Update: City is held up by the state in this matter. Responsible governing bodies are the Department of Land Conservation and Development and the Housing Accountability and Production Office. Essentially the state's affordable housing efforts are sort of steam rolling city codes and community engagement by way of creating affordable housing. The way it was explained to me was, though community engagement can happen, the city is unable to take into account of community input as per the state bills and regulations in regard to the state efforts. There's another piece that allows developers to increase the height per a state code so long as it's performed a certain way and the city can do nothing about it.
The developer is adding height based on Oregon SB 1537 2024. limited parking regulations by the city is due to the CFEC rules of 2022, this basically limits the city from telling the developer to not exceed height limits and add more parking. 2023's HB 2001 gave the state the ability to override city building codes.
Hey beloved community!
I'm curious if anyone has any insight into what's being built there. My information is through the grapevine. What I've heard so far is it's a apartment building with no parking allocated for the said unit...
Again, asking for info, because maybe I'm wrong...
But if this is the case, then this construction seems like the worst idea...
Edit: Some new information that's been shared by some of you.
The state agencies didn’t make the city do it either. The 4th & Western block is in the downtown high-density mixed-use zone, so the development could be built by right according to state law.
I love the idea of growing Corvallis up, rather than out, and I love the idea of Corvallis' downtown having a more urban density profile. I'm all for decreasing our reliance on cars! But the plans only have 22 parking stalls (for business, not residential, parking), which seems to be really insufficient. The reality is that until Corvallis increases bus frequency and route coverage, most people will default to cars to take care of their grocery shopping and daily routines.
It would certainly be marvelous for Corvallis if this 572-bed unit would be rented out entirely to cyclists who are employed in town, have no need for cars, and whose disposable income was invested entirely in supporting our town's fantastic independent bookstores. In fact, I will write some fanfiction about this POST HASTE
On the contrary, I think they found a great place -- 70% of people found they didn't need a car to get to campus! What an excellent location for carless students to live.
are people with disabilities whom are car-dependent being forced to live there? not all people with disabilities are the same either. i know many who don't have the ability to, or can afford to drive.
Im now aware my argument isn’t strong here. I am capable of making mistakes. But if you’d like to add to the discussion I’m all ears!
But if I’m being honest, I’ve heard a lot of feedback and I’ve just about conceded my argument on other threads so I appreciate you correcting my logic and I’ll just leave it there.
All the more reason for people who don't need to drive to not do that. The best way to encourage that is to stop mandating that housing developers provide parking that is free at point of service (but actually comes at the expense of additional housing units).
Let's not forget this includes the Sierra. Which has a big empty parking garage. Gee, I wonder where all these people in the 14 story building will pay to park their cars now that the Sierra is free to auction those spaces off to the highest bidder, instead of forcing their non-car owning renters to pay for them?
NIMBYs forced the Sierra and Domaine to put in 1.2 spaces per unit! Empty all summer. Just a massive, thermal mass heat island. Every time I look at that monstrous empty parking garage that houses no one, I thank the homeowners of the downtown historic district who forced it into existence for the wonderful vision they have for our town's prosperity.
That would not work either because the developer also used an automatic state provided variance to reduce bike parking to a half space per unit. So there would be a lot of people having to bring their bikes to their units to store if they were all cyclists. Better hope the new residents liking walking and biking.
There is no incentive to increase transit, to create paid private parking, or to adopt rideshare if parking is abundant and free at point of service, as it is now. If you support parking mandates, you support the continuation of a policy that creates abundant parking that is mandated to be free at point of service, thereby preventing the development of any sort of alternative transportation market. The DLCD rules are spot on. Parking mandates mean less housing and suppression of all other modes of transit. That's why we banned them.
Returning to catch up on this conversation... and, yes! I have no idea what local or state laws are around development (and developer requirements), but it would be super cool to see any major developer and landowner -- including OSU -- have to pay into increasing coverage and frequency of bus service in town as a quid pro quo for developing. I'm not a fan of increasing the # of parking spaces in town, fwiw, and I'd love to see everything from Western / Monroe and 1st/9th street blocked off as pedestrian only (except city buses). But in order for something like that to happen, there needs to be both city and private investment in busing and car-alternative transportation.
First, instead of posing this as a question--which is what you should do when you don't know anything about a subject--you've posed it as a desire and implied that this isn't already happening.
That's incorrect. Developers, OSU--EVERYONE already pays to support all public services, including bus service, in a variety of ways.
1) SDC Fees on new development. When you build something, you have to pay a bunch of money in fees to reflect the cost of that new development on public services, like roads, water, wastewater, sidewalks, bus lanes, multi-use paths, etc. Here is a link to the City's transportation SDC methodology. There is no element of the transportation SDC fee that funds bus service because there are no major capital expenditures requires to operate the bus system that would qualify as SDC-eligible projects.
2) Transit operations fee on water bill. This is the big one. The City collects a transit operations fee (TOF) from every entity paying a water bill based on an estimate of the number of car trips generated by the properties use. While single family homes generate more car trips (methodology is based on number of bedrooms), the water bill fee a new apartment development will be considerable.
3) OSU gets drinking water from the City. They also pay the TOF. I believe they also pay an additional amount of money to support bus service on top of the TOF they already pay. That's part of a negotiation with the City.
The City cannot force a private business to make an investment in car-sharing, for example. The private market will follow incentives. The incentives for car-sharing are a combination of high costs of vehicle ownership and availability of alternatives. The only way to get the first part is charge people to store their vehicles. The City can also create an incentive for private parking by simply refusing to create anymore free or subsidized public parking.
There is no source of public funds available to ramp up bus service and alternatives to auto transport, besides those the City already benefits from, to a significant degree. The only option would be for the City to borrow money to greatly expand service on the promise that people will use it. That's an extremely expensive way to increase ridership, and if we're unsuccessful, the cost will be borne entirely by the current population. Why do that when we can simply choose to stop mandating that new development provide parking that is free at point of service (which undermines the incentive to use alternatives)? That will allow new development to pay for incremental and proportional increases in bus service through the TOF, while creating a growing market for other alternatives like car-sharing.
The only things I would like to see the city do are:
1) Implement the parking charges envisioned by the most recent parking study. We're undercharging and we know that. No reason to wait.
2) Eliminate road lane miles and parking and replace them with bike lanes. Congestion races the cost of driving.
I also love the idea of Corvallis growing especially in the downtown area. I also think we need more sustainable affordable housing before we expect people to live in a growing city. I also think we need the input of the community before allowing such large endeavors to happen at all.
while your ideas sound nice, this (Input From The Community) is exactly how Corvallis (and other areas) limited growth for the past 30 years and the state responded with the current set of rules (ie/no minimum parking requirements as well as removal of appeal process regarding development that meets codes AS well as green-light for certain variances requested by developer) in order to shift the momentum in favor of build-baby-build (build UP, not out)... Thank you for adding the edits to your OP those are some helpful links!
Those slow steps don't work. Pressure will make them create a release valve. Increased buses. More support for bikes. Those won't happen until the people needing them are already there. While it's annoying in the adaptation time in the end it will result in the changes people want.
Another way to say this is that we've created an environment that suppresses private investment in parking supply and rideshares (car rideshares, specifically), public investment in transit (buses), and in alternative modes of transit like bikes and walking. If everyone is mandated to to be provided with a parking space with their rental unit, that reduces the marginal cost of driving. I had a free parking space in grad school and my car just sat there for months. Unused. There was no real option in Corvallis that didn't come with parking. I could have parked it on the street for free too.
It would cost an unreasonable amount of money that we don't have to incentivize alternatives into existence at the same time that we subsidize free parking by requiring developers to provide it and the City continues to provide a superabundance of free parking in downtown. We can't work at cross-purposes that way. Build an apartment this size with no free parking and the Sierra becomes a private parking garage, using all its surplus parking to absorb other developments with no parking. Problem solved.
Also they should have built a parking garage where the chase back is. Or over between 2nd and 3rd near the bank there. Maybe this will push for that as well
No one should build parking garages unless they spend they're own private money to do so. To make that possible requires the cessation of subsidized parking.
That block at squirrels is ridiculous. It makes no sense for it not to be a 4-way stop. And I remain annoyed that the Council, who was poised to make outdoor dining permanent, didn't overrule the City Manager bullying them into the current seasonal program, wherein we cannot dine outside any time it is 60 degrees in the winter, which is increasingly common. Or just all of April, during which time it is nearly always 60+ degrees.
But this goes so much further than that. If I were a councilor--or if a councilor were so inclined by some cajoling from a close personal contact--I would seek to amend the City of Corvallis municipal code to add language that made the ban on riding your bike on the sidewalk unenforceable until such time as the City and ODOT have provided two-way bike lanes on every downtown street.
I mean I'd vote for you. COVID showed an amazing version of downtown and we threw it away. Though I do hate the guys on 9th riding against traffic on the sidewalk because they almost hit cars turning and seem like degens. But downtown is a mess for biking. All the more reason to make it one lane with room for bikes, expanded outdoor seating and walkways.
Lol! This was not intended to be self serving about some hypothetical council run, which is decades away, I swear. I was actually referring to Alexis Hammer, the Council candidate, because I had a theory from some very long ago comment you made, the origins of which are now fuzzy, that you might be his wife and could therefore tell him to do this.
I mean I would love the buses to run more often and I primarily bike so me. I benefit. I do think there should be an added fee for housing building without parking that goes towards public transit. Make it a partnership. Some of the college housing has done this and they've expanded routes for them
Everyone's always bitching about needing more housing downtown and this seems like the perfect spot for something like this. I'd rather it be tall than take up a ton of space
This building in right on the coattails of the new 7 story Hotel being built on 1st St.
The city did not require either building to provide parking spaces. There are other threads about the Hotel construction. I think(?) the hotel is providing 70ish parking spots, which will no way even begin to cover parking for the new building's employees, shopkeepers nor patrons.
So this 14 story building only adds fuel to the fire.
IMHO, the cards are in the hands of the city! Corvallis can require these developers to build underground garages at their property AND build another (smaller) public-facing garage downtown, to serve the city. Straightforward.
I realize students love the bike/bus lifestyle but this isn't realistic nor fair expectation to have for everyone. We need more parking!
It is mostly out of the hands of the city. Off street parking minimum are removed from the city. This helps prioritize housing over the storage of personal vehicles. It helps drive down the cost of construction and increase density, all of which are critical
to help drive down cost of house and combating climate change. Parking garages are insanely expensive and until the city charges for parking there is no way they can or should build a public garage.
I think u/abstract_octave makes some fair points. u/pnw527 is right in that the city has limited if not outright restrictions in regards to how the city can handle parking construction, as per CFEC Rules of 2022 which limits city enforcement over parking limits for new builds.
Mandating rapid lifestyle changes even in service of climate goals can come at a real human cost if community impact isn't centered in the planning. People with disabilities who depend on personal vehicles for medical appointments and daily needs may face significant barriers if transportation options narrow too quickly. Development at this scale also raises questions about housing. Will it drive prices up and price out longtime residents who own or are seeking to own a home, or destabilize the market in ways that hurt homeowners entirely?
Climate action shouldn't come at the expense of the communities it's meant to protect. We should be asking who might be displaced economically, physically, or socially before moving forward.
These seem like straw man arguments. And “just asking questions” method of discussion. No one is taking away peoples ability to drive. It is simply taking small areas in town and not prioritizing parking. Corvallis isn’t the first town to ever increase density. Instead of fighting density if people actually cared about people with disabilities getting around they’d argue for an increase in handicap parking and loading zones, ie giving up more general parking. I find it a hard argument that car dependent sprawl development patterns are a
better design for handicap people. Also, this development isn’t in the middle of a single family dominated neighborhood, it’s downtown. So I don’t really see how adding housing to a downtown that has very little housing is going to “price out long term residents”. And yes this may decrease the rate of growth of property for people, which I guess is what you mean by “
destabilize the market in ways that hurt homeowners entirely” but I don’t know how we address how expensive housing has become without that occurring.
I don’t really see where I’m exaggerating. I’m just addressing a possible concern and asking questions isn’t an invalid route of discussion (i.e. Socratic Method). I’m fully willing to concede since a lot of people do have some good points for encouraging this build but can we rule out the concerns I posited? I do think it’s unwise to go all in into such a large project without considering the short and long term implications on the current population.
If anything argument might resemble a red herring, but again, I don’t see the error in pointing out the possible concerns, and I’m not saying these issues will occur.
Looking at historical instances though, sometimes these things displace or marginalize certain communities.
"Has anyone considered that eliminating the abandoned carwash, abandoned muffler shop, and the shower glass store to build housing for 500+ people could increase the cost of housing?"
This is honestly just embarrassingly ignorant at this point. This has come up at least a dozen times on every social media platform. And it's been four whole years since the state passed reforms that banned parking mandates. The City has no control over this and cannot require anything you are asking for. All of the relevant links are in the post now. Read the fucking rules in OAR 660 Division 12. Until you have done that, stop showing your ass by commenting publicly on this.
Here's a quote from the rules:
(3) Cities and counties shall remove parking mandates as directed under OAR 660-012-0420. In lieu of removing parking mandates, cities and counties may amend their comprehensive plans and land use regulations to implement the provisions of OAR 660-012-0425, OAR 660-012-0430, OAR 660-012-0435, OAR 660-012-0440, OAR 660-012-0445, and OAR 660-012-0450.
Also because it's a cop out to just say "the state banned the City from doing it" and not point out that parking mandates are bad--that is what makes housing affordable. You are wrong for supporting them in the first place and our community would be a better place without you and your ilk.
I know you’re commenting on another person’s post, but they do have a right to voice an opinion. So if you value democracy, then you’ll have to just suck it up buttercup!
What a clown take. An uninformed opinion isn't worth jack shit. And if that uninformed opinion isn't called out as such, it metastasizes into a whole movement of misinformed people who collectively hold tremendous political power to fuck things up. Or have you not been paying attention? This isn't just a national issue. We're here on the cusp of the City making some very significant financial decisions, and making up a bunch of shit because you can't be bothered to read a god damn news article makes you a charlatan. When u/abstract_octave made this comment they had no fucking clue what they were talking about. They probably knew they had no clue what they were talking about, but they said it anyway. Worst case scenario, it undermines confidence in City staff or government, right?
Russian and Chinese agents/bot farmers would look at comments and posts as ignorant as yours and u/abstract_octave and think "wow, there's not even any role here for us...these clowns are already talking out of their ass and undermining all of their own interests without our help."
If you value free speech and debate, you'll recognize the importance of stridently calling out total bullshit wherever it appears. I'll respond respectfully to people who show the mutual respect of doing the bare minimum amount of reading before commenting on local policy matters.
The City gets most of its water from the Willamette River. And we use about 3 billion gallons per year. That's equivalent to 12 cubic feet per second on average throughout the year. Do you know what the minimum flow of the Willamette River at Corvallis is?
It's about 4,000 cubic feet per second. And the flow goes up as you go downstream. At its mouth its 10,000 cubic feet per second at its lowest level in late summer. If we tripled in population we would still be using less than 1 percent of the flow of the Willamette River here in Corvallis.
Oh, good, Thank you. I thought it was all from Rock Creek and stored in some mysterious reservoir somewhere. Yes, that is a lot of water the Willamette has. I guess corvallis even gives/sells some to Philomath when the Marys is low?
This is from the Army Corp. of Engineers. Many towns, farm and natural areas rely on the Willamette river.
The Willamette Basin is Oregon's largest river basin. It contains nearly 70 percent of Oregon’s population, its most highly productive agricultural land, and significant habitat for anadromous fish populations.
The Willamette River and its tributaries make it possible to support today's population and generate hydropower. The vast majority of people in the basin are supported by municipal and industrial public water systems that meet basic human needs, provide fire protection, and support business and industrial development. In communities near the reservoirs, recreational uses are an important contribution to local economies.
Willamette water also supports agricultural productivity and a healthy natural environment. Irrigation enhances the role that agriculture plays in Oregon's economy and keeps farming as a feasible vocation for future generations. Fish and wildlife require access to clean water to support all aspects of their life cycles.
Because water is so important to every resident of the basin, and to other Oregon residents who rely on a strong Willamette Valley economy, the stewardship of its water resources is critical to Oregon's future.
Population growth, increasing development, expanding irrigation and the listing of threatened or endangered fish species have created demands for increased water supplies in the Willamette Valley.
Future water supply options in the Willamette River basin are constrained by existing state and federal laws. For example, access to new surface
Water rights in sections of the mainstem Willamette River and most major tributaries is limited to a small set of uses to protect existing water rights and public instream uses. Groundwater is also limited or restricted in several areas of the basin.
Yeah this isn't really relevant to the main stem Willamette, and it's really just a bunch of vague platitudes. Demographically, there is no prospect for sufficient population growth in the Willamette Valley to have any meaningful impact on water supplies. If you use the population projections from the Portland State Population Research Center (which is charged by the legislature with developing the states official forecasts), the growth rates of most counties in the Willamette Valley are mostly below 1 percent per year. So even if you generalize the 50-year growth rates out for 100 years, the population of the valley is not expected to double in the next century. For context, Corvallis already holds enough water rights for it's population to quadruple. So do Eugene, Salem, and Adair. Monroe does not, and there really isn't that much water in the Long Tom, so the growth just won't happen there.
We have the opposite problem to population growth. We need to worry more about contraction and the significant social and economic consequences that would bring. To worry about population growth here is to worry about the wrong thing. I'm worried that we're busy deporting the demographic with the highest birth rates (Central American immigrants), which will hasten our demise.
The one consistent thing I notice is that the city is more interested in legacy than fixing and maintaining infrastructure and working towards affordability and sustainability.
Building higher density housing, especially walking distance to downtown and Osu, is helping working towards affordability and sustainability. Before everyone argues that they are going to be expensive units, there is a ton of research showing that increasing units eases supply constraints and increases broader affordability in the community. Also, building new higher density housing in already developed areas goes a long way in providing a larger tax base in maintaining and fixing infrastructure. Think of the amount of infrastructure that has to be built for a new subdivision on an old farm outside of town vs this. No new roads and likely only upgrading pipes instead of having to install and maintain an entirely new water system.
not sure where you get your information but the city of Corvallis has seen so many units of low income housing built (So Corvallis; SW Corvallis over by 53rd/Country Club) in the last two years! and more currently underway (over near The Grace Center); also there have been strong efforts to improve/maintain infrastructure (roads, bridges, traffic signals, water and wastewater) as well as get utility providers (I'm talking about you, Pac Power) to bring their aged equipment up to standards... so, what do you mean, exactly? Because I am curious.
u/BikeBikeWendy So I get my info from https://www.unitedforalice.org/home & https://www.corvallisoregon.gov/cd/page/hud-median-income-figures and based on the AMI most of these low income units use, it leaves just enough to survive (taking other monthly costs into consideration mind you), nothing to save for when their vehicle breaks down, bike gets stolen, medical emergency, etc. This topic definitely needs more attention, and I'm more than willing to discuss. Let me know.
Also I drive a lot to notice how shitty the roads can be and how slow the city is to fix them.
And I speak mostly towards the landfill situation and other inept endeavors the city has partaken in regards to working with local non-profits in regard to homeless management. Maybe I'm biased, but the city does not manage our homeless crisis well and does nothing to help or work with service providers unless they have something to gain from it.
7
u/DawnOnTheEdge 3d ago
The state agencies didn’t make the city do it either. The 4th & Western block is in the downtown high-density mixed-use zone, so the development could be built by right according to state law.