Melbourne Declared Most Livable City

[tworivers]

I don't put much stock in that stuff in general, but I was struck by the photo below, various versions of which were used in many of the news stories. What struck me was the two sides of the river. I am convinced more than ever that one of the primary things holding back Portland from being a truly great (lower-case 'g') city is its relationship to the Willamette. It amazes me that the conversation about removing the Eastbank Freeway seems to have disappeared, replaced by the CRC proposal, which would surely --if built-- render any discussion of freeway removal or burial (far more expensive) moot.

http://images.smh.com.au/2011/02/21/2195803/Melbourne-Yarra-420x0.jpg
from Sydney Morning Herald

We need IMO to get I-5 off (or, if deemed necessary, under) the east bank of the river, re-develop an active waterfront, encourage residential development nearby, and begin thinking about the Willamette again as the central artery of the city. With enough social and economic energy, and the freeway removed, the two sides of the river will be knit together again and we can start talking seriously about a regional ferry system...

[2oh1]

I couldn't agree more. Portland hits a brick wall with the east side of the river. East siders are pushed away from their side of the river rather than pulled toward it. They're pulled away from the heart of their own city rather than toward it.

It doesn't have to be that way - but oh my god, I can't even fathom the cost of fixing the mess.

Inner SE really could become the anti-Pearl. It could become a working class neighborhood with a marvelous riverfront of its own. Instead, there's this (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Pioneer+Square,+Portland,+OR&hl=en&ll=45.514407,-122.666752&spn=0.004917,0.015535&sll=45.523452,-122.676207&sspn=0.668687,0.900879&t=h&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.514402,-122.666744&panoid=voF6tnA7jWhxxsajKIhmGw&cbp=11,4.84,,0,-2.86).

[65MAX]

Two things....

First, the Melbourne waterfront pictured here is not even half the width of the Willamette, so is more comparable to Chicago's urban riverfront than ours.

Second, it's not the freeway that is hindering the Central Eastside's potential to be a thriving anti-Pearl or anti-SoWa. It's the zoning. The only major opportunities for mixed use high-density infill is along the MLK/Grand couplet. The entire waterfront area (or at least the I-5 adjacent area) is an "Industrial Sanctuary". Getting to the river is relatively easy.... below the freeway south of the Hawthorne, and easily spanned (or even completely capped with a new waterfront park with phenomenal downtown views) between the Morrison and the Burnside Bridges. If high-rise mixed-use was permitted between MLK and I-5, the east side riverfront could be just as dramatic as that Melbourne pic. And I-5 doesn't need to be relocated to accomplish that. Just a simple change in the zoning. Think how much a capped I-5 would cost versus a complete relocation/burial of the freeway. Minimal, and likely zero, if combined with a major redevelopment project along Water Ave.

[tworivers]

65MAX, I'd counter that it's both the zoning and the presence of the freeway. And I do appreciate your idea of capping I-5.

My ultimate hope, though, is that in the coming years we will see a new regime of freeway/bridge tolling and a VMT tax, along with continued and necessary investment in expanded public and human-powered transport. I can envision a window opening whereby removal of the eastbank freeway could become a viable, realistic prospect. Portland gets in riverfont back, developers get to develop those blocks, the Marquam comes down*, I-5 from 205 through Vancouver through downtown (what is now 405) through the Terwilliger curves to 205 becomes something else -- maybe all of it becomes 405. This would be the most affordable solution.

A few other things would have to be lined up:

The CRC would have to be re-set as a phased "third bridge, etc" project.

The CEID, assuming it stays an industrial sanctuary, would have to get its own dedicated on/off-ramp where 84 now connects to 5 (they're already looking at making 2nd a dedicated freight route).

The train tracks presumably would have to go up or down.

What else?

*The Riverfront For People folks have a rendering of a post-eastbank future where a chunk of the east end of the Marquam, extending just off the edge of the river, has been preserved as a reminder of the Age of the Automobile and its havoc. Could be a viewpoint, our own Museum Of The City, who knows. Now that is visionary. Bolder, gutsy vision is, IMO, what Portland is in dire need of.

[65MAX]

I agree about the lack of vision here, although Portland has done better than most American cities in that regard. At least in planning, if not architecturally.

I'd love nothing more than to eliminate all freeways downtown and replace them with subways, streetcars and parks. Unfortunately, I don't foresee a future where that's possible, even 100 years out. I think it's more pragmatic to treat I-5 as a constraint that can't be moved, and then work around it. Every city (even every building) has constraints that they have to work with.... hills, waterways, major thoroughfares. The trick is to turn the constraints into opportunities.

I think the Central Eastside could be an extremely dynamic, mixed-use neighborhood without having to move I-5.

[bvpcvm]

65MAX, I'd counter that it's both the zoning and the presence of the freeway. And I do appreciate your idea of capping I-5.

My ultimate hope, though, is that in the coming years we will see a new regime of freeway/bridge tolling and a VMT tax, along with continued and necessary investment in expanded public and human-powered transport. I can envision a window opening whereby removal of the eastbank freeway could become a viable, realistic prospect. Portland gets in riverfont back, developers get to develop those blocks, the Marquam comes down*, I-5 from 205 through Vancouver through downtown (what is now 405) through the Terwilliger curves to 205 becomes something else -- maybe all of it becomes 405. This would be the most affordable solution.

A few other things would have to be lined up:

The CRC would have to be re-set as a phased "third bridge, etc" project.

The CEID, assuming it stays an industrial sanctuary, would have to get its own dedicated on/off-ramp where 84 now connects to 5 (they're already looking at making 2nd a dedicated freight route).

The train tracks presumably would have to go up or down.

What else?

*The Riverfront For People folks have a rendering of a post-eastbank future where a chunk of the east end of the Marquam, extending just off the edge of the river, has been preserved as a reminder of the Age of the Automobile and its havoc. Could be a viewpoint, our own Museum Of The City, who knows. Now that is visionary. Bolder, gutsy vision is, IMO, what Portland is in dire need of.

It sounds like you want Portland to become a bit more like Seattle...

Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to see all that happen, I just can't imagine anything like it happening given the way things are going, politically and economically, in this country.

[tworivers]

It sounds like you want Portland to become a bit more like Seattle...

Very funny bvpcvm ;)

About the future, well, we'll just have to see. It's probably going to suck, but maybe it won't. :banana:

[davehogan]

I don't think I-405 will ever be changed in the near future, so why not throw out some 20 or 30 year leases to build over it? Most of it is below grade already, why not either build parks or let architects figure out the difference to make a large "lost" part of Portland useful?

Removing I-5 without a replacement seems like a terrible idea though. Without a replacement route a lot of cars would just switch to I-405 (which doesn't have space to expand) or local street (which have enough problems, thank you.) When I lived in NW it sucked when a big accident happened on 405 or 26, because we got the bulk of the overflow cutting through.

I'd be in full support of covering I-405, using the revenue from the air rights to fund I-5 improvements, and in the long run replacing both I-5, I-405, and the ramps to those from I-84 and US-26 with sunken equipment and future toll lanes.

HOT lanes can work, and on I-5 from I-84 to WaDOT RT-14 seems like a great place to start.

[zilfondel]

I think it's more pragmatic to treat I-5 as a constraint that can't be moved, and then work around it. Every city (even every building) has constraints that they have to work with.... hills, waterways, major thoroughfares. The trick is to turn the constraints into opportunities.

I think the Central Eastside could be an extremely dynamic, mixed-use neighborhood without having to move I-5.

Eventually I-5 will reach the end of its useful age, and WILL have to be torn down. Elevated structures have a lifespan... at the end of which they get replaced due to structural wear and tear, damage, or whatever shortcomings ODOT decides they have.

That being said, I do not want the CEID to become another Pearl. Hell, the Pearl itself is only half built out! And the area offers a great business incubation environment. It does need density, however, especially workshop and cheap loft-type shared office environments for people to rent out for starter businesses (there are some already down there, such as em-space (http://www.em-space.org/em-space/) and the the Olympic Mills Commerce Center (http://www.olympicmill.com/)).

As far as housing? Well, I'd actually hate to turn the waterfront into a condo park like SoWa. I'm not really sure what I'd like to see, but I don't think that Vancouver CA is a very good model for that area as it would clash far too much with its blue-collar industrial-warehouse/transportation corridor reality. Although it would likely sell a lot of units with those great downtown/Mt. Hood views!

Then... there's the train. I doubt it can be buried, as the river is actually very deep there (40 feet). The approaches for the trains to go underwater would be many miles long.