Happily, and somewhat surprisingly, last night Portland City Council upheld the appeal of the Northwest Distract Association and denied design approval of the Irving Street parking structure (the Historic Landmarks Commission had previously granted approval to the design).
The issue came down to safety. Commissioner Sam Adams, making the motion to sustain the appeal, cited the conflict between cars entering the structure and the heavy volume of pedestrians in the area.
Adams was joined by the Mayor and Commissioner Sten. The Mayor in particular cited safety as being the factor that decided his view.
So we have parking policy in NW decided again on a 3-2 vote. Will this hold up? WIll the applicants come back to the table to try to negotiate a solution with broader support? Or with they just go to LUBA and continue the “parking wars” to another battle?
20 responses to “This Parking Round Goes to the Neighborhood”
As an owner of property on NW 23rd and someone who has more then a vested interest in sustaining this vision of people like my father and Dr. Singer and now his son, let me tell you this was a mistake to prevent the building of this park facility.
The vitiality of this district has been good for Portland and its ability to re-invent its self will require more parking and when private investors step to the table with positive plans and for the City to say NO is a step backwards.
Ya see though Paul, and all. Safety or no safety, it’s bad economics. You guys want more people to park there (as do I) to come to the businesses. Well putting a parking garage there isn’t going to help all that much at all.
If you want to increase turnover of spots, and get more throughput in the stores, and thus increase profits, get parking meters put up! I do agree that if you own the land you should be aloud to put the parking structure there if you’d like, BUT, I disagree that adding to the auto traffic and blight of the area is going to help.
If you REALLY want some business close the street, make it an open fair area, run a single track Streetcar down the middle, and call it a day. Hell, better yet, move Saturday Market to the area! Then you’ll have a MASSIVE increase in foot traffic to increase those profits. I’ve seen it work VERY well in other cities such as Memphis (one of the only positive things about the city), New Orleans, New York, and if I recall correctly Alexandria, VA. I’m sure there are more.
Keep Portland weird, don’t litter it will wanna be parking structures.
btw Chris – Good job and all in working toward keeping the garage out.
I disagree with the methods sometimes (subsidies, emminent domain, telling others what to do with their property) in this area, but in this situation you go with what ya get, when the results are in yer favor a beer might as well be had!
To Paul’s point, I want to be clear that while parking structures are not my favorite solution, I actually supported five potential parking structure sites during the process that led up to the 3-2 vote in 2003. I did not support this site because it has the location-specific problems that Council discussed last night, and because it destroys any possibility of a consensus solution in the neighborhood.
I would love us to get to a consensus solution that could get a 5-0 Council vote. I believe we could have done that in 2003 if this structure location had been taken off the table.
leave the parking first come first served, as it is in over 90% of other parking systems, best reason, is free..
More parking = more motor vehicles on an already crowded local street, not necessarily more customers. Get the Streetcar up Burnside; then maybe link it to the Lovejoy/Northrup line. Just like with the CRC, we have to transition from auto dependent living to multi-modal living, and NWDA should be the show case for the latter. Congrats to NWDA, Chris, Sam, Eric and the Mayor for “walking the talk”.
Having both lived and gone to school in NW Portland for many years, and having put a lot of thought into this subject, I think that the Streetcar definitely needs to be considered. As Adron suggested, a single-track line down NW 23rd is part of the solution.
The other part of the solution is to complete the loop: Run the other single track back up NW 21st. This line could then, as per Sam Adams proposal, continue on to make the Burnside/Couch couplet loop.
If there are to be more parking garages, fine. Put ’em down by Freightliner and the industrial area, where they’re not going to ruin any aspect of neighborhood life, but people could easily park & ride the streetcar to get back into the n’hood.
Or, rebuild Freddy’s to accommodate more parking.
Or, put a parking structure behind the Uptown.
And let the hospital structure be used for neighborhood purposes during non-peak hours. It’s already there.
But yeah, I agree with Chris — no need to tear down housing stock and create safety problems just for more parking, IMHO.
I’m fairly new to the area, so excuse the ignorance, but has closing 21st/23rd to cars ever been seriously discussed? They’re really not useful as through streets anyway, 18th and 19th accomplish that pretty well. As Adron suggested, making the streets ped only with a single streetcar track down the middle would do great things for the shopping atmosphere. It’d turn the streets into true outdoor malls. Of course, doing so would remove a significant amount of on-street parking and push those parked cars further into the neighborhood, but a better permit system could be implemented to help with that. And maybe some garages could be built somewhere along the streetcar line but out of the main hub of pedestrian activity. Then the safety/aesthetic issues of the garage would be solved.
The streetcar could continue south on 23rd, go left on Everett, then head back to the north on 21st to rejoin the current line.
Pearl Street in downtown Boulder, CO is a great example through auto road being converted to pedestrian/retail use. The cross streets are still open, but a 4 block stretch of Pearl Street itself is completely closed and landscaped. It’s certainly one of the nicest stretches in town, and I don’t think businesses there have any trouble. Here’s a link to a photo from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Boulder.jpg
Sorry that this is only tangentially related to the parking garage issue.
Doug-
For whatever reason, I don’t know that this subject has ever really been seriously considered (serious = consultants, money, studies, plans, the like). I know that merchants are gun-shy about closing streets to car traffic, based on the results in Eugene, where the pedestrian mall had to be re-opened to car traffic in some spots due to really lousy business.
I think that a streetcar loop on NW 21st & 23rd, possible including converting them to a one-way street couplet, might be a good start. Then, perhaps closing one or the other to cars on, say, Sundays might be another good step, just to test out the theory. Or, as a part of the Streetcar project, turning them into curbless Festival streets… though, in fact, even the curbs of those streets are historic, what with the iron horse rings embedded in them and all.
I’d say, the streetcar couplet should be the goal, and whatever compromises are necessary in terms of urban/street design to appease the merchants, within reason — well, it is their street and where they make their living, so it should be up to them and the nearby residents, for the most part.
I go to 23rd quite often, and I have never had much trouble finding parking. Sometimes I have to go all the way to 24th or 22nd, use a side street, or go north of Lovejoy but I really don’t see what the problem is. The business turnover rate seems to be very low as well. And if they put a garage on Irving, they will also need to install a light at 23rd and Irving…it’s nearly impossible to make a left there during peak times already.
So Leonard and Saltzman were for it?
For shame, for shame. And these are some of the guys who keep touting power to the neighborhoods and so on. They just lost some serious points in my book.
Currently one of the worst aspects of downtown Portland is the blight caused by all the above-ground parking structures. If anyone disagrees with me, try walking by PSU’s Parking Structure 1 or 2 sometime. It’s perhaps the most horrid looking building on the entire West Coast of N OR S America.
There has been some mention months ago on this blog about the Dutch Woonerf and pedestrian facilities they build into their streets. Perhaps 21st/23rd could be Portland’s first experiment into formalizing what has already developed organically? Since most of the residents in the neighborhood don’t drive to use businesses on these streets, and most of the tourists who go there for the shopping/entertainment are also looking for an alternative environment from the auto-dominated suburbs, why not take it hte next step?
There is already an extremely heavy amount of pedestrian traffic, parallel parking and auto traffic like you would find in a typical European city, why not take it the next level and make it safer for pedestrians – either get rid of the cars, get rid of the curbs and turn it into a woonerf, switch the curbs for bollards, or further restrict their speed. It’s worth some thought at least (and I’m not saying I know what the best design would be either).
And Garlynn: I completely agree with you.
As an owner of property on NW 23rd, I have not been against Streetcars and in fact encourage them. I personally would like to see the Streetcar loop south on 23rd and connect back up to one of the options. It would be successful and good for the City but that is another subject.
Ridership of all of the bus routes in NW show that most anything that is done will work. I have always been amazed at these bus routes and the high number of people who live in the neighborhood who just do not need cars and that is good.
But the majority of the people that spend most of the money in the shops and businesses along 23rd and keep them alive come to NW 23rd via auto.
The mix of people coming from very high density housing and the businesses makes this a show case district. I have 10-off street parking spots with my property and have evaluated how they are used and my commercal renters, save these spots primarily for customers and sales agents that come and go with customers. Without parking my renters could go to other places at lower rent in the city, but I am north of Lovejoy and it is different to the south of Lovejoy.
Most businesses have done some demographics of their customers and know the value of parking.
But it is these outsiders that like the feel of NW 21st and 23rd and its street life and come for the coffee shops and bars and restaurants make it what it is.
The stalemate along NW 23rd only demonstrates how out of touch with reality the City’s building codes are. Without requiring adequate parking for new commercial and residential construction as infill occurs and density increases, this same kind of scenario face off will eventually play out in many other neighborhoods. Until the self proclaimed social engineers that attempt to force the public to use alternative modes of transport see the light, and support more parking and updated building codes, congestion in such neighborhoods will just continue to get worse.
This is not to say the specific parcel of property in question is an appropriate location for a parking structure that would serve NW 23rd businesses. However, what is needed along NW 23rd is more parking, somewhere – not metered parking or a parking management system. Providing on-street parking permits for residents that do not have off-street parking is simply hypocrisy, and again only demonstrates the collision course created with Portland’s obsolete building codes that do not specifically require parking attached with new development. The streets are public places. Giving Northwest District residents preferential parking dispensations violates the special privileges and immunities clause in the Oregon Constitution.
The stalemate along NW 23rd only demonstrates how out of touch with reality the City’s building codes are. Without requiring adequate parking for new commercial and residential construction as infill occurs and density increases, this same kind of scenario face off will eventually play out in many other neighborhoods. Until the self proclaimed social engineers that attempt to force the public to use alternative modes of transport see the light, and support more parking and updated building codes, congestion in such neighborhoods will just continue to get worse.
This is not to say the specific parcel of property in question is an appropriate location for a parking structure that would serve NW 23rd businesses. However, what is needed along NW 23rd is more parking, somewhere – not metered parking or a parking management system. Providing on-street parking permits for residents that do not have off-street parking is simply hypocrisy, and again only demonstrates the collision course created with Portland’s obsolete building codes that do not specifically require parking attached with new development. The streets are public places. Giving Northwest District residents preferential parking dispensations violates the special privileges and immunities clause in the Oregon Constitution.
“Without requiring adequate parking for new commercial and residential construction as infill occurs and density increases, this same kind of scenario face off will eventually play out in many other neighborhoods. Until the self proclaimed social engineers that attempt to force the public to use alternative modes of transport see the light”
Terry,
can i just get this straight?
“requiring adequate parking” is not the use of force or “social engineering”, but “requiring support for alternate modes of transport” is the use of force and “social engineering”???
i used to think your arguments came from a sort of freeway libertarianism, but now it is clear that you simply want to mandate automobile dominance.
Where there is excess demand for limited supply, introducing a fee seems obvious. Isn’t that how most things work? Why not curbside parking?
And tearing down affordable housing for auto storage is the last thing we need in Portland.
Bill-
Yeah, “festival street”, in my book, pretty much = “woonerf.” Which is why I brought up the bit about even the curbs being historic. As I understand it, festival streets/woonerfs do away with the curbs, to make a transitionless surface from sidewalk to roadway. My point is that, since the curbs themselves are a part of the character of the streets, there needs to be some soul-searching as to whether just doing away with them really is the best solution. Maybe leaving them could also be considered.
Anyways, streetcars and street closings need to be considered. Even if the street is only closed one day a week, it would be useful to study what effect, negative or positive, that might have on business.
And, as Paul Edgar suggests, a weekend day might conflict less with regular business operations.
Finally, I strongly advocate thinking of this not as just NW 23rd’s problem. The streetcar should loop back on NW 21st, because both of those streets could benefit from the same set of solutions, since they basically only experience various degrees of the same set of problems. And acknowledging that people will continue to drive to NW Portland, the streetcar is part of the solution by making it easier for folks to park once but spend often (shop, eat, drink, watch movie, etc.).
Saturday would be a great day to close 23rd or 21st – considering all the drunk drivers careening about the neighborhood at 35 mph in their SUV’s, it’d be perfect! Plus any idiots dumb enough to drive in a ped-only area could help fund the portland police department. =)
It could become the one-day-a-week grassroots shopping street like you see all over every other country in the world.
I would think that if a parking structure is built in the neighborhood it should be one fairly large garage instead of many tiny garages everywhere.
I don’t have a problem reasonably catering to the automobile on the un-auto-friendly NW 23rd Ave., but lets face it businesses and shoppers are and have been drawn to NW 23rd for decades knowing well what the conditions were when they could have easily shopped or opened their business in the suburbs with abundant parking.
They know parking is a negative on 23rd but along with it comes a great intimate and urban shopping area. You cant have your cake and eat it too. Maybe parking is a little bit of a hassle but 23rd is a strong enough draw that people still flock to it to shop and open businesses despite negatives like difficult parking and a historic district that is cautious to new construction.
^
Make that perceived negatives
I happen to strongly support historic districts
It rarely fails to amuse me how the NYMBY syndrome of the anti-auto people can bad mouth the needs of motorists, or want to raise taxes and fees on motorists; while at the same time not be willing to rally round paying taxes and fees to finance their own way for the alternative form of transport they choose to use. It seems these vocalists always have both hands completely stretched out to collect welfare subsidies from somebody else, including from the taxes and fees motorists already pay. How duplicitous an attitude; biting the hand that feeds them. This way of behavior yet demonstrates another good reason to establish a bicycle tax and have transit fares better reflect the costs of providing the service.