Quote:
|
Want to know how Portland got to be as cool and urban as it did? They decided 30 or so years ago to limit their ability to grow outward with suburbs, so they had no choice but to grow inward and upward. They didn't do it with some kind of government subsidy to attract hipsters. Although if you were to plunk Portland down in California, it still looks pretty poky compared to LA, San Diego or San Francisco--it would probably end up hanging out with Sacramento like band and drama kids in the high school cafeteria.
|
That's funny but true wburg. You and o_e have given we some things to think about.
There's not much we can do about the suburban built environment we already have. We could try create more density with in-fill but that will be a big long battle- as the Curtis Park railyard project demonstrates. Besides IMO the best thing would be to maintain both true suburban and true urban environments in the city and not try and urbanize the suburbs. Only the areas within a 10 minute walk of the light-rail stations should be urbanized otherwise you are just creating more of a traffic mess and draining the vitality out of the core- as 'edge city' places elsewhere have shown.
In most ways Natomas was really bad news for downtown so adding more housing and commercial development in Natomas will only continue to put he hurt on it. I would love to see a 100 year ban on building anything more in Natomas and all the undeveloped land turned into non-structural uses such as recreational parks with playing fields and courts, regional park with gardens and a new zoo, nativescapes with oaks forests, grasses, wildflowers and seasonal ponds, a recreated interpretative farm museum and community gardens where folks in Midtown/Downtown can rent plots to grow their own food, even not so eco friendly golf course would be preferable to building more suburbs. It's unlikely I know but I can dream.