Should Portland change?

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

You might think that this could be quite an odd question to come from some body coming from outside the United States and maybe a little angering, but I could say to justify myself that I really appreciate this city and that's why I decided to move here 4 years ago. When I lived in Europe this city was really unknown for me, when I heard the word Portland the only things that passed through my mind were cement and The Simpsons (this one because I was a Simpsons fan). Portland is really unknown in Europe, even thought many Portlandeese companies are much known in Europe like Nyke, Columbia and Oregon Scientific. The city of Portland caught my attention about 6 years ago when saw a documentary about Oregon dunes, they showed some images of Portland that really caught my eye. The environmental friendliness that characterizes Portland, its post-modern charm, its revolutionary character, and its love for freedom really made me fall in love with this city.
The first time I arrived to Portland, I remember that I was looking at the city from the airplane, and I was just amazed by it's massiveness, I never saw a city that big in my entire life, then when I landed every thing looked to me as so weird and impressive at the same time, The train that suddenly entered the street and went trough the downtown, the endless and monotonous suburbs, the smallness of the downtown, the very tall buildings, the enormous rivers, the gigantic volcano, the enormous forests, and many more things that were impressive and shocking to the average European I was, but then after while I got more used to this differences and I started to see what Portland had in common with Europe. For example the climate, Portland's climate is very similar to the climate in North Western Spain, with cool cloudy rainy winters (Basque people call it sirimiri) and warm dry sunny summers, also the architecture of the old buildings that surround the pioneer square remembered me Barcelona, the low-rise buildings of the Pearl district made me think on the city of Santander, and the buildings around old town and the tram remembered me the city of Brussels. Portland gave me a sweet-bitter taste, on one hand I had Portland’s character, its excellent downtown architecture, its nice summers and its natural beauty, and in the other hand there are the ugly highways in the middle of the downtown, its boring suburbs and its awful parking lots. I think that Portland is a superve city, and that it should keep its particular characteristics at any cost, but i also wish that it could have some changes like increasing the size and density of its downtown, that it got rid of the downtown highways, I also wish that it could have more low-rise buildings, that it had less parking lots and denser suburbs. Now I would like to know what your reactions about my ideas are and what ideas would you have for Portland’s future.

[bvpcvm]

well, it's not so much a question of "should" it change - we keep being told to expect another million people (in the metro area) in the next 20 years. so, whether portlanders want it to or not, it's gonna change.

in the time i've spent in europe, no one had heard of portland, either.

where are you from in europe, btw?

[MarkDaMan]

I think you've just given us the goals of Metro?

The 'problems' you indicate have more to do with American life, than Portland or Oregon.

Ever since the trek across the continent following the Oregon Trail, Americans have been searching for their private piece of land. Since WWII, the suburban track house and two car garage dream has sprawled across our abundant land.

Portland's metro is about 20 to 30 years into our 'experiment' with land use laws, urban growth boundaries, mass transit options, and the live/work/play in one compact neighborhood. I think in a lot of the newer developments you see those values reflected.

So, no, I don't think Portland should 'change', but I do think it will continue to improve.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

well, it's not so much a question of "should" it change - we keep being told to expect another million people (in the metro area) in the next 20 years. so, whether portlanders want it to or not, it's gonna change.

in the time i've spent in europe, no one had heard of portland, either.

where are you from in europe, btw?

I was born in luxembourg, but my parents come from Spain and Argentina, I don't feel very Luxemburgish, actually I don't even know how to speak Luxemburgish, to complicated for me, are you from Europe to?

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

I don't think that the fact that Portlnd its going to have an enormous amount of wrowth would mean by force that it would have big changes taking place, I mean if most of the people that went to Portland went to live on the suburburbs I think Portland wouldn't change much.

[MarkDaMan]

^The suburban areas are going to have to get with the program. Many have. Metro has been very helpful in this regard.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

^The suburban areas are going to have to get with the program. Many have. Metro has been very helpful in this regard.

Your right I shouldn't talk about things that are coming trough a process (some just started) of change as if they were some things that remainded or are going to remain unchanged. I was afraid that sprawl would increase because of the recent extension of the urban growth boundary.

[Okstate]

Something quite similar in topic:

does anyone know how (past) Seattle at 2.5 million compares to (present) Portland at roughly 2.5 million?

Yes, I now there are a million things that make it incomparable but amuse me.

[davehogan]

Portland gave me a sweet-bitter taste, on one hand I hat Portland’s character, its excellent downtown architecture, its nice summers and its natural beauty, and in the other hand there are the ugly highways in the middle of the downtown, its boring suburbs and its awful parking lots. I think that Portland is a superve city, and that it should keep its particular characteristics at any cost, but i also wish that it could have some changes like increasing the size and density of its downtown, that it got rid of the downtown highways, I also wish that it could have more low-rise buildings, that it had less parking lots and denser suburbs. Now I would like to know what your reactions about my ideas are and what ideas would you have for Portland’s future.

I love Portland as it stands. Downtown's freeway network is a great plus for it, to get from Vancouver to Beaverton, or Tualatin to Gresham, etc, is a trip around downtown. You remember it's there.

The Fremont and Marquham Bridges are both fine works of art in my opinion. I-5 on the east side should be buried in the long term, and I-405 should be capped in parts, but vehicular transportation is a key to long term growth.

The biggest parking problem Portland has is that there's not enough of it at each and every building. If you're going to bother to build a taller building, you need a foundation. Build it to be a parking garage, and you eliminate many of the complaints I hear about Portland.

It'd be a great way to get away with eliminating surface lots: make them less profitable.

[bvpcvm]

does anyone know how (past) Seattle at 2.5 million compares to (present) Portland at roughly 2.5 million?

THAT's certainly an interesting question. one thing you might try is to download the latest version of google earth (5.0). it lets you use a little slider control to change the year of the photo you're looking at (i.e., slide it to the left, see data from 1970 or whatever). i haven't looked at the data for seattle - unfortunately, the data for portland is pretty spotty. though interesting - all the factories north of vaughn are housing, if you go back far enough.

[CUclimber]

I love Portland as it stands. Downtown's freeway network is a great plus for it, to get from Vancouver to Beaverton, or Tualatin to Gresham, etc, is a trip around downtown. You remember it's there.The freeway system was great 20 years ago when there were a fraction of the cars on it, but the near-constant stop-and-go on the 405 and 26 interchanges are intolerable.

[urbanlife]

The biggest parking problem Portland has is that there's not enough of it at each and every building. If you're going to bother to build a taller building, you need a foundation. Build it to be a parking garage, and you eliminate many of the complaints I hear about Portland.

It'd be a great way to get away with eliminating surface lots: make them less profitable.

Well surface lots and parking garages have little in common other than cars...and parking is never going to get "better" in Portland because of our trains. In order for the trains to work, there needs to be a limited number of parking in downtown, thus making it a better option for someone to simply take the train...though I will say they need to expand the parking at the park and rides, now that would increase ridership.


MrC, first off welcome to our city...if you really wish to take an interest in Portland, I suggest hitting up Powells Books and catch up on some reading of Portland's history. We are definitely above most mid size cities in this country with the way things work here as an urban whole.


Suburbs in the US are tremendously different from Europe, there they act more as small towns that are usually connected to the main cities through rail, American suburbs are not so much this way and are usually much less populated. Now here in Portland there has been some moves in the suburbs to move in more dense directions.


Also another note for you, we have alot going on in this city that is worth discovering. Plus the way Portland is today, it has changed completely from 30 years ago...so basically you are seeing change, it just still has further to go....oh and a side note, most of what is in the Pearl is less than 10 years old, before that the whole area was basically a dead railyard and parking lots, so when you say Portland has too many parking lots (which I agree) think of what it would look like without all the new development north of Burnside.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Well surface lots and parking garages have little in common other than cars...and parking is never going to get "better" in Portland because of our trains. In order for the trains to work, there needs to be a limited number of parking in downtown, thus making it a better option for someone to simply take the train...though I will say they need to expand the parking at the park and rides, now that would increase ridership.


MrC, first off welcome to our city...if you really wish to take an interest in Portland, I suggest hitting up Powells Books and catch up on some reading of Portland's history. We are definitely above most mid size cities in this country with the way things work here as an urban whole.


Suburbs in the US are tremendously different from Europe, there they act more as small towns that are usually connected to the main cities through rail, American suburbs are not so much this way and are usually much less populated. Now here in Portland there has been some moves in the suburbs to move in more dense directions.


Also another note for you, we have alot going on in this city that is worth discovering. Plus the way Portland is today, it has changed completely from 30 years ago...so basically you are seeing change, it just still has further to go....oh and a side note, most of what is in the Pearl is less than 10 years old, before that the whole area was basically a dead railyard and parking lots, so when you say Portland has too many parking lots (which I agree) think of what it would look like without all the new development north of Burnside.

Hum I forgot to say that Portland is internationally known from its urban growth boundary and its pioneering on energy efficiency plans, which started on 1972 I think, and also for being one of the first places in the world that arrived to reduce its carbon emissions in the early 90’s. That is astonishing, not only for the United States, but for the whole world.
But of course Portland is just a city, it would always be affected a lot by the rest of the country, if the USA doesn’t change Portland would very hardly, change.
I believe that all countries have some strong points (USA has a lot like the economy, the low unemployment, etc...), but also some weak points (with this I think inequalities and urbanism). I think these are big problems in the US, by looking at this points I've seen that many weaknesses that the US has fit nicely with the European strong points, and vice versa. I think that both sides of the Atlantic could learn a lot from each other.
I started this thread because I think that Portland is ready to anticipate the rest of the country, American mentality is changing, especially here, now its time to press hard Portland can again be a pioneer as it has been before and set again an example for the rest of the country.

[PDX City-State]

i also wish that it could have some changes like increasing the size and density of its downtown, that it got rid of the downtown highways, I also wish that it could have more low-rise buildings, that it had less parking lots and denser suburbs. Now I would like to know what your reactions about my ideas are and what ideas would you have for Portland’s future.

I think the price of fuel and construction materials alone will increase the density of all American cities, including Portland. Once people get a taste of urban living, the convenience is something they generally aren't willing to give up.

The post war Eisenhower years were very damaging to the United States. While the freeway system improved our economic output, the onslaught of automobiles destroyed our cities. The reason why Portland fared better than other cities has less to do with urban planning than the fact that Portland did not experience boom years in the 1960s and 1970s when other downtowns were leveled and replaced by terrible buildings and street patterns a la the Auditorium District. Sure, certain neighborhoods (like South Portland and North Albina) were destroyed, but PDX definitely fared better than other cities.

That said, I agree regarding the freeways. Interstate 405 doesn't bother me much, but I-5's placement on the Eastside Waterfront is a travesty that is unlikely to be remedied anytime soon. What really needs to happen is that Americans need to drive less. With better transportation options, I think this will change.

[davehogan]

Well surface lots and parking garages have little in common other than cars...and parking is never going to get "better" in Portland because of our trains. In order for the trains to work, there needs to be a limited number of parking in downtown, thus making it a better option for someone to simply take the train...though I will say they need to expand the parking at the park and rides, now that would increase ridership.


Well, I think I might disagree with the whole premise of that. I live in NW Portland, pretty close-in, and barely ever drive downtown. Why bother for most trips when I have the 15, 17, 77 and Streetcar within walking distance?

If I have to stop by for work reasons though, I always have to take my car. I work with computers, and want to have a full set of cabling tools, laptop, a wide variety of cables, spare parts, accessories, and sometimes a few computers and/or printers. For example.

That or I want to buy a week's worth of groceries, and I have some friends coming over so I want to get some drinks and snacks. Without buying a shopping cart I can't get that stuff home. I might as well drive.

It's not that I think that we need more parking, I can always find it at a reasonable price. It's that if you build excess parking, you devalue the existing lots. You make it more worthwhile for them to re-develop the land than keep it a parking lot.

Portland's restrictions on parking are simply holding back downtown growth.

Also another note for you, we have alot going on in this city that is worth discovering. Plus the way Portland is today, it has changed completely from 30 years ago...so basically you are seeing change, it just still has further to go....oh and a side note, most of what is in the Pearl is less than 10 years old, before that the whole area was basically a dead railyard and parking lots, so when you say Portland has too many parking lots (which I agree) think of what it would look like without all the new development north of Burnside.

Coincidentally, I'm seeing Portland more and more of the San Diego of the Northwest. Seattle has obviously become the Los Angeles (#1 for importance) of the region, leaving PDX as an obvious #2.

I moved to San Diego in 2002, right as the Ballpark District and East Village really got great, and shortly before CA-56 opened. It was amazing what the CA-56 freeway did to make the Miramar and Mira Mesa areas nicer. Less traffic on residential streets, much safer (at least it felt so) to walk or ride a bike, etc. After living in northern San Diego for a bit, I moved to a place near Balboa Park, and started using the buses and Trolley to get around if I didn't need to drive.

It was amazing watching a city really deal with growth. Their were builders fees all over the place to pay for everything (I think $4600 for a single family house), in addition to a half-percent sales tax. I know, taxes don't fly here, but a gas tax or something, as well as incentives to build up (even parking garages) can stimulate the development of a city.

San Diego opened some public parking along their Trolley (LRT) in downtown. It's a lot like the MAX, but it does a loop around downtown instead of the upcoming X we'll have here. Goes up to Mission Valley, over to SDSU, La Mesa, El Cajon, and Santee. Also down through the Naval Base, Chula Vista, National City, San Ysidro, ending right before Tijuana. It's being built up to serve Pacific Beach, Clairemont, and University Town Center (UTC) on it's final extension. For now.

The San Diego region also helped build garages near the ballpark, the convention center, major attractions, etc. That helped to stimulate replacing the surface lots with hotels, bars, restaurants, condos, and parks.

Mass transit ridership just kept increasing too, because the encouraging parking method (with other Center City Development Corp initiatives) made San Diego's downtown into a place to be. If driving was the option, there was parking for a price. I know, parking can encourage driving, but the driving can encourage mass transit usage.

[MarkDaMan]

Coincidentally, I'm seeing Portland more and more of the San Diego of the Northwest. Seattle has obviously become the Los Angeles (#1 for importance) of the region, leaving PDX as an obvious #2.

That's quite the broad brush to wipe. I disagree.

[PacificNW]

↑ :haha: :haha:

[urbanlife]

Well, I think I might disagree with the whole premise of that. I live in NW Portland, pretty close-in, and barely ever drive downtown. Why bother for most trips when I have the 15, 17, 77 and Streetcar within walking distance?

If I have to stop by for work reasons though, I always have to take my car. I work with computers, and want to have a full set of cabling tools, laptop, a wide variety of cables, spare parts, accessories, and sometimes a few computers and/or printers. For example.

That or I want to buy a week's worth of groceries, and I have some friends coming over so I want to get some drinks and snacks. Without buying a shopping cart I can't get that stuff home. I might as well drive.

It's not that I think that we need more parking, I can always find it at a reasonable price. It's that if you build excess parking, you devalue the existing lots. You make it more worthwhile for them to re-develop the land than keep it a parking lot.

Portland's restrictions on parking are simply holding back downtown growth.



Coincidentally, I'm seeing Portland more and more of the San Diego of the Northwest. Seattle has obviously become the Los Angeles (#1 for importance) of the region, leaving PDX as an obvious #2.

I moved to San Diego in 2002, right as the Ballpark District and East Village really got great, and shortly before CA-56 opened. It was amazing what the CA-56 freeway did to make the Miramar and Mira Mesa areas nicer. Less traffic on residential streets, much safer (at least it felt so) to walk or ride a bike, etc. After living in northern San Diego for a bit, I moved to a place near Balboa Park, and started using the buses and Trolley to get around if I didn't need to drive.

It was amazing watching a city really deal with growth. Their were builders fees all over the place to pay for everything (I think $4600 for a single family house), in addition to a half-percent sales tax. I know, taxes don't fly here, but a gas tax or something, as well as incentives to build up (even parking garages) can stimulate the development of a city.

San Diego opened some public parking along their Trolley (LRT) in downtown. It's a lot like the MAX, but it does a loop around downtown instead of the upcoming X we'll have here. Goes up to Mission Valley, over to SDSU, La Mesa, El Cajon, and Santee. Also down through the Naval Base, Chula Vista, National City, San Ysidro, ending right before Tijuana. It's being built up to serve Pacific Beach, Clairemont, and University Town Center (UTC) on it's final extension. For now.

The San Diego region also helped build garages near the ballpark, the convention center, major attractions, etc. That helped to stimulate replacing the surface lots with hotels, bars, restaurants, condos, and parks.

Mass transit ridership just kept increasing too, because the encouraging parking method (with other Center City Development Corp initiatives) made San Diego's downtown into a place to be. If driving was the option, there was parking for a price. I know, parking can encourage driving, but the driving can encourage mass transit usage.

I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. So Portland needs more surface lots to make parking less valuable so that it encourages new development to take place on those same parking lots, thus reducing the number of surface lots? You do realize that is the motto for urban renewal right? Unless I am wrong and you are trying to say something different.


As for San Diego, I am dating a girl that grew up there and before the stadium and convention center moved in, that area was dead. The only reason why it is changing now is because the massive amount of money that was spent to renovate that part of the downtown with a convention center and ballpark...the hotels came in for them, not because parking lot owners were not making any money in parking.


Again, if I am wrong with what you are trying to say, please correct me because currently I am confused. Though I will add this because I just came across it. From what you said, Columbus, OH must be prime to explode with development because of all the cheap parking. (the surface lots are in red, just in case you were wondering.)
http://www.geturban.com/images/parkinglot.JPG

[urbanlife]

Hum I forgot to say that Portland is internationally known from its urban growth boundary and its pioneering on energy efficiency plans, which started on 1972 I think, and also for being one of the first places in the world that arrived to reduce its carbon emissions in the early 90’s. That is astonishing, not only for the United States, but for the whole world.
But of course Portland is just a city, it would always be affected a lot by the rest of the country, if the USA doesn’t change Portland would very hardly, change.
I believe that all countries have some strong points (USA has a lot like the economy, the low unemployment, etc...), but also some weak points (with this I think inequalities and urbanism). I think these are big problems in the US, by looking at this points I've seen that many weaknesses that the US has fit nicely with the European strong points, and vice versa. I think that both sides of the Atlantic could learn a lot from each other.
I started this thread because I think that Portland is ready to anticipate the rest of the country, American mentality is changing, especially here, now its time to press hard Portland can again be a pioneer as it has been before and set again an example for the rest of the country.

oh I totally agree, I think both sides of the Atlantic could learn alot from each other. Portland's next move will be an important one, if we are able to keep Sam in office, there is a good chance there will be a very strong push for more rail projects. Also our suburbs are coming around, but that will take time. Gresham looks to be moving its downtown closer to the MAX stop, and hopefully along all MAX stops this becomes a trend. The best way to reduce the impacts of suburban growth is to increase desirability and density around the stations, thus giving suburbs more density.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

oh I totally agree, I think both sides of the Atlantic could learn alot from each other. Portland's next move will be an important one, if we are able to keep Sam in office, there is a good chance there will be a very strong push for more rail projects. Also our suburbs are coming around, but that will take time. Gresham looks to be moving its downtown closer to the MAX stop, and hopefully along all MAX stops this becomes a trend. The best way to reduce the impacts of suburban growth is to increase desirability and density around the stations, thus giving suburbs more density.

I've seen that there were also some attempts in the 70's and 80's to make denser suburbs, there are clear examples in Nob Hill and Hollywood (I'm talking about Portland;) ) I wonder why did Portland stopped building that type of buildings in the suburbs.
I agree that Portland is now putting a great amount of effort on making suburbs denser, more prepared for mass transit, and more bike friendly (I hope they would finally start with that bike sharing project)
Now talking about trains, I agree that MAX is having and going to help a lot in this process, for the future I also think that commuter rail has a big potential, the under used Union Station could become the centre of an extensive commuter rail system, The parking lot next to the station could be transformed into a bus station that would connect by bus the commuter rail to the rest of the city, I know this is just speculation but I think it could be a good idea for the future.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

http://www.geturban.com/images/parkinglot.JPG

WOW!

Some times it looks as if they had done some bomb testings ore someting like that in some cities, this just looks crazy.

[PacificNW]

I don't know if "I" would define neighborhoods (Hollywood, Nob Hill) as suburbs. I would define Beaverton, Hillsboro, Gresham, and unincorporated areas as suburbs...I could be wrong, though. Edit: I have a question: Are the terms "suburban Portland" the same as "the suburbs of Portland"?

[urbanlife]

Actually MrC, I have a question for you, seeing you are from Europe and all. You mention the word "suburb" but then reference "Nob Hill (which I prefer the NW District or the Alphabet District, sounds much better) and Hollywood," which makes me wonder what your definition of "suburbs" is? Because I would classify those neighborhoods as inner city neighborhoods.

In the US, areas like that were once the suburbs, but that all changed when we began to push further out, now we consider to be the suburbs are the unincorporated areas in a metro, as well as the towns that surround the metro that have a large percentage of workforce commuting into the main city.

I think once we have a better understanding of what you consider to be what, I think then we can all establish a much better same page for conversation.


I say this because I am planning a trip to Europe and I was looking at the city of Almere, just outside of Amsterdam. It is considered a suburb, but in this country we would call it its own city because of the way it is designed.

[davehogan]

I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. So Portland needs more surface lots to make parking less valuable so that it encourages new development to take place on those same parking lots, thus reducing the number of surface lots? You do realize that is the motto for urban renewal right? Unless I am wrong and you are trying to say something different.

You got my point kind of backwards. I said up. San Diego included incentives to build public parking garages. This devalues surface parking, encouraging redevelopment of those surface lots. As they get redeveloped and more businesses and residents exist in a city, the parking garages regain some value. You either continue the cycle, break it and save some surface lots, or run out of land. I like the idea of "running out of" downtown land. San Diego hasn't yet (and won't in the near future), and neither would Portland if we tried. By the time either finishes building out, there will be outdated smaller places to rebuild.

Trying to prevent driving by preventing parking downtown misses the whole point of urban access, and attempts to increase density. Some people will switch to transit if parking gets too difficult, but many will just not bother going there and shop at the nearest strip mall with plenty of parking instead, for example.

As for San Diego, I am dating a girl that grew up there and before the stadium and convention center moved in, that area was dead. The only reason why it is changing now is because the massive amount of money that was spent to renovate that part of the downtown with a convention center and ballpark...the hotels came in for them, not because parking lot owners were not making any money in parking.

It's a lot more than the convention center and ballpark. If that's all it takes the Rose Quarter and Lloyd Center areas would be quite different, don't you think?

San Diego actively promoted making it easy to get around downtown as well (like Portland), has a large light rail system connecting many buses and suburbs (like Portland), has a large park with significant history located just outside downtown (like Portland), is located in an area with natural beauty growing from hills to a body of water (like Portland.)

Yes, the weather helps them a bit, but they have a much crappier airport with no direct downtown transit from it located close in. They also funded construction of the Park It on Market garage, helped with the Horton Plaza garages, the garages around the ballpark and East Village, etc.

As other similarities, they're a border town with only two points connecting to their neighbor. It's just much more of a pain in the to do an international commute than an interstate commute.

Great picture of Columbus by the way, but Ohio has bigger problems than just building a nice convention center and arena/ballpark.

[bvpcvm]

Dude, what you're saying flies in the face of everything we're trying to do here in Portland. The whole point is that cities are where people live - not cars. Building parking garages just deadens the street, because instead of people occupying that block (and adding to the street when they go outside), the block's just taken up with vehicles. OK, parking lots may be worse, but they have the potential to be redeveloped - into condos or offices or shopping - places people go. I understand that retail needs some drivers, but the whole point is to have more people live downtown, or close in, to begin with.

[zilfondel]

Europeans basically consider any part of town that contains single-family residential in low density areas, or non commercial/residential areas, to be the suburbs. Nob Hill, Lair Hill, SE/NE Portland wouldn't really be considered the 'city' as they aren't nearly dense enough. They have hardly any pedestrian and multiuse activities... its not like you can go to Belmont and spend the entire day there. Unless you're at the library or sipping a coffee, you're going to get mighty bored really fast.

Regarding parking - your correlation isn't correct. You are leaving out land values, which are unrelated to parking availability, and retail, which feeds off of traffic and is considered to be helped by local parking. However, ground-level street and lot parking is viewed by planners are aiding retail, and multi-storied parking usually does not benefit the retail as much on a per-spot basis (parking in a garage is not as convenient).

Land value is much more dependent upon amenities and other land uses in the vicinity, as well as general accessibility. Such as - residential, office, other retail, attractive parks, coffee shops, etc. Building parks and other amenities is usually much cheaper than building structured parking, which averages between $30,000 - $50,000 per space. A ten-level garage could cost you easily $60 million, whereas a nice urban plaza ~$3 million. Guess which one has a bigger economic boost? See Jamison park for the answer. :)

So, no. And ridership on the San Diego trolley and PDX Max are virtually identical. Of note, ridership on the Max is very high during the weekends, when many people flock to downtown to go shopping.

[davehogan]

Dude, what you're saying flies in the face of everything we're trying to do here in Portland. The whole point is that cities are where people live - not cars. Building parking garages just deadens the street, because instead of people occupying that block (and adding to the street when they go outside), the block's just taken up with vehicles. OK, parking lots may be worse, but they have the potential to be redeveloped - into condos or offices or shopping - places people go. I understand that retail needs some drivers, but the whole point is to have more people live downtown, or close in, to begin with.

Again, point, missed.

The parking garages aren't usually just parking garages. There's first floor retail, or a 6 or 7 floor mall (with exterior-facing retail all around the first floor) including a Westin Hotel attached to some of the parking the city of San Diego helped pay for.

It's adjacent to the Gaslamp Quarter, and makes it a lot easier for people to access it without driving, parking, then taking transit, and making the whole trip a bit more difficult.

Portland's SmartPark garages usually have no first floor retail, or attached facilities, which is unfortunate. Part of why I loved the mall/movies/parking place was you could get validated parking by going to an afternoon movie, and afterward have enough time to grab dinner and a beer at a nice downtown restaurant, then drive home.

The businesses helped subsidize my parking, but rather than having a parking lot, they had me park above (or below) street level, and had the businesses taking up most of the street facing areas.

I ended up growing to like the downtown area enough I moved close enough I could walk. I also was in a dense urban neighborhood in it's own right, and could get to almost any business I needed in 10-15 minutes walking. My car became just another tool I used for work. At the same time, I still needed my car, and I was quite glad that there was just enough parking (including garages you'd never notice without looking for them) that I could usually keep my car within 5 minutes of my apartment.

Five years before, downtown really wasn't worth living near. It seemed a lot dirtier, more aggressive panhandlers and drunks, and less things to see. San Diego kept working at adding attractions, a marketing campaign about how easy it was to park once and walk around downtown, as well as police enforcement to help with those who got aggressive towards those around them.

San Diego also has it's UTC neighborhood, which consists of high-rise condos, hotels and offices, a mall, lots of parking (surface and not), and a suburban design. It still has high bus usage, and the city's working on starting the SuperLoop, a streetcar-like bus service that does a loop through the area.

The Pearl has a lot more dead street-facing parking than any part of San Diego I saw outside of the suburbs. And I say that having lived about a 20-25 minute walk from Downtown for nearly 2 years, about as long as I've lived in NW Portland, 20 minutes walking from the Pearl.

Portland could much more easily offer incentives for first floor retail and hiding parking, as well as redeveloping existing surface lots into multi-use (retail + parking, for example) structures.

As an example, I'd love to see the Lloyd Center mall redeveloped to include on-site parking (to encourage redevelopment of the surrounding surface lots, since they'll no longer be very useful to have), street-facing retail, an anchor hotel (probably a smaller, 75-100 room boutique), an atrium in the center for natural light and open space, and 4-6 floors of parking facing the exterior.

If the condo market were better, I'd say add a bunch of condo towers over it. Maybe build it to allow that construction later, but don't do it now. Or do all this at the central Post Office site, and redevelop the Lloyd Center as an urban ballpark. It already has plenty of parking (for tailgating) as well as parks and hotels nearby.

The parking-encourages driving thing just doesn't work that well. It makes some people just choose to stop at places outside the city center, even those who live on the fringe of it, because it's easier to go to the suburbs than the city.

Sorry about the length of the post, I'm just getting tired of seeing Portland hold itself back by requiring parking, but not that the parking is away from the ground-floor.

[zilfondel]

The Pearl has a lot more dead street-facing parking than any part of San Diego I saw outside of the suburbs. And I say that having lived about a 20-25 minute walk from Downtown for nearly 2 years, about as long as I've lived in NW Portland, 20 minutes walking from the Pearl.

Portland could much more easily offer incentives for first floor retail and hiding parking, as well as redeveloping existing surface lots into multi-use (retail + parking, for example) structures.

err what? City code mandates active streetfronts for buildings in most districts - I havent looked at the code in awhile, but I believe it effectively bans ground-floor parking along the building perimeter.. in many central city locations. Outside of downtown this isn't the case (like the proposed NW parking garages (http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=122333218510752800)), and there was a certain Lloyd District tower that got approved sans ground floor retail.

It would certainly make it that much harder for a building to pass Design Review. However, since Portland doesn't have alleys, they have to put the loading bays and garage entrances somewhere.

[urbanlife]

dave, not to sound offensive, but I am getting confused on where you are going with all of this.

First off, the Lloyd District is its own problem...the reason for surface lots there is because of a single owner who wishes to hold onto all of that land for his own benefit....so chances of that area ever changing is slim.


But beyond that, I am confused with what you are trying to say...Portland has designed its downtown to have active and quiet spaces, so those dead streets in the Pearl probably have more to do with its surroundings to provide neighbors with a much quieter atmosphere for living, while providing them very lively and active areas within a short walk.

But again, I am not sure where you are going with parking, sure parking garages with retail along the first floor is better than having a surface lot, the reason for a surface lot has nothing to do with parking, at least not anymore. Often times they are surface lots because the owners refuse to sell and refuse to spend money and build something, why spend money when a lot is already making money?

But if you are saying Portland needs more parking for downtown, then that I cant see being a huge benefit. Sure, as the downtown grows it needs to add new parking, but I dont think we need blocks and blocks of parking garages in our downtown, I think we need them properly placed to have the highest effectiveness. With that said, I would rather see the cost of a parking garage spent on housing downtown that provided only a small amount of parking, then including the amenities downtown that allow someone to live without a car. I live next to downtown and own a car, but only use it for leisure.


But with the comparison with Portland and San Diego, I think a point that is missing is where the two cities are coming from. San Diego was in a far worse condition with their downtown when they began revitalizing than Portland was, so much of what they have done was needed to rebuild their city. Portland has never really needed to rebuild its city, the most it has done has expanded the urban surroundings of its downtown. At one time south of Burnside and north of Jefferson was seen as downtown, now it is everything in the 405 loop. The entire Pearl District was built from the ground up and instead of making that district a parking garage central, they made it into a dense neighborhood, which is has been much more of a benefit in the long run.


I dont mean to sound like I am being attacking towards you, but I am just confused at the point you are trying to make...to me, it sounds like you are trying to make two different statements to get to the same point.

[PacificNW]

If more parking garages are built in the future the developers probably should be encouraged/required to include street level retail and if a tower isn't included in the project then attractive affordable housing should be developed on the top of the garage, imo.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Actually MrC, I have a question for you, seeing you are from Europe and all. You mention the word "suburb" but then reference "Nob Hill (which I prefer the NW District or the Alphabet District, sounds much better) and Hollywood," which makes me wonder what your definition of "suburbs" is? Because I would classify those neighborhoods as inner city neighborhoods.

In the US, areas like that were once the suburbs, but that all changed when we began to push further out, now we consider to be the suburbs are the unincorporated areas in a metro, as well as the towns that surround the metro that have a large percentage of workforce commuting into the main city.

I think once we have a better understanding of what you consider to be what, I think then we can all establish a much better same page for conversation.


I say this because I am planning a trip to Europe and I was looking at the city of Almere, just outside of Amsterdam. It is considered a suburb, but in this country we would call it its own city because of the way it is designed.

In Europe the concept of suburb depends a lot of the area of Europe where its found, there are some countries like the UK that are more suburban than other countries like Spain where there are some cities that pratically don't have any suburb.
For most Europe a suburb would be an area that is mostly residencial, that means that most people don't work in the area, and that it lacks of retail space. As you can see desity dosen't come in defining a suburb, that is because suburbs in Europe can have any densities, for example the most dense town in Spain L'hospitalet del llobregat is actually a suburban town.
As for Portland I would say that it is becoming quite European in style but without loosing its identity, I think its good, mabye in 20 years the rest of America would look at the suburbs in Portland and think what you thought when you saw the suburbs in Amsterdam.