A Changing Portland

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

actually Im really not complaining. Portland seems to be doing alright at this point in time.

That's great. I'll keep advocating for less power to those who want to restrict housing density. Glad we're mostly on same page.

[soleri]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

sure we added more uneducated, unskilled workers hooray!!
Im done with this. The economy here still isnt robust. you should be a politician

Portland doesn't have the economic assets of San Francisco or Seattle, but it does have something a lot of people want - quality of life. If you're, say, a web developer who can live anywhere, and you're tired of the congestion and expense of "world cities", Portland will seem almost like paradise. That's why good urban policy is also smart economics. Portland could have trashed itself for cheap economic success like many American cities but chose a different path 30-some years ago. People like Tom McCall and Neil Goldschmidt made conservation/preservation the holy grail of Oregon values. Don't Californicate Oregon! The perverse effect, of course, was to make Oregon even more alluring to fatigued suburbanites and hipsters. Portland's quality of life is the primary reason people want to move here. People are moving to Texas, too, but it's not for the quality of life. It's for cheap houses and low taxes. Throw is cars, cars, cars along with right-wing craziness, and you have the cesspool that American civilization has become.

Portland is going to grow precisely because it doesn't want to grow like a metastatic cancer. It's up to us to ensure the real-estate industrial complex and assorted greedheads don't ruin this jewel for a quick score.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by soleri

Portland doesn't have the economic assets of San Francisco or Seattle, but it does have something a lot of people want - quality of life. If you're, say, a web developer who can live anywhere, and you're tired of the congestion and expense of "world cities", Portland will seem almost like paradise. That's why good urban policy is also smart economics. Portland could have trashed itself for cheap economic success like many American cities but chose a different path 30-some years ago. People like Tom McCall and Neil Goldschmidt made conservation/preservation the holy grail of Oregon values. Don't Californicate Oregon! The perverse effect, of course, was to make Oregon even more alluring to fatigued suburbanites and hipsters. Portland's quality of life is the primary reason people want to move here. People are moving to Texas, too, but it's not for the quality of life. It's for cheap houses and low taxes. Throw is cars, cars, cars along with right-wing craziness, and you have the cesspool that American civilization has become.

Portland is going to grow precisely because it doesn't want to grow like a metastatic cancer. It's up to us to ensure the real-estate industrial complex and assorted greedheads don't ruin this jewel for a quick score.

I actually think this mindset is terrible. Developers barely make profit, right? It's a very tight market. We have people preventing needed density because they own a bungalow. It's absurdity that keeps repeating. We need stronger central planning to lift restrictions on density and allow much more transit-- a subway?!

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Well, your talking points align that way.

So, in other words, you're misrepresenting what I said.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

You keep saying we're doing enough.

Quote the text where I said Portland is doing enough. I said no such thing.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

So, in other words, you're misrepresenting what I said.



Quote the text where I said Portland is doing enough. I said no such thing.

You certainly don't agree with me that Portland should be doing more than it currently is in terms of building and that is because of unnecessary restrictions on density and height in the city and loud bungalow owners who are NIMBYs. We aren't building enough to avoid inflation that will drive the poor and middle class to a peripheral sprawl that will rapidly ghettoize due to not being able to support services.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

You certainly don't agree with me that Portland should be doing more than it currently is in terms of building and that is because of unnecessary restrictions on density and height in the city and loud bungalow owners who are NIMBYs. We aren't building enough to avoid inflation that will drive the poor and middle class to a peripheral sprawl that will rapidly ghettoize due to not being able to support services.

So you want a complete abolition of all zoning in Portland. You want to allow anybody to built anything, anywhere, at any time. You want Portland to become Houston. THAT is the complete opposite of what makes Portland great.

You keep saying "loud bungalow owners" and "NIMBYs" are ruining Portland. You want to bulldoze close-in single family home neighborhoods so every square inch of Portland is apartment blocks, with no courtyards. Just pack everybody in like sardines, that's your solution to a non-existant problem.

I cannot overemphasize how grateful I am that you're not a city planner here.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

So you want a complete abolition of all zoning in Portland. You want to allow anybody to built anything, anywhere, at any time. You want Portland to become Houston. THAT is the complete opposite of what makes Portland great.

You keep saying "loud bungalow owners" and "NIMBYs" are ruining Portland. You want to bulldoze close-in single family home neighborhoods so every square inch of Portland is apartment blocks, with no courtyards. Just pack everybody in like sardines, that's your solution to a non-existant problem.

I cannot overemphasize how grateful I am that you're not a city planner here.

No. I want an abolition of specific rules that prevent density. View corridors? Height restrictions? These don't affect ground level beyond adding population. Vibrancy. These current restrictions stifle our city. I still support transit, the UGB, socialized services, etc. Still aligned with the Portland ethos.

And youre misrepresenting what I'm saying. Home owners will likely not budge. What I am against is the prevention of demolition when a homeowner wants to develop more housing stock. That is currently happening, and it's absurd. We will not lose all houses close in if we let the owners who want to develop to develop.

That's just a further fallacy to make my position seem extreme.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

You certainly don't agree with me that Portland should be doing more than it currently is in terms of building and that is because of unnecessary restrictions on density and height in the city and loud bungalow owners who are NIMBYs.

Either quote the text where I said the things you're saying I said, or stop implying things that were not said at all, because you're miles off.

You are so militant in your approach that you're fighting against people on this forum who agree with you in many ways.

First, you advocate for overbuilding in advance based on what the future may hold. Quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

no, we're not building for non existent people. They will move here. It's where we decide to put them that's important

...and you do it in a way that is so militant it'd be impossible to agree with you:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

It's where we decide to put them that's important

Statements like that are militant and misguided. Who are "we" to decide where to "put them?" ...?

You don't understand the relationship between population density and the cost of housing - or the cost of land, or the cost of providing goods and services, etc.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

NYC and SF are examples where more housing (density) would stabilize rents.

That argument is a theory, but you cite your theory as proof that you're right. And though you can't point to examples of it working, you double-down on your rightness:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Would, if they were allowed to build.

65MAX points out a piece of comedy:

Originally Posted by 65MAX

You [PDXdensity] keep saying "loud bungalow owners" and "NIMBYs" are ruining Portland.

Exactly. A relative newcomer to Portland is telling Portlanders how they're ruining Portland.

PDXdensity, you want instant drastic change, but that's not realistic. It's not even healthy.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

we need to be implementing more inclusionary policies to avoid income exclusive communities-- that stifles vibrancy of culture in our city.

Ah, yes. Portlanders are stifling the vibrancy of the culture they created by not changing Portland into a city Portland isn't. Wait.... whut?

[PDXDENSITY]

So you don't agree with restricting NIMBYs from preventing needed density-- got it. Could have saved you from writing a long ponderous annotated response. Anyway, my point remains we aren't building enough because of select unneeded regulations and NIMBY homeowners.

[58rhodes]

the thread title should have read For Portland--LOL
In my opinion PDXDensity really doesnt understand what Portland is about.
All one has to do is look at the skyline and understand that Portland is not ever going to be about super high density.Portland may not ever compete with Seattle. However we do have something special going on that many cities envy

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

the thread title should have read For Portland--LOL
In my opinion PDXDensity really doesnt understand what Portland is about.
All one has to do is look at the skyline and understand that Portland is not ever going to be about super high density.Portland may not ever compete with Seattle. However we do have something special going on that many cities envy

The ethos of Portland is against sprawl to protect farm and wilderness land. Being against density in the city, even in small forms like NIMBYs preventing midrises in east Portland, is against the ethis of Portland.

I get that some people don't like apartments next to their bungalow, but they are really those who are imposing preasure on our city to sprawl. I refuse for there to be any political will to move the UGB. That's my belief in the Portland ethos.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

So you don't agree with restricting NIMBYs from preventing needed density-- got it.

Either quote where I said that, or stop trying to put words in my mouth. Again, you're wrong. That's not my opinion. You don't "got it."

You're taking a one size fits all approach and fighting against everyone, including people who would be on your side. I am absolutely against NIMBYism, especially in some ridiculous view corridors. The same people who fought against KOIN Tower being built, because it'd block their view of Mt. Hood, are today the ones who would try to prevent anything from being built that would block their view of the KOIN. Sometimes, they're ridiculous. But the kind of militant approach you're taking is equally ridiculous.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Either quote where I said that, or stop trying to put words in my mouth. Again, you're wrong. That's not my opinion. You don't "got it."

You're taking a one size fits all approach and fighting against everyone, including people who would be on your side. I am absolutely against NIMBYism, especially in some ridiculous view corridors. The same people who fought against KOIN Tower being built, because it'd block their view of Mt. Hood, are today the ones who would try to prevent anything from being built that would block their view of the KOIN. Sometimes, they're ridiculous. But the kind of militant approach you're taking is equally ridiculous.

I'm only staunch. Youre the one trolling for a response. If youre against NIMBYs great! Stop misrepresenting me as sn extremist.

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

sure we added more uneducated, unskilled workers hooray!!
Im done with this. The economy here still isnt robust.

^^^
I'm no economist, but things are a little better than that:

Economists: Oregon's 'full-throttle' economy will propel tax rebate, higher revenues

...economists painted a rosy picture of the state's financial conditions, writing that Oregon's economy is zooming ahead at "full throttle," with record employment and a full recovery from the recession now in view. The state's job growth also once again exceeds that of other states because of strong in-migration, they wrote, and the state's industrial base.

The forecast noted that Oregon saw slower growth in 2014 among low-wage jobs than the national average and significantly higher growth among top-paying jobs. Middle wage jobs turned in mixed results, the forecast said, but showed the strongest gains since the start of the recession.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index..._full-throttle_economy.html#incart_river

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I'm only staunch. Youre the one trolling for a response. If youre against NIMBYs great! Stop misrepresenting me as sn extremist.

Staunch, maybe. But that doesn't make you right. The more you argue, the more absurd you get. Nobody is misrepresenting you, you're just not that knowledgeable about how planning works, or how density affects the cost of housing and services, or how the community involvement process works here in Portland. So yeah, you're not extreme at all, just misinformed.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Staunch, maybe. But that doesn't make you right. The more you argue, the more absurd you get. Nobody is misrepresenting you, you're just not that knowledgeable about how planning works, or how density affects the cost of housing and services, or how the community involvement process works here in Portland. So yeah, you're not extreme at all, just misinformed.

I think you're just trolling to "catch me" saying something you think is wrong. When you simply disagree with me. I believe NIMBYs should have far less power, and I think stupid restrictions against density should be eliminated. See: view corridors. I'm sorry you think I should be silenced, but obviously I will not be silent when I see issue with road blocks.

Also, I'm sorry again. Housing shortage is driving our inflation. We need density tied to inclusionary zoning (which does not stop development).

[babs]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Well, your talking points align that way. You keep saying we're doing enough. That's not true. The reality is we are still stifled by single family homeowners and land squatters.

It is putting unnecessary pressure on the UGB.

Are you saying that we shouldn't have single family homes and that everyone should live in a high rise apartment or condo? If that's the case, take a hike buddy. I've lived in condos and apartments. No thanks. I'm happy that I have the dreaded single family house. And I suspect that most Americans agree with me.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by babs

Are you saying that we shouldn't have single family homes and that everyone should live in a high rise apartment or condo? If that's the case, take a hike buddy. I've lived in condos and apartments. No thanks. I'm happy that I have the dreaded single family house. And I suspect that most Americans agree with me.

Not even slightly. You people continue to want to misrepresent me.

I'm saying anyone who wants to raze their house to add housing stock should be allowed to. I'm sure you'll just try to misrepresent that again. Even if we let everyone that wanted to to raze their house, we'd still not have enough density, but at least we'd have enough withoit coercion of greedy homeowners. They can keep their home, i concede. But they shouldnt have power over their neighbors.

There will still be only a tiny percentage razed if there was no opposition-- owners love their little fiefdoms.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I think you're just trolling to "catch me" saying something you think is wrong. When you simply disagree with me. I believe NIMBYs should have far less power, and I think stupid restrictions against density should be eliminated. See: view corridors. I'm sorry you think I should be silenced, but obviously I will not be silent when I see issue with road blocks.

Also, I'm sorry again. Housing shortage is driving our inflation. We need density tied to inclusionary zoning (which does not stop development).

Look, you obviously are entitled to espouse any kind of misinformation you like. You want to believe there's some grand conspiracy to "prevent density" here in Portland, knock yourself out. You think owners of single family homes are against new development, fine, but you're dead wrong. I am a home owner and I'm all for well-planned, well-designed high-density development wherever it's appropriate. That's why we have zoning here in Portland, to determine the best locations for new development throughout the city. These evil NIMBYs you keep referencing are people just like you, with their own opinions and biases. And they have every right to speak their mind like you do. Fortunately we have laws in place that help good development occur and prevent bad development from happening.

Oh right, but you don't believe ANY development is bad development. Anything goes according to you. Well, never mind then.

I'm also against view corridors because let's be honest, we're blessed with views in ALL directions here and it's just silly (and futile) to try to preserve every view in every direction from every vantage point.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Look, you obviously are entitled to espouse any kind of misinformation you like. You want to believe there's some grand conspiracy to "prevent density" here in Portland, knock yourself out. You think owners of single family homes are against new development, fine, but you're dead wrong. I am a home owner and I'm all for well-planned, well-designed high-density development wherever it's appropriate. That's why we have zoning here in Portland, to determine the best locations for new development throughout the city. These evil NIMBYs you keep referencing are people just like you, with their own opinions and biases. And they have every right to speak their mind like you do. Fortunately we have laws in place that help good development occur and prevent bad development from happening.

Oh right, but you don't believe ANY development is bad development. Anything goes according to you. Well, never mind then.

I'm also against view corridors because let's be honest, we're blessed with views in ALL directions here and it's just silly (and futile) to try to preserve every view in every direction from every vantage point.

I sure do believe there's bad development-- too much square open space? That's a waste. But we are obviously oppositional based on opinion topics, not facts, so stop misrepresenting me.

If we allowed new buildings without opposition because we raze a bungalow things would be better in terms of inflation. This does not mean throwing the process out, youre misrepresenting me.

I think neighborhood groups get given too much microphone time and should have little to no power to prevent density. The argument is ALWAYS parking and congestion-- make permits required.

Again, we are oppositional on opinions, not facts. You feel SF homes should be preserved even if an owner wants to redevelop it with more units for housing. If you agree with me on this and are going to say im misquoting you, then youre truly just trolling.

The key here is youre a home owner and youre going to make "wherever appropriate" anything that matches your random tastes, and I think that's poor planning in every regard. We need housing. It can be planned, but seen as foregone in general if it is desired to be built. The city needs the housing, not our farms.

Any slowdown for this absurdity swirling around neighborhood associations claiming we need to be "thoughtful." It's just a wrench to slow things down because homeowners donMt want anything built anywhere in their popular neighborhood.