BLOG: To 'TOD' or Not to 'TOD'?
Sam Adams
The Portland region helped pioneer the transit oriented development (TOD) concept with the construction of Pearl District, The Round and the emerging South Waterfront district.
- What are the lessons learned?
- How can we improve the TOD of the future?
- The Pearl, Orenco and South Waterfront were built on nearly vacant or under utilized land: What about TOD-like projects in existing neighborhoods?
To help answer these questions, on third day of the Rail-Volution Conference here in Salt Lake, I attended at seminar titled, “How to Plan and Design a High-performance TOD,” presented by Portland’s own GB Arrington of the New York City-based consulting firm Parsons Brinckerhoff. Parsons Brinckerhoff is one of the world's largest planning, engineering, and program and construction management organizations.
The Transit Research Board of the National Academies has a new report on this topic, Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects, which you can download at: http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=4060. This report examines the state of the practice and the benefits of transit-oriented development and joint development throughout the United States.
Why should we even consider TOD projects?
Demographic changes will create future demands for TOD. According to the Center for Transit Oriented Development, by 2025, 64 percent of U.S. households will be single households and couples without children.
For these demographic groups, it used to be that buying a house next to a golf course was coolest housing choice. But recent the accounting firm, Price Waterhouse Copper rated mixed-use TODs as the top real estate prospects in their 2005 Emerging Trends in Real Estate Report.
Well designed communities, easy access to the public center, high quality residence, good transit services, pedestrian friendly, and good price value: according to Arrington, these are the amenities prospective TOD residents want.
What exactly makes a TOD project?
Although both can be constructed next to a transit stop, Arrington says there is a difference between transit-oriented development and transit adjacent development. He says it is not enough for development to be next to transit stops, the development must be shaped by transit.
The illustration below depicts the difference between a development that is auto-oriented verses transit oriented. 
Both designs:
• have same land use zones;
• same transit station components:
o rail stop
o 800 park and ride
o 12 bus transfer area
o Cost the same to build.
Do TOD projects work to get more residents on transit? When they are designed different, a TOD project functions differently than the standard development. Arrington says some TOD residents probably self-select to live near transit. But, Arrington points to U.S. Census data that shows:
• TOD residents are twice as likely not to own a car as the average U.S. household;
• Five times more likely to commute by transit than others in a region.
Between 1970 and 1980, the U.S. experienced a massive expansion of automobile usage. Transit share of commute trips decreased 63%; by comparison transit share of commute trips among TOD residents increase 11%. “The TOD number is not a large number by itself but significant by comparison to the non-TOD transit usage decrease,” says Arrington. “A higher percentage of TOD project residents will use transit as the transit network expands.”
What have we learned from the TOD projects constructed thus far?
Arrington says that there are three keys to a TOD’s success:
• Get the planning right: Start planning early. Build a place not a project. A planned center or common space. Mixed use. “Density matters,” he says. TODs on average require 10 percent more density to get 5% more transit trips. “But the increased density has to work for the surrounding neighborhoods.”
• Apply the power of partnerships: With transit agencies, local, state and federal governments, along with private developers developing a TOID can be messy, he Arrington. “What the private developer has to give up is having sole control.”
• Design the project on a market-driven basis not a transit-driven basis: “The project needs to be transit supportive but not transit dependent, “he says. “It needs t o be a place that people want to go to even if they are not getting on transit.”
• Design for the pedestrian: “Each transit trip starts and ends with a pedestrian.”
Does every TOD project have to be like the Pearl or South Waterfront?
On the issue of density, always a touching subject, when it is planned in our own neighborhoods or
business district, starting with the land closest to the transit stop being the densest, Arrington says he has helped develop a “TOD typology” to help TODs succeed and fit into existing community settings.
Urban Center:
Urban Neighborhood:
Suburban Center:
Medium Density Residential:
Low Density Residential:
What is the biggest challenge to constructing a TOD project?
Parking is a huge challenge for TOD develops, says Arrington. The way parking is design can be the difference between a TOD and a TAD. The cost of building parking in a TOD project is often the final “deal breaker, as well. “Structured parking spaces (like a parking garage) costs 40 to 10 fold more than a surface parking space. It can cost $20,000 per unit to build podium parking,” says Arrington. Arrington says some solutions include building shared parking not the project and keeping parking ratios to 125 percent of the minimum parking standards.
Arrington give us an approach to improve upon our TOD project efforts thus far constructed. The lessons learned about project design seem key to me. The TOD typology gives us a language to discuss TOD developments in existing neighborhoods where transit investments are headed, such as those neighborhoods along the soon-to-be-built south/north MAX Green Line.
Are TODs just for the wealthy?
Arrington did not cover affordability in his presentation. I asked about it during the question and answer session. He said affordability remained another key challenge for TODS. Government subsidy, increasing homeownership programs for residents outside proposed TODs and project development agreements requiring developers to pay for affordable housing units were used successfully by Portland and others.
Posted by Sam Adams on September 11, 2005
(58) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Blog, Front Page, Housing, Livability & Environment, Transportation
Comments by site visitors
On the Portland Office of Sustainable Development report.
That report was a juvenile attempt to ascribe to Portland some achievement as it continues to deteriorate. Business is fleeing. Population is falling. There were no actual measurements and nothing in DEQ's data base to support what Portland claimed.
Portland says it based its conclusion from reports from gasoline dealer regarding sales within Portland. Portland gas sales are irrelevant to pollution or to VMT's within the region or, even, within Portland.
Someone driving from Portland to Gresham has its greatest emmisions within Portland but the gas is not purchased there. Portland gas purchases do not measure trips originating within Portland to suburbs because the gas is cheaper in the suburbs and, most likely, purchased there.
Trips from the suburbs to Portland will, very likely, purchase the gas in the suburbs.
The census tells us that trips from the suburbs to the central city have diminished, steadily, since the 70's, while suburb to suburb trips have risen. Most trips are from suburb to suburb. Portland's radial pattern of roads requires that suburb to suburb trips go through Portland.
The transportation plans formulated in the 60's by the region's counties, the city of Portland and CRAG called for additional roads going from suburb to suburb. The birth of Metro, dominated by the City of Portland, killed these plans and mired the region in the congeston that grew more than any other metro area in the US with population over 250,000 since 1986, when the effects of the anti-road policies began to be felt, at an increasing rate.
This is well known to all so usage of this data means that it is knowingly intended to deceive. But this is not unexpected when we hear remarks from Portland City Hall and Metro councilors.
Mel
Posted by: Mel Zukor | Sep 11, 2005 8:43:24 PM
Steve and Mel,
I put the info I received up so I could get the kind of feedback on it that you are giving me. I have been around long enough to know there are always many sides to each story. Can you point me to data to back up your concerns about TODS?
Thanks,
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Sep 12, 2005 11:00:15 AM
My two cents. Our world class transit system is basically designed to move workers into the downtown core and then move them home again. Problem is, the business demographics have not cooperated with transportation planning. As the city and county's tax policies drive more and more jobs out of the core (30,000 lost in six years) the fixed rail lines are not set up to take people where they need to go. Close in residents are working in Tigard, Tualatin, Clackamas and Wilsonville. If the type of investments made in rail had been made in busses, the routes could be altered to match these changing demographics. As it is, we're seeing an ever increasing "reverse commute". If tax policies could be reformed to attract those large employers back to the core, MAX might be able to fulfill its mission.
Posted by: Dave Lister | Sep 12, 2005 11:03:59 AM
Mr. Adams,
At the risk of insulting a government official; I have to state that the more government is involved in anything, the more waste is involved.
The Round in Beaverton is a perfect example of massive amounts of tax-dollars wasted on a project which never should have been built. The idea of a multi-story complex located in a suburb, overlooking auto dealerships, yet commanding downtown Portland rents was a ridiculous idea. Consequently, nary a bank in the country would invest in this fiasco. The only reason it was constructed was because *more* taxes and abatements were thrown at the project.
Conversely, Kruse Woods on Lake Oswego has been a successful, vibrant office development without any subsidy.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Sep 12, 2005 12:36:47 PM
The TOD program is giving away public money, getting nothing for it, while neglecting real needs.
Keep in mind that it is not the people factually critiquing TOD's who have the ulterior motives, hidden agenda and endless tax dollars to misrepresent and advance policies under false pretenses.
It is the PDC, POSD, Metro and TriMet doing the propagandizing and it is non stop with our money.
Finally, along with more and more people noticing their programs are failing miserably, blogs and other devices are exposing those doing the misleading.
Just as John Warner exposed himself on the Alexan tax abatement blog other's such as Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder are having a tough time advancing any rational justifications when they are pressured.
www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/env/2003_24.pdf
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/env/I_125.pdf
The Mythical World of Transit Oriented Development: Light Rail and the Orenco Neighborhood- Hillsboro, Oregon
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/env/I_124.pdf
An Odyssey In the Land of TOD
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Jun/07/op/op04a.html
Posted by: steve schopp | Sep 12, 2005 12:50:30 PM
Not to mention Steve, what would a car hater like Burkholder say to the refugees stranded in New Orleans who rely on public transportation as their -only- means of mobility?
Those with cars were able to escape, those without suffered.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Sep 12, 2005 1:46:46 PM
Steve and Chris,
I like to push both sides of this issue, so hang with me on this conversation.
I looked at the Cascade Policy Institute's TOD study. It only looked at Orenco Station: clearly not a very successful TOD project.
I read the other link you provided. Columnist Cliff Slater of the The Honolulu Advertiser mentions Orenco and Cascade Station in his TOD concerns. He did not give any new data. Cascade Station is another unsucessful-to-date TOD.
Two TOD failures: But, what about the 98 other TOD projects that have been built according to Arrington? Can you refute his statistics?
As always I am looking for the best ideas and best understanding of any issue.
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Sep 12, 2005 1:49:48 PM
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/env/I_125.pdf
The Mythical World of Transit-Oriented Developement
Steele Park In Washington County, Oregon
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9860
The case against Portland-style smart growth
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/env/P_1019.htm
Policy Perspective No. 1019
October 2001
The mythical world of Transit Oriented Development
By John A. Charles
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=ciegg Property tax exemptions for Transit oreiented development
http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rrd_52.pdf
http://www.hevanet.com/oti/sprawlreb.htm
Why sprawl is good
Posted by: steve schopp | Sep 12, 2005 2:58:44 PM
Excuse me if this is rude, but before investing taxpayer dollars in Transit-Oriented Development, wouldn't it be a good idea to get a transit system up and running that people wanted to ride?
I'd be more than happy to ride transit from PDX to Hillsboro if it were efficient, but it takes twice as long as driving and I just don't have the time.
Frisco has a multi-tiered transit system consisting of BART as well as Muni (like Portland's street cars) and buses. BART covers distances quickly, and nobody in their right mind would ride Muni from Frisco to Fremont.
Building a fast rail system like BART is beyond Portland's budget (really it is don't even think of it), but have you folks ever thought of something like express trains that move as fast as cars?
Once you've shown the ability to competantly manage the resources you have, the taxpayers might be inclined to pony up money for more fun things.
Posted by: Richard Bennett | Sep 12, 2005 3:32:31 PM
To Sam Adams:
Sam, for openers, you should become acquainted with the basics concerning the Portland metro area's Portland's transportation so-called progress from a totally objective source -- the US Census Bureau. See
http://www.hevanet.com/oti/2000journeytowork.htm
This data deals with journey-to-work trips a/k/a peak hour traffic. That is the data that is critical because that is when citizens are adversely impacted. During other periods, there is excess capacity on the roads and providing taxpayer subsidized alternatives wastes money and provides no benefit.
Trumpeted rail boardings, if true, is an irrelevant statistic. To be relevant, you need to know WHEN and WHERE the boardings occur. Don't confuse boardings with "trips" or "riders." When someone takes a bus to rail and rail to a place where a transfer is made to another bus, that is one trip but three boardings. Removing buses that took people directly from their neighborhood to their place of employment and replacing that route with a feeder bus to rail for a rail ride to their destination may increase ridership while redcung the number of people using transit. The elimination of the Hillsboro to downtown Portland express bus is an example. The rail trip from Hillsboro takes a good deal longer than the scheduled time of the express bus, even in the most congested period.
The last rail line to open, Interstate, has 60 % of its ridership in fareless square, not on Interstate Avenue where the line was constructed. The ridership in fareless square is on track and stations built in the 1980's when east side was built (it opened in September 1986).
What does a fareless square ride accomplish from a transportation view? People riding from one place on the transit mall to another place on the transit mall would not have used their private auto. They would have walked or taken a bus (there always have been loads of buses available in this area). Hence, no trips were removed from the congested roads.
When you look at the referenced census data, you see:
-- 85% % of the trips are by auto
-- 6.5% of the trips are by all forms of public transit and taxis.
-- In the City of Portland, 1% of the trips are by rail.
The intent of TOD's is to increase transit and all TOD's have been built along rail or trolley lines. Even if you assume that all rail users in Portland are not transplanted bus riders, spending so much to remove 1% of the autos (actually less because there are more than one person per auto) from MANY roads has to be considered wasteful.
All of the congestion results confirm this. As shown in http://www.hevanet.com/oti/portlandcongestion.htm , from 1986, Portand congestion has increased faster than any other major metro area.
The initial motivation for transit oriented developments is the LUTRAQ study prepared by 1000 Friends. While the City of Portland and Metro blindly accepted that "study," the rest of the transportation world found it to be absurd because it was based on absurd assumptions. Further, it was and is statistically fraudulent.
The proof of the pudding is always in the eating. We know longer have to pay attention to LUTRAQ because empirical evidence shows that each and every result contemplated by LUTRAQ was not achieved
You might wonder why neither the City of Portland or Metro have done any studies to show the number of people in TOD's actually using transit during congested hours. You might also wonder why subsidized TOD's have parking on a par with other structures of similar density elsewhere. With similar parking, aren't subsidized TOD's just housing that costs less at construction and for tax abatement periods that allow apartments to go on the market at less than prevailing rents?
There is much more you should know but I don't have the time to get into all of it. Go to http://www.ti.org/sa14.html and lurk on transport-policy@yahoogroups.com for openers.
You might post your request on this site and listen to the coments from experts from all over the world.
Mel Zucker
Posted by: Mel Zukor | Sep 12, 2005 3:37:54 PM
Sam,
According to the figures above, TOD residents are 73% (18.5/10.7=1.728) less likely to own a car, not "twice as likely." I know, a small point, but you inflated the percentage by more than a third.
I don't want to quibble with the details. What I'm concerned about as a SE resident is the dollars being poured into developments such as South Waterfront which, it seems to me, serve a small, homogeneous, elite segment of Portland's current and future popuatation, many of whom I doubt will really use transit as much as we expect. They'll certainly all own cars and use them to get over the Safeway, etc.
Then the transportation and employment needs of the more needy segments of Portland, North, NE, and outer SE, are left out of the equation.
Posted by: paul | Sep 13, 2005 10:04:50 AM
I may be wasting my time stepping into an anti-transit, Libertarian fog, but let me offer a pro-transit view regarding South Waterfront. This area is far from being developed as "transit oriented" because the transit service to it is and will be pathetic.
For starters, the "tram" is a total disappointment, because it is all about style, not function. For the same amount of money, a competent "people-mover" system could have been built that would provide fast connections to the regional transit system. What is missing is any connection to the Barbur transit corridor. Some day, we will build a light rail line in that corridor, and meanwhile it provides frequent high-volume bus service between Downtown and various Southwest locations. Another thing missing is a connection to the Ross Island transit corridor. One of the losing competitors for the "tram" contract even identified that connection. Both the Detroit and Minneapolis airports have recently built "tram" systems that are possible models. If combined with elevators at OHSU, Barbur, Ross Island bridgehead, and foot of Gibbs, the "tram" could have been a useful part of the regional transit system.
The top three reasons people choose one travel mode over another are travel time, travel time, and travel time. If the Portland region concentrated on building a system with that fact in mind, rather than the corridor-by-corridor approach employed so far, even the Libertarians would choose transit in many cases (note that there is no "force" involved, nothing is crammed down anyone's throat). A single-track streetcar line stub does not qualify as adequate transit for an area being built to a density similar to the old Downtown. Unnecessary transfers, infrequent service, and out-of-direction travel just don't make it.
There are two parts to a successful TOD. Don't forget the "Transit" part.
Posted by: Doug Allen | Sep 13, 2005 1:34:24 PM
Population of Portland falling? Hahaha... that's a good one. In around 15 years when another million people move into the area, I'd like you to repeat your opinion.
We live in interesting times. In a progessive city... that obviously doesn't always get it right. But then, for the United States, we certainly do things differently. That's ok and attracts lots of people who agree with us in the 'oregon experiment.'
==========================
The Pearl boomed, SoWa is booming, Central Eastside will likely soon, and then there's Lloyd Crossing...
Sam, if anything, please promote housing and non-office uses in the Lloyd District area to help balance that area out. There was a study done recently entitled "Lloyd Crossing" which promotes a massive 35-block sustainably-designed development with housing, office, etc that would help turn that area from an eyesore and crime center to a community amenity.
Talk about the ultimate TOD:
http://www.aiatopten.org/hpb/overview.cfm?ProjectID=467
http://www.pdc.us/pubs/inv_detail.asp?id=332&ty=17
Posted by: Justin | Sep 13, 2005 3:52:47 PM
Justin,
It's your kind of willy nilly irrational assumptions which propagate the horrific outcomes we are witnessing.
""""The Pearl boomed""""
It is riddled with tax abatements and other subsidies which have yet to be fully tallied to determine the merit and adverse effects such as the skimming of basic services budgets.
Costs and benefits matter.
""""SoWa is booming"""
On what fiscal planet did you just fly in from?
How is the fantasy world of Portland planning is SoWa already "booming?"
Because millions of public dollars are being spent on reckless boondoggles and developer giveaways?
How do you declare SoWa a success, "booming" when it is just now working it's way out of the ground and not one of the flawed premises it arrived on have been tested?
If traffic is gridlocked because no traffic impact study was done it will mean failure. If the Tram and Streetcars don't provide enough service
it will be a failure.
If the biotech expansion and jobs don't arrive it will be a failure.
The better comparison is the Beaverton Round time ten at SoWa.
So many of the policy decisions have been reckless SoWa is almost certain to resemble other failures than what your imagination has created.
And the countless millions gone and committed for decades will hobble every city service.
The city and region simply cannot afford to pay for your, and others, imaginary world.
If you work for the PDC, City, Metro or other public agency please reveal that conflict.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Sep 14, 2005 8:49:19 AM
You’d think by how quickly these blog trolls respond that they do nothing but search the local blogs for something to argue about day after day. I find that a small minority of the people seem to speak the loudest to give the impression that they are the majority. This thread certainly has attracted the "libertarian, conservative" crowd, hasn't it? By the way, how many elections have they won in recent years?
Anyway, this is about TODs...
With all due respect, Steve, SoWa and the Pearl are two booming neighborhoods. It is true that there have been tax abatements and city built infrastructure to entice developers to try something new in Portland. However, the success of these two districts can assure developers and their bankers that if they build more of these types of projects in Portland, the future tenants will show up insuring that the developer's project will be a success. The Pearl was a utopian concept about urban living in Portland that took off and is now standing on its two feet. In the SoWa as well, new buildings are going up without further assistance from the city. As for your concerns about traffic, why don't you wait until the district is built before becoming a naysayer? I'm tired of the "what ifs" on this board. You obviously don't understand the development so why should we take your word on the negative effects the new districts will create?
TOD's are a fairly new concept in America. Unlike Europe, America was built around the automobile. Portland has very few TODs and therefore the transit ridership numbers, impressive as they are, will still grow exponentially. In areas that Portland and Metro have determined to be transit corridors we need to see massive development. I can imagine the Hollywood and Gateway district with packed with 5 to 10 story apartment and condo homes built for families (3 to 5 bedrooms) as well as our large creative class. I as well see Division, Hawthorne, and Interstate Ave to name a few, lined with TODs. The "Go By Max" building to be developed at Killingsworth and Interstate Ave is a great example of what could line our inner city, high density streets.
For those that complain about high rent and housing costs as well as the "exodus" of people from the city, this should satisfy those concerns. Nobody would be forced to live in urban style housing, but there are enough people already living here, as well as wishing to move in, that cannot afford current development and are looking for a place to call home. Imagine 2500 new homes being built in Portland each year. Housing prices, currently, are skyrocketing here because demand outstrips supply which also contributes to our bulging burbs. In the future, housing prices can stabilize, if not decline to a more reasonable level with the explosion of dense housing.
Vancouver BC should be an example to what we can achieve in our downtown neighborhoods. Portland, however, is going to have to be a leader in showing the rest of the nation that dense inner city development can continue to attract residents that might not be able to afford to live in the city's core neighborhoods. This will take careful planning, and I'm sure some money, but will more than repay itself with the influx of new residents. With more transit oriented development, TriMet's ridership numbers will increase and a new "lifestyle" will emerge in Portland neighborhoods. Imagine neighborhood schools reopening due to a swelling child population, new jobs coming into the city as our creative class finds homes to continue their creative work, burbs that stop expanding onto our farms and forests, and emission levels that continue to drop even as our population expands.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Sep 14, 2005 1:12:49 PM
Justin,
Let's rely on facts. Portland and Oregon population estimates are available here:
https://stage.www.pdx.edu/media/p/r/prc_2004_Population_Report.pdf
Portland City is growing slowly--just 5,000 net new residents last year. The majority of Multnomah County growth in the last four years has been "natural"--when you subtract inmigration from outmigration, less than a third of the growth is due to new residents.
Yes, the Portland SMSA is growing, but these citizens are not moving into the central city. They are locating in Multnomah County (outside of Portland), Clackamas, and Washington Counties.
===
Mark, I read the stories in the O about Vancouver BC with interest, but I don't think Portland, or any city in America, can implement this model. Vancouver benefitted from a massive inmigration of wealthy Hong Kong and other Chinese residents who were long accustomed to living in close quarters and who brought a lot of wealth to boot.
I don't think that will work in PDX, regardless of what Randy Gragg thinks.
Posted by: paul | Sep 14, 2005 4:58:40 PM
MarkDaMadMman
The Pearl is NOT standing on it's two feet. You are obviously way too ignorant about urban renewal, tax abatements, waived fees and development.
Better bone up fella.
The Pearl is not even paying it's share of public services costs. It will not be for decades to come as it will first enjoy using it's own property taxes for their own development.
Understand that it will be decades. After all of the urban renewal free infrastructure and interest is paid off with their own property taxes and all of the tax abatements expire then they will begin to contribute to the city. Low balled assessed values will continue their subsidized existence for many more years.
In the SoWa new buildings are going up with $270 million in "further assistance from the city" with free infrastructure.
One of the first buildings, the 16 floor OHSU building will pay no property taxes ever.
Suppose the OHSU plan for biotech expansion pans out as their own biotech czar predicted when he said "Katz and Kohler are having delusions of grandeur"?
Did you forget about that or ever hear it? Maybe their own expert was also just a naysayer and you grew "tired" of him.
OHSU acquired another 20 acres of SoWa. No property taxes for basic services will come from there either.
How you think there is not "further" assistance form the city is comical.
Mark, only a fool would wait until build-out before planning for traffic or any thing else. Only the incompetent, corrupt and dishonest would advance a project so ripe with fatal flaws. It is not naysaying to point out this reckless approach. Especially when we are supposed to be this planning Mecca.
What an absurd recommendation.
"""wait until the district is built before becoming a naysayer?""""
You are """tired of the "what ifs" on this board."""""
Tired of the truth slapping you around?
There are no "what ifs".
We know how projects and developments impact a city, That's why there are traffic engineers and other planning tools.
Ever heard of a traffic impact study?
The city uses these to charge pizza restaurants $27,000 for moving across the street.
It is you who do not understand any of this.
The rest of your sermon is equally baseless fantasy.
Back to school fella.
You should be tiring from discovering TriMet, Metro and the PDC continually mislead the public.
Do some home work.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Sep 14, 2005 7:40:55 PM
^struck a nerve with you, but it is clear to me that you look at trees and need to open your eyes to discover the entire forest. You focus on the negatives and don't discuss the positive trickle down effect that these new neighborhoods create. Neighborhoods that wouldn't even be there without the assistance provided today or if they waited 30 years from now to provide it. Nor do you realize the incredible planning efforts that have gone into these projects as you operate on your own assumptions that the 200 people in the planning department aren't nearly as competent as yourself and your own analysis...Pretty hard to have a discussion with someone who has already decided in his own mind that he is the judge and jury and has ruled that anything the city touches is doomed to failure, regardless.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Sep 15, 2005 9:09:43 AM
Sam,
Don't give up on Orenco Station too quickly. I read the Cascade Policy Institute's "report" on the development and found it pretty typical of the kind of pseudo-scientific advocacy piece that this group specializes in. I particularly like the part where they stuck two guys in a car out in the parking lot to count the number of people who caught the train and noted how they got there. And they did this twice, wow how scientific. It was also filled with other interesting facts, at one poing they identify David Lawrence (our Deputy City Manager) as working for PacTrust (actually we all know he works for Intel). The biggest flaw in the report (or at least in using it to support any serious arguement) is that it was a snapshot of a development that is still a work in progress. The main theme is that there isn't much development at the location. Five years into a down economy and they want to pronounce it a failure. Two years after the report was done there has been substantial expansion of both the commercial and the residential. Virtually every goal that we set for Orenco is on target and it remains one of the most popular developments in the city. It puts to rest the "people won't accept density" issue, people, in fact love this development. The issue with density is diversity and choice. That's why keeping old Orenco as a historic overlay was so important. TOD works and we have about 12 examples in Hillsboro of how to make it work.
Posted by: Tom Hughes | Sep 15, 2005 9:44:08 AM
Tom Hughes, Mayor of Hillsboro, said,
""TOD works and we have about 12 examples in Hillsboro of how to make it work.""
Tom,
What qualifies as "works"?
The fact that you spent money?
You don't even apply any genuine measurement of cost/benefit analysis.
Your brand of success is a declaration based on imaginary numbers and a string of presumptions.
Orenco is an overcrowded, auto oriented rat race pure and simple.
So what.
Spin it all you want.
What is the public benefit?
Your tactics are those of the PDC and Metro.
In fact you have a TOD morphing into a parking garage just as the Beaverton Round does.
The developer of the market rate housing units has punted (because the market-people won't pay for it) and now a parking garage is about to take the site. Just another auto-oriented, excessive dense, costly publicly subsidized, low public benefit project.
It's not about whether people "accept" density. It's whether or not our tax dollars should be channeled into private development because you like it.
You have abused Urban Renewal just like Portland and most other Metro area municipalities.
And done so under false pretenses and the notion that nothing would be developed without it.
You have committed decades worth of basic services property taxes towards projects unworthy of public "investment."
You, Tom Brian, Bob Drake and Metro have created the haphazard mess others will need decades to salvage.
The Cascade Policy Institute has done far more responsible work than the collective total local government staff under the status quo leadership and high density UGB mentality agenda.
It doesn't work and none of you have the slightest plan for any of it's many neglected detriments.
Work in progress?
Ha!
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Sep 15, 2005 1:47:01 PM
Posted by: Tom Hughes | Sep 15, 2005
It puts to rest the "people won't accept density" issue,
JK: Accept density? Why do you describe density as something peole accept instead of like?
You are showing your true belief that it is OK for you to dictate life style choices to others. Would like to live a life style dictated by G. Bush?
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Sep 15, 2005 4:03:43 PM
Posted by: Tom Hughes | Sep 15, 2005:
TOD works and we have about 12 examples in Hillsboro of how to make it work.
JK:
And, what was the total cost of the subsidies, including all forms of subsidy. Also, per unit. What % of the residents use tranist exclusively (not once per week). How much does it cost per car removed from the road? What percentage of the subsidy goes to middle and upper income people?
How about a list of the subsidies and the amounts?
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Sep 15, 2005 4:09:46 PM
Ack! Overrun by the libertarian trolls!
Abandon ship! The normal people have been run out of town.
Too bad.
And I take it on offense anytime tells me in an accusatory manner to 'reveal any conflicts' of interest I might have.
I sure as heck don't see you doing the same.
Furthermore, I'd like to dump some gasoline on the fire and mention you did not ever compare the Pearl or SoWa to any alternative type development models, nor did you accept the fact that almost every type of development done in the United States - particularly greenfield developments - also use huge amounts of public subsidies.
Don't think the entire LA freeway system and the rest of its infrastructure was built by public money? Yea right. You idiots attack only high density development because you don't like it.
Well, tough tiddie said the kitty.
Posted by: Justin | Sep 15, 2005 5:09:51 PM
Gee, Justin, that was a very articulate statement.
It seems to me that the main difference between taxpayer-funded freeways and taxpayer-funded TOD highrises for the Creative Class is that taxpayers actually *want* the freeways, even if it is mainly for the purpose of getting the heck away from the Creative Class.
And while I can sympathize with the aversion the libertarians have to the Monopoly Board aspect of urban planning, letting things run wild isn't the only alternative to all this granola development.
The idea that the City Commissars can commit millions of taxpayer dollars on the basis of a four-day seminar on some boob's personal view of planning is downright scary; no way would I live inside the Portland city limits and have my life controlled this way.
Posted by: Richard Bennett | Sep 15, 2005 6:01:32 PM
Justin | Sep 15, 2005 5:09:51 PM:
Ack! Overrun by the libertarian trolls!
JK:
Do you have a problem with people advocating liberty in this land of the free? Or do you have a problem allowing others to have freedom?
Justin | Sep 15, 2005 5:09:51 PM:
And I take it on offense anytime tells me in an accusatory manner to 'reveal any conflicts' of interest I might have.
JK:
Do you happen to financially profit from Portland's many planning and/or development industries, or are you just an ordinary joe who is stuck in traffic jams on his way home to the little box he calls home because he is priced out of Portland's housing market by government policy, who happens to like the policies that caused his misery?
Justin | Sep 15, 2005 5:09:51 PM:
Furthermore, I'd like to dump some gasoline on the fire and mention you did not ever compare the Pearl or SoWa to any alternative type development models
JK:
You are apparently ignorant of the fact that there was an alternative development for the SoWhat (please get the name correct: it is technically “North Macadam” but PDC et al prefers the higher class sounding “South Waterfront” which you mistakenly shortened to SoWa. The correct shortened version is SoWhat per the ultimate authority on this, Bog.) The owners of the SoWhat district submitted a development proposal for the area that would have taken almost no subsidies (read as: not steal money from schools, police and fire in order to satisfy planner’s wet dreams of the perfect urban form). The city (under Katz’s Klowns) rejected their proposal in favor of a super high density, view destroying, congestion causing, taxpayer financed, school, police and fire department, destroying project that will suck up over $250 million in public dollars from the above vital services.
Is this what you prefer - build upper class condos on the back of low income taxpayers? I must ask, at this point, based on your position, the obvious question: do you financially gain from this crap?
Justin | Sep 15, 2005 5:09:51 PM:
Don't think the entire LA freeway system and the rest of its infrastructure was built by public money?
JK:
Nope, I don’t. The interstate highway system was built, and is maintained, almost entirely, by taxes on users in the form of gas, license fees and weight-mile taxes. Do you not know this? (Look at government data instead of claims of big money, green advocacy corporation data, who are putting out scare stories to try to pry money out of widows and orphans to support their many digit salaries)
Do you also ignore the fact that over 80% of the mass transit costs are borne by taxpayers? (Look at TriMet data)
Further, if roads were paid for by all taxpayers, it would be a case of all taxpayers subsidizing all citizens - hardly an injustice.
Conversely, all taxpayers are subsidizing mass transit, although only a tiny minority of taxpayers benefit from mass transit. Is it fair for all taxpayers, including those that must go without food to pay their taxes, to subsidize a tiny minority using subsidized transit, many of which are middle and upper income who could afford to pay their own way ?
Justin | Sep 15, 2005 5:09:51 PM:
You idiots attack only high density development because you don't like it.
JK:
I have noticed that those who call others "idiots" and similar names, are usually looking in the mirror. They also tend to be people who are in danger of being cut off of the government teat. Be they Homer style developers or left over bureaucrats at PDC / planning. Is that you?
Thanks
Posted by: jim karlock | Sep 16, 2005 7:29:32 AM
Sam,
Thanks for your recent postings on TOD and placemaking! To me, these concepts relate to all kinds of vitally important issues—most importantly concerning what kinds of cites and communities we want to live in in the US in the coming century—but also how we will wisely use ever scarcer financial and environmental resources.
Obviously, your postings touched off something of a firestorm of attacks and counterattacks. This is touchy stuff because it does deal with tens of millions of tax dollars and is sometimes seen as “social engineering.”
In response to the argument that developments like the Pearl and South Waterfront are huge wastes of public money, I’d like to offer up several extensive national studies that compare the costs of smart growth/TOD to low-density sprawl. What all these studies show is that it’s a mixed bag, but in general, smart growth is somewhat cheaper, especially from the point of view of public dollars, than sprawl. Sprawl often costs millions more due to higher costs for road-building, sewer and water extension, increased service areas for police, fire, etc; and the new public facilities it necessitates, like schools. And I do find it very hard to believe that in the long run—after decades of income, property, and payroll taxes are recouped by Portland, and jobs at OHSU and the Brewery Blocks etc are created for citizens—that the Pearl and SoWa will be seen as failures.
The first study was done in 2000 by the Transportation Research Board, which, I believe, is probably the nation’s most respected source for (no surprise) transportation research.
http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_74-a.pdf
The second is a 1974 study by the Real Estate Research Corporation that gets cited a lot as an initial and very extensive report on “the costs of sprawl.”
http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/costs_of_sprawl.pdf
Finally, I picked just one editorial (more anecdotal than conclusive) from the Brookings Institution, which has written a lot on the this topic
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/katz/20030413.htm
In regards to Orenco Station, the Urban Land Institue case study—which was very good but I was unable to find for free online—has some great things to say about the development, and while it may not be a big success in the TOD sense, I think it is in the placemaking sense. Residents bought homes there as fast as they could snap them up and paid a premium in $ per square foot. It is a pretty cool place to be. Unlike most other surburban developments it has character and it has a social and commercial center. And clearly the market shows there is real demand for that kind of environment, regardless of the subsidy Hillsboro paid for the place. If a city wants to build a place that matters, it is likely to have to kick in some money. Neither Pioneer Square nor Waterfront Park were free, and Orecno’s park is also an important public place, just on a different scale.
For all the derision leveled at the Creative Class in these blog responses, it is clear that this is one of the demographic groups that wants to live in non-sprawl environments. 20 and 30 year olds have come to Portland in far greater numbers than almost any other city in part because it is a city with some density and character. And metro regions around the nation—including very non-granola places like Dallas, Atlanta, Salt Lake City, and D.C.—are responding to the demand for transit, TOD, and placemaking by extending rail systems and encouraging TOD and smart growth. They understand that high quality transit must be a part of their metro transportation future and that it simply makes sense to complement the investment in transit with development that supports the transit.
Another excellent source that I’d highly recommend you check out the recently released book “The New Transit Town.” This book contains the best, no BS, nuts and bolts, how to for TOD stuff that I’ve seen. The case studies on DC and Atlanta are very good.
And finally, a pretty interesting web site maintained just by a guy who digs this stuff: http://www.tndwest.com/
That’s all for now. Thanks again for your work on this.
And for all you high-energy anti-TODders: No, I do not collect a paycheck from any Portland area planning organization.
BV
Posted by: BV | Sep 16, 2005 5:29:43 PM
BV
Balderdash.
It's really too much propaganda.
Those studies by smart growthers comparing SM/TOD's to sprawl are a total fabrication.
Primarily how they assume the public pays for all of the new sprawl expansion when the bulk of it is paid for by the developers. The streets, sewer, water and they are paying SDC's to pay for the facilities capacity increases.
Unlike the SoWa developers.
Ultimately you and "Smart Growth" are a fraud in progress. Masquerading as cost savings, livability protection,
And even affordable housing.
When in reality it is nothing but a haphazard push for high density AT ALL COSTS.
There is not even any real world planning along the way. It's all hit and miss and hit again with more tax dollars.
No one needs any cockamamie "smart growthers" report to evaluate Orenco Station. They can take a drive out there and see for themselves that it is a car oriented rat race like any of the thousands of suburbs from southern California to Miami Florida.
I bet your Orenco Station report doesn't include the total public cost. You can't even call Hillsboro and get it.
The only two differences (from other private devlopments) is Orenco Station took millions away from basic services for decades and there are countless similar developments which are much nicer and privately built.
Our own Kruse Woods is far better than Orenco Station and the continued success of that 100% privately funded community with higher livability is proof.
We don't need an asinine smart growther's fabricated report to help us there either.
The confrontation that is happening here is one which is about the orchestrated and manipulated confiscation of basic services government tax dollars for the obscured and deceptive spending by
enviro-planning fanatics.
Fanatics who are hell bent on hobbling every conceivable societal function if it means high density and stopping the expansion of our cities.
It's fundamental tyranny and the outcome is chaos.
There are many people with vast expertise critiquing the doctored up "reports" BV and others wave.
Reports paid for with Metro, TriMet, PDC and Portland office of Sustainable Development's tax dollars.
The recent emissions report was the most recent lesson on fraud from government agency. An emissions report without a real measurement of emission as it turned out. Just fabrication.
Like so many reports emanating from this dishonest cult.
Sam you have been staurated with the BV propoganda for years. You don't need any more of it.
Every agency has compiled and distributed countless self promoting presentation and reports.
You have heard them all.
The benefits remain in their minds while the tax dollars flow down the drain.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Sep 16, 2005 6:31:42 PM
Sam,
Since I've been drawn into this discussion by others, I suppose I should say a few things on my own behalf.
First, I've been studying Portland TODs for about 4 years. I'm primarly interested in the ones that local transit advocates promote as big "success stories", such as Center Commons, Streetcar Lofts, Stadium Station Apartments, Orenco Station, Gresham Station, and Beaverton Round. In analyzing any such project, the first question is, how do you define "success"? The primary thing I look for is to compare the visions of planners during the pre-construction stage with the actual results.
In general, the finished project rarely works out like the planners envisioned. The retail forecasts are usually wrong. The market is usually less interested in the retail space than the planners predicted. Center Commons out at NE Glisan and 60th is a good example. PDC documents from the mid-1990s are replete with descriptions of how this site will be great for a restaurant due to its proximity to light rail and the high density of the project. After it opened, the space remained vacant for several years. When I interviewed the leasing agent she vented at length about what a terrible location this was, especially the fact that it had almost no parking. Eventually they leased it at a discount to an H&R Block franchise, which is only open during tax season.
The second issue is parking. Most TODs are underbuilt for parking because planners think that if you deprive people of the parking they want, they'll drive less. But what really happens is that these projects externalize their parking needs to the surrounding neighborhoods, making adjacent residents angry. Those people certainly don't feel like TOD is increasing their "livability" as TOD advocates like to claim.
Moreover, in the really dense projects, the parking has to be structured so it's very expensive. The on-site managers then charge for parking, and many of the tenants can't afford it or simply decline to pay. So the stated parking ratios are in fact higher than the actual ratios because people are using on-street parking elsewhere to escape parking charges.
These project also tend to have fairly modest transit use, relative to expectations. Certainly transit is probably an amenity for people who live there, but then that gets into the self-selection issue: people are there because they value the transit, so wouldn't they be using transit somewhere else anyway? There are plenty of places in the city where you can get decent bus service without having to live in a high-density TOD.
And finally there is the problem of cost. Every TOD I've ever analyzed had some level of public subsidy, especially for light-rail projects. The standard line in Portland is that light rail is a "catalyst" for development, but in fact it repels developers unless you subsidize them. In a city where politicians like to talk about "sustainable development", it's important to remember that a key part of the sustainable development definition is positive cash flow. If a project requires subsidies it is not a "sustainable" business model, because someone out there has to make money to pay for the losers.
Unfortunately there appears to be very little learning going on among Portland planners. They finish one project and move on to the next, and the decision-makers (such as PDC, the City Council, or the Metro council) never get reports about how previous projects worked out. It seems evident that their professional incentive is to keep promoting the concept without ever doing any empirical analysis of their previous work.
I have nothing against the concept of TOD; I'm value-neutral about how people live their lives. I just think we need to be realistic about both the social benefits and the social costs of how it's being promoted in Portland. It serves a tiny niche market, it's not market-driven, and it's not a congestion-reduction strategy.
We will have some more case studies posted on the Cascade website during the coming year, and we also expect to update our Orenco Station paper which is now outdated.
Posted by: John Charles | Sep 18, 2005 10:05:31 PM
John Charles:
Unfortunately there appears to be very little learning going on among Portland planners. They finish one project and move on to the next, and the decision-makers (such as PDC, the City Council, or the Metro council) never get reports about how previous projects worked out.
JK:
In a conversation I had with a planner, working on the Lombard plan, he said that they DID NOT STUDY past plans to see if they worked. He wished that there was money for such a study.
I have finally deduced that there will never be city money for a study of results because 1)a study finding success will only prove what everyone assumes. 2) Conversely, it it finds failure, that will be egg all over everyone (PDC, Plannig, PDOT). So there is no upside of doing a study, only a potential downside.
I am currently hassling over an issue with PDOT proposing bubble curbs on almost every intersection along a section of Fremont (42nd-50th). I keep asking if those extended curbs, which encourage people to STAND CLOSER TO FAST MOVING MACHINERY (cars), are really a saety improvment. I keep getting told that they are obviously safer because it makes pedestrians easier to see. I reply that they are also putting people closer to dangerous machinery.
PDOT has deaf ears to this line of resoning, but they inally admitted that there is NO DATA as to the safety of this curb design.
The industrial world likes to keep people well away from dangerous machines, so I think there is a real possibility that these curbs are getting (or will get) people killed.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Sep 19, 2005 7:54:16 AM
MarkDeMean:
I can imagine the Hollywood and Gateway district with packed with 5 to 10 story apartment and condo homes built for families (3 to 5 bedrooms) as well as our large creative class.
JK:
You wouldn't know a creative person if you insulted with your blind obediance to PDC/Metro BS.
PS: The creative class that matters is not hanging out at trendy cafes sipping lattes and contemplating their next great work of governemnt subsidized art. They also seldom have time to waste on toy trains when they need to get somewhere more important than the Pearl. They also tend to NOT live in dumps like the Pearl and the SoWhat. (I am speaking the people who created your high standard of living, not the trendy artists and ad hucksters that are so popularized as creative and who add so little to our society.)
You can hear one genuine member of the creative class on radio Sat and Sun eve 10pm to 1am at 810 on AM radio. Or if you don't have a GOOD radio it is on the web at www.kgo.com.
Thanks
JK (who is a U.S. government cetified member of the creative class.)
Posted by: jim karlock | Sep 19, 2005 8:38:22 AM
^ugh, another person who blindly assumes, and we are supposed to take all other posts by you seriously? I am the creative class here in Portland. I find it almost eerie how my story is so similar to many other young people I encounter here that have come from across the country attracted to Portland by its reputation for being progressive, beautiful and green. I most certainly didn't move here because I knew about, and blindly followed, the PDC or Metro.
At the age of 20 I packed up my stuff and moved from Phoenix 3 years ago with nothing more than my HS diploma and money to pad me over for a couple months from selling my car that I knew I didn't have to have here. Portland has been awesome to me. The fact that Portland was in a recession didn't matter to me, or that the unemployment rate was above 8%. I moved here because I could live in a city, not sprawl, use public transit, and make a better life for myself through this city's great community college network and PSU. I have many attributes that I bring to Portland but most importantly, loyalty and dedication. I want my city to succeed and am supportive of the efforts made by our local decision makers to try something new, greener, and oriented away from the automobile.
I am a firm believer that the community here really does want higher density development. The citizens value their free land to hike, bike, and camp within a 30 minute drive. They like that they can leave their car in their driveway and hop a bus or MAX to their employer. They value the quality of life that comes with smarter planning that focuses on sustainable design, and community involvement. Just because the libertarians have found a voice on other local blogs still doesn't make you the majority. I'm sorry, it doesn't. The people in this city elected Mayor Katz THREE TIMES. She was a firm supporter of the Pearl and orchestrated much of what we are seeing now developed in the SoWa district. If the people here were so offended by her, and her staff's actions, than Mr. Adams would have bore some of the backlash and Mr. Fish would have been elected. Since that doesn't seem to be the case it looks as though a majority of Portlanders still support high density design, mass transit, and our Aerial Tram!
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Sep 19, 2005 10:27:27 AM
Mark said"
Since that doesn't seem to be the case it looks as though a majority of Portlanders still support high density design, mass transit, and our Aerial Tram!"
Of course it could be that the long parade of lies, which you have obviously fallen for, temporarily served their purpose.
But with the outcomes bringing more detriment than gain people are waking up to the ultra wrongness and misrepresentation of what you preach.
Heck you can't even put together a single concise example of genuine success.
It's all perpetual feel good conceptualization about a green wonderful world preserved by the planning which you truly know nothing about.
Oh you're a "firm believer" all right.
But you're running on empty as you try to defend the costly crap in crap out madness around here.
Come back in ten years with a follow up so we can see what you've learned from real life.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Sep 19, 2005 11:01:58 AM
^I'm sorry, were we talking about TODs or Bush's war in Iraq? Seems to me like you have stolen the lines out of someone elses playbook...get a life!
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Sep 19, 2005 12:14:16 PM
There you fully proved my point.
I challenge any TOD proponent to put together any case for this program that will hold up to any scrutiny. A real case with measured costs and benefits.
Not the usual substitution with objectives, speculation and conceptualization masquerading as real outcomes.
The reason this confrontation dwindles into Mark's juvenile realm is there is no case. Just hype, presumptions, fantasy and outright falsehoods.
Over and over again.
Once Mark discovers that much of the TriMet/Metro agenda is chuck full of fabrication and distortion he too will be singing another song.
However it may take a while with him.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Sep 19, 2005 2:44:12 PM
This isn't specifically a TOD comment, but more in the nature of a comment from a resident who spent the majority of her life in and around larger cities.
If the real idea we're exploring here is how to better utilize a public transit system, there are some basic suggestions that would improve our existing system significantly. (I draw on my experience as a resident of London, Boston and Washington DC for these; not as any sort of rail expert.)
1) Get rid of any access to the light rail that does NOT go through a ticket both on both the in and the out. The concept of fareless square can continue, just enforce that if it's not in fareless square, the ride is NOT free.
2) Consider the flow of traffic. If you know that the most significant congestion areas are those that run in the suburbs, that's where to spend the money. Provide suburb hubs that connect to other suburb hubs with a working bus system to connect the entire network.
3) Provide express trains. If you live on the west side, it's over a full hour to get to the airport via rail. No matter how bad the highways are, it's faster by car. That's just not sensible. If the rail method is nearly equivalent in time to what a car based commute will be, many more people will use it. (Again, this is presupposing that most people want to be green, and just need to be enabled to do so.)
As an overall comment, the people who need to do studies around existing projects can NOT have any involvement with the organizations that stand to "win" or "lose" based on the outcome of the analysis. If someone wants impartial data, you need to invoke resources outside the existing political infrastructure. (Perhaps a partnership with one of the larger metropolises in another state / country? That way it's an information exchange.)
There are fabulous things about the light rail system, but they will for the large part remain unnoticed by the common man if we aren't enabled to explore it.
Posted by: Shawna | Sep 19, 2005 6:51:46 PM
Mark,
Before you attribute anything about density to election outcomes, you have to look at how elections work in Portland. We have a city wide system, meaning that the same group of individuals can influence all council elections.
if you look at contribution and voting patterns, you'll see this is exactly what happens. Voting power in Portland resides in all the close in areas. These are the people who are most benefitted by density and ironically, not that affected since their properties are already so valuable.
No one seems to be asking folks in the far north or far east and south east what they think about this.
There is a huge Portland outside of SoWa and the Pearl, believe it or not, although I expect you seldom head out that way.
Posted by: user | Sep 19, 2005 10:34:19 PM
MarkDaMan | Sep 19, 2005 10:27:27 AM:
I am the creative class here in Portland.
JK:
Oh, really - creative class? How many companies have you started? How many jobs have you created? How many patents did you create? How many copyrights have you created? Tell us what have you created?
MarkDaMan | Sep 19, 2005 10:27:27 AM:
I moved here because I could live in a city, not sprawl, use public transit, and make a better life for myself through this city's great community college network and PSU.
JK:
Basically, you are saying that ou came hre to live off of the public through using subsidized transit (we pay $8.00 for every dollar you pay in fares)
MarkDaMan | Sep 19, 2005 10:27:27 AM:
I have many attributes that I bring to Portland but most importantly, loyalty and dedication.
JK:
So does my cat.
MarkDaMan | Sep 19, 2005 10:27:27 AM:
I want my city to succeed and am supportive of the efforts made by our local decision makers to try something new, greener, and oriented away from the automobile.
JK:
Why would you want to lower people’s standard of living - automobiles enable you to seek a wider range of jobs within a given commuting TIME because it covers a much wider AREA in a given time? More choices in jobs gives you a higher income. Automobiles also cost less that transit, it is just that that fact is obscured by the 80% subsidy given to TriMet.
MarkDaMan | Sep 19, 2005 10:27:27 AM:
I am a firm believer that the community here really does want higher density development.
JK:
You are wrong. Look at the election results from measure 26-11 and the one Metro offered in competition. Probably close to 80% of the people voted to stop the increase in Portland’s density.
MarkDaMan | Sep 19, 2005 10:27:27 AM:
She was a firm supporter of the Pearl and orchestrated much of what we are seeing now developed in the SoWa[t] district. (I took the liberety of correcting your spelling of the district)
JK:
Of course that is why the city is broke. She gave it all away to encourage development of her pet project to turn Portland into Los Angeles. (Some people would claim New York, but Los Angeles is denser.)
MarkDaMan | Sep 19, 2005 10:27:27 AM:
If the people here were so offended by her, and her staff's actions, than Mr. Adams would have bore some of the backlash and Mr. Fish would have been elected.
JK:
I followed that race fairly close and couldn’t tell those two apart. Since then Sam has done a splendid job of doing things that Katz would never do. He even has a car. (I case you didn’t know, Katz was unable to pass a driver’s license test.)
Perhaps you didn’t notice that Fran-so-phony lost to Potter. That was a backlash.
Why don’t you give us you real name. So we see it you are really just another a PDC/Planning department/Developer Troll
JK
Genuine member of the creative class.
Posted by: jim karlock | Sep 20, 2005 5:39:37 AM
This discussion about TODS has become quite personal to some people here. I've basically been called an elitist by user:
"There is a huge Portland outside of SoWa and the Pearl, believe it or not, although I expect you seldom head out that way."
and a moocher by JK:
"Basically, you are saying that ou came hre to live off of the public"
I'm not a public employee. I don't have any affiliation with the PDC, Metro, City of Portland, State of Oregon, land use boards, or anybody else. I'm figuring that in order to validate your own points you need to do it at the expense of trying to discredit myself. I've never claimed to be an expert in any field in my above posts or that I have all the answers about TODS successes and failures. I have been speaking strictly off of my own experience, my own desires, and the opinions that people who are close to me have shared. Opinions that you think aren't justified and deserve no respect.
My opinions about TODS are very clear in my preceding posts. I believe in high density. I'm of the opinion that in my perfect world we would all live for the environment, for high density development, ride transit whenever feasible, and everyone could live harmoniously in Portland and worldwide. This world aint my perfect world though, and I respect people's freedoms to live in the burbs and drive around in their 'burbans. I personally have family that lives in our suburbs and I love them the same as if they lived inside the city. I don't judge a person by where they reside, or for any other reason for that matter.
However, there is a group of us creative class young people, thousands upon thousands of us actually, that do want to live in high density transit oriented housing that quite frankly hasn't been made especially affordable, or close-in, for those that are affordable. Portland can only support so many multi-million dollar condos and it is a hope of mine that once the low hanging fruit is picked from the tree by developers, they will then focus on the greater number of low to middle income people that want to get centrally located but don't need bamboo floors and hot tubs on the roof.
Mark Workman
Parkrose resident
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Sep 20, 2005 11:45:39 AM
Mark,
The problem with
"""they will then focus on the greater number of low to middle income people that want to get centrally located but don't need bamboo floors and hot tubs on the roof."""
The scheme you believe in will deliver what it promises because it devours far more revenue than it creates.
The utopia you desribe is a fantasy in which TOD's etc are the last and most unlikley means to deliver.
Of course you can advocate continuous tax increases and spending while growing old waiting for the payoff.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Sep 20, 2005 12:01:39 PM
Mark
My apologies for assuming you lived near in. I did not intend that to sound like a snub. But I did recoil a bit at how much you assumed you knew about Portland after living here just four years.
Inner areas are where we seem to be focusing most of our development efforts, in an attempt to attract folks just like you.
I do believe that if you ask your neighbors around NE 102nd and Sandy, you'll find many of them are not interested in living in highly dense, transit oriented locales.
They're interested in a little land, a little house, good schools for their kids, and a nice job, and they don't have a sense that Portland is doing much for them.
My comments about Portland's election system remain: your area of the city has virtually no pull in Portland government.
Posted by: user | Sep 20, 2005 3:09:02 PM
Mark,
Just one more comment apropos to your area of town: the Gateway district.
What does the failure (at present) of that district say about Portland planning? This is a *real* problem--the Gateway area has *everything* a TOD *or* a car-oriented development or business would want--rapid access to two major highways, close to an airport, close to Max.
It should be booming, yet it remains solely low end apartments and some slightly shoddy retail.
Now take a drive down Mill Plain Blvd. east of 205 in Vancouver. And ask yourself why businesse and corporations are snapping up locations along that road and houses are selling as fast as they can build them.
*There* is the regional boom that was described in a posting above, not in SoWa or the Pearl, which for all of their appeal to a particular set of individuals, don't really account for much in terms of major population growth.
Yes, I know, "Creative class" types don't want to live in the 'Couv, but hell, unless things change, you're sure going to be working there (and driving over the 205 bridge).
Posted by: user | Sep 20, 2005 3:13:55 PM
Mark Workman:
I've never claimed to be an expert in any field in my above posts or that I have all the answers about TODS successes and failures.
JK:
But you appear to think you are an expert, hence my style of answer.
Mark Workman:
I have been speaking strictly off of my own experience, my own desires, and the opinions that people who are close to me have shared. Opinions that you think aren't justified and deserve no respect.
JK:
That is because many of them are provably false by simply looking at the data.
Mark Workman:
My opinions about TODS are very clear in my preceding posts. I believe in high density. I'm of the opinion that in my perfect world we would all live for the environment, for high density development, ride transit whenever feasible, and everyone could live harmoniously in Portland and worldwide.
JK:
1. Your belief. Your opinion. “We would all live”, “ride transit”. That sounds like a RELIGION, but if that is YOUR LIFESTYLE CHOICE, fine. The problem comes when you try to force others to live by your choices (your religion). If you want to dictate how others live (through government policy) then you must be willing to live how, whoever has political power this year, wants you to live. (IE: get ready for Bush style morning prayers, abortion ban, death for gays, death for pot users -is that what you want? I know this is a bit of a stretch, but I am speaking of the dangers of government power.)
2. Several of your choices are illogical:
* Rail transit is too expensive to consider seriously .
* As to busses, they DO NOT SAVE ENERGY, so THEY DO NOT HELP THE ENVIRONMENT. Small cars are a better choice. Cheaper too. Look at the data. (See: http://www.portlanddocs.com/Transportation/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/TriMet_vs_Car5.pdf)
* High density costs more than low density. Paying for it lowers someone’s lifestyle, be it other taxpayers through paying for your subsidies, or yours through higher rent.
* Most people DO NOT want to live in high density. People have been fleeing the high density regions of the world for about 100 years. See: http://www.portlanddocs.com/video/RM-Cox-20P-4.rm
Mark Workman:
However, there is a group of us creative class young people, thousands upon thousands of us actually,
JK:
You still haven’t demonstrated that you have created anything. Please give an example of you having created anything useful to society.
Mark Workman:
. . . want to live in high density transit oriented housing that quite frankly hasn't been made especially affordable, or close-in, for those that are affordable.
JK:
Basic economics:
1. All Metro area land is badly overpriced due an artificial shortage. That is much of why YOU can’t afford to live in the area.
2, High density COSTS MORE than classic single family housing. Have you ever noticed that small towns tend to be cheaper than big cities? There are other reasons, but that is a good start.
Mark Workman:
they will then focus on the greater number of low to middle income people that want to get centrally located but don't need bamboo floors and hot tubs on the roof.
JK:
Unlikely to happen. Construction costs are too great for high density.
Thanks
JK, genuine member of the creative class.
Posted by: jim karlock | Sep 21, 2005 7:00:11 AM
This seems relevent:
It is a shame that ancient history is seldom taught in our schools. Finding out that people thousands of years ago were basically pretty much the way they are today — people of every race, color, creed, national origin, political ideology and sexual orientation — would reduce our chances of having Utopian hopes for big changes any time soon.
from:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell.html
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Sep 21, 2005 7:58:47 AM
I am new to the blog thing and not an expert yet on transportation issues in Portland, yet. I am a graduate student in Public Administration and will be studying projects like TOD. I have a geology/hydrology background. Hard science based, but through the lens of a Geographer, Human & Physical Earth interaction. I know what impact I am having living on the planet, daily, as a consumer. That is my caveat to this entry.
We can argue over the soundness of the global warming science. We can also argue about how to respond to it. But may I assume most reasonable people would agree that we shouldn’t be greedy about whatever we are consuming and that we need to leave the planet in the best condition possible for future generations? We are responsibly living not looking for Utopia.
I can tell you my experience as a resident in the Pearl for nearly 5 years now. It is all about choices. My husband and I laugh when we hear stereotyping comments about Pearl dwellers. A public servant (low-paid) and a bookstore clerk (lower-paid). Whoa, we are definitely not what you would recognize as the myth of “those who belong”. Spend some time here and you will notice there are a lot of us moving in here. Slowly, as we learn to live with less. I sold most of what I had to live hear.
Some citizens have more choices available to them than others at any given time. I concede that. But you might be surprised what a mix we have living here. As a grad student (short on funds – stu. loans till done) and a concerned and responsible citizen (I try not to consume any more than I have to) I am learning to be satisfied with less. Given my limited resources, I still made the choice to move into the Pearl and into a studio condo instead of a several bedroom house in the burbs (been there, done that). Living with less is a learning process, so when we moved here we each had a car. I was/am an average American in love with driving whenever I want to, but I was haunted by an awareness that I could do with less. Over time, we dropped one car.
Though I had pangs of “What if I want to go some where and my husband has the car???” I learned to plan better so if he or I needed to, we could get there by walking, biking, or public transportation (fareless square is really valuable to us). I bought the expensive streetcar pass, even though it cost a good chunk of our monthly income. I attend urban PSU so I can use it instead of a gas burning mode of transportation. I was still ahead without the second car (gas, insurance, parking). After weaning ourselves off the 2-car idea, we found out 1 car is pretty easy if you are willing to learn to plan and live with less. And now we are learning that if we try, we can live comfortably lean and drive about 1 or 2 times a month. I could do that anywhere downtown where I had access to food (buy what you need and make it yourself), entertainment (free concerts or time with friends). I like the Pearl, shameless but true. It is all about choices.
Have your opinions, but know that it is possible to live with less. It isn’t Utopia. Geeze, it may be somewhere imperfect but as close as we can responsible get to leaving the planet better off than if I didn’t make these same choices. If I can do it, so can other lower-middle incomers. If you have more means isn’t it your responsibility to live with less impact? I will study the transportations system, and get involved to improve it. I am darn glad someone had the vision to try to make this work and the courage to be public servants, take the criticism, and improve upon our attempts. Thank you for the Pearl. All the people who look for work here thank you. And those people who bring their kids from elsewhere by MAX(packed daily) and streetcar(gaining ridership and packed during rush hours) to play in parks and the fountains, thank you too. Darn good attempt to do good city planning. Keep trying. I am sure you will get feedback on what you did wrong. I know you will consider it and do even better.
PS: Is it possible to communicate your discontent without personal attacks on the folks who disagree with you? Or is that too Utopian?
Posted by: Shelley | Sep 21, 2005 4:21:15 PM
That's all fine Shelly but your assessment is far too narrow.
We could have better services, parks and transit for more people if we did NOT have the streetcars and light rail. The cost is outrageous and uses the money which should be doing much more.
You are also narrowly perceiving the critisism of the Pearl. Perhaps making it easier to dismiss.
The most severe problem in the Pearl is the severe cost in basic services dollars spent on private development.
I can sum up my exchange with Mark this way.
Mark, go get together with your freinds and "create" a joint venture.
Go out and create the revenue and build your own high density or whatever else you want. Have at it.
But the policies which are diverting huge public sums from basic services to private development are dishonest and illegitimate.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Sep 21, 2005 9:21:58 PM
Shelley | Sep 21, 2005 4:21:15 PM:
I have a geology/hydrology background. Hard science based, but through the lens of a Geographer,
We can argue over the soundness of the global warming science.
JK:
OK, I’ll bite, considering your hard science background.
1. What gasses account of 95% of the greenhouse effect?
2. For each of those gasses what is man’s contribution in terms of warming effect, as well as in amount of gas.
3. What is the global temperature trend over the last 10,000 years?
4. Over the last 5,000 years?
5. Since the global optimum.
6. Since the little iceage.
7. What is the effect of solar radiance over the last 10,000 years.
8. What is the effect of long term changes in the Earth’s orbit.
Shelley | Sep 21, 2005 4:21:15 PM:
But may I assume most reasonable people would agree that we shouldn’t be greedy about whatever we are consuming and that we need to leave the planet in the best condition possible for future generations?
JK:
Tell me what raw material will be still be in use in 200 years then we can discuss saving them for the future. Look at commodity prices from 200 years ago. The list is full of things that we no longer use, but were vital back then. This is a common fallacy of planners, they assume that man will not progress. They have to because no one can predict the future, bit they fail to even acknowledge that progress has been at a steadily increasing rate and is likely to continue. Most of them don’t know even the most basic economics. Like if the price goes up, supply will follow and alternatives will appear. (that is the fallacy of peak oil)
Some of man’s best progress comes from being under pressure. Suppose we hadn’t run out of whale oil? Would we still be using oil lamps?
Shelley | Sep 21, 2005 4:21:15 PM:
We are responsibly living not looking for Utopia.
JK: That sounds like an advocate of stopping our progress towards a better life for everyone. People in poverty today live better than kings did a hundred years ago. Would you have stopped that search for Utopia? Should we quit looking for cures for disease?
Shelley | Sep 21, 2005 4:21:15 PM:
I can tell you my experience as a resident in the Pearl for nearly 5 years now. It is all about choices.
JK:
Actually current Metro policy is to deny choice of where to live and how to travel. For instance they claim that light rail improves choices. That is shown to be a lie when you discover that trimet discontinues any buses that previously ran on the route of a rail line. There was no increase in choice, only a forced change from one to another.
Shelley | Sep 21, 2005 4:21:15 PM:
My husband and I laugh when we hear stereotyping comments about Pearl dwellers. A public servant (low-paid)
JK:
Please assure me that he does not work in any capacity related to city planning, development, sustainable development etc.
Shelley | Sep 21, 2005 4:21:15 PM:
Slowly, as we learn to live with less. I sold most of what I had to live hear. . . .(I try not to consume any more than I have to) I am learning to be satisfied with less.
JK:
Are you advocating that we all reduce our worldly goods? That sounds like you are promoting a religion.
Shelley | Sep 21, 2005 4:21:15 PM:
Given my limited resources, I still made the choice to move into the Pearl and into a studio condo instead of a several bedroom house in the burbs (been there, done that).
JK:
If money is an issue, why not find a low cost apartment in the burbs, just a short light rail ride away?
Shelley | Sep 21, 2005 4:21:15 PM:
I attend urban PSU so I can use it instead of a gas burning mode of transportation.
JK:
I assume you know that around 40% of our region’s electricity is generated from coal which, some allege, is the worst possible fuel from a global warming viewpoint. I certainly DOES emit mercury and various radioactive elements into the atmosphere. Cars DO NOT emit mercury or radiation. Neither do nuclear plants.
PS: Is it possible to communicate your discontent without personal attacks on the folks who disagree with you? Or is that too Utopian?
JK:
I hope I fulfilled that request, but I still think you are a PDC/Planning profession shill.
(Sam if my messages are getting too long, let me know)
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Sep 22, 2005 6:57:22 AM
Hello Sam and webmaster for Sam's blog. Could you change the format of this page to one with a wider reading page?
I am happy to see so many responses. I will take them one at a time.
SL
Posted by: Shelley | Sep 22, 2005 1:47:47 PM
Reply to Steve Schopp | Sep 21, 2005 9:21:58 PM
Hello Steve,
I can easily agree with creating a better distribution of resources. Here is the short list of responses followed by a wordy but necessary big picture check. I am listening!
We could have better services, parks and transit for more people if we did NOT have the streetcars and light rail. The cost is outrageous and uses the money which should be doing much more.
Shelley-Specifically what do you suggest would be better choices in public transportation? Given both the up and the downsides of each mode, pollution, reliability, predictability, etc.
You are also narrowly perceiving the critisism of the Pearl. Perhaps making it easier to dismiss. The most severe problem in the Pearl is the severe cost in basic services dollars spent on private development.
Shelley-Absolutely, my response was narrow by necessity. There is much more to say in so little space. This is my experiment in a “one person finding ways to impact the earth less”. For example, my building was built using sustainable materials, my personal actions require less resources freeing them up for others who need them. It stops short of redistribution but it is a start.
But the policies which are diverting huge public sums from basic services to private development are dishonest and illegitimate.
Shelley-Can’t go with you on this one. Some policies are diverting various amounts of funds to a variety of projects. Some are quite small scale, including with creative NFPs who are getting better bang for the buck than strictly private or public. I will agree it is easy to find lousy examples (some by mistake & some abuses – can’t escape the fact we are dealing with humans) but it simply isn’t accurate to over generalize. Again, I am interested in what you think works so that the city can repeat those sorts of projects. Given not all citizens agree what a successful project is, what specific criteria/measurments do you think should be used?
What do you think?
SL
Posted by: Shelley | Sep 22, 2005 5:47:50 PM
The wordy part:
As for my 1st contribution, it is hard to cover topics in depth in what I considered and intro of myself into the "conversation". I think it is fairly obvious that it wasn’t meant to be all encompassing or an assessment. It is a jumping off point for more and a broader dialogue. Looks like it worked!
Short dialogue formats give the appearance of false dichotomies. This exchange is over generalized because of that fact. I agree that our choices as a community and that of civil servants need to be scrutinized, passionately and skeptically. That is a complex issue, one that in part results from a long sequence of one administration or program spliced into another. The residuals from years of poor planning mixed with good planning leaves lots of room for improvement. Let’s be fair, there are also some darn talented and dedicated public/private & NFP employees getting paid pittance for jobs they take in order to make a difference. Do you agree there are some good examples in Portland’s planning efforts downtown? Are there no examples of good development in the Pearl? Think small scale. Can you share what you consider good models? Are you lumping all public-private projects into a reject file?
You sound passionate, certainly skeptical (hopefully not cynical) so I applaud your speaking out. I have chosen the option Ward Churchill proposed (paraphrased) in a CSPAN lecture, don’t just stand on the sidelines and wave your arms screaming for change, put on a suit, if that is what it takes, and jump inside the bureaucracy and change it! It is one approach. I haven’t discovered all the ways I can influence the system but it is a constant effort including looking for ways to improve public-private works.
If you are referring to PDC style development, lets separate the poor and illegitimate (possibly illegal) performance from the model itself. Just for discussion’s sake, reduce it to an oversimplified reality, public funds are not going to cover all the needs of our citizens, poor or not. Neither are public agencies going to solve the problem alone. The trend is we locally and nationally) continue to increase the number of public-private relationships are here for the foreseeable future. Service delivery agreements, in order to meet the growing needs of some of our poorest citizens and our general public, are rapidly increasing. Not-for-profits are fulfilling a growing segment of service delivery. In the mix of public service there will be public-private endeavors. So if you want to talk system improvements, I am all for it. If you want to talk about the need for a high level of integrity in public servants and private industry partners, am all over it. Its not enough to critique what is wrong. What ideas do you have to improve the system we are working with. I would be interested in your constructive ideas.
Good exchange of ideas, thanks for responding.
SL
Posted by: Shelley | Sep 22, 2005 5:49:15 PM
Shelley | Sep 21, 2005 4:21:15 PM:
I have a geology/hydrology background. Hard science based, but through the lens of a Geographer,
We can argue over the soundness of the global warming science.
JK:
OK, I’ll bite, considering your hard science background.
1. What gasses account of 95% of the greenhouse effect?
2. For each of those gasses what is man’s contribution in terms of warming effect, as well as in amount of gas.
3. What is the global temperature trend over the last 10,000 years?
4. Over the last 5,000 years?
5. Since the global optimum.
6. Since the little iceage.
7. What is the effect of solar radiance over the last 10,000 years.
8. What is the effect of long term changes in the Earth’s orbit.
Sorry JK, I'm not biting. Statistics and science can bent to suit my argument or yours. If you are interested, I am betting on the work of folks like the Climate Impacts Group http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/. No nutshell science for me. Each of us can research and find peer-reviewed material backing our positions. I am giving my perspective on how I can be a responsible human being/consumer, irrespective of who is right on the issue of science. I am not waiting until the “truth???” is established. I am not interested in a tit-for-tat exchange but I am interested in your solutions to any of the issues you are trying to point to.
I appreciate your homework though. I like fact finding too.
Thank you for your response,
Shelley
Posted by: Shelley | Sep 22, 2005 6:10:39 PM
Sheely said,
""""Its not enough to critique what is wrong. What ideas do you have to improve the system we are working with. I would be interested in your constructive ideas."""
I take no offense but that is a condescending posture?
Is this some technique being passed around?
I, like many othes have offered up plenty of construcitve ideas.
One big one to is to quit covertly diverting basic serives dollars to boondoggles like SoWa and the Tram.
The constructive part comes in when that would then leave enough money to fix a city pool or hurry up the sewage into the Willamette problem.
The alternative solution to SoWa is a better development privately funded.
Kruse Woods is the perfect example.
High occupancy, high rent, high livability, lots of green and compatable with adjacent neighborhoods.
The city region and state have tremendous needs.
You so politely said,
""""I am not interested in a tit-for-tat exchange but I am interested in your solutions to any of the issues you are trying to point to.""""
Interested in solutions?
You mean you haven't heard any?
Anywhere? You are starting with nothing. Where do you work?
You haven't discussed any issues and solutions?
Come on Shelly.
That bit is getting old.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Sep 22, 2005 11:37:54 PM
Shelley | Sep 22, 2005 6:10:39 PM
(quoting JK, who was quoting Shelly above the first "JK:"):
We can argue over the soundness of the global warming science.
JK:
OK, I’ll bite, considering your hard science background.
1. What gasses account of 95% of the greenhouse effect?
2. For each of those gasses what is man’s contribution in terms of warming effect, as well as in amount of gas.
3. What is the global temperature trend over the last 10,000 years?
4. Over the last 5,000 years?
5. Since the global optimum.
6. Since the little iceage.
7. What is the effect of solar radiance over the last 10,000 years.
8. What is the effect of long term changes in the Earth’s orbit.
Sorry JK, I'm not biting
JK: (this is the start of my reply on this cycle)
Gee, you offered to discuss the soundness of the global warming science. And you just side stepped my attempt to get agreement on the most important facts of the subject.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Sep 23, 2005 3:36:49 AM
Springwater Village
The proposed Wal-Mart site on McLoughlin is an excellent location for a future light rail station and a transit/bicycle oriented residential development, a TOD and a BOD.
Uniquely situated along the scenic Johnson Creek at the potential junction of two regional transit corridors and a regional bicycle trail, a non-auto-dependent compact residential development would be the highest and best use of this site.
It is bordered by future light rail, the Springwater Corridor, the existing #33 frequent service bus line and a much needed east-west cross-town bus route between Clackamas Town Center and Washington Square along the Johnson Creek Blvd., Tacoma Street and Taylor’s Ferry Road corridor.
Buy the way, this route would connect Clackamas County and Washington County with a direct transit link and provide connections with 30 existing bus routes and eventually five rail lines.
A small village – “Springwater Village” perhaps - of maybe 400 to 500 dwellings with a few local shops and a village square, would be just a ten-minute walk to Sellwood and Johnson Creek Park by way of a parkway along Johnson Creek. It also would be just a short stroll to Westmoreland Park and Eastmoreland Golf Course.
Posted by: jim Howell | Oct 2, 2005 8:24:07 AM
I can't help but notice that there is an awful lot of pessimism expressed here. I understand people wanting to share their thoughts on a perceived waste of tax dollars and subsidies, etc, but I do not see very many positive suggestions. Attack the science of global warming, or what you see as a dying city all you like, but at least offer some references for what you're saying or if you don't like it, what's your suggestion? We all know that sprawl just perpetuates a reliance on oil that more and more people are finding harder to manage financially, so clearly continuing to spread out further and further cannot be the solution for the future. TOD is not perfect, but can someone please suggest an urban form that is? How else can issues of access, environmental degradation, social equality and resource conservation be addressed? We cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the multitude of problems that arise from sprawling urban forms. We are obese, unhealthy, lazy people who could stand to go for a bike ride or be able to walk to the store should we need to, which is something that TOD offers. There's no arguing with that. If only we weren't afraid we'd get hit by a car in doing so...that's just one side of the enormous issue.
And as for looking at Portland as a failing, dying city, you cannot be serious. I grew up in Portland and only visit now every 6 months, and I am always astounded by how the city continues to grow. You don't get that feeling in Boston, or Auckland...The Pearl is VIBRANT and healthy, and please tell me what is wrong with putting subsidised, affordable housing in a vibrant neighbourhood instead of in a scummy tower block like they do in most cities. Portland is suffering growth problems, like all large cities do.
I also would like to acknowledge that the LUTRAQ study is not a widely laughed at document. Here in New Zealand, it is a widely referred to document informing national and regional growth strategies. It's not just brainwashed greenies who see the value in it, but you do have to be open-minded to the drastic changes it suggests. They are for the better, whether we like it or not.
My suggestion is we all need to take a close look at ourselves, get over the NIMBYism and contribute positively. If you don't like the City and what's being done, then attend some PDC or CLF meetings, be invovled in community associations and take action. Having a negative attitude towards those who are trying to affect change is no way to get anything done. Follow the lead of John Charles, though I may not agree with him, at least he actively participates in the debate.
Posted by: Jenny | Oct 9, 2005 8:54:29 PM
Good afternoon. I was looking for info on buying a house and I found this blog. I am not exactly sure why, perhaps you have the term "Buying a house" on your site somwhere. Anyway, i have read through some of your posts and it is very interesting. I have bookmarked your blog and will return next week to see if there are any updates.
Many thanks,
Chris the Lakers fan.
Posted by: lake palace | Jan 31, 2006 6:46:22 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Sam,
You have staff from multiple agencies lying to you and other electeds on a regular basis.
Our local TOD program has been a total failure from every angle. It has cost far more than revealed and hasn't produced anywhere near the transit ridership gains claimed.
Unfortunately our government agencies who push it cover up the adverse effects and lie about the benefits.
The recent Portland Office of Sustainable Development's emissions report was a deliberate misrepresentation and distortion to prop up programs such our TOD program.
The report claimed resulting successful emissions levels when they never even really measured the emissions.
Rex Burkholder's Oregonian commentary refuting the critiquing by John Charles was chuck full of misrepresentations.
The Round is a laughing stock failure yet Mayor Drake continues to a call it a success. Success of what?
Orenco Station is simply an auto-oriented rat race. Big deal. Where is the greater public benefit?
All of this nonsense is driven by a bunch of fanatics who control our planning agencies and feel global warming must be stopped by forcing their delusions upon.
It's density at all costs just as John Warner laid out on this blog when talking about the Alexan Tax abatement.
He basically said the PDC housing incentive program is really just about pushing high density. That's why they didn't care if the Alexan was truly providing any affordable housing.
If you look at the rest of the methods such as the TOD program and really check the outcome you find the exact same scenario. Failure of the cover up objective while the covert goal of high density happens.
The ultimate failure is their covert high density agenda is not achieving their goal of lower greenhouse gases at all. It's all a lie.
As is the human factor in global warming. It is a lie.
Our State Climatoligist makes it very clear. Yet out local fanatics simply want him fired.
To sum it up, we are being forced to spend enormous public sums on things which provide zero public benefits.
It's all just like the Alexan tax abatement. A huge price for nothing with all of our fundamental government responsibilities taking a huge hit.
The only benefits are in the minds of those pushing the anti-sprawl/global warming hysteria.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Sep 11, 2005 8:41:36 PM