Quote:
Originally Posted by maccoinnich
Serious question: if you object to this proposal, why are you telling us about it, and not the Bureau of Development Services? I've just read the staff report [PDF, 3MB], which recommends approval, and at the time of publication no written comments had been received. |
I haven't submitted any written comments, but I am planning on attending the Design Commission hearing on the 11th with a good number of stats surrounding the issue. As for the comment about moving to the Burbs or into a building with paid parking, I'll make the statement that I do pay for parking on the street, $80 a year for a Zone B pass.
I'll also make the statement that holding a belief that the parking impacts on a neighborhood are important to consider isn't innately reactionary or NIMBYism, and that immediately declaring that I need to move because I care about the impacts this specific project will bring is somewhat ridiculous. The kneejerk orthodoxy of no-parking development doesn't fit every site, and I think it's lazy design work to think otherwise. I support the carless approach to development in areas of the city where bicycling or walking are well supported, and I also support the various anti-car policies of the City of Portland, such as congestion as a method to reduce the desirability of driving, but there are times where the parkingless approach is flawed. I would argue that this is one of those times.
The limited onstreet parking on Jefferson and the side streets provide for four groups of people; The people living here in a number of fairly dense apartment buildings and converted multifamily houses, the Lincoln High students who otherwise only have a small parking lot that I believe is mainly available to staff, attendees of games at Jeld-Wen (or whatever its currently called), and a good number of PSU students that have illegally bought yearly parking passes to avoid the $400 a term PSU parking costs. All these groups are fighting over on street parking that doesn't extend more than a block off of Jefferson/Columbia and covers less than half of the street frontage.
The new development doesn't want to put in any parking, and even if only a quarter of the units (16 residents) had a car, that would still occupy almost every single zoned parking spot on Jefferson between 14th and 16th. How is this even remotely fair to the residents that are already here? As I said in my earlier post, the parking is already incredibly sparse on a good day and requires a multiblock walk whenever school is in session or there's a game at the stadium, which happens often. The site is well suited to an onsite parking solution, with an existing driveway at the lowest grade and a steep topography which would allow the units ground level entry from the sidewalk. It seems fairly clear that the developers are not including it because it complicates the design and initial sitework, but the impacts are too great to just take the easy route. And if the design doesn't pencil out, then perhaps the architect should rethink it.
Just as a last note, I wanted to mention that I'm pretty well versed in the urban design of Portland and I studied Architecture at PSU. I grew up in the city and have been on two Neighborhood Association boards, specifically dealing with design issues. The only reason I have a car is because I'm a small business owner and I have to drive all around the Metro area for deliveries. I'm commonly considered among those in my community as an advocate for mass transit, bicycling and a dense urban fabric. It's just the case that I feel like this specific development has a single important flaw in it, and it will have significant detrimental effects on the neighborhood's livability.
Prev
Linear Mode
