You are viewing the archives of the old northcoastoregon.com. Please visit the new North Coast Oregon at: http://www.northcoastoregon.com/
The Maps include most of Astoria, but does not include the far east side of town.
First up is the Height Restriction Map.
The Second is a “who owns what” Map, all the white areas along the waterfront are Privately Owned.
The 3rd is “What Goes Where”.
The legend was cut off, but the Brown is Multi-Family, the Green is office, Red is Lodging and Blue is Water-Dependent Industrial/Commercial.
This is basically an overview of the way we want the City to be planned.
You can see from The Meg. Bridge and all the way to Alderbrook, it is mostly Privately owned. We can also tell that buildings can be fairly tall in this plot of land/river. And most of it is zoned multi-family. So you can kind of see where this is going….Condo’s!
Whether you love them or hate them, they will sprout up if we stick to the current set of rules because that is what is planned at the moment.
Now should we change those rules?
Keep them the same?
Have another Government body overview developers plans?
Please leave your input in comments, especially if you can’t make it on November 1st.
And if you are a dial-upper and it takes an hour to load the home page, let me know and I can bury all the photos.
2 On Oct 31, 09:59 am, Pierce wrote:
Retirees Walter. They are leaving Portland in droves. Astoria has been picked as a top spot to retire. They love condos, no yardwork and the kids can’t move back in. Look at who has ocupied the Columbia House all these years.
3 On Oct 31, 01:52 pm, Walter Richards wrote:
That’s mainly who I was talking about in my third paragraph. For the most part, they aren’t gonna want to spend their retirement income on fixing/maintaining a “historic” house.
btw – More retirees = more demand for healthcare workers = more “family wage” jobs.
Maybe Astoria should focus more on attracting retirees than on bringing in tourism. The jobs associated pay better, and it’s not just seasonal work.
4 On Oct 31, 05:40 pm, Pierce wrote:
The nice thing about tourism is it promotes retirement too. Those cruise ship Frank and Mildreds get a good look at Astoria on a nice day and next thing you know they want to move there to retire. Good job security for you. The first year of the baby boom was 1946 that was 60 years ago. The last year was 1964. Thats a lot of old fogies on the way. Condos, boats and healthcare are all pretty safe bets. Not to change the subject, but Walter I’m suprised you haven’t weighed in on the military commisions act or maybe you did elsewhere.
5 On Nov 1, 07:33 am, Patrick McGee wrote:
Condos?
Cheaper Housing?
The Condos out on 39th are going for $300.00 per square foot, literally all absentee owned and to be run pretty much like a hotel?
Average Comperables at Mill Pond Village are at about $289.00 per square foot.
Don’t think that’s the answer.
Do you?
What do you see as affordable/cheaper housing?
6 On Nov 1, 08:29 am, Patrick McGee wrote:
The Answer?
Adopt “The Gateway Development Criteria” and Design Review comprehensively along the entire waterfront.
It’s in place and working very effectively and it happens long before it gets to Planning and complies, when necessary to any impact to HLC Covenants.
7 On Nov 1, 02:57 pm, Walter Richards wrote:
Patrick – when I said condos are cheaper, I was referring to comparing against most of the existing housing in Astoria. And not just the purchase price, but the “hidden costs” of bringing that housing “up to snuff”. Most of the existing housing, to my eye at least, requires newer heating systems and weatherizing. And pray that you don’t have a “historic” house, with those additional requirements (and costs).
Which, again, is why I bought in WA. If I’m gonna have to put money/time into remodelling, I’m gonna try to save on the purchase price. Which I did. ;p
8 On Nov 2, 07:41 am, Patrick McGee wrote:
Very Informative meeting last night Tryan.
Thanks to you and your colleagues on APC and the members of HLC and Todd Scott and Rosemary Johnson of Community Development for the opportunity to let “The Citizen” be heard on the issue of waterfront development in Astoria.
Very productive overall and hopefully you all will heed the information presented last night in your future deliberations.
9 On Nov 2, 09:44 am, Cindy Price wrote:
Yes, it was exactly the sort of government I appreciate. Thanks, Tryan and colleagues.
10 On Nov 2, 12:44 pm, Tryan Hartill wrote:
It was good for us to ge the public’s “pulse” on this. Zetty had the tally’s on the for and against WF Development. IIRC it was 7 that wanted nothing to change. 12 that wanted everything to stop yesterday and 20-30 that wanted something in between.
Still alot of legal stuff that nobody really understands yet, such as Measure 37 claims and upland owner rights.
Long ways to go.
Previous Article:
« Waterfront Work Session Nov. 1, 2006
Next Article:
Oregon Ballot Measures: Go ahead hate me..No on 44 »
1 On Oct 30, 01:08 pm, Walter Richards wrote:
Well … IMO … before a developer puts in condos, there has to be a demand for them. Meaning there has to be jobs for those people. Are there jobs for a bunch of people to buy condos? I don’t see it.
What about vacation condos, some ask. I doubt many people would want a vacation condo here, when they could get one a lot closer to the beach.
Of course, with the gawdawful price of housing in/around Astoria … you may see all these “historic” buildings falling into disrepair as their owners “move on” (in whatever way), and condos going up to provide cheaper housing for people moving in.