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.