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.

I made another trip to Houston last week, which provoked some thoughts about the contrast between what has happened as a result of planning in Portland over the last few decades, and the situation in Houston.

As mentioned before, Houston has long been the anti-planning poster child for its lack of zoning as an implementation tool. They do have a planning department, though I definitely will have to find out what functions they perform if I keep writing about the city.

In the inner-ring neighborhoods around downtown, the lack of coordination between land use and transportation planning combined with the lack of any zoning controls on land use is enabling widespread unplanned redevelopment. Houses throughout these neighborhoods from as early as 1890 are being torn down and replaced with townhouses and apartment developments; most have no access to transit within a mile or more, and even then it’s spotty. In some cases massive apartment complexes are being erected with no transit service within any reasonable walking distance.

Portland has been criticized lately for allowing similar redevelopment projects in certain areas. However, the major difference is that these projects are allowed only where there is significant transit capacity within easy walking distance. Metro just renewed, through the November ballot, its commitment to protect the integrity of single-family neighborhoods throughout the metropolitan area while encouraging higher intensity land uses, including significant housing density, in high-capacity transit corridors.

The difference between the two regions could not be more dramatic. Houston will continue to see massive traffic buildup in these newly popular inner areas to match their suburban traffic nightmare, while Portland will show much greater increases in density while maintaining a much higher quality of life in similar inner neighborhoods.

The post BLOG: Houston vs. Portland 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.

I’ve been traveling over the last month and a half, and it’s amazing how the experience broadens your views about what makes cities and towns great places to live. As I have mentioned before, “walkability” has become the shorthand term for a range of features that help define the quality of a place. In the next few weeks I’m going to talk about some of these features and use examples from my travels, as well as from Portland, to illustrate how they affect our lives.

But first, what are the features and benefits of walkability? The primary features can be categorized as infrastructure, land use and design. The elements of these three categories can be more simply understood as the ways people move around (e.g., sidewalks, paths, public squares, parks, etc.), their destinations (homes, stores, workplaces, entertainment venues, etc.) and how these elements are combined to make the experience of walking efficient, safe and pleasant. This happens through careful building placement, access and scale, and the design of the adjacent “public realm,” primarily public rights-of-way and other public property.

The benefits of making a place walkable are, of course, the key selling points for making this a prominent part of planning for our cities and towns. The first is health. It has been well-documented through numerous studies (see activelivingresearch.org) that being able to walk more and sit less is very beneficial to individual and community health. Easy access to stores and places of work and play are also a great benefit, which also means less reliance on automobiles, increased transit efficiency and easier bike access.

The environmental benefits are extensive – reduced climate change and reduced individual exposure to pollutants being the most obvious. And finally the social benefits are very important – higher-quality living environments for low-income people, and more opportunity for social interaction with neighbors.

The post BLOG: Walkability is the key to an urban quality of life appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

I had a chance this week to take a tour of part of Southeast Division Street in Portland. As you may know, there has been considerable controversy in this and other parts of inner Portland concerning apartment buildings being built with no off-street parking required. City Council did recently pass a change so that there is some parking required for buildings with more than 30 units, but it remains a point of contention for many people.

The section of Division between 26th and 38th avenues is a fascinating study in the changing face of Portland’s older neighborhoods. This is a very vibrant part of the city, with new development completely changing the look and feel of the area just in the past couple of years. The primary developer in this part of the street is Urban Development Partners, especially at the corner of Division and 33rd Place.

A group of planners toured a few of UDP’s properties and discussed the urban design issues, including parking, and how the firm has dealt with them. They say that once the hubbub of construction dies down, they have had virtually no complaints from the neighbors about apartment residents taking up too much parking. It is evident that the restaurants and other attractive new commercial businesses do cause parking issues, but adequate overnight, on-street parking seems to be available within a block or two for all residents.

The really remarkable take-away for me was the price people are willing to pay to live in this location. Studios rent for around $1,200 to $1,300 per month, with one- and two-bedroom apartments going for considerably more. There is clearly a strong market for this type of housing in Portland, which is why we are seeing so much of it under construction.

The post BLOG: Division street development and parking appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Well, it’s finally out. After many years of public meetings, extensive staff research and discussions with other agencies and among city bureaus, the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability has produced the .

This is a very rich, complex document, and it will be hard for the average citizen to relate to as a whole due to its sheer size. Yet delving into individual sections and taking it in smaller doses provides a clearly articulated plan for the city over the next 20 years, and the document can prove very enlightening even for the uninitiated.

From my perspective, the most interesting part of the document is section 3 Urban Form (starting on page GP3-1), which shows the proposed long-term physical direction that is envisioned for the city.

At first glance, it appears not to be all that different than what exists. Yet by carefully reading the policies that accompany the maps, one can discern major ways this document could shift the way Portlanders experience their city. It essentially builds on the successful Comprehensive Plan policies of the past 40 years, but articulates ways for all parts of the city to benefit from the city’s ongoing success and provide quality urban living for all its citizens.

It’s worth noting the history of this document. It has its roots in the values discussions initiated during Tom Potter’s term as mayor, and is directly related to — and implements parts of — the Portland Plan that was completed at the end of Sam Adam’s term as mayor.

With that basis, it’s no wonder that this new Plan is much more extensive than the normal Oregon-required comprehensive plan. As exhaustive – and exhausting – as the previous efforts have been, they do provide Portland with a solid foundation for continuing its success at city building.

The post Blog: A new blueprint for Portland’s future appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

I have written generally before about the opportunities for change presented by ongoing planning projects in east Portland, and now things are really starting to come into sharper focus as the planners and their citizen advisory bodies begin to get into the details of what it will take to make needed improvements.

While the new Comprehensive Plan will set the overall context, the single most important project in shaping revitalization is the Powell/Division high-capacity transit project, which will propose significantly improved transit service from Gresham to downtown Portland through Southeast Portland.

While it’s critical for the line to move large numbers of people quickly to their destinations, it’s equally important that the project reshape how this area functions, what kinds of living environments are created for residents, and how they access needed services. It will be important to identify new forms of urban development at perhaps three major transit stops between I-205 and downtown Gresham.

For instance, the corner of Southeast 122nd Avenue and Division has long been considered a potential major center for redevelopment. But how will that happen? What would that look like? How do you reconfigure this auto-oriented place to make it more people-friendly and serve their everyday needs more efficiently?

These same questions will have to be answered at other stops along the line, but by addressing them in this project the city will go a long way toward providing future guidance for the revitalization of this long neglected area.

Planning for these initial nodes of future redevelopment will lay the groundwork for a network of local centers across East Portland and adjoining areas in Gresham. This is a difficult landscape to redevelop in this manner, but starting the process through this transit project will greatly enhance the prospects for success in the longer term.

The post BLOG: How do we revitalize east Portland? appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.