Update: 7/20/07
Almost two years ago I asked the question: what happens when a center may be coming into existence where we didn’t plan one.
Now the Oregonian reports on discussion among some Metro Council members about just that question, about that same center.
Original Post: 7/26/05
Metro President David Bragdon has been spending the last couple of years pointing out in his State of the Region addresses and elsewhere that the Urban Growth Boundary has preserved farm and forest land, but by itself hasn’t driven the development of the regional and town centers in the 2040 plan. Instead, Bragdon tells us that strategic investment will be required to make these centers happen.
The Regional Transportation Plan and MTIP processes already direct transportation investments toward centers.
Here are some other ideas I’ve heard for investments that could help drive centers:
– Bike Lanes
– Streetcars
– WiFi Clouds
I’d like to hear more ideas for what kind of investments would drive centers to coalesce, but that’s not today’s main question.
What do we do when a Center comes into existence where we didn’t plan it? The question is prompted by recent coverage in the Oregonian about Bridgeport Village and new developments likely to rise up next to it.
Is this a new center coming into existence? Certainly Metro didn’t plan for it. Lake Oswego even got into an argument with the developer about whether it detracted from LO’s town center in downtown.
There’s a small transit center across the street (more of a park-and-ride) but none of the busses are routed to serve Bridgeport very effectively.
So what should we do as a region? Redirect our transportation investment to serve what appears to be an unplanned emergent center? Or reserve our resources for the centers that we have planned (and zoned land uses) for?
It could be argued that the same sort of phenomenon has occurred at Kruse Way, now an employment center. Is it dense enough to serve effectively with transit?
What do we do with de facto centers?
134 responses to “Updated: Centers Happen?”
Where oh where to start with this post, Chris?
First: What innovative ideas? Where could you have “heard” of those ideas for “investment? Streetcars? Bike Paths? Great ideas!!!!
Boy oh Boy somebody in Portland should try building some of that stuff and see how it works!
Second:
Cant stand the thought that Kruse Way and Bridgeport Village all happened without an iota of the “investment” you social engineers are so bent upon reshaping our city with.
Both are auto-oriented. Face it. People drive to them, and the infrastructure is such that it is easy to do and convenient. Guess what else: they are attractive places that people like to walk around, too. I see strollers, dog walkers, and joggers all the time up and down Meadows Drive.
You are out of you mind if you think that people will take transit to and from Bridgeport Village. It just shows how naive you are, how completely bought into this social engineering mindset that you never once consider the fact that it just aint how people want to live.
Bridgeport customer base is “moms with means.” They drive their SUV’s full of kids to and from sports prctice. school, piano lessons, ballet, and when they are in those activities they run errands all over the place.
Yeah sure they are gunna get on the bus, go to Pottery Barn, buy a lamp, or a dresser, and bus back to Sports Nation where they get their child and wait for the bus, transfer at the transit center, get on another bus, then get off and walk home.
You post is so funny. You are so puzzled by how these “de-facto centers” could possibly have sprung up without the benevolent hand of the cult members, and without sufficient investment in transit.
So now you puzzle over how you can supply the obviously necessary transit.
“Redirect our transportation investment to serve what appears to be an unplanned emergent center?”
“Is Kruse Way dense enough to effectively serve with transit?”
You really make me laugh.
You can’t stand it, can you? These emergent centers have basically rejected your model, and they are the two most successful places in the area. Now you want to retrofit your model onto them.
All the while seemingly pzzled as to how on earth these places could possibly be succeeding without your “planning.”
Of course just look at the vibrant successes of your “planned” centers. The beaverton Round, for instance. Bankrupt three times, now barely making it only because they agreed to make it more auto oriented by buling a several story partking garage on a site where they had one of their mixed use buildings “planned.”
Cascade Station… you just KNEW that transit oriented retail retail and office space would flock to it…… sits empty, nothing but roads, sidewalks and curbs.
I’ll answer your question “What to do with de-facto centers?”
LEAVE THEM ALONE LEST YOU SCREW THEM UP LIKE YOU HAVE SCREWED UP EVERYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE TOUCHED IN THIS REGION
PKR, don’t forget Washington Square (and Cascade Center across 217) are expanding without subsidies and “transit planning.”
And so did Cedar Hills Crossing (Formerly Beaverton Mall).
And let’s not forget all the development in Wilsonville and Tualatin.
Look at all the housing wating to be built in Bonny Slope:
http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=30905
Of course, county ‘planners’ have to come up with a ‘land-use’ plan first. Just another case of regulations hindering the free market and driving costs up.
Great idea:
Pick a new, un-occupied place, put in a lot of bike paths, narrow street, ban cars in the middle, no parking and let it develop naturally WITHOUT OUBLIC SUBSIDY.
I like the idea, just don’t spend public money and don’t force it on existing residents of that area. The streetcar is so valuable, that the business that spring up there (without public subsidy) will happily pay for it instead of wasteing their money on parking lots.
Thanks
JK
Chris Smith at 07:03 AM What do we do when a Center comes into existence where we didn’t plan it?
JK: How about you keep the planner’s heavy hands off of it and let it thrive as one of the few success stories in the region. It is more likely to be what people want since it was designed to satisfy the customers instead of the planners.
Remember: Planners plan to their theology, developers plan for their customers. Can you all see the difference?
End JK:
The question is prompted by recent coverage in the Oregonian about Bridgeport Village and new developments likely to rise up next to it.
JK:
New developments next door is a good sign. Metro would have to give them a tax break to attract them to a Metro center since they are so poorly planned, being essentially a religious exercise.
End JK
Chris, don’t you see? You and David Bragdon can’t force people into compact little urban areas. People don’t live and work that way. People like their cars and like to drive. The west side is proof that economic activity can and will happen without transportation plans and public subsidies.
I think of centers as being more multi-use in nature, including residental in that mix. BV is OK in an erstaz kind of way. But it’s not a “real” place in the sense that people would be there for any other reason than to shop, eat or see a movie. The idea behind creating centers is to create “real” places, like 23rd Ave or Hawthorne Blvd, where people live, work and play.
The success of BV and environs (and any place for that matter) will ultimately rest on how desireable a place it is for people to be. I don’t think people are drawn to places because there’s plenty of free parking, but rather, because there’s something worth doing there.
You know, you’re right. I am SO TIRED of having to force all those people at gunpoint to go down to South Waterfront and turn over their life savings for a condo.
I don’t want to force anyone to live anywhere. I want to make sure that there are a range of choices available, some of which are in compact centers where they can walk to get a quart of milk instead of using a quart of gas to get the quart of milk (yes, I know I’m quoting Charlie Hales).
People seem to be choosing quite happily to live in dense neighborhoods where they are available. I realize that requires some subsidy to produce. But if the alternative is filling the Willamette Valley with quarter acre lots, I think my tax dollars are being well spent.
I would also point out that I started this thread by asking a question that is actually critical of some of the results of our current planning efforts. Self-critical examination is a good thing, right? But if I get shouted out by folks who think the current planning program is just plain wrong, then all you have done is encourage me to hunker down in my bunker and not ask critical questions.
Polarization is not the answer.
“People seem to be choosing quite happily to live in dense neighborhoods where they are available. I realize that requires some subsidy to produce.”
My main question is why does it require subsidies? Are you saying the reason people find SoWa attractive is because of the streetcar and the tram?
The truth is, developers won’t build without subsidies. In the last few years, Portland’s been handing out tax abatements like candy and developers know this.
And a huge selling point for condo owners is the fact they wont have to pay property taxes for 10 years.
Theory 1: The reason that the comment board is dominated by opponents is because the frutrated in society are the most vocal. In this case I think the proponents are happily satisfied and don’t have a reason to show up here until they see their routes disappear.
Theory 2: Public transit has a harder time in the US than in places like Asia or Europe because we are more individualistic (obviously)…but more specifically, we don’t want to pay a single tax penny unless we see it come back double. Outer Portland doesn’t see rail? “Let’s raise hell.” Outer Tokyo doesn’t see rail? “Well at least our neighbors closer to the middle get it, thereby reducing sprawl and improving the environment as well as quality of life. We should support it so that we see it expand this way”. I don’t think I’m WAY off here, but I have been to both Europe and Asia and they are certainly a lot more laid back about but proud of their public projects.
Please don’t lambast me for mentioning other continents even though “this is PORTLAND transport” because we really aren’t all that different and we’ll get absolutely NOWHERE if we refuse to learn from our peers.
Gene says: “Theory 2: Public transit has a harder time in the US than in places like Asia or Europe because we are more individualistic (obviously)…but more specifically, we don’t want to pay a single tax penny unless we see it come back double. Outer Portland doesn’t see rail? “Let’s raise hell.” Outer Tokyo doesn’t see rail?”.
Having been critical of the present transit system on this blog and the lack of service to some areas I find this comment a bit, to say the least, misleading.
I have also written that we need more transit, of greater varities, but that we might try opening up what is today a closed market in order to acheive those results. Private owner/operators should be welcomed and the regulations that prohibit that repealed, reduced and reformed.
M.W.
Local jurisdictions are just not willing to say no to new development that is not in their plan. So while we are investing regional dollars to help make Tualatin a walkable downtown center, Tualatin is busy attracting new development to auto-dependent locations that will require additional investment to support once successful.
Even Portland has a hard time turning its back on development which may not fit into a rational development pattern. The Interstate MAX stop with the New Seasons parking lot being an example. Whether its Crate and Barrel or New Seasons or Gap Outlet stores, it is very difficult to stick to a long term plan when faced with immediate, certain development opportunities. You can add Bechtel’s development at the airport to that list. Is the airport really the location where we want to choke roads with traffic generated by a major retail center?
I think we are caught in a dilemma if we redirect public investment to these new developments outside the designated centers. One of the reasons businesses will choose centers is because they know that the region is committed to protecting their investment by providing the necessary infrastucture to support it. If we provide the needed infrastucture to development outside the centers, it not only takes away that advantage but drains resources away from fulfilling the committment in the centers.
I think this may be a fundamental problem with the Region 2040 plan. There is no ability or political will to actually implement the plan. For most political decisions, deciding something won’t happen is a lot harder than deciding that it will.
The other side of this coin is that when we invest in transportation facilities it inevitably creates opportunities that the investment wasn’t meant to promote. How that transportation capacity is used is almost always based on who gets their first, not what is the best use in the long run.
I am not sure that developing these long range visions is all that useful without a strategic plan for implementing them that considers the timing as well as the finished product. If we expand the I5 bridge in the immediate future we will simply get more rural development in Clark County and more traffic choking the industrial areas and Port in North Portland and out near the airport. If we add light rail now, it only connects an almost non-existant transit system in Clark County to Portland’s, providing almost no real relief for most people stuck in traffic.
We should wait to add the new bridge capacity, implementing tolls and slowly increasing them to reduce the use of the bridge to its capacity. For that to be successful we need to provide better transit, van pooling and other options for people to avoid the tolls. You add the new bridge capacity and light rail connection only once the transit system is in place and people have accomodated their choices to allow the bridge capacity to be used to promote job growth in the industrial areas.
‘don’t forget Washington Square (and Cascade Center across 217) are expanding without subsidies and “transit planning.”‘
It seems to me that there has been a huge investment in transportation facilities around Washington Square just as one would expect in an area designated as a regional center.
Chris McMullen Says:
Chris, don’t you see? You and David Bragdon can’t force people into compact little urban areas. People don’t live and work that way. People like their cars and like to drive. The west side is proof that economic activity can and will happen without transportation plans and public subsidies.
Chris, maybe you choose to forget about the tax levies that were voted for by the west side voters. Maybe your new to our area. The tax levy was a public subsidy. It was used for very specific transportation items (e.g., 185th widening).
Also, people are moving to both the city and the suburbs and both have their reasons. Your needs are not the same as the next person. Why is this so hard to accept? We are not all clones.
Ray
Kruse Way was planned in a way. The property owner worked on getting executive housing in the area North of Kruse Way.
Now Bridgeport Village is an uncontrolled addition to our cityscape where all you hear about is the traffic issues.
What do you do? Let a developer know that some services like transit costs will need to be shared (e.g., building a transit center) since the development isn’t near a planned transit center.
What would I do to increase the likehood of the Metro 2040 centers being used and developed. I would allow densities as high as requested within boundaries (civil engineering issues, earthquake building codes, block size, etc.).
I’m wondering if we are not forcing all high density development downtown and denying a developer who sees a location (say Gateway) where a twenty or thirty story mixed use tower could work but the codes will not allow it.
Ray Whitford
I do tend to agree with Michael that private enterprise should have an opportunity to do what is currently done publicly. Unfortunately money doesn’t grow on trees and the investment money required would only be diverted from whatever else. The transition to tear down the current system and create a new system with multiple entities competing doesn’t seem cost-effective in a city the size of Portland. In other words, it’s overkill. In Tokyo this is obviously not the case since the city and population are just so huge. In fact, the monorail business is even competitive there. However, Asia practices a more cooperative form of capitalism and in some instances, the companies give way to another in order to contribute to the greeater good, or even the government. It’s really a cultural mindset, to be honest, and I don’t think Portland is up to that sort of thing, at least at its present size.
If there are regulations and laws that prohibit anyone from trying, I don’t see how it would hurt to take them down as long as they did not cause the abandonment and delapidation of the current system. That’s what I think people are afraid of…the sort of Big Three effect, and in my opinion, that’s a very valid fear. I guess it all comes down to the choice between whole-cloth planning and minimizing the waste of tax-dollars. If the private and public sectors could cooperatively give way to one another, as I mentioned before, that would be nice.
Whew! Chris I see why you decided to close the blog to the bomb throwers!
Bridgeport Village is a classic case of a failure of land use planning and transportation in the State. BV wouldn’t exist without the huge public investment in the freeway system (a realtor was quoted about this and he didn’t mention free markets or attractiveness of the shops as the reason for BV’s success: its the 150,000 cars a day on I-5)
While the cities of Tualatin and Lake Oswego are trying to do the hard work of actually creating community, Washington County took land that was zoned for mixed use development and decided a gussied up shopping mall qualified. With no consultation with neighboring jurisdictions or with ODOT whose interchange promptly failed (who gets to pay for fixing that? You guessed it, the people of Oregon).
The Metro Council is about to embark on an update of the Region 2040 plan. The kind of questions that Chris raises are precisely the ones needing answers in this update. The first 2040 plan basically said that we don’t want to continue sprawling down the valley and adopted some first steps, crude as they were, to stop that. There have been some obvious failures along with the successes. What have we learned? What should we do different?
Look for a roll-out this fall.
I am glad that Chris is now limiting the rhetoric coming from the peanut gallery. Bridgeport village should never be used as an example of successful planning. Less than 10% of the retail shops are locally owned. To all of you people that praise this project…it is no different than the Lloyd Center Mall! Do not be fooled by the fake stone, fake stucco, fake wood and steel details, etc. to make you believe that it is a work of Architecture (a completely different topic). I would like to know the percentage of locally owned and operated retail stores in the Pearl District…it seems like most of them. Alot of their products are actually made in Oregon by Oregonians. At Bridgeport Village, most products are made in 3rd world countries paying their employees less than what I spend on coffee daily.
Last night, I drove down to Barbur from the Lloyd District. On the way, there was a little slow down at the Terwilliger curves…which made me realize how much I would hate making that drive daily sitting in traffic for several reasons. True, you righteous auto people would say lets make a 20 lane hwy…that would solve our problems. It may, but that would mean even more people would move out of the central area and drive their cars downtown everyday. First you can not have a 20 lane hwy due to geological barriers (ie: Terwilliger curves). Second; even if you were to flatten the Earth to make as many lanes as needed, you still would have to take the scary and/or drunk drivers off the road. Everyone knows someone who they would rather not drive with. I did enjoy my drive back until someone next to me swerved over into my lane and while they answered their phone. Although a little annoying, I do not care if someone answers their phone or is completely drunk as they ride the MAX. Nor do I care (much) if there are crazy drivers on the streets while I am on the MAX. If they swerve into the MAX, I may spill my coffee, but I will not be pushed into the median or off the bridge at 60 mph.
I do like driving, but if anyone else has been in a potentially life-changing accident caused by the carelessness of other drivers, you may realize MY reasons for taking public transportation and there are alot more people that should not be driving and joining me on the MAX. You can talk about public financing and how cars are the “American way”, but you can not teach everyone how to drive perfect and you can not take the keys out of everyone’s hands who has had a little too much to drink.
Rex –
Am I confused. I thought Bridgeport was within the City of Tualatin. I know the county owned the rock quarry, but didn’t the developer still need city approval for the development?
Whoever was at fault, I think this is a reality of virtually all transportation investments. We have a very difficult time “protecting” them for a future better use when there is a use that can be made of them immediately.
This same situation is occurring, with regional support, along I-205. We are putting a MAX line with stations adjacent to the freeway interchanges. One purpose of light rail is to attract dense development and yet we don’t really want to promote dense development at freeway interchanges. Instead of putting in transportation that supports the desired land use, we are making the land use fit the transportation facility we want to build.
I believe it’s a total failure for the communities of Lake Oswego, Tigard and the Beavertonian area to not expect these kinds of retail developments from happening. What, were they expecting nothing would change for the next 100 years, and the whole area would be low-income crappy strip mall retail?
Obviously the market has changed dramatically in that area over the last 10 and 20 years. But those communities really don’t have any idea of how they want to grow, so they haven’t planned for change. They are just limping along like the usual ‘edge city,’ being buffeted along by the seas of capitalism.
It’s up to the residents of those places to plan them or not – and direct the growth, if they can figure out how. Whereas Portland was started with a vision, Beaverton and Tigard were not.
===========================
That being said… I think it is definitely part of Metro’s job to serve these new developments, whether they planned them or not. Hell, if they can (or get the developers to) integrate a nice transit bus station and bike parking into it, I think it would be a great start (they want to be like Europe, right?).
That area along I-5 also suffers from a lack of good street layout – it’s tough to get around unless you follow a few major arterial streets. This is especially bad for Kruse Way. Driving is horrific! Forget about bicycling or riding the bus; it’s almost impossible to do that. I think they need to build more roads interlinking the area into the street grid in a much better way. Bike lanes and sidewalks would also help in the new developments, as always.
In response to PKR’s comment…although this isn’t really meant for him, it’s just what pops in my mind when I hear people talking in this fashion.
I agree with you, btw, about ‘oh my god – a “center” sprung up by itself without being planned!’
…but to an extent.
See, the funny thing is… what is a center? A standalone retail development that is designed for married women with children who are between 30 and 35?
I don’t think so.
I think we can all agree that Metro has this wonderful idea that centers are sort of mini-downtowns – at least the kind that you might see in smaller Oregon cities that have not yet been destroyed by Sprawl. Think Mt. Angel, La Grande, Ashland, Myrtle Creek, Independence, and so on.
What do these places have in common? Hmm… their residents seem to love them. They also happen to be diverse places – sometimes with parks, local celebrations and so on…
Wait a minute. Let’s compare these places to… oh, let’s say Bridgeport Village. What’s the difference? Why isn’t Bridgeport Village good enough for some people? Why will a lot of people sneer at the idea of Bridgeport Village being a center?
Here’s some: Bridgeport Village is 100% private. If they don’t like the way you look (let’s say you’re a homeless person), they can throw you off their property. This is in startk contrast to downtown La Grande, where you could even petition the local shoppers to vote for Karen Minnis! Malls never allow you to push anything, as it would detract – or scare away – people from shopping.
Next… it’s marketed towards a very narrow demographic set. All business activity (and it’s almost all retail, with a tiny amount of office) is probably hand-picked to appeal to a certain slice of the American Pie. While some downtowns or shopping streets in Portland and other areas may be marketed, there are typically a wider and more myriad amount of uses.
For instance, housing. NW 23rd and Hawthorne both feature housing owned by – gasp! Citizens of Portland!
Ownership, I think, is also a big deal: Bridgeport Village was developed by Opus NW, a Minnesota-based National Real Estate Development Corporation.
They don’t give a **** about Portland, except how much money they can make. Oh, Bruce Wood, the former head of Opus in P-town, did recently defect and looks like he’s the one spearheading these other projects around the B Village, which he also did. So he’s sort of establishing his own little market in the area, for which he is taking advantage of and cashing in on. I’m pretty impressed by him, actually.
So my biggest gripe about malls is this: they are totally, completely fake. They are the worst crime that America constantly commits: the dumbing-down of and commodification of everything good in this world to sell off to some stupid consumers who, because of assinine government zoning laws, are stuck living in suburb-land.
=============================
However, this doesn’t detract from that facts: the malls have/are being built, so you better deal with them. Once land values increase to the point that it will be more lucrative to include housing and taller buildings instead of parking lots, they will be redeveloped.
However, that’s a WHOLE different story right there.
Justin, you have to give LO some credit for the work they are doing in the town center in their downtown. It has some of the same kinds of shops that Bridgeport does (I prefer Sur La Table over Crate and Barrel). The difference is that in LO it connects to a street grid instead of being stuck in isolation from anything else except a freeway.
A question for the Metro planners and TPR wonks out there. If the 1/2-mile rule just adopted into the Transportation Planning Rule were in effect at the time, would that have stopped Bridgeport Village?
Chris –
I think the answer to your question about the TPR and half mile rule would depend. I think if the zoning was already done by the time the development started it wouldn’t matter. If the rule had been in effect when the interchange was created then it might have prevented it from being constructed.
The problem with the half mile rule is that it is a huge power grab by ODOT. Most of downtown Portland is within a half mile of a freeway interchange. And while we have made progress in getting ODOT to move away from being the state highway department, I don’t think we want to give it control over zoning wherever they built a freeway.
Ross, I understand the problem with the 1/2 mile rule. I was just trying to figure out if it had any redeeming qualities :-)
Chris –
I realize you understand the rule. But the actual outcomes are really entirely up to how ODOT applies it. Given the opportunity they might have chosen to prevent Bridgeport, they might not have. Just as Tualatin or Washington County could have chosen to prevent it, but chose not to.
For instance, along I-205 ODOT might be perfectly willing to allow zoning changes that allow construction of regional retail that takes advantage of the proximity to both light rail and a freeway interchange, while opposing zoning changes increase local neighborhood auto trips that intefere with access to the interchange.
Give that same half-mile authority to Metro and you are likely to see very different outcomes.
Chris Smith and other Socialists,
You might want to get a clue first before you start asking rhetorical questions.
Before asking questions like “So what should we do as a region? Redirect our transportation investment to serve what appears to be an unplanned emergent center? Or reserve our resources for the centers that we have planned (and zoned land uses) for?”, question why Metro injects itself into the business of others under the guise of social engineering. Who invited Metro to involve themselves?
Metro asks all these questions about what it should do but it doesn’t ask the ultimate question, “Should Metro be disolved?”. “Should Metro be audited at the least”?
As for Bridgport, why don’t you leave it alone? They developed the site with Trimet out of the picture, they would prefer it to stay that way.
Steve Brook wrote: “Chris Smith and other Socialists”
Why do those who are opposed to regional transportation and land-use planning so quickly resort to personal attacks?
– Bob R.
Referring to someone as a Socialist is only a personal attack if you think Socialist is a bad name. If this is the case, feel sorry for Socialists. Metro is in the business of social engineering and centeral control. Just be glad there are Capitalists out there providing what people actually want.
So if I am understanding correctly, ODOT (and perhaps other local governments) now have to pay to rebuild the transportation infrastructure around Bridgeport Village because it’s overloaded. That’s not a public subsidy? I’m guessing it’s going to cost more money than if transportation changes had been planned and were part of the BV development process, too. How hypocritical.
So if I am understanding correctly, ODOT (and perhaps other local governments) now have to pay to rebuild the transportation infrastructure around Bridgeport Village because it’s overloaded. That’s not a public subsidy? I’m guessing it’s going to cost more money than if transportation changes had been planned and were part of the BV development process, too. How hypocritical.
I think it’s funny how some people point out that “The Pearl” is home to local mom and pop shops. Didn’t I read somewhere recently that both the Pearl and Nob Hill Districts are becoming more and more chain-stores like Gap, Williams and Sonoma, etc? while the mom and pop stores are closing shop? Same with the Cascade Station. That was supposed to be another ghetto town center and now there is an IKEA and Best Buy and soon to be a Wal-Mart. How funny! Way to go planners….
Bob R. Says:
“”Steve Brook wrote: “Chris Smith and other Socialists”
Why do those who are opposed to regional transportation and land-use planning so quickly resort to personal attacks?””
>>>> I agree, that was a little over the top, and inaccurate, too boot. But there does seem to be a good deal of crony capitalism going on in this town. An anarachist friend of mine who used to live in Portland said he hated Metro because he thought it was so corrupt!
“So my biggest gripe about malls is this: they are totally, completely fake.”
>>>> What elitist nonsense! I have lived in multifamily housing all my adult life and have always taken transit, as I do not drive. So I walk the walk when it comes to the demos that Portland wants (Unlike many people who talk big about transit and drive anyway).
That said, I like taking the #20 bus out to Beaverton to do shoppping in the chain stores.
From a consumerist/Naderite point of view, they offer great selection at good prices.
I’m wondering if we are not forcing all high density development downtown and denying a developer who sees a location (say Gateway) where a twenty or thirty story mixed use tower could work but the codes will not allow it.
The Gateway area is zoned for the densest levels of development in the entire region (Cx & Rx).
Unfortunately, development of Gateway is probably taking a back seat because of all the political interest around making SoWa successful.
Other cities (Gresham & Hillsboro, for example) are already planning to allow for 20+ story towers in certain areas to accommodate the additional residents that are coming in the years ahead without developing parkland or destroying the suburban nature of their existing neighborhoods. Building vertical in the suburbs is already occurring in places such as Bellevue, Washington, and it is destined to occur here as well, especially given the investment we have made in extending our public transportation system into the suburbs. This is bound to happen in Clackamas, Washington Square, and perhaps even Bridgeport Village.
The problem that many who are steadfastly on either side of the fence don’t seem to take into consideration is that you need a balanced transportation network: highways+ arterials+ transit+ sidewalks+ bike lanes. People will walk or ride bikes – if things they need are close to where they live and it is safe to do so. Sometimes you need to get in your car to drive across town, or to another city, so you need highways (more than 3 lanes in each direction in most cases, given the population of our city). And if I can walk to the bus or MAX, then I’ll use it to go to work every day, and so will others.
Unfortunately, you can’t build an infrastructure for a ten-lane highway, light-rail, sidewalks and bike lanes without adequate planning. Everything has to work together to provide a balance, and putting unnecessary constraints on building any one piece of the pie is to the detriment of the whole.
Whether or not you consider Bridgeport Village and Kruse Way to be a success, they are at a disadvantage due to the lack of transportation options available. There are plenty of employable citizens who don’t want to have to own cars to commute and shop, and many of them are well-educated and highly-paid, but employers in the Kruse Way/BP areas are unable to tap these resources because of the lack of transit to those neighborhoods. In April of this year I turned down a handful of job offers because employers were located on Kruse Way and I wouldn’t be able to commute by bus. As far as I know, they’re all still looking to fill those positions.
What do we do with de facto centers?
Chris, developments like Bridgeport Village don’t go up overnight. When a development like this gets approved, in the event that it is inconsistent with the intended use of the land according to existing plans, shouldn’t the municipality responsible adjust their planning materials? My understanding is that each municipality is responsible for contributing a certain quantity of jobs and housing for Region 2040. Shouldn’t their plans be updated to account for that development and to reflect those jobs and thus be integrated into the Region 2040 plan as a whole? Inevitably that would include transportation infrastructure planning.
I would have assumed this would have been addressed while the development was being considered for approval by the responsible municipality.
Washington County did in fact have to change zoning and/or other regulations to allow Bridgeport Village. But TriMet, Metro and others who have to plan transportation infrastructure got no say in the adjustments.
In fact, Lake Oswego even sued (they eventually dropped the suit).
Greg Tompkins:
You might be referring to an article in the Willamette Week that Millenium Music on NW 23rd closed recently, due largely to pressures from increasing land values and declining retail revenues for CDs. If you did read that article, you also know that 75% of all businesses on NW 23rd are local and employ fewer than 5 people.
Regarding Cascade Station: Airport MAX, the catalyst for all proposed development in that area, opened for passenger service on September 10, 2001. I am trying to remember, was there some event that had a major disrupting effect on the economy shortly thereafter? Something that was outside of the purview of planners or any other local government official? Can you think of anything?
Re: Nob Hill / Pearl – 75% seems a little high. I wonder what the statistics are relative to the largest revenue generators? NW looks just like most other outdoor shopping malls just with apartments on top the stores. There have been quite a few stories about Pearl rents displacing mom and pop vendors in favor of more chains. Pretty soon, this, too will look just like another giant outdoor shopping mall.
Re: Cascade Station – According to the Oregonian article the development was already starting to disintegrate before 9/11. Now we’re going to have chains there, too. See all these planners should just give up on their efforts and quit wasting the taxpayer’s money on their utopian ideals. Portland is just as cookie cutter as any other city!
Bridgeport Village is a classic case of a failure of land use planning and transportation in the State. BV wouldn’t exist without the huge public investment in the freeway system (a realtor was quoted about this and he didn’t mention free markets or attractiveness of the shops as the reason for BV’s success: its the 150,000 cars a day on I-5)
Why is it that when a MAX line is built, and the land use around MAX isn’t fully realized for 15-20 years that it is seen as “an investment into the future”; but when an Intersate highway is built and the land use around it isn’t fully realized for…let’s see, I-5 was built in the 1950s and Bridgeport Village was built 50 years later – it’s a failure and requires additional investment.
Did Bridgeport Village require any additional investment on I-5? NO! Will Bridgeport Village require any additional investment? NO!
Who paid for the improvements on Boones Ferry, 72nd and Bridgeport Roads? The developers did. Did the developers who profited off of Orenco Village pay for MAX? Did the developers who paid for the SoWa and Pearl developments build all of those roads and pay for the Streetcar? NO! And while Bechtel did make an investment towards paying for Airport MAX, what was the percentage of private investment? According to http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/history/railfactsheetairport.pdf it was less than 25% – 75% of the investment was bourne not by the developers but TriMet – and specifically those TriMet riders who depended on bus service, but saw the capital budget that had been earmarked for replacement busses robbed towards funding a MAX line that had no other funding source. IKEA, as a result, is “subsidized” by the thousands of bus riders who are riding 17 year old non-air conditioned busses – where is the outcry from Metro about this? (Metro doesn’t care, because Metro finds less value in bus service than it does streets and highways.)
Unlike the assertion that the interchange failed right away that Rex Burkholder alluded to, the developers paid to rebuild the interchange while the village was built. ODOT wasn’t forced to rebuild the interchange after the fact under emergency spending.
So if we are to argue that Bridgeport Village is a failure because it is dependent upon I-5, then we MUST use the same standard and decry every TOD as a failure, because it is “dependent” on MAX. SoWA is a failure, because it is dependent upon the Tram and the Streetcar, not to mention Macadam Blvd. and I-5. The Pearl is a failure because it is dependent on the Streetcar. Orenco Village is a failure because it is dependent upon MAX and Cornell Road. Now these arguments made zero sense – and so does accusing Bridgeport Village as a failure.
It’s only a failure in that the public acceptance of such a project is in direct contrast with Metro’s manifesto – that is the true failure.
Bridgeport village may be a classic example as a failure of land use planning in Metro’s eyes, but it is an excellent example of economic success when market based development is allowed to occur. And businesses flock to Kruse Way, not only for the ambiance and the park like setting, but for what has become a highly desired address of choice. Given these two examples along with the continued efforts to keep WalMart from building stores in the region, the term failure as it applies to land use planning must be defined by the exceedingly high acceptance from market forces and the public. If tight high density development, lack of parking, taxpayer subsidized transit alternatives and bike infrastructure all adding up to create Urban Heat Islands was equally as attractive, there would be no call to subsidize this type of development with tax breaks, taxpayer subsidized land and development tools, and the handing out property tax abatements like candy.
What is also becoming a reality is the social engineering nature and censorship of open conversation when it comes to growth, transport and development planning. It is as if when control advocates and the social engineering lobby forces can not obtain total alliance, or even majority support from the public, the answer is just to stifle the opposing voices thereby intentionally skewing the balance of support/non-support to be in their favor. This is done out of fear of loss of control and a desperate attempt to silence what could be a majority contrasting view. Commissioner Adams for example left out questions on his transportation funding survey that would have polled the public on taxing alternative modes of transport for the use of the roads and public infrastructure. Not only is this bad public policy, but by not asking the questions, the issue can be more easily swept under the rug because without the question being asked and answered, lack of support can be claimed. Metro refuses to listen to, consider and represent the many diverse voices that have a differing point of view to their planning efforts. Metro also requires a litmus test to be officially involved in the citizen process thereby creating stacked deck public involvement committees. This censorship of public opinion even extends to the state legislature. Avoiding public challenges is handled by declaring fake emergencies so referral to the voters is out of the question.
In a democratic society, politicians are servants of the people, not visa versa. All voices should be heard and represented with objections fielded and compromises made. That is how a democracy supposed to work. Metro’s focus however is one that centers on the mindset of enacting socialistic control.
“What is also becoming a reality is the social engineering nature and censorship of open conversation when it comes to growth, transport and development planning……It is as if when control advocates and the social engineering lobby forces can not obtain total alliance, or even majority support from the public, the answer is just to stifle the opposing voices thereby intentionally skewing the balance of support/non-support to be in their favor. This is done out of fear of loss of control and a desperate attempt to silence what could be a majority contrasting view.”
I find it ironic that you would make a statement like this on a website that is, aside from being one of the most popularly read planning websites in Portland, completeley devoted to public discussion and discourse on planning views.
Without censorship I might add.
Somebody said in one of the newspaper articles that under the original plan, Cascade Station would need housing to really “work”, and that housing is not allowed close to airports.
As for the MAX line, while the stations at Cascade Station may not have been successful, the station at the airport helps many real, existing people: travelers, tourists and employees. When all the airlines, shops, etc are put together, PDX is a big employer, and has many lower-level jobs.
And Bridgeport Village works only because of cheap auto use funded by subsidized oil defense, pollution clean-up and some road projects. These things allow it to attract people from farther away, bringing in more customers.
“There have been quite a few stories about Pearl rents displacing mom and pop vendors in favor of more chains.”
I just don’t see that many chains in the Pearl. And I don’t know how I feel about the notion, even if true, that it would represent gentrification. 12 years ago there was nothing in the Pearl at all, just an old underused rail yard. It’s not like there was some entrenched minority or otherwise underpriviliged community was displaced. If a pioneering establishment is supplanted by another company that can operate within contemporary economic realities, that strikes me as pure, unbridled capitalism. It may not be a good thing, but I don’t think it is justifiable to lay the blame on government.
A few observations:
1) Bridgeport Village IS a failure. It’s a failure to align planning and the market. You could argue that the market hasn’t paid attention to the planning, but I think that’s backward. If Government wants to have planning have any impact, it has to be smart enough to understand what the market will respond to. Bridgeport Village is proof that regulation is insufficient – if the market forces are strong enough, regulations will get waived. And regulation has NOT caused most of the Centers in 2040 to really get off the ground. I think it’s going to take more incentives in the way of investments in infrastructure (whether roads, sewer lines, or Streetcars) to get Centers to really happen where think they are efficient.
2) NW 23rd is becoming more dominated by national chains, but it’s working from the south to the north and the north end is still pretty local. Interestingly I’ve observed several cases on the northern end where retail storefronts have been subdivided with one business reducing its footage and another business being introduced. In the 3 instances I’ve observed we’ve gained 2 nail salons (yuch) and are about to get a ‘yogurt boutique’ whatever that is :-)
3) The Pearl is getting more chains. Eddie Bauer is slated for Lovejoy between 10th and 11th.
Why is it that when a MAX line is built, and the land use around MAX isn’t fully realized for 15-20 years that it is seen as “an investment into the future”; but when an Intersate highway is built and the land use around it isn’t fully realized for…let’s see, I-5 was built in the 1950s and Bridgeport Village was built 50 years later – it’s a failure and requires additional investment.
If I understand this question, the answer is because a MAX stop is designed to serve a quarter mile area around it, the traditional distance people are expected to walk to use it. On the other hand, freeway access is usually created to serve a wide area beyond it. And when you fill up the area immediately adjacent to the freeway with auto-oriented development it creates congestion, reducing access for everyone else.
For all the complaining about congestion on Highway 217 in Washington County, it is usually a relief, once you are on it, from the congestion you had to sit through to get on it.
I’d say Bridgeport Village is a Center whether officially recognized or not. I dont think its necessary to have and expect a full mix of uses and park space at every Center, all it really needs is dense and walkable concentration of something (in this case retail) and a transit connection. The Commuter Rail line passes fairly close to BV, it just needs a station and decent pedestrian connections.
Theres a good chance a Center will emerge on any large parcels of land well inside the UGB. And as a result we need to look where the large parcels of land are and plan accordingly. Most of the large parcels along MAX have already been developed or are under construction (Westside).
Sure the Pearl has a few large national retailers but it still has a vast majority of small businesses.
I’d say Bridgeport Village is a Center whether officially recognized or not. I dont think its necessary to have and expect a full mix of uses and park space at every Center
I disagree. The whole point of having centers, or at least one important point, is to limit the number and length of trips people need to make to access services. Bridgeport is a retail mall. The point of deciding on regional and town centers was to concentrate public services on those areas. You can’t build a shopping mall somewhere that competes with the designated centers and then say , well its an informal center.
If I understand this question, the answer is because a MAX stop is designed to serve a quarter mile area around it, the traditional distance people are expected to walk to use it. On the other hand, freeway access is usually created to serve a wide area beyond it. And when you fill up the area immediately adjacent to the freeway with auto-oriented development it creates congestion, reducing access for everyone else.
Why do a significant number (especially on the westside) of MAX stations have park and ride lots? It’s to encourage automobile use from further than walking distance from the station.
Even Orenco Station has a huge park and ride lot; as does Quatama, Willow Creek, Elmonica, Beaverton Creek and Sunset. Beaverton Central has not exactly proven to be a high-usage station despite its transit-oriented development (plus multi-level parking garage to accomodate the development that was supposed to use MAX).
I would argue that the I-5 exits in the Tualatin/Durham/Lake Oswego area do NOT serve a “large area” but the immediate area – there are far too many alternatives that can be used, so that while someone from, say, Sherwood, could use Exit 289 to access I-5 northbound, they are just as likely to use 99W into Tigard, and use Tigard surface streets (or Roy Rogers Road) to access Beaverton rather than 217 because I-5’s busiest point in the entire state of Oregon is between I-205 and Oregon 217 – the combination of traffic from Tualatin and Wilsonville added to the 80,000 cars coming up from Salem, plus I-205 traffic flowing to the junction of I-5/217.
Likewise residents of Lake Oswego have alternatives available – Macadam/Oregon 43, Boones Ferry, and Terwilliger.
Geographically, the Tualatin River and the City of Durham effectively cuts off development to the west and south of Bridgeport. The Tualatin/Lake Oswego city line to the east forces developmental changes that limit growth in that direction. A ridge to the northeast limits the types and density of development in that direction. As a result, every street in the area quickly is reduced to a two or three lane surface street except for Lower Boones Ferry into Lake Oswego, and yet congestion is not nearly as bad as it is made out to be in this area, except between 4:30-5:30 PM weekday evenings. So the concept that this exit serves a wide area and MAX serves only local residents is, well, incorrect.
You can’t build a shopping mall somewhere that competes with the designated centers and then say , well its an informal center.
Ironic that Bridgeport Village as an informal center competes with the formalized center of Washington Square. Which is, well, a shopping mall.
People like their cars and like to drive.
I was at Bridgeport Village yesterday, and people do NOT like cruising the sprawling parking lots, looking for a place to PUT their cars.
There were also like 5 people in Wild Oats. You have to wonder how much money they are losing.
The small, locally-owned shop there “Paris in Portland” has already gone out of business.
There is, however (Chris) a Sur La Table there in addition to the Crate and Barrel.
“Why do a significant number (especially on the westside) of MAX stations have park and ride lots? It’s to encourage automobile use from further than walking distance from the station.”
>>>> This is land that could be used for tax revenue producing purposes, instead. This is just another reason why I think BRT would have been a much better choice for Portland Metro. With buses able to aggregate riders in their neighborhoods and then get on a POW, there would be much less need for these SPRAWLING parking lots.
Long-term planning impossibly requires that planners accurately predict what the future will want or need.
Why cant more people see the planning emperor has no clothes?
This is land that could be used for tax revenue producing purposes, instead. This is just another reason why I think BRT would have been a much better choice for Portland Metro. With buses able to aggregate riders in their neighborhoods and then get on a POW, there would be much less need for these SPRAWLING parking lots.
The problem is that BRT doesn’t generally increase the land values of the surrounding areas and encourage dense development where it stops.
Additionally, unless BRT is given a dedicated ROW, it can only go as fast as traffic. Given that most people tend to pick a mass transit option only when it is faster door-to-door than driving, this basically ensures that BRT will fail because it can never be as fast door-to-door as driving, by its very design. If it does have its own ROW, then you might as well just build a train in the same space, as the ongoing operating costs will be lower.
BRT is useful in some circumstances, but it definitely doesn’t do much to help build up or support centers.
Why cant more people see the planning emperor has no clothes?
Who is the planning emperor?
Seriously, Metro is an elected regional government, and the various county and municipal planning bureaus all work for elected representatives.
Why is long-range-planning considered a positive trait for personal finance, businesses small and large alike, private master-planned resorts, military interventions, health care institutions, etc., but not local government?
When will people see that the anti-planning emperor has no clothes?
– Bob R.
Bridgeport village may be a classic example as a failure of land use planning in Metro’s eyes, but it is an excellent example of economic success when market based development is allowed to occur.
This is a classic collective action problem. Businesses (and consumers) individually, from their own perspective, make smart choices financially but in some cases the aggregate of these smart choices result in non-optimal outcomes.
In this case, even though centers are the most convenient in an optimal sense (easy for large numbers of consumers to get to your store, easy for consumers to find a wide variety of stores for things they like), they end up being unachievable in a market format because the centers, due to congestion, become impossible to reach. This is what caused the death of the downtowns with the invention of the freeway.
So in a limited sense, you’re right that suburban mega big box complexes are optimal economic choices by businesses and consumers, from a larger perspective, its not optimal – introducing centers would result in a pareto-optimal outcome if you can solve the collective action problem (via Metro, etc). Just because the current setup in many US cities is economically successful doesn’t mean that it is optimal – and this doesn’t even begin to get into the externalities of environmental pollution etc.
Regarding what Erik Halstead posted:
“If I understand this question, the answer is because a MAX stop is designed to serve a quarter mile area around it, the traditional distance people are expected to walk to use it. On the other hand, freeway access is usually created to serve a wide area beyond it. And when you fill up the area immediately adjacent to the freeway with auto-oriented development it creates congestion, reducing access for everyone else.”
Actually, MAX stops are expected to serve population from a catchment area greater than 1/4 mile, plus they capture demand from connecting bus service (feeder/intersecting bus routes). MAX lines essentially operate as high speed trunk lines. Two useful documents about TriMet’s service design can be found by contacting TriMet’s librarian and asking for copies of the following:
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (1989). Tri-Met Service Standards. Portland, OR: Author.
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (1993). Tri-Met Scheduling Practices. Portland, OR: Author.
I learned more about TriMet from these two documents than anything else I’ve come across in the past 10 years.
If anyone is curious as to where the 1/4 mile bus buffer and 1/2 mile rail buffer concept came from, it was from two older UMTA documents where the numbers were basically pulled out of thin air (e.g., they were not based on empirical research).
U. S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transit Administration (1979a). Analyzing Transit Options for Small Urban Communities-Analysis Methods. Washington, DC: UMTA.
U. S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transit Administration (1979b). Transit Corridor Analysis: A Manual Sketch Planning Technique. Washington, DC: UMTA.
Lastly, anyone interested in ODOT research in the area of comprehensive planning near highway interchanges can download this fairly recent document: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/docs/Reports/Interchange.pdf
The report contains a lot of information about some of the interesting things that states are doing to alleviate highway congestion (e.g., providing parallel access roads between interchanges) as well as the role of the TPR and ODOT in regulating development near interchanges mentioned in previous posts.
No offense to Eric, please. I just wanted to add to the conversation.
Tom
“Long-term planning impossibly requires that planners accurately predict what the future will want or need.”
You are right, the future is impossible to predict accurately, so why bother trying at all? Why am I saving for retirement, that is a long time away, who knows what might happen before then? Why do I have insurance on my house, sure it might burn down, but I might also win the lottery and go buy a bigger house too. (And there is no reason that I shouldn’t expect to win the lottery, even though I don’t play.) And my bank account has a bunch of money in it, and I just wrote a big check against it, but that check may never be cashed, so why am I keeping the money there? I should spend the money on hookers instead. And forget about a condom, it would be at least a couple of weeks before I’d even know if I’d caught anything, and who knows, they might have figured out a cure for it by then…
Or maybe even though planning isn’t perfect, it is still a good thing.
Chris,
I’m not sure from your comments whether you think BV should have been built or not.
One could read your comments generously, to indicate that planners have been insufficiently creative and nimble to anticipate the demand for the BV-type development, and that better planning would have allowed BV to emerge but as part of a more integrated regional planning system.
However, in defense of the skeptics, I don’t see much sympathy in the planning community for retail centers like BV. BV-type “faux” downtown centers (basically replacements for the old fashioned covered mall) have been around for more than a decade, including in all of our urban competitors (Austin, Raleigh/Durham, Salt Lake, San Jose, etc).
If I was a retail developer, and watched the long drawn out agonizing over Cascade Station, and the current retail embargo at Hayden Island, and the non-development at Gateway, I think I’d immediately hightail it over to Mill Plain Blvd. in Vancouver or Washington/Clackamas county.
Perhaps that’s the way you want it, but the consequence is that those who frequent such retail outlets (for 100’s 1000’s of shoppers, there really are no Portland malls that approach what is available in Washington Square and BV) have to drive longer, and clog more highways, because of a refusal of the City to be flexible in allowing such developments closer in.
Along with looking at the viability of new centers, its wise to look at steps an existing downtown might take to optimize revitalization. Milwaukie, for example, is looking at the light rail plan it created several years ago, intending now to maximize (apologies for the pun) its potential. As a result, considerable enthusiasm has welled up for the inclusion of an alignment which would bring more foot traffic right into the heart of downtown. This would allow an “existing street right-of-way” placement to be weighed against the “existing railroad right-of-way” one which is a few blocks away from their TOD as well as their core downtown.
Something that has turned up in the process is they’ve discovered that, in June, 2006, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) passed a rule requiring that any light rail vehicle sharing a corridor with an active freight train must sound a loud horn at intersections. Downtown Milwaukie has four of these. A “quiet zone” designation could help, but it needs to be planned and paid for, and can be revoked. As the unusual placement of “light rail in an active freight train corridor” does not bode well for the livability of residents and businesses, its fortunate that a Main St. or Main St./21st option is also being considered for inclusion in the Environmental Impact Study.
The following link has good info on the train horn rule:
http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/main/Fact_Sheet_Quiet_Zone_.pdf
Paul said:
“Perhaps that’s the way you want it, but the consequence is that those who frequent such retail outlets (for 100’s 1000’s of shoppers, there really are no Portland malls that approach what is available in Washington Square and BV)…”
>>>> RIGHT! I for one, take the #20 bus out to Beaverton because it has a lot of the shopping that I need, instead of the fou-fou stores we have on NW 23rd Avenue (However, I do like the cafes and restaurants on 23rd.) So, Portland loses the revenue. and I am a life-long urbanite.
No wonder Wash. County is projected to grow twice as fast as Portland by 2025. Clark County, even faster.
Paul, a few points
1) Washington Square IS a designated regional center under 2040.
2) I don’t oppose Bridgeport Village on aesthetic grounds (it is a little ‘faux’ for my taste – but I love the Container Store). I oppose it because it is a single use separated from other uses, resulting in what I am sure is close to a 100% auto mode share which is not sustainable.
3) What I was trying to get at is who is ‘at fault’. I don’t blame the developer for responding to what is clearly market demand (since sales are about double comparable retail locations elsewhere in the region). I do wish Washington County had a bit more steel, but fundamentally I think its because we haven’t found the tools to attract the retailers to locations that ARE in designated Centers (whether in Tigard, Tualatin, Hollywood or Downtown).
…as a result, is “subsidized” by the thousands of bus riders who are riding 17 year old non-air conditioned busses…
Eric, you’re starting to make it sound like every TriMet bus on the road is 17 years old and has no air conditioning, which is simply not the case. Additionally, TriMet is not the only system running buses of that vintage – see my post here. Don’t get me wrong; it really sounds like doing something about it (at least on TriMet) is a priority to you, and you probably have an extremely high level of support from others at this point. Don’t let that diminish.
As for the two-year-old, hateful comments on this thread… wow – this site has sure come a long way.
Why is long-range-planning considered a positive trait for personal finance, businesses small and large alike, private master-planned resorts, military interventions, health care institutions, etc., but not local government?
Mostly because govt. planners who try to control other people’s resources won’t pay the costs of their mistakes and so have little incentive to find the right answer.
You know, all this debate is fine, but I think that many people just don’t get the bigger picture.
From my understanding, however (and I’m the guy who wrote that long rant burning Bridgeport Village back in 2005), is that these so-called “Centers” are really nothing more than recreating bits of urban pockets throughout the metro area that look and function more like a slice of the city, replete with a dense mixture of urban amenities and services, linked by transit service that would give people mobility without reliance on the automobile.
To accomplish this so-called “center,” would require an actual plan – with investors, private real-estate developers, and architects – to devise a place for people. See, that’s what (in my opinion) a center should be: like Multnomah Village or someplace, with houses, parks, libraries, stores, offices, and all the accouterments that we assume will be available in our modern society.
To those naysayers who despise planning, think of it as a way to create places in the metro area that are most beloved by its citizens, and why houses are so damned expensive in Portland when they do offer this environment: because they are much loved.
==============
To date, little work has progressed on these centers. Largely due to the fact that the suburban interest involved – developers, government, regulatory agencies, financial lenders, county government, the DOTs, etc… are still operating with their bureaucratic molasses… like it was 1990.
Well, they’re getting a little bit better, but they are CERTAINLY NOT on the cutting edge of urban planning & implementation. See, both the private sector and all the public entities must be on the same page. They aren’t.
None of these groups communicates very well with each other, and are generally lacking a central vision and strategy. Simply: those who live in the this region have tunnel vision and don’t look beyond simplistic arguments (aka, Measure 37, I want get rich quick and build a shopping mall on I-5, etc).
Has anyone in this state sat down and figured out where the extra million people are going to live? No. Portland (city) is barely increasing its population; the last census showed an increase of about 5% over the past 5 years. All of those new residents will be living in Salem, Wilsonville, and various suburban/satellite cities in/near the Metro area, because this region – and its people – don’t think very comprehensively.
If you want to see comprehensive ways of accommodating growth, you should probably visit Europe, Canada, or Asia, because the US’s “method” of growth is highly partisan, insular, special-interest driven, with lots of pork-barrel bacon on the side.
==============
If any of you have ever visited Southern California in the past 10 years, the success of a new shopping mall built along I-5 should come as no surprise: in today’s world, it is the fad to visit the newest stores. People I know think nothing of driving down to San Francisco or up to Seattle for a quick weekend romp. What’s the difference between driving 1 hour or 10 hours for some good shopping?
It’s only people who realize the connection between travel habits and the result that actually care about these things.
Let’s see…should we really copy Europe?
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams112206.php3
At least transit use is declining in Europe and auto use is increasing. They are also building suburbs at a rate comparable to us.
“Has anyone in this state sat down and figured out where the extra million people are going to live?”
>>>> YES. The projections are for Portland to go to ca. 750,000 (from 550,000) and Washington County to ca. 900,000 (from 500,000). Also Clackamas County, too, although I don’t have those numbers on the top of my head, but it will definitely be faster than Portland.
Since 97-98% of Oregon is open space there is plenty of room for all those people. If we lose a Christmas tree farm, grass seed grower or nursery operation I think we’ll survive.
Since 97-98% of Oregon is open space there is plenty of room for all those people. If we lose a Christmas tree farm, grass seed grower or nursery operation I think we’ll survive.
Oooh, I just love argument by absurdity.
Furthermore, since greater than 99% of the surface of the earth is open space, and nearly 100% of the extent of the known universe is open space, we therefore do not have to worry about anything we do locally or its impact upon the area in which we live, right?
Seriously, what we are talking about here is planning for things like transportation infrastructure, open space, parks, schools, water quality, etc., in the areas where people actually live.
Nice try.
– Bob R.
“Since 97-98% of Oregon is open space there is plenty of room for all those people.”
Thats it? The average American lives a lifestyle that requires about 24 acres of land to support, (couple acres of trees to grow the lumber for their house, a couple acres of food to feed the animals that they eat, etc, etc…) The density of Portland is a person every .16 acres, so the other 23.84 acres that those people need means that the state better be 99.3% open space, or we’ve got a big problem…
My point was not absurd. My point is that we should quit trying to “save” farms and open space (which is never defined in your world as people’s back yards).
“Since 97-98% of Oregon is open space there is plenty of room for all those people.”
Yeah, but how much of that open space consists of buildable land?
You can’t build homes on Mt. Hood, in the Coast Range, or in the middle of eastern Oregon.
My point was not absurd. My point is that we should quit trying to “save” farms and open space (which is never defined in your world as people’s back yards).
You are right, back yards are not open space. They are people’s property.
You are also right that there is plenty of land all over Oregon. There are many towns where people can build houses with large back yards if they want. In fact, some have done that in Portland. Its just really expensive in Portland, while its really cheap in Eastern Oregon.
The fact is that most businesses don’t want to locate in sparsely populated areas. They want access to the wide variety of employees and services that are provided by large urban centers or even medium sized towns in some cases. Just like businesses, people choose to live in large urban centers because they have access to a wide variety of jobs and services.
The reality is that we can’t provide a transportation system that will allow people to live in Burns and work in Portland. We can provide a transportation system that allows some people to live in McMinnville and work in Tigard and Beaverton. But there is a limit to how many people and there are going to be costs in time and money for those who choose to do it.
We could also let people move to the country and build their houses. But then we wouldn’t have any country any more. We could let people cut down the trees so that they would have a great view of the forests in the Columbia Gorge, but after everyone did it their wouldn’t be a view of forests any more. It would be a view of houses.
So if you want a cheap lot where you can have a huge backyard, move to Burns. That’s your choice. But if you want a huge lot in a densely developed urban center, it is going to cost you a lot of money. And if you want to live in McMinnville, its going to cost you a lot of time each day to get to work in Washington County.
the average lot size for a new home in the Portland metro area 15 years ago was about 12,000 and homes were affordable. Then the smart-growth planning nuts took over. Houston doesn’t have planning and zoning and has large lots, low congestion, a growing economy, housing choices, mixed-use walkable neighborhoods, and the average home is $150K. I’m not saying we should be Houston but the choices you offer (no way to get around, high prices, etc.) are not necessarily a given.
the average lot size for a new home in the Portland metro area 15 years ago was about 12,000 and homes were affordable. Then the smart-growth planning nuts took over.
And courtesy of those smart-growth planning nuts, our region has become so liveable and so desirable that people who can afford it (and who therefore have a choice of where to live) are willing to pay a premium to live here. Land prices are driven by ONE thing: demand. Create a well-planned city like Portland, people flock to it and housing prices soar. If housing is relatively cheap in Houston, that’s because it’s a significantly less desirable place to live.
Market-rate housing prices are probably the best overall objective measure of a region’s success and livability. People vote with their feet and their wallets.
We could take housing costs down to $50,000 for an average home and eliminate congestion throughout the area. Just turn Portland into a place nobody wants to live, and eventually people will flee in droves.
“People vote with their feet and their wallets.”
I’m confused, I thought people voted with their cars ;)
I’m confused, I thought people voted with their cars ;)
People occasionally even vote with their votes! (Just not to the level of turnout that I’d like to see…) And around here, when people vote with their votes, they tend (not always, but often) to elect pro-transit, pro-planning candidates.
– Bob R.
I would rather live in a city with open spaces and parks than a concrete urban ghetto that’s supposedly “green” even though it dumps sewer right into the river. I used to live in Beaverton and loved how quiet it was there, you could hear the birds chirping, go to a nature preserve, etc. What do we have in Portland? Vagrants everywhere, businesses closing down, overpriced cramped housing, a cement river that the sewer dumps into. Gross. It’s no wonder why Beaverton is growing faster than Portland and will soon surpass it it in population.
It’s no wonder why Beaverton is growing faster than Portland and will soon surpass it it in population.
I don’t think so. Beaverton will have a hard time getting to be as large as Salem.
But I think there is some truth in the idea that the suburbs have the chance to protect natural resources that Portland didn’t.
Greg –
Just to be clear, its not even close. Since 2000, Portland has added almost 4 times as many people as Beaverton.
Wow, Greg, where to begin? …
I would rather live in a city with open spaces and parks
Portland has among the most parkland per capita (in both number of parks and in terms of acreage) of any similarly-sized US city.
than a concrete urban ghetto that’s supposedly “green” even though it dumps sewer right into the river.
Check out the Big Pipe project, now more than halfway complete, which will eliminate over 95% of all CSOs (Combined Sewer Overflows) when operational. That’s the main reason our water/sewer bills are so high, we’re building a 5+ mile subway for sewage. (Someday perhaps we can build one for transit.)
Combined Sewer Overflows have more to do with a city’s age than with size… for example, Corvallis recently completed a major CSO mitigation project.
I used to live in Beaverton and loved how quiet it was there, you could hear the birds chirping, go to a nature preserve, etc.
I live in NE Portland and there are birds chirping right now outside my window. If you like nature, I suggest you try Forest Park – it’s close-in and stunningly beautiful. On the east side, try Mt. Tabor park for starters.
What do we have in Portland?
Well, you could try the Portland Oregon Visitors Association for starters, or how about Portland Parks and Recreation?
It’s no wonder why Beaverton is growing faster than Portland and will soon surpass it it in population.
City of Beaverton Population (2006): 84,270
City of Portland Population (2006): 562,690
Washington County Population (2000): 445,342
Multnomah County Population (2000): 665,810
I would expect Washington County to have the potential to double Multnomah County’s population someday, after all, Washington County has nearly twice the land area (!) but it has a long, long way to go. Your characterization of “soon” may need some further refinement.
– Bob R.
“Your characterization of “soon” may need some further refinement.”
Beaverton in 1970 was just about 11,000 in population. Now with the soon to be annexed areas, it’s close to 250,000. Portland in the 1970’s was just about 500,000 population. So if Beaverton keeps up that pace soon will be… soon… The politicos in this town are probably terrified that they are going to lose their ability to dominate much longer so they are trying to cram people into every nook and cranny and force everyone into ghetto like housing at sky high rates. Only 3/8 of 1% of this state is urbanized. They need to let it grow out….
Greg –
Even once all the areas are annexed, which is ten years off, the combined population will still have to more than double to approach Portland’s population. And the likely impact will be another city with policies very similar to Portland’s.
“Washington County Population (2000): 445,342
Multnomah County Population (2000): 665,810”
>>>> From what I have been able to find, Multnomah and Washington Counties will be about equal in population in 2025 projections.
I also have read in the past that East County Multnomah is the fastest growing part of it.
they are trying to cram people into every nook and cranny and force everyone into ghetto like housing at sky high rates.
How exactly do “they” “force” people into “ghetto like housing” at “sky high rates”? Silly me: I was under the impression that people were “forced” into “ghetto like housing” by poverty; they move there because they can’t afford anything better. Seems to me if the rates for any housing are “sky high” its because a lot of people want to live there and competition bids the price up.
I’m curious: do you genuinely believe that everybody in the world, or nearly everybody, shares your values of what sort of housing and city is desirable? Or that the people who are spending top dollar to live in the heart of Portland don’t really want to live there, but can’t find a nicer, cheaper place elsewhere? Who is being “forced” by “politicos” to do anything in terms of their housing choices?
…so they are trying to cram people into every nook and cranny and force everyone into ghetto like housing at sky high rates.
If people didn’t want to live in Portland they wouldn’t pay the “sky high rates.” The market drives these prices, not the government. I, for one, have never taken issue with paying the high price of a very convenient lifestyle (sans automobile) in this beautiful city. And Ladd’s Addition is hardly ghetto.
Move to Vancouver if you don’t care about preserving the open space that we enjoy here in Oregon and want cheap housing. And enjoy the drive to your job in Portland. I’ll take my “sky high” rent and my fifteen minute commute by bus without having to find and pay for parking any day over being forced to drive in from Woodburn, Banks, or Vancouver. Not everybody thinks like you do, and the sooner that people such as yourself wake up and realize the fact that we have to accommodate BOTH SIDES (urban- AND suburbanites) the sooner we’ll get some things accomplished in this town.
Greg wrote: Only 3/8 of 1% of this state is urbanized.
And only 0.0485 % of the land area of the City of Portland is occupied by residents at any given time. (That’s less than one twentieth of 1%). Just as precise, and just as useless for this discussion.
– Bob R.
33 thousand of the 41 thousand population growth in Multnomah County since the last census was within the city of Portland. Washington County grew by 55 thousand in the same period. At 14,000 more people every 6 years it will be close to 50 years before Washington County catches Multnomah County in population. A lot can change in that time. Oregon in 1957 was a very, very different place.
Explain Bend.
Fastest population growth in Oregon. It just launched a public transit system last year, using second-hand busses. Surely, people are not moving to Bend because of the access to public transit, and I don’t see Pearl District style developments being built in Deschutes County.
While Portland’s developments have attracted a certain type of resident, Metro has a responsibility to plan for all types of residents – especially those families with chilren who are under/un-served by the dense development movement.
As a result, Portland Public Schools has been in a free-fall in terms of funding and enrollment, while suburban districts are tripping over themselves in building new schools. This in turn discourages more families from living in Portland, and moving to the suburbs. Since the area’s cultural activities (notably the Oregon Zoo) are easily accessible from throughout the region (the Zoo is just a couple miles east of the Washington County line), Washington County certainly has potential of developing an area that can rival Portland city limits in terms of population and clout.
As for whether Beaverton can usurp Salem/Eugene as Portland’s second largest city (Salem and Eugene are neck-and-neck, although I think Eugene reclaimed the title), keep in mind that Beaverton has a lot of developed, unincorporated areas around it. It would be easy for Beaverton to annex Cedar Hills, Cedar Mill, Bethany, Garden Home, and Aloha – and voila, Beaverton is now #2.
Explain Bend.
Bend has an Urban Growth Boundary and a planning process, just like many other Oregon areas.
Although there is nothing on the scale of the Pearl District (nor would one expect it, with Bend and Redmond combined being just shy of 100,000 population, which is around 80% of the entire population of all of Deschutes County), it does feature a number of projects which specifically bill themselves as New Urbanist in nature.
For example:
Incidentally, the City of Bend, through developing its Transportation System Plan allows high-density zoning on 2000 sq. ft. lots (those “skinny lots” which are so controversial on Portland) as well as new mixed-use zones and live/work zones.
– Bob R.
Fastest population growth in Oregon.
Not really. In fact, all of Deschutes county has been adding about the same number of people as the city of Portland over the last six years.
Washington County certainly has potential of developing an area that can rival Portland city limits in terms of population and clout.
It already does. And if you look at most of the recent large regional transportation investments you can see the results. Westside MAX, Kruse Way, Sylvan, Highway 26 and Commuter rail all serve primarily Washington County. I don’t think there has been a single regional investment in Portland comparable to any of those. Airport MAX and the streetcar were local efforts.
The I205 MAX line will be the first large regional investment in Portland in a long time. Which is probably as it should be. Portland has a well-developed transportation system and benefits from improvements throughout the region.
djk: “Land prices are driven by ONE thing: demand. Create a well-planned city like Portland, people flock to it and housing prices soar. If housing is relatively cheap in Houston, that’s because it’s a significantly less desirable place to live.”
Prices are actually driven by more than one thing. Houston has more demand than Portland but because supply is not so constrained and premitting costs are lower the price is lower. A lot more people demand cell phones and computers than did 20 years ago and those prices are a lot lower. It isn’t just demand that sets the price of any good or service.
But unlike consumer electronics and other commodities, the supply of land is fixed. With very rare exceptions (fill creating new buildable space in shallow water), they just ain’t making any more land. It’s axiomatic that the three most important things in real estate are location, location, and location. “Supply” of land is essentially fixed, and lifting development restrictions on land in, say, Damascus, doesn’t increase the supply of land in Irvingon or any other place where demand is high.
Permitting costs don’t lower the price of land or impact the sale price of developed land. They only increase the cost of development, But the sales price of a house or building is set by the market: The builder doesn’t get to “pass along” the development costs; permits and such just eat into the profits. (To be sure, higher permitting costs might dissuade a landowner from developing a marginal project at all, which would have a very slight impact on supply — but only in places where housing and commercial space was really cheap due to low demand.)
Ok, let’s use oil. Gas is as cheap today as it was in the early 80’s but demand is many times greater.
Does Houston have more land available than we have? Are we really near the end of our supply? No room for many houses from here to Eugene huh?
Ok, let’s use oil. Gas is as cheap today as it was in the early 80’s but demand is many times greater.
Does Houston have more land available than we have? Are we really near the end of our supply? No room for many houses from here to Eugene huh?
In essence you are saying that electronics prices are a function of SUPPLY and demand but land is only DEMAND. We have plenty, it is ARTIFICIALLY constrained, we are not running out. You countered your own argument.
Gas is as cheap today as it was in the early 80’s but demand is many times greater.
It’s interesting that you chose the “early 80’s” for your comparison, because that is the time when gasoline was at it’s record inflation-adjusted all-time high price. “As cheap” would more accurately be written as “As expensive”.
We were at an unstable, record peak in the early 1980’s, and we’re at a record level (peak, or just the beginning?) right now.
See this graph for details.
– Bob R.
Are land costs really driving real estate prices? I don’t think so. The comparison’s to Houston are ridiculous. Housing prices throughout Texas are lower than the Northwest whether Oregon, Washington or Idaho. Houston’s economy is driven by oil, not quality of life. Portland, on the other hand, has an economy largely driven by being a desirable place to live.
How exactly do “they” “force” people into “ghetto like housing” at “sky high rates”?
Um, where to begin? Make an artificial barrier around the city and make it illegal to live outside it? Then the people respond by passing a law and the evildoers then overturn the will of the popular vote, nullifying it?
Then the people respond by passing a law and the evildoers then overturn the will of the popular vote, nullifying it?
When did the ‘evildoers’ do that?
– Bob R.
Greg, it’s not illegal to live outside the urban growth boundary. I know a lot of people who do it. And as for “the people respond by passing a law” I assume you’re referring Measure 37. First, nobody has nullified the popular vote; the legislature is giving “the people” a chance to change the law. I personally know of at least five people who voted for it and now wish they didn’t, because when they voted they didn’t understand what the law did. Every one of those people supported Oregon’s land use laws, but they thought they were voting to let people put a house on their farmland, or (in one case) about the government compensating people for taking the land (as opposed to regulating it).
nwjg, oil (as Bob R. noted) is as expensive as it was during the 1980s. It was more expensive in the 1970s than today (after inflation) because OPEC created an artificial shortage. Meanwhile, the supply of oil has increased due to new discoveries and new extraction technology. The supply of land has not.
Also, I didn’t say land prices were driven “only” by demand, I said the supply of land was fixed. And yes, we are at the end of the “supply” of land, barring fill. We’ve been there for a long time. All land is in use, whether for housing, industry, landfill, agriculture, ranching, timber, parks, wilderness, parking … it’s all being used by someone.
Now, the supply of housing is not fixed, but that goes back to the “location, location, location” question. Housing in high-demand areas will cost a lot, and not because it’s more expensive to build there. Housing in low-demand areas costs significantly less. Housing where almost nobody wants to live would go for a song. There are probably small towns all over the west where you could buy a really inexpensive house because more people are leaving town than are moving in.
How do you get more housing where people want it? Density in the high-demand areas.
And yeah, Texas has “more land” than Oregon. About 104 million acres more, give or take.
Greg, it’s not illegal to live outside the urban growth boundary.
Ok, you go try to buy a piece of property outside the UGB and see if they let you build a house! They won’t unless your property is 80+ acres and you can prove a certain amount of income on your property related to farming activities. What’s happening here in Oregon is the destruction of small farming operations in favor of large corporations or government owned operations and nobody living on the land. Their eventual goal is to have socialist entities like Metro in control of all the land and people taking Tri-Met out to the agricultural areas to pick their fruit.
First, nobody has nullified the popular vote; the legislature is giving “the people” a chance to change the law.
If “the people” wanted to change the law, then they could have organized a referrendum drive, gathered petitions and changed the law. Instead the evildoers met in secret closed meetings, then added all sorts of asinine restrictions on the law, in effect overturning the vote even before “the people” again get to vote on it. People inside the city should have absolutely no voice on what private landowners outside the city can do with their property. How would you like farmers telling you that you can’t build streetcars or ghetto housing?
“What’s happening here in Oregon is the destruction of small farming operations in favor of large corporations.”
You said it Greg. I’m glad you support the revisions to measure 37 as you (unlike those pro-Measure 37 people) don’t conveniently ignore the fact that the majority of Measure 37 claims have, in fact, been filed by corporations and large scale developers.
I am also happy that you understand that small farming operations donated virtually nothing to the pro-measure 37 campaign, recognizing instead that the vast marjority of pro-measure 37 financing came from timber companies and real estate interests. Yet another fact, purposefully ignored by those corporate Measure 37 supporters.
You realize that Measure 37, in reality, had nothing to do with individual property rights, and everything to do with corporate profit. As a native Oregonian, I commend you for supporting our local citizens over the profit of a select few.
I’m glad you support the revisions to measure 37
I do not support any revision to any law that gives an evil, greedy and corrupt government socilistic control over a private property owner’s rights.
djk, I am having trouble here. These are two “cut and paste” EXACT quotes from your posts.
This is the one I responed to:
“Land prices are driven by ONE thing: demand”
And you come back with:
“I didn’t say land prices were driven “only” by demand…”
I give up.
“I do not support any revision to any law that gives an evil, greedy and corrupt government socilistic control over a private property owner’s rights”
Greg, I am sad that you conveniently ignore the fact that the majority of Measure 37 claims have been filed by corporations and large scale developers, not by individual and local property owners.
I am also sad that you purposefully ignore the fact that small farming operations donated virtually nothing to the pro-measure 37 campaign, and that the vast marjority of pro-measure 37 financing came from timber companies and real estate interests.
I am disapointed that you ignore the reality that Measure 37 had nothing to do with individual property rights, and everything to do with corporate profit. For example, your support for out-of-state corporate entitities, like Plum Creek Timber Company’s Measure 37 claim to develop 32,000 acres of coastal forestland into housing, saddens longstanding, native citizens of this state such as myself.
Honestly though, I think it would be Oregon’s great Republican Governor Tom McCall, whom would be the most disapointed of all to learn that people such as yourself prefer the profit of out-of-state corporate interests over the well being of local Oregonians.
Wow, it’s sure easy to make someone look foolish by taking quotes out of context and ignoring the flow of debate.
Just for the record, nwjG. First, I wrote in defense of smart-growth planning: Land prices are driven by ONE thing: demand. Create a well-planned city like Portland, people flock to it and housing prices soar.
You responded with an apples to offices comparison: Prices are actually driven by more than one thing. Houston has more demand than Portland but because supply is not so constrained and premitting costs are lower the price is lower. A lot more people demand cell phones and computers than did 20 years ago and those prices are a lot lower. It isn’t just demand that sets the price of any good or service.
Which is a complete non sequitur, as I pointed out:
But unlike consumer electronics and other commodities, the supply of land is fixed. With very rare exceptions (fill creating new buildable space in shallow water), they just ain’t making any more land. It’s axiomatic that the three most important things in real estate are location, location, and location. “Supply” of land is essentially fixed, and lifting development restrictions on land in, say, Damascus, doesn’t increase the supply of land in Irvingon or any other place where demand is high. ( emphasis added).
You responded: In essence you are saying that electronics prices are a function of SUPPLY and demand but land is only DEMAND. We have plenty, it is ARTIFICIALLY constrained, we are not running out.
Well, obviously I didn’t say that. I brought up supply three times in one post. So in response, I said: Also, I didn’t say land prices were driven “only” by demand, I said the supply of land was fixed.
In other words, “land” can’t be equated to “goods and services.” They aren’t at all similar. Good and services are subject to fluctuating supply and (in most cases) can be lost or consumed or depleted. We (effectively) can’t make more land, nor will land (normally) go away. When the supply is fixed, all that matters to price is demand.
But yeah, I offered up a couple of quotes in the process that you could pull out and juxtapose to appear contradictory. So you got me. Ouch. Good for you.
You make little sense.
Your post said something inane about demand being the only factor and I simply called you on it and tried to show and example or two so you might understand. I have degrees from a good university in economics, you seem to have slept in 101.
We have so much undeveloped land in this country it is much like any other commodity. It doesn’t matter that they are not making more, we have more than enough for thousands of years of population growth.
The reason prices are higher here than in Houston is, in part, government regulation.
“We have so much undeveloped land in this country it is much like any other commodity. It doesn’t matter that they are not making more, we have more than enough for thousands of years of population growth.”
Again, how much of that “undeveloped land” is buildable? You don’t account for the existence of mountains, forests, rivers, lakes, and other geographic features that make development very hard or impossible.
The earth cannot sustain “thousands of years of population growth” there simply aren’t enough resources. Turning the entire Midwest, for example, into a megalopolis won’t work.
It is precisely this mindset that there are no limits to anything that has made us the biggest energy pig in the world. http://www.economist.com/images/ga/2007w27/Petrol.jpg
We have so much undeveloped land in this country it is much like any other commodity.
Yeah, who needs all that farmland anyway? It’s not like we need to eat or anything. Let’s just allow all of our farmland – which would be cheap and really easy to develop – to be converted to suburbia. All those farmers can just work at a Wal-Mart and we can import food grown in China. And camping in the forest sounds like a real getaway when you allow a shopping center and a cineplex to be built on the nearest stretch of flat land. Better yet, thanks to Measure 37 I’ll be able to buy a house in a subdivision in that forest so I can just go camp in my backyard! Too bad I like Oregon wine, because we should develop those vineyards so that everybody can have their acre of land behind their house.
Yeah, all of that open space is a ridiculous waste and we’d better repeal all of our land use laws in a hurry!
The reason prices are higher here than in Houston is, in part, government regulation.
Where is the evidence for that? In fact, where is the evidence that the same house in Houston is any less expensive. Median prices tell you what the average home purchaser is willing to pay. There are a wide variety of factors that effect that. They include family income, the availability of rental housing and the costs beyond the purchase price, like homeowner association fees.
And if regulation, rather than demand, is driving up prices why are there many places in Oregon, subject to the same land use laws as Portland, that have lower housing prices than Houston?
In fact, what is the point? Most people who move to Portland had the option of moving to Houston. Apparently housing prices didn’t deter them. Portland is one of the most desirable places to live in the country, Houston isn’t. If you think it is, you can always move there.
Just a personal opinion:
I’ve spent time in most large American cities and a number of small towns in the majority of states.
There are a great many places, large and small, which I would consider great places for me to live (although few rank as highly as Portland.)
Houston just isn’t one of them, and I was there just 3 months ago.
On the plus side, they do have light rail. :-)
Another random observation:
PDX Airport: Indoor trees, fresh sushi, Powell’s Books, and free WiFi.
Houston Airport: No trees, no sushi, no Powell’s, $10 WiFi.
It’s too bad that I actually live in Portland, because PDX is probably the best airport in which to be stranded.
– Bob R.
Honestly though, I think it would be Oregon’s great Republican Governor Tom McCall, whom would be the most disapointed of all to learn that people such as yourself prefer the profit of out-of-state corporate interests over the well being of local Oregonians.
Oh how convenient of you to blather on about out of state this and that… Tom McCall was from Massachusetts! Many of the people who have hijacked this state and turned it into the socialist republic it is are from other places. Ever since they enacted it’s one-of-a-kind land misuse laws in the 1970s small farmers have been swallowed up by corporate farmers because the government forbids anyone from building on their small farms. Would YOU want to farm a 20-30 acre farm and not be allowed to live on it? Would YOU want to commute from the city out to your farm? I didn’t think so. But the ridiculous policies have done just that – force the small farmers out while larger corporate interests swoop in and devour them. So in essence this state is aiding and abetting large corporations through its dumb policies. Measure 37 put back into place something the state stole from people 30 years ago. If you want to go traipsing around in the countryside or camp out in the woods, then pony up and get your 1000 friends to buy up the land and use it how YOU want to use it.
Greg, I am sad that you conveniently ignore the fact that the majority of Measure 37 claims have been filed by corporations and large scale developers, not by individual and local property owners.
Who cares who owns the land – be it a little old lady or a coporation with a trillion dollars…. If they own the land, let them do with it what they want. If you can find an alternative use for the private property then buy it out and use it how you want.
“Would YOU want to farm a 20-30 acre farm and not be allowed to live on it?”
20-30 acres will raise 10-15 cattle*. You can gross up to $2k a head if they are organic, and it takes about 2 years to get them to that size, so the revenue from your farm is $10k-$15k/year. Even if that was all profit, (which it won’t be,) that is still below the poverty line… If you are lucky, your profit will on the order of 10% of that, or around $1000/yr…
So, given that you are going to have another job, (actually, what would be referred to as a primary job,) you aren’t going to be a very good farmer, because you won’t be around most of the time. And if you are like most people, and pull in $30k/year from another source, and then go home have to tend cattle every day of the year so that you can make less than $3/day at it, you might give up on the whole farming idea pretty quickly, and just rent 29 of your acres to your neighbor instead, cause it is easier. In which case, you aren’t actually a farmer, you are a guy that owns a house out in the country…
*With the exception of some U-pick places on Sauvie Island, (which benefit from being literally miles from town,) and some Wineries with good marketing departments, that is roughly the profit on most farmland in the state, regardless of if you raise cattle, (not labor intensive,) or strawberries, (very labor intensive, and therefore, have to hire a lot of help.) 80 acres may be the minimum before the state lets you build a house, but that doesn’t mean it is a good idea. Most farmers on farm that size still have to have other jobs…
The good news for you though, is that measure 49, will still allow you to build a house on your 20 acres.
Although there is nothing on the scale of the Pearl District (nor would one expect it, with Bend and Redmond combined being just shy of 100,000 population, which is around 80% of the entire population of all of Deschutes County), it does feature a number of projects which specifically bill themselves as New Urbanist in nature.
And yet it is successful WITHOUT a massive rail-based transit infrastructure.
Yet here we are in Portland, taking regional transit dollars away and funnelling it into a select few projects to benefit developers and the rich at the expense of those in TriMet’s entire service district.
Is the “demand” in Portland fueled because of unfair tax subsidies and benefits? Or are the governmental agencies playing games by investing in some parts of the region and disinvesting in others, to play a social game to nudge people as to where they can live?
Is the “demand” in Portland fueled because of unfair tax subsidies and benefits? Or are the governmental agencies playing games by investing in some parts of the region and disinvesting in others, to play a social game to nudge people as to where they can live?
If the people don’t want to live here, they’ll find somewhere else to live. The simple fact is that people do want to live here, in these types of developments, and are more than willing to pay the prices and in many cases, outbid others for the right to do so. That’s hardly being forced, and people wouldn’t try to outbid each other for “ghetto like housing.”
If I wanted to spend no more than $500 a month on rent (or $100k to buy), I’d find someplace on the outskirts of Portland that rents (or sells) for that amount. The fact is that I, and thousands upon thousands of others like me, want to live here and consider it to be worth the price – or we wouldn’t be renting and buying here. I choose where I want to live; you choose where you want to live.
If it was so horrible to be in Portland, then this city would more closely resemble Detroit circa 1970, and it would be devoid of redevelopment, reinvestment, and residents.
…and I don’t see Pearl District style developments being built in Deschutes County.
Actually, they are: http://www.millqtr.com/
Many of the people who have hijacked this state and turned it into the socialist republic it is are from other places.
Greg, do you have any idea what “socialism” actually is? Just curious.
Many of the people who have hijacked this state
are called voters. Democracy sucks, doesn’t it? Especially when the majority disagree with you?
But the ridiculous policies have done just that – force the small farmers out while larger corporate interests swoop in and devour them. So in essence this state is aiding and abetting large corporations through its dumb policies.
Per the USDA farm census: In 1974, Oregon had 22,433 farms of under 500 acres and 4,329 farms of 500 acres or larger. In 2002, there were 35,933 farms under 500 acres, and 4,100 farms 500 acres or larger.
While 1974 figures weren’t available, in 1978 there were 27,318 farms owned by families, individuals or partnerships, and 1,046 owned by corporations. In 2002, there were 37, 659 farms owned by people and 2,064 farms owned by corporations.
Those big picture numbers don’t tell the whole story, of course, but I’d say small family farms are doing pretty well in Oregon. There appear to be a lot more of them than there used to be.
We have so much undeveloped land in this country it is much like any other commodity. It doesn’t matter that they are not making more, we have more than enough for thousands of years of population growth.
Again, location. Land isn’t fungible. Every parcel is unique. The value of every parcel is affected by numerous factors, including annoying things like terrain and accessibility. The availability of undeveloped land in, say, Hood River won’t have much impact on the price of a parcel in Troutdale. You simply can’t equate land with commodities or services and have any kind of sensible discussion.
I have degrees from a good university in economics,
Fooled me.
50% of the tillable area of the Willamette Valley is planted in grass seed. Could we survive as a species without lawns?
Just those 500,000 acres (at 4 houses per acre) could support 2 million homes with 6 million people living in them. We are not short of land around around here!
From this study:
brookings.edu/metro/pubs/20060802_Pendall.pdf
“Thus it appears inarguable that the Growth Control regulatory family, which combines a series of locally imposed and generally
uncoordinated urban growth boundaries with widespread building permit caps, associates with high housing prices.”
50% of the tillable area of the Willamette Valley is planted in grass seed. Could we survive as a species without lawns?
I think this misses the point. The market for agricultural products is going to shift, but once that land has houses on it it can never grow any crop again. Its that cropland that generates the income that drives the rest of the agricultural industry.
Moreover the people who live in those houses demand services that cropland doesn’t. And they rarely actually pay the full cost of providing those services. Our current transportation funding would likely be more than sufficient if you emptied out rural Oregon so you didn’t need to provide roads to deliver goods and services there. And transportation is just one of the services that rural residents don’t pay the full cost of the services they require. Take a look at education funding for another example.
Thus it appears inarguable that the Growth Control regulatory family, which combines a series of locally imposed and generally uncoordinated urban growth boundaries with widespread building permit caps, associates with high housing prices.
Thankfully, we don’t have a growth control regime in Oregon. As the Brookings summary noted, Oregon falls into the “containment” regulatory family. According to Table 5 (housing prices), rents in “containment” regions are below the national average and housing prices just a hair above.
Sounds like Oregon’s on the right track, although I don’t question there is room for improvement.
“Thus it appears inarguable that the Growth Control regulatory family, which combines a series of locally imposed and generally
uncoordinated urban growth boundaries with widespread building permit caps, associates with high housing prices.”
It does not appear that Portland is part of that “regulatory family” as defined by the study.
The good news for you though, is that measure 49, will still allow you to build a house on your 20 acres.
Have you actually read the measure? It cancels all the pending claims, puts in place all sorts of cumbersome regulations and basically completely nullifies M37 AND in addition to that it gives the state power to seize property without giving ANY compensation whatsoever.
So, given that you are going to have another job, (actually, what would be referred to as a primary job,) you aren’t going to be a very good farmer, because you won’t be around most of the time.
Yeah that is assuming you are raising cows. There are plenty of other opportunities that small scale farmers can undertake and make a hefty profit. For example, nursery or flowers. But your wonderful state has robbed people of these opportunities in favor of large corporations and “rich” people who can afford to live on their 80+ acre farms. If you want to do something smaller scale you’re screwed. The land use regulations have done nothing other than encourage large farmers and discourage smaller ones.
If you want to do something smaller scale you’re screwed. The land use regulations have done nothing other than encourage large farmers and discourage smaller ones.
I know you don’t want facts getting in the way of a good rant, but in case anyone else was curious, the historic information from the USDA Census on small farms in Oregon shows the following (in numbers of farms):
1-9 acre farms:
1974: 2,521
1982: 5,987
1992: 6,319
2002: 9,377
10-49 acre farms:
1974: 8,292
1982: 12,415
1992: 11, 235
2002: 15,628
at the upper end of the scale
1000 – 1999 acre farms:
1974: 1,030
1982: 957
1992: 997
2002: 985
2000+ acres
1974: 1,731
1982: 1,600
1992: 1,695
2002: 1,569
I don’t really get how land use regulations “encourage” large farmers and “discourage” smaller ones when the numbers over the past three decades are going the other way.
“The market for agricultural products is going to shift”
Please provide proof.
“The market for agricultural products is going to shift”
Please provide proof.
You’re kidding, right? The market for agricultural products has been shifting for the entire history of human civilization in response to changing technologies and cultural values, and you want proof that the ongoing evolution of the market won’t grind to a halt?
With The Round (in central Beaverton) in foreclosure (again), Kruse Way and Bridgeport Village both strong economically and full of tenants and investors, it certainly demonstrates with a reality check the marketplace works as compared to social engineering and political control that consumes tax dollars and acts to drain the economy.
If the people don’t want to live here, they’ll find somewhere else to live. The simple fact is that people do want to live here, in these types of developments, and are more than willing to pay the prices and in many cases, outbid others for the right to do so. That’s hardly being forced, and people wouldn’t try to outbid each other for “ghetto like housing.”
And that’s exactly why people ARE moving to the suburbs, are moving to Clark County and to Marion, Yamhill and Polk Counties; and Linn County.
Yet for the Metro region, it seems that neither Metro nor TriMet care about anything but downtown, and Metro’s ballyhooed “regional centers”.
What is Metro and TriMet doing to help people live throughout the region? If those two agencies don’t want to provide services to the entire region – it’s simple. Retract the service boundaries. TriMet doesn’t have to serve everyone, but it DOES have to serve everyone in its boundaries equally and fairly. Same with Metro.
If Metro doesn’t want people living in Forest Grove, Metro shouldn’t count Forest Grove as part of its service district. Note that Canby is not part of Metro – and yet it is growing thanks to affordable (not slummy/ghetto) housing. Wilsonville is growing its transit service and offers connections TriMet would never dream of offering. Yamhill County is growing fast; especially Newberg. Yet these cities aren’t depriving anyone of a quality lifestyle, nor are these communities any worse to live in.
True, you might not be able to walk to the grocery store, but there are still places that one can walk to, like large parks with recreational facilities that invite children, nearby schools and libraries, and other amenities.
However as a Metro region resident, I’m forced to subsidize Metro’s manifesto towards “growth”, and TriMet’s poor quality of transit service, so that the Pearl District can be subsidized and its developer made rich.
“Have you actually read the measure? It cancels all the pending claims”
Yes, have you? True, it will cancel a claim for 275 foot tall garbage dumps next door to a vineyard, (Metro, fortunately, today, stopped allowing the trash to go there, so it looks like they’ll be out of material,) but people that just want to build a house on their property are allowed to that.
Yes, have you?
Yes, I have. The measure is stupid. Only 1% of land in Oregon is eligible for M37 claims. What’s the big deal anyway? Right now 5/8 of 1% is developed so we’d still be under 2% if this goes through. If someone or a corporation owns their land they should be able to do whatever they want with it. The government doesn’t own the property but if they get their greedy way they will communize every square inch in Oregon.
Greg, even by your extremely strange choice of statistics, you’re essentially saying that nearly twice as much land could be developed under M37 claims than has been developed in the entire history of the state of Oregon. Hardly a minor thing.
If you don’t like the upcoming ballot measure, by all means, please vote against it.
Was 100% of the land “communized” before M37? You seem to be arguing that limits on M37’s scope constitute “communizing” — that would imply that before M37, all land was “communized”, which most people don’t think is the case.
– Bob R.
“Only 1% of land in Oregon is eligible for M37 claims.”
Only 1% of the land has filed M37 claims. Most of the land in the state is eligible to file, but didn’t, because we don’t want to build 275 foot tall unlined garbage dumps on prime farmland. We understand that that wouldn’t be very nice to our neighbors…
Greg, even by your extremely strange choice of statistics, you’re essentially saying that nearly twice as much land could be developed under M37 claims than has been developed in the entire history of the state of Oregon. Hardly a minor thing.
Not only should M37 stay in tact, they should eliminate the UGB’s, LCDC and Metro all at the same time. Maybe they should get a ballot measure to do that so there isn’t so much government control in Oregon. There are people who had their property outright stolen by the State along the Willamette for the “greenway” that was supposed to stretch from Eugene to Portland on both sides of the river. Today many of those properties the state seized back in the 1970’s sit dilapidated today – now they are places where vagrants squat and druggies grow their pot. Now if this isn’t communism I don’t know what is?
Greg Tompkins: “Have you actually read the measure? It cancels all the pending claims”
Matthew: “Yes, have you?”
Greg Tompkins: “Yes, I have.”
hmmmm…..I’m taking a stab here, but I’m guessing you haven’t actually read the measure.
From the Measure itself, Section 12. (1): A person may file a claim for just compensation under sections 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act and ORS 197.352 after the date of adjournment sine die of the 2007 regular session of the Seventy-fourth Legislative Assembly.
In other words, not only are pending Measure 37 claims NOT CANCELLED, even if Measure 49 passes you can STILL continue to file claims utilizing Measure 37 (ORS 197.352).
Authorizes future claims based on regulations that restrict residential uses of property or farm, forest practices. Disallows claims for strip malls, mines, other commercial, industrial uses.
This is the part that disallows ANY development, especially for (gasp) evil things like strip malls! I wonder if this stupid law actually passes then the 1000 idiots would be able to disallow Ikea, Best Buy and the future Wal-Mart to be built?
Oh there’s more….
The measure would require one-time state administrative expenditures of $8.7 to $12.5 million to evaluate claims received to date for adherence to measure requirements.
In other words …. more government bureaucracy for administrative B.S. What exactly constitues “adherance to measure requirements?” Probably that the state can put the kibosh on anything they want to. 12.5M could probably make a nice four lane highway through Dunde…..
Potential state litigation costs cannot be determined.
All those claimants that want to utilize their M37 rights that have spent millions in development and getting their claims will likely sue the state and bankrupt it if M49 passes. I hope this thing ends up in the Supreme Court. They will probably overturn it IF M49 passes. We can only hope.
Claimants who have received land use waivers under Measure 37 are entitled to complete developments under the provisions of Measure 37 if they have established vested rights to do so.
What about those who haven’t “vested” because the state has already delayed delayed delayed. There are a lot of people who have spent their entire life savings and are nearly “vested” but have had to play the waiting game while the state tries to delay before the outcome of M49.
This could very well rip Oregon into two states – rural versus Portland.
Oh I just love these scare tactics from 1000 Friends….
What if it fails?
No limits on industrial and commercial development on farmland, forests or places where water supplies are limited. That means claims in progress, including the rock blasting and quarrying operations, riverfront landfills and shopping malls, can proceed.
No relief to the mess facing taxpayers — billions of dollars in compensation demands on the one hand or the huge cost of infrastructure for sprawling development on the other.
No limit on the size of housing subdivisions, even in places where roads, water supplies and other infrastructure simply cannot handle such large-scale development.
No requirement for claimants to actually prove they have suffered the losses that would trigger the right the build.
No ability for landowners to transfer development rights. This will hurt individuals and families who just want to provide a home or two for their children.
Oregon says goodbye to its farmland, forests and natural resources at an unprecedented rate, just like other parts of the world where land is usurped without the benefit of land use regulations. This isn’t just about quality of life: These resources are critical to a strong economy for our children and grandchildren.
Goodbye to farmland? Whatever…. Maybe people don’t want to live in the urban slum where sewer dumps into the concrete sided river and you have to smell your neighbors. I don’t want a future like this and I’m sure nobody else does…. The Willamette through Portland looks more like the L.A. river in L.A. Oh wait, isn’t L.A. what Portland is aspiring to be?