91视频

As frustrating and time-consuming as Portland’s design review process has been for some project teams, it’s not that bad, according to Paul Jeffreys, a designer with Ankrom Moisan Architects.

鈥淚 had a career in Britain and did projects in Bellevue (Washington) and went through the design process in Tempe (Arizona),鈥� he said. 鈥淭he Portland system is a better system than some I have worked with.鈥�

The ability to present in Portland a design to a commission with architectural experience makes the process easier than in cities like Bellevue, which has administrative review overseen by city staff, Jeffreys said.

鈥淗ere, you go for a DAR (design advice request), it’s a quicker process; I like that,鈥� he said. 鈥淲ith the DR (design review) hearing, you can frame it however you want and make your case however you want. You try not to come in with a land use attorney, which is different from some places.鈥�

Portland’s system, in place for more than three decades, is in flux. Design review is evolving through implementation of changes from Design Overlay Zone Assessment (DOZA) recommendations.

So far, the Bureau of Development Services (BDS) has tackled administrative, nonlegislative reforms. The bureau has increased training and public notifications, and attempted to accelerate design review hearings.

Soon, the city will begin tackling thornier issues that could have far more serious consequences. One of the biggest challenges will be revising the standards and guidelines that govern the process.

Reforms have potential to streamline the process, give consistency to guideline interpretations and make the system more effective. Such advancement demands outreach, according to Neal Schwartz, founding principal of Schwartz and Architecture in San Francisco.

鈥淚 think it is important for the planning departments to see as part of their mission the education of the public about design,鈥� he said.聽鈥淚f they are just reactive or only listening to the voices reluctant to allow cities to evolve, they will never move forward.鈥�

San Francisco’s design review process has become what some architects describe as a Kafkaesque quagmire, in large part due to efforts in the 1990s to reform a small part of the process.

San Francisco’s process runs through its planning department; there is no single design commission. There also is an aspect called discretionary review, which allows nearly anyone in the city to demand review for any project for any reason. As a result, nearly all projects became subject to design review, creating an enormous backlog.

鈥淧ortland has a fair amount of public involvement, but nothing like San Francisco,鈥� said Jeff Joslin, San Francisco’s director of planning. 鈥淣eighborhoods are extremely engaged. It takes a lot of time and effort.鈥�

Efforts to reform the discretionary review process resulted in creation of the Residential Design Team. But problems began to spring up as the team began trying to interpret guidelines about neighborhood character. Squabbles also erupted between city planners, the historic resource commission and Residential Design Team members. Complicating matters was the fact that, unlike Portland, few city staffers had architectural experience.

鈥淚n 15 years, I never had a problem,鈥� said Schwartz, who has worked for more than 20 years in the city. 鈥淭hen a project that seemed fine got sent to this committee I had never heard of and we got a letter saying we have to change things. A lot of architects didn’t realize what was happening at first.鈥�

Another change in San Francisco required all buildings 50 years or older to be reviewed by a historic review board. The problems intensified as architects began getting contradictory evaluations from the board and the Residential Design Team.

Now, navigation of the process takes projects at least a year. Costs have spiraled and architects have become so frustrated that some refuse to do work within the city.

Three years ago, San Francisco again initiated system reform. Many of those changes are now beginning to take effect, such as bringing on board city staffers with architectural experience.

鈥淧art of what we are doing is professionalizing the process,鈥� said Joslin, who previously spent 12 years with Portland’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. 鈥淭he goal of high level of design is not easy and not for amateurs. It requires specific and skilled personnel.鈥�

Keeping Portland’s DOZA process on track and avoiding mistakes will depend largely on involvement of all stakeholders. So far, that has been happening. City staffers have held numerous meetings with architects and neighborhood groups.

鈥淭here seems to be more balance in Portland talking between staff and the (design) commission,鈥� Jeffreys said.

Meanwhile, Denver and Seattle have systems have evolved so that they’re able to accommodate major construction sprees. Those systems are similar to Portland’s, with the notable exception that both have multiple commissions that govern specific geographic regions or districts. Denver has three commissions, while Seattle has seven boards, each staffed by five commissioners.

鈥淧art of the reason we have developed into more commissions is it’s tied to the district and preserving the character of the district,鈥� said Alexandra O. Foster, Denver communications program manager for community planning and development.

The DOZA report recommends Portland look at creating multiple commissions. The idea has received mixed reviews from stakeholders.

鈥淚 think it would reduce their workload,鈥� Jeffreys said. 鈥淭he goal is to make the process simpler to follow.鈥�

Finding people to staff a second commission could be a major obstacle.

鈥淗ow can you ensure equitable review?鈥� Portland Design Commission Chairwoman Julie Livingston said. 鈥淭hat has always been what the conversation has come back to: transparency and equitability.鈥�

The changes that are made now will be part of a system that the city’s building industry will have to live with for decades.

鈥淓very city is a function or victim of its own evolution,鈥� Joslin said. 鈥淲hen you make changes, you have to do so in way that is flexible so that they have a long shelf life. I still believe, after studying, working in, and developing numerous聽design review processes, that Portland’s is among the very best, if not top of the heap.鈥�