Should Portland change?

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

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]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

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.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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), 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.