Portland 2035 Comprehensive Plan

[soleri]

I read the Suzanne Lennard piece in The NW Examiner. I think most of her concerns are overstated, at least as far as Portland is concerned. A few areas in and around downtown (and Lloyd) dotted with high-rise residential will not change the city in a dystopian direction. I think she is, for the most part, thoughtful and academic on the subject, somewhat like early Jane Jacobs. Since The NW Examiner is mostly hyperbolic opinion pieces by Allan Classen, this was hardly anything to get upset about.

My concern for Portland has more to do with the gradual loss of its funky seed-carriers, the hippies and bohemians, who bent this city toward "weird" and helped tune Portland to its nicely eclectic nature. Portland is being discovered, there's nothing we can do about it, and it's likely the coming years will remake Portland into a yuppie paradise. Yes, yuppies with more spending money than hippies is not exactly a bad thing. But it's disheartening to think much of Portland's creative spirit will recede just as it has in San Francisco and Seattle. Change is the only constant, so enjoy this iteration while you can.

I'll side with the new in its battle with the old for this reason. Still, Portland has a vested interest in keeping most of its neighborhoods intact and vibrant. Lennard gets that even if she's unduly alarmed by a few high-rise buildings. This isn't Vancouver B.C. with its epic inflows of Asian money. Portland is getting better even as it loses some of the glad rags that made it charming. On the other hand, if Donald Trump comes to town, sound the alarms.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by soleri

Still, Portland has a vested interest in keeping most of its neighborhoods intact and vibrant. Lennard gets that even if she's unduly alarmed by a few high-rise buildings. This isn't Vancouver B.C. with its epic inflows of Asian money.

Interesting that you note Vancouver, with its hundreds of high-rises - yet it still manages to land at the top of "most-livable city" lists all the time.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

Interesting that you note Vancouver, with its hundreds of high-rises - yet it still manages to land at the top of "most-livable city" lists all the time.

I like Vancouver although the sameness (or just call it what it is: mediocrity) of its vast forest of high-rise condo towers can be anesthetizing. Portland is, in truth, the more interesting city despite its lack of comparable wealth. And it's this quality we ought to revere even if it is living on borrowed time.

[hat]

Originally Posted by soleri

I read the Suzanne Lennard piece in The NW Examiner. I think most of her concerns are overstated, at least as far as Portland is concerned. A few areas in and around downtown (and Lloyd) dotted with high-rise residential will not change the city in a dystopian direction. I think she is, for the most part, thoughtful and academic on the subject, somewhat like early Jane Jacobs. Since The NW Examiner is mostly hyperbolic opinion pieces by Allan Classen, this was hardly anything to get upset about.

My concern for Portland has more to do with the gradual loss of its funky seed-carriers, the hippies and bohemians, who bent this city toward "weird" and helped tune Portland to its nicely eclectic nature. Portland is being discovered, there's nothing we can do about it, and it's likely the coming years will remake Portland into a yuppie paradise. Yes, yuppies with more spending money than hippies is not exactly a bad thing. But it's disheartening to think much of Portland's creative spirit will recede just as it has in San Francisco and Seattle. Change is the only constant, so enjoy this iteration while you can.

I'll side with the new in its battle with the old for this reason. Still, Portland has a vested interest in keeping most of its neighborhoods intact and vibrant. Lennard gets that even if she's unduly alarmed by a few high-rise buildings. This isn't Vancouver B.C. with its epic inflows of Asian money. Portland is getting better even as it loses some of the glad rags that made it charming. On the other hand, if Donald Trump comes to town, sound the alarms.

The debate over building height is still up for grabs. It takes a whole lot more energy to build and maintain a metal-frame skyscraper than the typical concrete and wood 5-6 stories we are seeing on Division and Williams. Although density downtown doesn't bother me, I would love to see, for example, instead of a 30 story tower, 6 5-story buildings on Powell, or Williams or Belmont. Concentrating all building in one area of town necessitates that other areas have fewer mixed-use projects. Berlin is a great example of a gigantic area of 5 story buildings with a few sky scrapers in Potsdamer and Alexanderplatz. That lends itself to a fantastic miles-wide area of mixed-use neighborhoods with more decentralized transit. When you have an imbalance of density like in the US, in towns like Portland, everything has to go through the downtown area.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by hat

The debate over building height is still up for grabs. It takes a whole lot more energy to build and maintain a metal-frame skyscraper than the typical concrete and wood 5-6 stories we are seeing on Division and Williams. Although density downtown doesn't bother me, I would love to see, for example, instead of a 30 story tower, 6 5-story buildings on Powell, or Williams or Belmont. Concentrating all building in one area of town necessitates that other areas have fewer mixed-use projects. Berlin is a great example of a gigantic area of 5 story buildings with a few sky scrapers in Potsdamer and Alexanderplatz. That lends itself to a fantastic miles-wide area of mixed-use neighborhoods with more decentralized transit. When you have an imbalance of density like in the US, in towns like Portland, everything has to go through the downtown area.

I prefer both, I like seeing skyscrapers going up throughout the whole city center, and with 5 story buildings going up along corridors with highrise districts distributed throughout the metro that is connected by rail.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by hat

The debate over building height is still up for grabs. It takes a whole lot more energy to build and maintain a metal-frame skyscraper than the typical concrete and wood 5-6 stories we are seeing on Division and Williams. Although density downtown doesn't bother me, I would love to see, for example, instead of a 30 story tower, 6 5-story buildings on Powell, or Williams or Belmont. Concentrating all building in one area of town necessitates that other areas have fewer mixed-use projects. Berlin is a great example of a gigantic area of 5 story buildings with a few sky scrapers in Potsdamer and Alexanderplatz. That lends itself to a fantastic miles-wide area of mixed-use neighborhoods with more decentralized transit. When you have an imbalance of density like in the US, in towns like Portland, everything has to go through the downtown area.

Your entire post is contradictory. There are literally dozens of 5-6 story buildings going up along various Eastside corridors (where they belong), as well as multiple high-rises going up downtown (where they belong).

[hat]

Originally Posted by Derek

Your entire post is contradictory. There are literally dozens of 5-6 story buildings going up along various Eastside corridors (where they belong), as well as multiple high-rises going up downtown (where they belong).

There are. Contradictory?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by hat

There are. Contradictory?

So where is this "imbalance" you speak of? You're saying Portland has too much of an imbalance of density, and that you don't mind density downtown, but at the same time there's dozens of mixed use projects all over the place. We don't have Berlin-like density because it's a far older city, and US development patterns suck, but Portland is doing OK for itself with a mixture of high-rises in the core and mid-rises on busy corridors.


I guess I'm just not interpreting your post very well with the way it's worded.

[davehogan]

I just got home from the Flaming Lips free show on the waterfront, and it was awesome being downtown for most of the day to see all the cranes in the sky.

2035, bring her on!

[bvpcvm]

I think he means he'd prefer several smaller projects on, say, Division than a huge one downtown. It wasn't clear to me either.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

I think he means he'd prefer several smaller projects on, say, Division than a huge one downtown. It wasn't clear to me either.

It wasn't clear to me either - but the future of Portland isn't one or the other. It's both.

[hat]

Originally Posted by Derek

So where is this "imbalance" you speak of? You're saying Portland has too much of an imbalance of density, and that you don't mind density downtown, but at the same time there's dozens of mixed use projects all over the place. We don't have Berlin-like density because it's a far older city, and US development patterns suck, but Portland is doing OK for itself with a mixture of high-rises in the core and mid-rises on busy corridors.


I guess I'm just not interpreting your post very well with the way it's worded.

Sorry if I was unclear. This certainly will be controversial for this site, so I'll keep it short. I see a fixation with fantastically huge projects, and the assumption this is a favorable outcome for cities. US development patterns suck for a lot of reasons, the tendency for commuting from small house by SOV to downtown, for example, is just one. I know very little about city planning (I am a layperson), but my reason for bringing up Berlin was to show a different direction Portland can take in its development. Density along a corridor/neighborhood necessitates transit, and semi-autonomous neighborhoods where commuting may not be necessary. And that gets people out of cars. Density primarily downtown... we've seen what that looks like in almost every city in the US.

Yes, the answer is both, but it's a blurry one. How much do we want to incentivize 5/6 story buildings in neighborhoods other than downtown? This is one question the 2035 plan must grapple with.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by hat

Sorry if I was unclear. This certainly will be controversial for this site, so I'll keep it short. I see a fixation with fantastically huge projects, and the assumption this is a favorable outcome for cities. US development patterns suck for a lot of reasons, the tendency for commuting from small house by SOV to downtown, for example, is just one. I know very little about city planning (I am a layperson), but my reason for bringing up Berlin was to show a different direction Portland can take in its development. Density along a corridor/neighborhood necessitates transit, and semi-autonomous neighborhoods where commuting may not be necessary. And that gets people out of cars. Density primarily downtown... we've seen what that looks like in almost every city in the US.

Yes, the answer is both, but it's a blurry one. How much do we want to incentivize 5/6 story buildings in neighborhoods other than downtown? This is one question the 2035 plan must grapple with.

Almost every European city has a pre-automotive paradigm, so density wasn't an abstract value. It was entirely natural given the constraints imposed by living without personal mobility devices. There was a cycle of virtue in all of this, of course. The more people had to live close to their jobs, the more transit was needed. And the more local retail districts formed to meet real needs.

Portland has been called America's most European city because it echoes so much of this in its own development. Of course, Portland's main growth spurt came after the car, so it's not that European. And the current debate about reversing the dominance of the car here shows the retrofit won't be painless or free of rancor. Old timers, in particular, are unhappy their neighborhoods are getting denser. Read the comment threads on any online Oregonian development story and you really catch the bitterness about all this.

I don't think you're going to impose European-style apartment blocks in most of Portland. The resistance would be immense and politically toxic. What you can do is push density in places where the residential patterns are either new (e.g., Pearl, SW, Lloyd, downtown.) or along retail strips where single-family houses are not directly impacted. I think Portland's urban planners are pretty much doing precisely this, needless to say.

Suzanne Lennard's values here are close to mine but I think she's making a mistake trying to politicize the issue the way she has. Portland is doing the next best thing, increasing density dramatically where it can but only marginally where it's too politically charged. Even if you think high-rises are vertical sprawl, it beats the horizontal sprawl of most American cities (e.g., Phoenix, Houston or Atlanta). Portland is one of America's most exciting cities for this reason. It will never be Berlin or Paris because it came of age at the wrong time. But in this nation of car-loving, TV-watching, lawn-mowing burghers, it ain't bad at all.

[hat]

Originally Posted by soleri

Almost every European city has a pre-automotive paradigm, so density wasn't an abstract value. It was entirely natural given the constraints imposed by living without personal mobility devices. There was a cycle of virtue in all of this, of course. The more people had to live close to their jobs, the more transit was needed. And the more local retail districts formed to meet real needs.

Portland has been called America's most European city because it echoes so much of this in its own development. Of course, Portland's main growth spurt came after the car, so it's not that European. And the current debate about reversing the dominance of the car here shows the retrofit won't be painless or free of rancor. Old timers, in particular, are unhappy their neighborhoods are getting denser. Read the comment threads on any online Oregonian development story and you really catch the bitterness about all this.

I don't think you're going to impose European-style apartment blocks in most of Portland. The resistance would be immense and politically toxic. What you can do is push density in places where the residential patterns are either new (e.g., Pearl, SW, Lloyd, downtown.) or along retail strips where single-family houses are not directly impacted. I think Portland's urban planners are pretty much doing precisely this, needless to say.

Suzanne Lennard's values here are close to mine but I think she's making a mistake trying to politicize the issue the way she has. Portland is doing the next best thing, increasing density dramatically where it can but only marginally where it's too politically charged. Even if you think high-rises are vertical sprawl, it beats the horizontal sprawl of most American cities (e.g., Phoenix, Houston or Atlanta). Portland is one of America's most exciting cities for this reason. It will never be Berlin or Paris because it came of age at the wrong time. But in this nation of car-loving, TV-watching, lawn-mowing burghers, it ain't bad at all.

Quite so. Vertical vs. horizontal sprawl. That's nice. And as I said, I don't really know the answer to this. I say these things as a non-home owner, so I cannot empathize. Even I have mixed feelings about the outcome of our new Division and the effects of infill. You place all of this this in a fine light, rarely seen on the Oregonian or most online news sites.

[2oh1]

Going vertical creates communities through density because it brings people closer together. Horizontal sprawl impedes the creation of communities because it pushes people further apart.

Like it or not, Portland is expected to grow considerably in population over the next few decades. Going vertical keeps our city livable, walkable and mass transit friendly. Going horizontal creates traditional sprawl and is ignorant in more ways than I'll even bother to mention. The problem is, what too many people REALLY want is for Portland's population to stop increasing. Short of something catastrophic happening here, there's zero chance our region's growth will stop. Without vertical growth, the only option is sprawl.

Go to the bank and trade a $100 bill for its value in pennies. Spread those pennies out across the floor. If you're not going to stack 'em, they're going to have to sprawl way out. OK, so maybe you're fine with stacking a few as long as you keep the stacks low. Let's see how that works out when you have to add another $10 in pennies.

I don't think you're being realistic about Portland's increasing population.

[dubu]

Portland just needs longer trains/ tracks with taller buildings by the train stops. Further from the stops have townhouses apartments and houses. That's how I see a dense city medium size city.

It doesn't need to be like tokyo

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by dabom

Portland just needs longer trains/ tracks with taller buildings by the train stops. Further from the stops have townhouses apartments and houses. That's how I see a dense city medium size city.

It doesn't need to be like tokyo

Well the longer trains won't happen without redoing the entire system, and tunneling through downtown because the blocks can't handle longer trains. This is something we all know will never happen in our lifetime.

[maccoinnich]

Wasn't sure where to put this, as it's such an incoherent article. I guess this will do, as she mentions the Comprehensive Plan.

Column: Portland's skyline is looking up

The old adage “first impressions are lasting” applies to cities as well as people.

We’ve all had the experience of approaching a city for the first time whose skyline gets you downright excited as it rises on the horizon. A city whose civic personality, once you’ve entered the core, continues to build your sense of expectation and adventure. I like this town, you tell yourself .I’ve never been here before, but I can’t wait to start exploring it…

Over the years Portland has increasingly gained that kind of enchantment. There’s just something about it that makes you want to stop, explore and maybe end up staying here forever.

Of course there’s much more that constitutes a city’s character than its skyline. What we call a “cityscape” comprises much more than buildings. It’s about parks, sidewalks, rivers, bridges, greenways, public art.

...continues at Portland Business Journal.

[maccoinnich]

23,000 new apartments and condos projected for downtown. Where will they go? Portland City Hall Roundup



The number of apartments and condos in Portland's downtown core is projected to double over the next 20 years, adding about 23,000 new housing units, according to a new report from city planners.

The projections are included as part of a West Quadrant Plan, which breaks Portland's west-side core into seven districts.

Much of the city's recent downtown housing growth has come from the relatively blank canvasses of the Pearl District and the South Waterfront.

Those areas are projected to handle many of Portland's downtown newcomers, too.

...continues at the Oregonian.

[maccoinnich]

There's some really interesting stuff in the draft West Quadrant Plan [PDF], which what the Oregonian article above references. I've only just had a chance to skim read it, but things that jump out at me are capping the freeway between the West End and Goose Hollow, a Green Loop along the park blocks, encouraging more development along Naito Parkway in downtown, redeveloping the smartpark at SW 3rd & Alder & redesigning O'Bryant square.