Where oh where to start with this post, Chris?

First: What innovative ideas? Where could you have "heard" of those ideas for "investment? Streetcars? Bike Paths? Great ideas!!!!

Boy oh Boy somebody in Portland should try building some of that stuff and see how it works!

Second:
Cant stand the thought that Kruse Way and Bridgeport Village all happened without an iota of the "investment" you social engineers are so bent upon reshaping our city with.

Both are auto-oriented. Face it. People drive to them, and the infrastructure is such that it is easy to do and convenient. Guess what else: they are attractive places that people like to walk around, too. I see strollers, dog walkers, and joggers all the time up and down Meadows Drive.

You are out of you mind if you think that people will take transit to and from Bridgeport Village. It just shows how naive you are, how completely bought into this social engineering mindset that you never once consider the fact that it just aint how people want to live.

Bridgeport customer base is "moms with means." They drive their SUV's full of kids to and from sports prctice. school, piano lessons, ballet, and when they are in those activities they run errands all over the place.

Yeah sure they are gunna get on the bus, go to Pottery Barn, buy a lamp, or a dresser, and bus back to Sports Nation where they get their child and wait for the bus, transfer at the transit center, get on another bus, then get off and walk home.

You post is so funny. You are so puzzled by how these "de-facto centers" could possibly have sprung up without the benevolent hand of the cult members, and without sufficient investment in transit.

So now you puzzle over how you can supply the obviously necessary transit.

"Redirect our transportation investment to serve what appears to be an unplanned emergent center?"

"Is Kruse Way dense enough to effectively serve with transit?"

You really make me laugh.

You can't stand it, can you? These emergent centers have basically rejected your model, and they are the two most successful places in the area. Now you want to retrofit your model onto them.

All the while seemingly pzzled as to how on earth these places could possibly be succeeding without your "planning."

Of course just look at the vibrant successes of your "planned" centers. The beaverton Round, for instance. Bankrupt three times, now barely making it only because they agreed to make it more auto oriented by buling a several story partking garage on a site where they had one of their mixed use buildings "planned."

Cascade Station... you just KNEW that transit oriented retail retail and office space would flock to it...... sits empty, nothing but roads, sidewalks and curbs.

I'll answer your question "What to do with de-facto centers?"

LEAVE THEM ALONE LEST YOU SCREW THEM UP LIKE YOU HAVE SCREWED UP EVERYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE TOUCHED IN THIS REGION

Kruse Way is EXACTLY what South Waterfront could become. And without the PDC, without skimming hundreds of millions in property taxes, and without the rat race excessive high density you'll never adequately serve with rail or arial transit.

Kruse Way:
Mixed-use, Retail, Offices, Restaurants, open green spaces, sidewalks, even a couple gas stations, adjacent to fine residential neighborhoods, high livability, pedestrian friendly, highly desirable and functional.

PKR, don't forget Washington Square (and Cascade Center across 217) are expanding without subsidies and "transit planning."

And so did Cedar Hills Crossing (Formerly Beaverton Mall).

And let's not forget all the development in Wilsonville and Tualatin.

Look at all the housing wating to be built in Bonny Slope:
http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=30905

Of course, county 'planners' have to come up with a 'land-use' plan first. Just another case of regulations hindering the free market and driving costs up.

Great idea:

Pick a new, un-occupied place, put in a lot of bike paths, narrow street, ban cars in the middle, no parking and let it develop naturally WITHOUT OUBLIC SUBSIDY.

I like the idea, just don't spend public money and don't force it on existing residents of that area. The streetcar is so valuable, that the business that spring up there (without public subsidy) will happily pay for it instead of wasteing their money on parking lots.

Thanks
JK

Chris Smith at 07:03 AM What do we do when a Center comes into existence where we didn’t plan it?
JK: How about you keep the planner’s heavy hands off of it and let it thrive as one of the few success stories in the region. It is more likely to be what people want since it was designed to satisfy the customers instead of the planners.

Remember: Planners plan to their theology, developers plan for their customers. Can you all see the difference?
End JK:

The question is prompted by recent coverage in the Oregonian about Bridgeport Village and new developments likely to rise up next to it.

JK:
New developments next door is a good sign. Metro would have to give them a tax break to attract them to a Metro center since they are so poorly planned, being essentially a religious exercise.
End JK

Chris, don't you see? You and David Bragdon can't force people into compact little urban areas. People don't live and work that way. People like their cars and like to drive. The west side is proof that economic activity can and will happen without transportation plans and public subsidies.

I think of centers as being more multi-use in nature, including residental in that mix. BV is OK in an erstaz kind of way. But it's not a "real" place in the sense that people would be there for any other reason than to shop, eat or see a movie. The idea behind creating centers is to create "real" places, like 23rd Ave or Hawthorne Blvd, where people live, work and play.

The success of BV and environs (and any place for that matter) will ultimately rest on how desireable a place it is for people to be. I don't think people are drawn to places because there's plenty of free parking, but rather, because there's something worth doing there.

You know, you're right. I am SO TIRED of having to force all those people at gunpoint to go down to South Waterfront and turn over their life savings for a condo.

I don't want to force anyone to live anywhere. I want to make sure that there are a range of choices available, some of which are in compact centers where they can walk to get a quart of milk instead of using a quart of gas to get the quart of milk (yes, I know I'm quoting Charlie Hales).

People seem to be choosing quite happily to live in dense neighborhoods where they are available. I realize that requires some subsidy to produce. But if the alternative is filling the Willamette Valley with quarter acre lots, I think my tax dollars are being well spent.

I would also point out that I started this thread by asking a question that is actually critical of some of the results of our current planning efforts. Self-critical examination is a good thing, right? But if I get shouted out by folks who think the current planning program is just plain wrong, then all you have done is encourage me to hunker down in my bunker and not ask critical questions.

Polarization is not the answer.

"People seem to be choosing quite happily to live in dense neighborhoods where they are available. I realize that requires some subsidy to produce."

My main question is why does it require subsidies? Are you saying the reason people find SoWa attractive is because of the streetcar and the tram?

The truth is, developers won't build without subsidies. In the last few years, Portland's been handing out tax abatements like candy and developers know this.

And a huge selling point for condo owners is the fact they wont have to pay property taxes for 10 years.

Theory 1: The reason that the comment board is dominated by opponents is because the frutrated in society are the most vocal. In this case I think the proponents are happily satisfied and don't have a reason to show up here until they see their routes disappear.
Theory 2: Public transit has a harder time in the US than in places like Asia or Europe because we are more individualistic (obviously)...but more specifically, we don't want to pay a single tax penny unless we see it come back double. Outer Portland doesn't see rail? "Let's raise hell." Outer Tokyo doesn't see rail? "Well at least our neighbors closer to the middle get it, thereby reducing sprawl and improving the environment as well as quality of life. We should support it so that we see it expand this way". I don't think I'm WAY off here, but I have been to both Europe and Asia and they are certainly a lot more laid back about but proud of their public projects.
Please don't lambast me for mentioning other continents even though "this is PORTLAND transport" because we really aren't all that different and we'll get absolutely NOWHERE if we refuse to learn from our peers.

Gene says: "Theory 2: Public transit has a harder time in the US than in places like Asia or Europe because we are more individualistic (obviously)...but more specifically, we don't want to pay a single tax penny unless we see it come back double. Outer Portland doesn't see rail? "Let's raise hell." Outer Tokyo doesn't see rail?".
Having been critical of the present transit system on this blog and the lack of service to some areas I find this comment a bit, to say the least, misleading.
I have also written that we need more transit, of greater varities, but that we might try opening up what is today a closed market in order to acheive those results. Private owner/operators should be welcomed and the regulations that prohibit that repealed, reduced and reformed.
M.W.

Local jurisdictions are just not willing to say no to new development that is not in their plan. So while we are investing regional dollars to help make Tualatin a walkable downtown center, Tualatin is busy attracting new development to auto-dependent locations that will require additional investment to support once successful.

Even Portland has a hard time turning its back on development which may not fit into a rational development pattern. The Interstate MAX stop with the New Seasons parking lot being an example. Whether its Crate and Barrel or New Seasons or Gap Outlet stores, it is very difficult to stick to a long term plan when faced with immediate, certain development opportunities. You can add Bechtel's development at the airport to that list. Is the airport really the location where we want to choke roads with traffic generated by a major retail center?

I think we are caught in a dilemma if we redirect public investment to these new developments outside the designated centers. One of the reasons businesses will choose centers is because they know that the region is committed to protecting their investment by providing the necessary infrastucture to support it. If we provide the needed infrastucture to development outside the centers, it not only takes away that advantage but drains resources away from fulfilling the committment in the centers.

I think this may be a fundamental problem with the Region 2040 plan. There is no ability or political will to actually implement the plan. For most political decisions, deciding something won't happen is a lot harder than deciding that it will.

The other side of this coin is that when we invest in transportation facilities it inevitably creates opportunities that the investment wasn't meant to promote. How that transportation capacity is used is almost always based on who gets their first, not what is the best use in the long run.

I am not sure that developing these long range visions is all that useful without a strategic plan for implementing them that considers the timing as well as the finished product. If we expand the I5 bridge in the immediate future we will simply get more rural development in Clark County and more traffic choking the industrial areas and Port in North Portland and out near the airport. If we add light rail now, it only connects an almost non-existant transit system in Clark County to Portland's, providing almost no real relief for most people stuck in traffic.

We should wait to add the new bridge capacity, implementing tolls and slowly increasing them to reduce the use of the bridge to its capacity. For that to be successful we need to provide better transit, van pooling and other options for people to avoid the tolls. You add the new bridge capacity and light rail connection only once the transit system is in place and people have accomodated their choices to allow the bridge capacity to be used to promote job growth in the industrial areas.

'don't forget Washington Square (and Cascade Center across 217) are expanding without subsidies and "transit planning."'

It seems to me that there has been a huge investment in transportation facilities around Washington Square just as one would expect in an area designated as a regional center.

Chris McMullen Says:

Chris, don't you see? You and David Bragdon can't force people into compact little urban areas. People don't live and work that way. People like their cars and like to drive. The west side is proof that economic activity can and will happen without transportation plans and public subsidies.

Chris, maybe you choose to forget about the tax levies that were voted for by the west side voters. Maybe your new to our area. The tax levy was a public subsidy. It was used for very specific transportation items (e.g., 185th widening).

Also, people are moving to both the city and the suburbs and both have their reasons. Your needs are not the same as the next person. Why is this so hard to accept? We are not all clones.

Ray

Kruse Way was planned in a way. The property owner worked on getting executive housing in the area North of Kruse Way.

Now Bridgeport Village is an uncontrolled addition to our cityscape where all you hear about is the traffic issues.

What do you do? Let a developer know that some services like transit costs will need to be shared (e.g., building a transit center) since the development isn't near a planned transit center.

What would I do to increase the likehood of the Metro 2040 centers being used and developed. I would allow densities as high as requested within boundaries (civil engineering issues, earthquake building codes, block size, etc.).

I'm wondering if we are not forcing all high density development downtown and denying a developer who sees a location (say Gateway) where a twenty or thirty story mixed use tower could work but the codes will not allow it.

Ray Whitford

I do tend to agree with Michael that private enterprise should have an opportunity to do what is currently done publicly. Unfortunately money doesn't grow on trees and the investment money required would only be diverted from whatever else. The transition to tear down the current system and create a new system with multiple entities competing doesn't seem cost-effective in a city the size of Portland. In other words, it's overkill. In Tokyo this is obviously not the case since the city and population are just so huge. In fact, the monorail business is even competitive there. However, Asia practices a more cooperative form of capitalism and in some instances, the companies give way to another in order to contribute to the greeater good, or even the government. It's really a cultural mindset, to be honest, and I don't think Portland is up to that sort of thing, at least at its present size.
If there are regulations and laws that prohibit anyone from trying, I don't see how it would hurt to take them down as long as they did not cause the abandonment and delapidation of the current system. That's what I think people are afraid of...the sort of Big Three effect, and in my opinion, that's a very valid fear. I guess it all comes down to the choice between whole-cloth planning and minimizing the waste of tax-dollars. If the private and public sectors could cooperatively give way to one another, as I mentioned before, that would be nice.

Whew! Chris I see why you decided to close the blog to the bomb throwers!

Bridgeport Village is a classic case of a failure of land use planning and transportation in the State. BV wouldn't exist without the huge public investment in the freeway system (a realtor was quoted about this and he didn't mention free markets or attractiveness of the shops as the reason for BV's success: its the 150,000 cars a day on I-5)

While the cities of Tualatin and Lake Oswego are trying to do the hard work of actually creating community, Washington County took land that was zoned for mixed use development and decided a gussied up shopping mall qualified. With no consultation with neighboring jurisdictions or with ODOT whose interchange promptly failed (who gets to pay for fixing that? You guessed it, the people of Oregon).

The Metro Council is about to embark on an update of the Region 2040 plan. The kind of questions that Chris raises are precisely the ones needing answers in this update. The first 2040 plan basically said that we don't want to continue sprawling down the valley and adopted some first steps, crude as they were, to stop that. There have been some obvious failures along with the successes. What have we learned? What should we do different?

Look for a roll-out this fall.

I am glad that Chris is now limiting the rhetoric coming from the peanut gallery. Bridgeport village should never be used as an example of successful planning. Less than 10% of the retail shops are locally owned. To all of you people that praise this project...it is no different than the Lloyd Center Mall! Do not be fooled by the fake stone, fake stucco, fake wood and steel details, etc. to make you believe that it is a work of Architecture (a completely different topic). I would like to know the percentage of locally owned and operated retail stores in the Pearl District...it seems like most of them. Alot of their products are actually made in Oregon by Oregonians. At Bridgeport Village, most products are made in 3rd world countries paying their employees less than what I spend on coffee daily.

Last night, I drove down to Barbur from the Lloyd District. On the way, there was a little slow down at the Terwilliger curves...which made me realize how much I would hate making that drive daily sitting in traffic for several reasons. True, you righteous auto people would say lets make a 20 lane hwy...that would solve our problems. It may, but that would mean even more people would move out of the central area and drive their cars downtown everyday. First you can not have a 20 lane hwy due to geological barriers (ie: Terwilliger curves). Second; even if you were to flatten the Earth to make as many lanes as needed, you still would have to take the scary and/or drunk drivers off the road. Everyone knows someone who they would rather not drive with. I did enjoy my drive back until someone next to me swerved over into my lane and while they answered their phone. Although a little annoying, I do not care if someone answers their phone or is completely drunk as they ride the MAX. Nor do I care (much) if there are crazy drivers on the streets while I am on the MAX. If they swerve into the MAX, I may spill my coffee, but I will not be pushed into the median or off the bridge at 60 mph.

I do like driving, but if anyone else has been in a potentially life-changing accident caused by the carelessness of other drivers, you may realize MY reasons for taking public transportation and there are alot more people that should not be driving and joining me on the MAX. You can talk about public financing and how cars are the "American way", but you can not teach everyone how to drive perfect and you can not take the keys out of everyone's hands who has had a little too much to drink.

Rex -

Am I confused. I thought Bridgeport was within the City of Tualatin. I know the county owned the rock quarry, but didn't the developer still need city approval for the development?

Whoever was at fault, I think this is a reality of virtually all transportation investments. We have a very difficult time "protecting" them for a future better use when there is a use that can be made of them immediately.

This same situation is occurring, with regional support, along I-205. We are putting a MAX line with stations adjacent to the freeway interchanges. One purpose of light rail is to attract dense development and yet we don't really want to promote dense development at freeway interchanges. Instead of putting in transportation that supports the desired land use, we are making the land use fit the transportation facility we want to build.

I believe it's a total failure for the communities of Lake Oswego, Tigard and the Beavertonian area to not expect these kinds of retail developments from happening. What, were they expecting nothing would change for the next 100 years, and the whole area would be low-income crappy strip mall retail?

Obviously the market has changed dramatically in that area over the last 10 and 20 years. But those communities really don't have any idea of how they want to grow, so they haven't planned for change. They are just limping along like the usual 'edge city,' being buffeted along by the seas of capitalism.

It's up to the residents of those places to plan them or not - and direct the growth, if they can figure out how. Whereas Portland was started with a vision, Beaverton and Tigard were not.

===========================

That being said... I think it is definitely part of Metro's job to serve these new developments, whether they planned them or not. Hell, if they can (or get the developers to) integrate a nice transit bus station and bike parking into it, I think it would be a great start (they want to be like Europe, right?).

That area along I-5 also suffers from a lack of good street layout - it's tough to get around unless you follow a few major arterial streets. This is especially bad for Kruse Way. Driving is horrific! Forget about bicycling or riding the bus; it's almost impossible to do that. I think they need to build more roads interlinking the area into the street grid in a much better way. Bike lanes and sidewalks would also help in the new developments, as always.

In response to PKR's comment...although this isn't really meant for him, it's just what pops in my mind when I hear people talking in this fashion.

I agree with you, btw, about 'oh my god - a "center" sprung up by itself without being planned!'

...but to an extent.

See, the funny thing is... what is a center? A standalone retail development that is designed for married women with children who are between 30 and 35?

I don't think so.

I think we can all agree that Metro has this wonderful idea that centers are sort of mini-downtowns - at least the kind that you might see in smaller Oregon cities that have not yet been destroyed by Sprawl. Think Mt. Angel, La Grande, Ashland, Myrtle Creek, Independence, and so on.

What do these places have in common? Hmm... their residents seem to love them. They also happen to be diverse places - sometimes with parks, local celebrations and so on...

Wait a minute. Let's compare these places to... oh, let's say Bridgeport Village. What's the difference? Why isn't Bridgeport Village good enough for some people? Why will a lot of people sneer at the idea of Bridgeport Village being a center?

Here's some: Bridgeport Village is 100% private. If they don't like the way you look (let's say you're a homeless person), they can throw you off their property. This is in startk contrast to downtown La Grande, where you could even petition the local shoppers to vote for Karen Minnis! Malls never allow you to push anything, as it would detract - or scare away - people from shopping.

Next... it's marketed towards a very narrow demographic set. All business activity (and it's almost all retail, with a tiny amount of office) is probably hand-picked to appeal to a certain slice of the American Pie. While some downtowns or shopping streets in Portland and other areas may be marketed, there are typically a wider and more myriad amount of uses.

For instance, housing. NW 23rd and Hawthorne both feature housing owned by - gasp! Citizens of Portland!

Ownership, I think, is also a big deal: Bridgeport Village was developed by Opus NW, a Minnesota-based National Real Estate Development Corporation.

They don't give a **** about Portland, except how much money they can make. Oh, Bruce Wood, the former head of Opus in P-town, did recently defect and looks like he's the one spearheading these other projects around the B Village, which he also did. So he's sort of establishing his own little market in the area, for which he is taking advantage of and cashing in on. I'm pretty impressed by him, actually.

So my biggest gripe about malls is this: they are totally, completely fake. They are the worst crime that America constantly commits: the dumbing-down of and commodification of everything good in this world to sell off to some stupid consumers who, because of assinine government zoning laws, are stuck living in suburb-land.

=============================

However, this doesn't detract from that facts: the malls have/are being built, so you better deal with them. Once land values increase to the point that it will be more lucrative to include housing and taller buildings instead of parking lots, they will be redeveloped.

However, that's a WHOLE different story right there.

Justin, you have to give LO some credit for the work they are doing in the town center in their downtown. It has some of the same kinds of shops that Bridgeport does (I prefer Sur La Table over Crate and Barrel). The difference is that in LO it connects to a street grid instead of being stuck in isolation from anything else except a freeway.

A question for the Metro planners and TPR wonks out there. If the 1/2-mile rule just adopted into the Transportation Planning Rule were in effect at the time, would that have stopped Bridgeport Village?

Chris -

I think the answer to your question about the TPR and half mile rule would depend. I think if the zoning was already done by the time the development started it wouldn't matter. If the rule had been in effect when the interchange was created then it might have prevented it from being constructed.

The problem with the half mile rule is that it is a huge power grab by ODOT. Most of downtown Portland is within a half mile of a freeway interchange. And while we have made progress in getting ODOT to move away from being the state highway department, I don't think we want to give it control over zoning wherever they built a freeway.

Ross, I understand the problem with the 1/2 mile rule. I was just trying to figure out if it had any redeeming qualities :-)

Chris -

I realize you understand the rule. But the actual outcomes are really entirely up to how ODOT applies it. Given the opportunity they might have chosen to prevent Bridgeport, they might not have. Just as Tualatin or Washington County could have chosen to prevent it, but chose not to.

For instance, along I-205 ODOT might be perfectly willing to allow zoning changes that allow construction of regional retail that takes advantage of the proximity to both light rail and a freeway interchange, while opposing zoning changes increase local neighborhood auto trips that intefere with access to the interchange.

Give that same half-mile authority to Metro and you are likely to see very different outcomes.

Chris Smith and other Socialists,

You might want to get a clue first before you start asking rhetorical questions.
Before asking questions like "So what should we do as a region? Redirect our transportation investment to serve what appears to be an unplanned emergent center? Or reserve our resources for the centers that we have planned (and zoned land uses) for?", question why Metro injects itself into the business of others under the guise of social engineering. Who invited Metro to involve themselves?
Metro asks all these questions about what it should do but it doesn't ask the ultimate question, "Should Metro be disolved?". "Should Metro be audited at the least"?

As for Bridgport, why don't you leave it alone? They developed the site with Trimet out of the picture, they would prefer it to stay that way.

Steve Brook wrote: "Chris Smith and other Socialists"

Why do those who are opposed to regional transportation and land-use planning so quickly resort to personal attacks?

- Bob R.

Referring to someone as a Socialist is only a personal attack if you think Socialist is a bad name. If this is the case, feel sorry for Socialists. Metro is in the business of social engineering and centeral control. Just be glad there are Capitalists out there providing what people actually want.