Donald J. Trump is not a peanut farmer, nor an actor, governor, oilman nor law professor. He is a developer, TV star and pitchman with a range of business interests.

Trump has few ties with Oregon. One of his former companies, Trump Mortgage, was registered in 2005 to do business in Oregon. The limited liability company lasted until 2008.

A campaign organization, Donald J. Trump for President Inc., appears to be the only other entity connected to Trump registered in Oregon.

Trump is not known to have any properties or business interests in Oregon, although it’s impossible to tell without his tax returns, which he has refused to release.

For local developers, Trump is in some ways a distant colleague, but in others, his career bears little resemblance to their own. Local developers were eager to distance themselves from Trump.

“No connection at all,” said Eric Cress, a principal at Urban Development + Partners.

As a developer, Trump has had a varied business career unlike any president before him. Thomas Jefferson perhaps comes closest with his role in designing and developing Monticello before his presidency and the University of Virginia after it. Jefferson is reputed to have said, “Architecture is my delight, and putting up, and pulling down, one of my favorite amusements.”

One of Trump’s only brushes with an Oregon institution came in a rivalry with Bandon Dunes Golf Resort on the southern Oregon Coast, which he compared unfavorably with his own course in the Scottish Highlands.

Trump once told Golf Digest, “I know Bandon Dunes. The biggest dune there is like one-tenth the size of our smallest dune. It’s a toy. And they get such great reviews. Every one of my courses is, like, amazing.”

In recent years, Trump has increasingly turned to licensing the Trump brand rather than developing his own projects. Trump hasn’t lent his name to any hotels or other facilities in Oregon, far from his home bases in New York and Florida.

“In the Pacific Northwest, there’s no appeal to the Trump name,” said Noel Johnson, a principal at Cairn Pacific.

Trump lost Oregon by more than 200,000 votes, and was trounced in Multnomah County by Hillary Clinton by a margin of more than four-to-one.

Trump may find it difficult to extricate himself from his businesses, Johnson said.

“Knowing what I know about development, I have serious concerns about his conflicts of interest, and he’s not taken sufficient, prudent, reasonable steps,” Johnson said. “It’s really odd to me, because it’s only going to come bite him in the butt.”

Johnson said it would be impossible to maintain his business interests and work in government at the same time.

“I personally could never imagine doing my day job and at the same time being mayor of Portland,” he said. “You’re either one or the other.”

Trump’s presidency is expected to have little on-the-ground impact on local development. The exception could come if Congress agrees to a major infrastructure package, as Trump has pushed.

“Portland, like anywhere else, our employment would be fueled by that,” Johnson said.

That could stimulate the development economy in the short term, as the public projects are built, and then later as private development follows the creation of public infrastructure.

“Development in the medium term, in four to eight years, really follows public infrastructure investment,” Johnson said.

The post Blog: Developers weigh in on Trump’s potential impact appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

In the past I’ve noted how important it is, from a planning perspective, to be able to walk easily and comfortably in our daily lives. A wide array of organizations, and not just planners, are now fully on board with this idea. In September the U.S. Surgeon General issued a major call to action called , which made the very clear case for walking as the critical form of exercise for most people, and for creating walkable communities as a critical part of the remedy for obesity and other health-related issues.

While public health professionals and planners have long been on the same page on the health benefits of well-planned communities, other more surprising allies have surfaced recently. The National Association of Realtors publication has done a good job over the last few years of articulating the case for walkable communities from a real estate and economic perspective. And they are not alone. The Urban Land Institute has long been an advocate for compact urban development, and even the Home Builders Association has recently published articles on the benefits of walkable communities.

A national expert on walkability, Mark Fenton, was recently in Beaverton for a seminar on the subject, and he articulated the case for creating better walking environments in a highly entertaining presentation. But he also spent some time talking about how we can be more aggressive in retrofitting our auto-oriented suburban landscape to better accommodate walking as a primary form of mobility within our communities. More on that next time.

The post BLOG: Walkability — the key to sustainable communities (part 1) appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

A couple of weeks ago there was an op-ed in The Oregonian headlined “Portland creates parking headaches with bad planning,” which again raises the parking and housing affordability problems that have surfaced as the region has grown rapidly in the last few years. However, the article provides a very narrow and disjointed narrative about these issues.

“Good planning” starts at the regional level. Metro’s 2040 Plan, adopted 20 years ago and revised and updated since, made a basic choice between continuing to grow out, and growing “up” instead. Most planners and many other residents strongly believe that is the only possible way to grow rationally.

The city of Portland and the region’s other jurisdictions have been working within that framework since 1995, with very positive results. We have created a vibrant and attractive urban area, and holding true to those basic policies is critical to our long-range quality of life.

The parking issue is not the result of “bad planning,” or “politics,” or some anti-car conspiracy. It is a side effect of a policy to create more walkable communities, which is one of the keys to achieving our long-term livability goals. The city’s code section that determines parking requirements has been there for decades, but developers have not chosen to build apartment buildings without parking until recently. Studies have shown that, while there are some localized problems with parking access in the block adjacent to these redevelopment corridors, there is still adequate parking capacity within two to three blocks. The city has already made some adjustments to require some parking for future development, and is also working on parking management programs, both of which will help alleviate the problem in those corridors.

These are the “growing pains” resulting from rapid growth, and making adjustments to the implementation measures for these policies is part of the process.

More on good planning next time.

The post BLOG: Bad planning vs. good planning appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Last time I talked about the potential for significant population increases in Oregon in the next few decades. While no one can say for sure, of course, there is a growing concern among planners that we could see an acceleration of our historic growth rate as a result of the effects of climate change and resource constraints, particularly water, in other parts of the country.

So, how would we cope with 2 million to 3 million new residents in the Willamette Valley, and 500,000 more elsewhere in the next 50 years? There is no state plan for such an eventuality. We could just rely on the comprehensive plans of all cities and counties to figure out how to accommodate them. That is the default. But is that good enough?

The last time Oregonians felt under siege from population growth was the late 1960s, when Tom McCall was governor. He and others had the foresight then to develop a vision document (  for how the state should cope with a much larger population and still preserve its irreplaceable assets, particularly farm and forest lands.  That led to creation of the Oregon Planning Program in 1973, which has done a good job of directing growth since then.

But what we are facing now would put extraordinary political pressure on Oregon’s cities to individually plan for the coming growth. Now would be a good time to develop a new vision for Oregon’s future. By understanding the implications of various development options the state would be in a position to anticipate and direct growth appropriately.  Without finding a path of comprehensive and intentional growth management Oregon is very vulnerable once again to the political, fiscal and social pressures to open our precious land resources to rampant development.

The post BLOG: Coping with a population explosion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The amazing run of great weather this winter here in the Northwest has some of us thinking again about one of the potential major implications of climate change – an increasing influx of “climate refugees” from areas where the long-range impacts are not so benign. The most likely source of those refugees would probably be the desert southwest, where predictions are for dramatically increasing temperatures and decreasing water supplies. But as we watch the incredible scenes of horrible weather from back east and the Midwest you have to wonder if those people are making plans to head west sooner rather than later.

As planners, we have to pay attention to the best predictions about the future in order to anticipate trends in population growth (or decline), and their implications. Since Oregon has a robust set of planning laws, every city and county in the state has an obligation to plan for a 20-year time horizon, and current population projections are beginning to look at factors beyond the normal historic trends. What if the long-range climate change projections for the various regions of the country are accurate, and Oregon experiences an extraordinary surge in population beyond what we currently anticipate?

Some early projections show that the population of Oregon could increase to 6 million to 8 million in the next 30 years. Several years ago, Nohad Toulan, the late internationally renowned planner and longtime head of the Toulan School of Planning at Portland State University, noted that 80 percent of Oregon’s historic growth has always been concentrated in the Willamette Valley, and that if these higher projections are accurate, the valley could gain at least 2.5 million to 3 million new residents (more than the existing population of the Portland/Vancouver area)!

How will we accommodate that increase? I will share some thoughts on that next time.

The post BLOG: Is a major population increase in our future? appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

In the past I’ve talked a lot about the main areas of growth and development for Portland’s long-term future – the urban centers and major corridors. But recently a number of controversies have surfaced within neighborhoods about the impacts of changes (teardowns, incompatible design, etc.) that are ongoing as redevelopment occurs in those areas composed of mostly single-family houses. Is anything happening to address these issues?

With the Comprehensive Plan update nearly complete, attention at the city staff level over the next year or two will turn to implementation measures – most prominently the zoning code, which sets the regulatory structure for development and redevelopment. The code update will follow the direction of the Comprehensive Plan and concentrate on the centers and corridors (the Mixed Use Zones discussed previously) in the coming year; however, there are proposals in next year’s budget to address these ongoing issues as well.

Specifically, there is a proposal to revise the standards for single-family areas to address compatibility concerns, lot coverage and height requirements, “skinny lot” development, while providing some flexibility for needed infill development and redevelopment. A companion proposal would update the historic resources inventory over a period of years in order to provide a more rational basis for determining which buildings merit retention, and where redevelopment is appropriate.

Finally, there is also a need to update the standards for multifamily-zoned areas, especially as the existing stock of apartment buildings is aging and will need significant upgrades in the future.

Over and above basic zoning standards, one of the much discussed ways to address these neighborhood concerns is to expand design review outside the central city. However, state law restricts where that can occur. In future posts I’ll talk about how and where that might make sense.

The post BLOG: Teardowns and other hot neighborhood issues appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

In the past I’ve written quite a bit about the reliance the city of Portland has placed on its “centers and corridors” strategy to absorb most of the new residential growth the city is anticipating in the future. It’s a strategy that has its roots in the city’s 1972 Downtown Plan, has been enshrined as the cornerstone of Metro’s regional growth strategy since the adoption of the 2040 Growth Concept in the mid-1990s, and is a major element of the new draft Comprehensive Plan.

In the last few years we have begun to see a major surge in three-to-five-story buildings with commercial space on the ground floor and apartments on the upper floors, especially in many parts of inner east Portland such as Southeast Division Street and North Williams Avenue. These areas are changing dramatically as a result, and there has been a good deal of controversy, particularly about potentially increased traffic and taller buildings adjacent to single-family houses. As part of the new Comprehensive Plan and accompanying zoning code revisions, the city has been working on the Mixed Use Zones Project, which aims to completely overhaul the way it regulates these types of projects.

The new Comprehensive Plan proposes to revise what’s been allowed in most commercial areas, creating a vibrant mix of uses throughout the central city, in smaller commercial centers, and along major transportation corridors throughout the city. The MUZ project directly addresses concerns about how these mixed-use projects will integrate into the fabric of existing neighborhoods. The early concept work looks very promising, with major attention to building heights and transitions to adjacent housing, basic design standards, and incentives for community benefits such as affordable housing, historic preservation, and key community services such as grocery stores, day care and publicly accessible outdoor space.

As this work progresses I’ll be commenting further about how it will be helping to transform Portland as it grows.

The post BLOG: Making higher density work appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The last couple of posts I’ve talked about some of the planning issues in Houston, including issues having to do with “walkability” and livability generally. I also recently spent time in France, and it’s always interesting to revisit those special places Americans have come to love as examples of great livability – specifically, those classic features of both big cities and small villages that make it easy to walk to take care of one’s daily needs in a very charming setting.

But the last few times we’ve been in Europe, it’s evident that elements of an auto-centric life are starting to creep in. We stayed with friends in the village of Labastide-d’Anjou in southern France for a couple of days, and it had all the elements of a thriving small town – the bakery, café, small grocery stores and other services all concentrated within a few blocks of the town square and church. But right at the edge of town, just off of the regional highway, was a new strip mall with a large amount of convenient parking right in front of seven or eight stores, including a supermarket.

France has tried very hard to preserve what it recognizes as its most valuable asset – the scenic beauty, vibrancy and quality of life of its countryside. More than almost any other factor, that is what has made France the most visited country on Earth. And it has happened only because of extensive direct subsidies to French farmers, keeping them on their land and making good use of it. But the corollary policy has always been to keep the towns and villages compact and economically vibrant as well.

If either is eroded, France will lose a major economic mainstay. If a successful strip mall leads to a hollowed-out town center, the consequences for that village, and eventually others, may be quite unfortunate.

The post The ‘Walmartization’ of France? appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Last time I talked about Houston‘s incredibly poor walkability – a major attribute of what makes a community livable. Of course, there are many measurements one could devise for defining livability, and most planners would say that walkability is among the most important. But not everyone sees it that way.

On Sunday, Oct. 19, after we got back, I read a David Brooks article in the New York Times talking about the different growth models at play in Houston and the San Francisco Bay Area. Basically, he’s comparing them as another way of talking about the “political segmentation” going on in this country, but in doing so he gets into a major planning issue: what constitutes a truly “livable” city.

Brooks uses studies by Chapman University professor Joel Kotkin in making the case that “Houston wins when it comes to livability, especially for people who want to have children.” His primary evidence is that comparing the annual earnings per job and the cost of living, “Houston ranks top among major cities.” Brooks does acknowledge the Bay Area’s “creativity and charm” and even mentions that it’s “great for walking,” but concludes that it’s a “luxury region, unaffordable and wildly unequal.”

Anyone who knows the Bay Area recognizes that there is some truth in that statement, and Portland and other cities also struggle to achieve a high degree of livability for all. But a true measure of livability includes a whole range of factors, including economic measures that also take into account the personal and societal costs of transportation and greenhouse gases, among others.

Using the simple math of one economic measure as the only indicator of livability is very misleading. In Portland we have long recognized there is a more sophisticated and accurate way to talk about livability, and that does include walkability.

The post BLOG: Is Houston the most livable city? appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

So, last time I talked about all the great things about “walkability” when it comes to the quality of urban life. As part of my recent travels I was in Houston for six days visiting my daughter’s family, and it provided quite a dramatic contrast. It’s by far the least walkable city I’ve ever been in.

As most planners are aware, Houston achieved some notoriety by being the only major city without zoning. So you might think that would be the most notable planning feature. But from my observation, the lack of zoning does not seem to have caused any major land use compatibility issues. But it may have played a role in the incredible lack of attention to the walking environment.

Even in the better neighborhoods, sidewalks are clearly an afterthought. Most blocks have some form of narrow sidewalk, although many are in such bad repair that they are unwalkable (especially with a baby stroller), or are interrupted by stretches of dirt and/or mud. But at least there you can always walk in the street. The design of public spaces along major streets is even worse, with signs, telephone poles and other obstacles when there is an actual sidewalk.

So, of course even in the good weather months few people walk, even in downtown. The exception is underground. There, almost every block has been developed to include a tunnel system that links most of the high-rise buildings together. There are literally dozens of miles of tunnels, and that is where people circulate from one building to another, eat lunch, have coffee, and do some shopping – what little there is in downtown. However, tunnels eventually close, on different schedules because they are private property.

More on Houston in the next post.

The post BLOG: Goin’ to Houston: What’s walkability? appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.