Portland Open Thread

[RainDog]

What is this?



I always see it when I take the MAX downtown and a while back I saw some work being done on it... but nothing saying what it is.

[MarkDaMan]

It was built to be retail. I believe it's leased to Art DeMuro/Venerable Properties who developed and own the White Stag/UofO campus across the street. What they're doing inside there, I haven't a clue.

[mmeade]

It was built to be retail. When the building that housed Saturday Market and their storage became Mercy Corps, there was a huge need for storage close by. The retail never materialized, and Saturday Market vendors store their things there. I believe that is also the reason for the obscure film on the glass.

There was good news late last year, it sounds like the U of O will be expanding into the space:

http://djcoregon.com/dailyblog/2011/...t-fo-old-town/

[Grantenfuego]

It seems strange to me that of all the vendors at Saturday market, none of them are doing well enough or feel secure enough to rent some retail space. I guess, maybe, they're doing too well with a tarp and a table they don't see the need for a permanent space. Who knows?

[mmeade]

Originally Posted by Grantenfuego

It seems strange to me that of all the vendors at Saturday market, none of them are doing well enough or feel secure enough to rent some retail space. I guess, maybe, they're doing too well with a tarp and a table they don't see the need for a permanent space. Who knows?

That same argument can be made for all food carts in Portland. Some businesses are just based on having lower overhead.

[maccoinnich]

I guess this overlaps with the Portland Infill thread, but I thought it would be worth discussion on its own, seeing as how it's the hot topic in Portland development right now.

So what's everyone's view? I'd imagine it would be more favorable here than it is over at Oregonlive....

[NJD]

I have many reasons for wanting new infill to have less or no parking, but the main reason is to promote a car-free society for health and social gains. I have a feeling that some argue that (direct) pollution from autos will continue to go down, and that driving will be automated soon meaning less accidents and that there will still be a need for parking. Those factors still do not out way the personal health, space and land conservation, and social tendencies of walking, biking, skating, and public transportation (including taxis). Portland was originally built without autos in mind, and has the capacity to increase population without the space needs of parking. If I had my way, all public parking (public right of way was never intended for long term parking until new laws introduced in the 1930-70's made it free and legal) would be meter taxed for non-delivery autos.

There is far more to my rant, but I'm sure going on and on about parking issues and auto dependency is 'preaching to the choir' here.

[2oh1]

Too many people are stuck in a suburb mentality and cannot fathom the idea of a human being without a car.

[Rhome]

I can tell you that, in my neighborhood, neighbors seem to have conflicting views about some of the proposed projects here.

First, they feel that large apartment complexes with lots of parking where cars are encouraged/accommodated will mean more traffic and a less pedestrian friendly environment (although the on-street parking spots for existing residents will be preserved).

And on the flip side, they feel that if the complexes have little or no parking, that people living there will simply park on the street rather than opt for no car and take away those spots that existing residents are already using. You can't make them happy!

The real fear, of course, is that people will NOT change their behavior. So that even with no/low parking developments, that people will still want their 1-2 cars, and create a neighborhood parking nightmare.

Can anybody point to studies that show the effect of no/low parking developments on tenant behavior and the availability of on-street parking?

[GreyTao]

My 2 cents in response to a portlandarchitecture.com blog about this subject:

"... We're focusing too much on the parking aspect of these new developments, and not enough on what other contributions are provided.

The planning principles our City embraces are a direct result of New Urbanism and PUDs (which is a good thing in most people's opinions). Places should be walkable and have a healthy mix of building type and income classes. Development should be infill so as to reinforce the natural progression of development in the area.

All this to say that I don't see parking as the large issue here. It's been statistically proven that where greater vehicular accommodations have been made, congestion grows to fill it. To paraphrase Andres Duany, do we want to live in a city that has vehicular congestion on a massive scale or on a smaller scale? Because either way, there's no escaping that fact that auto demand will meet supply.

The larger problem I see is allowing the zoning ordinances in these controversial areas (like CS - Commercial Storefront) to allow residential uses on the ground floor. This absolutely KILLS the intent of creating vibrate communities with walkable streets and mixed uses. Not providing ground floor commercial will in fact increase auto dependance, because now you don't have the option of walking down the street to work, you must get in your car (or take the underfunded public transit system) to commute to work elsewhere.

I think the neighbors of these new developments are feeling the growing pains of what was once strictly a residential district starting to become part of a PUD, where a variety of uses will be available (restaurants, offices, retail, etc.)..."


Rhome, in response to your question about the effects of a single development on tenant behavior, I think we have to take a step back and look at the larger picture. A single development will most likely not change auto-dependency for residents. It takes infill of a variety of amenities in the neighborhood that are within walking distance. That is to say, it will take time and a well planned effort.

[urbanlife]

I would definitely like to see more apartments going up with less parking, even parking that is sold separately, though it can only really happen in the areas that provide easy access to things one needs and enjoys in their daily life that they can get to on foot, as well as providing them with easy access to bus and rail that also takes them to places they need to get to in an efficient manner.

I will say it is definitely unique to be addressing this topic now that I live in the NYC metro and can see the flip side of when a city hits a point where it is densely walkable and comes with very easy transit....though that still doesn't stop people from driving, we still have congestion in the streets of Manhattan from the people who choose to drive here over using transit. But at the same time, you go to neighborhoods outside of Manhattan and you are introduced to very walkable communities that are light on traffic, often times allowing the streets to be safer for bike commuting.

[tworivers]

I'm starting this thread to stimulate discussion specifically around what sort of efforts can be made to help Portland evolve into a more urban, cosmopolitan, 24/7, street-active city. The little nugget pasted below from the DJC about Barcelona is a good place to start, I think.

Yes, the title of the thread is meant to be somewhat tongue-and-cheek -- of course we don't want to be "like" someplace else, Portland has it's own place in the world and it's own unique history. But I think most of us would agree that many of the elements that make European cities particularly compelling are things that planning efforts like the Portland Plan are already aiming for.

Obviously one of the first places to start is central city residential density. We need some sort of comprehensive strategy with a big stick and tasty carrots to, especially downtown, bury parking garages and surface parking beneath residential towers. It should be an expensive unprofitable pain in the ass to own a surface parking lot anywhere in our central city. Vacant land or land visibly utilized for the storage of privately-owned automobiles should be rare rather than the norm. What sorts of specific policies need to be enacted to encourage that? Also, we always hear about the cultural barriers here -- how to deal effectively with them?

I would argue that another necessity is the removal (or, if more palatable, burial) of I-5 from the east bank of the river and its replacement with dense mixed use development that more fully connects various elements of the city to the Willamette. And fully engages the river again as the "central artery" of the urban space we inhabit.

City planning dispatches from Barcelona
Brian Campbell, DJC
October 19th, 2012

This is a world class city, with great urban spaces and places. The people really know how to enjoy themselves and the "good vibes" are contagious. But the fascinating thing to me is the difference between the way people "inhabit" this city compared to how we Americans "live" in ours. I've talked about the keys to creating truly great cities — mixing uses, density and design. Because of the way European cities have grown over the last millennium, Barcelona and almost all European cities and towns comprise varying but very high density neighborhoods and districts compared to their U.S. counterparts. This means residents have to rely on walking, bikes and transit for almost all their daily needs, so there is an incredible amount of activity outside the home. People’s personal spaces are much smaller, causing them to use so-called "third places" far more than we do. These are the squares and street fronts, parks and public buildings (the public realm), but also cafes, bars and shopping areas, where people go to meet their friends and families and enjoy the vast array of experiences available because of the dynamic interaction made possible by so many people in one area. As much as the historic sites and cultural amenities, these experiences are the reason we are attracted to European cities. They offer a vitality that exists in very few places in American cities. Much of New York City, notably Greenwich Village, has this level of intensity, and parts of Portland can get there especially on a warm summer evening. But a place like Barcelona has it constantly. I'm not advocating for us to become completely European, but we can definitely learn some lessons about how to make our cities more attractive places to not just live but really inhabit. This will become increasingly important as we necessarily become more cost effective in the way we develop and redevelop our urban areas.

[zilfondel]

A 2-part strategy to help assist local institutions to grow and succeed, as well as to encourage small-scale infill community development. I wouldn't blow all the city's money on large downtown projects. Those can always wait. One of Portland's largest strength is in its neighborhoods.

Also, downtown residential subsidized by public funding is a real iffy proposal. I wouldn't recommend it in this economic climate. Putting money towards projects that have a positive ROI should be the main focus, as there are limited public funds to maintain projects, such as a new museum or fancy new building, like what happened in Bilbao Spain.

I think that "cultural barriers" will come down as more housing is built and Portland is urbanized. I find that it is actually happening pretty rapidly now, with all of the new infill projects going on.

[bvpcvm]

Institute a graduated property tax such that parking/vacant lots are charged at a much higher rate than built-up lots. Reduce the rate for every floor you go up. Reduce it further for underground parking. Parking lots with food carts have their taxes unchanged.

[PacificNW]

The economics couldn't be any different when comparing Portland with Seattle/Bellevue. I occasionally check the http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=879 site (being a former resident of Seattle) and the construction activity up there is occuring at a pretty good clip...especially in comparison to that in Portland. There are numerous 30-40+ towers being designed for downtown Seattle and Bellevue and on target to start construction in 2013...and PAW still isn't finished? Seattle has always thought big and executed big.....Portland not so much. Give me a break.

Besides being home to more Fortune 500 companies the region has taken a more pronounced path to becoming an "International City" while Portland seems to be content with being the quirky & weird town portrayed in "Portlandia"..

Seriously where are the civic leaders who have a desire, and the will, to re-energize downtown Portland? Seriously..PAW should have been constructed at its original height (or truly become a signature tower and gone even taller.) Isn't it true that since the loss of the headquarters of U.S. Bancorp the CBD employment base is presently less than it was prior to the relocation. Salesforce (headquartered out of San Francisco) is looking to locate a branch in Portland just signed a lease for an entire tower (440,000 sq. ft.) in downtown San Francisco....Are the folks who are developing PAW talking to these people or similar creative types? Are they talking to Nike? Maybe consider changing the vision to accommodate living for seniors where the condo develop was to take place. The Mirabella has a large waiting list. Get some of these "well off seniors" to live downtown. I understand the U.S. Bancorp tower is converting many of their floor plans to be more appealing to "creative" types of corporations. (More open floor plans vs. office suites.)

I know the family tied to PAW are tied up in lidigation but, seriously, they shouldn't have been allowed to let that property sit. Sell it...I'm sure the foundation has been designed so that a newly designed tower can sit on top.

The Portland Business Journal is another example of the "small city" attitude. I have access to the other city journals and the PBJ, in comparison, is pathetic unless you have a great interest in reading about healthcare or insurance issues.

Portland, IMO, is not as agressive as other cities (Seattle and Bellevue, for example) in the creation of an exciting business/corporate attitude. Don"t get me wrong...there are a lot of things Portland has done quite well..better than most cities but I feel frustrated that there seems to be a lack of vision and visionaries presently in PDX.

Now, I feel better after my year-end rant.. Happy New Year!

[MarkDaMan]

On the flip side of that argument. Intel is pursuing another $5 billion expansion even though their current $3B expansion isn't yet complete, whereas Boeing is spending it's expansion monies in South Carolina instead of it's largest employment base in Seattle. Our leaders can always do a little more, but I'm not horribly disappointed in Portland. Our focus is the little guys, the small businesses, the start ups, the creatives in design and renewable energies. We are not a corporate town, but we are a town full of very friendly and seemingly content but driven citizens.

Rounding back to the PAW tower, I do believe I read somewhere that GBD or Gerding-Edlen, or maybe both, offered to purchase the PAW block and get the tower going, and TMT declined.

[RainDog]

I don't think it's really fair to compare Portland to Seattle or San Fransisco. They are both much larger cities within much larger Metro areas. It makes sense they would think bigger... they are bigger.

Sure Portland is mostly a mid-rise city and yes its not an ultra dense urban utopia full of gleaming glass towers, but its medium-small American city that isn't entirely suburban sprawl with a crumbling and dead downtown core. Which I think counts for something. Ever been to Sacramento? Nuf said.

[PacificNW]

I guess I will have to call all of you out the next time you complain about parking lots, uninspiring architecture, PAW, etc.... I actually prefer my time living in Portland vs. the many years I lived in Seattle.

I was just trying, in a poor manner, to explain that there seems to be a underwhelming dynamic when it comes to the visionaries of the Portland today vs. the time of, for example, Mayor Goldschmidt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Goldschmidt .

Btw, the number of people who live in "the city" of Seattle is not that much larger than the population of Portland...the metro area is another matter but there is a lot of construction activity going on downtown Seattle. The vibe of Seattle is much different than it is in Portland...not necessarily a good or bad thing. They seem to be willing to take bigger risks in Seattle where many, who have the power to create change in Portland, appear to be happy with the status quo. I will be the first to admit I probably don't know what I am writing...just as an observer with a general lack of relevant knowledge.

More on the Salesforce opportunity: http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-fo...ajor_oreg.html

[tworivers]

PacificNW, I hear you. My biggest beef with PDX is the lack of political will. Partly the problem is due to the weak mayor system but I think it's deeper than that. Certainly none of our elected officials seem to have any grand vision to speak of and no one seems willing to stick their necks out. Look at road-space allocation in NYC and DC. In both cases --and make no mistake about it, they are leaving PDX in the dust-- it took city leaders saying "stuff it, this what we're doing and we're doing it because it's the right thing" to the naysayers. Portland's vaunted and bullshit-covered "consensus" planning culture is too often an excuse for spinelessness.

So much more to consider, though, especially when looking at Seattle. Size: their metro area is much bigger population-wise. Economy: ours is tiny and you see it everywhere, from avg incomes to pro sports teams to int'l flights to demand for skyscrapers to Fortune 500 companies. Culture: for whatever reason the culture here just seems less worldly and more provincial/conservative -- can you imagine trying to get Koolhaus' library built here? Seattle already is on the edge of being an "int'l city" in most people's minds. At best we're a boutique city (based on a mythology that is rapidly eroding) for urban progressives.

I'm stuck on the line between being bored/impatient/disappointed and being cautiously optimistic and convinced that we just need to cultivate some visionary, gutsy leadership asap. Once the discussion around removing I-5 from the east bank turns into reality, once we get some new buildings that don't get cut down from their proposed height, once we move forward on some of our funding dilemmas (VMT tax, please), then I'll get excited again...

[PacificNW]

Thanks tworivers... btw, RainDog: I wasn't implying that Portland was in the same league as San Francisco. I was just attempting to point out that a "creative, tech" company like Salesforce has no problem placing its workforce in a downtown office tower. Maybe they would consider doing the same in downtown Portland if the situation arose....like PAW, or the US Bancorp tower instead of locating in Washington County...just saying.

Portland should have fought harder to retain the Columbia Sportswear headquarters....again, just saying...