TriMet/Metro Southwest Corridor Planning (Portland to Bridgeport Village)

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

you're wrong about Portland not trying to create an environment suitable for public transport. That has been Metro's primary goal for a good 30 years.... to concentrate new development at town centers and along transit corridors. And yes, density HAS increased here compared to when the UGB was instituted. That was the reason for having the Urban Growth Boundary to begin with. You just haven't seen the transformation since you're new to Portland.

Prove it. Prove me that there are real city centres in Portland suburbs. Been 2 years, never seen one. In my knowledge the Portland suburbs have increased the density a lot from the 70's thanks to the urban growth boundary, but not in a way that promote's very much public transport, it was mostly filling the wide spaces between housing estates with individual houses.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Also, not to beat a dead horse, but if you did some research, you'd find that Portland has one of the shortest (if not THE shortest) average commute times of any major American city.

I made researches already, I found the contrary. Portland has a quite normal commute time and expense.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by MR. Cosmopolitan

Prove it. Prove me that there are real city centres in Portland suburbs. Been 2 years, never seen one. In my knowledge the Portland suburbs have increased the density a lot from the 70's thanks to the urban growth boundary, but not in a way that promote's very much public transport, it was mostly filling the wide spaces between housing estates with individual houses.

Probably because Portland is not big enough yet to support more than one city center. Though the proof of the success of the urban growth boundary can be seen throughout Portland. Many of the city's inner neighborhoods would not be successful without the boundary, North Portland would still be a crap hole without the boundary. The fact that there has been many new housing developments that have happened in the metro that have homes built on smaller plots of land rather than a city without an UGB which would have standard suburban infill.

Sure, the region has had issues with its suburban cities within the UGB that have yet to push for creating their own urban centers of some sort, but both Hillsboro and Gresham have made efforts. With LRT planning on running to Milwaukie, we will probably see some effects of that there as well.

Much of what you are wanting to be proven probably wont be seen for another 50 years as Portland metro grows within itself.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by MR. Cosmopolitan

Prove it. Prove me that there are real city centres in Portland suburbs. Been 2 years, never seen one. In my knowledge the Portland suburbs have increased the density a lot from the 70's thanks to the urban growth boundary, but not in a way that promote's very much public transport, it was mostly filling the wide spaces between housing estates with individual houses.

What are you.... 6 years old?

I didn't say that. I said Metro's "goal" is to accommodate new development along "transit corridors" and "town centers". That's a fact, check Metro's website. That's exactly what's been happening here for the last 30 years. I said nothing about "city centres" in the suburbs because there are none. We don't have a Bellevue like Seattle does, or a Tyson's Corner like Wash DC does.

Of course your whopping 2 years here makes you the expert on Portland, so those of us who have been here since the '70's don't know what the f*** we're talking about, right?

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Though the proof of the success of the urban growth boundary can be seen throughout Portland. Many of the city's inner neighborhoods would not be successful without the boundary, North Portland would still be a crap hole without the boundary. The fact that there has been many new housing developments that have happened in the metro that have homes built on smaller plots of land rather than a city without an UGB which would have standard suburban infill.

I can't agree with this at all. Who has moved to North Portland over the past ten years? Would-be suburbanites? No: all those inner Portland neighborhoods are hipster hives; I can't imagine that they moved there simply because they couldn't move to a new suburban development out Gaston-way. Your argument might hold water if our suburbs were more expensive than the inner city, but it's just the opposite: I can get a townhome in Hillsboro for $220k; the same townhome in the Hollywood district costs $400k. So no, the UGB hasn't had much to do with revitalization of the inner city. In fact, my guess is the popularization of city life by Seinfeld and Friends has more to do with it than the UGB.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

What are you.... 6 years old?

I didn't say that. I said Metro's "goal" is to accommodate new development along "transit corridors" and "town centers". That's a fact, check Metro's website. That's exactly what's been happening here for the last 30 years. I said nothing about "city centres" in the suburbs because there are none. We don't have a Bellevue like Seattle does, or a Tyson's Corner like Wash DC does.

Of course your whopping 2 years here makes you the expert on Portland, so those of us who have been here since the '70's don't know what the f*** we're talking about, right?

I think you two are actually trying to talk about the same thing. In any case I have to agree here somewhat with cosmo; Metro has designated town centers, as you say (I think that's what he means by "city" centers), but they're not very impressive. When you say that's been happening for the past 30 years, yeah, I suppose that's been the intent, but where are the results? I don't see very much of even 5-story apartments out there (well, here and there, but not in walkable clusters), to say nothing of anything approaching a real urban environment.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

I think you two are actually trying to talk about the same thing. In any case I have to agree here somewhat with cosmo; Metro has designated town centers, as you say (I think that's what he means by "city" centers), but they're not very impressive. When you say that's been happening for the past 30 years, yeah, I suppose that's been the intent, but where are the results? I don't see very much of even 5-story apartments out there (well, here and there, but not in walkable clusters), to say nothing of anything approaching a real urban environment.

The 5-story apartments really started popping up in earnest right before the recession started. I agree there's nowhere near enough to warrant a lot of excitement, but the ones that have gone up have been along transit lines and in the town centers where transit access is best. It's taken a long time to get to the point where densification is happening in the city, but it is taking place. And it's happening where it's supposed to happen. I still want to see towers at every MAX station, similar to Vancouver's LRT (excuse me, ALRT), but that'll take a little longer unfortunately.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

I can't agree with this at all. Who has moved to North Portland over the past ten years? Would-be suburbanites? No: all those inner Portland neighborhoods are hipster hives; I can't imagine that they moved there simply because they couldn't move to a new suburban development out Gaston-way. Your argument might hold water if our suburbs were more expensive than the inner city, but it's just the opposite: I can get a townhome in Hillsboro for $220k; the same townhome in the Hollywood district costs $400k. So no, the UGB hasn't had much to do with revitalization of the inner city. In fact, my guess is the popularization of city life by Seinfeld and Friends has more to do with it than the UGB.

You are aware Portland isnt just reshuffling its population? The people who are moving to places like North Portland are coming from different parts of the country and are choosing to live there because it is a little bit more affordable than other parts of Portland and still is a decent neighborhood to live in, unlike the inner neighborhoods in the city that I grew up next to (which I grew up in the suburbs, therefore I would say I moved from the suburbs to live within the city.)

It is simple economics that would tell you that moving out from the center, prices will decrease. That has nothing to do with a growth boundary.

I will ask you this, seeing that the region isnt wasting money on infrastructure that extends 20 miles out in every direction, would you rather see this metro extend as far out as it can with nothing but light suburban density? Or would you rather live in a city that focuses on growing within?

I can only speak from personal experience, but I have lived in city that did not have an UGB and I live in Portland, that does, and I can say that I would much rather live in Portland where a 15 minute drive seems like a long drive compared to a 40 minute drive and it still feel like you are still in the middle of the suburbs...but that is just my point of view on it and there is plenty of people out there that love the suburbs.

[bvpcvm]

What? Did you even read what I wrote? You completely misunderstood my point. You said:

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Though the proof of the success of the urban growth boundary can be seen throughout Portland. Many of the city's inner neighborhoods would not be successful without the boundary, North Portland would still be a crap hole without the boundary.

I said that the revitalization in North Portland doesn't have much to with the UGB. That doesn't mean I don't support the UGB or that we should all live in the suburbs, as you also implied - ffs no, I hate the suburbs.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

You are aware Portland isnt just reshuffling its population? The people who are moving to places like North Portland are coming from different parts of the country and are choosing to live there because it is a little bit more affordable than other parts of Portland and still is a decent neighborhood to live in, unlike the inner neighborhoods in the city that I grew up next to (which I grew up in the suburbs, therefore I would say I moved from the suburbs to live within the city.)

Yes, people are moving from all over the country to live in Portland, but the UGB itself is not the reason they're moving to our urban neighborhoods; they move there for the cool lifestyle. Why do people move to Silver Lake? Adams Morgan? Williamsburg? These are, like North Portland, popular urban neighborhoods that didn't require any UGB to become attractive places to live. They became attractive because they were at some point relatively inexpensive, but still retained some of their older character; artists moved in, the neighborhood became hip, old people who mistakenly think they've still got it moved in as well, prices went up, artists could no longer afford it and moved on to the next neighborhood. No UGB required.

Where the UGB does, sort of, work, is in places like Sherwood and Cornelius; places at the edge, which might have otherwise sprawled out even further; places that aren't attractive to the hipsters who reside in North Portland.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I will ask you this, seeing that the region isnt wasting money on infrastructure that extends 20 miles out in every direction, would you rather see this metro extend as far out as it can with nothing but light suburban density? Or would you rather live in a city that focuses on growing within?

This is your most ridiculous of comments. What could possibly make you think that I want us to sprawl out as far as possible??

"UGB isn't the cause of inner city revitalization" != "Get rid of the UGB"

Yes, we've contained ourselves better than Tampa, but we could have done better. We could have written the law so that there was no need to have a 20-year land supply inside the UGB. We didn't have to expand the UGB to include Damascus. We could have been more aggressive about increasing density in our town centers and we could have decided to tax the hell out of surface parking.

And btw, what makes you think that we're not building infrastructure that extends 20 miles out? Two of Metro's road projects are a freeway from I-5 to Sherwood and an expressway from Troutdale to US-26, bypassing Gresham. In Yamhill County, there's that enormous bypass they want to build outside of Newberg. How many streets in Hillsboro have been widened to four lanes in the past 15 years? And hey, how far out does the MAX go? The blue line extends out 18 miles west of Portland. We are spending money on infrastructure way out at the edges, just like they do in Houston or Jacksonville.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I can only speak from personal experience, but I have lived in city that did not have an UGB and I live in Portland, that does, and I can say that I would much rather live in Portland where a 15 minute drive seems like a long drive compared to a 40 minute drive and it still feel like you are still in the middle of the suburbs...but that is just my point of view on it and there is plenty of people out there that love the suburbs.

Again, what makes you think that anyone here is advocating for sprawl as far as possible? If you happened to read what I actually wrote you won't find anything of the sort.

[alexjon]

Why are you being so combative, bvpcvm?

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

There was this great idea that was shown once here, and quite ignored by the forumers, about making the suburb's centers and corridors much denser http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=136877. I will really hope this expectation to be Portland's urbanistic future. If you want to put an economic argument, you should know that living in appartments in the suburbs is much cheaper than living in individual houses in the suburbs.

Visiting many times Canada I've seen that this kind of Vancouverish scenario, in my opinion isn't really much different from a typical American suburban enbironment. There are just some semi tall buildings in really microscopic parts of the suburbs. I really don't understand why we should make a big cheese about it, The only changes are the ones we don't even notice, greater use of public transport, lower carbon footprint and healthier lungs. To allow this to happen, I think we should have a grater connection with Vancouver and maybe the rest of Canada, make Portlanders more aware that there are different kinds of cities and lifestyles, because really I think that most people that live in suburbs in America they live there because they don't know any better place to live in.

I don't want to sound insultive towards Americans I'm not calling you ignorants, just I will call you very patriotic, look at how many American flaggs you see around, listen to what you hear when a non national match starts, you would see that you really love you'r country, and people that love their country tend to ignore the rest of the world.

[alexjon]

If your first attempt doesn't prove persuasive, accuse people of being overly nationalistic.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Not accusing anybody I think it's sort of a good thing, a dangerous good thing is patriotism, it can easily turn badly, or maybe it's influence of my culture.

As a Catalan I've been many times insulted and attacked by "patriotic" Spanish people,I don't know if you know how it feels when somebody insults you’re culture and you’re language in front of your face and you know that you can't do anything about it because those people would beat you up if you do it.

It's something in my heart, when I hear a national anthem I cry, and it's not because of the emotion, but because of the memories that it give's me.

[urbanlife]

I said that the revitalization in North Portland doesn't have much to with the UGB. That doesn't mean I don't support the UGB or that we should all live in the suburbs, as you also implied - ffs no, I hate the suburbs.

Clearly you are equally missing my point for the UGB. Without it, this region would of simply sprawled away from all its problems years ago. Places like North Portland would still be bad neighborhoods because there would be no reason to move to them. There is a reason why rust belt cities are struggling, the further their population moves away, the more the center of the city struggles. (yes there are many issues with rust belt cities, but that is definitely a big one.)

Yes, people are moving from all over the country to live in Portland, but the UGB itself is not the reason they're moving to our urban neighborhoods; they move there for the cool lifestyle.

Which wouldnt exist without the UGB because people would of just moved away from the center to live in the suburbs. Same as point made above.

Where the UGB does, sort of, work, is in places like Sherwood and Cornelius; places at the edge, which might have otherwise sprawled out even further; places that aren't attractive to the hipsters who reside in North Portland.

Of course I am referring to the outskirt towns being the most visually effected by the UGB because they are at the edges, thus preventing continuous sprawl. Do you think this city would look like this if it had the same population spread out in a metro three times this size?

This is your most ridiculous of comments. What could possibly make you think that I want us to sprawl out as far as possible??

I never said you wanted or was for sprawl in any way, I just dont think you fully understand the effects that the URB has had for the region preventing it from being three times its current size.

And btw, what makes you think that we're not building infrastructure that extends 20 miles out? Two of Metro's road projects are a freeway from I-5 to Sherwood and an expressway from Troutdale to US-26, bypassing Gresham. In Yamhill County, there's that enormous bypass they want to build outside of Newberg. How many streets in Hillsboro have been widened to four lanes in the past 15 years? And hey, how far out does the MAX go? The blue line extends out 18 miles west of Portland. We are spending money on infrastructure way out at the edges, just like they do in Houston or Jacksonville.

Sorry, I should of used a better number than 20 miles, but I will say, Portland looks nothing like where I grew up which was nothing but uncontrolled sprawling suburbs...and by infrastructure I dont just mean roads, I mean power, water, sewage, education, health, fire, police, everything that goes with running a city. Portland would be a struggling city if most of its residents lived outside of Portland and commuted in from the suburbs.

Again, what makes you think that anyone here is advocating for sprawl as far as possible? If you happened to read what I actually wrote you won't find anything of the sort.

Again, I dont think you are advocating for sprawl, I am just not sure you understand the effects of an UGB.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Clearly you are equally missing my point for the UGB.
(...)
Which wouldnt exist without the UGB because people would of just moved away from the center to live in the suburbs. Same as point made above.

So are you seriously trying to argue that the people who live up on NE Alberta would just as happily live in a subdivision in Yamhill County if only the UGB would allow it? What you fail to recognize is that living in North Portland is a lifestyle choice (a far more legitimate one than living in the suburbs, IMHO...) and the lack of sprawl all the way to Grand Ronde has probably had very little influence on their choice. The UGB operates to keep the edges from bleeding further out; revitalization of urban neighborhoods is a byproduct of a different process - one of cultural change.

For your version to work, the UGB would have had to make prices in Hillsboro so high that buyers found they had no choice other than to find something cheaper - in North Portland. But look at real estate prices: you can find a townhome near Orenco for $220k; the same townhome in inner city neighborhoods (NE, SE) goes for upward of $400k.

Society has changed since we started sprawling and there's now enough of a contingent of younger people who have grown up under different circumstances - they've traveled and seen that urban life in other countries offers advantages over suburban life here, they've grown up with stories of gangs in suburban areas rather than inner cities, they've absorbed media that glorify urban lifestyles - there's enough of these people now that neighborhoods that were once practically abandoned are coming back to life, because businesses that cater to these people have enough customers to be successful.

In fact, you could even argue that sprawl is what saved those inner-city neighborhoods - I shudder to think that sprawl has any positive side effects, but sprawling out allowed developers to build in new territory; if we hadn't sprawled a lot more Rosefriends would have turned into parking lots and strip malls.

[65MAX]

OK..... we all agree, UGB good, sprawl bad.

As far as the subway goes, it makes sense only if you're going to serve Hillsdale and Multnomah Village (which it should, they're designated Town Centers) then surfaces near the Barbur TC. There is plenty of room for a surface ROW from there out to Tigard/Sherwood, so additional subway beyond that is not necessary.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Yes, I will also suggest encouraging right now the formation of the town centres, promoting first a more accepted medium density, that means 3-4 storey apartment buildings, create parks, make the place more attractive to development, and reserve space for future high density in the cores. Also around the town centres create row houses, a lot of them if possible; I think that the people living around the centres in individual houses can be easily bought out; density should be settled following a nuclear pattern, no corridors; with that urban base and the line, I think that the punctual high density that subways (heavy rail doesn’t have to be underground) needs would automatically appear, without affecting too much local's environment. Protests would be much less common if this pattern is followed.

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by MR. Cosmopolitan

Yes, I will also suggest encouraging right now the formation of the town centres, promoting first a more accepted medium density, that means 3-4 storey apartment buildings, create parks, make the place more attractive to development, and reserve space for future high density in the cores. Also around the town centres create row houses, a lot of them if possible; I think that the people living around the centres in individual houses can be easily bought out; density should be settled following a nuclear pattern, no corridors; with that urban base and the line, I think that the punctual high density that subways (heavy rail doesn’t have to be underground) needs would automatically appear, without affecting too much local's environment. Protests would be much less common if this pattern is followed.

Read this:

http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm...=24198/level=1

All of it.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

So are you seriously trying to argue that the people who live up on NE Alberta would just as happily live in a subdivision in Yamhill County if only the UGB would allow it? What you fail to recognize is that living in North Portland is a lifestyle choice (a far more legitimate one than living in the suburbs, IMHO...) and the lack of sprawl all the way to Grand Ronde has probably had very little influence on their choice. The UGB operates to keep the edges from bleeding further out; revitalization of urban neighborhoods is a byproduct of a different process - one of cultural change.

For your version to work, the UGB would have had to make prices in Hillsboro so high that buyers found they had no choice other than to find something cheaper - in North Portland. But look at real estate prices: you can find a townhome near Orenco for $220k; the same townhome in inner city neighborhoods (NE, SE) goes for upward of $400k.

Society has changed since we started sprawling and there's now enough of a contingent of younger people who have grown up under different circumstances - they've traveled and seen that urban life in other countries offers advantages over suburban life here, they've grown up with stories of gangs in suburban areas rather than inner cities, they've absorbed media that glorify urban lifestyles - there's enough of these people now that neighborhoods that were once practically abandoned are coming back to life, because businesses that cater to these people have enough customers to be successful.

In fact, you could even argue that sprawl is what saved those inner-city neighborhoods - I shudder to think that sprawl has any positive side effects, but sprawling out allowed developers to build in new territory; if we hadn't sprawled a lot more Rosefriends would have turned into parking lots and strip malls.

I do not agree with this at all, I am sure we have some common ground within this topic, but from what I can tell, it is very little. Parking lots in downtowns were the effect of sprawl, gotta make room for all those commuters driving into downtown for work.

North Portland is a lifestyle choice now, it wouldnt be if there was no one that wanted to improve the area in the first place or had any reason to. It is much easier for people to forget inner city neighborhoods than it is to keep them up and running. Therefore the need to focus inward for the metro has encouraged such neighborhoods to take on new life.

Also, I am not against having suburbs within a metro, I think they are just as important as the central city. Not everyone wants to live in Portland or in an urban neighborhood, yet wish to live in that metro. So your comparisons with a townhouse in Orenco being cheaper than a townhouse in Portland isnt what this is about. Of course at the edges are going to be cheaper, they are always going to be cheaper, my point is how far should those edges be allowed to go before they begin to do damage on the central city by spreading too far and stressing money for infrastructures.

It is much easier to control the growth of a region if there are boundaries. It will be much easier for transit to grow in this city if there are proper plans in effect that can focus higher density where it is needed and not have too much of low density that spreads out too far.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Originally Posted by rsbear

Read this:

http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm...=24198/level=1

All of it.

Finished reading it!
Hasn't changed much from the 70's project, some parts haven't been respected, like the restriction on building on sites that are too far away from public transit corridors, evenly distribute retail throughout the city, dissolving the formation of strips on the corridors, and the creation of bubbles of dense mixed use urban developments along the transit ways.

Success on creating a decent downtown, with mixed use and density, creating transit alternatives to car, limit the height of buildings, creating areas of lower medium density, on the west, not on the east, creating zonal parks, and of course the UGB especially till the 2000's now it has started to fail a bit, people moving to Vancouver and expansions of the boundary.

I would say that it has been successful on stuff where you just pump money or on thing's that need a law prohibiting something. The rest that involves mostly convincing people to do something, like living in apartments, or something’s that are too un-American like restricting to build on places inside the boundary was kind of a failure.