82nd Ave: Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Ant

The ongoing synonymization of "Yuppie" and "Artist" took another step forward with the recently relaxed "artists-only" requirement for 54 condo units out on 82nd. Flogged until last week as Portland's newest artists' colony, the public-private redevelopment "Milepost 5" is no longer auditioning talent as a requisite for buying -- or investing in -- one of their somewhat-not-outrageously-priced "loft-style" "live/work" condominiums, located near the Montavilla neighborhood on Portland's car-clogged carotid, everyone's favorite, 82nd Ave.

The goal was to create an environment where artists would live, work and play among peers — allowing all of them to further refine their visions and skills.
But with 54 condominiums nearly ready for sale, the requirement has been dropped.
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=120880608193695400

"Milepost 5" was covered in breathless tones by Portland Architecture (photo credit Brian Libby, click to enlarge) not long ago, the combination of an artists' nexus and a redesigned 60's modern type building being irresistable.

The completed building by Works provides the best eye candy, and it's where I'd want to live...it's easy to imagine a group of young, creative people here -- some staying for many years and others just passing through. Most of the for-sale units are somewhat affordable, too.
http://chatterbox.typepad.com/portlandarchitecture/2008/04/artist-hub-on-8.html

Not to mention, too good to be true.

The project plans to begin closing sales this week. So far, 20 of the units have been reserved, a number [developer] Gilbert considers good, given the economy.
“A lot of condominium projects would be glad to have 30 percent of their units reserved before they start selling them these days,” he said.
Gilbert expects the prices to soon attract many other buyers...“Why make people jump through hoops if they don’t have to?” he asked.

I can think of one reason: To discourage speculators from ruining it. To prevent people from buying the units who have no intention of making messy art in them; but, rather, every expectation that a cozy unit in this artist's mecca will be worth much more to people seeking that loftish cred in a few years, and of turning a profit thereby. In short, (ignoring for the moment whether or not the hoop-jumping was all that well thought-out) to make good on bullshitty assurances like these:

As a completed project, the Milepost5 complex will be a prototype for multi-discipline artist housing and the cornerstone of an entire self-contained arts community.
http://www.worksarchitecture.net/html/project5_0.html

Milepost 5 provides affordable and sustainable live/work spaces for artists in a supportive and interactive, community setting. The comprehensive, campus facilities provide the rare opportunity for artists and creatives either to rent or own studio/live space.
Milepost 5’s mission is to provide a long-term artistic and economic sanctuary to support and sustain working artists and their art. Milepost 5 is dedicated to building and enhancing the arts community on its campus
http://milepostfive.com/overview

and to make sure that none of these units, when housing prices recover after this momentary stumble, will have been flipped and turd-polished into just more market rate generic "loft" condo crap.

Ah, but democracy! Non-discrimination! These tricky issues arise if Milepost 5 seeks to exercise selective control over what sort of individuals will be allowed to buy a condo for their living and painting and sculpting and Web 2.0-designing and Ebay-scamming and offshore-consulting and risk-managing and financial-product- innovating...you know, all that creative stuff that the creatives do -- you don't have to use a paintbrush to be an artist; you can be creative just by being a capitalist entrepreneur too! That's the beauty of the idea of creativity: it can be twisted and abused into meaning almost anything, especially if a computer is somehow involved. As long as it's not just a place to live. And the Cheetos-and-dandruff brigade of Portland Tribune commenters, predictably, seize on exactly this point.

I would like to know why only artists should have access to affordable (not low-income/subsidized) housing in Portland, while the rest of us average Joes still can't get affordable housing...It's nice that the complex has opened up their eligiblity, but it should have NEVER been restricted in the first place. Else, what's to stop me from opening up a housing development that is only for...oh, pretty people? Or only for restaurant employees? Or only for industrial workers?
[comment by Erik H.]
Wow, this was a partly public money financed project and they were excluding non-artists, who were finacially needy? Talk about elitists, wow
[comment by Steveo]
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news...#comment_section_container

Then again, the reactionaries do give one pause. Was it better - or fair - that they restricted it to some unknown criteria for "real artists," even if an "art colony" was the long-term intention of those behind this project? Something is a little weird about that. But then, is it better to open it up to the market at large and let the flippers loose? Somehow, no, and, no. To me there is something oddly-conceived about the whole thing if an issue like this kind of obvious discrimination angle was deemed ignorable. And anyway, neither a restricted nor an unrestricted building solves the problem of how to make an artists' colony happen, when it is affordable only to people who have it together enough to get a loan and pay a mortgage, even on a relatively low price unit. Surely few fine artists in Portland are actually making that kind of money from their art itself. Of the tiny minority that do, how many can do it while confined to four or five hundred square feet?

If the developers are really concerned about creating what they're saying they want to create, the simplest solution, to me, would be to have implemented a policy of owner-occupation only, and to have restricted resale of any unit back to the community. Lacking evidence of such policies, I fail to detect a genuine effort at engineering something truly collective and permanently designated. As things stand, deregulated, it isn't at all clear that any but market forces will ultimately determine the future prices and future uses of these units. Because what we see more than anything is that the "market" only cares about "artists" insofar as it can hijack their cred for some urban niche appeal.

Woodward and Bernstein:
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=120880608193695400
Jacques Derrida:
http://chatterbox.typepad.com/portlandarchitecture/2008/04/artist-hub-on-8.html
Le Corbusier:
http://www.worksarchitecture.net/html/project5_0.html
Tom Peterson:
http://milepostfive.com/overview
(note - no flipping/investing/owner-occupation restrictions mentioned) (actually there is something about some units - comment by "george" has detail)

-------------clip'n'save------------------------------------

A li'l addendum, from the Oregonian:

Caroline Latham, owner, RealFacts, a research organization and database specializing in the housing market:
"Many condos were purchased to flip at maybe 35 percent profit in a year. Somewhere between a quarter and a third of condos that have been bought are not occupied. They were bought as investments."
http://www.oregonlive.com/special/...

Comments

[PDX Dilettante]

From Salvador Del Cid's blog on March 26, 2008

http://ownaportlandhome.blogspot.com/

Both FannieMae and Freddie Mac have changed the guidelines for lenders when the property to be financed is a condo.

If the buyer of a condo:

1. Will occupy the unit and finance more than 90% of the purchase price, or
2. The buyer will not occupy the unit (an investor, landlord), or
3. The project is new construction or a new conversion, then...

The lender must:

1. Review the organizational documents of the homeowners’ association (HOA) to confirm that they comply with FannieMae/FreddieMac requirements, and
2. Review the budget of the HOA, and the most recent Reserve Study to insure that the budget includes reserves for replacement and repairs
3. Obtain a letter from an attorney confirming that the organizational documents of the HOA comply with State Law and FannieMae and FreddieMac guidelines.
4. Issue a project acceptance to be contained in the lender’s loan file.

These new rules kill the flipper market by default and will make it nigh impossible to get Condo deal done anywhere in Portland

[PG]

Good, then they can take that stupid "Flip This House" off the air and start showing something cool like reruns of "Bewitched."

[george]

There is a paragraph in that post above that you might want to modify/correct.

From the Milepost 5 site:

"So, to keep some units affordable for the next artists, buyers of Pay
it Forward units receive a $2,500 grant towards closing costs. Upon
resale, these units may be sold for up to 2x CPI (Consumer Price Index)
or fair-market value- whichever is less. Adjustments for improvements
may be included in the resale price. CPI typically is 2.5-3% per year."

About 1/2 the units qualify for the limited equity program. Although, I wonder how many will actually get locked in?

[PG]

Seems quite an obligation for 2500, but I hope this program is more the rule than the exception. For art's sake.

[Eric]

"...for their living and painting and sculpting and Web 2.0-designing and Ebay-scamming and offshore-consulting and risk-managing and financial-product- innovating..."

Great line. You're a good writer.

Going back into lurking mode . . .

[mmmarvel]

This was another project that I worked on. I heard what it was suppose to be long before the 'announcement'. My involvement was very early in the project so I can't honestly say how the 'project' turned out. What I can say is when I heard the future that it was being prepared for I couldn't really see it working. The area, was nice (neighborhood and all) but I sure didn't see it as a place where 'artists' hung out. In fact it appeared to me to be quite a ways away from the nearest area that 'artists' congregate.

Don't really know how they turned out (haven't been back there for many moons) but the entire project - the building, the idea and the intent didn't impress me much.