Last year, a production company was in town making a documentary on the Portland metro area’s land use, planning, and public involvement processes.
The program, titled “Portland: Quest for the Livable City” (Press Release) is now complete and is set to air on OPB (not OPB HD), Sunday, May 10, at 1pm. (Look for “Making Sense of Place: Portland” in the online OPB schedule.
An extended trailer has been posted — watch for a cameo (no dialogue) from Portland’s own Jim Karlock around the 4:49 mark:
Yours Truly was also at that same meeting — it was one of the early pubic open-houses for the Streetcar System Plan, this one at Grant High School. (Incidentally, the meeting was in the same band room where Mr. Holland’s Opus was filmed.) Portland Transport regular Terry Parker was also present, as I recall — it will be interesting to see how many of us, and what statements, are included in the final documentary.
32 responses to “J.K. – PBS Star!”
As I’ve said before, I wish we could solve the real problem instead of creating “haves” and “have nots” with an urban growth boundary. The problem isn’t development being allowed on Mr. Netter’s farm land. The problem is that people in that development can foist much of the burdens that they/it creates, and the additional costs that it takes to serve the low-density which it sounds like it would be, onto the area as a whole.
And moreover, if people in low-density development did have to pay the costs of it, we probably wouldn’t need streetcars and the like to attract development to where it is desired.
I’d gladly trade removing the UGB for the ability to create “traditional” neighborhoods. Fact of the matter is you cannot build these types of developments without going over massive hurdles whether it is from the city engineer or getting a loan from the bank (because the bank is not familiar with anything but subdivisions/sprawl developments).
The sprawl developers will always get their projects approved of because they are working within the default framework.
Development would be widely accepted in this area if we created something that was of higher value than what was destroyed. Nobody wants to pave over viable farmland or forest if what they get is strip malls and cookie cutter houses, even if it is on private land.
I see nothing that resembles nature in NW Portland. But what I do see is a very livable place with a mix of charming single-family homes, apartments units, and shops and businesses (not to mention 23rd is the densest in Portland @ over 30,000 ppl sq. mile).
Who cares that the environment of this area was destroyed in the process? What was created was something better than what was there before: a human ecosystem.
(not to mention 23rd is the densest in Portland @ over 30,000 ppl sq. mile).
Moving to NW Portland is definitely a good way to change your mind. Just don’t all do it at once, I don’t want my rent to go up.
thanks for the heads up on this.
this should be good, i’ve seen the cleveland one in the series and it was very well done.
No, that’s not Jim. Where’s the movie camera?
I don’t want my rent to go up.
WOW! Good idea, I’ve been needing an excuse to raise my rents!
Was Oregon a slave state or abolitionist state?
WAIT A MINUTE!
Is this Jim Karlock?
http://alsinterestingstories.blogspot.com/2009/05/is-this-jim-karlock.html
Dave H:Moving to NW Portland is definitely a good way to change your mind. Just don’t all do it at once, I don’t want my rent to go up.
ws:I wasn’t saying to move to 23rd area per say, however, the fact of the matter is these types of developments are ILLEGAL in the suburbs!
Maybe installment two will be to explore the farmland lost in Washington County due to this targeted development that exists along the MAX line, fueled by enormous tax subsidies and free infrastructure, simply to feed the MAX line — while areas along both T.V. Highway and the Sunset Highway and other major roads (i.e. Highway 47, Highway 219, Highway 210, Highway 10) remain undeveloped and used as productive farmland.
Meanwhile, I invite these producers to also examine development in Sherwood…a clear cut failure of our planning system.
A better solution would have been to follow the example I found in Germany about a decade ago – each CITY, not region, has its UGB – and you build within the city. There is no reason that the farmland in between Beaverton and Hillsboro had to be eaten up by MAX related development…
Any farmland that there was along the MAX line (and hobby farms can still be found within the UGB) wasn’t all that great to begin with–agricultural land, to be most effective, needs to be in with other agricultural land. The Cornell Road corridor to the north, and the TV Highway corridor to the south, were already developed prior to MAX.
One reason we have a UGB is that agriculture DOESN’T co-exist well with other land uses. Farmers and their stock do lots of things that smell bad, make noise, etc… and efficient agriculture needs its own infrastructure.
It ain’t as though prime farmland was taken out of agriculture service for Orenco Station and similar developments. Any farmland along the former Forest Grove branch ceased being “prime” decades ago, long before Westside Max was built.
Meanwhile, I invite these producers to also examine development in Sherwood…a clear cut failure of our planning system.
It is quite possible that the documentary will address these issues. If you watch the YouTube trailer, a good deal of time appears to be spent examining the views of critics of the UGB and our development/planning processes.
I wasn’t saying to move to 23rd area per say, however, the fact of the matter is these types of developments are ILLEGAL in the suburbs!
Sorry WS, I meant I was more of the JK type until I moved here. Living near three bus lines, the streetcar, and 20-25 minutes (walking) from MAX definitely changed me attitude a lot about why I pay a TriMet tax.
If I had kids or pets or anything, I might not love this type of neighborhood so much (don’t get my wrong, I still would), but for me it’s perfect. I haven’t owned or driven a car in 6 or 7 weeks, and don’t miss that at all.
I second what Scotty said…
I disagree about the inability to build traditional neighborhoods now. It is legal in most places in the Portland Metro region. Blaming city engineers is incorrect, here at least.
Policy and economic reasons have more to do with it. Modern building and fire codes make ground floor retail prohibitively expensive in most projects – this is why dense development is often subsidized, to make ground floor retail work. Parking codes, based on national standards developed on suburban models, require parking that damages urbanism. This is a policy problem, coming from a national model biased against urbanism. And banks, as noted, want to see this parking to give the project a loan. Hard to blame the banks for this, they’re just following national policy practice.
The UGB is the single most valuable tool we have to promote urbanism. It’s the reason rural life has survived just outside Portland, the only big city in America where this is true.
UnitParking codes, based on national standards developed on suburban models, require parking that damages urbanism
ws:Parking codes are determined by municipal comp. plans, not “national standards”. City engineers are still apart of the problem; they are designing overly wide roads., as well as unconnected streets.
UnitThe UGB is the single most valuable tool we have to promote urbanism.
ws:Outside of Portland (the actual city), the UGB has done nothing really to stop sprawl inside its limits. The UGB is just a line, it has nothing to do with what is going on inside the line.
We became very relaxed regarding land-use in Portland. We thought we had won when that line was put in years ago, but we completely forgot to address the built environment inside that boundary.
Now what’s left is 30 years of terrible leap frog development; where the line is once again going to be expanded with more heated politics behind it.
The UGB concept isnt perfect. It creates an artificial financial dichotomy between property just inside and property just outside of the line. I think most people sympathize with farmers who see their neighbors making milllions, while they are unable to retire.
However, the UGB system, even if it is unfair, has been a successful stop gap to halt the unlimited suburban style sprawl that has occured all over the country.
That type of sprawl is also unjust and as well, economically unviable (without subsidy).
So either choice, UGB or no UGB, includes a negative. In my opinion, we should choose the UGB. And as the national and global paradigms for cities, economies and lifestyles evolves, the cities with UGBs will be better prepared to take advantage of inevitable change and the resulting oppurtunities.
However, in the future I believe the region will require new ideas for the concept of the UGB. It must be more equitable… balancing the good of the whole community with individual liberty.
just my thoughts on the matter, at least
While there’s some farmers who want the UGB removed to make millions – there’s plenty more who don’t want to suburbanize their bucolic communities and want it in place.
Just some more thoughts.
Somebody needs to record this.
A DVD is said to be available soon.
Meanwhile, anyone who records PBS/APT programs who is not an OPB contributor is freeloading off the taxpayers’ and contributors’ dimes. (Sorry, Terry, I couldn’t resist. ;-) )
Congratulations go to Terry Parker for getting a full 10 seconds of screen/quote time. I wish that JK had been quoted along-side you, as he had a memorable line at that same meeting.
I almost live-blogged it through comments here. I think it was pretty decent, though I had some issues with it. For example, they showed footage of MAX when they were talking about the streetcar. Also, (but not totally a complaint) there was a lot of footage with MAX traveling through Saturday Market.
But (and I can kind of forgive them since no one seems to be raising it) they didn’t mention how development-related policies encourage the problem. They had a quote from Dorothy English saying she felt land-use laws were “stealing” from her, but no mention of how brand-new and low-density development (which Dorothy’s would probably be) is allowed to “steal” resources from society (like new schools and more costly services).
BTW, was that you Terry on in the Mt. Hood railcar yesterday? As much as I get tired of your repetitive comments here, I have to give you credit for doing that, since one might assume you would be against things like that.
My criticism of the documentary is that even though it was long-format and commercial-free, they didn’t really use that time to provide much clarity of detail.
Wherever one falls in their political views about our land use laws, it seems this documentary was just a bit too vague and conflated a lot of things. The role of Metro wasn’t really accurately characterized, they freely moved between “Portland, city of” and “Portland, metro area” in ways that wouldn’t provide clarity to an outsider.
I wouldn’t see someone who hasn’t been here coming away form this program with anything that couldn’t have been generalized in a 20-minute format rather than an hour-long format.
The role of Metro wasn’t really accurately characterized, they freely moved between “Portland, city of” and “Portland, metro area” in ways that wouldn’t provide clarity to an outsider.
They kind of talked about what Metro does–‘Metro formulates one plan and normally each individual city would be its own fiefdom’, but in the beginning I did feel that I didn’t know what Metro was (not considering my previous knowledge). I can’t remember any specific confusion between the city and the metro area, but I think a lot of people aren’t clear about which one they mean, especially since Beaverton, etc, can be a lot different than Portland.
One other thing: while they talk about the removal of Harbor Drive, there was no mention of the Mt. Hood Freeway or other highways that were canceled, some of which the lack of does help result in a “sense of place”.
BTW Bob, are you available this afternoon or evening?
Booked this afternoon and evening… try me Tuesday for your project.
“while they talk about the removal of Harbor Drive, there was no mention of the Mt. Hood Freeway or other highways that were canceled”
Well, that’s what I mean. When talking about Harbor Drive, they do mention cancellation of the “expansion” of a freeway, which I took to mean the Mt. Hood Freeway project around the same time, but like I said, the show was short on specifics.
As for Portland-Metro / Portland-City-Of conflations, one example is the mention of all the businesses headquartered “in Portland” which were actually in Portland-Metro suburbs, whilst in subsequent verbiage talking about how “Portland” built a streetcar, which was a Portland-City-Of initiative.
Plus, while Metro sets certain land-use goals and targets, it wasn’t fully correct for the documentary to say that Metro determines zoning and the localities don’t. The localities are very much involved in their own zoning/planning, within the framework where Metro has authority.
the show was short on specifics
Yeah, and many, like Willamette Week, say that the Mt. Hood Freeway was a big turning point, possibly at least as big as tearing out Harbor Drive.
“the mention of all the businesses headquartered “in Portland””.
I remember that now (they mentioned Intel and Nike). Furthermore, while Intel’s biggest presence is in the Silicon Forest, its not actually headquartered here.
talking about how “Portland” built a streetcar
And that’s an example of how Beaverton isn’t like Portland.
After 4:30 on Tuesday should work. The good news is that I’ve made a lot of progress on my own and might get more done today.
I apologize if the first part of this post is off topic; but to respond to Jason’s comments – you are correct, that was me hosting (a volunteer) and answering questions on the passenger car Mt. Hood.
For those who didn’t know, yesterday National Train Day displays took place at Portland’s Union Station along with other places across the country. Several thousand people attended this FREE to the public event browsing through the railroad related information booths. And then there was the Zip Car booth – not a railroad or railroad destination – but just taking advantage of the fact a lot of people would be there.
Parking was $2.00 all day for the event – a reasonable price that that should apply on an everyday basis to all downtown parking lots and city parking meters.
Historic rail equipment was also on display in Portland which included the Daylight steam locomotive 4449 built in 1941 for the Southern Pacific, the sleeper-lounge passenger car Mt. Hood built in 1950 for the Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway, and a privately owned caboose built for the Great Northern. It should also be noted that none of this equipment receives any regular taxpayer funding, although the group that owns the passenger car and the group that maintains the locomotive are both 501c-3 organizations whereby donations and portions of membership fees can be written off for tax purposes.
I have been a member of the group that owns the passenger car for over 30 years, worked on both the passenger car and the locomotive prior to no longer being able to do the heavy work, and generally support the railroads including funding for Amtrak (in part because the railroads do not take away from highway funding or road capacity). Additionally, in supporting the railroads, there is not the social engineering dictatorial stigma that is associated with reducing roadway capacity to accommodate transit or bicycle infrastructure, taxing motorists to subsidize other modes of transport, and attempts to get people out of their cars.
As for my comments in the documentary, the standard scripted answer “everybody on the committee drives” was the response and reasoning given for not having a specific motor vehicle representative. Yet, everybody on the committee also walks and there is a specific pedestrian representation on the committee; and many on the committee bicycle and there is specific bicycle representation on the committee – so on and so forth. The answer was meaningless and was not consistent with why other non-transit modes are specifically represented.
As for the documentary itself, there was some vagueness, some clarity and some things just not correctly identified. Harbor Drive for example was not what people generally consider as a freeway like the Banfield or the Sunset Highway. What was clear is why people move to Vancouver, that social engineering is taking place as it applies to housing and transportation policies, and that many people disagree with Oregon’s land use policies. As Jason suggests, the role of Metro was not quite right. Additionally, neither Intel or Nike are actually headquartered in Portland, or have a direct relationship to the streetcar. Moreover, the role of a public process was overplayed as part of the actual decision making process.
One other note, did anybody else notice how transit was being touted as how people got around while Sauvie Island, the farm where fresh produce was purchased and other tourist amenities were all just “a short drive” away. One seems to be in conflict with the other.
One other note, did anybody else notice how transit was being touted as how people got around while Sauvie Island, the farm where fresh produce was purchased and other tourist amenities were all just “a short drive” away.
Yes.
One seems to be in conflict with the other.
No. :-)
I think regardless of one’s perspective about policies in our region, this particular presentation left something to be desired.
Parking was $2.00 all day for the event – a reasonable price that that should apply on an everyday basis to all downtown parking lots and city parking meters.
That’s an interesting proposal, but would amount to quite a subsidy for motorists and a “taking” of revenue from private parking operators.
I have a small downtown studio for occasional use. There is a private parking lot on one side of the building. They charge $11/day before 3PM, and $5/day after 3PM.
Recently, we attended an event in the Pearl District and parked in a private hourly garage, entering after 7PM. They charged $2/hr (compared to the City’s subsidized parking rate of $1.25/hr), which automatically went to $7 total after 2 hours.
Some of the closer-in private garages charge over $4/hr during the day.
I know of no private lot downtown which charges less than the city’s subsidized rate of $1.25/hr, except when validated by a participating merchant (who then is paying for the parking).
then there was the Zip Car booth
While that did seem a little out of place, I don’t think it was real busy when I went past it. Also, I now have video up of the event, including of Terry discussing the railroad car (see part 5).
Harbor Drive for example was not what people generally consider as a freeway
Looking through documents at the Oregon Sustainable Community Digital Library, I pretty sure I came across a document (but probably from the 1940’s or so) calling Harbor Drive a freeway. However, I have argued that it wasn’t a modern one and may have had parking and/or allowed turns. See the city’s 1974 Harbor Drive aerial. That being said, I do believe it was at least a major arterial and made the waterfront basically useless to others.
social engineering is taking place as it applies to housing and transportation policies
And it took place when the Federal Government financed the Interstate Highway System, bulldozing swathes of low-income and/or minority neighborhoods such as in North Portland so that people in the suburbs (like Vancouver) could get downtown faster. As well as when new development isn’t charged for the new schools and other services it needs.
many people disagree with Oregon’s land use policies
For the people that don’t like it because it restricts uses of their land, the problem is that they often don’t realize that what they want to do with it (e.g. develop it) is very costly to society.
“a short drive”
Hey, you can indeed take transit to Sauvie Island, and even on Saturdays. No, you can’t take transit on the island, but besides events at the farms, there’s not a lot to serve and the lack of subdivisions and their traffic makes biking enjoyable there.
So this is TERRY PARKER!
http://rantingsofatrimetbusdriver.blogspot.com/2009/05/so-this-is-terry-parker.html
In response to my comment “Parking was $2.00 all day for the event – a reasonable price that that should apply on an everyday basis to all downtown parking lots and city parking meters” Bob said: “That’s an interesting proposal, but would amount to quite a subsidy for motorists and a “taking” of revenue from private parking operators”
Bob’s comment is interesting too in that a “taking” exists when bikes park for free downtown and building/property owners city wide are required to provide places for bikes to park which is definitely a subsidy to bicyclists. Moreover, when employers pay a payroll tax to subsidize transit passengers and parking is eliminated from places like the transit mall; that too can be called a “taking”. – just as motorist paid roadway dollars being siphoned off to pay for infrastructure for other transport modes is also a “taking”. Bob, you really opened the door on this one!