Efficient transit and denser land use go hand in hand; but increasing the density of an established urban area is often difficult and painful. An examination why.
Portland is often feted as a successful example of a quality transit system. And for a mid-sized North American city, such praise is well deserved–even if that qualifier is tantamount to grading on the curve. But many transit advocates from the “real” transit cities are fond of pointing out that our little burg is nothing compared to the large cities of the world–or, perhaps more importantly, to midsize of cities of similar size in Europe. (Or even in Canada–the city of Calgary, which has only slightly more than half the population of metro Portland boasts a light rail system with over twice the ridership. And greater Vancouver BC, slightly larger than the Portland/Couv metropolitan area, blows Portland away in transit metrics).
And such criticisms are, in many ways, entirely correct. Outside the “core” (which I define here as the West Hills to I-205, and Columbia Boulevard to Johnson Creek), and a few dedicated corridors in the suburbs (such as the Baseline/185th/Cornell corridor in Washington County), the metro area consists mainly of auto-centric suburban sprawl–not the sort of land use which is conducive to quality transit. By numerous metrics (such as cost/passenger and passengers/route-km), Portland’s transit is less effective than many of its international peers. The major contributing factor to this is land use, in particular, a lack of density–any efficiency parameter that has distance in the denominator is going to suffer if a longer route is needed to serve a critical mass of customers–as lower density means a lower number of passengers in a given route or stop’s catchment area.
One on hand, it can be argued that comparing Portland to, say, New York (or even a small European city such as Strasbourg, France) is unfair and pointless. Transit is not fungible; we can’t solve mobility problems in Portland by building transit in Manhattan–we need to serve the city in which we live. But if you want transit (and other forms of urban infrastructure such as utilities) which are really cost-effective, the density question is one of fundamental importance. And while we can’t serve the Portland area by building transit elsewhere, we can serve it better by encouraging higher density and more efficient forms of land use.
Why bother?
A common criticism of Portland’s transit plans is that we don’t currently have the necessary density to support a Really Good System, especially in corridors not already established–so why bother? An oft-proposed alternative is to focus on roads for the masses–build more (and wider) freeways instead for the bulk of suburban commuters to use, and keep just enough bus service so those who can’t drive can still get around; and to concentrate transit where it already makes sense, and generally, already exists in a reasonable form. To limit infrastructure enhancements to support transit to the core city, and provide ample park-and-rides to make crossing between “autopia” and “transitworld” less painful.
The issues with this approach (and the motivating factors of this blog) are as follows.
- When engaging in planning, especially of long-term infrastructure, it’s wise to plan for what conditions are expected to be over time, not just what they are today. Building out MAX throughout the region might not be a wise investment were the energy, pollution, and storage problems associated with automobiles to suddenly go away, but if one predicts a world with increasingly expensive gasoline and increased concerns about pollution, then it makes perfect sense.
- The problem with a Portland-centric approach is that TriMet is a regionally-funded and chartered agency; for TriMet to only focus on Portland is not politically viable.
- “Social service” transit is extremely inefficient, especially if it tries to be comprehensive–and services mainly used by the poor are increasingly viewed as a form of welfare–which can result a loss of political support and funding for the service, resulting in it becoming even more a service-of-last-resort, resulting in a greater stigma and even more withdrawal of public support, ad infinitum.
However, if we assume that Peak Oil is coming or already here, and given that we’re increasingly turning to more expensive forms of oil production such as shale oil extraction and deepwater drilling, it’s a good bet to make–then driving is going to get more expensive. Higher fuel costs will make comprehensive transit will become more and more of a necessity. (The tipping point currently seems to be somewhere between $3 and $4 a gallon; last I looked regular gas was $3.199 per gallon at a random gas station in Beaverton). Increasing service to suburbia will need to be part of equation. And to make the needed transit cost-effective, it helps to increase density. As venture capitalist Peter Christensen wrote:
Basically, any city that’s building a light rail or subway line and not dramatically increasing the zoning around it is throwing money away. Without the proper land use, there’s not enough population to drive demand, without demand there’s not enough incentive to provide good levels of service, and without good levels of service people will find it faster to drive.
In addition to increasing transit service (and connections for human-powered mobility as well), it also helps to obviate the need for longer trips in order to reduce total person-miles traveled. One way to do this is to encourage more mixed-use development. Many suburban neighborhoods are residential-only; buying a gallon of milk requires getting in the car (though biking will work for the sufficiently motivated). In theory, usage patterns and density are orthogonal; in practice, though, higher density areas tend to segregate different uses less.
But increasing density, and changing established usage patterns, are hard–especially in a democratic society, where the government cannot simply order this outcome by fiat. (The fact that we live in a democratic society is something I regard as an unqualified good thing, BTW…) One of the main reasons that it’s hard is because often times, the people who live in established lower density areas simply happen to like it that way. Not all do–many people who aren’t wealthy live where they can afford to, not where they would necessarily like to, and it’s been often argued that established land-use regulations have produced a surplus of sprawl. But many suburban dwellers dislike what they perceive as negative externalities (some of which stand up to scrutiny and some of which don’t) of high-density living, and thus choose to live where they can avoid these costs (not all of which are financial).
A few other points ought to be made up front:
- Experience teaches that high density requires that at least one of the things be true: Geographic limitations, strong land use controls, or high land prices. If land on the perimeter of a region is both cheap and available, then it’s more rational (from a short-term economic perspective) to consume it for development, rather than conserve it.
- Any attempt at growing density is almost assuredly fruitless without a growing population. The reason for this is that while populations grow and shrink over time, as people move in, move out, are born, and die; the urban footprint of an area generally only trends in one direction–it continues to grow. Large-scale abandonment of urban areas generally only occurs due to catastrophic events. As a result, if we assume that the denominator of the density fraction never shrinks, it follows that the numerator must increase for the ratio to rise.
- A region that has a shrinking population (current examples in the US include Buffalo and Detroit) has far more serious problems to consider; for much of the same reason.
Portland’s population trend remains upwards, however, even if there is evidence that the growth rate is slowing down. With that in mind, here are the different ways to accommodate the housing needs of a rising population without paving over farmland and expanding the urban footprint.
The really easy way: reducing vacancy
Much of this post discusses ways of increasing the supply of housing stock within a region, without expanding its perimeter. But before we go there, it’s worth stating the obvious: Building more housing is generally not a wise idea from a density-improving point of view, if there is a significant amount of existing vacant housing. Lots of vacancies may indicate a downward population trend, which is frequently a Bad Thing. It may also indicate one of several other things which are easier to deal with.
- Housing mismatched to the demographics of a region–such as lots of larger homes in an area dominated with retired couples; or a surplus of houses for sale when the market is demanding rentals.
- An oversupply due to a recent housing bubble. Characteristics of this include sellers frequently demanding more than buyers are willing to pay (often to a desire to minimize losses or to avoid going underwater on a mortgage), lots of inventory which is bank-owned or short sale, and tight credit. This all should sound familiar to any of you who’ve checked out the real estate market in Portland, recently.
- The housing stock is excessively dilapidated or otherwise viewed as unsuitable
- The housing stock is concentrated in areas considered undesirable or blighted. (If the entire area is considered undesirable, this is a serious problem; the existence of blighted areas within a larger community, far less so.
One other important thing to remember here is that the homebuilding industry (by which I mean developers as well as other construction and real estate interests) frequently is a major player in land-use planning. While their technical expertise is frequently useful, this is a group that makes money when homes are built, not when existing housing stock is re-occupied. Despite the large amount of unsold inventory (not all of which is necessarily vacant, but much of it is), homebuilders still want to build more, and are agitating for increasing the supply of available land. It is in the economic interests of this industry to encourage urban sprawl, not to prevent it. Something to remember.
The large number of vacancies in Portland at the present time seems to be tied to the bursting of the housing bubble. Prior to the bubble bursting, Portland was definitely a sellers’ market; and in such conditions, adding new housing stock made more sense. With that in mind, we now turn to ways to increase the supply of housing stock while maintaining the perimeter; focusing on particular on ways to do so that optimized land use for transit.
The easy way: transit oriented development.
The Pearl District viewed from the US Bancorp Tower. Image courtesy Wikipedia
One of the easiest ways to increase density–and the one which produces much lower levels of resistance from existing residents (because there aren’t any), is to build new high-density (and mixed use) developments on greenfields or brownfields. Such things are commonly called “transit oriented development”, especially when done in cooperation with a transit agency or project, or which boast efficient transit access as a feature. Such developments avoid the NIMBY problem almost completely, as the land is generally unoccupied beforehand. (Here, I’m assuming that large tracts are developed, not the occasional vacant lot; for the latter, see the next section).
The problems with TOD and other forms of greenfield/brownfield development are as follows:
- When done in cooperation with a transit agency (and especially if developer-financed funding schemes are employed), such developments raise issues of excessive entanglement between the transit agency and the developer(s); and in some cases lead to charges of corruption or of “developer-oriented transit” (Portland Streetcar actually uses the term “development-oriented transit” in one of their online brochures).
- When new development is done in conjunction with new infrastructure, it raises the question as to whether the agency is neglecting existing riders and communities in favor of new neighborhoods, especially if the development isn’t on the way to somewhere else where large numbers of people already work or live.
- New developments require the availability of greenfields or brownfields to develop on. Greenfield development on the periphery of a region is generally available, but using such land increases the overall urban footprint–which is what we call “sprawl”. Greenfields in the interior of a region are often hard to find. Brownfields are often more readily available, but brownfield development is expensive, as the prior use has to be cleaned up and removed. Conversion of land from industrial or commercial use to residential use also raises economic questions–a city needs someindustry to survive, after all.
- Some transit projects, particularly those intended as “trunk” routes or located adjacent to freeways, aren’t as conducive to TOD. This is a common criticism of both the Green Line along I-205, and MLR along OR 99E–the highway (and the UPRR tracks in the case of Milwaukie MAX) make redevelopment along the line more difficult, and/or potential developments less attractive.
- Some transit projects which don’t suffer from being adjacent to highways, still haven’t seen as much redevelopment as might be ideal. There have been pockets of redevelopment along the Blue Line in Rockwood and Beaverton, but many tracts remain unchanged, and there are a few noted failures such as The Round.
The hard way: infill and upzoning
Infill development in the UK. Image copyright Nigel Chadwick, courtesy Wikipedia
Many critics of opening up new tracts of land for residential development, whether green/brownfields internal to a region, or new tracts of land on the perimeter, point out the obvious: There’s room to grow within the existing urban footprint. Most neighborhoods have vacant lots (parcels zoned for residential use, but without any building), oversized lots which could be subdivided, and other properties which could be used to add housing units. In addition, there’s always the potential for redevlopment–removing existing housing stock to replace it with new, higher-density housing stock. Here’s where things really start getting controversial.
Many people like living in large lots. My personal opinion is that if you have one, more power to you–I don’t support coercive land-use policies of the sort that force people to subdivide, or the condemnation of housing stock to build other housing stock. (More on this topic below). On the other hand, many people who like living in large lots (and thus who do so) also like to insist that their neighbors should live in large lots as well–and therein lies the rub. There are several different ways that such preferences get enforced; the two most common in the US being covenants and zoning. While some places (famously Texas) lack zoning laws and land-use policy is done entirely through covenants, zoning is the most common way communities determine land-use policies.
Zoning has many purposes, for better or worse. Among the purposes of various zoning designations–explicitly stated or otherwise–include segregation of incompatible uses (nobody wants a hog farm or oil refinery next door); preservation of neighborhood “character”, preventing the overuse of infrastructure such as roads or sewerage, exclusion of poverty, and safety. Among the more controversial types of zoning, especially in the land-use field, are those which impose density maximums not justified by safety or infrastructure concerns. Many people view upzoning (increasing the maximum permitted density in an area) as an infringement on their rights, particularly if doing so adversely affects property values or requires new infrastructure be constructed (such as sewer conversions). A good way of mitigating some of these concerns is ensuring that developers who increase the need for infrastructure in a community bear the brunt of the costs (the same applies to new development); rather than externalizing the cost.
Opposition to upzoning can be particularly fierce when multifamily housing, particularly rental apartments, become part of the mix. (Similar issues apply to developments such as trailer parks). Many homeowners associate such housing with poverty, and the numerous social pathologies that poverty can bring, and are terrified by the prospect of a “project” moving in next door. (Country/western signer Tom T. Hall once penned a song about the perceived evils of upzoning, famously complaining that “they put in a trailer park before I could move”). Of course, adding in apartments is as an easy way to increase density of an existing community, and inexpensive to boot.
Infill has one other difficulty: Developers don’t like it as much. While homebuilders are generally happy for any opportunity to make money, the biggest moneymaking opportunities are found in subdivision development: when an entire parcel is subdivided, built up, and marketed as part of a development project. This gives the developer economies of scale that simply aren’t present with one-off construction, and in new developments, the developer frequently gets to set the rules, rather than having to abide by existing covenants and regulations. Infill which involves tearing down existing structures (particularly ones which still have value) is even more expensive–buying a perfectly good building only to bulldoze it costs money–all else being equal, developers would rather buy vacant lots.
The poverty issue is a tough one. The social pathologies associated with it (crime, addition, dysfunctional family arrangements) are real, and can impose negative externalities on the surrounding community. However, the negative externalities of poverty are exacerbated when the poor are herded into ghettos or slums, rather than distributed throughout the larger population–this is one reason that subsidized housing sprinkled through “nice” neighborhoods is actually an effective measure, as the problems don’t compound anywhere near as much when the poor aren’t concentrated. On the other hand, many view the segregation and concentration of the poor into slums to be a good thing–as it keeps the pathologies and negative externalities away from their own homes and families; this attitude seems to be frequently common among those who view the poor as the architects of their own misery, and thus not a problem which society at large has a moral obligation to deal with. Physical isolation of the poor also permits political arrangements by which impoverished neighborhoods aren’t subsidized by weathier neighboring communities–a longstanding cause of capital flight to the suburbs in this country is the ability of separate municipalities to keep their tax dollars to themselves. Portland is fortunate, to be sure, that it doesn’t have any truly awful slums–there is nothing in our city that remotely compares to places like Camden or East St. Louis.
The really hard way: forced redevelopment and condemnation
Downtown Portland, middle 20th century. Harbor Drive occupies west bank of the Willamette River, I-5 and I-84 are under construction on east bank in background, and many blocks of South Portland have been cleared for redevelopment. Click on picture for larger image. (Photo courtesy of Portland Development Commission)
And now we get to the really controversial part–forced redevelopment. This refers to various schemes where the the occupant of a property (or a larger tract) is forced out, the properties are redeveloped, and then made available for re-occupation in a new form. Occupants can include both owners (who are forced out by eminent domain) and renters (who are evicted from a property, either as a result of a condemnation or a voluntary decision to sell by the landlord). Renters frequently suffering particularly adverse effects–their only reward is frequently higher rents, if they come back at all; unlike owners, they don’t enjoy any of the windfalls of redevelopment such as increased property values or condemnation awards.
Often times, though not always, forced redevelopment schemes are done under the aegis of urban renewal. Many African-American (in particular) communities around the country suffered the bulldozer as part of grand schemes to clean up “blighted” areas–in some cases, the targeting of black neighborhoods was intentional. The history of urban renewal in Portland is littered with examples of abuse and error–schemes which seemed like good ideas to the powerbrokers that planned them, but today are regarded with regret. Much of Portland’s Albina neighborhood was destroyed to make room for the Memorial Coliseum, Emanuel Hospital, and the Minnesota Street Freeway (now Interstate 5); likewise the South Portland neighborhood was ripped apart to make way for highways and the high-rise developments to the east of Portland State University. Lest anyone think that this is a phenomenon of the past, consider the current brouhaha around the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, a development which included a controversial Supreme Court case, where the Court refused to consider a lower court’s ruling upholding the power of the government to exercise eminent domain on behalf of a private developer.
But government powers like eminent domain and urban renewal are not necessary for disruptive redevelopment. Many powerbrokers in Beaverton are promoting the planned Murray Village development, a mixed-use development set to break ground next spring near the corner of Murray and Jenkins, across the street from both Nike and Tektronix/Maxim. This project has been lauded as an example of redevelopment that does not depend on urban renewal, and has even been praised by the proponents of the anti-urban-renewal petition drive in Clackamas County. What many who promote this project gloss over is that several years ago, there was an active community on the grounds (a trailer park), whose residents were kicked out several years ago when the landlord decided upscale real estate was a better market to be in. (And I’m quite certain that both the city and county were more than happy to see the trailer park closed down and the poor residents therein dispersed). As a result, the northeast corner of Murray and Jenkins has been vacant for over three years now.
A major difficulty for large redevelopment projects is that they frequently require large tracts of land; which often must be aggregated from separate lots owned by separate individuals–many of whom may not be interested in the project. Thus getting anything done often requires some sort of coercive method (eminent domain, or mass evictions); with the result that the beneficiaries (and residents) of the new development are seldom the old residents. (And even when people aren’t kicked out, redevelopment often leads to gentrification–residents can no longer afford rents and taxes, and are force to move anyway). Such wholesale disruptions of neighborhoods, for whatever reason, frequently damage communities far beyond the properties directly affected.
Regardless of the merits of an urban renewal project, and regardless of the demands and goals of regional planning bodies such as Metro, there is a dirty little secret, however: These sorts of redevelopment simply don’t happen without the cooperation of municipal government–either county commissioners for unincorporated areas, or City Hall for cities. Metro can prevent a city from expanding beyond an already established urban growth boundary, but it cannot force a city to upzone. A decade ago, many thought Damascus would be the next community to urbanize in the Portland area, and many current infrastructure plans assume a significant increase in the area’s population. But Damascus incorporated, taking control of land use planning from the county board of commissioners, putting the brakes on such plans. Damascus may still densify, but it will be on terms much more favorable to exisitng residents. Following the example of Damascus, the communities of Oak Grove and Jennings Lodge, also considered for major changes by Clackamas County government, are also considering incorporation.
The unspeakable way: Abandonment
Abandoned neighborhood in Detroit, MI; so-called “urban prairie”. Image copyright JT Michcock, courtesy Wikipedia
Earlier, it was noted that the urban footprint of a city grows monotonically, barring catastrophe. “Catastrophe” can take many forms, including natural disasters which destroy cities or neighborhoods; but it can also take the form of economic disasters. The West is littered with numerous examples of “ghost towns”–settlements which were abandoned when they lost their economic vitality; on which stand the ruins of what used to be a thriving community. In many cities and towns, one can find plenty of examples of neighborhoods which are full of boarded-up buildings, neglect, and disrepair–in some cases, inhabited by the poor and desperate, in other cases not inhabited at all.
And then there’s Detroit. The Motor City, a place which once was one of America’s economic and cultural crown jewels, has been buffeted by widespread political corruption (a former mayor was sent to jail last year), devastation of the US automobile industry, decades of “white flight” to the suburbs, and the foolish decision to draft Joey Harrington (seeing if anyone’s still paying attention–both Bob and I went to Oregon State :). As a result of this, Detroit’s population has been shrinking, and those that are left are increasingly those who cannot afford to get out. At a time when demand for urban services (the cost of which are highly dependent on land area) is steady, and pension costs are escalating, the city’s tax base has been plummeting.
As a result, the city is considering taking the unprecedented step of abandoning some of its neighborhoods: Enticing residents to move out (and relocate closer to the city center), and stopping all urban services to the abandoned neighborhoods. Essentially, the city is trying to shrink in a controlled fashion; to become more smaller and compact–to become more dense–as a smaller urban footprint will be easier for the city to serve on a limited budget.
Unfortunately, the abandoned properties don’t magically revert back to productive agricultural land. At least not overnight. Many such properties will house vagrants and squatters, and a few leftover residents who simply can’t afford to move, and will for a long time. Many of the properties being abandoned are industrial sites; full of the waste products of heavy industry. But some of them are slowly being reclaimed by nature, as buildings are overgrown and unmaintained pavement is undermined and cracked by new plant growth and washed away by the wind and weather. The phenomenon known as “urban prairie” has arisen in other blighted areas where people gave up and left, and now it’s happening on a large scale in the Motor City.
There’s no evidence at this point, of course, that any such fate awaits Portland. The metro area has experienced economic stagnation, but the main industries here in the area are not in the same sorry shape as the domestic auto industry. (Indeed, the state of Oregon has managed to withstand an economic catastrophe similar in scope to that which bedevils Detroit; namely the demise of the timber industry in the 1980s). Our politics aren’t anywhere near as corrupt, and the urban growth boundary, in addition to other beneficial effects, limits the ability of capital to flee the city for the suburbs, leaving behind the poor to fend for themselves.
Some final thoughts
This article is a lot longer than I initially planned it to be; those who are still reading this far should give themselves a pat on the back. :) But transit and land use planning go hand-in-hand, and in many cases, the transit part is the easy part of the equation. If newcomers come to the city, it’s cheaper (in the long run) to find places for them to live within the existing urbanized areas, rather than building new homes on the perimeter. But in the short run, the reverse is often true–and many people jealously guard the existing conditions of where they live; it’s home, after all. Which makes accommodating new arrivals in a way which we won’t regret in a future world where gas costs $8 a gallon, a hard problem to solve.
Preparing for that day, with appropriate infrastructure and land use for a world without cheap gas, is difficult and expensive.
But failing to do so, will be worse.
34 responses to “The hard part of higher density”
Scotty, a great discussion, but I think you’re leaving out one other factor that is really at the heart of the discussion happening at Metro: how much infrastructure you can afford and how to provide it efficiently.
It’s not sufficient to bring land inside the urban growth boundary next to a freeway. You still have to build streets, water lines, sewers, schools, fire stations, etc. The lack of funds to do that is why North Bethany is still undeveloped and while it will probably be a very long time before Damascus gets very urban.
Investing in quality transit and then upzoning in places where much of that infrastructure already exists is a pretty cost-effective way to accommodate population growth. But it’s slower than greenfield development (either TOD or sprawling) because it relies to a great degree on the market to have time to capitalize on the market opportunity created by the upzoning.
Dude, I doubt any city could have survived drafting Joey Harrington.
My admittedly shallow understanding is that you need about ten housing units per acre to achieve transit densities. We can’t very well go into existing neighborhoods and force density into them, not should we.
But we could allow density to increase by simply allowing people to densify their own property, without any changes to lot sizes. How? By giving every homeowner the ability to do the following things as a matter of right (assuming their parcel had enough space):
(1) Add a granny flat within the home. Separate entrance, a kitchen or kitchenette (stove, counter, sink, refrigerator), and a bathroom. Space you can rent out, if you wish, to help make mortgage and/or tax payments.
(2) If you have a large enough backyard, you can build a guest cottage. Allow some pre-approved blueprints that a homeowner can pull off the shelf and a speedy permit approval process. Typical guest cottage would be 20×20, one or two rooms with a bathroom and kitchenette. Use it for guests, or a granny flat for your mom, or your grown kids, or as a rental.
(3) If you don’t have an attached garage, you are allowed to build a separate garage with an upstairs apartment as a matter of right. Or add an apartment above your existing detached garage.
(4) As long as you can completely hide it from the street, you can put in a trailer pad in the back yard with water, sewage and electrical hookups. Let someone stay there in a trailer, maybe even by charging space rental.
A person with a really big lot might be able to do all four of these things, and turn their home from one unit into five. Point is, that if you are in a neighborhood filled with quarter-acre lots, one or two people who decide they want to make a little extra money could really increase the overall density of the neighborhood — without new apartments, subdividing lots, or other imposed changes.
The “guest cottage” idea strikes me as particularly workable, if there are a dozen pre-approved designs. Builders could market the idea: “We’ll build you a guest cottage for $30,000, excluding site preparation and utility work. Come to our showroom to see our model homes.”
Of course, not everyone would want to do this. That’s fine; they don’t have to. Not everyone would want to use the units as rentals, either; a guest cottage in your back yard might find use as a workshop or writer’s studio, or maybe just a place to keep guests. And of course, there is a limit to how much demand there will be for rental housing at any given time.
But in neighborhoods with six or eight units per acre, achieving transit densities (if indeed 10 units per acre is the minimum) could happen in a decade if just one or two people on each block want to add an extra unit or two to their land.
Excellent post, one that I will use as a teaching resource for friends & family who still don’t understand Mrs Dibbly & me moving to Portland last year.
@Douglas K: didn’t Seattle pass an ordinance allowing exactly that kind of in-fill development last year?
Certainly, other forms of infrastructure (besides transportation) are important as well–and are also good reasons why Sprawl Is Bad. The cost of much infrastructure (roads, pipes, cables) scales linearly with length–the more it spralws out, the more it costs. Fatter pipes don’t cost much more than skinny ones, but longer pipes cost a LOT more than shorter ones.
I focus on transit for several reasons. For one, it’s the subject of this forum :). For another, unlike other forms of “community” infrastructure (the power grid, sewers, municipal water systems), many view transit as inferior to the “individual” infrastructure they have now (ignoring, for the moment, that cars drive on public streets). Few will argue that wells and septic tanks or provide better quality service than city water or sewer (though many will complain about paying to convert)–either way, you turn on the faucet, plug in your gizmo, and/or flush the toilet and life mostly goes on–the details of where water comes from and where poop goes are hidden behind the wall. Going from driving everywhere to alternative transportation is a major shift, however–and a painful one for those living in places optimized for the automobile, where nothing is within walking distance, and the bus only comes hourly on weekdays.
Unlike the utilities mentioned, where the “switching density” (the settlement density where community provision is more effective than individual site provision) is fairly low; transit has a higher switch point making it more difficult to transition. In the developed world, where capital costs are not a major issue, you’re not likely to find many places that have good transit service but lack sewers or municipal water supplies; but there are plenty of places with a full suite of urban utilities but mediocre public transit.
Doug–an excellent idea (assuming safety is not neglected; many building restrictions are due to fire codes), and an excellent example of infill. Of course, it might run into the same political difficulties as straightforward upzoning–objections from residents who don’t WANT their neighbors installing rental units in the backyard. When the state of California passed a law (during the energy crisis ’round the turn of the millenium) invalidating clauses in neighborhood covenants which banned clotheslines; there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth from wealthy homeowners terrified that the folks next door would ruin their views and bring shame to the neighborhood by hanging washing in the window. The state was suffering rolling blackouts, and some were concerned about seeing their neighbor’s underwear dangling from a line.
The last time I looked into it, the City of Portland allowed (summary version) most single-family homeowners to either A) build “mother-in-law” accessory dwelling units or B) maintain a home business. With some fudging, one can build a home business space (garage office) which might later become an ADU.
However, you can’t have both at once. If you’re using your home business to support a (parental-unit)-in-law, you’re kind of out of luck.
I believe that the justification for that restriction is to keep the number of vehicle trips and persons on the property overall reduced. (The home-based business allowance also limits the number of visits-per-day. Your house can be home to a lawyer or hair-stylist, but not a high-traffic retail location.)
Still, it’s way better than nothing and offers a reasonable degree of freedom. But speaking as a home-business-owner whose parents are getting up there in years (coincidentally parallel to the rapid, unstoppable increase in my own age), I’d like to see these rules relaxed, and I’d like to see similar accommodations in the adjacent suburbs.
Legal allowances for property use and increases in density along these lines, contrary to popular opinion, tends to be more “libertarian” in Portland.
IIRC, Tokyo has an unique solution to the problem of residential vehicle storage: It’s unlawful to own an automobile unless you have a place to park it while at home. Needless to say, parking is scarce and expensive there.
Given the current situation in Portland, I certainly would not go that far. But if the concern with both a granny flat and a home business is with parking spillover; a similar regulation could be enforced (especially in neighborhoods where parking is at a premium): a cap on the total number of vehicles registered to an address, with home businesses counting as zero or more additional “vehicles” depending on the nature of the business. (A home office which does not serve clients on premises would count as zero, a by-appointment-only hair salon with a single chair would count as one, etc.) If Granny doesn’t drive, no problem–even if she is in a granny flat out back.
How does the rules about businesses being located in houses apply for someone who doesn’t have customers on site? (For example a programmer who is a 1099 contractor but runs his business from his home address.) Would they be forced to rent an office at a different address if they had a rental unit on their property?
Also I’m wondering why the I-205/Green Line corridor would be so toxic to redevelopment, other than that it’s viewed as a ‘bad’ neighborhood in Portland. It has lots of underused land in the form of parking lots and great access for cars and trucks as well. I know parking garages can be expensive, but does anyone know the height limits and FAR requirements for that corridor? What about up near Gateway, which now is almost as much of a hub for MAX as the Rose Quarter?
I’m sure there would be some local protest over having taller buildings in those areas (as has already happened along the Interstate corridor and SoWa), but is it even allowed with the current zoning for that corridor? How about for the future Milwaukee MAX route other than SoWa?
I know that in many cases going over two floors requires an elevator, so a height limit of four floors can make it prohibitively expensive to build denser buildings. If you can spread out costs like elevators and land acquisition it seems like it would be easier to get developers on board with building mixed use projects in these corridors.
I know height limits alone aren’t everything (and that for many areas the FAA has their own that supersede local decisions, such as downtown Vancouver and possibly Gateway), but it might not hurt to look at if our current policies that we can change aren’t hurting the chances of getting private investment near such large public expenditures as MAX expansions.
And can we leave the Lions out of it? I’d think those poor people in Detroit have suffered enough without bringing up Harrington.
Dave, I think that’s in “ask a lawyer” territory, but my impression is that if you’re a 1099 contractor with no visitors, you may not need a City of Portland business license, and you’re not falling under the city’s home-based business rules, or at least the city will never know or care. (This is not legal advice, don’t sue me!)
(Yes, I know they don’t call it a City of Portland “business license” anymore but I don’t have a working memory at this hour and I don’t want to rifle through my files or Google. Bedtime.)
Thanks for starting a conversation that I think deserves attention, Scotty. The only pro-redevelopment voices I hear in most public discussions are from the property-rights camp, not exactly friends of urbanization/densification (and not exactly influential in a city like Portland).
Some quick thoughts:
– When my brother visited, we took a walk through Grant Park and Irvington. He complimented the neighborhood as having a nice “suburban feel” even though it was in the city. I wouldn’t call anywhere that was predominantly detached single family homes dense.
– On the idea of mother-in-law apartments, I’m pretty sure the city code was recently amended to make that easier. I question though whether the approach works. Does anyone know of cities or areas where that was implemented on a wide scale?
– I wouldn’t put the concept that developers prefer new suburbs over infill in stone. I think redevelopment will happen anywhere that it can make money. Make it profitable for people to redevelop and they will.
Bob R, before you describe the land use laws in Portland as libertarian I’d look at how much of the city is covered by preservation overlays, especially the inner east side.
Well, I did put “libertarian” in quotes for a reason, and somewhat in jest, but my point was there’s a surprising number of things that property owners in Portland can do which aren’t allowed (without great regulatory hurdles) in suburban areas. And vice versa… but the “freedoms” of the suburbs seem to me to get more attention than the other side of the coin.
EngineerScotty wrote: Doug–an excellent idea (assuming safety is not neglected; many building restrictions are due to fire codes)
Absolutely true. What I had in mind was creating four standard options to create accessory units on a property, and allowing a homeowner to use as many of them as is possible on that property. So, you couldn’t build the accessory unit in your home if you don’t have the ability (based on the home’s design and floor plan) to put in the separate entry, extra bathroom, kitchenette. You couldn’t build a garage apartment if you already have an attached garage built into your home. You couldn’t build a guest cottage if you don’t have room in your yard, including required setbacks for fire safety reasons. You couldn’t put in a trailer pad in your back yard if you can conceal the unsightly trailer from the street. Realistically, the “all four” option would only apply to a home with a huge yard and a detached garage.
As for parking, I can see a requirement that any home building accessory units must be able to offer one off-street parking space per unit in order to get the permit.
Of course, it might run into the same political difficulties as straightforward upzoning–objections from residents who don’t WANT their neighbors installing rental units in the backyard.
It probably would. But for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about it, I doubt there’d be any real problems arising. After all, even if everyone has the right to put one or two or even four accessory units on their property, in practice (a) few people would be able to meet the requirements for more than two options, and (b) most people won’t want to put in even one.
And if someone does have a yard big enough to put a guest cottage in the back yard, what does it matter to his neighbor if he does or not? I get complaining about a trailer, but if nobody can see it from the street, it won’t affect property values. I DO get the objection to an apartment over a garage: I’ve heard people bitch about two-story homes because their neighbors will be able to see over the fence into your back yard. So maybe garage apartments shouldn’t be permitted in a neighborhood that is entirely one-story structures.
Overall, I think any principled objections from neighbors could be answered and addressed while still allowing homeowners to densify their own property.
I think there’s a useful distinction to be made when one broaches the question of what obligations one has to his neighbors, and conversely, what one conditions one can expect neighbors to live under. Much of zoning law (and more general laws concerning things such as “public nuisances” and the like) concerns this question.
A few thoughts on this matter:
* At one end of the spectrum are land uses which clearly interfere with a neighbor’s right to peacefully enjoy and utilize his property for its intended purpose: raising hogs, garage band at 2AM with amps turned up to 11, keeping the place in an insanitary condition so that it becomes a breeding ground for vermin, flagrant fire hazards such as never bothering to cut the lawn or big piles of dead brush scattered through the yard.
* At the other end of the spectrum is a generic (and speculative) complaint concerning the vagaries of the real estate market: “doing X will impact my property value”, when X has no direct affect on the owner’s ability to enjoy the premises. Many cosmetic issues fall into this category, as does the issue of “granny flats” in most cases. “Property values” based arguments have a long sordid history–in particular, they was long used as justification for redlining and segregation. Not all appeals to property value are as offensive, obviously, but unless a harm to a homeowner by a neighbor’s act can be grounded in something more tangible than guesses about how the real estate market might react, my general response to such appeals is “cry me a river”. :) After all, were neighbor A to make some investment in his property that made the neighborhood more attractive and increased neighbor B’s market value, A doesn’t get to go demand that B compensate him for the windfall.
Also I’m wondering why the I-205/Green Line corridor would be so toxic to redevelopment, other than that it’s viewed as a ‘bad’ neighborhood in Portland. It has lots of underused land in the form of parking lots and great access for cars and trucks as well. I know parking garages can be expensive, but does anyone know the height limits and FAR requirements for that corridor? What about up near Gateway, which now is almost as much of a hub for MAX as the Rose Quarter?
The town and regional center areas of the I-205 corridor have already been upzoned. Gateway Regional Center has pretty dense zoning – primarily CXd on the east side of 205 with some RXd and EXd. I know that Lents Town Center is mostly EXd with a little CG on Woodstock.
But, the other station areas (Main, Division, Powell, Holgate, and Flavel) need attention sooner rather than later.
Main street is adjacent to some CXd (mall 205) but the institutional areas around Adventist are still underdeveloped and there are a few parcels that would probably find their best and highest use as higher density housing for hospital workers, retail workers, seniors and people with disabilities.
Division is just plain messy. It probably works okay as a corridor, but it needs to have a shift of the pattern around the station area. The housing needs to be denser and better connections need to be made across the freeway through the lower density residential areas to the south of Division to Kelly Butte and other open space. Powell is a similar situation to Division.
The commercial node at Holgate needs to be expanded and the residential zoning between Holgate and Foster needs to change to a mix of R1 and RX – or go to some sort of formed based code that really pays attention to the relationship between the urban edge and the east border of Lents Park.
And Flavel just needs a complete overhaul with attention to the relationship between Freeway Lands, the Lents Town Center that has a focus on workforce housing.
Great article.
It would be great if we could find a way to creatively reduce vacancies. Some sort of financial incentive to sell homes fast or offer them for rent while they are on the market.
We should also figure out a way to discourage developers from tearing down existing housing stock to build new developments and encourage them to build on vacant lots or parking lots.
I also really like the idea of DIY infill mentioned by other commenters. I’d love to see a movement of people tearing down their garages for more living/rental space.
How can we financially motivate people to densify their neighborhoods?
An interesting article on the real-estate preferences of millenials, courtesy of Human Transit.
Carl, with all due respect I want to challenge you a little. You suggest making it harder to redevelop existing housing, why? Raising barriers to infill seems to me the opposite of what advocates of density should push for.
Some more grist for the mill. Acccording to United Van Lines, which publishes such a list each year, for 2010 Oregon had the second highest inbound percentage of interstate moves in the country, at 59.5%, behind only Washington DC. This is the 23rd consecutive year that more people have used UVL to move INTO Oregon than out of it. While I’m not sure how reliable UVL’s data is–it’s only one vendor of moving services, after all, but interesting.
bjcefola,
My goal would not be to put up more barriers to infill, but to figure out a way to incentivize density. How can we encourage property owners and developers to target underused areas rather than tearing down existing structures.
For densification purposes, tearing down a 25 unit apartment building to put up a 50 unit apartment building is not as desirable as putting a 30 unit apartment building where a parking lot was. How can we put value on this fact?
I’m not sure residential density is quite the determinant of transit patronage, particularly for rail, as commonly assumed. While the large Portland, Calgary and Vancouver rail systems all serve large concentrations of employment, each MAX line has a parallel freeway, which is not the case in Calgary and Vancouver. This factor alone could explain why rail market shares are higher in those Canadian cities.
Both Calgary and Vancouver also have large concentrations of very high density housing near their downtowns, as Portland does with the Pearl District. I doubt these concentrations influence mainline transit ridership very much, though high rise districts along Skytrain in Vancouver also add some ridership, compared to Portland. But again, probably not enough to explain Skytrain/Canada Line ridership 2-3 times that of MAX.
The lack of competing freeways is a major factor which I neglected to mention in this post. OTOH, removing or de-scoping freeways is a legal and political nonstarter, at least for the forseeable future. And the fact that they are there encourages opponents to argue that building transit near a highway corridor is redundant–even as some of the same critics acknowledge overcrowding on these same freeways, and use that fact to justify their expansion or widening.
Carl,
The only method I know of for neighborhoods to support projects with heavy external benefits is through urban renewal districts. That, and actively supporting development projects when they have community meetings. I think neighbors have a tremendous influence over how city commissions and staff deal with projects. If they only hear people who complain (and there are always people who complain) things slow down, issues crop up, and before you know it the project is dead. Look at the history of the Albina fuel site at ne 33rd and Broadway for a good example of that.
The density argument ignores one serious factor here here: transit competitiveness. By that I mean the operating speed of transit has to be at least in the same league as driving a car. Just ask New Yorkers- they ride the subway because driving a car is a)slower, b)a pain, and c)expensive. Currently Portland doesn’t have any of these characteristics. Unless we artificially increase traffic (not happening) or raise parking costs/tolls (also doesn’t appear to be happening, but could), then the only remaining variable is the speed.
This is where I become frustrated with the MAX: It is impossibly slow. In fact, despite living 4 blocks from the Yellow/Green line in downtown, it generally triples the amount of time I spend getting from A to B. I still ride, but more because I feel it’s my duty as an urbanist. The max is a glorified streetcar for of its route. I mean, there are 4 stops in the Lloyd center within .75 miles. This drives me absolutely crazy. I don’t claim to know the reasoning behind station placement, but once out of the city center, there is really no reason to make stations any closer than .5 or 1 mile apart. It should not take me 30 minutes to get to the Overlook Park Yellow Line station. This is a 10 minute drive.
I love that Portland has made transit investments like the MAX, and it seems to be very well run, but I just don’t see how Trimet expects the general public to be willing to put up with such poor performance when it comes to speed. If anyone has any insight into why we need to run such a slow service, please share. I have yet to hear a good explanation…
Nick, check your watch: Pioneer Courthouse Sq. to Prescott on the Yellow Line is 18 minutes, though it may feel like 30; Overlook Park a minute or so less. MAX is a surface line in Portland precisely because there is not enough density to support the cost of a subway. Most of us would probably agree that the “extra” three stations that were added between Lloyd and Goose Hollow could be removed with no loss of ridership.
MAX is often competitive…if you are trying to get to (or from) downtown, due to the traffic and parking issues downtown.
It could be made more competitive for crosstown trips were a subway to be built–such things have been studied over the years.
However, the other issue with using MAX for crosstown trips is that generally, there’s free parking on both ends of the trip.
Lenny & EngineerScotty:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is my theoretical trip from apt to Overlook park: http://bit.ly/frvskb. 30 minutes once I hit the pavement (if I catch the train right off the bat). This is the drive: http://bit.ly/gDQ2Nv. Suppose you factor in getting into the garage to get the car and parking on the other end and you’re still under 15 minutes. So maybe altogether it’s about double, which I still wouldn’t claim is spectacular.
And yes, in some scenarios (rush hour mainly), MAX can be competitive. I suppose I’ve just had experience with many other systems (Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, even St. Louis) that get people from point A to point B much quicker, and wonder why it wasn’t a concern here. Being a surface line will always stunt speed to some degree, but decisions were made (the aforementioned Lloyd and Goose Hollow spots) that compound this problem.
Don’t get me wrong, I love living in a city where I can get around by train, but it’s hard to advocate to my friends to use it when I’m always late! =) (another interesting tidbit, which may be more a testament to biking infrastructure, but Google indicates that I can bike to Gateway Mall in the same time it takes to ride the Green Line there…)
I can say from experience that biking from Goose Hollow to Lloyd Center is roughly as fast as MAX — at least for someone like me. I’m sure Lance Armstrong could leave MAX in the dust. But most of us aren’t up to that kind of speed.
But biking downtown to Gateway as fast as MAX? I find that very hard to believe. Once past Lloyd Center, MAX is getting close to 50 mph ( think) along the freeway with three stops along the way. Even if the Sullivan’s Gulch trail was in place, I don’t think any bicyclists (again, competitive racers are excepted) could beat MAX over that route.
Yes, MAX is too slow downtown. The E/W line should be in a tunnel from Lloyd Center to Goose Hollow someday, and the surface line turned into a streetcar route. But that’s really freakin’ expensive, and I don’t think we’ll be able to justify the cost until ridership on at least one line (probably the Blue Line) is high enough to require 4-car trains. That’s a long way in the future. At that point, a tunnel through downtown will be the only option; there’s simply no way to build four-car stations crossing downtown.
Our constitutional right to cheap pubic transit
Give Mr Karlock a cigar!
Douglas K:“I can say from experience that biking from Goose Hollow to Lloyd Center is roughly as fast as MAX — at least for someone like me. I’m sure Lance Armstrong could leave MAX in the dust. But most of us aren’t up to that kind of speed.”
ws: It takes 20 minutes to get from Goose Hollow to the Convention center via Max.
I can get from Washington Square in Beaverton to downtown Portland via a car in less time than it takes to get across downtown in MAX.
MAX Goose Hollow to Convention Center
Goose to Convention via Bike (15 minutes)
Goose Hollow to Convention by Walking (I could do it in 30 minutes I’d bet).
We do have money on positive transit improvements that will actually entice people to ride transit more because it gives them a viable option. I am all for this 100%.
Except we like to spend money on expensive streetcars (ehem 450 million dollar LO streetcar line), minor bike improvements, and slow MAX service at the tune of billions of dollars.
And we wonder why our journey-to-work mode split has done little over the last 20 years as we have invested vast amounts of money in our transit “service”.
We need to be investing that in grade separated transit and solid bus service. Planners and leaders need to pull their heads out of the sand and get with the program over these “sexy” projects they like to champion because they stroke their egos and magically get developers to invest in the city (last I checked NYC has plenty of urban development w/o any streetcars).
Meanwhile, I have stopped taking transit all together to work because of the recent bus transit cuts. My other transit option is waiting 30+ minutes (actual headway time) for a bus to find me at a MAX stop park-n-ride, no less, that runs along a major arterial street.
Seriously, 30 minutes for a bus during peak travel time at a major park and ride facility?
Sincerly,
Disgruntled transit advocate
Meanwhile, I have stopped taking transit all together to work because of the recent bus transit cuts. My other transit option is waiting 30+ minutes (actual headway time) for a bus to find me at a MAX stop park-n-ride, no less, that runs along a major arterial street.
~~~>I had a great conversation with a rail operator about our light rail system. (He started his transit career the same place I did, University of Massachusetts)
Light rail is great for several reasons, large capacity, steel on steel, and dedicated right of way so it is not impacted by auto traffic.
Here in Portland obviously they go right down the middle of downtown streets, negating one of the biggest advantages of light rail.
From his point of view, they defeated the whole purpose of establishing a light rail network.
Most of us know that the rail expansion here in Portland really has nothing to do with transit services, but everything to do with development.
Hence it’s so friggen painful to use light rail through Portland.
I just want to say that I am visiting from Phoenix, and I’ve been catching up on all of Portland’s values as far as sustainability goes.
This blog is a gem. Several of my friends and I are trying to get things rolling in Phoenix. We’re young, and it’s pretty late. Phoenix metro area has about 236 people per square mile, but we’re going to do what we can.
We will look to this blog for well-rounded ideas and intelligent discussion. Phoenix has the potential to harvest solar and wind power, create mass transit, upzone, an ultimately become a sustainable city.
Several of my friends and I are trying to get things rolling in Phoenix.
That’s great to hear. There’s also a connection to Portland you might be interested in: Valley Metro CEO Steve Banta was Operations Director at TriMet.
I think Tucson was looking at Oregon Iron Works streetcars for their system as well. It might help if somewhere else in the state steps up to show that a streetcar can work in Arizona.