Portland's Edge - Bethany

[MitchE]

Since a lot of people seemed really interested in my last suburban photo thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=125601). I decided to do a whole series exploring the new communities and urban form near Portland's urban growth boundary (http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?articleID=277).

The urban growth boundary is designed is to protect rural and natural areas from development and to foster efficient urban land use. Generally speaking, on one side of the boundary only forest and farmland can exist, on the other side only urban development.

http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/UGB_2006.jpg

The communities at Portland's edge are defining the future of this region. What happens there is the true test of Portland's innovative growth management polices.

The series will highlight the region's effort to improve suburban landuse through careful planning, placemaking, connectivity, density, and pedestrian/ bicycle oriented design. PLEASE don't expect amazing architecture or inner city urbanism. You won't find it. It's mostly single family homes.

First up is Bethany. Bethany is an unincorporated area that was recently brought inside the urban growth boundary between 1998 and 2002. Prior to 2002 it was mostly forest and farmland.http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/BethanyPan.jpg
Here's what is typical of the area:
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010582.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010584.JPG
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010589.JPG
Notice the traditional grid pattern of the streets.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010594.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010599.JPG
Connectivity is maximized and the distance between places is minimized.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010598.jpg
Street connections to future development is mandated. No more segregated developments where the only route to your neighbor is via the arterial.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010632.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010665.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010675.jpg
The zoning densities for these detached single family developments are about 7-9 dwelling units per acre. That is slightly denser than what was built 100 years ago in the inner streetcar neighborhoods of Portland. The lot sizes are about 4000-5000 square feet.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010628.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010656.JPG
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010769.JPG

One of the more interesting things you see are these "vertical McMansions". They are a result of developers adopting a typical suburban design to Portland's density quotas. Who said we can't have our cake and eat it too.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010610.JPG
This neighborhood was full of vertical McMansions.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010613.jpg
The protection of natural areas and sensitive habitats is also required. I think more could be done...but the protections are a lot better than most of what you find in the US.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010619.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010618.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010624.jpg
They are doing restoration here:
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010669.jpg
You could say these are condo developments for wildlife.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010690.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010672.jpg
Notice something missing with these houses.....
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010729.jpg
....there's no garage.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010731.jpg
As you get closer to the commercial centers. The density quotas get higher and you see exclusively townhouses, condos, and apartments. Here's are some typical townhouses:
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1020705.JPG
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010749.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010750.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010758.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010761.jpg
If there are garages, they are usually accessed in the alley. Typical new urbanism design.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010762.jpg
Here's the main commercial part of Bethany..called Bethany Village.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010713.JPG
Kind of boring design, but amazing considering the location.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010705.JPG
Not exactly Main Street but not really sprawlsville either.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010707.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010743.JPG
This park acts as a village green. Interestingly, it is private (owned by the condos). The park is empty in the picture but it appeared to be used a lot by the general community. The street is public.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010727.JPG
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010726.JPG
In time this street will be full of townhouses and storefronts.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010774.jpg
This is a bad picture but it's a great example of the urban growth boundary in action. The agriculture field is outside the boundary. The apartments are inside the boundary.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010780.jpg
Let's go check it out.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010783.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010784.JPG
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010795.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010802.jpg
Here's the neighborhood "green".
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010806.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010808.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010810.jpg
Here's the commercial center for the neighborhood. It's basically a grocery store with one and two levels of retail shops. It's kind of strip mallish, but it is well integrated into the street grid and you can easily walk to it. As the area becomes more intense it will be easy to shed the strip mall vibe and develop this site into more of an urban center.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010791.jpg
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010788.jpg
More to come. Stay tuned!
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010676.jpg

[PacificNW]

Good job....

[dharper6]

Very nice photos and developments. Question, though...I noticed that in almost every photo, there were no natural growth trees in the neighborhoods. Were these developments put in where there were no trees already, or were the trees taken out?

[Mr.YGuy]

Very nice! I like that town.

[wisla_krakow]

It's nice, and an amazing idea. Hopefully in time the "center" will get more use, because right now it looks very dead and sterile. But it's ten-fold better than sprawl.

[Sekkle]

Very nice photos and developments. Question, though...I noticed that in almost every photo, there were no natural growth trees in the neighborhoods. Were these developments put in where there were no trees already, or were the trees taken out?

I can't speak of Bethany specifically, but I live in a similar "new urbanist" neighborhood in nearby Hillsboro called Orenco. The trees in the sidewalks in front of our rowhouses were put in with the development, but there are small parks in the neighborhood where many huge natural growth trees were preserved. I have also noticed fences up around natural growth trees in a lot across the MAX line (portland's light rail) from my neighborhood that is currently being graded for more rowhouses. So they are preserving some natural growth trees there as well.

As I understand it, though, a lot of the land that's now being developed was cleared of trees for agricultural use long ago. I could be wrong about that, though... I'm new to the area and don't know the history all that well.

Nice pics, MitchE.

[crisp444]

This is much more sustainable than most of new American suburbia. I think Portland's suburbs impress me more than the city of Portland itself, which although nice, has a very small "urban" area that becomes suburban (and kind of sprawly) really quickly.

RE: Orenco development - it is absolutely stunning in some areas; the modern "brownstones" there are gorgeous.

[MitchE]

Very nice photos and developments. Question, though...I noticed that in almost every photo, there were no natural growth trees in the neighborhoods. Were these developments put in where there were no trees already, or were the trees taken out?

It really depends on the area. Most of places I took pictures of previous to development was in agricultural use. I'm not 100% sure but I think the area where the "vertical mcmansions" are used to be forestland.

In 2002 a large chunk of land north of Bethany was brought into the urban growth boundary. Development hasn't occurred on it yet (they are still planning it) but there are many parcels in that area that are forest. Additionally many developments in Clackamas county used to be forestland.

[Jularc]

Now that looks like a nice new suburb. So inviting.

[pwright1]

Interesting suburban pics. I know why I don't live in the suburbs. I also noticed how treeless it is.

[ady26]

Portland has beautiful surroundings!

[ArchMadness]

Fascinating to see how well controlled suburban growth looks like. Sterile is definitely a word that comes to mind, but I think its the newness. It doesn't have that age given character that I find so attractive. Cool post.

[BnaBreaker]

Great shots. Anyone who says that Portland's sprawl is just like everywhere else just doesn't have their eyes open.

[Ron87]

Great series-- Keep them coming!
Quite different from your average suburban sprawl indeed!

[Drew-Ski]

MitchE, great point in interjecting the "Protected Area" and "Wildlife Condos" shots. A big concern in Oregon is protecting natural "Wetland Areas". These ACEC's ( Area of Critical Environmental Concern) are taken very seriously and the Local Governments make sure that they are preserved and managed to protect Fisheries, Bird and Wildlife Habitat, and Riparian Zones. Any form of developement must adhere to strict Wetland Preservation Criteria. Every several years "Metro"( Regional Government who administers Urban Planning ) presents a Bond Measure asking the voters for funds ( usually several hundred million dollars) used to procure and preserve thousands of acres of additional sensitive and natural quality wildlands for future generations. This Bond seems to pass every time indicating the public's postive attitude toward land preservation which enhances quality of life.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Suburbia done right :tup:

[Goody]

Lovely. Its good to see such development in todays world

[Cambridgite]

Cool photos. I like how Portland suburbs are using the grid. I don't see why other cities in North America have to go curvilinear. I know it looks cool on the map, but does the average American in suburbia really care about all the cool curves? Personally, I'd prefer the efficiency of the grid. Does the grid pattern have any implications for traffic there?

Another thing is that I don't get why it's so important to have garages in the back lane. It's pure environmental determinism. "If we don't have garages in front, people will walk instead." I say forget the rear lanes and focus on the more important aspects of walkability, like density, access and proximity to destinations (ie. a dense mixed-use street, with retail and offices) and public transit that connects to meaningful destinations.

Just curious, but how long does it take to get to Bethany Village in the outer parts of the subdivision by walking? Are those areas pedestrian friendly, aside their neo-traditional look?

[PacificNW]

It will be nice when these developments landscaping matures. Presently, as it looks now, I would not want to live in Bethany even though I am a supporter of the Urban Growth Boundary and Measure 49....

[Austinlee]

West Coast suburban residential development amazes me... I spend most waking hours in Pittsburgh suburban sprawl as a real estate agent, and if home buyers around here saw developments that dense and houses that close to each other they would never go for it... Not when the average lot sizes where I am located are approx. half an acre or more.

I wish we had better land use in PA that required denser building. I'm sure it will happen someday.

[A-town]

Without question the best suburban master-planed community I've ever seen, also love the artchitecture. What's the pricetag on these homes?

[Coriander]

I'm kind of stunned to hear people on SSP praising this sort of development. I expect from more from a metro area that proclaims itself a bastion of so-called smart-growth. Even as suburbs go, what is so unique here? These projects mirror various trends in suburban development across the country, a few rows of town homes, a small central core of apartments, and a slew of virtually identical detached single-unit homes. This is the future we embrace?

[rsbear]

I'm kind of stunned to hear people on SSP praising this sort of development. I expect from more from a metro area that proclaims itself a bastion of so-called smart-growth. Even as suburbs go, what is so unique here? These projects mirror various trends in suburban development across the country, a few rows of town homes, a small central core of apartments, and a slew of virtually identical detached single-unit homes. This is the future we embrace?

It's a hell of a lot better than what was built in this country for the past 60 years. Just the fact that so many more people will be housed on so much less former farm land deserves high praise. Perfect, no. Better, yes.

[MitchE]

Just curious, but how long does it take to get to Bethany Village in the outer parts of the subdivision by walking? Are those areas pedestrian friendly, aside their neo-traditional look?

From here...
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010690.jpg
...to here is about 1 mile by walking.
http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010705.JPG

Half the distance is on a neighborhood street with houses on both sides, the rest is on a slightly busier two lane street. It is landscaped with trees and sidewalks. On one side is basically a retaining wall (back yard of homes), on the other are homes.

I want to correct a potential mis-perception. The whole area isn't one big grid. There are curvy streets. Most of the grid streets are on the newest developments. The "town center" sits at the edge of an older neighborhood built in the late 80's to early 90's, so the newer stuff is somewhat interlaced as it allows with the older stuff.

What's the pricetag on these homes?

The townhouses are about $250,000-$300,00 (2BR/2Bath). The single family homes start around $300,000-$350,000 (4BR/2Bath).

[Coriander]

It's a hell of a lot better than what was built in this country for the past 60 years. Just the fact that so many more people will be housed on so much less former farm land deserves high praise. Perfect, no. Better, yes.

The past 60 years of suburban growth has been widely recognized as a cancerous disaster, so I don't know if that's a great comparison.

If we compare this development to other forward-thinking developments around the country, New Urbanist or not, from places as sprawling as Atlanta to St Louis and so forth, it is pretty run-of-the-mill. The density is still not there and I think we can and need to do much better than that. I understand this is a small outlying community but even Portland proper is half as dense as most metropolitan suburbs, and I feel the whole Portland area needs to step it up in this respect if it wants to handle corral its growth in the coming decades.

[Eagle rock]

"If we compare this development to other forward-thinking developments around the country, New Urbanist or not, from places as sprawling as Atlanta to St Louis and so forth, it is pretty run-of-the-mill. The density is still not there and I think we can and need to do much better than that. I understand this is a small outlying community but even Portland proper is half as dense as most metropolitan suburbs, and I feel the whole Portland area needs to step it up in this respect if it wants to handle corral its growth in the coming decades"

You need to fit this development into the context of Portland’s regional growth planning. I agree that new urbanist developments don’t do much good if they are still just leapfrogging across farm land 50 mils away from the urban core. But New Bethany is happing within a very restrictive urban growth boundary and is only a couple miles away from a light rail line.

I think the biggest challenge to the growth boundary is preserving single family neighborhoods and having select pockets of high density neighborhoods. As long as Portland keeps building South Waterfronts and Pearl districts its ok to build lower density New Bethany, which still happens to be denser then a lot of old, inner city, Portland Neighborhoods.

[xzmattzx]

Sterile is definitely a word that comes to mind, but I think its the newness. It doesn't have that age given character that I find so attractive.

Agreed.

I'll withhold judgement on this suburb until the trees are grown. Trees make almost every place better.

[MarkDaMan]

^keep in mind, most of the land brought into the UGB is 'expendable' farm land. The Metro government has to decide to locate growth on farm land, while trying to save the most prosperous regions, forests, while trying not to invade old growth, and watershed protection, taking the Salmon migration into account.

Since those are primarily the three types of available land outside of developed regions, it makes sense that the low use, (think Christmas Tree Farms) are first to be put up for development, and those lands don't have mature trees. This is why you are seeing neighborhoods with only new trees as those forest covered hills in the distance in MitchE's pictures was the alternative.

http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/Bethany/P1010758.jpg

[totheskies]

Wow, it's so well planned.... I hate it!!!

just kidding... very interesting style of urbanity/sub-urbanity.

[Chelsea Spy]

The urban growth boundary is designed is to protect rural and natural areas from development and to foster efficient urban land use. Generally speaking, on one side of the boundary only forest and farmland can exist, on the other side only urban development.

In the UK this is called "green belt" land. There is a lot of controversy at the moment because there is such an accute housing shortage, the govt needs to build something like half a million new homes to deal with it, but without intruding on the green-belt. Preference is now given for 'brown field' sites - typically ex-industrial land, and for much higher density development.

Clearly, part of the problem for American development is the fact that the country is so huge and there is so much land. What struck me about the map of Portland above was how much the city seems to sprawl, especially when it does not have a particularly large population. The UK, being a very small country, has to take active measures to protect what is left of the countryside. There is very little real countryside in the South East anymore...

...however, if the developments pictured above - which strike me as fairly monotonous and alienating - generate so much approval, I only dread to think what 'suburban sprawl' in the rest of the States must be like... :(

[sgoet]

I got to show some of these streetscapes to our engineers. They continually tell us this type of thing cant/shouldn't be built.

Good work on ensuring the public has access to these habitat areas. In my county the regulatory folks they put these areas in new subdivisions behind cyclone fences and prohibit public access. Public access and habitat preservation should not be mutually exclusive.

[Coriander]

I think the biggest challenge to the growth boundary is preserving single family neighborhoods and having select pockets of high density neighborhoods. As long as Portland keeps building South Waterfronts and Pearl districts its ok to build lower density New Bethany, which still happens to be denser then a lot of old, inner city, Portland Neighborhoods.

I think Portland is a great place, don't get me wrong. But I don't really believe any of the rhetoric about its smart-planning. I continue to see sprawl creeping outwards, and it seems the only reason it's worked so far is that the population has not grown that fast and is still just not that large. That could change very fast though.

As for Portland proper, it can do much better. The Pearl District is a unique case. The South Waterfront is also a unique case, one of the last if not the last area of its kind in the city, and it's only bringing in 5,000 residents to 130 acres, or a little less than 25,000 people per square mile. Compare that to the new Mission Bay area in San Francisco which is being developed for at least 60,000 per square mile, or a number of other infill projects across the country.

[BayRidgeFever]

Portland's methods really need to be used across the US. They are very admirable, and attractive looking at the same time.

[MarkDaMan]

The South Waterfront is also a unique case, one of the last if not the last area of its kind in the city, and it's only bringing in 5,000 residents to 130 acres, or a little less than 25,000 people per square mile.

Cute, you are sounding like some of our bloggers here that seem to know a little too much about the development. To correct you on the South Waterfront, over 50% of the 130 acres (at build out-35 acres in the initial phase) is dedicated to office/research/biotech (OHSU). The district's projected number of housing units has also been bumped to 10,000 units.

Areas larger than the South Waterfront with considerable acreage for the next high density high rise district include the Con-Way properties in Northwest Portland, Gateway, Lloyd District, Central Eastside and even the West End in the CBD is projected to add an additional 6000 housing units...not to mention half the available land in the Pearl has yet to be developed, and the South Waterfront is projected to take 15 more years to build out.

[Paul in S.A TX]

Very nice,I like these kinda developments.Surely beats typical cookie cutter developments.San Antonio also has several of these style developments.The newest one will be 20 miles northeast of downtown San Antonio in Cibolo,Tx.I hope it's as nice as Portland's.

http://www.myarchimedia.com/webimagefront03.jpg
http://www.myarchimedia.com/front010015.jpg
http://xs216.xs.to/xs216/07245/downtowncibolo.PNG
http://www.myarchimedia.com/front010021.jpg
http://www.myarchimedia.com/front010023.jpg
http://www.myarchimedia.com/front010020.jpg

[rsbear]

The past 60 years of suburban growth has been widely recognized as a cancerous disaster, so I don't know if that's a great comparison.

If we compare this development to other forward-thinking developments around the country, New Urbanist or not, from places as sprawling as Atlanta to St Louis and so forth, it is pretty run-of-the-mill. The density is still not there and I think we can and need to do much better than that. I understand this is a small outlying community but even Portland proper is half as dense as most metropolitan suburbs, and I feel the whole Portland area needs to step it up in this respect if it wants to handle corral its growth in the coming decades.

The majority of "Portland proper" is made up of single family homes built prior to WWII (except for the recently annexed areas east of I205, they are mostly post-war) and the housing stock is exceptional. Denser infill is occurring in Portland and the central city is becoming very vertical. But other than wiping out hundreds of thousands of beautiful single-family homes in the city, Portland (overall) will never be as dense as cities that are primarily row houses, tenements and apartments. Any other helpful suggestions?

[PacificNW]

I think when the new Central City Plan is planned, debated and implemented we will see higher density in downtown's/Lloyd's future. Whether this will include taller commercial/residential towers, will no doubt, be hotly debated.

rsbear: good points!

[Chicago3rd]

Very nice,I like these kinda developments.Surely beats typical cookie cutter developments.San Antonio also has several of these style developments.The newest one will be 20 miles northeast of downtown San Antonio in Cibolo,Tx.I hope it's as nice as Portland's.

http://www.myarchimedia.com/webimagefront03.jpg
http://www.myarchimedia.com/front010015.jpg
http://xs216.xs.to/xs216/07245/downtowncibolo.PNG
http://www.myarchimedia.com/front010021.jpg
http://www.myarchimedia.com/front010023.jpg
http://www.myarchimedia.com/front010020.jpg

Paul is that a "planned" development or have they started to build it?

[tdawg]

it looks like a typical suburb to me. i guess i don't get it. there are suburbs out on Long Island much denser than this, 60 miles from Manhattan.

[Chicago3rd]

But I don't really believe any of the rhetoric about its smart-planning. I continue to see sprawl creeping outwards, and it seems the only reason it's worked so far is that the population has not grown that fast and is still just not that large.

Please show us where sprawl has creep outside the urban growth boundary. The person taking the photos showed us where the boundary is. You show us with photos and a map where sprawal is occuring outside the growth boundary in the three county METRO area.

Your comment about growth not being fast show how silly you are.

[MarkDaMan]

That San Antonio development reminds me a lot of Wilsonville's Villebois currently under construction.

http://www.legendhomes.com/HomesCommunities/NewCommunities/VilleboisBirdseye1.jpg

http://www.costapacific.com/images/sub/communities/green_space.jpg

http://www.tndwest.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Villeboismap.gif

[Coriander]

Cute, you are sounding like some of our bloggers here that seem to know a little too much about the development. To correct you on the South Waterfront, over 50% of the 130 acres (at build out-35 acres in the initial phase) is dedicated to office/research/biotech (OHSU). The district's projected number of housing units has also been bumped to 10,000 units.

Areas larger than the South Waterfront with considerable acreage for the next high density high rise district include the Con-Way properties in Northwest Portland, Gateway, Lloyd District, Central Eastside and even the West End in the CBD is projected to add an additional 6000 housing units...not to mention half the available land in the Pearl has yet to be developed, and the South Waterfront is projected to take 15 more years to build out.

I know how much of the South Waterfront is dedicated to office/research/biotech...that's why I mentioned San Francisco's Mission Bay, which is very similar. But I had not heard that the South Waterfront was now projected to build out 10,000 housing units. That’s great news. (Even at 4-5,000 units, I’m realizing the density figure should be a good bit hire that what I first wrote.) Can you provide a link or cite your source? I ask partly because I was just saw a few recent numbers that suggested the projected 5,000 units is a maxed out best-case-scenario.

I’m aware of the other areas you mention and am not quite as optimistic but I hope it happens. That said, even though people in places like the Gateway get riled up over mere five and six story apartments, I do believe Portland will add density in the coming years—just not sure what impact it will have.

Also, come on man, however ruffled your feather might be, that little “cute” thing is cheap and unnecessary. Cheers.

[Coriander]

Please show us where sprawl has creep outside the urban growth boundary. The person taking the photos showed us where the boundary is. You show us with photos and a map where sprawal is occuring outside the growth boundary in the three county METRO area.

Your comment about growth not being fast show how silly you are.

I’m not going to question your reading comprehension but please note that I did not say sprawl has crept outside of the urban growth boundary—though it certainly has, as you can see in Clark County, Washington. As for your command that I show you “with photos and a map where sprawal is occuring outside the growth boundary” and all that, then take a look at Measure 37. I assure you something like this can happen again. Finally, the population growth thus far HAS been relatively tame and easy to handle. Even the currently projected 125,000+ over 20 years is not too bad.

[pdxtraveler]

but please note that I did not say sprawl has crept outside of the urban growth boundary—though it certainly has, as you can see in Clark County, Washington.

Clark County is in Washington and has nothing to do with Portland or the Urban Growth Boundry.

[Paul in S.A TX]

Paul is that a "planned" development or have they started to build it?

It's approved I think not to sure.

[rsbear]

I’m not going to question your reading comprehension but please note that I did not say sprawl has crept outside of the urban growth boundary—though it certainly has, as you can see in Clark County, Washington. As for your command that I show you “with photos and a map where sprawal is occuring outside the growth boundary” and all that, then take a look at Measure 37. I assure you something like this can happen again. Finally, the population growth thus far HAS been relatively tame and easy to handle. Even the currently projected 125,000+ over 20 years is not too bad.

I'll bet others here have better stats than I, but I think the 125,000 number is for the city of Portland over 20 years. The metro area is expected to grow by 1,000,000 (or so) over 20 years. That's up from a little over 2.2 million (or so, rough numbers so nobody shoot me) now.

[MarkDaMan]

^rsbear, your numbers are right.

[Chicago3rd]

I’m not going to question your reading comprehension but please note that I did not say sprawl has crept outside of the urban growth boundary—though it certainly has, as you can see in Clark County, Washington. As for your command that I show you “with photos and a map where sprawl is occurring outside the growth boundary” and all that, then take a look at Measure 37. I assure you something like this can happen again. Finally, the population growth thus far HAS been relatively tame and easy to handle. Even the currently projected 125,000+ over 20 years is not too bad.

False, I did say "please" so there wasn't a command.

Growth Boundary is in Oregon under Metro and contains 3 Counties.
270,000 people moved into those counties 1990-2000.
125,000 have moved into the Oregon counties 2000-2006
Washington County (the county with Bethany) has grown by 68,927 (2000-2006). Smartgrowth. The growth boundary will bring even more density to the region.

Since the growth boundary was set up over 689,000 people moved into it.


Southwater Front.
Southwater Front will bring in 5,000 units not 5,000 people as you noted.

With 50% of the 133 acres being used for non-residential and 9% being used for the greenway along the river we will need to at least double your false population projections to 50,000 people per square mile.

So in an area of 133 acres we will have the equivalent of 50,000 people per square mile living there and the equivalent of 40,000 people per square mile working there. Now that is some nasty sprawl isn't it?!?

[john_mclark]

Looks great and all but how well built is it all? I ask because some developments go up so quick and don't really build for time just quick money.
Another question what is the average price range for a home,apartment, townhouse, etc in Bethany?

[Coriander]

Southwater Front will bring in 5,000 units not 5,000 people as you noted.

With 50% of the 133 acres being used for non-residential and 9% being used for the greenway along the river we will need to at least double your false population projections to 50,000 people per square mile.

So in an area of 133 acres we will have the equivalent of 50,000 people per square mile living there and the equivalent of 40,000 people per square mile working there. Now that is some nasty sprawl isn't it?!?

That's not how it's done. Far less than 100 acres of San Francisco's 303 acre Mission Bay development will be residential (it's closer to 50 actually, I believe), for example, but nobody is going around saying it will be around 200,000 per square mile. Either way, don't get too excited there: I've never thought it was sprawl, much less nasty sprawl, not sure where you got that from. But I'll retract my disappointment with the scope of the project. It's pretty good, especially for a smaller metro like Portland.

I didn't intend for this to be so contentious. I think Portland is a great place and I just don't want to see it ending up sprawling like Seattle.

[Chicago3rd]

That's not how it's done. Far less than 100 acres of San Francisco's 303 acre Mission Bay development will be residential (it's closer to 50 actually, I believe), for example, but nobody is going around saying it will be around 200,000 per square mile. Either way, don't get too excited there: I've never thought it was sprawl, much less nasty sprawl, not sure where you got that from. But I'll retract my disappointment with the scope of the project. It's pretty good, especially for a smaller metro like Portland.

I didn't intend for this to be so contentious. I think Portland is a great place and I just don't want to see it ending up sprawling like Seattle.


As for Portland proper, it can do much better. The Pearl District is a unique case. The South Waterfront is also a unique case, one of the last if not the last area of its kind in the city, and it's only bringing in 5,000 residents to 130 acres, or a little less than 25,000 people per square mile. Compare that to the new Mission Bay area in San Francisco which is being developed for at least 60,000 per square mile, or a number of other infill projects across the country.

Here is an exact quote from you. People per SQUARE MILE.

Measure 37 will be the only reason it will sprawl...it has been in check for 30 years.....welcome to the Portland story it is always cool to share the successes of Portland with newbies. Also since you qualified the city as small please share with the room (a please and not a command) other great urban sucess stories of cities with the same population.

P.S. You are sloppy with facts and numbers (wrong population growth....not knowing anything about the Oregon growth boundary story...and all the errors in your statement about Southwater front. Did you even look at PDC's webpage on Southwaterfront?

[Coriander]

Here is an exact quote from you. People per SQUARE MILE.

Measure 37 will be the only reason it will sprawl...it has been in check for 30 years.....welcome to the Portland story it is always cool to share the successes of Portland with newbies. Also since you qualified the city as small please share with the room (a please and not a command) other great urban sucess stories of cities with the same population.

P.S. You are sloppy with facts and numbers (wrong population growth....not knowing anything about the Oregon growth boundary story...and all the errors in your statement about Southwater front. Did you even look at PDC's webpage on Southwaterfront?

"Here is an exact quote from you. People per SQUARE MILE."

I don't see why this is hard to understand. My point is that developers do not isolate the density of a residential area of a development and then calculate the density of the development according to that isolated area.

"Measure 37 will be the only reason it will sprawl..."

Airtight logic.

"Also since you qualified the city as small please share with the room (a please and not a command) other great urban sucess stories of cities with the same population."

This is a loaded question but Vancouver of course is a great model of development. The city proper populations are roughly equivalent.

"P.S. You are sloppy with facts and numbers..." etc.

So far I've said that 5,000 units are going in the South Waterfront the PDC webpage, which I have looked at confirms this. The average occupancy will probably be around 1.5 per unit, and remember 5,000 is a very best case scenario fully maxed-out South Waterfront. So yes, more than 5,000 people may live there, but perhaps not. Somebody wrote that they'd bumped it up to 10,000 units. Where is this in writing?

"(wrong population growth"

I was sloppy there and somebody corrected it, no problem.

"anything about the Oregon growth boundary story"

It's hard not to know the story. It's often discussed in the NYTimes and elsewhere. Even people without an interest in this stuff know about it. I was and am aware that Clark County is not included if that's what you're referring to. I had only meant to note that sprawl has found ways of getting around the boundary. I'm not blaming Portland or Oregon's legislature for this.

"and all the errors in your statement about Southwater front."

Which ones?

"Did you even look at PDC's webpage on Southwaterfront?"

Yes, I've been there. That's precisely why I want to know why it doesn't say anything about 10,000 units. I don't want to cloud the forum with this anymore. Take it to PM if you have any other misunderstandings.

[Chicago3rd]

So far I've said that 5,000 units are going in the South Waterfront
You said 5,000 residents. Understand the difference?[/quote]

the PDC webpage, which I have looked at confirms this. The average occupancy will probably be around 1.5 per unit, and remember 5,000 is a very best case scenario fully maxed-out South Waterfront. So yes, more than 5,000 people may live there, but perhaps not.

Interesting how you shot off your facts before...we all shot them down...and now it appears you are only wrestling with a scenerio in your head.....

Vancouver...if you knew anything about Portland's history you would know that it has been paying close attention to Vancouver and that PDX has worked to change zoning to more match Vancouver.

Hopefully you can find some U.S. cities (Canada is light years ahead of the U.S.)

Measure 37 - To me there is a clear answer to this. True costs. The local and state governments need to start charging people who develop outside the urban growth areas 100% of everything the government provides to develop that land. It shouldn't cost people anything for private citizen's to develop their private lands.

[Rufus]

*stopped reading the bickering between coriander and chicago3rd five posts ago*

Anyway, it looks like Portland is building some nice suburbs. They're montonous and sterile but I don't see this as a problem. Our cities were built the same way. They just need time and people to give them character.

[dktshb]

The urban growth boundary is designed is to protect rural and natural areas from development and to foster efficient urban land use. Generally speaking, on one side of the boundary only forest and farmland can exist, on the other side only urban development.

In the UK this is called "green belt" land. There is a lot of controversy at the moment because there is such an accute housing shortage, the govt needs to build something like half a million new homes to deal with it, but without intruding on the green-belt. Preference is now given for 'brown field' sites - typically ex-industrial land, and for much higher density development.

Clearly, part of the problem for American development is the fact that the country is so huge and there is so much land. What struck me about the map of Portland above was how much the city seems to sprawl, especially when it does not have a particularly large population. The UK, being a very small country, has to take active measures to protect what is left of the countryside. There is very little real countryside in the South East anymore...

...however, if the developments pictured above - which strike me as fairly monotonous and alienating - generate so much approval, I only dread to think what 'suburban sprawl' in the rest of the States must be like... :(

Agreed, those pictures were dreadful. So what if the neigborhoods are just a little more dense, they're still autocentric and alienating as you've mentioned. Same old bad suburban concept. We need to do much better than this.

[Dac150]

I like it, but it's like the type of town you would see in a horror movie about zombies or a "Jason" style movie.

[urbanlife]

ummm....I live in Portland and I have never even heard of this development. Seriously, there are so many of these types of developments going up all throughout the Portland metro that it is almost impossible to keep tabs on each one of them.