HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Downtown & City of Portland

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 12, 2015, 10:52 PM
PDXDENSITY PDXDENSITY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by ORNative View Post
I did not catch that Holst would be the architects. I encourage everyone to go to their website and look at their portfolio. Very impressive, very northwest. Ups the excitement just that much - can't wait to see what they propose. The trees of Hollady Park will make such a great backdrop to this development, and the north / south views will be protected by the gulch and mall for a very long time, if not in perpetuity.
I for one certainly hope we don't "preserve" the north views in perpetuity. There are, at the very least, lots of surface lots that can become high rise housing and mixed use office and retail. Once they start recouping money by developing the parking lots (as they seem to be doing with the movie theater) they can reassess if they want to demolish the super block behemoth of the mall.

I think we are witnessing a strategic investment in the area that involves an understanding that malls are dying. Eventually, I hope this whole area is cosumed by mid rise and high rise buildings with a vibrant and narrow street life for transit and human modes. Lots of homage to fine grain development while stepping back on huge squares (they're already happening) will be an important part.

My only concern is the mention of how much parking will be included. Is this being induced by zoning? Or is the developer deciding this? We need to tell them to kill off a lot of that parking to encourage other modes. ALL these developments are going in near MAX, streetcar, bike, ped, and central city. They don't need so many car stalls.

I'm excited, even if the parking is fumbled. The Lloyd is on it's way to becoming a second downtown. I am hoping there is a continued push to get Gateway/205 to start jumping because it is at the nexus of the green, blue, and red lines.

This bodes well for Portland. I think peacemeal development, with ADUs and tiny house can consume some of the need for density in our old bungalow suburbs. Portland is going to become sort of a ring, with tendrils of mid density along corridors with hopefully streetcars/MAX in the future.

The goal should be to push density in places that aren't considered terribly historic. East Portland could become a very dense and desired location while also maintaining affordability. So could Clackamas.

We need to resist the desire to expand any highway infrastructure, and only increase density and beef up transit/bike/ped infrastructure to compensate. Cars must pay their way in higher gas tax/mile traveled tax/tolls, anything. They don't pay enough to compensate the lifestyle of sprawl they are tied to.

We must not expand the urban growth boundary. This is how we will become world class.

These are interesting first steps in the Lloyd district! Any thoughts on them potentially systematically killing off the mall in a controlled way? I think it's going to become something very interesting and less super-blocky, soon.

Hooray!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 1:09 AM
Abide's Avatar
Abide Abide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 385
This is fantastic news! I've long hated that parking crater. Also, I'm glad to see that theater go. It's ugly and has absolutely horrible street presence with that stupid colonnade. Wonder if they'll try to put a theater inside the new development somewhere. The amount of parking proposed is sad for 21st century Portland. As for the theater inside the mall, that's already been closed for a while.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 1:19 AM
innovativethinking innovativethinking is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 591
I don't know why so much car hate. The car is not going anywhere for a very long time. Hence why it's in the 90 percentile of people who use it. There's a reason traffic in Portland is getting worser and worser. I think it's rated like the 9th or 10th worse traffic in the nation. Instead of addressing it (like expanding freeway lanes) we instead try to hide it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 1:34 AM
PDXDENSITY PDXDENSITY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by innovativethinking View Post
I don't know why so much car hate. The car is not going anywhere for a very long time. Hence why it's in the 90 percentile of people who use it. There's a reason traffic in Portland is getting worser and worser. I think it's rated like the 9th or 10th worse traffic in the nation. Instead of addressing it (like expanding freeway lanes) we instead try to hide it.
Not car hate. Incoherent planning. They are going to put in tons of car parking in a place that should be planned as low car, near a transit nexus.

The solution to traffic is not more car capacity. That induces demand. Parking or highway expansion. The solution is to maintain what we have and strategically put on diets roads to help pedestrians and bikes. Then we need to realign the budget to heavily invest in transit and imposing density along transit corridors.

I'm talking about rerouting enough money so that roads can be simply maintained and we can add a subway. We shouldn't be reconfiguring an interchange in the Rose Quarter if we can vastly improve traffic with better transit.

I know this refrain will be continued over and over, but traffic is worsening at a lower rate than if we didn't have the transit we already have. There's been a plateau of per-capita demand. We have increasing population-- what we need is world class transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 2:04 AM
65MAX's Avatar
65MAX 65MAX is offline
Karma Police
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: People's Republic of Portland
Posts: 2,138
First of all, great news about developing this parking lot.

However, I don't think 873 parking spaces is excessive for 980 housing units. Especially when that includes parking for the commercial parts of the development.

Also, nowhere have I seen (except the misleading title of the Business Journal article) where they said the Regal was going to be demolished. If there's going to be theatres in the new development, it seems pretty wasteful to tear down perfectly good (and profitable) theatres just to rebuild them again. The BJ article merely refers to the much more in depth Oregonian article, which simply states that the developers are buying the theatre AND its massive 4-block parking lot. Nobody said the theatre was being demolished.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 2:38 PM
BlazerBeav BlazerBeav is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY View Post
Not car hate. Incoherent planning. They are going to put in tons of car parking in a place that should be planned as low car, near a transit nexus.

The solution to traffic is not more car capacity. That induces demand. Parking or highway expansion. The solution is to maintain what we have and strategically put on diets roads to help pedestrians and bikes. Then we need to realign the budget to heavily invest in transit and imposing density along transit corridors.
So have you, personally, chosen not to own a car? This anti-car crusade is shortsighted and impractical. Walk around Division Street and see all of the recent development that included absolutely no parking. The argument was that none of the tenants would need cars - they'd use Tri-Met and bikes to get where they needed to go. Guess what? It turns out that they all do own cars, and now those cars are taking up all of the street parking of the surrounding neighborhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 4:52 PM
innovativethinking innovativethinking is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazerBeav View Post
So have you, personally, chosen not to own a car? This anti-car crusade is shortsighted and impractical. Walk around Division Street and see all of the recent development that included absolutely no parking. The argument was that none of the tenants would need cars - they'd use Tri-Met and bikes to get where they needed to go. Guess what? It turns out that they all do own cars, and now those cars are taking up all of the street parking of the surrounding neighborhood.


Thank you. It shocks me the anti car hate that goes on as well. The car will never ever go away. In fact numbers shows people using their car actually increasing. Personally we need to accommodate the car more often while also keeping the community feel equally. For every unit built their should be a parking spot built or at the bare minimum close to it. Cars will always rule
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 4:58 PM
hat hat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazerBeav View Post
So have you, personally, chosen not to own a car? This anti-car crusade is shortsighted and impractical. Walk around Division Street and see all of the recent development that included absolutely no parking. The argument was that none of the tenants would need cars - they'd use Tri-Met and bikes to get where they needed to go. Guess what? It turns out that they all do own cars, and now those cars are taking up all of the street parking of the surrounding neighborhood.
In some instances, ask people to pay for parking and they will either use cars less, or park their cars on the street. Make those streets paid parking, and they just use cars less. Many apartment parking structures are not filling up for just this reason. Here's an article on bikeportland about the Linden on 12th and Burnside. So it is possible this number is excessive, depending on how many spots will be kept free for commercial use, and how the city intends to charge for parking in the area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 4:59 PM
hat hat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by innovativethinking View Post
Thank you. It shocks me the anti car hate that goes on as well. The car will never ever go away. In fact numbers shows people using their car actually increasing. Personally we need to accommodate the car more often while also keeping the community feel equally. For every unit built their should be a parking spot built or at the bare minimum close to it. Cars will always rule
Please share your numbers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 6:08 PM
zilfondel zilfondel is online now
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 4,453
Wow. Umm, now where am I going to go to watch movies on the big screen? First the Broadway theater closed, then the Lloyd Mall one, now the Lloyd regal which I go to watch all the blockbuster titles.

Shit. Its great, but we need more theaters in Portland now!
__________________
Portland Bike Bridge traffic:

2009 - 15,749 | 2010 - 17,576 | 2011 - 18,257 | 2012 - 18,794
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 13, 2015, 6:41 PM
babs babs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilfondel View Post
Wow. Umm, now where am I going to go to watch movies on the big screen? First the Broadway theater closed, then the Lloyd Mall one, now the Lloyd regal which I go to watch all the blockbuster titles.

Shit. Its great, but we need more theaters in Portland now!
That's the problem. We're building these great 4-5 story buildings all over the city and fancy pants restaurants on the ground floor. The buildings all pretty much look and function alike...urban tract homes? Yet, we're driving out some of the stuff that adds to livability. I have no problem redeveloping the theater parking lot but I am having a problem with taking out the theater (yes, I know there is a debate about whether this is the case or not but no one has said it is for sure staying). To go see a movie, making people go into downtown or drive (yes drive) to the suburbs to go see a stinking movie is crazy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 12:27 AM
soleri soleri is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by innovativethinking View Post
Thank you. It shocks me the anti car hate that goes on as well. The car will never ever go away. In fact numbers shows people using their car actually increasing. Personally we need to accommodate the car more often while also keeping the community feel equally. For every unit built their should be a parking spot built or at the bare minimum close to it. Cars will always rule
Cars fuck up cities worse than anything. ANYTHING.

You have to be blind not to see the enormous damage cars have done to virtually every American city. Cities in 1950 were glorious and coherent emblems of a vital civilization but by 1970 became bombed-out ruins and sterile reclamation projects. The few cities that didn't destroy themselves for the sake of the private car (and Portland counts as one) are today's urban success stories. New York, Boston, San Francisco, Vancouver, BC, Washington, DC are wonderful precisely because they're not moonscapes of parking lots, freeway spaghetti, and barren autocentric developments like Lloyd Center.

Car lovers should visit Europe sometime to see how great life can be without cars. You already own the suburbs. Leave cities alone. You'll kill Portland by widening its streets and freeways. And it's gonna be over my dead body.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 1:34 AM
hat hat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by soleri View Post
Cars fuck up cities worse than anything. ANYTHING.

You have to be blind not to see the enormous damage cars have done to virtually every American city. Cities in 1950 were glorious and coherent emblems of a vital civilization but by 1970 became bombed-out ruins and sterile reclamation projects. The few cities that didn't destroy themselves for the sake of the private car (and Portland counts as one) are today's urban success stories. New York, Boston, San Francisco, Vancouver, BC, Washington, DC are wonderful precisely because they're not moonscapes of parking lots, freeway spaghetti, and barren autocentric developments like Lloyd Center.

Car lovers should visit Europe sometime to see how great life can be without cars. You already own the suburbs. Leave cities alone. You'll kill Portland by widening its streets and freeways. And it's gonna be over my dead body.
I have no intention of supporting "innovative's" short-sightedness, and I understand you may be using broad strokes. But having lived in several places in Europe, I can confidently say many do not live entirely without cars. Nor do I think should we. This is precisely the point. Germans and French often have learned to use cars for specific purposes when it suits the occasion, but we tend to default to them for every purpose, even when it makes little sense and costs way more, simply because we are used to it.

Innovatives "cars will always rule" motto is ridiculous of course, not only because of the decline in the average household ownership, decline in average vehicle mileage since about 2005, the increase in transit ridership etc., but mainly because other cities have tried and succeeded in the same process. Everyone always driving everywhere just doesn't make for a decent place to live

Amsterdam, for example.

"Between 2005 and 2007, Amsterdam residents rode their bicycle 0.87 times a day on average, compared to 0.84 trips by automobile." We don't have this because we don't build the infrastructure. The dutch designed freeways in the 60s and 70s and then realized how shitty it was to live near them. Then children protested, yes kids (you can watch them fighting cars here). Why? Because streets where people are driving 35mph through are unlivable. Looking at you Foster Rd. They started investing in cycle infrastructure and removing inner-city highways, and that's where we are heading. Can't wait for the Foster road diet 2016. Sloooowly we're getting there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 1:47 AM
58rhodes 58rhodes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 384
sounds like some of us cant afford a car?
I bought my last car brand new 7 years ago and I only have 16,000 miles on it.
Take it away over my dead body.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 2:21 AM
PDXDENSITY PDXDENSITY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazerBeav View Post
So have you, personally, chosen not to own a car? This anti-car crusade is shortsighted and impractical. Walk around Division Street and see all of the recent development that included absolutely no parking. The argument was that none of the tenants would need cars - they'd use Tri-Met and bikes to get where they needed to go. Guess what? It turns out that they all do own cars, and now those cars are taking up all of the street parking of the surrounding neighborhood.
Adding parking draws tenants that have cars. You can claim people will bring cars anyway, but there's an absolute capacity. There should be permitted parking if the hood is at capacity to allow turnover. Parking is not a right, nor is it anything planners should listen to in the big picture of adding density of housing, services, and transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 2:22 AM
PDXDENSITY PDXDENSITY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58rhodes View Post
sounds like some of us cant afford a car?
I bought my last car brand new 7 years ago and I only have 16,000 miles on it.
Take it away over my dead body.
Pay your way. Gas tax isn't what it should be. We should have congestion fees on our roads. Of course, car owners tend to be very chauvinistic about their "rights."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 4:12 AM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 5,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58rhodes View Post
sounds like some of us cant afford a car?
I bought my last car brand new 7 years ago and I only have 16,000 miles on it.
Take it away over my dead body.
Who is proposing to take away your car?
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

www.twitter.com/maccoinnich
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 4:28 AM
58rhodes 58rhodes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccoinnich View Post
Who is proposing to take away your car?
I hope nobody, I dont want to die--yet
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 4:44 AM
PDXDENSITY PDXDENSITY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58rhodes View Post
I hope nobody, I dont want to die--yet
Are you the first person in evolutionary history to need to breathe car fumes to live?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted May 14, 2015, 4:48 AM
58rhodes 58rhodes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY View Post
Are you the first person in evolutionary history to need to breathe car fumes to live?
sure man I drive a Hyundai
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Downtown & City of Portland
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:58 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.