I apologize Bailey. This is just a response to UrbanPDX's post. I have a hard time letting these things go!
This should really become it's own thread, since this is yet again spiraling off topic (this keeps happening lately), but anyways...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanpdx
1. Traffic problems that come with focus on LRT (ie. Hwy 217, Tualatin-Sherwood Rd, Mill Plain Blvd., etc) and a refusal to increase road capacity.
|
1. Also drive around any other large city in the US (such as Seattle) that has increased their road capacity and not added alternative transportation and amazingly enough, you'll see that they still have traffic problems. At least in Portland you have options, and a hope that in the future we will build more responsibly (unless a certain segment of the population manages to stop the progress).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanpdx
2. Skinny houses and townhouses in otherwise low density neighborhoods that are ugly and out of place
|
2. Most in my opinion actually fit well within the context even if I don't agree with their style. Check out some of the design proposals that have been submitted to City of Portland design competition, some are actually quite nice and well designed. Some of what has been built is ugly, but so are most of the new houses that are built, and especially those that are now built in suburbia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanpdx
3. The same suburban sprawl as anyplace usa despite all the hoopla
|
Yep, we have sprawl, some of it led the state to enact Urban Growth Boundries to slow the rate with which it occurs (incidentally Urban Growth Boundries were enacted in the 1970s, and even at the time were pretty generously placed. The planning strategy took a good hit recently with measure 37 so coupled with the fact that half of Portland doesn't have UGB's (Vancouver), I don't think that portland will be the ultimate test of the strategy). I find it odd how these people argue both sides, that 1) The urban growth boundry doesn't work to contain sprawl because their obviously is sprawl, and 2) that it does work because Portland's land values are increasing, which can only be caused by the Urban Growth Boundary. It's an interesting duality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanpdx
4. The overall mess that is east of 205
|
Not sure of the mess he's referring to. The development east of 205 looks to me like the type of development that UrbanPDX and the rest at the TI Institute advocate. (
www.ti.org)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanpdx
5. All of the easy to build on land near jobs that is locked up in Washington County for no real good reason
|
As well as the easy to build on land in the rest of the Willamette Valley. So green and fertile, perfect land for growing McMansions on. Again, it seems as though UrbanPDX argues both sides, since he is saying that the land is "locked up" (not currently built on), but that if it were opened up, it would be developed. Is the UGB slowing and containing the sprawl or not?!!?