Broadway Corridor (Post Office Redevelopment) | Proposed

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

^ I imagine you're right, the Pearl is not currently a particularly nice place to be a low-income person with children. In fact, aside from Jamison Square (which is usually full of children), I *personally* find the Pearl District a not-particularly-nice place to be, period. But that's probably because the city never seriously tried to meet the target of 35% - 50% affordable housing it laid out in 1994, nor did it do anything much to ensure that 'the market-rate housing in the River District should be targeted to as wide a market as possible' and that 'families with children should be encouraged to locate in the River District and specific development plans should include services and amenities that support this effort' (I'm quoting the River District Housing Implementation Strategy). Instead the Pearl, a place created by massive public investments like the Streetcar (funded through urban renewal districts), was abandoned to the free market, which created the type of neighborhood that capitalism tends to produce wherever it encounters favorable conditions and pliant and accommodating public officials. (On the eve of the inclusionary zoning ordinance, 90% of the new housing being built in the River District was high-end).

This site and project belong to the people of Portland, which have a once-generational opportunity to remake the Pearl with some of the qualities it was always supposed to have, including a lively and diverse public realm that's accessible to all. To make it a neighborhood, in other words, replete with low-income single mothers with three kids, immigrants, bus drivers, teachers, daycare workers, hotel maids, librarians, &c., and to make it a good neighborhood for those people as well as a good urban neighborhood with amazing public amenities.

Show me the money? Give me a break. Portland's never been so wealthy. How much money has the city already found to make the Pearl what it is, a playground for yuppies and the rich elderly? How much has it invested in this site already? (at least $157m, if you include federal spending to relocate the Post Office to its new site). If you think the city's short on money to build family and affordable housing here, three words: Urban Renewal District.

I don't remember the original numbers for the Pearl when it was being planned out, I think the affordable housing that was to be provided was suppose to be closer to the 35%, funny enough, they did actually meet that number in the amount of affordable housing because the original forecast of units for the Pearl was expected to be much lower. In a sense, they did build about 35% housing based off of original projections, but the number of market rate housing ended up exceeding what was originally predicted.

I do agree with you that this would be a great opportunity to develop this area into a high rise development for mixed incomes because there is no reason the Pearl District shouldn't add more affordable housing.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Well, we're voting on whether to raise taxes for affordable housing in November. If it passes, the City of Portland will receive a share of the revenues and have an opportunity to decide where it could spend them.

The 2015 Framework Plan for the Post Office sites assumes 30% of the new housing will units will be affordable, which is about 720 new units. The city could choose to increase that by using bond funds in the Pearl, but I'd question the wisdom of that. The Pearl already has thousands of units of affordable housing, making it the neighborhood with the highest percentage of regulated affordable units in the city. Meanwhile neighborhoods like Ladds Addition, Eastmoreland, Southwest Hills and Laurelhurst have exactly zero units of regulated affordable housing. Other close in neighborhoods on the eastside have greater than zero but nothing close to matching the income profile of the city.

So, if I were in charge of the Housing Bureau I think I'd want to make sure that we spent new bond funds in parts of the city with high opportunity (i.e. good schools, access to transit), but where we traditionally haven't spent any money on affordable housing.

I say Eastmoreland should take the bulk of affordable housing just to piss them off, especially Charlie Hales if he still lives there.

[AdamUrbanist]

I would add one point, which is that creating affordable housing in massive increments tends to exacerbate many of the disadvantages of poverty. That is one takeaway from the public housing programs of the 50’s and 60’s. The post office site is large enough that if it were developed exclusively as low income housing it may never feel very well integrated ito the neighborhood and could develop a stigma over time. There’s some good evidence that poor children have better life outcomes when their peers and neighbors are better off.

[maccoinnich]

Most recent Prosper Portland board meeting, most of which is spent giving the board an update on the Broadway Corridor:

• Video Link

[maccoinnich]

Refined concepts for the Broadway Corridor.

[urbanlife]

I really hope they do a combination of Play and Nature.

[RainDog]

The "nature" concept, especially with the revisions laid out here is the strongest concept. Though I found this little tidbit of feedback from the city to be a bit... humorous...

"Some cultural groups do not access nature the same way as others, feeling unwelcomed and unsafe in dark, wooded spaces"

First, I am not sure what cultural group they are referring to. Secondly, whomever these people are, it must be challenging living in the northwest while being afraid of trees...

Regardless of which approach is taken, there is most likely going to be quite a bit of issues with vagrants at this location. Especially with so much open space. The blocks adjacent to Bud Clark Commons (and all of Oldtown) have become pretty gnarly. The city so far has done very little to keep tabs on the problem in the park blocks adjacent to this site, which does leave me a bit concerned with how it will be handled here. It's really a shame, the park block are so lovely but I tend to avoid them as I often have been hassled for sitting in or passing through the area by members of the homeless community posting up there.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

The open house is delayed, but you can see the three concepts they've developed in this presentation.

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Refined concepts for the Broadway Corridor.

The "Play" concept has been selected.

[Socinus]

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/...velopment.html

I wasn't totally on board for the play concept, but it wasn't my last choice either.

[maccoinnich]

DAR #1 Drawings [41 MB].

[MarkDaMan]

The Green Loop looks overly complicated.

[Rob Nob]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

The Green Loop looks overly complicated.

I agree. Cyclists don't want to both climb an incline and navigate 180 degree turns, while cyclists are bombing down the other direction and also navigating a 180. The Eastside Esplanade up to Moda Center is an example of how this will be a disaster.

I'd prefer if they paralleled the Broadway bridge ramp on the west down to Irving street and then cut west to the park blocks. It'd also free up the end of the park blocks for a public space instead of bike circulation.

[maccoinnich]

Elevated Green Loop path emerges from latest Broadway Corridor plans



The flyover lives.

New renderings and details for the Green Loop through the Broadway Corridor project site have been made available by architects working on the project. They include our most detailed view yet of how the path will navigate from the Parks Blocks, through the site, and up to the 30-foot high junction at NW Lovejoy and the Broadway Bridge.

After a general planning concept was adopted earlier this month, ZGF Architects has just submitted drawings for the site to the City Auditor’s Office in advance of a Design Commissioner meeting set for June 6th. ZGF has been working on the site plan with Portland’s development agency, Prosper Portland, since 2015.

...continues at BikePortland.

[Leo]

Originally Posted by Rob Nob

I agree. Cyclists don't want to both climb an incline and navigate 180 degree turns, while cyclists are bombing down the other direction and also navigating a 180. The Eastside Esplanade up to Moda Center is an example of how this will be a disaster.

I'd prefer if they paralleled the Broadway bridge ramp on the west down to Irving street and then cut west to the park blocks. It'd also free up the end of the park blocks for a public space instead of bike circulation.

Since this appears to be a shared pedestrian/bicyclist path, I don’t think that optimizing bicyclist convenience is really the right priority. I think the “bombing” you describe is actually the problem that needs to be prevented – the zigzag path will hopefully slow bike speeds down as bikes come down the hill and enter the park.

We do similar inconvenient things for car traffic when we want to slow down cars in pedestrian areas ...

[johnliu]

Originally Posted by Leo

Since this appears to be a shared pedestrian/bicyclist path, I don’t think that optimizing bicyclist convenience is really the right priority. I think the “bombing” you describe is actually the problem that needs to be prevented – the zigzag path will hopefully slow bike speeds down as bikes come down the hill and enter the park.

We do similar inconvenient things for car traffic when we want to slow down cars in pedestrian areas ...

I can't tell the dimensions of the zig zag path. Repeated sharp turns (radius <10 feet) don't work well for average cyclists even at slow speeds, and the path needs to be rideable by almost all cyclist skip levels. Riders will run wide, collide, etc. Add pedestrians and scooters for even more entertainment. I understand this is just a conceptual sketch so I hope the architects build some test paths and send crowds of bikes and peds to use them.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by johnliu

I can't tell the dimensions of the zig zag path. Repeated sharp turns (radius <10 feet) don't work well for average cyclists even at slow speeds, and the path needs to be rideable by almost all cyclist skip levels. Riders will run wide, collide, etc. Add pedestrians and scooters for even more entertainment. I understand this is just a conceptual sketch so I hope the architects build some test paths and send crowds of bikes and peds to use them.

Completely agree. Let's not build another one lane Red MAX Line ramp with a sharp turn into the Gateway TC, again. It needs to be sensible.

[maccoinnich]

Revised Drawings and [41 MB] Memo to the Design Commission

[MarkDaMan]

I'm really underwhelmed by this. I get that we're creating a master plan not the actual buildings, but the programing lacks a coherent sense of place. There is no retail spine connecting with the park and the proposed retail is just kinda splashed here and there. There are too many streets. As I've previously mentioned the Green Loop isn't incorporated well. Arbitrary height limits.

And then there is this:

c. Vehicular Access. Staff notes that vehicular access is proposed for each building site because no below-grade parking is intended;

Does this mean they're proposing above ground parking, or no parking on the entire site?

What has happened to the PDC, uhum, I mean Prosper Portland?

[urbanlife]

Wait a minute, someone could build a 450ft building on the blocks between Broadway/5th and Glisan/Flanders???

[Leo]

Originally Posted by johnliu

I can't tell the dimensions of the zig zag path. Repeated sharp turns (radius <10 feet) don't work well for average cyclists even at slow speeds, and the path needs to be rideable by almost all cyclist skip levels. Riders will run wide, collide, etc. Add pedestrians and scooters for even more entertainment. I understand this is just a conceptual sketch so I hope the architects build some test paths and send crowds of bikes and peds to use them.

I guess I’m not seeing that path as a highway for bicycles, but as a park. Most parks have zigzag paths on slopes that encourage people to stop. This one in particular overlooks the entire stretch of the park, downtown Portland, and the playing fields below. I’m picturing people hanging out on the slope enjoying the view, not as a high speed bike path.