Should Portland change?

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

You might think that this could be quite an odd question to come from some body coming from outside the United States and maybe a little angering, but I could say to justify myself that I really appreciate this city and that's why I decided to move here 4 years ago. When I lived in Europe this city was really unknown for me, when I heard the word Portland the only things that passed through my mind were cement and The Simpsons (this one because I was a Simpsons fan). Portland is really unknown in Europe, even thought many Portlandeese companies are much known in Europe like Nyke, Columbia and Oregon Scientific. The city of Portland caught my attention about 6 years ago when saw a documentary about Oregon dunes, they showed some images of Portland that really caught my eye. The environmental friendliness that characterizes Portland, its post-modern charm, its revolutionary character, and its love for freedom really made me fall in love with this city.
The first time I arrived to Portland, I remember that I was looking at the city from the airplane, and I was just amazed by it's massiveness, I never saw a city that big in my entire life, then when I landed every thing looked to me as so weird and impressive at the same time, The train that suddenly entered the street and went trough the downtown, the endless and monotonous suburbs, the smallness of the downtown, the very tall buildings, the enormous rivers, the gigantic volcano, the enormous forests, and many more things that were impressive and shocking to the average European I was, but then after while I got more used to this differences and I started to see what Portland had in common with Europe. For example the climate, Portland's climate is very similar to the climate in North Western Spain, with cool cloudy rainy winters (Basque people call it sirimiri) and warm dry sunny summers, also the architecture of the old buildings that surround the pioneer square remembered me Barcelona, the low-rise buildings of the Pearl district made me think on the city of Santander, and the buildings around old town and the tram remembered me the city of Brussels. Portland gave me a sweet-bitter taste, on one hand I had Portland’s character, its excellent downtown architecture, its nice summers and its natural beauty, and in the other hand there are the ugly highways in the middle of the downtown, its boring suburbs and its awful parking lots. I think that Portland is a superve city, and that it should keep its particular characteristics at any cost, but i also wish that it could have some changes like increasing the size and density of its downtown, that it got rid of the downtown highways, I also wish that it could have more low-rise buildings, that it had less parking lots and denser suburbs. Now I would like to know what your reactions about my ideas are and what ideas would you have for Portland’s future.

[bvpcvm]

well, it's not so much a question of "should" it change - we keep being told to expect another million people (in the metro area) in the next 20 years. so, whether portlanders want it to or not, it's gonna change.

in the time i've spent in europe, no one had heard of portland, either.

where are you from in europe, btw?

[MarkDaMan]

I think you've just given us the goals of Metro?

The 'problems' you indicate have more to do with American life, than Portland or Oregon.

Ever since the trek across the continent following the Oregon Trail, Americans have been searching for their private piece of land. Since WWII, the suburban track house and two car garage dream has sprawled across our abundant land.

Portland's metro is about 20 to 30 years into our 'experiment' with land use laws, urban growth boundaries, mass transit options, and the live/work/play in one compact neighborhood. I think in a lot of the newer developments you see those values reflected.

So, no, I don't think Portland should 'change', but I do think it will continue to improve.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

well, it's not so much a question of "should" it change - we keep being told to expect another million people (in the metro area) in the next 20 years. so, whether portlanders want it to or not, it's gonna change.

in the time i've spent in europe, no one had heard of portland, either.

where are you from in europe, btw?

I was born in luxembourg, but my parents come from Spain and Argentina, I don't feel very Luxemburgish, actually I don't even know how to speak Luxemburgish, to complicated for me, are you from Europe to?

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

I don't think that the fact that Portlnd its going to have an enormous amount of wrowth would mean by force that it would have big changes taking place, I mean if most of the people that went to Portland went to live on the suburburbs I think Portland wouldn't change much.

[MarkDaMan]

^The suburban areas are going to have to get with the program. Many have. Metro has been very helpful in this regard.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

^The suburban areas are going to have to get with the program. Many have. Metro has been very helpful in this regard.

Your right I shouldn't talk about things that are coming trough a process (some just started) of change as if they were some things that remainded or are going to remain unchanged. I was afraid that sprawl would increase because of the recent extension of the urban growth boundary.

[Okstate]

Something quite similar in topic:

does anyone know how (past) Seattle at 2.5 million compares to (present) Portland at roughly 2.5 million?

Yes, I now there are a million things that make it incomparable but amuse me.

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by MR. Cosmopolitan

Portland gave me a sweet-bitter taste, on one hand I hat Portland’s character, its excellent downtown architecture, its nice summers and its natural beauty, and in the other hand there are the ugly highways in the middle of the downtown, its boring suburbs and its awful parking lots. I think that Portland is a superve city, and that it should keep its particular characteristics at any cost, but i also wish that it could have some changes like increasing the size and density of its downtown, that it got rid of the downtown highways, I also wish that it could have more low-rise buildings, that it had less parking lots and denser suburbs. Now I would like to know what your reactions about my ideas are and what ideas would you have for Portland’s future.

I love Portland as it stands. Downtown's freeway network is a great plus for it, to get from Vancouver to Beaverton, or Tualatin to Gresham, etc, is a trip around downtown. You remember it's there.

The Fremont and Marquham Bridges are both fine works of art in my opinion. I-5 on the east side should be buried in the long term, and I-405 should be capped in parts, but vehicular transportation is a key to long term growth.

The biggest parking problem Portland has is that there's not enough of it at each and every building. If you're going to bother to build a taller building, you need a foundation. Build it to be a parking garage, and you eliminate many of the complaints I hear about Portland.

It'd be a great way to get away with eliminating surface lots: make them less profitable.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by Okstate

does anyone know how (past) Seattle at 2.5 million compares to (present) Portland at roughly 2.5 million?

THAT's certainly an interesting question. one thing you might try is to download the latest version of google earth (5.0). it lets you use a little slider control to change the year of the photo you're looking at (i.e., slide it to the left, see data from 1970 or whatever). i haven't looked at the data for seattle - unfortunately, the data for portland is pretty spotty. though interesting - all the factories north of vaughn are housing, if you go back far enough.

[CUclimber]

I love Portland as it stands. Downtown's freeway network is a great plus for it, to get from Vancouver to Beaverton, or Tualatin to Gresham, etc, is a trip around downtown. You remember it's there.

The freeway system was great 20 years ago when there were a fraction of the cars on it, but the near-constant stop-and-go on the 405 and 26 interchanges are intolerable.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by davehogan

The biggest parking problem Portland has is that there's not enough of it at each and every building. If you're going to bother to build a taller building, you need a foundation. Build it to be a parking garage, and you eliminate many of the complaints I hear about Portland.

It'd be a great way to get away with eliminating surface lots: make them less profitable.

Well surface lots and parking garages have little in common other than cars...and parking is never going to get "better" in Portland because of our trains. In order for the trains to work, there needs to be a limited number of parking in downtown, thus making it a better option for someone to simply take the train...though I will say they need to expand the parking at the park and rides, now that would increase ridership.


MrC, first off welcome to our city...if you really wish to take an interest in Portland, I suggest hitting up Powells Books and catch up on some reading of Portland's history. We are definitely above most mid size cities in this country with the way things work here as an urban whole.


Suburbs in the US are tremendously different from Europe, there they act more as small towns that are usually connected to the main cities through rail, American suburbs are not so much this way and are usually much less populated. Now here in Portland there has been some moves in the suburbs to move in more dense directions.


Also another note for you, we have alot going on in this city that is worth discovering. Plus the way Portland is today, it has changed completely from 30 years ago...so basically you are seeing change, it just still has further to go....oh and a side note, most of what is in the Pearl is less than 10 years old, before that the whole area was basically a dead railyard and parking lots, so when you say Portland has too many parking lots (which I agree) think of what it would look like without all the new development north of Burnside.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Well surface lots and parking garages have little in common other than cars...and parking is never going to get "better" in Portland because of our trains. In order for the trains to work, there needs to be a limited number of parking in downtown, thus making it a better option for someone to simply take the train...though I will say they need to expand the parking at the park and rides, now that would increase ridership.


MrC, first off welcome to our city...if you really wish to take an interest in Portland, I suggest hitting up Powells Books and catch up on some reading of Portland's history. We are definitely above most mid size cities in this country with the way things work here as an urban whole.


Suburbs in the US are tremendously different from Europe, there they act more as small towns that are usually connected to the main cities through rail, American suburbs are not so much this way and are usually much less populated. Now here in Portland there has been some moves in the suburbs to move in more dense directions.


Also another note for you, we have alot going on in this city that is worth discovering. Plus the way Portland is today, it has changed completely from 30 years ago...so basically you are seeing change, it just still has further to go....oh and a side note, most of what is in the Pearl is less than 10 years old, before that the whole area was basically a dead railyard and parking lots, so when you say Portland has too many parking lots (which I agree) think of what it would look like without all the new development north of Burnside.

Hum I forgot to say that Portland is internationally known from its urban growth boundary and its pioneering on energy efficiency plans, which started on 1972 I think, and also for being one of the first places in the world that arrived to reduce its carbon emissions in the early 90’s. That is astonishing, not only for the United States, but for the whole world.
But of course Portland is just a city, it would always be affected a lot by the rest of the country, if the USA doesn’t change Portland would very hardly, change.
I believe that all countries have some strong points (USA has a lot like the economy, the low unemployment, etc...), but also some weak points (with this I think inequalities and urbanism). I think these are big problems in the US, by looking at this points I've seen that many weaknesses that the US has fit nicely with the European strong points, and vice versa. I think that both sides of the Atlantic could learn a lot from each other.
I started this thread because I think that Portland is ready to anticipate the rest of the country, American mentality is changing, especially here, now its time to press hard Portland can again be a pioneer as it has been before and set again an example for the rest of the country.

[PDX City-State]

i also wish that it could have some changes like increasing the size and density of its downtown, that it got rid of the downtown highways, I also wish that it could have more low-rise buildings, that it had less parking lots and denser suburbs. Now I would like to know what your reactions about my ideas are and what ideas would you have for Portland’s future.

I think the price of fuel and construction materials alone will increase the density of all American cities, including Portland. Once people get a taste of urban living, the convenience is something they generally aren't willing to give up.

The post war Eisenhower years were very damaging to the United States. While the freeway system improved our economic output, the onslaught of automobiles destroyed our cities. The reason why Portland fared better than other cities has less to do with urban planning than the fact that Portland did not experience boom years in the 1960s and 1970s when other downtowns were leveled and replaced by terrible buildings and street patterns a la the Auditorium District. Sure, certain neighborhoods (like South Portland and North Albina) were destroyed, but PDX definitely fared better than other cities.

That said, I agree regarding the freeways. Interstate 405 doesn't bother me much, but I-5's placement on the Eastside Waterfront is a travesty that is unlikely to be remedied anytime soon. What really needs to happen is that Americans need to drive less. With better transportation options, I think this will change.

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Well surface lots and parking garages have little in common other than cars...and parking is never going to get "better" in Portland because of our trains. In order for the trains to work, there needs to be a limited number of parking in downtown, thus making it a better option for someone to simply take the train...though I will say they need to expand the parking at the park and rides, now that would increase ridership.

Well, I think I might disagree with the whole premise of that. I live in NW Portland, pretty close-in, and barely ever drive downtown. Why bother for most trips when I have the 15, 17, 77 and Streetcar within walking distance?

If I have to stop by for work reasons though, I always have to take my car. I work with computers, and want to have a full set of cabling tools, laptop, a wide variety of cables, spare parts, accessories, and sometimes a few computers and/or printers. For example.

That or I want to buy a week's worth of groceries, and I have some friends coming over so I want to get some drinks and snacks. Without buying a shopping cart I can't get that stuff home. I might as well drive.

It's not that I think that we need more parking, I can always find it at a reasonable price. It's that if you build excess parking, you devalue the existing lots. You make it more worthwhile for them to re-develop the land than keep it a parking lot.

Portland's restrictions on parking are simply holding back downtown growth.

Also another note for you, we have alot going on in this city that is worth discovering. Plus the way Portland is today, it has changed completely from 30 years ago...so basically you are seeing change, it just still has further to go....oh and a side note, most of what is in the Pearl is less than 10 years old, before that the whole area was basically a dead railyard and parking lots, so when you say Portland has too many parking lots (which I agree) think of what it would look like without all the new development north of Burnside.

Coincidentally, I'm seeing Portland more and more of the San Diego of the Northwest. Seattle has obviously become the Los Angeles (#1 for importance) of the region, leaving PDX as an obvious #2.

I moved to San Diego in 2002, right as the Ballpark District and East Village really got great, and shortly before CA-56 opened. It was amazing what the CA-56 freeway did to make the Miramar and Mira Mesa areas nicer. Less traffic on residential streets, much safer (at least it felt so) to walk or ride a bike, etc. After living in northern San Diego for a bit, I moved to a place near Balboa Park, and started using the buses and Trolley to get around if I didn't need to drive.

It was amazing watching a city really deal with growth. Their were builders fees all over the place to pay for everything (I think $4600 for a single family house), in addition to a half-percent sales tax. I know, taxes don't fly here, but a gas tax or something, as well as incentives to build up (even parking garages) can stimulate the development of a city.

San Diego opened some public parking along their Trolley (LRT) in downtown. It's a lot like the MAX, but it does a loop around downtown instead of the upcoming X we'll have here. Goes up to Mission Valley, over to SDSU, La Mesa, El Cajon, and Santee. Also down through the Naval Base, Chula Vista, National City, San Ysidro, ending right before Tijuana. It's being built up to serve Pacific Beach, Clairemont, and University Town Center (UTC) on it's final extension. For now.

The San Diego region also helped build garages near the ballpark, the convention center, major attractions, etc. That helped to stimulate replacing the surface lots with hotels, bars, restaurants, condos, and parks.

Mass transit ridership just kept increasing too, because the encouraging parking method (with other Center City Development Corp initiatives) made San Diego's downtown into a place to be. If driving was the option, there was parking for a price. I know, parking can encourage driving, but the driving can encourage mass transit usage.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by davehogan

Coincidentally, I'm seeing Portland more and more of the San Diego of the Northwest. Seattle has obviously become the Los Angeles (#1 for importance) of the region, leaving PDX as an obvious #2.

That's quite the broad brush to wipe. I disagree.

[PacificNW]

↑

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by davehogan

Well, I think I might disagree with the whole premise of that. I live in NW Portland, pretty close-in, and barely ever drive downtown. Why bother for most trips when I have the 15, 17, 77 and Streetcar within walking distance?

If I have to stop by for work reasons though, I always have to take my car. I work with computers, and want to have a full set of cabling tools, laptop, a wide variety of cables, spare parts, accessories, and sometimes a few computers and/or printers. For example.

That or I want to buy a week's worth of groceries, and I have some friends coming over so I want to get some drinks and snacks. Without buying a shopping cart I can't get that stuff home. I might as well drive.

It's not that I think that we need more parking, I can always find it at a reasonable price. It's that if you build excess parking, you devalue the existing lots. You make it more worthwhile for them to re-develop the land than keep it a parking lot.

Portland's restrictions on parking are simply holding back downtown growth.



Coincidentally, I'm seeing Portland more and more of the San Diego of the Northwest. Seattle has obviously become the Los Angeles (#1 for importance) of the region, leaving PDX as an obvious #2.

I moved to San Diego in 2002, right as the Ballpark District and East Village really got great, and shortly before CA-56 opened. It was amazing what the CA-56 freeway did to make the Miramar and Mira Mesa areas nicer. Less traffic on residential streets, much safer (at least it felt so) to walk or ride a bike, etc. After living in northern San Diego for a bit, I moved to a place near Balboa Park, and started using the buses and Trolley to get around if I didn't need to drive.

It was amazing watching a city really deal with growth. Their were builders fees all over the place to pay for everything (I think $4600 for a single family house), in addition to a half-percent sales tax. I know, taxes don't fly here, but a gas tax or something, as well as incentives to build up (even parking garages) can stimulate the development of a city.

San Diego opened some public parking along their Trolley (LRT) in downtown. It's a lot like the MAX, but it does a loop around downtown instead of the upcoming X we'll have here. Goes up to Mission Valley, over to SDSU, La Mesa, El Cajon, and Santee. Also down through the Naval Base, Chula Vista, National City, San Ysidro, ending right before Tijuana. It's being built up to serve Pacific Beach, Clairemont, and University Town Center (UTC) on it's final extension. For now.

The San Diego region also helped build garages near the ballpark, the convention center, major attractions, etc. That helped to stimulate replacing the surface lots with hotels, bars, restaurants, condos, and parks.

Mass transit ridership just kept increasing too, because the encouraging parking method (with other Center City Development Corp initiatives) made San Diego's downtown into a place to be. If driving was the option, there was parking for a price. I know, parking can encourage driving, but the driving can encourage mass transit usage.

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.


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.


Again, if I am wrong with what you are trying to say, please correct me because currently I am confused. Though I will add this because I just came across it. From what you said, Columbus, OH must be prime to explode with development because of all the cheap parking. (the surface lots are in red, just in case you were wondering.)

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by MR. Cosmopolitan

Hum I forgot to say that Portland is internationally known from its urban growth boundary and its pioneering on energy efficiency plans, which started on 1972 I think, and also for being one of the first places in the world that arrived to reduce its carbon emissions in the early 90’s. That is astonishing, not only for the United States, but for the whole world.
But of course Portland is just a city, it would always be affected a lot by the rest of the country, if the USA doesn’t change Portland would very hardly, change.
I believe that all countries have some strong points (USA has a lot like the economy, the low unemployment, etc...), but also some weak points (with this I think inequalities and urbanism). I think these are big problems in the US, by looking at this points I've seen that many weaknesses that the US has fit nicely with the European strong points, and vice versa. I think that both sides of the Atlantic could learn a lot from each other.
I started this thread because I think that Portland is ready to anticipate the rest of the country, American mentality is changing, especially here, now its time to press hard Portland can again be a pioneer as it has been before and set again an example for the rest of the country.

oh I totally agree, I think both sides of the Atlantic could learn alot from each other. Portland's next move will be an important one, if we are able to keep Sam in office, there is a good chance there will be a very strong push for more rail projects. Also our suburbs are coming around, but that will take time. Gresham looks to be moving its downtown closer to the MAX stop, and hopefully along all MAX stops this becomes a trend. The best way to reduce the impacts of suburban growth is to increase desirability and density around the stations, thus giving suburbs more density.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

oh I totally agree, I think both sides of the Atlantic could learn alot from each other. Portland's next move will be an important one, if we are able to keep Sam in office, there is a good chance there will be a very strong push for more rail projects. Also our suburbs are coming around, but that will take time. Gresham looks to be moving its downtown closer to the MAX stop, and hopefully along all MAX stops this becomes a trend. The best way to reduce the impacts of suburban growth is to increase desirability and density around the stations, thus giving suburbs more density.

I've seen that there were also some attempts in the 70's and 80's to make denser suburbs, there are clear examples in Nob Hill and Hollywood (I'm talking about Portland ) I wonder why did Portland stopped building that type of buildings in the suburbs.
I agree that Portland is now putting a great amount of effort on making suburbs denser, more prepared for mass transit, and more bike friendly (I hope they would finally start with that bike sharing project)
Now talking about trains, I agree that MAX is having and going to help a lot in this process, for the future I also think that commuter rail has a big potential, the under used Union Station could become the centre of an extensive commuter rail system, The parking lot next to the station could be transformed into a bus station that would connect by bus the commuter rail to the rest of the city, I know this is just speculation but I think it could be a good idea for the future.