Metro Chief Operating Officer Michael Jordan released his recommendations for Metro’s Greatest Place plan (a combination land use and transportation planning effort). This is a formality, the COO recommendation is in fact the synthesis of work done by staff and approved by advisory committees of elected officials (JPACT and MPAC).
The plan is unique in a couple of aspects:
- To the extent possible (read – as permitted by State law) the recommendation is to NOT expand the Urban Growth Boundary and instead accommodate our next 20 years of growth inside the existing UGB, focusing on investing in the 2040 centers concept.
- The Regional Transportation Plan component actually contemplates that we can see a ‘final form’ for our road network, i.e., that freeways with 3 lanes in each direction and major arterials spaced a certain distance apart are the limit of how much real estate we want to devote to moving cars. The future challenge is to move goods and people by managing that road network to its maximum effectiveness.
And along the way, Metro seems to have figured out RSS. (But didn’t quite get the Atom feed right.)
Having served on MPAC during the formative stages of this plan, I’m delighted to see it released.
65 responses to “Metro Releases RTP Draft in Context of a Fixed UGB”
It’s about time!
Thank you Mr. Jordan.
While I agree with the limitation of number of lanes, I don’t believe the “spacing” is necessarily a viable formula. This criteria needs to be more realistic. I was involved in the 1970’s to help prevent a gridwork of freeways, but this plan needs to be flexible enough to adjust to localized population growth patterns.
If there were less congestion on major arterials (the I-5 for example) public bus transit would be capable of moving people at a much lower cost than light rail transit, when you factor in capital cost. There would be less congestion on those routes if there were more of them. The I-5 route ain’t broken—and doesn’t need to be fixed. What is needed is a third interstate route between Clark Co and the upcoming employment center in Washington Co. Employment in Clackamas Co can be handled by existing MAX lines. This distributes the commuter load, relieves congestion so that normal speeds resume, and also would make BUS TRANSIT AN EFFICIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE MODE.
Also, SW Washington RTC has proposed a bridge from Hwy 14 to Troutdale area. This is a relatively short crossing.
This is a cost effective plan—maybe a couple of billion dollars—-and does not induce added growth due to publicly funded public works projects. The sum total of those publicly funded works projects could amount to: $10- $20 Billion for MAX lines; $4 billion for CRC Bridge: $10-20 Billion to relocate I-5 and remove Marquam Bridge. And who knows how many billions more since these projects will solved very little and thousands more new settlers will have moved to region attracted by public works money.
Lastly, why could we not have double decker express bus service on high capacity routes? If congestion were eliminated and there were no overhead clearance issues the DD buses can hold ninety people, plus some standing.
Except Wash. Co. wants to eat up 50 square miles of land for “urban reserves”. And we all know how terrible those developments will be. Yay, more Bridgeports, cluster housing, and euclidean zoned single family residences.
The UGB does little to address the built environment, unfortunately. Despite some very nice neighborhoods in Portland and a relatively healthy downtown, sprawl has prevailed in most parts.
ws says,
“Except Wash. Co. wants to eat up 50 square miles of land for “urban reserves””
“Wants to” and “will do” are two different things.
If they started at only 5 square miles it would get bargained down, too.
ws–is your objection to low density, or is your objection to segregated land use (lots of housing that is miles from most services)?
If the former, that’s probably a fight that you’ll lose; as many people prefer having a freestanding home. (Myself, for instance). Walkable neighborhoods, though, where many trips (to school, to the store or bank, etc) can be done on foot or on a short transit hop, are another matter.
EngineerScotty:ws–is your objection to low density, or is your objection to segregated land use (lots of housing that is miles from most services)?
If the former, that’s probably a fight that you’ll lose; as many people prefer having a freestanding home. (Myself, for instance). Walkable neighborhoods, though, where many trips (to school, to the store or bank, etc) can be done on foot or on a short transit hop, are another matter.
ws:I like freestanding homes too, Scott. I would have no qualms about me (or anyone else) living in a freestanding house or wanting to live in one. I do not understand where people think they’re not going to be able to live in a single family home. It’s asinine and in fact, most of the buildings in Orenco are single family residences!
Density gets too much talk. The end goal should not be solely about density, and I agree some planners have missed the boat. Density can be great, but it can also be bad. It’s also a polarizing and misunderstood concept.
Though, you do realize that almost everyone of Portland’s predominantly single-family neighborhoods has a net density of about 8-10 Dwelling Units / Acre? Add the extra granny flat homes or ancillary rental units and that density can DOUBLE.
That’s not only enough density to support walkable shopping, but also good enough density to support a reliable transit system. Portland neighborhoods are upwards of three times as dense, as some places in suburbia.
Too often talk of density makes people think you can’t have a single-family residence. Um…hello people, Ladd’s and Laurelhurst actually are quite dense and they are mostly single family!
Now mix the SF residences with some rental units on nearby streets (no cluster / pod developments), add some shops business and a WALKABLE school and you have what’s called a neighborhood.
Unlike the dormitories that dominate the suburbia moonscape.
So let’s recap, the nicest neighborhoods in the Portland region that are predominately single family residences are actually some of the densest SF neighborhoods too.
You can do a lot with a 5,000 – 7,000 SF lot for a single family residence, in fact that’s the range of most home lots in Portland (city of). I think that is very acceptable for new development.
Remember, businesses need a certain amount of density in order to open up shop w/o a sea of parking. Market forces will ultimately dictate euclidean zoning if a neighborhood is not reasonable “dense” (when I hear the word dense I actually think of 30,000 people per square mile, but most people it’s much less than that).
A grocery store will not succeed in a typical suburbia corner – even if it is walkable, has connected streets, sidewalks, etc. Keep that in mind.
I can’t believe you folks actually read through this stuff!
ws: That’s not only enough density to support walkable shopping, but also good enough density to support a reliable transit system.
JK: Tell me again the point of supporting transit in view of the fact that it does not save energy, is slow and costs several times what driving costs. In fact transit commutes average close to double driving and is much longer even in dense cities. Is people wasting time, money and energy part of your vision for Portland?
ws: Now mix the SF residences with some rental units on nearby streets (no cluster / pod developments),
JK: You mean those four story condo bunkers that are springing up all over?
ws: Unlike the dormitories that dominate the suburbia moonscape.
JK: Aren’t those pretty high density?
ws: So let’s recap, the nicest neighborhoods in the Portland region that are predominately single family residences are actually some of the densest SF neighborhoods too.
JK: Lets hear some numbers for Ladds, Irvington (before the condo bunkers) and Laurlhurst. Then compare with Metro mandated targets.
ws: You can do a lot with a 5,000 – 7,000 SF lot for a single family residence, in fact that’s the range of most home lots in Portland (city of). I think that is very acceptable for new development.
JK: Can I assume this means you oppose any development on 2500 sq ft lots as is so prevalent in NE, SE Portland? DO you oppose zoning REQUIRING higher density than 5,000-7,000 SF?
ws: Remember, businesses need a certain amount of density in order to open up shop w/o a sea of parking.
JK: Surely you are joking? Even the Hollywood Fred Meyers, in the kind of neighborhood you just described, has a “sea of parking”.
Thanks
JK
Hey Jim K,
Does any interview of you exist anywhere?
Thanks
Al M
JK:Lets hear some numbers for Ladds, Irvington (before the condo bunkers) and Laurlhurst. Then compare with Metro mandated targets.
I never used condos in my density “analysis” or comments in this thread. I was strictly speaking of single family places.
Sample sizes of blocks with mixed lot sizes
Ladds:
Gross density (street/sidewalk only) ~ 5.5 – 6 DU/Acre
Net density ~ 7.5 DU/Acre
Laurelhurst:
Gross Density (street/sidewalk only) ~ 5.5 – 6 DU/Acre
Net Density ~ 8 – 8.5 DU/Acre
Irvington:
Gross Density (street/sidewalk only) ~ 5 DU/Acre
Net Density ~ 7.5 DU/Acre
*I excluded schools, parks and commercial as part of gross density. Gross density only shows street size ROW.*
Now, let’s add in the granny flat dwelling units that EVERY traditional neighborhood has. That effectively doubles the density because they can become rental units.
In combination with single family residences and rental units, an occasional condos, granny flats, etc. – you’re going to have a neighborhood that has at least 10-20 DU/acre while still maintaining a single-family feel.
JK:Aren’t those pretty high density?
ws:Yes, some of them (newer) are similar in lot sizes to Portland’s predominant single-fam neighborhoods – in the range of about ~.12 acre lots or about 5,200 square feet.
If you live in Portland and live in a single-family home, I am going to put money that your home has about the same or even less s.f. lot than 5,200 s.f. Maybe you quietly agree with Metro’s max lot requirements?
Except the new homes in Wash Co. built on a .12 acre lot look like [Expletive deleted — moderator.] ; huge parking lot in front of the home, extra wide streets, faux exterior, dinky street trees, and only one type of zoning in the area. No walkable amenities – that would be crazy!
JK:“Surely you are joking? Even the Hollywood Fred Meyers, in the kind of neighborhood you just described, has a “sea of parking”.”
ws: Surely I am not.
1) Freddies is a different typology than most local stores. It needs a reasonable amount of s.f. I am speaking mostly of bakeries, coffee shops, medium sized goods stores, furniture stores, etc.
I think the Hollywood Fred’s has a way too large parking lot.
2) The Hollywood Fred’s was built in 1990. Do you understand what it takes to get a bank loan for a big box store in 1990? TONS OF PARKING in the plan. You would never get a loan in 1990 (sprawl time) for a store that had below “normal” parking spots.
Lenders are a huge player in America’s sprawl story. They base their lending on past development patterns and not logic (unless you think the US’ housing crisis / bank crisis this past year was logical).
Remember, the new New Seasons on Hawthorne wanted to have very few parking spaces but COULD NOT get a loan from the bank with that current plan. Their loan was contingent on them providing more parking spaces, and they adjusted their plan to suit the bank’s requirements.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. No wonder we’re so auto-dependent.
To add a concluding statement, Washington County single family lots (new construction only, old construction has huge lots) are the same size as Portland’s single family lot sizes. On occasion, you get the .25 acre lot for bigger homes, such as Irvington neighborhood. They are not that common, though, but I don’t mind those at all because they are done right and and larger homes amongst smaller homes adds diversity to neighborhoods (and thus income diversity as well).
Portland’s neighborhoods = nice
Wash. County development = ugly
Clearly, density is not the entire culprit here.
Agree that density is not the culprit – it’s that developers seem to have forgotten how to build good density.
Portland is full of lots in the 2,000-3,500 sf range that work great. Bungalows, Victorians, and Foursquares (big homes) exist on such lots throughout the city, but at transit and business supportive scales. Mix in some well-designed apartments and condos, and you have a vibrant and attractive neighborhood. We knew how to do this successfully at the turn of the last century.
Now developers max out their footprint on the lot to maximize profits, so homeowners lose their yard and the lots seem squeezed together. Maybe time will soften the impact, who knows, but even these developments are more transit and business supportive than traditional sprawl.
Unit, where are there lots that small in Portland (2,000 s.f.)?!?
While we’re on the topic, I find a 50′ x 100′ lot to be very appealing for a single family house. Plenty of room for a backyard and ancillary parking unit in back if you have a minimal offset from the street.
Net density of a 5,000 sf lot would get you more than 8.5 DU/acre.
Here’s a good link:
http://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/visualizing-density/tour/t1.aspx
Here’s some general density requirements for mass transit:
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm
Based on their numbers, 9 DU/acre over 1/4 mile of a light rail stop is good. Single-family residences in Portland alone would get you that (gross density about 6 DU/acre).
High density =
Boston
DC
Chicago
Savannah
Portland
Oh no, that high density is *so* gross.
I think high density works well in the Pearl District, because there is such a variety within close walking distance. The suburbs are different in that if you are going shopping you are going to end up mainly at the standard mass culture shopping or strip mall. So, people probably prefer to have some yard space for their families. I would suggest that high density towers could work in the suburbs if the location was chosen for specific reasons—most probably the view. It would still contribute to a car-centric culture but it seems you could up the density and still get satisfied homeowners. Condo dwellers do trade off a lot of square footage…that’s the downside. And typically hi rises are expensive—which they don’t seem to be in other places like in Latin America which has lots of them or in China where they are a new trend.
I’ve thought towns like Troutdale or St. Helens(Columbia Gorge views), Sandy (Mt Hood views) or coastal towns (ocean views) could utilize hi rise condo construction.
Great. This will just continue to push growth into Clack County.
“I’ve thought towns like Troutdale or St. Helens(Columbia Gorge views), Sandy (Mt Hood views) or coastal towns (ocean views) could utilize hi rise condo construction.”
I think the opposite is true. Small towns, imo, do not need buildings higher than four stories.
Hood River is a nice, quaint town with a village center and wonderful single family residences outlining the center.
Cities are also very nice when they have a range of accessible densities that create diversity. Portland’s nice because you can be in less dense neighborhood and cross the river and have a more urban experience.
Ron Swaren:“So, people probably prefer to have some yard space for their families”
ws:I agree that people like yard space, I do too. But does one not have yard space on “smaller lots”? What is enough yard space and when does it become apparent that instead of providing 15,000 sf lots for a huge yards that we should be providing quality park space instead?
Furthermore, if huge lots are associated with having more yard space, why are so many of the homes on these lots placed smack dab in the middle of the lots? If they were brought closer to the street, these 1/4 acre lot homes would really have some nice yard space in the back.
Realistically, a 50′ x 100′ lot with a modest 2300 sf two story home is going to have a good 1,000 sf of backyard space to play with assuming the home has 15′ setback from the sidewalk.
I think that is very reasonable!
ws says,
“I think that is very reasonable!’
I see what you are saying. The back yard in a 50 x 100 lot should be sufficient. Good point. I suppose the reason people went to bigger lots was because of the popularity of ranch style, then split entry then Mc Mansion style homes, making a wide lot necessary. The depth is approx. the same so the resulting backyard is quite large. Well, maybe the resurgence of townhouse styles will change that…it already has.
Incidentally, my suggestion of taller residences in small towns has already occurred. Seaside has one or two. Astoria has some mid rise condo projects. Newport has some, too. And then there are numerous hi rise retirement residences which were built in the sixties and seventies. A bit limited in size by todays standards. The round tower in downtown Vancouver is one example. Or Westmoreland Union Manor or Kirkland Union Manor. There are also tall residential buildings in Eugene. Some people like it, for the ease of maintenance. The thing that bothers me is the HOA fees. I saw a condo on NW Front that was 400/mo.
Don’t forget we are going to be experiencing demographic changes in the upcoming years. The baby boomers are aging, and younger people are putting off marriages and children. The net result is the “traditional” family of 2 adults with children will make up a diminishing percentage of households. The percentage of single-person households has been climbing and will continue to do so.
Demand for single-family housing will not continue to increase at rates seen in the past. We likely already have an adequate supply of single-family dwellings in the country (perhaps not in this region, however) for several years.
I would advocate for new creativity and experimentation, creating more diversity in housing typologies. It is likely that much of this housing can be well designed, compact, and meet shifting market demands. It shouldn’t be a false choice between single-family picket fences or forests of condo towers.
Agreed! I simply get tired of when the “d” word is mentioned people think that doesn’t mean single family homes.
ws: Based on their numbers, 9 DU/acre over 1/4 mile of a light rail stop is good. Single-family residences in Portland alone would get you that (gross density about 6 DU/acre).
JK: Of course you know that metro recommends a density of 45 people per acre within 1/2 mile of a toy train station.
(Metro code 37.07.130 as of a few years back.)
See http://www.stopmetro.com/pictures/MAP2016.jpg
Thanks
JK
A lot of corner lots in inner NE and SE are surprisingly small – some lots as small as 1,500 sf. Take NE 24th & Couch for example, 4 lots around 1,500 sf, with houses in the 1,000-2,000 sf range. Of course, at that lot size there’s little yard to speak of, but with a 2,500 sf lot, you can do a 1,000 sf house footprint, a small front setback, and have a reasonably sized backyard left.
Of course, these were built before the city implemented the 5-ft side setback, which screws up good single-family density, and gives us those oddly-proportioned skinny houses instead.
What is the reason for the 5′ side setback, anyway? Fire safety? An anti-density measure? Given that we permit rowhouses….
JK:Of course you know that metro recommends a density of 45 people per acre within 1/2 mile of a toy train station.
(Metro code 37.07.130 as of a few years back.)
ws:45 people per acre = 15 DU / Acre assuming a 2.5 people per dwelling unit.
A single-family home (say 2400 sf) with 4 people in it on a 5,000 sf lot and a granny flat rental unit (1 person) equates to:
(4+1 = 5) / .11 acre lot = ~44 ppl / acre
Wow, that’s *scary* dense. /sarcasm 45 ppl / acre is each person getting about 1,000 sf of land to themselves!
Realistically, not everyone is going to have a rental unit granny flat unit, but any rate, higher density condos/apartments can be placed along transit lines/arterial which will inevitable push the density of inner-city neighborhoods within a 1/2 mile.
A few rental units and condos along Broadway is not going to change the character of the single family residences of Irvington ONE BIT.
And, what are the current density “requirements” or METRO’s current goal.
[Moderator: Personally-directed remark removed.]
edit:
“45 people per acre = 15 DU / Acre assuming 3 people per dwelling unit.”
More calculations to understand density:
A large 10,000 sf (let’s just say the home is 3,500 sf for visualization purposes) lot with 6 people on it:
6 ppl / .23 acre lot = 26 ppa (net density, obviously)
Let’s take a look at your map:
http://www.stopmetro.com/pictures/MAP2016.jpg
Hmm…25 ppa = “Corridors”
So a sprawling McMansion “neighborhood” on a huge lots with small parks options, wide roads, etc. will realistically have ~15 ppa (modified measurement of gross density).
Unit:A lot of corner lots in inner NE and SE are surprisingly small – some lots as small as 1,500 sf. Take NE 24th & Couch for example, 4 lots around 1,500 sf, with houses in the 1,000-2,000 sf range.
ws:Very nice homes, too!
My opinion of homes that close is that you should forget the sideyards and make them have different and personalized facades but make them “touch” each other.
Today’s market is not going to embrace these homes you pointed to because someone’s window is going to be looking into theirs. Though, I think they’re cute.
A single-family home (say 2400 sf) with 4 people in it on a 5,000 sf lot and a granny flat rental unit (1 person) equates to:
(4+1 = 5) / .11 acre lot = ~44 ppl / acre
Wow, that’s *scary* dense. /sarcasm 45 ppl / acre is each person getting about 1,000 sf of land to themselves!
JK: I presume that you missed this little detail:
Metro puts the average “inner neighborhood” density at 11.4 ppa and their target is a 294% increase.
Why don’t you reconcile your version of current reality with metro’s 11.4 ppa. And the fact that their target is almost a 300% increase in density over current levels, instead of your claim of about where we have now.
Thanks
JK
Metro puts the average “inner neighborhood” density at 11.4 ppa and their target is a 294% increase.
So you have a problem with encouraging density near transit stops? That map you linked to shows very large parts of the city as 11.4 to 14, a 23% increase. Only the neighborhoods that have gotten/are getting new infrastructure are being asked to densify. I have to assume that many of the station area neighborhoods may already exceed that since that seems to be the average for all neighborhoods based on inner neighborhoods and the orange circles around MAX stops are both marked as 11.4 currently.
I’m still reading through the documents, but it does strike me as interesting how many business leaders mentioned moving to Vancouver or out of area (or at least not locating new facilities here) due to traffic problems on I-5.
It’s in the sections between pages 550 and 600 (rough estimates), but it seems to be a pretty strong endorsement of why the local business community is pushing so hard for the CRC. I know of several companies that relocated either some or all of their offices to Vancouver due to the problems of getting talented employees who were willing to commute to Portland or Washington County.
The industrial land use planning section seems much more interesting than the residential sections, since they’re by far the biggest reason we should be considering UGB expansion. One thing San Diego did to build it’s very successful biotech center status was to encourage more large business parks, of which many of the newer ones are warehouse-type space on a large first floor, with office space above.
It allowed a lot of smaller start up companies to get started with cheap office space in areas that are suitable to their research, since many of the small biotech companies I worked with needed work spaces that would not be appropriate in a high-rise type building.
JK:I presume that you missed this little detail:
Metro puts the average “inner neighborhood” density at 11.4 ppa and their target is a 294% increase.
Why don’t you reconcile your version of current reality with metro’s 11.4 ppa. And the fact that their target is almost a 300% increase in density over current levels, instead of your claim of about where we have now.”
ws:
1) Your map linked shows a “target” of 23% increase from 11.4 ppa to 14 ppa (inner neighborhoods). Not 300%…where are you getting that from?
2) Most inner-neighborhoods (actually, all of the nice ones) already meet density objectives/goals of 14 ppa.
For instance, here is an example of an inner- neighborhood that is predominately single-family units:
Hollywood Neighborhood??
Census Tract ID: 27.01 (NE Fremont to NE Thompson, 41st/39th to 51st Ave rough boundary)
Area of Census Tract: 225.6 Acres
Single-Family Units: 1,192
Multi-Family Units: 7
2003 Population: 3,004
Population density:
3,004 / 225.6 = 13.32 ppa 99.5% SINGLE FAMILY UNITS
Census tract id #’s and population:
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=24905
Remember, the map you’re showing does not show actual density, just density goals.
“I know of several companies that relocated either some or all of their offices to Vancouver due to the problems of getting talented employees who were willing to commute to Portland or Washington County.”
You’re saying more talented employees live in Vancouver?
ws Says:
1) Your map linked shows a “target” of 23% increase from 11.4 ppa to 14 ppa (inner neighborhoods). Not 300%…where are you getting that from?
2) Most inner-neighborhoods (actually, all of the nice ones) already meet density objectives/goals of 14 ppa.
JK:
Sorry. Left out a word or two: Station areas (but that should have been obvious from looking at the map):
Metro puts the average “inner neighborhood” density at 11.4 ppa and their target is a 294% increase in station areas.
So please reconcile your version of current reality with metro’s 11.4 ppa. And the fact that their target is almost a 300% increase in density, in station areas, over current levels, instead of your claim of about where we have now.
Thanks
JK
Dave H wrote: “it does strike me as interesting how many business leaders mentioned moving to Vancouver or out of area (or at least not locating new facilities here) due to traffic problems on I-5.”
“It’s in the sections between pages 550 and 600 (rough estimates), but it seems to be a pretty strong endorsement of why the local business community is pushing so hard for the CRC.”
Trouble is, adding lanes doesn’t reduce traffic significantly! It’s commonly believed to, but it’s been repeatedly shown that beyond a certain point the added lanes fill up essentially instantly, getting you zilch.
Which is what’s wrong with the CRC. Get rid of the added lanes and it would be a reasonable proposal. The light rail connection would have enough capacity to actually improve people’s commutes for 10-20 years; the added lanes, probably for about 10-20 months, maximum, which is simply not worth the money being proposed for the widening. (Narrower bridge == much cheaper).
Contrary to JK’s reality-denial, transit works for moving large numbers of people, and transit commutes are faster than driving commutes when the roads are packed full.
JK:“Metro puts the average “inner neighborhood” density at 11.4 ppa and their target is a 294% increase in station areas.”
ws:First off, the map you keep linking to does not show ACTUAL PRESENT DENSITY levels of neighborhoods. Many of Portland’s neighborhoods are already compact and relatively dense to begin with, and any such overlap of “station points” would require only moderate development and densification to meet 45 ppa.
A few multi-units would be needed along Burnside, Broadway, Hawthorne, etc. and would bring those neighborhoods into METRO’s density goals.
East side neighborhoods would definitely need to densify more so. I’d argue a good 5-10 dense buildings would be needed within the 1/2 mi. station points of these neighborhoods. Though, is development change in these neighborhoods near 82nd onward a bad thing? Nope, it’s probably a good thing.
If there’s any sign of agreement between you and I on this, it’s that I do not believe that it should be forced on developers to build density.
Developers already want to build bigger in Portland, why should some anti-change person be able to stop a private developer on private land?
A NIMBY neighbor should not be able to derail a private condo development because they think extra density is going to bring “problems” to their neighborhood.
If there’s no forced density, then there needs to be no forced low-density, which is basically what we have.
[Moderator: Personally-directed remark removed.]
WS, Nathanael, please stick to factual references and refrain from making personally-directed remarks — I’ve had to clean up more today than usual. Thanks.
ws: First off, the map you keep linking to does not show ACTUAL PRESENT DENSITY levels of neighborhoods. Many of Portland’s neighborhoods are already compact and relatively dense to begin with, and any such overlap of “station points” would require only moderate development and densification to meet 45 ppa.
JK: Moderate? Please explain how adding 22,600 people to a 1 mile circle around a toy train station is “moderate” (that is adding close to 5% of Portland’s current population around each of the many toy train stations.)
ws: A few multi-units would be needed along Burnside, Broadway, Hawthorne, etc. and would bring those neighborhoods into METRO’s density goals.
JK: I was talking of station areas. See: September 17, 2009 4:58 AM, jimkarlock Says:
ws: East side neighborhoods would definitely need to densify more so. I’d argue a good 5-10 dense buildings would be needed within the 1/2 mi. station points of these neighborhoods.
JK: 22,600 people in 10 buildings??? Those are some buildings – 2260 people each.
ws: Though, is development change in these neighborhoods near 82nd onward a bad thing?
JK: Why don’t you ask the residents? I seem to recall that those neighborhoods voted even more against density increase than the region as a whole. See portlandfacts.com/smart/metrodensityvote.htm
ws: If there’s any sign of agreement between you and I on this, it’s that I do not believe that it should be forced on developers to build density.
JK: GREAT! Will you help end Metro’s density mandate?
ws: Developers already want to build bigger in Portland, why should some anti-change person be able to stop a private developer on private land?
JK: Perhaps because they want to preserve the neighborhood’s character. I do hope that you recall that that was the purpose of zoning before the planners hijacked it to force density on neighborhoods.
BTW, do developers really want to build condo bunkers, absent government mandates and government distorted land prices?
ws: A NIMBY neighbor should not be able to derail a private condo development because they think extra density is going to bring “problems” to their neighborhood.
JK: So you do not believe in keeping neighborhood character?
ws: [Moderator: Personally-directed remark removed.]
JK: Ohh, shame on you. This is supposed to be an intellectual, logical discussion.
Thanks
JK
ws: You’re saying more talented employees live in Vancouver?
Not more, but many. Some employers have realized they can pay less to people who live up there if they locate up there, because that allows the employees to not be taxed, and avoid the traffic across the bridge. They can of course spend much of that money (tax-free) in Oregon as well. I would think that devaluing jobs in Vancouver as well as the people that commute to Portland to be taxed here hurts both pay levels and tax revenues across the region, and not just those directly effected by it.
I do think it’s healthy to have more jobs in Vancouver, but not if we’re just relocating them out of Portland to do so. The document details answers by real businesses about locations through the area, and transportation along US-26 and I-5 and interestingly, a lack of adequate bus service around the MAX are the three complaints that kept sticking out to me. Location and lack of proximity to other markets comes up as well, but transportation issues seem bigger than our relative isolation from other major markets.
Nathanael: Trouble is, adding lanes doesn’t reduce traffic significantly! It’s commonly believed to, but it’s been repeatedly shown that beyond a certain point the added lanes fill up essentially instantly, getting you zilch.
Good thing this isn’t adding general purpose lanes, which sometimes due to latent demand are filled the second they open, but auxiliary lanes, which are effective at smoothing out traffic flow without needing to allow more through traffic to do so.
JK: Moderate? Please explain how adding 22,600 people to a 1 mile circle around a toy train station is “moderate” (that is adding close to 5% of Portland’s current population around each of the many toy train stations.)
From other documents I’ve read the target population increase to over 45 ppa is supposed to be the 1/2 mile circle, not the 1 mile.
JK: BTW, do developers really want to build condo bunkers, absent government mandates and government distorted land prices?
They can make a lot more profit on a higher-FAR project with 40-80 units than they can by building 10-20 single houses on the same block.
Condo ‘bunkers’ aren’t the only way to maximize the PPA of an area either, rowhouses can effectively do it, as can splitting tax lots up, etc. This document (the one released by Metro) has lots of explanations and photos showing different ways you can add density to an area without building condo ‘bunkers.’
Unfortunately the anti-growth crowd’s push for excessively low height limits in many areas leave developers with few options to maximize profits in those areas other than to build condo ‘bunkers.’
Dave H: From other documents I’ve read the target population increase to over 45 ppa is supposed to be the 1/2 mile circle, not the 1 mile.
JK Source please? I found both in metro docs when I setup stopmetro.com.
As to the 1/2 mile:
Wow what a relief, we will only need about 26 towers the size of the Atwater Place condo tower, instead of over 100 ugly towers around every toy train station.
Thanks
JK
An acre is just over 2 downtown city blocks. How is 45 ppa going to be more than about 22.5 people per block over two downtown blocks? With 2.25 people per unit, each unit could have a 40×100 footprint in that scenario. And that’s only with one floor.
If 45 ppa means you need 26 Atwater Place towers, how could the Center City area ever get to 260 ppa?
Ah, I screwed up my math, just over ONE city block, but still, a 3 floor condo would easily handle this. Build a few 4-8 floor buildings and you should be able get enough density to cover most of even the one mile neighborhood at 45 ppa without needing to build 26 towers.
JK:“Moderate? Please explain how adding 22,600 people to a 1 mile circle around a toy train station is “moderate” (that is adding close to 5% of Portland’s current population around each of the many toy train stations.)”
ws:
Do you know how many units are in a condo building that’s ~7 or so stories high?…usually about 300-400.
A condo on .25 acres (1/4 of Portland 200′ x 200′ blocks) can have about 100+ units at 6 stories high.
These densities are in the tune of about 1,000 people per acre!
JK:“Moderate? Please explain how adding 22,600 people to a 1 mile circle around a toy train station is “moderate” (that is adding close to 5% of Portland’s current population around each of the many toy train stations.)”
ws:
1) Your map shows station communities @ 1 mile, however, only 1/2 mile diamater from that point is there to be 45 ppa density recommended.
http://www.stopmetro.com/pictures/MAP2016.jpg
Notice your map at 122nd and Burnside, the orange circle only is 1/2 mile radius. Orange = 45 ppa, according to your map and touches Glisan and Stark which both roads are .25 miles away from the station stop. That equals .5 mile @ 45 ppa.
I do not see anything on the map that indicates 1 mile diameter = 45 ppa. I do see 1/2 mi. diamter = 45 ppa, however.
2)Within a neighborhood of 11.4 ppa existing density and a station point of 1/2 mile overlap, that neighborhood would need to add 10,752 people to existing populations.
Reasonably, a condo building that is 1 acre and ~7 stories can provide about 900 ppl a place to live.
That = 11.9 condos / multi units needed in the very low dense eastern suburbs to get 45 ppa.
If one condo takes up 1 acre (actually less), that means there needs to be 12 acres available within the 1/2 mile zone. ONLY 12 ACRES NEEED. 1/2 mile = 320 acres, btw.
Hmm..here’s a huge ass parking lot @ 122nd and Glisan:
122nd Glisan
The parking lot alone is almost 10 acres! That right there is almost a station communities density recommendation w/ a few condos.
JK:“So you do not believe in keeping neighborhood character?”
ws:You espouse libertarian beliefs, Jim. Don’t you want Houston “no zoning”? Who are you to tell a condo developer he or she can’t develop the way they want. Your assertions on density are not proven to any degree, so even its perceived negative effect is a moot point in the face of libertarian logic.
Also, “character” is subjective.
Pray tell, what’s the character of the eastern suburbs with their huge parking lots like the one I gave a link to? Is that any worse or any better than high density development?
Just to put the 45 ppa goal into perspective, that’s roughly the density of many blocks of NW Thurman St. I don’t see any high rise buildings along NW Thurman.
ws & Dave H; Blah; Blah; Blah
JK
1. It is still a multi hundred percentage increase over Metro’s claim of current average density.
2. Metro recommends a doubling of density in neighborhoods. See “neighborhood 1″ & Neighborhood 2” at http://www.stopmetro.com/TABLE12C.htm
The map shows an orange an a yellow circle around toy train stations. Metro code says ½ mile for 45 ppa (from a “current” 11 ppa per table 12)
Lets see: ½ mile dia = 3/4 sq mile = 480 acres = 16,320 more people.
Atwater is 212 units, so this is 38 towers (at 2 people per unit – people with children don’t generally stay in towers very long.) Admittedly that is slightly less than one tower per acre. An acre being about the size of a downtown Portland city block.
Yep, density you can believe in.
So what are the yellow one-mile circles on Metro’s map and their designated density?
Thanks
JK
ws: Do you know how many units are in a condo building that’s ~7 or so stories high?…usually about 300-400.
A condo on .25 acres (1/4 of Portland 200′ x 200′ blocks) can have about 100+ units at 6 stories high.
JK: Lets see: 100′ x 100′ x 6 stories / 100 units = 600 sqft per unit, counting the halls, stairs, utility space, elevators as part to that 600 sqft.
Would I be in the ball park if I guessed that those 100 units would be about 400 sqft of interior space each? Or smaller for the “+” of your 100+
That may be your vision for the future of Portland, but I doubt that many outside of the planner’s deluded little community share it.
ws: These densities are in the tune of about 1,000 people per acre!
JK: Let’s see:
We had 100 tiny units on 10,000 sqft (above), so we could get 400 on that acre. That is a long ways from 1000 people per acre when you consider that few families with children will put up with 600 sqft this side of Havana, Moscow or Pyongyang. Since some will be single person occupancy, I’d guess the average people per unit at around 1.5 for about 600 ppa. All in glorious 400 sqft units.
Get Real
ws: 2)Within a neighborhood of 11.4 ppa existing density and a station point of 1/2 mile overlap, that neighborhood would need to add 10,752 people to existing populations.
JK:
45-11.4 = 33.6 added ppa
½ mile dia circle = 3/4 sq mile = 480 acres.
480 x 33.6 = 16,128 people.
Where did you get 10,752 people?
ws: Reasonably, a condo building that is 1 acre and ~7 stories can provide about 900 ppl a place to live.
JK:
43,560 sqft x 7 stories / 900people = 338.8 sqft per person. Which includes all of the stairways, elevators, utilities and halls inside that 339 sqft per person. Each person would probably get about 200 sq ft. This implies an average condo size of around 300 sq ft.
Get Real.
ws: That = 11.9 condos / multi units needed in the very low dense eastern suburbs to get 45 ppa.
JK: Now make that reasonably sized small units, say 1200 sqft and you require 4 times as many, or about 48 giant, out of place, ugly, over priced units.
Around every station.
And those 16,128 added people will add close to 10,000 cars to that ½ mile circle, assuming 40% take the toy train.
Oh, wait. That 40% on the toy train will be 6451 new riders. For each station.
From Gresham to Lloyd Enter the map shows 16 stations.
16 stations x 6451 people = 103, 219 people.
103,219 people / 164 people per train = 629 trains full of people every morning and every afternoon.
At three min headways, it will only take 31 hours each morning to get all those people to work and 31 hours each eve. To get them home.
Does this give you hint why I have little respect for planners?
ws: If one condo takes up 1 acre (actually less), that means there needs to be 12 acres available within the 1/2 mile zone. ONLY 12 ACRES NEEED. 1/2 mile = 320 acres, btw.
JK: You are assuming 300-400 sqft condos.
Get real
ws: Also, “character” is subjective.
Pray tell, what’s the character of the eastern suburbs with their huge parking lots like the one I gave a link to? Is that any worse or any better than high density development?
JK: That is not for you to decide, unless you want to admit to being dictatorial as to how others should live.
Thanks
JK
ws & Dave H; Blah; Blah; Blah
Reality sucks, eh? 4000 sq ft for 2.5 (averaged) people in a two floor building is nothing to consider but more complaints?
Would I be in the ball park if I guessed that those 100 units would be about 400 sqft of interior space each? Or smaller for the “+” of your 100+
His numbers were off, but a lot less than yours were. Tell me, why do we need twenty-six towers that are twenty-two floors each to achieve 45 ppa? That can be done with some 4-6 floor corner lots/condos, etc in a small percentage of Portland.
As I mentioned, many neighborhoods are already close, and they only have car/bus/walking/bike as options. No toy trains, as you’re so fond of calling them.
Again, if 260 ppa is possible in Center City, why is 45 going to be so difficult?
Dave H: Would I be in the ball park if I guessed that those 100 units would be about 400 sqft of interior space each? Or smaller for the “+” of your 100+
His numbers were off, but a lot less than yours were. Tell me, why do we need twenty-six towers that are twenty-two floors each to achieve 45 ppa? That can be done with some 4-6 floor corner lots/condos, etc in a small percentage of Portland
JK: Ok, lets see YOUR numbers.
Thanks
JK
JK:“Lets see: 100′ x 100′ x 6 stories / 100 units = 600 sqft per unit, counting the halls, stairs, utility space, elevators as part to that 600 sqft.”
ws:I made a few errors in calculating actual units in a multi-unit building. I did overestimate, however, we both were using “square miles” for station communities and not calculating the actual area of a circle.
JK:Lets see: ½ mile dia = 3/4 sq mile = 480 acres = 16,320 more people.
Atwater is 212 units, so this is 38 towers (at 2 people per unit – people with children don’t generally stay in towers very long.) Admittedly that is slightly less than one tower per acre. An acre being about the size of a downtown Portland city block.
I think some of our math is off. Let’s work this problem out. I made some mistakes above, as noted.
Area of a circle:
1/2 mile =
diameter: 2,640 ft
radius: 1,320 ft
Area: Pi * (1320*1320) = 5,471,136 sq. feet
Area in Acres = Ans sq. feet / 43,560 = 125Acres in a .5 mile “circle”
Now for new population needed. Let’s assume the 11.4 ppa existing density in a neighborhood of that size (density = pop / area)
equation: x / 125 acres = 11.4 ppa
x = 1,425 existing neighborhood population
Now, if we want to reach target 45 ppa of that same 125 acre neighborhood:
equation: x / 125 acres = 45 ppa
x = 5,625 total population needed for 45 ppa
5,625 – 1,425 = 4,200 new people needed in that existing neighborhood to reach 45 ppa.
Btw, A 1 mile circle would have 502.65 Acres area.
JK: Ok, lets see YOUR numbers.
I’m figuring an acre as 43560 sqft, divided by 45, leaving each person 968 sqft. With all uniform single-floor buildings everyone in the 1/2 mile radius could have 968 sqft, minus stairs and common areas.
A few multi-floor condo/apartment buildings can handle much of the density increase in existing neighborhoods while still leaving most of the existing structures in place.
Dave H:
I am not aware of the density numbers that METRO is using, but there is a clear difference between “net” density and “gross” density. I am not sure if they are using “net” density, but they are probably using gross density.
Net density just calculates the land taken up by dwelling units.
Gross density calculate everything; space taken up by schools, parks, roads, commercial, etc.
Adding in these elements (gross) is going to decrease your density numbers reasonably. On one side of the issue, adding a park to a city can hurt density objectives, but not having a park in a city can hurt other urban goals. One can imagine the absurd net density Manhattan must have if it didn’t have Central Park. Even so, gross density is very high, probably averaging 25-30k people per mile.
I think it’s important to use both measures of density to get an accurate picture. However, if we’re forecasting for transit service and things of that nature, gross density is going to be the most accurate tool to use, imo.
This further has implications on Portland, too, considering the amount of parkland in the city (Forest Park is about 8 sq. miles, I believe).
Simply calculating population over land mass will not give a clear indication of its density – subtracting public amenities and un-buildable land (West Hills, etc.) will give a better idea of Portland’s actual density, rather than “paper” density.
This discussion happens to coincide with a (slightly sarcastic) posting of a photo on Matthew Yglesias’s blog over at ThinkProgress.
The photo depicts a street in Freiberg, which shows that you can have dense, walkable neighborhoods without exceedingly-tall condo towers (should a community decide not to have towers), and no shortage of families with children. And there’s still room for cars, too.
photo on Matthew Yglesias’s blog over at ThinkProgress.
JK: Walkable? Then tell us why the street is lined with cars?
BTW, ho many of those people REALLY dream of always living in those 5 story rabbit holes?
Thanks
JK
Walkable? Then tell us why the street is lined with cars?
Gee, I think I mentioned the cars.
In fact, _parked_ cars (as shown in the photo) can serve a valuable function of providing separation and protection to pedestrians. (Interestingly, the vehicular travel lane appears to be completely clear — so much for “density causes congestion”.)
I guess it bears repeating — “walkable” does not require, by any stretch, the elimination of cars (although a subset of specific car-free areas may be desirable).
Increasing walkability merely requires combining many of the elements we have today in different ratios.
BTW, ho many of those people REALLY dream of always living in those 5 story rabbit holes?
What rabbit holes? Are we looking at the same picture? I see charming, centuries-old housing built for people, by people. Not rabbits.
And those “rabbit holes” totally blow away your insistence that Metro is trying to force massive towers upon neighborhoods.
Thanks
You’re welcome.
This is a stylistic point, but in addition to your oft-repeated and tiresome “toy trains” rhetoric, the insistence of putting “thanks” right after dropping a disparaging remark is quite annoying. Please stop it.
Thanks.
JK:Walkable? Then tell us why the street is lined with cars?
ws:Why can’t a city be walkable with auto traffic too? I do not understand your logic. I like walkable places, but I also like auto-access in aforementioned places as well.
Both serve mobility purposes, but catering to one mode solely creates issues.
JK: BTW, ho many of those people REALLY dream of always living in those 5 story rabbit holes?
I can only guess, JK, that you’ve never actually been in one of those old European apartments – or even some of the early 20th century apartments here in town, scaled for families, likely with high ceilings and nice big rooms.
Your own prejudice in favor of houses really colors your understanding of urban life.
I am not aware of the density numbers that METRO is using, but there is a clear difference between “net” density and “gross” density.
I’m aware, but my point was more that if a one-block building can have fit 50 people in that footprint per floor, (which is easily possible) then building a 4 floor condo would up the density of the whole neighborhood to offset 3 blocks with no residences.
A few 4-6 floor buildings plus the existing structures should be enough to get many existing neighborhoods up to 45 ppa within a mile or half-mile of a transit stop without significantly rebuilding the entire neighborhood.
If someone wants to live in a more suburban area, there are plenty of those still drawn on the map. I don’t see a problem with clustering some density around HCT stops.
JK Wow, I sure screwed that up. Here is the, hopefully correct, calculation:
The map shows an orange an a yellow circle around [Moderator: Repetitive derisive characterization removed.] train stations. Metro code says ½ mile for 45 ppa (from a “current” 11 ppa per table 12)
Lets see: ½ mile dia = 1/4 x 1/4 x PI = PI/16.
PI/16 x 640 acre/sqmi = 125.66 acres
45 – 11.4 = 33.6 added people/acre
125.66 x 33.6 = 4222.3 people (per station)
16 stations x 4222.3 = 67,557 new people.
Say 40% take transit & 50% drive:
that is 33,780 more cars along that narrow corridor.
That is 27,022 people on the [Moderator: Repetitive derisive characterization removed.] train each morning and each evening.
27,000 / 164 per train = 165 trains full each morning.
At 3 minute headways (no room for other trains in downtown.) This is:
165 x 3/60 = 8.2 hours each morning and 8.2 hours each evening.
For a two hour saturation of the whole MAX system, there can only by 1/4 as many riders. Thus either the density or the transit goal is unattainable. Not to mention there being no plan to accommodate all those added cars.
Again, this is only a little hint at why I have no respect for planners. For more planner’s errors see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/smart/smartgrowthlies.html
To accommodate those people in clones of the Atwater: 4222 / (212 units x 2/unit) = 9.96.
What a relief, we only need to rip out ten square blocks of affordable single family homes and replace them with ugly, unaffordable, towers to accommodate Metro’s recommendation.
Thanks
JK
Bob R. Says: Quoting JK: “BTW, ho[w] many of those people REALLY dream of always living in those 5 story rabbit holes?”
What rabbit holes? Are we looking at the same picture? I see charming, centuries-old housing built for people, by people. Not rabbits.
JK: Do they have central heat & A/C? What is the cost? How many sqft? How well insulated? Modern wiring?
Bob R. Says: And those “rabbit holes” totally blow away your insistence that Metro is trying to force massive towers upon neighborhoods.
JK: Aw, come on. I just use towers because they are so “in” with Portland’s planner’s. See South Waterfront. See constant bragging by the endless emissaries from Vancouver BC. But mainly because I had a number of units handy from the fire sale page for the Atwater.
Give me a number of units and average size for a Pearl District Dream Condo Bunker & I’ll go with that, at least occasionally.
Those 5 story blocks don’t look much better than a tower (except they have better decorations.)
BTW, I finally reorganized DebunkingPortland.com – hopefully it is now easier to use. Also added some exciting new content like a page dedicated to transit NOT working any better in high density. Coming soon is proof that transit commute times average close to double driving and are NOT significantly longer for people living in the burbs.
Thanks
JK
(my standard signature, used for years of blogging, without regard to content of the message.)
Do they have central heat & A/C? What is the cost? How many sqft? How well insulated? Modern wiring?
Neither your nor I have the answers to those questions. But you leapt to the conclusion “rabbit hole” without any facts, not me. I didn’t know that in order for something to not be a “rabbit hole” by your standards it must have central A/C.
(sarcasm) The Germans are not known for their engineering prowess or their precision, so it is highly unlikely that any of these long-standing homes have ever been upgraded, or for that matter adequantely maintained. It’s a miracle that they’re still standing. (/sarcasm)
Pearl District Dream Condo Bunker
How can towers be bunkers, anyway? All the genuine bunkers I’ve visited thus far in my life have been underground.
my standard signature, used for years of blogging, without regard to content of the message (emphasis added)
That’s precisely the problem. Sort of like yelling at a neighbor through the fence and then saying “thank you” as you turn to leave, because it’s the polite thing to do — but in reality it only serves to annoy.
27,000 / 164 per train = 165 trains full each morning. At 3 minute headways (no room for other trains in downtown.)
Typical maximum capacity of a 2-car MAX train is 332-344, depending on the vehicle type, not 164.
Aside from the incorrect capacity figure, your numbers presume that A) by the time the population is that high, there will have been no expansion of MAX capacity through downtown, B) all commutes are into downtown rather than the opposite direction, and C) all the transit trips MUST be served by MAX. Buses also serve most major rail stations.
All you’ve done is show that in the long run, Metro’s goals are attainable and that tall towers in outer neighborhoods aren’t necessary.
Better do some more updating of your web sites.
JK“Give me a number of units and average size for a Pearl District Dream Condo Bunker & I’ll go with that, at least occasionally.”
ws:“The Gregory” downtown has 133 units and ground floor retail, and a large patio. It’s floor-area-ratio I would guess is ~7, though on one section of the building it’s 10 stories high.
Acres: .91
Units: 133
Population: 266 (at 2 ppl per unit)
Density: 292 ppa
Calculation for 1/2 mile transit community:
Acres: 125
7-8 story mid-rise buildings needed to reach 45 ppa in 11.4 existing neighborhoods: ~15
Acres of land needed for new buildings: ~13 acres
13 acres / 125 acres = 10.4% of total 1/2 mile zone needed for increased “density”. The rest of the 90% would not be drastically affected.
“Unfortunately the anti-growth crowd’s push for excessively low height limits in many areas leave developers with few options to maximize profits in those areas other than to build condo ‘bunkers.’”
I guess I would call myself “anti-growth” now, although I have supported the concept of residential towers, some sort of improved mass transit and healthful alternatives to cars for those who can make use of them.
Yet with more people we also get more “Rules.” It will not just mean more people in Portland, it will mean more people in recreational areas, more traffic at night and off hours, more traffic on the Interstates, more air traffic, more noise from construction projects. I think more crowding will also increase the likelihood of deadly accidents. I wouldn’t even think of living on the Columbia River these days with all the jets landing and taking off.
It used to be that Oregon was still on the “frontier,” there were not a lot of regulations of recreational areas, there were not a lot of fees, you could park overnight somewhere if you didn’t have money to stay inside, you didn’t have to pay parking fees if you were parking at a trailhead…… But a combination of abuse by wild and crazy people and I guess a perception by governmental leaders that more usage required more supervision and administration has changed all of that.
Lately, I have raised the issue of why we should even engage in public works projects that are outlandishly expensive, since the expenditure of more money will likely attract more people to work here and then live here. Maybe, I won’t even support more business expansion. I’m starting to feel like Archie Bunker.
ws Says:
7-8 story mid-rise buildings needed to reach 45 ppa in 11.4 existing neighborhoods: ~15
Acres of land needed for new buildings: ~13 acres
13 acres / 125 acres = 10.4% of total 1/2 mile zone needed for increased “density”. The rest of the 90% would not be drastically affected.
JK: Can I watch when you propose add 13 acres of 8 story monsters to the residents of those single family neighborhood. (It might go better if you propose ripping up 20% of the existing housing area for 4 story semi-monsters. Or maybe not.)
Thanks
JK
It might go better if you propose ripping up 20% of the existing housing area for 4 story semi-monsters.
Wait, now 4-stories is a “semi-monster”?
We’ve had 4-story residential buildings in Portland neighborhoods for over a century now.
My college housing in less-than-Portland-density Corvallis was 6 stories tall and was built over 50 years ago, well before I was born.
Didn’t know that there were so many monsters among us.
JK:Can I watch when you propose add 13 acres of 8 story monsters to the residents of those single family neighborhood. (It might go better if you propose ripping up 20% of the existing housing area for 4 story semi-monsters. Or maybe not.)
Thanks
JK
ws:I actually agree with you on this. Don’t underestimate the NIMBY neighbors. NIMBY neighbors are more powerful than environmental nuts + gov’t planners wrapped into one entity.
Though, there’s no ripping of any single family homes if done right. A parking lot alone can be huge, especially on the east side.