In a quiet corner of Southeast Portland, the war of the lawn signs rages.
On just about every block in Eastmoreland, where the city’s rigid street grid gives way to winding suburban-style drives lined with pristine one-of-a-kind homes, a few residents have staked their side over a seemingly innocuous matter: historic district status.
The neighborhood association has pushed for a nomination, and the rules that come with national historic district status, to ward off home demolitions and greater density. But dissenters say it’s unnecessary and restrictive.
The debate comes as Portland confronts the trilateral conundrum of a housing shortage, rising housing costs and demand for city living. Wealthy, centrally located and low-density neighborhoods like Eastmoreland — where the average home price topped $700,000 last year — sit along the front line of change.
The conflict comes to a head this month as city and state historic preservation commissions weigh the merits of a nomination during what are sure to be contentious hearings.
The dissenters, meanwhile, have engineered a vigorous campaign to shut it down.
***
The Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association became an emphatic voice for preservation as the city stumbled over its own growth in recent years. Its officers have pressed for curbs on demolitions and renovations, and argued against zoning policies that promote greater density in established neighborhoods.
They also lobbied for more restrictive zoning within the neighborhood, but the effort flopped under objections from Portland planning officials and a lack of support from the City Council — even with the backing of Eastmoreland resident and then-Mayor Charlie Hales.
Forming a historic district was their Plan C.
“It gives you some control over a developer who wants to knock down a nice older home and put up a McMansion,” said Robert McCullough, the neighborhood association’s treasurer and former president.
The neighborhood has so far been spared the level of redevelopment seen elsewhere in the city. Only nine homes within the proposed historic district have been approved for demolition since 2005. But neighborhood officials worry that could change under new density-friendly zoning amendments coming next year.
Portland is home to five residential national historic districts. Irvington in Northeast Portland is the largest, followed by the Alphabet, Ladd’s Addition, King’s Hill and South Portland districts. Other neighborhoods have been locally identified as historic districts.
Each is a walkable storyboard to a specific period of the city’s past. Eastmoreland’s application notes its eclectic collection of colonial, Tudor and English cottage revival homes, along with American-style bungalows and craftsman designs. It claims historical significance from 1910 to 1961, a span that covers 1,030 of its 1,277 buildings.
Preservationists contend historic districts come with economic benefits, though studies suggest the effect on property values has been mixed.
But homeowners can chafe under the accompanying restrictions. In 2014, some Irvington residents agitated for secession on the grounds that their corner of the district is more characteristic of the neighboring Alameda neighborhood, but their petition was was rejected by National Park Service.
Forming a historic district doesn’t require residents’ consent, as long as someone pays the necessary study and application fees. In fact, a majority of the property owners must formally object, through a notarized letter, to prevent one from taking shape.
The opposition group, Keep Eastmoreland Free, has already collected more than 500 notarized objections – about half of what it thinks it needs. It has held parties and sent roving notaries through the neighborhoods to collect signatures.
Tom Brown, who lives in the proposed 475-acre district and owns a commercial real estate company, is opposed to rules that he said would restrict a homeowners’ property rights in the name of historic preservation.
“Why would anybody want to spend more money, more time? Have your neighbors looking over your shoulder? Being told what you like in architecture?” he said. “Why would anybody like that?”
***
Under Portland’s rules, buildings within a historic district cannot be demolished without a review from city land-use officials. There also would be limits on any renovation that changes a home’s appearance. Some residents worry that could prevent them from adding a wraparound porch, for example, or installing energy-efficient windows.
At least, that was the case. Recent changes in the way Oregon treats homes in such districts would partially defang the national designation.
Historic district process The city’s Historic Landmarks Commission will decide whether to endorse Eastmoreland’s nomination during a Feb. 13. Regardless of the outcome there, the nomination will then advance to the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, which meets Feb. 17 at the Eastmoreland Golf Course. With its approval, the proposal will go to the National Parks Service for listing on the National Register of Historic Places — unless the parks service receives objections from more than half of the district’s residents. The parks service is expected to make a decision July 6.
Under newly approved state rules, protections would apply only to historically significant buildings within the zones. Other “non-contributing” properties – in Eastmoreland’s case, any home built after 1961, for example – would have no constraints. And new buildings would not have to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood.
Rules aimed at preserving the architectural character of the neighborhood would come later, drafted through a land-use process that will require City Council approval.
Eastmoreland residents on both sides of the debate have praised the new rules, which they say could provide more flexible, and less expensive, tools for preserving the look and feel of the neighborhood.
“There may be a delay in terms of getting those guidelines in place, which isn’t ideal, but it’s something we’ve always anticipated,” said Rod Merrick, the chairman of the neighborhood’s land-use committee. “If it takes longer, then that’s the way it is.”
Those opposed to the district say the new rule could usher in less onerous requirements adopted through a more extensive public process — one that requires the consent of the property owners they affect.
“If they can get through that, if that’s what the neighborhood wants, then I guess I’d feel better about that,” said Liz Dexter, who lives in Eastmoreland but just outside the proposed district. She worries that the historic designation could concentrate demolition and redevelopment just outside the district’s boundaries.
In any case, Dexter said, the neighborhood association should slow down to consider the ramifications of the new rules and dissenters’ views.
But Merrick said the neighborhood group is pushing ahead with the campaign, for which it had budgeted $50,000. Though the association has already submitted the nomination, it currently is conducting a nonbinding poll to gauge residents’ support for the district.
***
The new state rules and the outcome in Eastmoreland will be closely watched by other Portlanders pursuing similar historic districts. Laurelhurst and Peacock Lane have taken steps but have not launched formal campaigns.
The new rules could provide a less drastic, and less costly, alternative for many of those neighborhoods, said Brandon Spencer-Hartle, historic preservation manager for the Portland Planning Bureau.
In the case of Eastmoreland, he said, neighbors perhaps could have reached greater consensus around a local district, which are created and managed by local officials without federal red tape.
“We’ve been on the sidelines of the process, watching conflict in the neighborhood that maybe could have been resolved with other options,” he said.
Indeed, the yard signs and heated rhetoric in online and public forums have created fissures. That prompted Derek Blum, who supports the district, to join other neighbors to form a third voice in the debate.
He said the neighborhood association’s board had lost credibility with some neighbors because of the combative tenor of the debate. Blum’s group, Historic Eastmoreland Achieving Results Together, or HEART, wants a more civil approach.
Ultimately, he said, he hopes the neighborhood poll will reveal consensus, one way or the other.
“I’d rather the board and, collectively, we determined what it is the majority wants to do,” Blum said. “I think it’s the right thing to do, but not at the expense of splitting the neighborhood down the middle.”
— Elliot Njus
enjus@oregonian.com
503-294-5034
@enjus
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
