PDX Planning Efforts

[zilfondel]

I've never even been in that area, seems like the site proposed for EX zoning "central city employment" is really lacking good exposure to circulation routes - its really isolated in its location.

Here's a link to the zoning code description: http://www.portlandonline.com/planni...=64432&c=36238

Walk Score gives the intersection of 60th and Halsey a 75/100.

There really isn't much retail or non-industrial employment on that side of the freeway, either. There isn't much of anything there, except for on Sandy & the Hollywood District. Rezoning along Glisan to allow mixed-use ped-oriented commercial is a really good step, IMO.

JordanL- many areas of Portland have seen redevelopment, new infill, and increased density and retail without huge investments by the city. Most of the retail streets (Burnside, Hawthorne, Belmont, Alberta) have actually not seen any PDC dollars spent on them, although the storefront improvement program have helped many parts of the city, but this area needs whole new buildings, not just a new window or signage.

Also, this isn't going to become a vertical suburb, as they downzoned part of the residential from R1 to R2, which only allows 21 units/acre (garden apartments, townhouses, duplexes, etc). However, viewing the area on live local tells me that much of the housing is WW2-era housing, relatively low lot coverage, not in the best of shape. I would bet that in 20 years many of these houses are going to be replaced.

But you're right, it needs a lot of amenities. But I'm sure it will see attention in the future. Interestingly, looking at portlandmaps, many of the properties in the area are eligible for property tax exemption due to transit proximity, and the land values are rising quickly - while the houses themselves are dirt cheap!

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by JordanL

Not about density... complaining about the severe commercial underdevelopment. This place is going to be a vertical suburb in the sense that it'll be like an island without some very ambitious commercial zoning or development.

If Portland wants to rezone/develop this area, it needs to be an Urban Renewal Zone planned out by the PDC, complete with mixed use buildings mandated on all new construction.

There is not supporting retail here. You can buy groceries, that's it.

It takes about 30-45 minutes to walk to Mt. Tabor from here, but I suppose it is relatively close...

the infrastructure around here, even so far as power lines, phone lines and sewage lines are not up to high density development. It's not a decrepit neighborhood, but it's a very development poor neighborhood.

I don't think you understand the concept of how high density works... you don't just build six story studio apartments and magically the neighborhood becomes vibrant... there are suporting commercial services, supporting city infrastructure, traffic flow patterns, etc.

Your arguments are ridiculous.. A suburban island? I have a friend who lives there and is able to walk, bike or take transit everywhere. He walks to Fred Meyer 2 blocks away, to the Petco for his dog, to several restaurants nearby, coffee place around the corner, and to the bars at night. Also, since Mt. Tabor is about a mile away, you must be crawling to take so long to get there cause it only takes 15 minutes when we walk there.

And needing the PDC to make higher density work? Hawthorne, Belmont, Sellwood, Westmoreland, Alberta, Division, etc.. none of them are urban renewal districts. It's not "magic", it takes time. I'm suggesting that we use zoning to allow the type of development we want and let the market satisfy demands within that zoning envelope. Perhaps you don't understand what zoning tools are available in the city. We can require active ground floor commercial spaces, quality urban design, buildings located at the front of the lot, etc.

Please don't lecture me on "high" density. I guarantee you I know this topic very well. There are often differences of opinion on how it should occur and here you are suggesting there's only ONE way to do it. PDC works reasonably well in some cases, but is not necessary many times. In fact, most vibrant neighborhoods pop up without PDC intervention.

There's a tremendous amount of high quality development occurring on N. Vancouver/Williams and Mississippi Ave. Those are one-lane streets without significant transit presence. I doubt the infrastructure under and over the streets were "ready" for that density. If developers want to do a project somewhere, they pay for the upgrades to infrastructure as part of their costs of doing business. PDC steps in when incorporating these costs doesn't make financial sense, but I don't think this area needs that boost. (I'm looking beyond the crappy housing market now). I'm not saying these things will all "magically" appear once the market rebounds either... They will occur more organically one project at a time.

As for the city infrastructure, more residents and businesses here helps pay for those improvements. This isn't simple by any means, but you make it sound hopeless without some massive government intervention. Yet, so many places have done quite well without that heavy hand you suggest is necessary.

[65MAX]

....and SoWa doesn't have a lot of neighborhood commercial space.... yet. But it will soon.

So their argument is "because there isn't a lot of commercial space near the 60th Ave. Station, we shouldn't build high densities there"? Do these people (NIMBYs) really think that there isn't going to be any new commercial space developed within this new EX zone? And these new Commercial Storefront (CS) zones? Seriously? That's their argument?

I just don't understand some of these people. No logical thought, just NIMBY, NIMBY, NIMBY.

[zilfondel]

^ I thought the densities they are zoning for are pretty high - between 21-32 (with bonuses) units/acre is not exactly what I would call "low density." Sure, they downzoned from an even higher zoning that allowed 40+ units/acre, although I would doubt there would be that many projects of that density occurring in the area in the future. There are compatibility issues with adding new developments in existing communities...

[JordanL]

RED: Well, since you have a friend who lives here I guess the fact that I live here is irrelevant.

zil & 65: I'm not trying to make the argument that the city should NOT go ahead with improving or densifying this area, I'm explaining the concerns that the people living here have expressed.

RED kept pointing out transportation. I don't believe I ever complained about transportation here. It's a neighborhood thing. Right now this area is like one of those suburban deserts, only in the middle of the city.

Closer to 82nd you find better zoning and mixture (as odd as that sounds) and then again as you get closer to 39th/28th. This neighborhood is kind of a no man's land between them, and simply rezoning the area and letting loose will almsot certainly end badly.

My point, and the point that the woman at the meeting expressed, is that if they want to do this, it needs to be planned, not half-assed. Over half of this entire neighborhood doesn't even have sidewalks.

[65MAX]

^^^^
Simply rezoning to allow higher density in your neighborhood (which is all that's being proposed here) doesn't translate into careless development. Since when is anything built in any PDX neighborhood that doesn't receive extensive, mind-numbing scutiny? It's your right as a resident of this area to make sure anything that does get built benefits you and your neighbors. But this proposal seems conservative and very deliberate (aka planned), not at all haphazard or incompatible with an existing main street (Glisan) and station area. Short of masterplanning the large opportunity site north of the station, what other planning do you need?

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

^^^^
Simply rezoning to allow higher density in your neighborhood (which is all that's being proposed here) doesn't translate into careless development. Since when is anything built in any PDX neighborhood that doesn't receive extensive, mind-numbing scutiny? It's your right as a resident of this area to make sure anything that does get built benefits you and your neighbors. But this proposal seems conservative and very deliberate (aka planned), not at all haphazard or incompatible with an existing main street (Glisan) and station area. Short of masterplanning the large opportunity site north of the station, what other planning do you need?

To be clear, I think this particular proposal is a good idea. I was explaining the sentiments of a commenter at a city meeting, which was the specific question asked by RED_PDXer, and which I share to a lesser degree.

This proposal is a great idea, but it should include some streetfront city improvements. Putting sidewalks in this neighborhood is something that I think should happen no matter what proposal is being talked about.

[65MAX]

OK, then that's a separate issue from the zoning change. I think the lack of sidewalks in some neighborhoods is a problem with no easy fix. The city makes property owners pay for sidewalks in front of their homes. So unless the owners are willing to pay for them, they probably aren't going to be built, except possibly for areas that are the most dangerous to pedestrians.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

OK, then that's a separate issue from the zoning change. I think the lack of sidewalks in some neighborhoods is a problem with no easy fix. The city makes property owners pay for sidewalks in front of their homes. So unless the owners are willing to pay for them, they probably aren't going to be built, except possibly for areas that are the most dangerous to pedestrians.

Why would the city force a homeowner to pay for the sidewalks if the homeowner doesn't own the sidewalks?

[zilfondel]

Umm, because you do sort of 'own' the sidewalks, even though they are public. And must maintain the sidewalks, plus the green space between the curb and the sidewalk..

most private land owners are also responsible for the initial paving of the street in front of their house, sewer, and everything.

Amanda Fritz, our new city council member, had an interesting post on her blog that talked about street improvements. She notes that Sam was in favor of helping homeowners get their streets paved and sidewalks put in.

Here's the city's LID info website:
http://www.portlandonline.com/transp...ex.cfm?c=dfhbf


All of the older parts of Portland were paved by the original developers. Outer NE/SE Portland and SW were annexed later on, as they were originally "developed" (barely) as suburban areas with no government. Hence... no sidewalks! They used to be farmland or forested hills.

[MarkDaMan]

What's the deal with sidewalks in this city? I live in a neighborhood without sidewalks and find it pleasant. The streets move slower because there are usually peds, skateboarders, cyclists, and kids out on the street. Feels less urban, more neighborhoodish.

I certainly would welcome infill in my neighborhood! And we don't have a grocery store or retail street either but we have a great community with one small park that contains a little community garden that serves as the heart of our neighborhood.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

Umm, because you do sort of 'own' the sidewalks, even though they are public. And must maintain the sidewalks, plus the green space between the curb and the sidewalk..

most private land owners are also responsible for the initial paving of the street in front of their house, sewer, and everything.

Amanda Fritz, our new city council member, had an interesting post on her blog that talked about street improvements. She notes that Sam was in favor of helping homeowners get their streets paved and sidewalks put in.

Here's the city's LID info website:
http://www.portlandonline.com/transp...ex.cfm?c=dfhbf


All of the older parts of Portland were paved by the original developers. Outer NE/SE Portland and SW were annexed later on, as they were originally "developed" (barely) as suburban areas with no government. Hence... no sidewalks! They used to be farmland or forested hills.

I meant it as more of a rhetorical question.

As in, "I think it's wrong to give all the responsibilities to the homeowners without any of the ownership". The "ownership" you describe is not ownership, it is maintenance responsibility.

That's more my point... if the city makes a homeowner pay for all the responsibilities, the homeowner should have real ownership, including sidewalk design, materials, landscaping, etc.

Which, IMO, is not the preferrable solution, as every 30 feet we'd have a different sidewalk design and potentially different materials.

In other words, it should be the city's responsibility because they own the sidewalks, no matter how they try to twist "ownership" around.

[MarkDaMan]

^think of the city as one big HOA. Then it makes sense.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

^think of the city as one big HOA. Then it makes sense.

How ironic, since I just went on a rant in another thread on how I don't agree with the concepts of HOAs either.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...9&postcount=10

I'm too Libertarian for submitting to an omnicient beaurocracy that saddles me witht he responsibility and keeps the benefits for itself.

[bvpcvm]

thank god i have an hoa. i never have to think about yardwork, or the roof, or whether the asphalt in the driveway needs to be resealed. sure they can be a bit overbearing (some are), but i hate thinking about all that little crap; i'd rather spend time with my wife than cleaning gutters or whatever.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

thank god i have an hoa. i never have to think about yardwork, or the roof, or whether the asphalt in the driveway needs to be resealed. sure they can be a bit overbearing (some are), but i hate thinking about all that little crap; i'd rather spend time with my wife than cleaning gutters or whatever.

I respect that some people would choose to be part of one... which i think is great... it's having no choice that bothers me.

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by JordanL

I respect that some people would choose to be part of one... which i think is great... it's having no choice that bothers me.

You have a choice - don't live in a neighborhood that has an HOA.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by rsbear

You have a choice - don't live in a neighborhood that has an HOA.

As was so cleverly pointed out, that requires not living in the city.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by JordanL

I meant it as more of a rhetorical question.

As in, "I think it's wrong to give all the responsibilities to the homeowners without any of the ownership". The "ownership" you describe is not ownership, it is maintenance responsibility.

That's more my point... if the city makes a homeowner pay for all the responsibilities, the homeowner should have real ownership, including sidewalk design, materials, landscaping, etc.

Which, IMO, is not the preferrable solution, as every 30 feet we'd have a different sidewalk design and potentially different materials.

In other words, it should be the city's responsibility because they own the sidewalks, no matter how they try to twist "ownership" around.

Just to be clear, this is not just a Portland thing, this is a common thing for most cities in this country. I do believe that in Portland a land owner does not have to put in a sidewalk if there isnt one, but if there is a large renovation or a new building that is being built, then they would have to. (at least this is the way it is in Oregon City, I did an architecture studio project out there and learned that).


Beyond that, I am kind of confused at what you guys are even arguing or debating...it sounds like everyone is for this development...so am I missing something here?

[tworivers]

Two sides continue debate on ‘blight’
Challengers to urban renewal expansion to meet with city leaders

By Jim Redden

The Portland Tribune, Mar 26, 2009

Mayor Sam Adams and Commissioner Nick Fish have agreed to meet with members of a group that successfully challenged the $344 million expansion of the urban renewal area that includes the thriving Pearl District.

In a January ruling, the state’s Land Use Board of Appeals upheld a portion of a challenge to the expansion by Friends of Urban Renewal. That ruling has put several major redevelopment projects on hold, including the construction of a Resource Access Center in the Old Town/China Town area north of downtown Portland to help the homeless.

The meeting – which has not yet been scheduled – is in response to a letter from Friends of Urban Renewal member Bob Ames, a developer and former chair of the Portland Development Commission that administers the city’s urban renewal area. The Friends of Urban Renewal group includes other former members of the PDC, former PDC employees and urban renewal experts.

In the March 9 letter, Ames lists six changes to the planned expansion of the River District Urban Renewal Area that his group supports.

Members of the Friends of Urban Renewal have argued that the expansion violated state laws requiring that urban renewal funds to be spent to eliminate blight. They’ve argued that the River District is no longer blighted, and that a part of the expansion plan – to send $19 million to the David Douglas School District to help build a new school and community center far outside the urban renewal area – was also illegal.

According to Ames, if the City Council agrees to his group’s proposed changes, the group would not challenge the expansion again. If the council does not agree to the changes, however, Ames said, the group reserves the right to challenge the expansion again – including a possible appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals, a process that could keep the expansion stalled for a year or so.

Despite the agreement to meet, it appears that finding a compromise will not be easy. Fish called the proposed changes “a non-starter” and said the council has not previously changed the creation or revision of an urban renewal area because of threatened legal challenges.

“This expansion has the support of the PDC [board of directors] and the council,” said Fish.

Ames said that although he welcomes the meeting, he is puzzled by Fish’s stance.

“I find it a little that odd that Fish would agree to talk but dismiss our proposals out of hand,” said Ames. “We’ve given this a lot of thought, done a lot of research and are united in our concerns. Right is right and laws need to be obeyed.”
Funds for school districts

The dispute started even before the City Council voted to extend the life and expand the boundaries of the River District urban renewal area on June 25 of last year. Ames and other group members testified against the expansion then.

After the expansion was approved, the group appealed it to the state board, which has jurisdiction over land-use matters. Although LUBA dismissed many of the group’s grounds for appeal, it agreed on two important points. First, it ruled the council had not proved the River District was still blighted. And second, it ruled the council had not proved the money sent to the school district would benefit the River District.

As a result, LUBA remanded the proposed expansion back to the City Council for further work. According to Fish, the council is confident it can prove the River District is still blighted and is preparing new language – called “findings” – to be included in the expansion resolution.

Fish said the council has not yet made up its mind about the school district funds, however. A bill is pending in the Legislature to specifically authorize spending urban renewal funds on schools outside urban renewal areas.

Even if the council amends and reauthorizes the expansion, however, the Ames’ letter outlines potential grounds for challenging it again. The six changes listed in the letter concern proposed projects the group does not believe would eliminate blight, as required by state urban renewal laws. They include $54 million in economic development aid, $35 million to buy an office building for Multnomah County, $50 million for affordable housing and $17 million for the portion of the east side Portland Streetcar loop that would run through the River District.

The letter said these projects either must be eliminated or greatly reduced for the group to support the expansion.

jimredden@portlandtribune.com