We had a conversation here last week that kicked off with a quote from Metro President David Bragdon and developed into a series of analogies about cars, roads and congestion.
This kind of stuff often gets us accused of car-bashing. So let me set the record straight. I like cars. My family of 3.5 drivers (0.5 = learner’s permit) has two of them. And while I hope to someday get down to one (and a Flexcar membership), I think they’re very fine things to have around. They enable incredible flexibility in mobility.
What I think is a problem is over-reliance on the automobile.
For the record, I also enjoy wine (in moderation).
So here’s my analogy:
Cars are to wine as over-reliance on the automobile is to drunkenness.
So where does congestion come into this? Congestion is a product of over-reliance, not unlike a hangover. If every ounce of fluid passing my lips was wine, I might expect some negative consequences. Similarly, if we build an environment where almost every trip is by car, we can expect negative consequences.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that we could get ourselves to the grocery store, or kids could get to school, without getting into a car.
I don’t think that’s car-bashing, I think it’s moderation.
21 responses to “Fine Wine and Car-bashing”
Traveling by elevator, and then a few blocks on foot, COULD replace the automobile as a mainstay of travel. My concern is: how do we get that type of housing to be affordable again? Much as I might be a proponent of “new urbanism” I just can’t afford the $1000/sq. ft. prices we’re headed to! If high rise housing has always been high priced, or needs to be, why is it that it was once an alternative for reirement living, even on union pensions? Why do some cities have quite cheap high rises (such as Winnipeg or Detroit) but here on the left coast it could cost several times more? Please, no answers from liberal or conservative theorists–realists only!
Ron, one possible (pragmatic) answer is market forces. What are the immigration rates to Winnipeg and Detroit? Possibly it’s just that more folks want to live here than there.
$500/sq ft. couldn’t exist if people didn’t want to live in those places. It’s not like these people HAVE to live in the Pearl because the UGB has so constrained the housing supply. They choose to.
But you didn’t tell me what you thought of my analogy :-(
Chris-
I love your analogy. Great job! Mind if I borrow it from time to time? :-)
As for the high cost of new urban development… how much is just profiteering by developers, i.e. “charging what the market will bear”?
I’d like to explore the concept of “charging what it costs to cover expenses plus make enough profit to make it worthwhile, and no more.” I think that there we have a long way to go still in this realm, and even though many people think, rightfully so, that Portland is a leader when it comes to this stuff, the training wheels really haven’t even come off yet. There’s so much more than can be done when it comes to true sustainable development, new mixed-use buildings that are affordable to families, profitable to developers, built using labor paid with livable wages, helpful to the environment, and a positive contribution to the community and the cityscape.
Transportation really is just one part of the equation. The rest of it is making sure that all of our communities provide as many amenities as possible within walking distance of housing that provides affordable options for all.
And don’t get me wrong, I think Portland is doing a good job so far… but it has not achieved perfection, and I think that in a decade, we’ll be doing a better job, and in 20 years, better yet.
Developers are simply maximizing their profits (land is expensive, too), and there are people willing to pay top dollar to live in nice places. Since a developer will likely pocket a certain percentage of however much those units sell for, they make more money if they sell for more.
What the Pearl develoeprs don’t seem to realize is that the market for ultra high end units is limited, and the market for middle-income housing is much larger. They do build middle-income condos and apartments out in Hillsboro, but they are in parking lot-style complexes, not an urban environment.
There are also lots of McMansions that cost from the low $400s up to the millions in the metro area. Those aren’t exactly affordable, either.
I think that as more and more of these high-rise, urban-form condos are successful, more and more lenders and investors will be willing to fund projects aimed at buyers closer to median income.
The question is, will there be sufficient land left in these new neighborhoods (the Pearl, South Waterfront) to have significant availability of middle-income complexes.
I think the fear of everything being high-end and having no room for the middle class is why officials have attempted to attach strings to tax breaks (with mixed success) for the inclusion of low and middle-income units in these developments.
– Bob R.
As an ex-BMW driver, I think of my glorious days behind the wheel of my hot little 1602 as a addiction. Like most addictions it started to drain my pocket book, but what really sealed its fate was when I said to myself..”driving this thing makes me feel so good! (about myself?)” or something to that effect. Wow, that’s a bit perverse that it takes several thousand pounds of German high precision steel, etc. to make me feel OK. And its almost as costly as junk! Like “what’s wrong with you?” Get a life!
So the BMW is gone, I have a lot more $ in my pocket, love the wind in my face that I get on my Specialzed Globe as well as the daily “bathing in the masses” that TriMet often dishes up. I guess I just finally grew up.
PS I now share a Forester with my wife.
re affordable housing…you better get in early.
All the neighborhoods I helped gentrify…Potrero Hill in SF, NW in Portland…were well beyond my means (that damn BMW!) by the time I was ready to buy. So you look where you can afford…further out in the border country beyond SE 39th!…and plunge in. Condos are now being built along transit corridors in SE, NE and N, but these are priced to what the market will bear. Why should a developer give up them up for less? Its a bit much to expect a new place at an affordable price, with the cost of construction, etc. So you go for a smaller place, in a less desirable neighborhood that needs some work and get to it.
The real key is good paying jobs…with that a lot of things become affordable, which makes the OHSU Tram a key project for Portland’s future.
But Portland is really neither congested or dense compared to most cities with lots of vacant or underused land all over the eastside. Getting around is effortless by whatever mode, and the streets & sidewalks are more empty than full. I’m always struck by the fact that the house I share with my wife is about the same size as the one I grew up in with 5 others. In effect the same house, but 1/3 the density!
Am I off subject or what?
Chris, I like your analogy, but I think a lot of skeptics come back with: well then what do you call congestion on transit? Over-reliance on transit? But I like it.
-Affordable housing
It’s simple supply and demand. A lot of people have said Portland’s skyrocketing land values are due to the Urban Growth Boundary. But if you look around the country the same thing is happening everywhere, except maybe Texas or Tennessee. All the way up and down both coasts land value is escalating. If you think Portland’s bad, just try looking for a house in San Diego! So it can’t be just because of the UGB.
The problem is that there is such an incredible shortage of *good* urban environments in this country that any new development will be very expensive. If you look at any of the New Urbanist “new towns” or neighborhoods they’re all way out of reach for most people. Most of them, like Orenco (Kentlands MD, Habersham SC, Westclay IN, etc.) started out semi-modestly priced but immediately skyrocketed when they opened up to the market. This also applies to infill developments in existing urban neighborhoods.
Along with this opening market is the fact that these New Urban developments are a new idea, as is modern high-rise living (not necessarily New Urban, or even *good* urban). Any time a new product comes out it is initially expensive, simply because it is new and hot. Give it time and when the supply catches up with the demand, things will start to normalize. (Just wait and that new HDTV will be more affordable). However, it will take a long time to catch up since for the past 50 years this country has been primarily building non-urban environments.
The challenge is what to do in the mean time. We have a real housing crisis now. The government can create subsidies and all other kinds of incentives to create affordable housing, (disclaimer: opinion) but this just screws with the market and might do more damage than it fixes.
At the risk of stretching my analogy to the breaking point: congestion on transit is a sign of the shakes that come at the beginning of detoxification – you’re very thirsty during the hangover.
Chris writes: “What I think is a problem is over-reliance on the automobile.”
For many of us there is no alternative. I have used mass transit in many of cities I lived in and rode a bicycle to work in Houston before it was “cool” to do so. If the government had no screwed the private providers of for hire transit many years ago, maybe the market would have developed differently.
There was an article in the Oregonian some time ago regarding the price of land in Multnomah Co. and environs. If I recall the numbers correctly an acre of agriculture went for about $20K and land that was approved for housing development went for about $400K. If correct that is a huge difference and is a good indicators as to why housing cost so much.
M.W.
Chris writes: “What I think is a problem is over-reliance on the automobile.”
For many of us there is no alternative. I have used mass transit in many of cities I lived in and rode a bicycle to work in Houston before it was “cool” to do so. If the government had no screwed the private providers of for hire transit many years ago, maybe the market would have developed differently.
There was an article in the Oregonian some time ago regarding the price of land in Multnomah Co. and environs. If I recall the numbers correctly an acre of agriculture went for about $20K and land that was approved for housing development went for about $400K. If correct that is a huge difference and is a good indicators as to why housing cost so much.
M.W.
If correct that is a huge difference and is a good indicators as to why housing cost so much.
Not really. The restrictions on development of agricultural land certainly reduces its value a little, but its not clear that is the major factor in the cost of land that is developable or in the difference between the two. Land within the UGB has all sorts for urban services attached to it that aren’t available for most agricultural land.
Housing values have been rising almost everywhere fed by low interest rates and speculation.It will be interesting to see what happens to Portland housing prices as the speculation starts to decline.
The challenge, which was not met with Interstate Max, is to figure out how to provide the benefits of rail transit to neighborhoods without driving the housing prices beyond the means of the people who live there. There needs to be a plan for preserving affordable housing integrated into any new rail expansion.
“Traveling by elevator, and then a few blocks on foot, COULD replace the automobile as a mainstay of travel. My concern is: how do we get that type of housing to be affordable again? Much as I might be a proponent of “new urbanism” I just can’t afford the $1000/sq. ft. prices we’re headed to!”
Urban lifestyles have NEVER been cheap and will NEVER be cheap. If you want urban, you better have money. It’s been that way since cities existed.
…and Chris… as for your analogy, that is perfect. You even add the class of wine to the association which is rather nice. In some states I would have used plain old beer. ;)
Great post.
The real key is good paying jobs…with that a lot of things become affordable, which makes the OHSU Tram a key project for Portland’s future.
I don’t see in what way the “linch-pin” Tram provides good paying jobs. I see it soaking up a ton of transportation infrastructure dollars –as will the east side Streetcar– while the City plaintively argues it can’t afford to stripe crosswalks.
As for your analogy, Chris, I like it. And I think its important to recognize the value in cars. Walking, however, is the Pinor Noir of Transportation –though thoroughly accessible to everyone– and one doesn’t drink it to get loaded.
As for what you suggest is the “temporary” mass-transit congestion…my Hawthorne bus line has been over-subscribed for 18+ years. That’s an awfully long hangover, and one brought on by Tri-Met’s contempt for its customers.
I did find two bottles of Cold Duck in the garage…..
Seriously, I think our congressional delegation should look into how to make high rise living affordable. If I could appropriate some of the transportation dollars they are good at cornering I would spend less on MAX, go to frequent streetcar, and then subsidize tall buildings to promote TOD. I have worked on many, many construction projects, including highrises and there just are not a lot of features that should drive the cost up, other than location and union labor. Many items that go into single family homes can be deleted in condos and the square footage is much less, too. People go for them because of the proximity to urban features and the view.
Suburbs of VAncouver BC have a lot of relatively affordable high rises.
Frank,
The Tram facilitates the expansion of the largest employer in the City, OHSU; which will bring more good jobs.
Ross,
You are a bit unfair to Interstate MAX…it is more the failure of the urban renewal area to get resources into the hands of residents fast enough. But this is a pretty complex, and without a good crime rate to discourage demographic change, its a tidal wave that no policy can stop. You hope to get as many as possible onto the wave.
Frank, I think walking is the sweet pure spring water of transportation. The perfect antidote to a car-induced hangover.
regarding the overcrowded 14 bus, why does trimet get some articulated buses? artics are a lot better and commonplace now than in those lemons trimet had in the 80s.
Lenny –
“You are a bit unfair to Interstate MAX” – I don’t think so. The idea was that much of the affordable housing in the area would be preserved as affordable. The cost of the MAX line ate up the money that would have done that. By the time any urban renewal money was available for housing it was too late. There needs to be a recognition that in addition to the money for MAX there needs to be early money to lock up housing and preserve it as affordable. If not, MAX is simply a tool for driving out low income residents. In essence, no matter what the initial character of the neighborhood it goes through it ends up serving an upper middle class community.
“his is a pretty complex”
I agree. Its easy in concept, much, much more difficult to do.
From a friend (not sure where he heard it)
“How many of you here think housing should be more affordable?” (almost all hands rise) “OK, now how many of those own your own home?’ (most of the same hands stay up) “OK. How many of you want the value of your own home to go down?” (lots of blank looks, and hands creeping down) “You see the problem?”
Jon wrote: “regarding the overcrowded 14 bus, why does trimet get some articulated buses? artics are a lot better and commonplace now than in those lemons trimet had in the 80s.”
Jon –
I had an informal discussion with a TriMet engineer once about the artics, and was told that besides the mechanical problems, they made operations on the transit mall difficult. Right now, 4 buses can easily queue up in one block at predictable stopping points. The artics made the spacing unpredictable.
New ADA requirements, among other things, mandate that the bus always stop in the same place, with the door lining up in the right place, and make an audible announcement in certain circumstances. When the transit mall rebuild is complete, all buses will operate in this manner, but TriMet is already shifting to this style of operation in practice.
Also, the queue style for the new mall will require a bus that has completed its boarding to pull one space forward so that a new bus can come in and board in exactly the same location. An artic pulling forward would not leave sufficient clearance behind it for the 2nd bus in line.
However, I want to be clear that I don’t know if that means the official TriMet position means there will be no more articulated buses, it was an informal chat.
I mentioned one idea in another thread… the city of Eugene is building a busway that will use special articulated buses that have boarding doors on both sides, just like a light rail car or streetcar. This means that left-side boarding is possible… it is conceivable that if the transit mall fills to capacity, the new auto-lane could be rededicated to buses… articulated buses travel up the left side of the street and board from the left without interfering with MAX and standard buses on the right. This would give a significant boost to capacity without requiring much construction or interfering with operations.
– Bob R.