91视频

The city of Portland鈥檚 proposed residential infill project gets some things right, but ultimately fails to recognize or learn from the varied housing types we already have in many neighborhoods. The city is seeking to create more housing in single-home neighborhoods, but the project鈥檚 significant downfall is that the proposed changes are not tailored to the unique character and diversity existing in each neighborhood. Instead, allowed or encouraged housing types are applied across the city regardless of whether they fit in.

As proposed, the residential infill project focuses on three major categories: scale of new infill housing, housing types and narrow lot development. A number of positive ideas within the proposal seek to accommodate the future growth of Portland. One of these is limiting the size of new single-family homes, a proposal that may help to curtail 鈥淢cMansions鈥� and limit demolition. Another good idea is no longer allowing skinny lot houses to have a front garage, which would fix a policy that created some really sad street fronts. But the infill proposal鈥檚 housing type options are applied across the board, with the only requirement being that sites are within a quarter of a mile from transit corridors and gateway nodes, and this is where the proposal loses its focused, thoughtful approach.

Over the past five decades or so, the growth of Portland has led to the development of neighborhoods with their own unique character and vibrancy. There are distinct differences between eastside neighborhoods such as Woodlawn, Ladd鈥檚 Addition, Buckman, Cully and Alberta Street. These distinct characteristics attract residents that support each area鈥檚 lifestyle and features. Each neighborhood matters as a unique place. The residential infill proposal needs to use the major categories as baseline strategies, but then tailor the application to better fit and match neighborhood dynamics.

Addressing the mass, scale, height and setback of new infill housing will go a long way to ameliorate the pace of demolition within existing neighborhoods. By regulating the scale of infill in direct relation to the surrounding context, new development will more likely be in harmony with the existing neighborhood fabric. Some neighborhoods are in plan districts with greater front setback requirements than proposed by the infill project. Allowing new housing to sit closer to the street than permitted currently under many plan district guidelines would erode the existing streetscape that embodies districts鈥� unique character.

Currently, R5 residential zones are limited to one dwelling unit per 5,000 square feet of lot area (a typical urban 50-foot-by-100-foot lot), and accessory dwelling units (ADU) are permitted. The infill proposal seeks to overburden R5 lots by allowing more ADUs. There is no proposed regulation on mass, scale and height relative to the existing structure, or regulation on location of the ADU. Would an ADU be allowed in front of a house? There are neighborhoods such as Mississippi Avenue and Alberta that are synonymous with small houses, tiny houses and multiple dwelling units on one lot; the proposal needs to be tailored to allow for multiple new units, but regulated to fit neighborhoods鈥� appropriate mass and scale. To retain the character of some neighborhoods, a limit of one ADU per lot needs to be retained.

Many neighborhoods (e.g., Alphabet Historic District) have existing older/historic homes that have been converted to duplex rental units. Such conversions are readily apparent because of the multiple entry doors, duplicated balconies and visual division of the street fa莽ade. In other neighborhoods, people who don鈥檛 live on the street near the duplexes wouldn鈥檛 know they exist. Many neighborhoods may support the infill proposal that encourages the conversion of older homes to duplex units, contingent upon inclusion of certain stipulations: the conversion of existing homes should retain a primary single entry on the primary fa莽ade in the same location as the original front door; and basement apartments should be accessed from side entries away from the street fa莽ade. As much as possible, the city should add stipulations to reward retention of an older house and to discourage demolition.

Triplexes simply don鈥檛 belong in some established single-dwelling neighborhoods. The proposal encourages triplexes on corner lots, which tends to create more development closer to the street 鈥� not a pattern that fits the neighborhood. There are transition neighborhoods, like the west end of Buckman and west end of Kerns, which already have triplex and quadplex units. Within some older neighborhoods, there are already models for higher density that work well in the context of that neighborhood: courtyard apartments and multi-dwelling units around a shared green space. These historic types as models for new development are far more sympathetic to existing development and more effective in reaching density goals than encouraging triplexes in the wrong locations and scattered without discretion throughout the city.

Density goals should primarily target transit corridors and close-in, underutilized commercial areas. While there certainly is room for increased density in older residential neighborhoods, haphazard development will damage these neighborhoods more than the increase in units will provide affordable development. Major transit roadways like Sandy Boulevard, West Burnside and West Glisan should have minimum height requirements to encourage higher density. Single-story commercial structures or car lots along these corridors add to the development pressures within residential neighborhoods.

The infill project does not recognize that capitalistic market economics drive affordability. Rental rates for apartments in neighborhoods with high real estate values will not be affordable. However, the residential infill proposal is laudable for seeking a broad solution to the need to provide more housing options.

Peter Meijer is founder and principal of Peter Meijer Architect PC. He has focused his career largely on building envelope science and historic preservation 鈥� specifically, historic renovations and condition assessments of existing and historic buildings. Contact him at 503-517-0283 or [email protected].