PDX Planning Efforts

[tworivers]

Sorry to start a new thread with an article from the pathetic Tribune, but they seem to be the only ones reporting on this meeting.

Region's future beginning to take shape
Concensus (sic) building to concentrate future growth in urban centers

By Jim Redden

The Portland Tribune, Dec 15, 2008

Potential winners and losers are beginning to emerge from Metro’s two-year study of where and how the region should grow in the future.

Regional leaders meeting last Wednesday expressed strong support for concentrating new development in existing urban centers and along major transportation corridors. They leaned heavily in favor of developing new mass transit lines, including streetcars — a transportation option favored by Portland Mayor-elect Sam Adams to spur growth in the central city.

The leaders were far less inclined to support building new freeways or adding lanes to existing ones. Proposed projects that drew little support included the Sunrise Corridor between Interstate 205 and the new city of Damascus, the Interstate 5 to Highway 99W connection intended to relieve congestion on the Newburg/Dundee area, and the Interstate 84 to Highway 26 connection to serve parts of east Multnomah County.

Such decisions could concentrate future public investment in the already-urbanized areas of Portland, Gresham, Beaverton and Hillsboro, where efforts have long been underway to build dense, mixed-use neighborhoods. Fewer public funds might be spent in outlying, less developed parts of the region.

The gathering took place at the Oregon Convention Center. It was the fourth in a series of planning sessions designed to help form a regional consensus about the direction future growth should take in the greater metropolitan area. It was organized by Metro, the regional government charged with managing growth much of Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington counties.

The event was attended by elected officials from throughout the three counties, along with several members of the elected Metro Council. They spent most of the meeting completing a lengthy survey on future transportation and other growth-related options. The questions grew out of the discussions at the previous three meetings. The results are intended to help the Metro staff narrow down the focus of two important planning efforts that are under way.

One is the update of the Regional Transportation Plan that is indeed to guide transportation spending in coming years. The other is a study to determine whether and where the urban growth boundary should be expanded in the future. The urban growth boundary is a zone administered by Metro in much of the tri-county area where new urban development is allowed.

Both of the planning efforts are considered important because the region is expected to grow by around 1 million more people during the next 20 years.

The Metro Council is scheduled to vote on final versions of the planning efforts by late next year.

Portland Commissioner-elect Amanda Fritz attended the Wednesday session and said it helped create a “good framework” for discussing such issues in the future. Although Fritz has not yet been assigned any city bureaus, she hopes to be appointed to serve as the council’s liasion (sic) to Metro on the efforts.

Not everyone who attended the session was pleased with the direction it took. A number of officials from Forest Grove felt that many of the preferred options — such as pricing downtown parking to manage congestion — did not apply to their city, which wants to retain its small town feel.

Participants also overwhelmingly endorsed supported the state of Oregon’s efforts to fight global warming. The 2007 Oregon Legislature set aggressive goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in coming years. The targets call for stopping the growth of such emissions by 2010, reducing them 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and reducing them 75 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

At the Wednesday gathering, leaders overwhelmingly agreed that the region should be “very proactive” in figure out how to comply with these goals. This is expected to require significantly reducing the number of vehicle miles all residents drive. Vehicle emissions account for 34 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Based on the survey results, the first choice for reducing driving is to expand and improve regional transit systems. The second is to make zoning changes to encourage more development in existing urban centers and along transportation corridors.

[65MAX]

Glad they're reporting this. However, as with most Tribune articles, there are more grammatical and spelling errors than a 6th grade book report. So, I guess nobody at Pamplin's rag has spell check?

[MarkDaMan]

:yes:

Tribune lays off Stanford
Portland Business Journal

The Portland Tribune has said goodbye to two longtime staffers, including columnist Phil Stanford.

Steve Clark, the paper’s publisher, confirmed that Stanford and Denise Szott, the paper’s top designer and copy editor, are no longer with the publication.

Stanford was one of the paper’s first hires, before the Tribune began publishing in 2001. He previously worked as an Oregonian columnist. Szott has effectively run the paper’s copy-editing and design efforts for the last six years.

“It’s really nothing to do with newspapers, it’s the reeling economic conditions that are confronting America and the world,” Clark said.

Clark wouldn’t comment on any severance terms or whether more workers would lose their jobs.

Stanford is perhaps best known for his columns about Frank Gable, who was convicted of killing Oregon Department of Corrections director Michael Francke in the 1980s. He wrote a screenplay on the case that became a television movie starring Angelina Jolie.

His latest book, Portland Confidential: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Rose City, published by Westwinds in 2004, continues to sell well throughout the state.

Szott led a team that won scores of design and editing awards.

http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/12/15/daily11.html

[pdxman]

Darn, no more stanford. Looks like the anti-portland paper is finally beginning to bite the dust.

[PDX City-State]

“It’s really nothing to do with newspapers, it’s the reeling economic conditions that are confronting America and the world,”

Bullsh*t. Newspapers have been bleeding for a decade. I for one am sad to see Stanford go. I hardly agree with him, but he is a damn good reporter who often challenges popular opinion in Portland. With him gone, I see no reason to read the Trib.

[tworivers]

I never found much to respect about Stanford. I never thought of him as providing much in the way of substantive analysis or reporting in his column, just snarky attacks in the vein of Jack Bog. There are plenty of diverse voices (and, I'm guessing, talented writers) in this city who could have been given a platform by the Tribune, rather than some embittered old-guard white guy.

[tworivers]

A LUBA disaster in the making. These assholes (the "Friends of Urban Renewal") definitely do not have the best interests of the city in mind. This could set us back years, unless the Council has some tricks up their sleeve that we are not aware of. No Post Office purchase, no Holst-designed homeless access center, no Centennial Mills. :(

You have to love Randy for diving in to the Oregonian's sewer of a comments section to say things like this: "Their law suit represents the dying gasps of a wealthy few who are losing their grip on Portland's economic future." Story here (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/02/lawsuits_hold_up_two_big_portl.html).

Two lawsuits stall Portland's efforts to help the homeless and create an employment district
by Mark Larabee, The Oregonian
Monday February 16, 2009, 8:05 PM

Two lawsuits over how the Portland City Council hopes to spend property taxes to fight urban blight have stalled efforts to help homeless people and create a new employment district downtown.

The suits have frozen the city's ability to borrow money against future property tax income generated in the River District, a downtown urban renewal area that includes the Pearl neighborhoods.

Without the money, the city can't break ground on the Resource Access Center, a $48 million shelter and day center that is seen as a crucial piece of the city's 10-year plan to end homelessness.

Construction was set to begin in October, with the center opening in 2011. But the backhoes won't start digging without $29.5 million in River District urban renewal money.

The other major project on hold is the city's acquisition of the main U.S. Post Office building downtown. The site is one of the last large build-to-suit properties downtown, and Portland officials hope to attract a major company to anchor a new, dense employment district.

But the city can't market the site with the lawsuits looming. It has an agreement to buy the building from the federal government in 2013, though the parties haven't agreed on a price. The Postal Service wants to move closer to Portland International Airport.

In the worst case, the lawsuits could delay the projects -- more than a decade in the making -- for years, city officials say.

Here's what happened: Last summer, the City Council voted to spend $19 million set aside for downtown improvements to build an elementary school in outer Southeast Portland.

The unusual move, the brainchild of former City Commissioner Erik Sten, was viewed by some as a creative way to help the David Douglas School District absorb a growing population of students from mostly middle- and low-income families who were moving from the city center to the suburbs.

Sten's idea was to create a satellite of the River District. After he quit his council post, the council moved ahead with the idea, despite legal threats from some of the state's most prominent urban renewal experts. The group challenging the city calls itself Friends of Urban Renewal.

The council also expanded the boundaries of the River District and increased the amount of tax revenue available for projects, from $225 million to $583 million. The Friends group challenged that move, too.

The experts filed two suits with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals and prevailed on key points in each suit. The City Council now must decide how to resolve the problems.

"The urban renewal area fight was over the satellite district, but they took the River District hostage and poor people are paying the price," said Commissioner Nick Fish, the city's housing boss.

Oliver Norville, the former Portland Development Commission general counsel and a member of the group, said that even if the city reverses itself on building the school, the group would still have major concerns about the increased funding in the River District.

"Some of the projects they are proposing are not proper expenditures of tax increment funds," he said.

Land Use Board of Appeals decisions can be appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals. The deadline for appealing in the satellite case has passed. The city has until Friday to appeal the boundary dispute. The council hasn't decided how to proceed, Mayor Sam Adams said. An appeal could take 18 months or more.

The Land Use Board of Appeals allowed for the city to submit more information in each case that could change the outcome. The board asked for more information about how the city's moves would target urban blight.

Adams said the opponents of the city's efforts, 10 signers in all, are interested in different issues about the cases, so settling through private talks hasn't worked.

Norville said the city hasn't been interested in talking.

"We held out all kinds of offers to sit down and negotiate," he said. "The PDC and the council have been unwilling to discuss this with us."

-- Mark Larabee: marklarabee@news.oregonian.com

[alexjon]

The people filing these lawsuits should be made to house the homeless in their own homes

[bvpcvm]

re: the post office site. is it realistic to hope that someone like homer could step in and buy the property, if need be?

[Okstate]

^ Who is homer?

[PacificNW]

Homer Williams=Major Pearl Condo developer. :)

[zilfondel]

I think the last thing the Pearl needs is more condos...

[MarkDaMan]

I've always been under the impression Homer doesn't have a lot of spare capacity. He's had a couple developments go bust, and supposedly had some problems in the Pearl too.

He's a TERRIFIC visionary, I just don't know he manages money well. I think that is what Dame is for.

The city will buy the Post Office site. If the PDC is still shut down in 2013,

It has an agreement to buy the building from the federal government in 2013

then there will be a lot bigger problems than the post office site.

[NewUrbanist]

I've always been under the impression Homer doesn't have a lot of spare capacity. He's had a couple developments go bust, and supposedly had some problems in the Pearl too.

He's a TERRIFIC visionary, I just don't know he manages money well. I think that is what Dame is for.

The city will buy the Post Office site. If the PDC is still shut down in 2013,



then there will be a lot bigger problems than the post office site.

I have heard that due to the billions in budget deficit, the Post Office has considered pulling out of the deal. They might even eliminate Saturday post service to deal with their budget, and are definitely reconsidering moving their central location to the airport.

[65MAX]

I have heard that due to the billions in budget deficit, the Post Office has considered pulling out of the deal. They might even eliminate Saturday post service to deal with their budget, and are definitely reconsidering moving their central location to the airport.

The USPS would have no reason to back out of selling their downtown property. The reason for moving to the airport in the first place is because it would save them millions annually in operational costs. Trucking all of the mail from the planes to be sorted downtown is a huge (and expensive) intermediate step that the PO wants to eliminate. Even mail that is trucked in from out-of-state can reach the airport facility easier than it can reach downtown.

Also, the fact that they are considering eliminating Saturday delivery has no bearing whatsoever on the sale of the downtown property.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

I've seen some old study about energy efficient urbanism, that mentioned Portland; In 1973 Portland had already many regulations, to increase the energy efficiency like encouraging dense and semi-dense mixed use debelopment along transit routes, major employment centers and neighborhood grocery stores 1/2 a mille from transit stations, encourage building in vacant land in the central area and inner suburbs, discourage building in poor land far away from transit routes, creating bike paths, encourage use of public transport, increase carpoolind, etc... PDX planing efforts camed very early, but in a way also too late, a lot of sprawl and destruction of the downtown had allready taken place in the 50's and 60's, PDX still has a lot to do to compensate the mistakes of that time.

[RED_PDXer]

Has anyone heard about this effort? The City is proposing to rezone a huge industrial swath just north
of I-84 next to 60th to allow high density residential and/or commercial infill. Some nice changes for
Glisan and Halsey, though modest, to finally match the zoning of streets like Belmont and Hawthorne.
Interestingly, they're proposing to downzone a pocket of residential within 1/4 mile of the station from
R1 (about 43 - 65 units/acre) to R2 (about 20 - 30 units/acre).

I read the article and one resident says she's concerned about the scale of infill and says her
neighborhood doesn't have amenities? What more do they need?? There's a full service grocery
store a block away at 65th and Glisan and MAX stop with 3 lines running by all day! There's parks
nearby and potentially more commercial services on Glisan and Halsey. That move by the City
doesn't make sense to me. Maybe the City is trying to balance the increased density anticipated
in the industrial pocket with the residential neighborhood already there?

Rezoning possible in MAX corridor
City is seeking public support for proposed changes in east Portland
POSTED: 04:00 AM PST Thursday, February 26, 2009
BY TYLER GRAF

When light rail trains start zipping through a neighborhood, they carry promises of transit-oriented
development. But the city of Portland realizes that these promises haven’t been fully met on the
outer east side. So the city is contemplating zoning changes to areas along the east-side MAX route,
from Northeast 60th to Northeast 162nd avenues. These changes, coordinated through the Bureau of
Planning and Sustainability, would be intended to encourage mixed-use projects and spur higher
densities. Community input over the past several years has set in motion long-term plans along
the east-side route, but more needs to be done, said city planner Tom Armstrong.

A series of community meetings will continue into March. The meetings will be used to gauge public
opinion and formalize a package of development and zoning plans that would go before City Council
this spring. Though the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability has already pinpointed some potential
zoning and development changes, Armstrong said it was essential for the public to first support the
proposed changes before moving forward. One such change would be to increase density and
encourage mixed-use projects along Northeast Halsey Street and Northeast Glisan streets.
“We are (also) exploring up-zoning industrial land in the area, with the goal of trying to get more
employment-intensive uses,” Armstrong said. Additionally, the city has identified potential new “bike
boulevards” along Northeast 60th and Northeast 82nd avenues. Those would be incorporated into
the city’s Bicycle Master Plan update.

Not all development is welcome, say residents. Over the years, many residents have spoken out
against large-scale infill projects. They’ve argued that these sorts of multifamily developments
would not fit the scale or context of the neighborhood, insisting they would be incompatible with
existing buildings. “Our neighborhood has very little support for high density,” said North Tabor
resident DyLynn Robertson. “We don’t really have schools, libraries or amenities. It doesn’t really
serve residents to keep large numbers of people in the neighborhood.” She added that infill development
could be incorporated into the neighborhood better at a lower density.
The city has been listening, and plans to lower the density of future infill projects, Armstrong said.
He added: “Design review may go a long way to addressing those concerns.” For now, the city is
busy gathering public support for the proposed projects and zoning changes. “Once we have a set
of recommended zoning changes, then we’ll look at what it means for each
station community and decide whether we can move forward with a package of changes,”
Armstrong said. “We’ll also see if they need to get incorporated into the Portland Plan discussions.”

http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/index.cfm?c=47098&a=232898

http://www.djcoregon.com/articleDetail.htm/2009/02/26/Rezoning-possible-in-MAX-corridor-City-is-seeking-public-support-for-proposed-changes-in-east-Portla

[JordanL]

I read the article and one resident says she's concerned about the scale of infill and says her
neighborhood doesn't have amenities? What more do they need?? There's a full service grocery
store a block away at 65th and Glisan and MAX stop with 3 lines running by all day! There's parks
nearby and potentially more commercial services on Glisan and Halsey.

I live about 10 blocks from this stop, (but off your map).

The thing(s) lacking in this area are:

- Any entertainment whatsoever (with the exception of two bars at 60th & Glisan)
- Any supporting commercial services/retail, like Hawthorne, or Belmont, or 82nd, or inner Division, or Powell, etc.
- Places of employment

The first two are the real issues. There is NOTHING to do in this neighborhood, and its VERY hilly, so getting around is a lot harder than the map makes it look.

Additionally, there aren't really any parks nearby, and just as the woman points out, there aren't really any schools either. The only school in the area was closed by PPS two years ago.

This neighborhood needs a lot of infrastructure to seriously talk about infill.

[RED_PDXer]

Does a neighborhood need a movie theater or comedy club to be dense? What type of entertainment does a neighborhood need and what comes first, entertainment of the neighbors?

Schools are an issue, but that's an issue throughout the city..

One of the biggest employers in the city is less than a mile away at Providence. Additionally, there are small businesses in the industrial area. There's more employment there than in the Hawthorne or Belmont area, for sure.

There's Normandale and mt. Tabor parks nearby.. both are within walking distance, but Normandale is really close.

As for the hills, the area being rezoned is essentially flat, the hilly area is south of glisan. commercial and such is within the flat area.

So what infrastructure does this neighborhood need? It has plenty of transportation access, as far as transit and autos go.. It has parks, full service grocery store, a few restaurants, bars, etc. on glisan. Plus, with Glisan being rezoned to allow commercial all the way west to Providence, there's good potential for more services.

I'm confused.. what else would this place need to support higher density infill. There's higher density places east of I-205 and people are complaining about density this close-in??

[JordanL]

Does a neighborhood need a movie theater or comedy club to be dense? What type of entertainment does a neighborhood need and what comes first, entertainment of the neighbors?

Schools are an issue, but that's an issue throughout the city..

One of the biggest employers in the city is less than a mile away at Providence. Additionally, there are small businesses in the industrial area. There's more employment there than in the Hawthorne or Belmont area, for sure.

There's Normandale and mt. Tabor parks nearby.. both are within walking distance, but Normandale is really close.

As for the hills, the area being rezoned is essentially flat, the hilly area is south of glisan. commercial and such is within the flat area.

So what infrastructure does this neighborhood need? It has plenty of transportation access, as far as transit and autos go.. It has parks, full service grocery store, a few restaurants, bars, etc. on glisan. Plus, with Glisan being rezoned to allow commercial all the way west to Providence, there's good potential for more services.

I'm confused.. what else would this place need to support higher density infill. There's higher density places east of I-205 and people are complaining about density this close-in??

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.

[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/planning/index.cfm?&a=64432&c=36238

Walk Score gives the intersection of 60th and Halsey (http://www.walkscore.com/get-score.php?street=se+60th+and+halsey++portland%2C+or&go=Go) 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 (http://pdc.us/city_wide/storefront/index.asp) 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]

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. :koko:

[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]

^^^^
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]

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 (http://www.amandafritz.com/node/979) 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/transportation/index.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]

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 (http://www.amandafritz.com/node/979) 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/transportation/index.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]

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

:haha:

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/showpost.php?p=4144499&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]

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]

:)

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]

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]

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

[Okstate]

How is it that building affordable housing & providing alternative (cheap) transportation not helping eliminate blight? As for proving the area is still blighted...isn't much of Old Town included in the River District? Does it get any more blighted than that?

[PacificNW]

I am curious: Do most people, on this forum, also feel that Old Town is blighted?

[NJD]

^ No, old town is not "blighted."

[JordanL]

I am curious: Do most people, on this forum, also feel that Old Town is blighted?

I would use the word decrepit, not blighted.

[Okstate]

Urban decay is a process by which part of a city falls into a state of disrepair (decrepit).
-Without urban renewal this was & would have remained the case IMO
It is characterized by depopulation
-Yes
economic restructuring
-Yes
property abandonment
-Not sure
high unemployment
-Yes, relatively
fragmented families
-Not sure but certainly not normal
political disenfranchisement (Relative inequalities perceived by one societal group result in increased tensions between groups and between the discriminated group and the government.)
-Yes
crime
-Yes, at least above average
desolate and unfriendly urban landscapes.
-subjective, but I have a feeling a majority would agree

[MarkDaMan]

^um, Old Town/China Town isn't even close to anything like 'disrepair'. That's a pretty harsh word.

[Okstate]

As for the blighted issue:
PacificNW- I ONLY asked if there was a more blighted neighborhood in Portland (to which noone STILL has answered)...nothing more. Don't go on & ask.."does anyone else feel this way" You're not fooling anyone. You were trying to pit people together & unfortunately NJD obliged.

NJD- The City & Portland Development Commission would beg to differ. How about expressing your opinion as just that.

Mark- My post was talking in Past tense not present tense. My implications of Old Town being blighted are just that...implications. I do not know enough about urban blights "standards" to assess a statement, however after reviewing the criteria listed above it seems compelling.

Finally, if any of my opinions are flat out wrong please point them out & I will happily acknowledge. Thus far that has never happened b/c different avenues have been taken.

[PacificNW]

↑↑ :shrug: Bewilderment is the first word that came to my mind.

[NJD]

You were trying to pit people together & unfortunately NJD obliged.

um, ok... this is a 'forum' yes?

NJD- The City & Portland Development Commission would beg to differ.

the City and the PDC are responsible for razing entire Italian, African and other ethnic neighborhoods because they were "blighted." Do you honestly think that was just? How is their current push of "remaking" Old Town any different? (Ask the businesses how they feel about getting pushed out because they are on "prime real estate" that is "blighted")

How about expressing your opinion as just that. Take notes from Jordan L.

I stated my opinion, why do I need to 'take note'?


Old Town is an amazing ASSET to Portland as a whole, and should be left alone by the City. Read some Jane Jacobs if you are at all confused as to what I mean.

[Okstate]

↑↑ :shrug: Bewilderment is the first word that came to my mind.

Honestly, I'm bewildered that you're bewildered, but can only take you for your word. If you're serious then I apologize, truly.

However, why did you say "does anyone else feel this way" when I in FACT did not say I felt ANY way?

[Okstate]

NJD- Yes this is a forum.
You presented your sentence as a statement not an opinion. I only cared b/c I was mad that I was "falsely" given an opinion in the first place from which you were able to disagree with.
When did I say the City or PDC was in the "right" on ANY issue they've ever made. Why are you lumping me with them?
I never said Old Town isn't an asset. It was a truly great asset in the past & has great potential to become an even greater asset than presently IMO. I'm NOT saying the city is that tool to make it happen.
I have read Jane Jacobs & have written reports on Robert Moses.

[NJD]

^Old Town is an asset right now, that is my opinion and my point.

[Okstate]

^Old Town is an asset right now, that is my opinion and my point.

I was editing during your post to make it more clear why I said what I said. I agree it's an asset. I do think IMO it has even greater potential.

[MarkDaMan]

I agree it's an asset. I do think IMO it has even greater potential.

I agree!

[JordanL]

I think there's a lot of charm to Old Town, but I think part of that charm is actual how decrepit it is. You can't really "fix" Old Town without destroying it too.

I'll point out the elephant in the room that no one seems to want to touch: Old Town's "blight" is because of the Portland Rescue Mission on Burnside. It is what it is. We can't ignore homelessness, and setting up facilities in City Center instead of somewhere away from the city to manage it is a good thing, but wherever the PRM is located you'll notice more "grit".

The Skidmore Fountain MAX stop is a lot less clean and a lot more drab than most, or certainly than it could be. But what exactly do you propose doing?

We can't legislate against homelessness, just like we can't legislate against recession. It's something that I don't like, (especially when I'm accosted for money by those clearly homeless by choice... I'm looking at you dreadlock-sporting "punk" teenagers with pet dogs...), but it's a reality of our life and our society (and pretty much every other society as well).

Honestly, if we want to begin addressing homelessness, to remove some of the grit of Old Town, we need to vastly improve access and quality of mental health treatments, because many of those not homeless by choice have impediments to either normal societal living, or don't understand their situation very well.

The other day I was with my girlfriend waiting for the bus and a homeless, though not unkempt, black guy engaged us in conversation. I was wearing a leather jacket with an American flag on it, and he launched into a 15 minute speech on how proud he was of Barack Obama, and how great this nation was to have overcome at least some of its racism and move forward in other ways.

It was one of the most hopeful conversations I've ever had.

And it was SO Portland. I couldn't imagine having it in any other city. The guy didn't ask me for anything, he just wanted to talk, and I just talked with him.

The main culprits of homelessness are mental disability, drug adiction, lifestyle choice and criminal history, and sometimes a combination.

Old town has old streets, old sidewalks, old buildings, and worn people. It doesn't have bustling businessmen, trendy restaraunts and spiffy shopping areas.

So "fixing" Old Town becomes an exercise of deciding what it is you want Old Town to be, and then which elements about Old Town you have to change to make it that way.

Being dominated by brick and concrete gives it a definite worn down and decrepit feel. The "street people" certainly emphasize that perception. But I'm really not sure what it is you'd do with Old Town to change that, or what it is you would change it to.

[Okstate]

Using the criteria listed in post #45 which area(s) do you guys see as being blighted in town? Portland has a lot less blight than many cities but on relative Portland terms what do you guys think?

[bvpcvm]

^ Definitely "felony flats" (outer SE, Flavel, 82nd, Foster - that area) and much of East Portland - 122nd, 181st. MAX is often blamed - by those who are ideologically opposed to it to begin with and use it as a scapegoat - for this, but it's even worse away from the train - Stark, Division, Powell - they're all pretty bad E of 82nd. And it's pretty entrenched; I don't really see any way to turn it around, because of the huge inventory of aged, obsolete - undesirable - tract housing.

[tworivers]

clearly homeless by choice... I'm looking at you dreadlock-sporting "punk" teenagers with pet dogs

The main culprits of homelessness are mental disability, drug adiction, lifestyle choice and criminal history, and sometimes a combination.

JordanL, I'd be curious to hear how you've become such an authority on homelessness.

[JordanL]

JordanL, I'd be curious to hear how you've become such an authority on homelessness.

So far as homeless by choice, I had a person close to me that was exactly what I described for a while, and because of that I got to meet many of their friends "in the same situation", and yes, many of them were homeless by choice.

As far as the causes of true homelessness... that's a very studied situation... nothing I said is original, it's been studied and said before...

[tworivers]

Yeah... I've worked for almost 7 years with homeless adolescents in one of the few independent living programs in the country of its kind. It's always easy to paint people with a broad brush, but the reality tends to be more complex.

No offense, but your first quote that I used above reminded me of some of the more ignorant and prick-ish comments I've heard over the years. While I know there is a contingent of "homeless-by-choice" teenagers (and adults), your choice of stereotypes is weak and the vast majority of kids who are on the streets, or on the edge, are not there by choice.

Your list of the "main culprits" of homelessness, too ("studied" or not), shortchanges reality and conveniently includes the category of "lifestyle choice". I've worked directly with disproportionate numbers of LGBT youth thrown out of their homes, kids who were living in cars with a homeless and jobless parent, African and Russian immigrants, kids who had been working full time jobs while staying at one of the shelters downtown (or trying to find time to study for the GED, or attending high school or PCC or PSU), Hispanic migrant workers, and on and on, including your culprits of drug and alcohol addiction, mental health, and felony records. I have never once met a youth for whom homelessness was a lifestyle choice.

I agree with you, btw, about the need for vastly improved mental health care.

On the positive side, the housing first philosophy that was legislated into being by the city and county 4 or 5 years ago appears to be working pretty well. I'm guessing that that is a significant part of the reason why the problem seems somewhat less pervasive these days when you're walking around downtown.

[JordanL]

Right, but the OTHER things you mentioned don't often, at least from what I know, lead to perpetual homelessness. I didn't mean that other causes don't deserve help and scrutiny, but as far as I'm aware, being LBGT and getting kicked out by your family isn't a leading cause of perpetual homelessness.

Not trying to marginalize, was just pointing to the chronic causes.

EDIT:

As far as choice vs. not choice, I honestly had a LOT of interaction with a huge contingent that were all under 25 and chose to be homeless. The person that I knew that provided the window into that world for me had more than one home to go to, but refused anything. I don't think my experience means that's the way it always is, but I know that they're there, because I talked with them myself.

[tworivers]

I don't think my experience means that's the way it always is, but I know that they're there, because I talked with them myself.

I respect that; just trying to offer another perspective.

[tworivers]

Does anyone have the inside scoop on the city's strategy for dealing with the recent LUBA URA ruling? Is it just to present additional "findings"?

[tworivers]

For once, I am in complete agreement with DeMuro and the HLC.

Does sustainability trump historic value?
New inventory of buildings may reveal which ones should be replaced by green ones

POSTED: 04:00 AM PDT Monday, April 6, 2009
BY TYLER GRAF (DJC)

In 2007, a crowd watched as the 100-year-old Rosefriend Apartments in Southwest Portland were flattened to make room for Opus Northwest’s Ladd Tower, now under construction at 1300 S.W. Park Ave.

On the same block, the slightly older Ladd Carriage House was identified as worth preserving. That building, currently undergoing renovations, now abuts the southern end of Ladd Tower, representing what its developers hope to be a conjugation of old and new.

For Opus Northwest, the decision to save one of the buildings while tearing down the other was based on common sense.

“Some buildings are worth saving and others aren’t,” said Mark Desbrow, a real estate manager for Opus Northwest.

But in a city that has undergone a decade’s worth of new development in city-sanctioned “blighted” areas, such as South Waterfront and the Pearl District, preservationists worry that developers may have to start looking to blocks already occupied by buildings for their new, sustainable projects.

Amid this clamor to build green, state-of-the-art buildings, they warn, the city’s often forgotten historic structures are being threatened.

It’s a concern that permeates the Historic Landmarks Commission, where there is a belief that new construction is threatening the city’s architectural history. Commission chairman Art DeMuro – the president of Venerable Properties, which specializes in redeveloping older buildings – told City Council in February that Portland could do more to protect its older buildings.

“Destroying older buildings to make room for newer, more sustainable buildings must stop,” DeMuro told City Council.

That’s no knock against the green building boom, DeMuro later explained. Instead, he sees a melding of old building stock and new construction methods.

“Historic buildings are sustainable buildings,” DeMuro said, explaining that it’s environmentally deleterious to completely tear down older buildings, due to the waste and energy expended. “It’s a lot easier to just upgrade them today so they can be energy efficient.”

In its first-ever preservation report, presented to City Council last month, the Historic Landmarks Commission listed a litany of at-risk properties. These properties ranged from the Northwest Cultural Center, which suffers from physical deterioration, to the U.S. Customs House, for which its owner is undergoing a development disposition process.

But there are problems that arise from the redevelopment of historic buildings.

The number one problem is that there are few incentives to redevelop these properties, said Alisa Kane, Green Building Manager for the Office of Sustainable Development.

Since Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification became the development ideal, preservationists have criticized it for not recognizing the achievements of renovated historic buildings, she said.

To rectify this perceived slight, the National Trust for Historic Preservation created the Sustainable Preservation Coalition in 2006 to influence further development of the LEED building rating systems. It’s an attempt to better recognize historic and existing buildings.

To this end, the Sustainable Preservation Coalition for the last year has been advising the U.S. Green Building Council on ways to incorporate preservation, social and cultural values into LEED.

When LEED standards are amended later this year as part of LEED 2009, those changes will take effect. Kane believes that once that happens, there will be a greater incentive to bolster the sustainability of historic buildings.

Although preservationists laud the potential for greater recognition of historic buildings’ worth, from the standpoints of both profitability and sustainability, many say that more could be done at the local level to understand which historic buildings deserve the sustainability treatment.

Building a historic inventory

For now, the city’s historic buildings aren’t exactly falling like dominoes. But the threat exists, said Cathy Galbraith, director of the city’s Architectural Heritage Center.

The reason for that is simple, she said: The city knows little about its buildings, old and new.

Her solution – and an idea shared by the Historic Landmarks Commission – is for the city to undergo a revised inventory of its buildings.

The current inventory dates back a quarter century and omits many buildings that, at the time of the original inventory, were not deemed historic. Additionally, inventory proponents said, 25 years of aging have increased the supply of buildings that would today qualify as “historically significant.”

“If you’re trying to make a decision about what needs to be preserved, you should really start with information that’s current,” Galbraith said.

Still, there’s no saving some buildings.

In 2005, the city’s last standing trolley barn in Sellwood – a 100-year-old building that could have been added to the National Register of Historic Places – was demolished. Excavation work on the property later uncovered extensive environmental damage to the property.

In order to differentiate between buildings worth scrapping and buildings worth saving, developers are starting to attach their own historic and cultural values to properties. Opus Northwest, the developer of Ladd Tower, has generated in-house guidelines that reflect the company’s development philosophy toward preservation, said Opus Northwest vice president Brian Owendoff.

“If an existing facility has a layout that is so inefficient and functionally obsolete due to construction design, the decision to build new becomes an easy one,” Owendoff said. “No matter how much money you throw at an obsolete building, you will never make a purse out of a pig’s ear.”

But who decides which buildings stay and which buildings get the bulldozer treatment, aside from developers? For the city of Portland, Galbraith said, there’s no clear answer to that question.

“The only buildings the city can consider denying the demolition of are the ones that are protected by the (National Register of Historic Places),” Galbraith said. “That’s a problem.”

She thinks the city could look northward for solutions. Seattle, unlike Portland, has an eight-person Office of Conservation, which includes a long-standing historic preservation officer. She thinks a similar bureau could oversee Portland’s historic building inventory.

Like her call for a citywide inventory, however, these solutions may be untenable at a time when city budgets are stretched to the breaking point.

Preserving the bottom line

Seattle is also where Pete Snook, principal with Deacon Development Group, cut his teeth with historic projects.

“I have a personal affinity for older projects,” he said. His first project was a 1905-era downtown Seattle apartment building that he converted into condos in the late 1970s.

Even with his deep affinity for it, Snook recognizes that historic redevelopment can be expensive. Redevelopment of DeMuro’s White Stag Block, for one, cost more than $30 million. It was also completed behind schedule.

Redevelopment of older properties, Snook said, can happen only if the final development meets the bottom line.

This is true for both developers and the city, developers said.

Well-executed, large urban developments, such as the ones that have transformed the Pearl District, add significant tax increment for the city, Opus’ Desbrow said. So there’s a challenge when the city is faced with the choice between preserving a small, historic building or developing a large, mixed-use project.

But for developer Chris Humphries, a principal with EcoLogistics, a development firm specializing in sustainability, the decision has to be about more than the bottom line.

“I think that some are too quick to minimize the value of a historic structure because it represents a barrier to the income potential of redeveloping the site,” Humphries said. He believes historic buildings also represent cultural value.

But in today’s development atmosphere, Snook said, where the bottom line is a top priority, perhaps the most sustainable development, financially and environmentally, may be no development at all.

“There comes a time when the cost of implementing an environmentally friendly concept is outweighed by the damage to the environment. Sometimes, when you look at an older building, it’s not, ‘Should I build something sustainable or should I take what’s there and make it sustainable?’ ” Snook said. “You have to think about whether it’s worth it to spend the energy necessary to provide for a new product.”