled children ... (lead trouble maker hails from Lake Oswego) perpetuating misinformation and loosing any respect they might have once held in the hood.
I've been informed by a former collective member, that years ago this collective discussed selling the house and buying something that could house more people, which is really what their stated mission/goal is. Afterall, as they've discussed in the past, this house , though in bad condition, would command a high price which could be than turned around to further their stated goals.
and a couple more things. It just really gets to me when these collective members use triggers, often fictitiously, to illicit the readers sympathy. Like, 'Native Americans' once owning the green space and turning it into 'children's park" and development would "“plunge a high-density, low-income house into darkness.” The building project would remove the capacity for the house to use solar panels and hinder residents from growing food in their own yard.". This coming from white males who , I am willing to bet all come from upper class backgrounds. Why hasn't, after all these many, many years , this collective put up solar panels? And garden? what garden? I happen to know that most summers there is no food garden at this house. shameful.
With special regards to Kay and lupin, the neighbors of this plot are not the only people opposed to this development. And, with the risk of sounding like a name caller, you sound a little to angry and arrogant, as though you either have something personal against these specific neighbors or you have some sort of interest/investment in the property - possibility both.
At any rate, I think that development of this sort is totally without of regard of the long term inhabitants of this neighborhood. Sure I've only lived in this neighborhood for 6 years and am white, but I do come from a lower-middle class family from the rust belt. Do you think the folks at Proud Ground would support this? Doubt it.
I work on Mississippi, a block away from the proposed site, and am happy to be employed by small business owners that work as hard as possible to include long time neighbors into every business idea they have - not to mention their everyday social lives.
Change is inevitable, development is inevitable, but really? Like this? This development, while not as large as others that have been built recently, will nevertheless negate the particular, small town Main Street character that has attracted so many visitors to Mississippi. It will destroy that uniqueness, no way around it.
Its a real shame that this sort of development rides on the backs of those who've lived a long time in the area. Mississippi folks fought hard to make it cleaner and safer, only to see it backfire when rich upper class folks see the place cleaned up and swoop in to take advantage of an area they used to drive around or lock their car doors when they had to drive through.
I'd like to see this Rogers guy buy property on Killingsworth and 15th that has recently been rezoned and try out his condos there. Or will he wait 5-10 years while the neighbors there struggle to clean the place of gang violence before he feels comfortable showing up and jacking property taxes with his "starting at $895" a month studios.
There is nothing green about putting concrete over viable land and community space. You can only make it as green as possible, and frankly he'd receive a lot more opposition in a city like Portland and a lot less interest unless he painted it with green speak and spent a lot more money making it as publicly green as possible.
Gosh, I'm fixing my "to" to "too" in line five. That kind of typo drives my crazy!
And while I didn't quite achieve it, objectivity is the most important thing to keep in mind. I don't think there is a whole lot of it right now.
Does this neighborhood NEED (capitalized due to inability to italicize) this development? Is it currently lacking without it?
You said it Caitlin. I also work a block away from the site and have lived in north Portland for five years. I think we should all go ask Jo Anne what she thinks about it and do what she says. It seems like people are a lot less neighborly when they are behind a computer monitor.