Density

[maccoinnich]

FWIW I don't think that Citydata.com data is accurate. Here are the 2010 census numbers for some of Portland's denser neighborhoods, taken from ONI's website:

1. Old Town / Chinatown: 18,551 people / sq mile
2. Pearl: 15,671 people / sq mile
3. Downtown: 15,315 people / sq mile
4. Goose Hollow: 14,910 people / sq mile
5. Northwest District: 9,179 people / sq mile

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by soleri

I don't quite see how planning will devolve to the neighborhoods or, if it does, how the neighborhoods then use their powers as wisely as Rick Potestio think they should. What I see now are neighborhoods in a defensive crouch, zealously guarding their old houses, parking, and scale. Whether this is right or wrong is less interesting than the fact that it's real as opposed to ideal.

I was going to make this exact same point. Thank you for saving me the time.... I'm a slow typer.

+1

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

I was going to make this exact same point. Thank you for saving me the time.... I'm a slow typer.

+1

More power to the hoods would definitely lead to more onstructionism and less development/density.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

I was going to make this exact same point. Thank you for saving me the time.... I'm a slow typer.

+1

I agree that this conversation could easily go badly. But I do think it needs to happen, because these neighborhoods are going to densify whether they plan it well or poorly, and politicians not having the courage to say it doesn't make it less true. Moreover, this is exactly the kind of public process that Portland is always lauded for doing well. If any US city can figure out how to densify in an equitable and participatory way, it's us.

Portland's a progressive place; most people are already on the same page when it comes to confronting sprawl. What's important is to have a compelling vision for how density will improve the neighborhoods, and I think this is a good start. Planned densification is an opportunity for Portlanders to direct public and private investment in a way that will enhance their neighborhoods' character and quality of life. Present it this way: 'it means investment in infrastructure that your neighborhood needs, including much better transit connections, including new streetcar lines, since the added density in one location will make this possible.' I think a lot of so-called NIMBYism is actually people feeling like they don't have much control about what gets built, often without much thoughtful deliberation, whenever a developer senses an opportunity to make a profit.

Those future immigrants who don't share Portland's values but are coming anyway? Let's plan our neighborhoods' growth before they get here.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

More power to the hoods would definitely lead to more onstructionism and less development/density.

If you don't want Portland to become more dense, it you'd prefer to have the kind of sprawl Potestio is talking about, fine. But if you agree that Portland should densify, it's just foolish to insist we should do it without the participation of, um, Portlanders. We live in a democracy, and Portlanders particularly understand the difference between good governance and authoritarianism. Poor political judgment isn't going to make density happen easier.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

I agree that this conversation could easily go badly. But I do think it needs to happen, because these neighborhoods are going to densify whether they plan it well or poorly, and politicians not having the courage to say it doesn't make it less true. Moreover, this is exactly the kind of public process that Portland is always lauded for doing well. If any US city can figure out how to densify in an equitable and participatory way, it's us.

Portland's a progressive place; most people are already on the same page when it comes to confronting sprawl. What's important is to have a compelling vision for how density will improve the neighborhoods, and I think this is a good start. Planned densification is an opportunity for Portlanders to direct public and private investment in a way that will enhance their neighborhoods' character and quality of life. Present it this way: 'it means investment in infrastructure that your neighborhood needs, including much better transit connections, including new streetcar lines, since the added density in one location will make this possible.' I think a lot of so-called NIMBYism is actually people feeling like they don't have much control about what gets built, often without much thoughtful deliberation, whenever a developer senses an opportunity to make a profit.

Those future immigrants who don't share Portland's values but are coming anyway? Let's plan our neighborhoods' growth before they get here.



If you don't want Portland to become more dense, it you'd prefer to have the kind of sprawl Potestio is talking about, fine. But if you agree that Portland should densify, it's just foolish to insist we should do it without the participation of, um, Portlanders. We live in a democracy, and Portlanders particularly understand the difference between good governance and authoritarianism. Poor political judgment isn't going to make density happen easier.

There is such a thing as TOO MUCH representation.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

There is such a thing as TOO MUCH representation.

Maybe, but I don't think we're anywhere close to reaching it. We need more participation, because actually we don't just need more density, but better forms of development, and bureaucrats don't just magically come up with good ideas by themselves. Sometimes developers do (Brian Libby's piece about the Radiator building that mac just posted a link to is a good read), but they're generally working against the grain of banks' lending policies and regulatory frameworks at this point. So if you want change, you need to bring people on board to provide the dynamism and new ideas to make it happen.

You're a very passionate and energetic advocate for very important principles, PDXDENSITY, but honestly, I think unfortunately you'll be ineffective as long as you consider most people your enemies.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

Maybe, but I don't think we're anywhere close to reaching it. We need more participation, because actually we don't just need more density, but better forms of development, and bureaucrats don't just magically come up with good ideas by themselves. Sometimes developers do (Brian Libby's piece about the Radiator building that mac just posted a link to is a good read), but they're generally working against the grain of banks' lending policies and regulatory frameworks at this point. So if you want change, you need to bring people on board to provide the dynamism and new ideas to make it happen.

You're a very passionate and energetic advocate for very important principles, PDXDENSITY, but honestly, I think unfortunately you'll be ineffective as long as you consider most people your enemies.

I don't consider most people my enemies. I consider the loud minority my enemy; they are the most vocal and involved. My philosophy is to give a loud voice to the other end of that spectrum, in a way that is honest to my views.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I don't consider most people my enemies. I consider the loud minority my enemy; they are the most vocal and involved. My philosophy is to give a loud voice to the other end of that spectrum, in a way that is honest to my views.

Well, a well-considered public process would give a loud voice to that other end of the spectrum, i.e. the majority. Their voice is louder than yours alone could ever be. The point of people like you who invest their time and passion is to provide leadership, not try and shout other people down.

[colganc]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Um, no. SFO is in San Mateo County, near Millbrae. It's at least 6 or 7 miles south of the SF border. Sorry to shock you, but....

I know it is 6 or 7 miles south. Take a look at this map and scroll over to SFO: http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=e66bb5dac376457b9f721b083572712c.

Check the data sources for the map too.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by colganc

I know it is 6 or 7 miles south. Take a look at this map and scroll over to SFO: http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=e66bb5dac376457b9f721b083572712c.

Check the data sources for the map too.

That map appears to be user generated. Google has SFO firmly inside the boundaries of San Mateo County. I wonder if the confusion comes from the fact that the City and County of San Francisco owns SFO.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by colganc

I know it is 6 or 7 miles south. Take a look at this map and scroll over to SFO: http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=e66bb5dac376457b9f721b083572712c.

Check the data sources for the map too.

From Wikipedia's San Francisco International Airport page...

"SFO is owned and policed by the City and County of San Francisco, but is actually in San Mateo County."

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

While I agree that Portland can definitely accommodate a doubling of population within its current boundaries, I disagree with the "numbers" he's using to justify his argument.

The author uses this little nugget....

"Consider one measure: Density of persons per square mile within major West Coast cities (as compiled by CityData).
1.San Francisco: 17,935
2.Berkeley: 11,164
3.Los Angeles: 8,281
4.Seattle: 7,779
5.Oakland: 7,247
6.San Jose: 5,710
7.Sacramento: 4,937
8.Portland: 4,537
9.San Diego: 4,180"

The implication being that Portland is barely as dense as the most sprawling of West Coast cities, San Diego. This is horrendously misleading. That "persons per square mile" number completely ignores the fact that we have orders of magnitude FAR MORE parkland within our city limits than any of the other cities on this list.

Also, not considered... the Willamette is a 1/2 mile to one mile wide mostly uninhabited swath through the middle of the city that none of the other cities (except possibly Sacramento) have. The others may border large bodies of water, but that water area isn't calculated into their total square mile figure like it is with Portland's.

Another fact that skews our "density" number negatively... PDX is entirely within our city limits. SEA, SFO, OAK, these airports and their accompanying vast uninhabited acreage are not actually in their namesake cities, and thus not a net drag on their overall densities.

So if you factor in all of the uninhabited areas, whether it be parkland, open water, airport space, even our expansive port facilities, and figure population density based only on the areas that are actually inhabited, (and do the same for the other cities), I guarantee you we are denser than San Jose and Sacramento, and probably as dense as Oakland and Seattle.

Finally, since when is Berkeley a Major West Coast City?

Despite the author's misleading density numbers, I agree with most of what he advocates.

These numbers are massively skewed based on many factors.

For example, the San Diego metro area is much denser than Seattle, however the city limits and geographical features such as parks, water, military bases, mountains, etc skew the numbers.

Here are the weighted density numbers referenced in another thread.


http://www.citylab.com/housing/2012/10/americas-truly-densest-metros/3450/





Here are figures for the top metros (a more readable version is here http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/10/27/population-weighted-density-how-seattle-stacks-up/):

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 31,251.40
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 12,144.90
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 12,113.90
Honolulu, HI 11,548.20
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI 8,613.40
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 8,417.70
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 7,980.10
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 7,773.20
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 7,395.30
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 6,920.50
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 6,527.20
Salinas, CA 6,402.30
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 6,388.10
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 6,242.80
Trenton-Ewing, NJ 5,864.60
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 5,542.20
Baltimore-Towson, MD 5,435.70
Laredo, TX 5,300.10
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 5,257.60
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 5,122.40
Stockton, CA 4,889.10
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO 4,803.70
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 4,763.70
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 4,721.60
Reading, PA 4,656.80
Salt Lake City, UT 4,563.50
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 4,553.70
Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA 4,538.50
Vallejo-Fairfield, CA 4,502.10
Champaign-Urbana, IL 4,405.20
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ 4,394.90
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 4,372.60
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 4,370.20
State College, PA 4,366.20
Modesto, CA 4,322.70
El Paso, TX 4,318.30
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 4,299.60
Provo-Orem, UT 4,270.30
Fresno, CA 4,216.10
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 4,129.40
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 4,109.60
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 4,084.10
Napa, CA 4,045.90
New Haven-Milford, CT 4,007.40
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 3,909.30
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 3,889.30
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 3,808.40
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 3,800.40
Lincoln, NE 3,748.00
Reno-Sparks, NV 3,714.70[/QUOTE]



Here is a cleaned-up version of the top 10+ densest major metros

New York
San Francisco (should be lower with San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA)
Los Angeles (should be lower with Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA)
Honolulu
Chicago
Boston
Philadelphia
Miami
San Diego
Las Vegas

11-20
Washington DC
Milwaukee
Denver
Seattle
SLC
Sacramento
Phoenix
Portland
New Orleans
Houston

21+
Dallas
Cleveland
Detroit

[eric cantona]

this is a great discussion, and not just because I got to read this oh-so-quotable tidbit:

Originally Posted by soleri

"the real-estate industrial complex"

[Nunya]

Spoonman thank you for pointing out the population-weighted density and the curves based upon the distance from City Halls. I'd never seen those before they are really informative. Been playing with the excel file from the census bureau, for anyone else interested here is the link to where you can download the data:

http://www.census.gov/population/metro/data/pop_pro.html

Very interesting to do comparisons versus other cities and how things have changed from 2000-2010.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by spoonman

These numbers are massively skewed based on many factors.

For example, the San Diego metro area is much denser than Seattle, however the city limits and geographical features such as parks, water, military bases, mountains, etc skew the numbers.

Here are the weighted density numbers referenced in another thread.


http://www.citylab.com/housing/2012/10/americas-truly-densest-metros/3450/

Here are figures for the top metros (a more readable version is here http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/10/27/population-weighted-density-how-seattle-stacks-up/):

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 31,251.40
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 12,144.90
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 12,113.90
Honolulu, HI 11,548.20
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI 8,613.40
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 8,417.70
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 7,980.10
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 7,773.20
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 7,395.30
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 6,920.50
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 6,527.20
Salinas, CA 6,402.30
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 6,388.10
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 6,242.80
Trenton-Ewing, NJ 5,864.60
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 5,542.20
Baltimore-Towson, MD 5,435.70
Laredo, TX 5,300.10
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 5,257.60
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 5,122.40
Stockton, CA 4,889.10
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO 4,803.70
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 4,763.70
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 4,721.60
Reading, PA 4,656.80
Salt Lake City, UT 4,563.50
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 4,553.70
Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA 4,538.50
Vallejo-Fairfield, CA 4,502.10
Champaign-Urbana, IL 4,405.20
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ 4,394.90
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 4,372.60
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 4,370.20
State College, PA 4,366.20
Modesto, CA 4,322.70
El Paso, TX 4,318.30
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 4,299.60
Provo-Orem, UT 4,270.30
Fresno, CA 4,216.10
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 4,129.40
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 4,109.60
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 4,084.10
Napa, CA 4,045.90
New Haven-Milford, CT 4,007.40
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 3,909.30
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 3,889.30
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 3,808.40
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 3,800.40
Lincoln, NE 3,748.00
Reno-Sparks, NV 3,714.70

Now you're talking about Metropolitan Areas, which for Portland includes vast expanses far outside the UGB... rural Clackamas and Multnomah Counties, all the way to the top of Mt Hood. And rural Washington, Yamhill, Columbia, Clark and Skamania Counties. A density list like this strongly favors MSAs that are contained within smaller counties.

This is completely different than comparing individual cities, apples and oranges. And even comparing individual cities is difficult when you have so many mitigating factors involved.

The point is, Portland (and especially the metro area within the current UGB) could easily accommodate a doubling of its population and maintain its quality of life if done strategically and using sound urban planning principles.

[Nunya]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Now you're talking about Metropolitan Areas, which for Portland includes vast expanses far outside the UGB... rural Clackamas and Multnomah Counties, all the way to the top of Mt Hood. And rural Washington, Yamhill, Columbia, Clark and Skamania Counties. A density list like this strongly favors MSAs that are contained within smaller counties.

This is completely different than comparing individual cities, apples and oranges. And even comparing individual cities is difficult when you have so many mitigating factors involved.

The point is, Portland (and especially the metro area within the current UGB) could easily accommodate a doubling of its population and maintain its quality of life if done strategically and using sound urban planning principles.

No measure is perfect, but if you look into the details of the population weighted averages it is at least a better measure than most and if you dig into the data it tells you the same thing that you are arguing; i.e. that there is room to add density compared to other cities. I agree that the metro areas based upon census borders isn't very useful for a lot, and is easily distorted by boundaries.

However, it is real interesting to overlay graphs of cities that show the weighted density as a function of distance from city hall (obviously an arbitrary location within each city). It shows interesting things. For example, like if you compare Portland vs. Seattle; the densest parts of Portland rival or exceed the densest parts of Seattle, but only in a small areas (of course this is only a residential density measure). The same overlay shows Seattle has a considerably larger area of moderately high density and/or sprawl whereas Portland drops off more rapidly beyond the smaller core area.

It's a useful tool for discussion but nothing is going to be perfect and anything can be gamed to show whatever you want. I'd like to see something like the distance from city hall, but as a visual overlay on a map (maybe a heat map of population-weighted density). That would be a cool tool as it would show clearly other areas of higher density (town centers etc...) that get blurred out in the distance from city hall graph. For example, in Portland there is a spike or relative density at 32 miles away but I can't visually see from the graph what that would be from by just looking at the graph. Since it is essentially an average of population-weighted density averaged for a ring at 32 miles from city hall. Obviously there is a pocket of higher density in that ring at 32 miles that isn't being diluted by other areas of low density at the same distance away.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by Nunya

.... For example, in Portland there is a spike or relative density at 32 miles away but I can't visually see from the graph what that would be from by just looking at the graph. Since it is essentially an average of population-weighted density averaged for a ring at 32 miles from city hall. Obviously there is a pocket of higher density in that ring at 32 miles that isn't being diluted by other areas of low density at the same distance away.

That's could be McMinnville, or possibly Woodburn.

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Now you're talking about Metropolitan Areas, which for Portland includes vast expanses far outside the UGB... rural Clackamas and Multnomah Counties, all the way to the top of Mt Hood. And rural Washington, Yamhill, Columbia, Clark and Skamania Counties. A density list like this strongly favors MSAs that are contained within smaller counties.

This is completely different than comparing individual cities, apples and oranges. And even comparing individual cities is difficult when you have so many mitigating factors involved.

The point is, Portland (and especially the metro area within the current UGB) could easily accommodate a doubling of its population and maintain its quality of life if done strategically and using sound urban planning principles.

The point is that there's no great way to really compare the density of these cities. San Diego has a lot more suburbs within the city limits because they're 372 square miles while Portland is only 145. San Diego also has multiple airports (not just one like PDX) as well as large military bases taking up large swaths of land.

It also doesn't help that their residents in the beach communities pretty much unanimously agreed they wouldn't make themselves into Miami Beach style places with skyscrapers stacked up along the ocean. Their downtown height limits are lower than Portland's, but not even because of choice. Other areas (La Jolla, Kearny Mesa, Point Loma) are also limited because of FAA rules, so they just end up with limited density everywhere, even though they have tons of dense, walkable neighborhoods.

LA/Long Beach/Santa Ana also gets a boost that they count the urbanized areas, and the suburbs that remain (Inland Empire) don't count against their density. LA is dense, but the greater LA Metro Area sure feels a lot more sprawled out than San Diego (unless you count San Diego as an extension of the sprawl.)

Every city on the west coast can double it's size if it manages it carefully. At the same time, they'll probably end up pricing out a lot of people at the same time.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by davehogan

The point is that there's no great way to really compare the density of these cities. San Diego has a lot more suburbs within the city limits because they're 372 square miles while Portland is only 145. San Diego also has multiple airports (not just one like PDX) as well as large military bases taking up large swaths of land.

It also doesn't help that their residents in the beach communities pretty much unanimously agreed they wouldn't make themselves into Miami Beach style places with skyscrapers stacked up along the ocean. Their downtown height limits are lower than Portland's, but not even because of choice. Other areas (La Jolla, Kearny Mesa, Point Loma) are also limited because of FAA rules, so they just end up with limited density everywhere, even though they have tons of dense, walkable neighborhoods.

LA/Long Beach/Santa Ana also gets a boost that they count the urbanized areas, and the suburbs that remain (Inland Empire) don't count against their density. LA is dense, but the greater LA Metro Area sure feels a lot more sprawled out than San Diego (unless you count San Diego as an extension of the sprawl.)

Every city on the west coast can double it's size if it manages it carefully. At the same time, they'll probably end up pricing out a lot of people at the same time.

San Diego has multiple airports?

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

San Diego has multiple airports?

Well there's Tijuana's airport, which is wedged right up against the border if I recall. Although that's probably not what was meant. How much denser would San Diego be if Tijuana were included in the calculation?

Originally Posted by davehogan

It also doesn't help that their residents in the beach communities pretty much unanimously agreed they wouldn't make themselves into Miami Beach style places with skyscrapers stacked up along the ocean. Their downtown height limits are lower than Portland's, but not even because of choice. Other areas (La Jolla, Kearny Mesa, Point Loma) are also limited because of FAA rules, so they just end up with limited density everywhere, even though they have tons of dense, walkable neighborhoods.

Are you saying that height limits are hurting San Diego's density? I don't know the city very well (I know TJ a bit better), but from your description of 'tons of dense, walkable neighborhoods', it doesn't sound like they're managing poorly. And then there's TJ, which is completely lowrise and far denser than SD... though comparisons are complicated, obviously.