Portland 2035 Comprehensive Plan
 

It's downtown Portland planning time
Portland Business Journal - April 20, 2007
by Andy Giegerich

And as Portland's planning department embarks on its ambitious new Central Portland Plan, many can't wait to see if it will contain ideas as visionary as those floated in 1988's Central City Plan. All told, the 1988 manifesto recommended 464 actions, compared with just 17 recommended by 1972's Downtown Plan.

Karen Bean, Portland's central city senior project manager, said it's unlikely that the current efforts, set for completion in 2010, will contain as many ideas as the 1988 plan. That version spelled out such bold notions as development within the gritty North Macadam and Northwest Triangle districts.

Today, those areas are called, respectively, the South Waterfront and Pearl districts.

But the Central Portland Plan, which will analyze overall central city conditions and determine how to best update the 1988 efforts, could still shape Portland for decades.

"The 1988 plan is the reason our central city looks and feels the way it does today," said Veronica Valenzuela, Mayor Tom Potter's liaison to the planning bureau. "And these new efforts could dictate what we look like 30 years from now."

Potter's proposed budget, released this week, suggests that the city apply $851,068 toward the Central Portland Plan.

Among other things, the study will explore development regulations, including buildings' allowable heights and constraints on transportation and parking, and the pending expiration of the area's urban renewal districts. Bean said it will also analyze housing, arts and culture.

But much of the plan remains in the development phase. As part of that, the planning department is trading notes with purveyors of other such studies, including the Portland Business Alliance, which recently unveiled its proposals to enhance the central business district, and the Portland Development Commission, which is studying downtown's west-end trends.

Planners from the Portland Department of Transportation will develop their own Central City Transportation Management Plan in tandem with the planning department's proposals.

"With fundamental issues of which parking regulations work and what adjustments we need to make, a lot relates back to the central city process in terms of economic and housing goals," said Steve Iwata, the city's transportation planning supervisor.

Beyond that, Bean's department's work is so preliminary that it's still evaluating exactly which areas to study.

The 1988 plan examined eight districts it considered part of the central city: downtown, Goose Hollow, the area that became Old Town/Chinatown, the Northwest Triangle/Pearl District, Lower Albina, Lloyd Center/Coliseum, Central Eastside and North Macadam/South Waterfront.

The efforts could attract a cadre of urban design enthusiasts. Scores of citizens participated in the 1988 effort; Bean said planners could draw on interest generated by Potter's VisionPDX project, which enticed many urban landscape critics to offer suggestions.

"We've know that there are stakeholders looking for big-picture ideas and specific fixes," Bean said. "Hopefully, we'll be able to take care of both."

The city will increasingly tout the study through the media and other sources in hopes of attracting more citizen involvement.

Many in the urban design community already know that Central Portland Plan work has begun. Tad Savinar, who is advising city and regional leaders on light-rail-area retail planning, said a growing number of Portlanders are interested in how downtown evolves.

"Just as we've seen a shift in cultural and societal behavior with the electronic age, we're seeing the same in terms of how people maneuver through and what services people expect from a city," Savinar said. "This type of planning is coming at a very opportune time."

And while it might seem like there are too many downtown plans on the table, Ethan Seltzer, director of Portland State University's School of Urban Studies and Planning, noted that good cities constantly reconfigure their layouts.

"A lot of planning went into what we're enjoying today, and the rate at which things change is fairly astounding," he said. "It ought to be a constant."

Indeed a planner's job is never done. Not only are there always things to be added, there's a steady flow of emerging services that weren't available, say, 10 years ago, said Seltzer. That said, there could be more coordination among the various planners creating their city visions.

"The onus is on the Planning Commission and the City Council to see the interconnectivity there," he said.

While the Central Portland Plan could take three years, it will arrive more quickly than the 1988 effort, which took four years.

"We're trying to do it in a manageable time frame given the scope of the project," said Bean.

[email protected] | 503-219-3419

http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2007/04/23/story9.html?t=printable

After visioning, it's time to plan
By Jim Redden
The Portland Tribune, Aug 24, 2007

The next mayor of Portland will have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to shape the future of the city.

A multiyear process to rewrite several of the plans that guide city growth will unofficially begin Sept. 19 when the community vision project presents its report to the City Council.

The report will lay out a vision of how Portland should look and work 30 years from now. According to Planning Bureau Director Gil Kelley, the information will inform a state-mandated process to update the Comprehensive Plan that determines how the city is zoned, including where new development will be concentrated in coming years.

Kelley said his bureau also will use the opportunity to update a number of related city plans as well, including the Central City Plan that governs downtown and inner east-side growth, along with the Transportation Management Plan, which will help determine the location of future transit lines.

“This is serious stuff, and people need to pay attention,” said Ethan Seltzer, director of Portland State University’s School of Urban Studies and Planning. “It will have a profound impact on how the city looks over the next couple of decades.”

In fact, so many plans are in play that Kelley refers to the expected results as “the Portland Plan.”

The mayor has historically exerted control over the planning bureau by assigning it to his or her office, naming the director and appointing the members of the Portland Planning Commission, which must approve major plans – including the so-called “Comp Plan” – before they are referred to the council.

“These are not decisions that are made by hearings officers or the planning bureau,” Seltzer said. “Ultimately, these plans must be approved by the mayor and council.”

Controlling this critical planning process may be the biggest prize in next year’s mayor’s race, which is expected to get under way next month.

Mayor Tom Potter has said he will not announce his future political plans until after Sept. 12, when he turns 67. Potter’s unwillingness to declare his political plans so far has kept the 2008 mayor’s race in limbo.

Several people are thought to be interested in running for mayor, including Commissioner Sam Adams and developer Bob Ball, who worked on the City Charter reform measures that met with mixed success at the May elections. But perhaps because public opinion polls show that Potter remains popular, no one else has announced for the office yet.
Visioning comes at good time

The upcoming planning process gives the vision project – also known as VisionPDX – an importance that was not foreseen when it started around three years ago.

When Potter ran for mayor in 2004, he complained that City Hall had lost touch with the public. The project he initiated after taking office was intended to give residents a chance to say what kind of city they wanted to see in 30 years.

So far the project has cost more than $1.2 million and involved hundreds – if not thousands – of volunteers from around the city.

Much of the work has revolved around collecting and analyzing about 13,000 questionnaires distributed at public events and collected by a range of nonprofit organizations. The surveys were supplemented by focus groups, online surveys, interviews with decision-makers and other means of gathering public opinions.

A citizens steering committee has spent months summarizing the responses into a series of documents that will be formally presented to the council Sept. 19. They include a final vision document – otherwise known as “the Vision” – that will offer a broad perspective of the findings, including challenges that Portlanders feel must be overcome to achieve their goals.
Locals brace for an influx

Preliminary results are consistent with previous surveys that show many residents value the region’s environment and want good schools, safe streets and equal opportunities for all.

But they also show deep concern over perceived threats to future livability, especially the need to build the equivalent of five new South Waterfront-size developments over the next 25 years to house all the additional people projected to move to Portland.

The committee also is expected to make a series of follow-up presentations to the council, including a yet-to-be-finalized request to fund a Community Action Coalition to track council progress on implementing the vision.

Regardless of the details and fate of the funding request, Kelley promises the information generated during VisionPDX will be incorporated in the Comp Plan revisions.

He sees it as replacing the early rounds of outreach efforts that traditionally accompany such plans, although he believes that some hearings still will need to be held as the work progresses.

Major issues that will be addressed during the planning process include whether and how to concentrate growth along transportation corridors, where to route new transit lines and what can be done to make new developments fit into existing neighborhoods.

According to Seltzer, the planning effort also should address impacts of city-encouraged gentrification on lower-income residents.

“The previous plans did not say what should happen when public investments lead to displacement,” Seltzer said.
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=118790111137709600

Portland 2035
 

2035 plan projects development alongside the Willamette
Premium content from Portland Business Journal by Andy Giegerich , Business Journal staff writer
Date: Friday, August 31, 2012, 3:00am PDT

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/prin...5-plan-projects-development.html?s=print

This is great news. It will be interesting to learn how they treat the inner eastside. On one hand keeping it business-centric could be rich and have strong funky culture, but residential should be allowed, perhaps less concentrated. I think of places like SoHo. People do and will continue to live there. The railway and the elevated freeway make the area less desireable and perhaps more gritty.

"Bigger and larger buildings" - does this mean SoWa will raise their limits of 325' to something over 400'?

The struggle of Portland planners with tower envy: Guest opinion
By Guest Columnist
on September 28, 2013 at 12:00 PM, updated September 28, 2013 at 12:04 PM
By Michael Mehaffy and Suzanne Crowhurst Lennard

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index....ggle_by_portland_plann.html#incart_river

Very interesting, thanks for the link Mark!

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy if, in some alternate reality, Portland never built another tower over 20 stories but instead was able to rapidly densify the central city over the next decade with well-designed mid-rise mixed-use/residential buildings. Hell, we might even be talking about a legit CBD subway, not to mention a very lively 24-7 streetscape and cultural atmosphere.

Another article from no makeup wearin', Birkenstock clad, armpit non shavin' earthies. Give me a break. There's nothing wrong with going special. The stumping of Portland is like a clamp on daring to dream. To go to a different place. To say, "Yes we can". Portland needs to continue to move forward, not be stuck in the past. Build Portland build. The skyline, tourism, and anything else that moves Portland to succeed. Don't limit yourself Portland. You've done that for way too long.

Tykendo, I mostly agree with you. I strongly suspect that these writers are the typical provincial, culturally bland PDXers with a fear of anything too contemporary ("trendy") or anything that doesn't "fit in".

Personally, I don't think that stumpiness is really the issue with Portland's skyline. I think it's more about the quality of what tends to get built downtown. Look at the pathetic waterfront. I do want to "go special", I just don't care about how many tall buildings we have or will ever have.

Sprinkle in some 500-footers, sure -- despite the fact that our economy clearly does not have the demand for it and our billionaires either have suburban mindsets or live in Seattle (maybe someday?) -- but what I think central Portland really needs pronto is more architectural moxy, bolder/smarter developers, and more of a concerted effort (a la South Waterfront but with incentives and disincentives specific to the DT area) to fill in every available spot currently vacant or devoted to auto parking or Plaid Pantry's or whatever into vibrant mixed-use residential development from market rate to subsidized/affordable.

I'm as into infill as anyone on here but why does moving forward require high rise towers? Seems more like some outdated 1960s vision of the future where the skyline as viewed from the Interstate is all that matters.

I think Portland has better developers than most other cities and I'm not just talking about Gerding Edlin but also other big developers and small developers. Most other big city developers are out of state wall street funded REITs and crappy national developers that build bland mirror glass towers on top of a 10 story parking garage.

Of note... The local big and small developers are very often funded by them too.

For starters, changing the FAR and height restrictions in the land use code Portland is no easy task. This city sems to digest gradual change rather than drastic.

Well executed at the base, a tall tower (or a set of them) can work fine in Portland. Often, the bases are not well executed, with oversized plazas and landscaping that leaves something to be desired. They also often have substantial above grade parking that mucks up the design of the base. However Portland's design rigor within the BDS would at least help with keep those undesirable features in check. The 200' block sizes will help with that too.

Really, the biggest issue for tall towers in Portland, is the question of whether the market can support the rents. They are costly to construct and design and that reflects in the rents/ condo costs, obviously. The land costs are not yet an obstacle here, as in other pricy markets but the rents will still be more than anything that has been seen in the PDX market. Will the businesss and potential residents that inhabit these towers see the dollars and cents case for moving into one, two or ten of them? Will the projected rents actually support the design and construction of handsome quality buildings?

Questions yet to be answered.

We're still a young city. I grew up in Buffalo, where a house from the 1860's isn't always considered that historic. It's also a much more dense city, so just give Portland a second.

For what we're doing, we're on the right path it seems. We're not going nuts with skyscrapers that can't be filled, we're not going nuts with suburbia that won't ever be lived in.

At the same time, should we say no to tall buildings that are likely going to be profitable for decades upon decades?

For anyone interested, the West Quadrant Plan update has a new draft version(pdf)...

notes of interest: remember these are conceptual

* expand the maximum buildable height area to include a much larger portion of downtown including further south and a northern Pearl cluster...
* remove height restrictions in the maximum buildable height zone (currently 460') that are not within view corridors and base building limitations solely on available FAR and FAR bonuses...
* Jefferson Street earmarked as the future subway alignment for the blue/red lines...
* pedestrianize museum park blocks...
* make burnside/ broadway intersection a "Times Square" (with ads and flashy lights i guess)...
* revive I-405 capping plans...

interesting ideas for sure, I do hope some of these come to fruition, but i'm not going to get my hopes up

Didn't see any mention of subway on Jefferson st.

Interesting documents to go through. Glad to see Portland is planning for the next wave of growth. Like hat, I didn't see any mention of a subway in any of the plans though.

Some amazing things in the future for Portland, but I think you might have been reading too much into these pdf files.


Actually it looks like I figured out your mistake, you might have been looking at the design charrette. Those are just a collection of ideas that is used to create a composite to begin to assemble an overall plan, that doesn't mean everything you see in a design charrette is going to make it to reality. Most things in design charrettes, live in the fictional world and never see reality, but they are great for stimulating ideas.

I will say though, the Jefferson Circle in Goose Hollow would make a realistic access point for a future subway line through the downtown that could run east to downtown and then curve north. It could also have a connection to allow it to continue east as well. Doubtful if this would ever happen, but I like the idea of it.

Looking over the charette maps, I found on page two "Potential future below grade transit facility?" so it's at least on the city's radar. It's pointing toward Madison, which is penned in as Jefferson for some reason.

Madison leads to Hawthorne on the east side...

The hand drawn parts are on mylar or vellum, superimposed on the base map. They just put the mylar in the wrong spot when they scanned it.

Yeah, it's all hypothetical until the council approves the plans... and funds them...