Resolution No. 2747 Westside Plan

Home Browse Search

• - ' + - _ -_ -�. �•- -"��. _ - viii ='_ • fit: r un i. is converted ones du 1 exes, apartments, multi-family . si ngl `e- fami 1 y ho P - di verse t -- i s consi s� including and group care face 1 � ti es. This . y, from single- f ami 1 y houses , • 9 p of hou si n types tent wi th 1990 Plan ob ect and i ves such as prove de a range � 9 I+ r.iet of resi dente al development types densities" (page 26) and encourage a va y ns t and char dens e cons stent with desi gnated de y or all income and age groups wher _ a cter of the b area ( 26 ) to ZC ears .have led. - - in patterns over the past 15 Y Although trends may be revers 9 3 P ds as suburban living vi ng became _ ' of older, central city ne�ghborhoo . . to a deterioration • inclined to finance homes � n the. and lending ng i nst� tuts ons were less costs more popular d construction and transportation s older areas. Now, with greatly increased of wi 11 i n to pay man h, gh on• or are n longer er afford new constructi ' people can no g • • 1 der central city nei gh� y . �n renewed interest �n the, o _ commuti costs, resulting . _ borhaods such as the Westside. _ r problem of revitalizing - the e encouragi ng, there remains the pro .. , _� _ While these trends ar 9 to the point that nearly'. • •of • ' n stock , whi ch has deteriorated P • existing housing d. There are many ,reasons for th�s ; houses i n the We s tsi de i s sub standar imai ntai n four h Hess of investor -- owners to prop including the inability or unwilling i nc 9 'come and elderly homeowners _to. af - -_ ' rucures the inability of same lower -in _ their st - - 'vin resul t n�g �rf'rom -- • and the decrease in quality of living _ . ford proper maintenance, a traffic noise, _ pol l uti on. _and. other ` 'vn of the housing and increase in tr _ _ deterioration to central city areas. p roblems common r:: _ ``;. • - • head and' the C ty of Eugene that =: he interest of the Westsi de Nei ghbor : st •aes = It s n t rehabi 1 i tated and mai ntai ned. In 'most a e housing i n this nei ghborhood be cost of . demol';i ti on th 9 costs wi ll be far 1 es s titan - the rehabilitation and maintenance dense t `un 'ts, might and new con stru monthly i ncome from new, higher .Y _. c ti on - Though • ' t of construction 'and q these uni is mi ght 1 ack. the qual y . uality 'the ex i's t- . ; be greater, roc teri ze the exi sti ng homes. If t ce both indoors -and out, that cha alternative will spa ' - th q ualit y, t C�nveni en t, l � 1 V1 ng _ _•. � ng uni ts are replaced, th q y ... _ .: gone in the Westside area. = be ga _ he Westsi de i nvol ves rehabi both l i- n the character and divers of e1sent• Maintaining Given pr _ • structures and construction on of new units. tati on of existing str - 1 that a substantial' .number ew f ami 1 construc it is unl ke ' y costs of si n gl Y • - Westsi de i n the future.; . theref ore , • e -famil u is wi 11 be built 1 t n the -famil of single-famil necessar to maintain the sing y ai nt�nance of existing structures i s y e maintained m multi-family ti family units should also b housing lternative. Existing t ale and character _ - g ' allowed which is compatible with the s _ - and new construction allow of the existi - nei ghborhood. r RECOMMENDATIONS he nei. �iborhood; • • habil itation programs should be continued. for. t 9 b • . 1. Housing re p 9 s pecial emphasis' on renter • those a i n progress, wi th p P � n add ition ti on to . _ occupied, single-fam ily structures* . co ntinued for the nei ghborhood; 2. Hous . maintenance programs should be • co i s • . pop with maintenance. hardsh P . with special al emphasis given to pop � - holds. wit P and f i xed- i ncome house such as elderly, handicapped, single-parent, _ -16-