That’s right, the mayor of Austin was on Smart City last week (MP3, 23.8M) talking about their success with compact development and energy conservation.
George Bush lived there while he was Governor, right?
That’s right, the mayor of Austin was on Smart City last week (MP3, 23.8M) talking about their success with compact development and energy conservation.
George Bush lived there while he was Governor, right?
19 responses to “Preaching Smart Growth … in Texas?”
Austin if one of the nicest places in Texas… and yeah, I think Bush did live there for a while.
But everyone should remember, Bush is NOT a Texan, he’s for the elite class from the north east just like his pappa.
Don’t get the two confused, Bush is a wimp/pansie/punk/piss ant compared to real Texans. Also Bush doesn’t have much to do with Texas’ real expansion going on right now.
I love austin, just visited there for the first time this year. Rode Capital Metro all over, pretty good bus system. Got us from the hotel way down on I-35 to rockin on 6th street in half an hour, and you can ride all day for a buck. They’re adding commuter rail to the suburbs, and BRT on some major arterials. There is some talk of a streetcar replacing one or more of the downtown ‘dillo’ free shuttle routes. The plan is at http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org
Certainly austin is much more of a smart growth town than San Antonio. The economy there is booming, but it seemed to be based entirely on tilting up huge big box developments on the outer loop highway.
“””Certainly austin is much more of a smart growth town than San Antonio. The economy there is booming, but it seemed to be based entirely on tilting up huge big box developments on the outer loop highway.”””
Like the big boxes being tilted up out at “smart growth” Cascade Station?
Steve –
I am prepared to say that I am disappointed that Cascade Station is not a new-urbanist success story, but I am not prepared to lay the blame in any particular place right now. There are just too many factors involved in the development area, from Sept. 11th, to being surrounded by freeways and major arterials and low-density light industrial/warehouse, etc.
It may indeed be that big-box (or really, in this case, medium-box) is the correct format for that area.
However, it should be pointed out that although planners are often accused of being strict and unyielding to market forces, they did indeed change the plans for the area to allow this form of development.
– Bob R.
One of the more interesting votes I cast while sitting on TPAC was in favor of planning the freeway off-ramp improvement that was one of the pieces in the deal to get IKEA into Cascade Station. A lot of my smart-growth friends weren’t very happy with me.
But clearly the market wants some amount of big-box format – probably better to have IKEA at Cascade Station than having folks making the trek to Seattle, both from a VMT point of view and a local economy point of view. We might as well put it somewhere that people have choices about the mode they use to reach it.
Bob and Chris
You are of course soft peddling the outcome out at Cascade Station being exact opposite to what the massive public investment was to bring.
It’s clear that the reason you choose not to “lay the blame in any particular place” is because you want the entire identical agenda which misappropriated the investment to continue.
“””too many factors involved in the development area
, from Sept. 11th, to being surrounded by freeways and major arterials and low-density light industrial/warehouse, etc.””””
Other than 911 all those circumstances existed during the push for Airport MAX and CS.
And the push was made in opposition to public vote and with promises of this new mini-city.
The problem is the hype and promise were concocted with the scheme to move forward including many plays which liberals despise such as huge no bid contracts for Bechtel.
It’s not just the plan that makes Cascade Station a failure. It’s the shady deals and commitments our public agencies made to make it happen.
Deals which continue to be covered up.
“””medium-box”””?
Nice spin.
and big box or medium box was the correct format for that area when it was being promoted as mixed use.
TriMet, Metro, the Port and PDC conspired and misrepresented to make it all happen.
Planners and public officials were indeed “strict and unyielding to market forces”, only relenting in the face of complete and total failure when faced with no other choice.
Not only that they still don’t admit doing anything wrong. So much so that Fred Hansen claims light rail helped attract the big boxes. r
It’s dishonesty as an accepted tool.
And they continue to hide the real costs and long term loss of public interests.
The freeway off ramp was there. It would have needed updated as Airport way grew.
However any off ramp, even the previous one, made the area good for Ikea and Costco.
All this about Cascade Station does not stand alone either. In the context of other monumental failures such as the Beaverton Round and lesser
TOD failures it’s an ongoing problem of bad planning or lack of planning.
Now Beaverton has a seven story parking structure in the Round because that development also turned out to be more auto oriented than transit oriented. Half the housing units have been canceled with routine office and commercial uses added instead.
Yet no recognition of failure there either.
In fact Metro just handed over $2 million more to help Beaverton buy the old Westgate Theater in order to continue the development approach as if it’s all swell. At the same time Metro claims that have no money for planning the sitting idle, years old UGB expansions and now need a new fee.
The Downtown Hillsboro TOD has canceled market rate housing and changed the site to a parking garage.
Gresham Station is trying to get something built in the remaining parcels next to MAX and Metro is about to give away their two parcels to make something anything happen.
The total lack of impartial analysis of past investments with the continued push for more of the same is maleficence which you appear to go out of your way to condone.
As if there is no alternative that makes any sense.
There’s a big spacious gap between this bad planning status quo and the rampant no-zoning unplanned sprawl you clamor about avoiding.
South Waterfront is the ultimate demonstration of no learning curve in this region. That massive public expenditure perpetrated on the concocted and dishonest notion that there was and is no other choice is a corrupted process incapable of any fiduciary responsibility or genuine representation of the public’s interests. From so many angles it’s staggering.
Yet all is forgiven because in theory it is preventing sprawl?
The mental gymnastics used to justify the new Transit Mall signals a true crescendo of insanity as pointed out by many who have studied that plan.
Next stop the Convention Center Hotel.
On another note.
I have been to San Antonio many times.
Very similar size of region and they took an entirely different approach over the last 30 years.
The approach you and yours claimed would lead to destruction and low livability.
There again you are entirely wrong.
San Antonio is enjoying very high livability region wide, a transportation system (w/transit) that works region wide, housing affordability region wide and an economy that is in steady and stable growth.
That’s exactly what the Portland region could would have resulted in had we not veered off on this crazy path. Not the ugly picture you painted and paint as the only other alternative and outcome.
You don’t read any of their planners calling their system chaos as Mike Burton did in 2000.
But here we continue with the same 2000 approach Burton observed as if we simple don’t have enough of it.
Got chaos? Get more.
Steve Schopp wrote:
It’s clear that the reason you choose not to “lay the blame in any particular place” is because you want the entire identical agenda which misappropriated the investment to continue.
Are you a mind reader now? You not only know what I want in this instance, but all future instances? That’s pretty impressive. Incidentally, you’re wrong.
We could have a serious discussion about these issues, but in this forum and others, you have consistently lowered the civility of the debate by resorting to personal attacks and innuendo, shouting people down (such as when you told me to “shut up” over on Commissioner Sam’s blog), and now by claiming to know my state of mind and that I wish for an agenda of misappropriation to continue.
People most certainly have a right to criticise these developments, none are total successes (although Orenco comes close), and questionable politics have played a role, in my opinion. But rather than having a serious, fact-based discussion about that, you instead resort to the tactics of insult and derision.
– Bob R.
“”””People most certainly have a right to criticise these developments, none are total successes (although Orenco comes close),””””
Successfull what?
In reality it’s just another auto oriented rat race and a bunch of stuff crammed together. Big deal. But since MAX runs through it it’s a success.
“””Rather than having a serious, fact-based discussion about that, you instead resort to the tactics of insult and derision.”””
Typical.
Don’t yoy have any other song to sing?
And you only deal in facts?
Your methods, agenda and policies you support are worse that the “insult and derision” you percieve.
And every time your camp is faced with harsh criticism you play this you’re nice I’m not baloney and avoid ALL of the most egregious outcomes and complaints like the plague.
And you just can’t imagine how anyone could be insulted or angered by anything you say or advocate.
There are countless people out here who find your
approach very insulting. If you want to pretend otherwise or act like they must be all uniformed and never “attended any hearings” that’s your choice.
To bad there are so few public votes on these major public investments any more.
That’s one of the most insulting plays your side
enjoys.
You have no interest in public persuasion when your totalitarian approach works so well around here.
Excessive drawn out discussions so I can get Metro’s boiler plate all over again don’t provide much.
I simply am injecting the rest of the story at times so people can read it.
Knowing full well your automatic pilot will disregard it and play your favorite that’s mean song.
I rest my case.
Steve–are you for real?!?
Steve is real… he was once a serious contender for Metro Council and took in a fair number of votes. That’s part of the reason I take great issue with his style of discourse.
– Bob R.
nathan Says:
“Steve–are you for real?!?”
What is it you are asking?
Yes, I am and there are plenty of people out here looking at what’s going on around here with anger.
Bob R. Says:
“Steve is real… he was once a serious contender for Metro Council and took in a fair number of votes”
Now Bob speaks for me?
“Fair number”? It was 50.5 to 49.5%
And it took your total entrenched regime with all of your newspapers, and being outspent 5 to 1 by the incumbent to eek out a victory.
That should tell you how many “for real” people are out there.
Of course they don’t get to vote on more light rail. Just the way you like it.
And somehow talking about Austin has become a bash-a-thon for Metro… any platform in a storm, eh?
If you don’t like what’s happening, Steve, blame the voters. Because the voters are continually electing representatives who support light rail.
Steve Schopp wrote: “Fair number”? It was 50.5 to 49.5%
That’s great. I didn’t recall the exact figure. Congratulations.
And it took your total entrenched regime with all of your newspapers, and being outspent 5 to 1 by the incumbent to eek out a victory.
Steve, although I’ve told you this before, I think it bears repeating. I’ll itemize my points this time:
1. I am not a member of any “regime”.
2. I do not work for any government and I do not work in the transit industry.
3. I do not own or control any newspapers.
One of the reason I support public financing of campaigns is to establish a balance of funding between candidates, so that campaigns can focus on issues and not on fund-raising.
In this most recent primary, voters had an excellent opportunity to toss out officials who supported the tram. There were well-financed opposing candidates, lots of press coverage, lots of radio ads and mailings, and the tram-supporters survived.
There is, of course, the power of incumbency, but that may not have been much of a factor in this election — just look at the severe electoral trouncing that Diane Linn received, for example.
Of course they don’t get to vote on more light rail. Just the way you like it.
Once again you are casting aspersions on me by pretending to read my mind.
You also have neglected to notice that right here, on this very web site, a brainstorming discussion was started on what transportation improvements could or should be included in a public vote on a hypothetical transportation package. And, in that discussion, it was _me_ who suggested that it be expanded to include road projects and improvements to bottlenecks in our highway system.
You have consistently painted your opponents as monolithic, as being part of a “camp”, or a “regime”, and as being against public participation, despite evidence to the contrary being given to you time and time again.
You should also notice that there are a number of people who post here and comment here that disagree, and are able to carry on a civil conversation:
Jim Howell and AORTA oppose light rail on the transit mall, and have been given the opportunity to post in detail about their reasoning, and I have engaged in that conversation even though I am in favor of light rail on the transit mall.
Others here oppose light rail in favor of streetcar for some corridors, others believe BRT is what should be considered, others favor trolleybus over streetcar. Views are mixed on that hot-button issue, the Tram. Adron advocates for a free-market approach. And yet, these people seem to get along most of the time without making declarations of nefarious intent about their opponents.
– Bob R.
“””1. I am not a member of any “regime”.”””
Give me a break. Of course you are.
You’re the perfect example of the mission creep Metro/TriMet/Port/PDC cabal that has all of our newspapers blocking the way for any non cabal members.
They can’t even tell the truth about TIF. One of the big funny money tools.
Evan said,
“””If you don’t like what’s happening, Steve, blame the voters. Because the voters are continually electing representatives who support light rail”””.
The voters? All 17% who voted your way Tuesday?
The voters never even get a full presentation of what the incumbents are or do while the challengers get skewered by the editorial pages.
The newspaper puff pieces written from agency press releases masquerading as stories around election time makes it a full court press.
It’s hide away the agenda every cycle and the newspapers help them at every printing.
The lone exception was Linn who took a severe election beating because the press actually reporter her activities.
What about this latest election?
Wow a whopping 17% of the electorate reelected Sten, Saltzman and others.
If the press would have reported the reality of what they have been doing with UR, TIF and SoWa
they would get beaten as well.
I’ve not once seen in the press the $288 million in TIF planned to be spent in SoWa. While plenty ot Tram stories came out they sure dried up weeks before the election. All along there was also 8 editorials in the O hyping the Tram and the commissioners.
Did it ever occur to you that a big chunk of the electorate are sick of the status quo and are turned off and figure why bother voting?
Or why Bragdon, Newman and others had no opponent?
“”””You have consistently painted your opponents as monolithic, as being part of a “camp,” or a “regime”, and as being against public participation, despite evidence to the contrary being given to you time and time again.”””
Oh please Bob the evidence you talk about is superficial. You are part of a cabal.
Yeah you’re all for public participation as long as it’s dominated by you and without public votes. Or orchestrated as the local agencies do so well (as with the SoWa URAC). What a show that has been. The PDC won’t even provide a genuine budget spread sheet to work off of.
PDC staff just puts the things on a spread sheet that fits the agenda of the day and leaves off everything else.
SoWa Urban Renewal Advisory Committee members ask about the many missing numbers, get nothing but blank faces or “we’ll get back to you”
And then later in reports to the PDC Commissioners and Council the PDC states that the URAC worked on the budget with the PDC for months.
They (URAC) never even got a real one in the first place, and when they do get something the PDC calls a “budget” it’s usually handed to them on the way into a meeting without any time to study it. A few moments of discussion and wham the “public involvement” is done and commissioners think it was studied and OK’d by citizens.
That MO is common place around here. Especially when TIF is involved.
Jim Howell’s opposition to light rail on the Mall merely bolsters the insanity of the Mall plan but says noting which makes him a non regime guy.
He’s a big rail fan but not on this mall plan.
That’s how insane things have gotten. The mall will go forward even
when light rail advocates know it to be crazy.
But he’s a member too just like you.
It’s totalitarianism justified by the attitude that since you are the ones who pack the hearings meetings and committees you deserve to get your way.
I read a discussion along those lines right here. The heck with the public you do all the work. Right?
Along with the agencies being dominated by like minded anti-car planning advocates the rest is history.
“””And yet, these people seem to get along most of the time without making declarations of nefarious intent about their opponents.””””
Are you kidding?
You rarley have any opponents here to speak of.
At BlueOregon every declaration of nefarious intent imaginable is the used against “opponents” (republicans).
Frankly, if I were to repeat verbatim much of what I hear about the local planning agenda around here from folks from all walks of life you’de be complaining that I made it up and I would get kicked off this site.
But you can rest your case while never having made one.
I’m going to keep reminding everyone of the rule: we talk about issues and ideas here: not the people who participate. EVERYONE please keep that in mind, or some people are going to get to take a few days off.
In light of Chris’s reminder, above, I will reply to Steve entirely based on the assertions made in his statements and ignore the accusations he’s made about me.
You’re the perfect example of the mission creep Metro/TriMet/Port/PDC cabal that has all of our newspapers blocking the way for any non cabal members.
I don’t recall the Portland Tribune as being too friendly to TriMet, especially the transit mall project, and I do recall them printing a number of articles critical of the tram. Does the Tribune count as one of the “all” of our newspapers?
The voters? All 17% who voted your way Tuesday?
Yes, those voters. The ones who cared enough to mark and mail a ballot. Not the non-voting voters. Just the voting voters.
The voters never even get a full presentation of what the incumbents are or do while the challengers get skewered by the editorial pages.
It is my understanding that every registered voter is supposed to be mailed a ballot and a voters pamphlet, and that in that voters pamplhet are complete statements issued by the candidates.
How many people read the editorial pages anymore, compared to listening to Lars Larson or reading blogs? Just curious.
I know that at my residence I received a number of mailings that had an anti-Tram focus, and I heard a number of radio ads bashing the incumbents over various mishandlings of their job functions. The ads against Eric Sten were particularly hard hitting. (I’m not commenting one way or another about accuracy, I’m speaking just to the point of messages reaching the voters.)
The lone exception was Linn who took a severe election beating because the press actually reporter her activities.
Are you saying that the press never wrote about the Water Bureau billing system problems? Did the press not write about the PGE buyout proposals? I know that PGE has been running a lot of PR ads lately.
Wow a whopping 17% of the electorate reelected Sten, Saltzman and others.
A wise schoolteacher once told me that voting gives one a certified right to complain about the outcome of an election.
I don’t know what to say about the percentage of the elctorate who chose not to vote this time around. What do you suppose would motivate greater turnout in primaries?
I’ve not once seen in the press the $288 million in TIF planned to be spent in SoWa. While plenty ot Tram stories came out they sure dried up weeks before the election. All along there was also 8 editorials in the O hyping the Tram and the commissioners.
Well, here is a long story on South Waterfront financing that ran in Sunday’s oregonian on Sunday, May 14th, 2 days before the election, which includes a number of quotes from critics:
Oregonian Article on South Waterfront
…And here is an Oregonian article from April 27th about Amanda Fritz and her reasons for opposing the tram:
Oregonian article on Amanda Fritz
Also, you might want to check out the reader letters the Portland Tribune ran on the editor pages on May 9th and May 12th, there are some anti-Tram and anti-LR-on-mall views expressed there:
Portland Tribune Letters, May 9th
Portland Tribune Letters, May 12th
Did it ever occur to you that a big chunk of the electorate are sick of the status quo and are turned off and figure why bother voting?
Yes, it has occurred to me. That’s one reason (as I mentioned above) that I support public financing of campaigns. It helps less the advantages of incumbency and opens the process up to a wider variety of voices.
Or why Bragdon, Newman and others had no opponent?
I think a general lack of candidates is a problem… there should be a variety of strategies and viewpoints heard in any election. There are significant barriers to entry in an election… you have to have the money and/or time, the ability to set aside a career, time with family etc. Again, this is why I think public financing of campaigns is a key factor.
It’s totalitarianism justified by the attitude that since you are the ones who pack the hearings meetings and committees you deserve to get your way.
I read a discussion along those lines right here. The heck with the public you do all the work. Right?
I would love to see a link to this discussion and see who said “the heck with the public”, or where someone spoke in favor of “packing” hearings. Got a link?
At BlueOregon every declaration of nefarious intent imaginable is the used against “opponents” (republicans).
I was speaking about discussions here on this web site and at Commissioner Sam’s site. I would imagine that on Blue Oregon, a blog for democrats, that there would be a number of unkind things said of Republicans. I’ve done some surfing of Republican blogs, and they are definitely not shy about bashing Democrats.
From what I understand, Portland Transport is non-partisan, and of course Commissioner Sam represents the people of Portland in a non-partisan office. Different standards of discourse would naturally apply in these forums.
– Bob R.
probably better to have IKEA at Cascade Station than having folks making the trek to Seattle
Chris –
I think this points to the fundamental problem with believing that you can plan land usese to mitigate the natural results of transportation decisions. As with the New Seasons on Interstate or the outlet Malls in Woodburn, politics overwhelmed planning when there was immediate development potential. The argument “its better than nothing” is both true and overwhelming to politicians.
The land at Cascade station was originally there to provide land for economic development that would make use of the airport. It was then used to pay for light rail with the promise that would attract transit oriented development. Now its becoming a traffic congestion generator between I-205 and the airport – potentially damaging the attractiveness of the region for any business for whom airport access is important.
There is a wide disparity between theory and practice that needs to be realistically assessed when making transportation decisions. There needs to be a recognition that it is the opportunities you provide that determine the outomes. The opportunities taken will be the ones that are economically most attractive regardless of whether they fit into some master plan or fits some urban design theory.