r/Eugene • u/Adventurous-Cost-491 • 23d ago
Old LCC downtown campus on Willamette Street on track to be demolished; to be replaced by apartment complex. News
The former Montgomery Ward building and LCC downtown campus will be demolished in early 2025 to make way for new mixed-income housing.
It will have a total of 133 apartments with a little more than half being rent-controlled studios. Rent controlled studios start at $1,128 while market-priced studios start at $1,500 a month. There are other types of units with higher rent.
Is this good news? Bad news? What's the general consensus?
83
u/eug_fan 23d ago
Oh good, another building that looks like a prison. You’d think in a town with its own school of architecture we’d be able to get some better-looking apartment buildings but they all look the same. Glad that some of it will be lower-priced units.
39
u/snappyhome 23d ago
I'm also not a fan of contemporary trends in architecture. They feel sterile and overly geometrical - everything looks like a take on a Borg ship.
However, a lot of the classic styling of older buildings is not practical on buildings made with more modern techniques and materials. When designers try to recreate more classic looking styles it often comes off as forced and contrived.
I'm interested in how architects and designers might approach the challenge of designing an aesthetic that feels humanistic and connected to tradition while incorporating the material and energy efficiency of modern building techniques.
24
u/Moarbrains 23d ago
They could spare a couple gargoyles without compromising their building integrity.
15
u/Visible-Extension685 23d ago
I think all the gargoyles are apparently working in the city government.
16
u/AfterglowLoves 23d ago
I’ve seen new builds in Portland that are getting it right. Still modern looking but not prison vibes, and they fit into their neighborhoods so much better. More natural texture features with wood and brick.
I really don’t understand why we keep approving these hideous designs that will be there for decades, they make our city look so awful. I’m all for housing but for the love of god why does it have to be the ugliest building you’ve ever seen, every time??
4
14
u/OregonEnjoyer 23d ago
look up slab town in portland, still 5 over 1 and very similar to the kinds of things eugene has been building lately but the difference in design is massive. All they change is the facade of the building to A, a faux stone look and B, breaks up the buildings into smaller (and different) facades that add a very “old town” feel to a brand new neighborhood
edit: forgot to mention more/bigger windows! And outside of slab town they have a ton that incorporate greenery really well that both add beauty and uniqueness, but also provide real climate benefits too
1
u/BearUmpire 23d ago
This building has two different facades.
1
u/OregonEnjoyer 23d ago
i actually don’t mind this one, partially because of that fact
1
u/BearUmpire 23d ago
I'm on the mupte board, and I let the architects argue about the facades while I scrutinize the capital stack
2
9
u/DontSayNoToPills 23d ago
Remove the cheap wooden accent panels and it’s all brutalist architecture
6
u/eug_fan 23d ago
Not against modern buildings, just ones that look generic. This looks practically identical to the design and materials of the new buildings along Franklin and that fugly new one next to the bookstore on 13th, just different colors. Would be cool if we could get some differentiated design happening that will look cool 30 years from now.
14
u/los_patitos 23d ago
What are your thoughts on the architecture of the building it’s replacing?Montgomery Ward building
3
2
u/userid1973 23d ago
It’s better than the prisons design for Churchill and South high schools: no class room windows
63
u/los_patitos 23d ago
More housing is always good.
-28
u/Away_Intention_8433 23d ago
Exactly! Who cares how much it costs to rent an apartment!? 1500,2000,4000 a month for a studio. It’s standard for these apartments to charge upwards of 6000/month for a 3/4 bedroom. Fuck it :) As long as there’s more shitty apartments!
22
u/Captain_Quark 23d ago
New, nicer apartments reduces demand for older apartments, which makes the old ones more affordable.
-2
u/vaguelyblack 23d ago edited 23d ago
True, but only if the population remains the same. The population of Eugene is growing, so false.
Edit: Wow people clearly don't understand how supply and demand works.
3
u/Captain_Quark 23d ago
Demand for older apartments is still made lower than it otherwise would be. It might not actually go down, but I'd still call that "reducing demand."
1
u/vaguelyblack 23d ago
Again you would have to have a stable population for that to work, we don't, the demand won't be reduced if the population increases above the amount of new housing available.
1
u/Captain_Quark 22d ago
You'll have to explain that to me. In my mind, assuming the same rate of population growth, more housing being available reduces the competition for existing housing.
2
u/vaguelyblack 22d ago
Eugene currently has way more people than apartments available, even excluding homeless people. We grow by about 1800 people per year from various different income levels. Even if we add 300 bedrooms per year, we'll still be at deficit. Also not everyone that moves here can afford $1100-1500/month rents, so they will be forced to compete with others that already live here for older existing housing. On top of that if all the new units become occupied, all those people aren't just going to become homeless, they will just also compete for lower tiered existing housing. There's a lot more to it than just this, like Eugene has a large disabled community that can't afford higher rents and thus they are also competing, and ect, but I won't get too far into that.
Adding new housing helps, yes, but only adding small amounts and/or only adding units with higher rental prices combined with a constantly increasing population won't change or lessen the current demand. We would need to add thousands of new (and old) units before we see that demand go down. I get a lot of hate for this, but I personally believe that we should ban Airbnbs, there are currently 2150 (probably about 600-800 are actual units) in the Eugene/Springfield area, there are a even a few ex-apartment buildings where all the apartments have been converted into Airbnbs. There's a lot more nuance to it and I'm just scratching the surface, I could go on for hours, but the simple fact is that we need considerably more housing available for all income levels before we would see less demand for existing housing.
1
u/Captain_Quark 22d ago
I think we just have different definitions of what "less demand" means. You seem to be defining it as "less demand than exists currently", whereas I mean it to be "less demand than there would be otherwise." Let's say that 1000 people move to Eugene in one year. Compare if 500 new bedrooms are built, versus if 900 new bedrooms are built. Do you agree that with 900 bedrooms, there'd be less upward pressure on prices than with 500? Of course there's upward pressure in both cases, but they are different in magnitude.
Oh, and regarding Airbnbs, we also need more hotel capacity. Doing what NYC did and banning Airbnbs without increasing hotel capacity just kneecaps the tourism industry.
1
u/vaguelyblack 22d ago
Yes and no, it doesn't change the inelastic demand as that is 100% either way. If we use price elasticity of demand, if it were 150% or 111% having a lower percentage over 100% wouldn't translate to lower rent, it might translate to them being able to charge less on the high end which would be the elastic demand but it wouldn't change the lower end, for instance if there is a 150% demand the higher end of what they can charge for a studio might be $2500 while with 111% demand it might be $2100, the lower end would still be $1500 because the demand is still over 100%, it's the inelastic zone. It gets really nuanced but basically the bottom end (the inelastic zone) will continue to go up because most people don't want to become homeless so they will just pay more to live.
As far as Airbnb's and hotel capacity, we actually have the capacity to keep up with basic tourism with existing hotels. There's only a couple weeks a year that it goes over, having less apartments available just because the U of O holds large events a couple times a year is absolutely bonkers. Though if they wanted to I think it would be acceptable for apartments near the U of O to offer shorter leases so during the summer months when students are away, we can have those apartments on the market for events like the Olympic Trials.
2
u/fzzball 23d ago
$1500/mo is consistent with new studio prices downtown for the past 20 years.
0
u/Need_sun5474 23d ago edited 23d ago
I don’t think that is possible. Average price twenty years was about $500 too $600.
-15
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 23d ago
Thank you for speaking up on this. Wild how many people are forcibly ignorant of basic economics and want to view themselves as highly educated, for spewing biased incorrect viewpoints that only serve private corporate developers.
12
6
u/Budtending101 23d ago
More supply is always good. Duh. Even expensive ones. People that can afford it will move in and other less expensive housing will be available. 133 apts and half will be 1100$ for living downtown? Seems pretty decent for the market.
43
31
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 23d ago
Luxury student housing is already at a surplus. Calling it mixed rent is just a misleading tax grift. The land should have been kept for educational purposes.
59
u/los_patitos 23d ago
More lame ass apartments downtown means less price pressure on the neighborhoods where most of us live. Not to mention that a livable downtown core improves safety and makes it a nicer place for all of us to live and work.
5
u/Away_Intention_8433 23d ago
You’re right, people love to pay for over priced apartments! It’s totally working right now considering how many houses are available.
1
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 23d ago
Common misperception based on wildly oversimplified logic. All these big business apartment buildings have massive vacancies, it's why they often offer free first month/half month etc to try and get customers. Taking what was public space and turning it into overpriced apartments doesn't increase livability. 3rd spaces are being eradicated systemically by corrupt developers.
39
u/los_patitos 23d ago
Third spaces like the blighted old Montgomery ward building? Have you seen how many people sleep outside?
14
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 23d ago
Hardly an improvement to have homeless people huddled in the alcoves of luxury student housing for shelter and sleep. Should be criminal for the city to sell off government property for private development, we can't get that land back once it's gone. Negligence from the city doesn't justify basically giving away prime real estate in one of the country's most sought after markets, this is a travesty.
31
u/los_patitos 23d ago
Downtown Eugene is one of the country’s most sought after markets?
I’d love to live in a world with more deliberate public planning.
The one I live in needs housing.
17
u/Stinky_Butt_Haver 23d ago
The key to ending homelessness in Eugene is obviously…building less housing?
7
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 23d ago
Large apartments used for privately ran corporate housing should use land acquired from already privately owned sources. Siphoning away public land for peivate housing is an irreversible mistake that doesn't serve those who need affordable housing, and steals public spaces from these same people who can't afford private spaces.
8
u/Stinky_Butt_Haver 23d ago
The government can literally take any land it wants for public use through eminent domain. How is it irreversible? What is the thought process there?
8
u/OregonEnjoyer 23d ago
i implore you to take ten seconds and google “does building more housing reduce prices” and then read any of the first ten articles/studies that come up
-8
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 23d ago
It's like trying to educate a 4 year old in the middle of a tantrum with you people.
4
u/Budtending101 23d ago
1
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 21d ago
Can you tl/dr this?
0
u/Budtending101 21d ago
Supply goes up, prices go down.
1
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 21d ago
Ah okay, smoothbrain 2d logic applied to a 4d issue. Disappointing.
0
u/Budtending101 21d ago
Says the guy who won’t read a study proving it. This is basic economics dude
→ More replies5
u/OregonEnjoyer 23d ago
buddy link me to any source that says building more housing has no effects/increases the price
3
u/BearUmpire 23d ago
Please share your vacancy statistics source. The most available data for oregon is showing 3 to 5% vacancies.
3
u/BearUmpire 23d ago
This is a really poor take. If you want to learn something, happy to get some coffee and talk about housing.
0
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 21d ago
It's like saying that more premium weed on the shelf makes the lower tier weed cheaper. But if the store only stocks premium weed, there's no bargain weed on the shelf for anyone to pick up at $5 grams, just the $20 gram primo shit.
0
u/BearUmpire 21d ago
You dont reduce the price of used cars by stopping new ones from being made.
And it's easy to find weed at $1/gram. That's what happens when you have abundance.
0
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 21d ago
It's not a congruent argument. Saying if the shops didn't stock the $1 weed it wouldn't be there, just like how the city is not encouraging the real affordable housing. Clearly your argument is failing, lots more people are becoming vocal about how new luxury housing does nothing to improve affordable housing.
2
u/BearUmpire 21d ago
Lol. I'm happy to sit down with you and explain things to you. I passed the tenant protections in Eugene and fought for rent control. I've been evicted and know the struggle.
The state has maxed out its current affordable housing development tools. We've allocated the statutory maximum of private activity bonds to funding affordable housing. We are at the bond volume cap. The state has also funded 600M per biennium in article 11 q bonds for new affordable development. That's about 3400/units a year.
The mupte project doesn't use those resources. It's pure bonus. We don't get a lot of opportunities to have moderate income housing absent the above mentioned resources.
Do you have a truckload of money to spend on new housing? 🤔 because I know dozens of shovel ready projects waiting to go. Both affordable homeownership options and extremely low income projects.
I recommend you read the state of housing report published by oregon housing and community services, and read poverty, by America by Matt desmond.
1
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 21d ago
What are the largest barriers to $550 studios besides bankroll?
2
u/BearUmpire 20d ago
Let's look at one of my favorite projects, square one's peace village, out on river road, which is an affordable homeownership opportunity, through a limited-equity coop.
Their project was about 13M. (Napkin math) They only financed 3M of it. The mortgage payment over 70 people on 3m is one of the reasons they can get close to that 550 number.
Big factors are: 1. Interest rates 2. Existing infrastructure on cheap/free land 3. Development on church property (peace village is on a church property) allows lots of waivers of zoning 4. Tenants bring their own money to the projects capital stack in the form of a down payment or coop membership.
But the single biggest factor is that they are financing a much lower portion of the overall project.
The mupte project, on the other hand, is financing 65% of the project, and they have a much larger mortgage payment, and thus are charging more rent.
The projects serving the lowest incomes have virtually no debt service. That's why it's expensive to build affordable housing.
1
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 20d ago
...so, in theory, let's say someone wants to bankroll an infinite supply of cheap apartments in the Soviet style, what are the most predictable barriers to this and best workarounds?
2
u/BearUmpire 20d ago
I'm going to try and answer both questions as best I can.
Most soviet buildings were single stair 4 story apartments. In Oregon, the building code would need to be revised for that. Gov. Kotek's housing production frameworks have brought this up as a reform, but it's taken the back seat to other mechanisms. Some people want to go up to 5 stories, but that gets complicated with triggering prevailing wage laws and other things, and it probably isn't all that safe.As far as land goes, land banking has gone well in Austria as part of their social housing model. Land banking in the United States has focused on collecting tax-foreclosed properties and urban blight and preparing the land for redevelopment. Oregon has relatively few of those types of properties (Lane County had only 33 properties go to auction this year), but we do have a surplus of some types of land. I'm thinking churches (since they have that sweet zoning workaround), but also different types of public land. For instance, Willamalane owns a number of properties that are not parks, and could be added to a land bank to pair it with an affordable housing project. It would be good to have the feds, state, county, city and special districts all work together to find parcels of land to add to a land bank to judiciously review and distribute to appropriate projects. Oregon doesn't have permissive landbanking authorities, but Eugene and Clackamas county (and Springfield maybe) have some early stage landbanking programs.
Your next barrier is going to be infrastructure. Traffic lights, sidewalks, sewers all cost money. Luckily in Gov. Kotek's recommended budget, she has a proposed infrastructure fund for projects. My understanding is that the infrastructure fund will provide subsidized loans for eligible expenses for the moderate-income projects, and grants to the low income projects. This money will have to get funneled through the city. You may have to work with some state agencies like ODOT, depending on if you are close to a highway or a state road.
Your next expense is going to be working with the city to get your permits,and pay your System Development Charges. There are some programs to help with these expenses, but it's not a given. SDCs are supposed to go to the city to fund and maintain infrastructure. You will also have additional soft costs, when you hire an architect. Maybe you find one for free, maybe not. The design team can add a lot of experience to a project, (so much can go wrong) and you get what you pay for.
On the material side of things, there will be some costs that are unavoidable. Right now, with the war in Ukraine, there is a supply chain issues for a key component to get your building hooked up to the electric grid.
Personally, I think homeownership is the way to go, as LIHTC, while making housing accessible to vulnerable populations is an inefficient way to finance a project,since you are selling tax credits for $.92 - $.87 on the dollar to some corporations to get your equity money. In Oregon, we have the LIFT for homeownership program, which creates an 40 year affordability covenant on the end unit, (often in the form of a community land trust) and in term, you get an interest free, forgivable loan, from the state to finance your project. (based on bedroom size per unit). LIFT has a maximum profit of 7% to the developer.
I could go on, but I hope that gives you some idea on how you could build "soviet style" homeownership units in a limited equity coop model on a community land trust while paying for minimal costs for supplies and labor.
1
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 20d ago
Factor in both materials and labor finance being gratis, what can be done for land and zoning issues?
2
u/userid1973 23d ago
No comments on the more education purposes… like ghost vacant buildings degrees?
38
18
u/Delicious_Library909 23d ago
Will it have commercial spaces on the ground level? That’s the way forward.
4
u/Adventurous-Cost-491 23d ago
Nothing in the linked article specifically says there will be commercial spaces, however the artist's rendering does look like it will have businesses on the ground floor.
7
u/Delicious_Library909 23d ago
Most of these apartment complexes don’t have any commercial at all. Terrible for livability, city economy, and walkability; hopefully this one will. Won’t hold my breath.
2
u/Aolflashback 23d ago
Yes, spaces for commercial use and they “boast” some lobby gallery space and really boast about their wall space for “successful mural projects” that Eugene has done.
Anyway, all the details are here: https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/71718/1059-Willamette-MUPTE-Application
Which was linked in the article.
16
u/SproketRocket 23d ago
more dense, urban housing is good. certainly better than what it replaces. More of this!
14
12
u/yeah_bud 23d ago
You mean the one by the piss alley?
35
u/El_Bistro 23d ago
That doesn’t narrow it down
2
u/LargFarva 23d ago
Honestly yeah it does there is a puddle of piss there literally 24/7 it's not like the other alleys that kinda smell like piss the ground there is soaked with it
11
u/jawid72 Pisgah Poster 23d ago
Not a huge fan of these building but even less of a fan of druggie scumbags smoking fent while pissing themselves on the sidewalk in front of the old LCC building.
8
11
u/Brokewrench22 23d ago
Minimum wage workers in Eugene take home about $1,800 after taxes. Average disability benefits are around $1400. Calling an $1100 studio apartment affordable housing is insulting.
8
8
u/BearUmpire 23d ago
I work on affordable housing advocacy and also serve as the chair of our mupte board in Eugene. I voted to support this project.
It's free land + mupte = half the units are 80% ami studios for 10 years.
This is a good deal for the city.
Oregon has reached its private activity bond volume cap, (LIHTC) and has maxed out its state general obligation bond program (LIFT). That is about 3400/units a year. Oregon can't really push it higher than this production level on the affordable side without new federal, state or local revenue to finance it.
This Willamette street project doesn't use any of those resources. It's pure bonus. Please stop complaining about new housing.
As someone who's on the front lines... it's exhausting. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
Also this specific developer, edlen and Co has done more to advance housing for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities than like any other developer I know. So I'm a fan of them to begin with.
3
u/justanothertimesuck 22d ago
TY for some real info. IK Reddit is a space for opinion, but I value when I can glean some actual facts here. (And TY for the work you do.)
-2
u/m3937 22d ago
Sure, but you are creating MORE traffic and not thinking about the impacts this will have on the infrastructure of Eugene?
Are you from here? These high-rise buildings are ruining the aesthetic and not jiving with transportation and cooperation from the city of Eugene.
Besides affordable housing, what are these high-rise apartment complexes going to do to contribute to the community?
1
u/BearUmpire 22d ago
Creating more traffic? Do you mean thoughtfully building adjacent to the largest non airport transportation center south of the 45th parallel in this state? I'm excited about the increased foot traffic, that will bolster businesses downtown.
I am not from here. I grew up in Tallahassee Florida. But I've been here long enough to remember the TWO pits in the ground. Let me tell you these buildings are a major improvement over "pit town". This specific project has two facades and worked with actual residents of downtown in the design process.
I don't really get the last question, but dense housing options in the heart of downtown is never a bad thing. Id ask you what your plan would be to develop this property, but there was a very long public process and it seems you missed the boat on that one.
0
u/m3937 21d ago
Where are tenants going to park?
Is the city of Eugene continually going to add these buildings? Nothing about them is architecturally unique. Depressing, actually.
And they are being plopped down everywhere. And already have near campus and on Franklin Blvd.
It makes send you’re from Florida.
People moving here are basically trying suburban sprawl Eugene to make it their own, and take out any uniqueness of what it is.
-1
u/BearUmpire 21d ago edited 21d ago
Wow, you don't know anything about me, but you are attributing my architectural taste to the place where I was born. Ive lived in eugene for over 15 years. We have a school of architecture here. Most of the people working on those projects are from local firms, with grads from the uo. There are things unique about this. Go back and read what I wrote earlier, that you responded to.
Parking? It's next to a transit hub and a huge parking garage.
They wouldn't be plopping down huge buildings everywhere unless they were financially viable. Do you know what the interest rate is? The headwinds to development right now? It's telling that we are still seeing construction, when the rest of the country has slowed new construction.
Your attitude matches the energy of the maga right, otherizing people you know nothing about, and projecting your fear and hatred onto them.
The nimby position you are advocating for is sad, rooted in fear and hatred of new arrivals.
6
u/Slice0fur 23d ago
Lol, guy towards the end talking about he wishes it was more affordable housing. Then switches to 'actual houses would be gooood'.
Like, pick a side. haha.
7
u/duck7001 23d ago
r/eugene: “Eugene rent is too high and we need more housing!”
Also r/eugene: “how dare this brand new apartment complex that is adding 130 new units not be affordable to people that make minimum wage and work only 20 hours a week!”
Repeat after me: ANY. NEW. HOUSING. IS. BETTER. THAN. NO. NEW. HOUSING.
4
u/letsmakeafriendship 23d ago
Yes! This is how rent gets lower https://www.reddit.com/r/Eugene/comments/1eep7mz/want_to_actually_lower_rent_in_eugene_heres_how/
2
u/vaguelyblack 23d ago
Again you need a population freeze for this to be true, if we have a extra 3000 people move to Eugene by the time they finish this apartment complex, it won't cause the rents to lower, they will instead continue going up.
2
u/letsmakeafriendship 22d ago
You're right. Making 3,000 units will only lower the price if the population stays the same. If we get 3,000 new residents at the same time, prices will stay the same. Housing prices follow the same market rules like any other good or commodity. Supply, cost of production, and demand dictate price.
-1
u/OreganoTimeSage 23d ago
If you're interested in this topic I have short report by Gregg Colburn you should read.
1
u/vaguelyblack 23d ago
Link it, show me how having more demand than supply makes rental prices go down.
0
u/OreganoTimeSage 22d ago
I posted it under the name homelessness is a housing problem. It's a 30 minute presentation on the report. There's a PDF version online I can find
5
u/vaguelyblack 22d ago
I appreciate the response, I found the summary PDF, it doesn't seem to address rental prices or how they will go down if there is more demand than supply, which is my whole point.
People in this post are incorrectly claiming that these apartment being will reduce their rental prices by adding more supply. This is an incorrect notion as there would need to be significantly more housing built before you see that affect and then you would need even more units being built to keep up with population growth.
I'm in no way saying that we shouldn't build more housing, we absolutely should and we should also ban Airbnbs, I'm just posting realistic expectations, these apartments won't make your rent go down.
2
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 21d ago
It's a spectrum issue. Building more top end spectrum housing doesn't magically increase the level of low-tier spectrum units. Since the poor who already live here are the ones needing housing, building new luxury stuff completely misses the issue and has no impact on the needed community.
1
u/OreganoTimeSage 22d ago
I think the root of the disagreement was miscommunication. When you lead with a negative statement people presume you are arguing the negative side. (Rental prices won't go down) Sounds like an argument for (we shouldn't be doing this).
Phrasing your opinion first and your assessment second is perceived more clearly. Like you did in that last paragraph "we should build more housing but I don't think prices will go down soon"
1
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 21d ago
Prices would go down if they would build a large enough amount of actual affordable housing. Like 40,000 studios priced at $550 a month. THAT would reduce the housint costs. 40,000 luxury apartments would have no effect.
0
u/OreganoTimeSage 20d ago
No effect? Really none at all?
For this not to have an effect on the lower income housing it would have to neither increase supply nor reduce demand. The most likely case is a reduction in demand. If people move in then unless they like having multiple apartments they are moving out of somewhere else or moving in from elsewhere. If they are moving out then they are freeing up a different (probably worse) apartment for rent. You could see this as the number of people competing for apartments in the low end as going down or as the number of apartments available in the low end going up.
For this not to happen either people move here who wouldn't otherwise have, or the apartments don't get filled. Both those seem less likely.
0
u/EUGsk8rBoi42p 20d ago
$550/mo rental apts and $1 million homes are effectively separate products with 100% separate customer bases. It's not even apples and oranges, it's not even chicken and rice, it's like comparing the auto market and space tourism market effectively. People arguing that luxiry housinf reduces demand and prices may as well be arguing that space tourism lowers car costs. Are spaceX rockets reducing the cost of Ford Explorers? Possibly, on a microscopic negligible level, however, this is hardly a strong foundational argument for space tourism.
→ More replies
5
u/Aolflashback 23d ago
https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/71718/1059-Willamette-MUPTE-Application
Here’s more info, which is linked in the article.
“Student housing and transient services” are not allowed as per the application. It’s going to be a 6 floor building, with 133 units, and 22 parking spaces (probably for the planned commercial crap, so have fun with that)
And holy shit the studios aren’t even 500 sq/feet.
How dare anyone call this a win for “more, affordable housing” in this town.
10
2
2
u/BearUmpire 23d ago
Dude. Mupte is a program intended to incentivize infill. This projects isn't funded with any of the traditional affordable housing finance tools. 🙄
If you want to learn more and talk about housing, I'm happy to get coffee. 😊 I understand your frustration. This topic has a lot of nuance, and with your level of energy focused in the right way, it could make a big difference.
5
u/Brigtitan 23d ago
I'd rather see them use the space for something, rather than letting it sit for years unused. Anything is better than nothing.
5
u/reddogisdumb 23d ago
Obviously, its a win. And yes, it reduces rent for the rest of us. This is supply and demand.
Personally, I don't benefit from this. I own two houses and my finances benefit from a housing shortage. But I'm not a psychopath, we need more housing.
If you're upset about the rental price - well, thats what some people are willing to pay. It gets you right in the middle of downtown, you can have a nice quality of life without a car.
The building being replaced isn't anything special. The newer building will clearly be an improvement.
4
4
3
u/xihua222 23d ago
Someone explain to me how a studio for $1500 is market rate like I’m five. My entire 15 year old build 3 bed apartment is that price…
10
u/OregonEnjoyer 23d ago
new building in walkable distance to many things cost many dollar
-4
u/Aolflashback 23d ago
Glad YOU feel safe walking around in that area. I don’t. Day or night. And I sure as hell wouldn’t want to leave my car around that area every night. Not really sure what the benefit is, especially when the price is already too high for most people.
3
u/fzzball 23d ago
Lol it's perfectly safe, and if you lived in an apartment building downtown you'd have a garage.
-1
u/Aolflashback 23d ago
This unit will have 22 parking spaces (not determined if it’s for residents or the commercial space). And over 133 units. Whos parking where? They boast their bike lock up and bus location so I’m guessing they’re assuming people who don’t have cars will live there.
2
1
u/AnotherQueer 23d ago
As a car free young adult who wants to live in a walkable neighborhood so I don't have to pay for a car, I imagine this development is for people like me
2
u/OregonEnjoyer 23d ago
if you don’t feel safe walking around downtown eugene during the day time i think you might need to move into weenie hut jr
-1
u/Aolflashback 23d ago
Weird thing to say to a female who has had to worry about their personal safety plenty of times, but hey.
3
3
2
u/Kush18 23d ago
Apartments outside the bus station? Lol that's gonna suck
23
u/OregonEnjoyer 23d ago
suck? it’s perfect for people without a car. the buses in eugene are great and you can live off the emx, specially living right next to the station
5
-7
2
2
1
1
u/127Heathen127 23d ago edited 23d ago
“New ugly 5 over 1 student-focused apartment building” is basically a meme here at this point.
1
u/ApplesBananasRhinoc 23d ago
Is this even a rendering of the actual building? There's not a road right there, is there? Or Did they just copy/ paste the plans for titan court? If that's all architecture is nowadays... Our skyline is gonna look cheap in about 10 years.
1
u/laffnlemming 23d ago
I don't like it, but maybe the old place has asbestos and is structurally unsafe.
What I do not want to see is another half-assed and over-priced structural monolith of poor quality that they build on Willamette downtown.
Let's avoid shoddy and wasteful construction, please. Have some pride in what you work on and if the bosses suck, try to leave, posthaste.
1
u/vaguelyblack 23d ago
Meanwhile there are 2300 Airbnb's in Eugene/Springfield, that correlates to about 3000-5000 less rooms off the market. Meanwhile the enrollment of LCC is up 5% year over year. Meanwhile the population of Eugene is ever increasing.
If you think that this extra supply of high-end studios is going to help lower your rent, you're in for some bad news, it won't. The population of Eugene would need to decrease and we would need to eliminate Airbnbs before we can see rent prices go down, those things are unlikely to happen.
1
u/m3937 22d ago
Glad that Eugene got rid of its classic architecture to make way for “modernization” with all of its 1960s buildings, all the meanwhile “giving up” and letting out of state corporate interests build and demolish every inch of space for the sake of capitalism and exploitation of a city without any interest in putting back into that same community.
1
u/ever_curiously 22d ago
I wanted to know how they determined low income rental rates and found the City of Oregon links below to a list of income limits + rental rights .
I wonder how the state can justify rent stabilization increases of 10% a year when the cost of living increases, yet minimum wage rates don't? And look at all the subsidies for developers!
Bankrate ranks Oregon as the 10th most expensive state to live in 2024.
https://www.eugene-or.gov/5013/Income-and-Rent-Limits
And a PDF: https://www.eugene-or.gov/documentcenter/view/74684
1
u/AccomplishedAd7427 22d ago
These are not the answer for our housing crisis. These are corporate money makers.
1
u/KindAd4013 21d ago
Maybe the homeless that live at olive plaza entrance will move to the new building too. I have to step over them to get into my apt
1
u/equinox_magick 21d ago
Typical for Eugene ‘Modern’ (see ugly) tall buildings that will be obsolete in ten years. The major tragedy of this city is all the historic architecture that’s been lost and torn down in favor of modern BS. The lane building is newish I know, but it’s sad to see it become just more bland housing, instead of something cool like a cultural center or community music venue
0
u/localwageslave 23d ago
Wonderful! Take out an option of education for people, and instead replace it with a fucking apartment building that would take almost the entirety of my check just to rent their cheapest "rent controlled" studio off the back of it. That's what we need!
It's going to get to a point where the only people left with homes in Eugene are trust fund kiddies living off mommy and daddy's fucking dime while they go to school and become the fucking plight of the town. Completely decimates an actual standard of living for the working class folks who just want to live their lives.
This is another Union on Broadway, this is another 515, this is another Standard. It's all shitty, cheaply built apartment buildings chock full of forced roommate situations and 300sqft boxes that people are expected to spend THOUSANDS of dollars on while they get fucked hand over fist for the HUMAN RIGHT OF FUCKING SHELTER.
Fuck this, fuck the developers doing this, fuck any person in power who signed off on this. THIS does nothing for the PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVE HERE, it just leans heavier into their one defining personality trait of being a college town that yearns to be called a city, and the money that they get to line their pockets with while the rest of us go fuck ourselves.
4
u/Consexual-sense 23d ago
An option for education? This LCC sattelite/downtown campus has been shuttered for years. Not only is it full of asbestos and not up to code, but it was replaced over a decade ago by a gorgeous state of the art (and architecturally unique) downtown LCC campus which is three blocks away. Its across 10th street from the eugene library and not only has dorm rooms for LCC students, but has multiple stories of classroom space offering accredited classes and nonaccreddited community classes.
The old Montgomery ward building has been scheduled to be replaced for several years, and yes, developers build to make profit, and with rising interest rates and the only buildings usually profitable veing 5 over 1s, this new apartment building is exactly what a city with housing, homeless and blight issues needs.
Portland would and does build the same exact 5 over 1 style in the same circumstances.
Nobody is coming into eugene and putting in a 20 story all glass and stone art deco masterpiece until the pits, vacant lots, fenced off parking blocks and abandoned buildings get replaced and infilled. That is how cities develop from small towns to cities.
Poop on it all you want, but it improves upon what currently exists while making that area safer through critical mass foot traffic and occupied commercial space downtown.
3
u/ballstar03 23d ago
I fail to see how repurposing an area/building that has sat vacant for a decade to build more housing options in a city desperate for them is a bad thing
3
u/2trill2spill 23d ago
It’s amazing how many people are against building housing. Like who prefers a vacant building over an apartment building!? Soo many crazies in this world.
1
-2
u/TheHeartsFilthyLesin 23d ago
Great more apartments people won’t be able to afford…just what we need!
8
u/fzzball 23d ago
Apparently they can, because apartments downtown don't sit empty.
0
-5
u/left4smokes20yrsago 23d ago
It's a city owned property right now. After development is complete and cost of build and taxes etc. is paid off who will be collecting the income from rent and so will own the property? Are there bids for a contractor or is it a board members brother in law who got the contact? Tax breaks because it a city owned property. No wonder these units are popping up so fast. The Nel completely ruined a great group single story units in that area and it's just spreading. I know see need housing but build it away from dt. Rent will be cheaper, crime wouldn't be concentrated where it already is and we would be able to keep somewhat of a view of the sky. It's already dark and stormy for weeks/ months at a time. We don't need buildings blocking the little sunlight that we do get dt. I'm ranting but that's just my opinion. I hate what The Nel and the other housing by albees did to the neighborhood.
-5
u/REDDITmusiv 23d ago
This is why you elected this Mayor. She is a real estate person and supports in-fill. Good luck with that. ....
205
u/minimalistboomer 23d ago
$1128 for a studio is “rent controlled”? That’s a laugh.