From the outside, the plain rectangular building is unremarkable. Chipped white wood siding frames three carriage doors, askew from years of squatter traffic. One is boarded up with a large sheet of plywood in a vain attempt to keep trespassers out. Thick locks proved only a temporary deterrent, and for the bold, a large opening in the backside of the building provides a dog door of sorts.
Inside, the former community garage in Bend’s historic district show signs of its more recent history. Scattered about the molding and collapsing structure, personal effects shed light on its most latest inhabitants: Backpacks, sleeping bags, and empty packs of cigarettes accompany a mandala coloring book, a large Ziplock of dog food, and a massive bottle of what appears to be urine.
A hole in the floor serves as garbage chute and smorgasbord for smaller freeloading tenants, while a long ceiling beam has called it quits, no longer able or willing to shoulder the weight of the crumbling pile of timber.
In any other neighborhood, the building would be considered a simple eyesore and threat to human safety, and promptly razed. But because it is located in a historic district, on the corner of NW Georgia Avenue and NW Bond Street (across from the Source office), its modification—or demolition—is subject to strict City code requirements.
What makes a building “historic,” and therefore worthy of preservation? In Bend, certain buildings are designated as historic properties based on their individual merits, while others make the cut simply by virtue of being located in one of the city’s “historic districts”—namely Old Town and Drake Park.
The goal, according to City code, is the “preservation and designation of historic resources that have special historic and prehistoric association or significance as a part of the heritage of the citizens of the City and for the education, enjoyment and pride of the citizens, as well as the beautification of the City and enhancement of the value of such property.”
Education, enjoyment, pride, and beautification. These are lofty aims that can no doubt be achieved with careful restoration of properties with true historic significance. And the City demands that it be careful.
Since the illegal demolition of a historic Brooks-Scanlon crane shed in 2004, the City has tightened its requirements for wiping out a listed property.
In 2013, then co-owner Jennifer Lundstrom, a Portland-based real estate agent, submitted a request to demolish the building. In the letter accompanying her materials, she described her initial vision for the building she purchased in 2012—and the subsequent reality checks that persuaded her that saving it wasn’t feasible.
“We were originally hoping to keep the existing garage and restore the structure,” she wrote in the September 7 letter. “But after talks with neighbors, several contractors and a structural engineer, we quickly found that the property is unsafe, too far damaged, and unfit to be salvaged.”
Lundstrom goes on to explain that the building’s previous owner tried to warn her of the building’s condition—”seriously about to fall down at any moment”—and says that after years of lying vacant, it has crossed the threshold from simply unsightly to downright dangerous.
“We believe that the property poses safety issues for the neighborhood and a threat to public health due to the junk and riff-raff that it attracts in its current state,” she wrote. “We also believe the shed could fall down at any moment so the issue is dire to the safety of the general public.”
And things haven’t gotten better in the two years since Lundstom sought approval to demolish the building. Since 2010, Bend Police have been called to the garage four times. “Of the four responses, three have resulted in criminal arrests,” says Bend Police Chief Jim Porter. “The arrests include trespassing, possession of controlled substances, and probation violations.”
Bend Police most recently responded to an incident at the garage on August 7, after a young man was seen walking into the building. Officers surrounded the entrance and waited, guns ready, while a handful of stowaways emerged.
“We found the suspects had cut the lock of the chain securing the door, but threaded the chain in such a manner as to make it appear the door was secured with a chain, with the lock on the inside of the garage,” Porter explains. “The owner is absentee, living outside of Central Oregon. They have made valid attempts to secure the building, but when someone cuts a secure lock, I’m not sure what further they can do.”
He says he’s following up with the owner to ensure they are taking appropriate measures to secure the building, and officers have conducted what he calls “community police checks” to make sure there isn’t any funny business going on.
The building sold to a new owner in July, even though Lundstrom ultimately secured approval for a later plan (shown in the inset above) that involved building a home that uses approximately 20 percent of the existing structure and draws inspiration from its current design.
Senior City Planner Heidi Kennedy says that while she can’t predict whether the Landmarks Commission would have approved the demolition request, tearing down buildings in historic districts is uncommon.
“I think demolitions aren’t really that common, because it’s a lot of work,” she explains. “You have to prove its really in bad shape.”
Lundstrom says that the project ultimately proved too costly, prompting her to sell. She says the new owner plans to move forward with the approved design for a two-bedroom, two-bathroom home.
This article appears in Aug 19-26, 2015.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
methinks the developers doth protest too much – make something from what you have.
No denying the garage is a potential hazard. But not sure that the problem is in its “historic” designation, as in an out of area owner. As Bend wrestles with growing problems with in-fill Vacation rentals, affordable housing, and more second home properties filling neighborhoods really we need to focus on making the property owners have an interest and personal investment in our community.
This article completely ignores the issue of homelessness and paints “squatters” as criminals rather than people just trying to survive. I would expect more from The Source.
I feel that this article really misses the mark. The terms “riff-raff” and “squatter” are derogatory and I don’t feel that this article acknowledges the gross lack of effort on the part of community leaders in fixing the housing crisis. This article could have addressed real issues in this community- but instead it cowtows to the wealthiest members of this community and promotes the elitist culture that is keeping many of our citizens living on the street. The Source is an independent paper; as journalists, you could be doing good for the world- and talking about real issues. This is disappointing.
While it’s fair to say “riff-raff” isn’t a complimentary term, “squatter” simply refers to the act of squatting, that is, occupying a space one does not own/rent/lease. Is there a term you find preferable to describe that act? The structure appears to be unstable and unsafe for human occupation. While we are all quite sympathetic to the plight of those who are without reliable housing, to allow folks to continue to live in a dilapidated structure doesn’t do them any favors. And though this particular article doesn’t get into the larger housing crisis, or the growing number of people facing homelessness, those are issues we have covered and will continue to cover. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.
Erin, nice work on the investigation of the building. Tough overly sensitive passive aggressive crowd around here eh? 🙂 And we wonder why developers say F-it and bring in the dozers at night. All while the hysterical district is holding a Geneva summit on whether this POS shack holds significant historic value or not. The owner is paying taxes,insurance and interest payments on the property. But hey who cares about that, we just want to make sure no ones f-ing feelings get hurt if this thing goes away. Then, you do a little investigative reporting and the whambulance rolls in with the #squatterslivesmatter campaign. Jesus!!These people kill me! Erin, you are soooo insensitive to trespassers rights. How dare you?…. I bet none of the posters above crying about their feelings and general offendedness know the first thing about the B.S. a citizen has to go through to do anything in the hysterical district( Hence the reason this building has changed hands multiple times and nothing has ever happened to make it better). Don’t forget, if the building does fall over when a poor helpless drifter is trespassing in the shack it then turns into a liability lawsuit going after the owner and their insurance company for everything they have….. To those of you crying about squatters rights I invite you to leave a map at the site of this building and invite the poor helpless squatters to your place since you care so much about them….. A little more “I think” and a little less “I feel”