A blog about how we can become a better city, WITHOUT losing our livable heritage
Author: Michael Mehaffy
Michael Mehaffy, Ph.D., is Senior Researcher at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Executive Director of Sustasis Foundation in Portland, Oregon, and a strategic development consultant and urban designer with over 20 years of international experience in economic development strategy, urban planning, infrastructure, public involvement and communication, and inter-disciplinary project management. He is on the editorial boards of two international journals of urban design, and he has held seven research and/or teaching appointments in six countries. He has been active in Portland-area planning and building since 1991. Among his most noted projects is Orenco Station, a walkable mixed-use transit-oriented development with 1,800 homes and 600,000 square feet of retail, for which he served as project manager for the master developer. The project successfully introduced compact walkable development to a sprawling area of the Portland suburbs. Michael has also consulted for many area governments, NGOs and private clients. He holds a Ph.D. in architecture from Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands.
Portland developer John Russell challenges the city’s current “build, baby build” approach to the housing crisis — and the local media’s acquiescence — claiming the “rush to judgment” short-circuits proper public process, and leaves the city with mistakes that may endure for a century.
John Russell doesn’t pull punches when it comes to the absurd logic of the current strategy to address the housing and affordability crisis in Portland — or the clueless local media coverage of the issue. He says, “I have the temerity to suggest that the Oregonian/Oregon-Live, Willamette Week and The Portland Tribune have it all wrong.” He cites a cynical insider joke at City Hall, “If the cure for low income housing is more luxury condos, then the cure for hunger is more Michelin-starred restaurants.”
Russell is well known to Portland insiders, and his opinions carry clout. His company’s website states “John chose to live in Portland before he had a job because he had a sense that Portlanders could control their own destiny.” The website also cites his service on “the Portland Development Commission, the Mayor’s Business Roundtable, the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee for Economic Development, the Oregon Investment Council, as well as the Oregon Transportation Commission, the Portland Planning Commission and the Portland Historic Landmark Commission.”
The full letter is at the Oregonian’s website here. Excerpts are below. It’s well worth a read!
IN MY OPINION
Need for housing doesn’t justify media’s rush to judgment
John W. Russell
Oregonian April 11, 2018
With reference to The Oregonian/OregonLive’s March 25 editorial, “City Council needs to reset its compass,” I have the temerity to suggest that The Oregonian/Oregon-Live, Willamette Week and The Portland Tribune have it all wrong.
In a series of articles and editorials, the mantra of these publications seems to be that the Portland City Council should never stand in the way of any project that includes housing. Two projects were cited, one in the Pearl and another on the waterfront near River-Place. The justification is that since we desperately need more low-income housing, projects should be expedited because any housing is progress toward that goal. It’s given rise to an inside joke among staffers at City Hall: “If the cure for low income housing is more luxury condos, then the cure for hunger is more Michelin-starred restaurants.”
The Pearl project faced objections from folks whose views would be adversely affected by its planned height. That fact was sufficient for Willamette Week to dismiss their objections, ignoring the fact that self-interest doesn’t make testimony automatically wrong. The City Council pointed out a significant flaw, namely that the proposed building would dramatically narrow greenway access. The council’s demand for changes will likely end up delaying the project only by a couple of months. Given that the building will exist for 100 years or more, that doesn’t seem like a big price to pay.
The council was also criticized for its initial refusal to adopt a zoning change for another project, adjacent to RiverPlace. The change, which has never had an effective public hearing, calls for doubling the permissible height for building at that site — which had already been doubled through the Comprehensive Plan update, an extensive public process that took six years.
I don’t have a dog in the fight. The views from my nearby building aren’t adversely affected, regardless of the height. But I do have a dog in the fight based on eight years of serving on the Planning Commission and two years on the Comprehensive Plan committee that held public hearings for this part of the central city. I’m a fervent believer in proper public hearings, and this zoning change never got them. Unfortunately, the City Council ended up reversing itself and adopted the higher height limit after all. As a result, an unintended consequence is that any project, regardless of whether it includes housing, could use that height. The result could be a net loss of 300 units of housing.
City Council’s hearings are mid-week, mid-day, in downtown Portland. That’s a far cry from the public hearings that we conducted when I was on the Planning Commission. We’d hold hearings at any time, in any venue, in order to make it more likely that they would be convenient for affected citizens to attend. We’d hold evening hearings in neighborhood schools, for example.
The rush to judgment advocated by the above-mentioned publications short-circuits the proper public processes that have served Portland well. Let’s take the time to get these buildings right.
John Russell is managing partner of Russell Fellows Properties and is founder of Russell Development Co. He has previously chaired the Portland Development Commission and served as a member of the city’s Landmark and Planning Commissions.
Isn’t it past time for civic-minded people to come together and talk rationally about how to meet the challenges we face, AND protect and improve the assets that make Portland a great city? Is it time for “Quality In My Back Yard”?
We’ve all heard about “NIMBYs” – those often-disparaged people whose response to a new project is likely to be, “Not In My Back Yard.” Although they’re usually caricatured as selfish and insensitive to the larger community’s needs, sometimes NIMBYs have a point. (As I myself often observe when working with stakeholders as a public involvement consultant to governments, NGOs and private developers.) The impact of what’s being proposed amounts to trading away something good, or at least tolerable, for something worse. A meadow will get bulldozed and replaced with a cookie-cutter housing tract. Or a beautiful old building will get torn down and replaced by an egotist’s eyesore. That is not sustainable urban development, by any definition.
The results don’t have to be worse, of course. There ARE developments that improve the quality of existing neighborhoods, and that offer new amenities for existing residents. This is the spirit behind the “YIMBY” movement – “Yes In My Back Yard.”
Perhaps the trouble with the YIMBY movement, though, is that it doesn’t seem to focus much on the important differences between good projects and bad ones. Bring them all on, YIMBYs seem to say — yes, and yes again! But this approach might or might not even solve our problems – see for example the failures of places like Vancouver B.C. that tried to build their way out of problems. There is a very real risk that we will only be left with an uglier, less livable, and still more expensive city.
Enter the “QUIMBY” movement – “Quality In My Back Yard.” We want to work together in a win-win way, to meet needs equitably, to address impacts, and to improve the quality fo the city.
1. An evidence-based approach, please. No magical thinking, no mindless “build baby build,” no “McMansion Relief Acts.” If you are a proponent of a project, it is incumbent on you to show how it will actually meet our regional needs, and not bring more negatives than positives. Will it cost less than the area’s average housing stock? Will affordable units maintain their affordability over time, or quickly jump to “market rate” — leaving us back where we started, or worse? Does the project provide more affordable units as part of a broader regional strategy, sufficient to be effective? Is it also protecting our irreplaceable heritage, and the livable qualities that made our city attractive in the first place?
2. “All new things built with the idea of preserving the beauty of the city and adding to it.” This was famed Portland architect A.E. Doyle’s simple criterion for new additions made in 1906, and it’s still a perfectly good one. Why can’t new construction be beautiful, livable, and desirable, from the neighbors’ point of view? (Not just from an architect-specialist’s point of view?) It can — and it must.
3. A special focus on the public realm, our “urban commons.” The most important – and most democratic – part of Portland is its public realm. Our beautiful, walkable, safe streets and sidewalks make the city hospitable for all of us, whether rich or poor. All new developments should contribute to this “common wealth”, particularly in the poorer neighborhoods, and not diminish its value in any neighborhood. We don’t address our regional challenges by damaging the already-successful places. We do so by improving the less successful places that deserve better quality, and often better urban equity.
4. A collaborative, win-win approach – not an “attack them and throw them under the bus” approach. The national level has seen an ugly new mood of bullying, Twitter-trolling and divisiveness. Not only is this atmosphere toxic to our national culture — it doesn’t solve problems, and more often puts solutions farther away than ever. This suits some people just fine — especially the powerful and the influential, who benefit from the status quo. How ironic if Portland were to adopt this same bullying culture, only with a distinctive “blue flavor.” There is sad evidence that this is happening.
5. A pro-active approach, building collaboration, trust and multilateral solutions at the outset. Imagine if neighborhood associations were to partner with the City and developers to adopt pre-entitled projects that are supported by the neighborhood — and then everyone got behind cost-lowering and regulatory streamlining strategies? That just might provide affordable housing, that everyone could support.
6. The best benchmark of sustainability is what has already sustained. New isn’t necessarily better. For those projects that are being marketed as more sustainable, QUIMBYs have every reason to question the premises. First, new projects create a large negative impact from the embodied energy and materials of construction. Second, new green technologies often have a poor track record of performance in relation to claims. Third, what is fashionably new today is by definition unfashionably dated tomorrow — often with a dingy aesthetic to match. Projects that don’t wear well over time aren’t likely to be conserved over long life spans — an essential trait of sustainable buildings and cities.
As we experience an urban growth boom and new pressures on rents and sales prices, clearly the Portland region needs new housing units. But as this blog has long urged, it matters a great deal what those units are, and where they are. Expensive new high rises with Mount Hood views aren’t going to do anything for regional affordability, if they actually raise the average cost per unit. In fact, there’s some evidence that they will help to draw even more wealthy new residents and global investors to the region. (That happened in Vancouver, for example.)
No less importantly, demolishing relatively affordable older units and replacing them with expensive, often out of context new units is a double blow to the city. We lose those affordable units — and the heritage they embody — and too often we gain ugly, disruptive units that damage the beauty and livability of the neighborhood. If we believe in the public process — if we believe in democracy — then we have an obligation to respect the rights of neighbors to defend the quality of the public realm, their urban commons.
There is a better way to “get to yes.” We can meet our housing goals, and preserve the heritage and livability of the city –with “quality in my back yard”!
In future posts we will articulate some of the tools that QUIMBYs can use to “get to yes” on better-quality, more affordable projects, that build on — and don’t damage or destroy — our livable heritage.
Portland’s often-envied big sister tried building its way out of its affordability crisis, with dismal results; now it decides to “follow the money”
Vancouver’s Mayor Gregor Robertson admits that city’s version of “build, baby build” hasn’t worked.
“We had ramped up our rental housing supply, [and] focused on supportive housing for our most vulnerable population,” Robertson told NextCity.org. “But the pressure in the real estate market continued to escalate dramatically.”
In fact, a recent analysis showed that over 12,000 of Vancouver’s units were sitting empty — the result of a wave of real estate speculation and commodification.
The result, he says, was “untethered speculation, jacked-up prices and flipping in the local real estate market.” A warning to Portland?
So the administration went after the economic root of the problem, by passing a 1% tax on vacant homes. The administration believes the new tax will dampen the impact of housing speculation, and also provide funding to help build more affordable housing. Properties that are not being held for speculative purposes (such as historic homes seeking rehab) have a number of ways of claiming exemption from the tax.
What can Portland learn from the “New Urban Agenda” and its implementation? How do our successes and “lessons learned” fit into the larger process?
I recently reported on conclusions from the 2018 World Urban Forum in Kuala Lumpur in February, for the national planners’ website Planetizen. I thought readers of this blog might like to see excerpts, and their relationship to some of the issues we discuss here.
As we’ve discussed elsewhere, I think Portland can play an important role in this process — in showing how sprawling American cities can become more compact, walkable, diverse, mixed-use, offering transportation choice, and — crucially — appealingly livable for many different people and stages of life. We can share our successes, though limited, and our lessons learned — which, if we are honest, are considerable.
For example, are we still too preoccupied with the “low-hanging fruit of the core, and an approach that might be called “voodoo urbanism”? Are we ignoring the opportunities for getting large numbers of units in reconfigured walkable mixed neighborhoods outside the core, where so many peopel live and are moving?
Are we still too stuck in old 20th Century “command and control” methods of planning and design (and their reactionary architectural models) that are a little too much like Robert Moses, and not enough like Jane Jacobs? Methods and models that only exacerbate our more intractable problems — like gentrification, loss of affordability, loss of livability, displacement, urban inequity, growing ugliness, growing unsustainability, and other ills? I think so… (Which is one reason I continue to think it’s important to participate in the discourse in my own back yard, in spite of its apparently increasing ugliness of tone…)
It’s been over a year now since all 193 countries of the United Nations adopted by acclamation the “New Urban Agenda,” the outcome document of the Habitat III conference held in October 2016. The historic nature of that achievement is hard to over-state: for the first time, we have a world-wide agreement embracing walkable mixed use, mixed transportation modes, polycentric regions, diversity and affordability, and other elements of a “new urbanism” (by any other name).
But now comes the hard part of implementation. That challenge was the focus of the Ninth World Urban Forum in Kuala Lumpur in early February of 2018—the first since the adoption of the New Urban Agenda, and the first to take up the specifics of implementation.
The obstacles are daunting. “Business as usual”—especially sprawl—still dominates in too many places. Yet there is considerable good news about the human benefits of urbanization: improvements in health and well-being, more opportunities for women, moderated population growth, better access to services, better resources for human development and cultural growth, and much more.
Those benefits don’t come equally to all, of course, and that is one of the biggest challenges: creating a form of urbanization that is more equitable, and more effective in delivering on the great promises of cities for all. Of course that is the core reason that so many of us are drawn to cities and towns in the first place. That was, in fact, the theme of the conference: “Cities for All: Implementing the New Urban Agenda.”
So for one week in early February, 25,000 participants from all 193 countries gathered in Kuala Lumpur and took up those challenges, forging partnerships and developing pilot projects. I noted five key takeaways from the conference:
1. The world is urbanizing at a blistering pace. At present rates—and there’s currently no sign this will change—the world’s urban population will more than double in the next 40 years. That’s a staggering rate and quantity of urbanization. Essentially we will create more urban fabric than has ever been created in all of human history up to now.
2. Much of this urbanization is sprawling and resource-inefficient.While the number of people is set to double, the amount of land that will be consumed at present rates is significantly more than double. In other words, urban density is going down—and the cause of that trend is easy to spot. In a word, it’s sprawl: fragmented, unwalkable, resource-intensive, car-dependent (which places an unconscionable burden on the poor, the aged, children, the infirm etc)—and simply unsustainable. At a time of accelerating resource depletion, climate change and other natural and human challenges, the implications are increasingly undeniable, and “business as usual” is increasingly unacceptable.
3. Growing numbers of people recognize that we must change business as usual.This is a hopeful trend, evidenced by the New Urban Agenda itself. It’s not just that we need to avoid disaster, but we need to seize the positive human opportunities too. In fact, the common understanding of cities is changing—from a simple-minded notion that “that’s where the jobs are” to a deeper understanding of cities as creative engines of human development, with a remarkable inherent capacity for resource efficiency. But in turn, that new understanding implies a new appreciation of what cities must do to achieve their potential—especially, how cities need public spaces, and public space systems, including walkable streets and paths. (More on that point below.)
4. But there are many who haven’t “gotten the memo.” Many people are still addicted to the short-term profits from sprawling, resource-intensive urbanization, and too many places look like they could have been designed for 1940 (with updated avant-garde art packaging) instead of 2020. GM’s “Tomorrowland,” with its vast superblocks, segregated freeways, gigantic art-buildings, and degraded public spaces, might have been a profitable model for the last century, but we need a new model today: one that is more attuned to human needs and natural complexities, and the urgent need for a more sustainable form of urbanization. That is what the New Urban Agenda provides.
5. The New Urban Agenda represents a hopeful way forward for all. We now have a landmark agreement by 193 countries to move in a new direction—a “new paradigm” in the words of Dr. Joan Clos, who just retired as head of UN-Habitat. Behind this agreement lies a new understanding of cities and their inherent capacities as engines of human development, and powerful tools in meeting our larger challenges of resource depletion, climate change, inequality, geopolitical instability, and other ills. But along with that comes a sober recognition of the great dangers ahead, if we fail to make the needed changes.
Conclusion: there is much work ahead to change the “operating system for growth.”The current system of “business as usual” is the interactive result of all the laws, codes, rules, standards, conventions, models, incentives, and disincentives, that collectively shape what can be built and where—and whether it will be profitable (which almost always means whether it can be built at all). There is a lot more to it than whether someone thinks a particular project is a good idea—or a bad one.
We can liken this vast set of rules and standards to a kind of “operating system for growth”—its structure governs what can “run” on it (or what can be built and operated). It includes the rules of local and national governments, but also the international rules of global finance and real estate capital, among others. It is a kind of “massive multi-player game” in which we are all players, but some of us get to shape the rules of the game itself. Increasingly that is what we must all work to do—changing zoning to allow better projects, reducing regulatory burdens for desirable projects, and assessing and re-aligning many of the obsolete and conflicting codes from older ways of doing things. It is tedious work, but it could not be more important.
Government policy is one important dimension of the problem—especially in democratic countries. One of the issues we will surely have to confront is the question of how resources are taxed relative to the products of human creativity. By shifting the burden away from creative outputs and toward the consumption of resources (including land) we can reward efficiency, compactness, and the improvement of long-term “externalities” (like greenhouse gas emissions). This “Georgist” approach to economics is one of the kinds of issues we will have to confront globally in changing the “rules of the game” for better-quality urban development in the future.
One of the other issues taken up by our research center in Stockholm—the Centre for the Future of Places—is the fundamental role of public space in sustainable urbanization. We’ve come to recognize it as a kind of essential “connective matrix” of healthy cities. It’s public spaces—including streets—that give us the access to all the benefits of cities, and that connect private spaces to each other. It’s public spaces that ultimately connect us to each other, as the research shows, and underlie efficient creativity and exchange within cities and towns.
Yet ironically, public space is most under threat in the current wave of urbanization. For “informal settlements”—slums—public spaces are shrinking, mostly because the illegal “developers” who lay them out have little incentive to create public spaces. For “market-rate development”—essentially everything else—there is also an economic pressure to get rid of public space, replacing it with more profitable private domains—shopping malls, gated communities, high rises, and the like. But that degrades the very connective tissue that makes cities such powerful engines of creativity, and efficiency too. It also has important impacts on equitability and “cities for all.”
In all these challenges, we will have to learn how to value public space and other “positive externalities”—how to assure that the very real human value they generate gets translated back as economic value in the development process, to reward those who make more public spaces, and reflect the true cost to all of us on those who diminish them. Similarly, those who create other “externality costs” borne by us all—like greenhouse gas emissions—ought to pay a fair amount to offset that cost—with a basic exemption for those with lower incomes. Such pricing mechanisms are a fair way of paying true costs—instead of pushing those costs onto our grandchildren’s bill.
For related reasons, these kinds of economic tools may also be necessary for building “cities for all.” Research is showing that the more we exclude parts of a city from equitable development, the more those parts of the city place a drag on the economic performance of the city as a whole. We can readily understand this in the loss of productivity, the costs of policing and incarceration, and the other costs borne by all. But the new insights show how much it’s true that “cities for all” are not just a matter of justice, but are also good for everyone’s bottom line. That economic incentive is a very helpful resource when it comes to making the needed changes.
So how do we implement such an ambitious agenda? One model discussed at the World Urban Forum is what we might call “snowball projects”—initially small, implementable pilot projects that are structured to scale up as they become more successful, and gather up momentum—like a growing snowball rolling downhill. (In our case they may be public space development projects, but they could be other kinds of urban projects as well.) As the pilot projects are developed, the knowledge gained from them is combined with other knowledge, and exchanged through international wiki-like platforms for peer-to-peer knowledge sharing and development. These “toolkits” of open-source implementation tools can then be tailored to different local conditions, using local universities, NGOs, businesses, governments, and other existing local resources, and then the lessons an be distilled and exported out again for use by others.
I came away from the World Urban Forum well aware of the daunting challenges, but also hopeful and energized. In a sense, we might well conclude that cities (and towns) pose the biggest problems for the future—simply because that’s where most of us increasingly live, and consume. But in a deeper sense, cities and towns are the solution—because, when they function well, they have an inherent capacity to produce beneficial human development with increasing efficiency and diminishing resource consumption In fact, their performance rivals the “organized complexity” and the resulting stellar performance of many natural systems.
It is exactly that “stellar performance” that we must now put to work in our cities, more reliably and more equitably, and on a much larger scale.
Portland blogger Iain Mackenzie gets some facts wrong – and cheerleads for a troubling new divisiveness in city politics
In my Twitter feed this morning, I had some nice reactions to our post yesterday on Ada Louise Huxtable’s famous criticism of Portland’s formulaic architecture, which echoes in our time with renewed relevance. One response was from my friend Loretta Lees, an expert on gentrification and its remedies at the University of Leicester in the UK.
Her work reminds us that we certainly have a huge challenge in Portland with gentrification, equity and affordability — as so many cities do around the world. In this challenge, we need vigorous debate, incisive critique (like Huxtable’s and others’) and sharing of lessons nationally and internationally. (That is something we often evangelize for on this blog.) We also need to be more joined-up with international initiatives, like the historic New Urban Agenda — a new framework international agreement that embraces “cities for all” and the ways we can achieve them. (This author has been involved in developing and now implementing this framework agreement.)
One Tweet stood out from this narrative, however. Iain Mackenzie, blogger at architecture fanzine Next Portland, attacked me personally as an “anti-housing activist,” noting that my friend Sherry Salomon had given testimony at City Hall that echoed our blog post from yesterday. (That part is true — I had a client meeting and couldn’t attend, so I asked Sherry to give my testimony for me.)
But what is ludicrously false is the charge that I am an “anti-housing activist,” since my “day job” is — to plan and build housing. And to do so in a joined-up way, with commercial and civic uses, in walkable, mixed, complete communities, that are more sustainable and more equitable. Among my clients are three of Portland’s best-known affordable housing non-profits, as well as other developers, NGOs and governments, in the US and internationally (including UN-Habitat, for the aforementioned New Urban Agenda.)
I have also been more active in Portland of late, trying to encourage my fellow citizens in my own back yard to think more deeply about the nature of our challenges, and the tools and strategies we will actually need to use to meet them. (Hint: simple-minded approaches like “build baby build” will not cut it.) That’s one of my goals in working on this blog, with my great friend Suzanne Lennard, director of International Making Cities Livable (as the name suggests, hers is very much an international effort, but looking at and sharing successes and lessons from Portland too).
For the same reason, not long ago I accepted an invitation to join the board of my neighborhood association — to practice what I preach in my own back yard. What I have found in that role is rather shocking. There is an ugly new mood in this city — and it is pushed by people like Mackenzie. If you don’t see things the way he does — every new building is a good and necessary one, justified by all things correct and righteous — then you are a NIMBY, an opponent of diversity, perhaps even a racist. At best you are an “anti-housing activist.”
Nowhere does there seem to be scope and nuance to discuss what is a good building or a bad building, what is damaging to the public realm or not, or what is an effective strategy and what is magical thinking, fueled by divisive and toxic “identity politics.” (As we have noted, that kind of divisiveness serves some narrow financial interests well, and it has sadly come to dominate national politics — but can’t Portland chart a more enlightened way?)
But sadly, that is exactly what is happening now in Portland — and the city will be damaged for generations.
Meanwhile, at the state level, some land use and housing activists (who should know better) also seem to have bought into this simplistic “build baby build” mentality, and its corollary, the penchant to attack existing neighborhoods who dare to oppose any new project, good or bad — reflected in last year’s divisive anti-historic preservation bill HB 2007. This was in spite of the blistering pace of residential demolitions, and the evidence that many of these houses were more affordable than the ones that replaced them. In addition to our critiques of these misguided efforts, we also proposed alternatives.
As we have written frequently, the Portland region absolutely does need more housing units. But we also need a more joined-up regional strategy, not a tunnel-visioned “jam them into the core” mentality. Most people don’t live in the core, and most of the new residents are not moving to the core. We need to think more regionally, and more polycentrically. And to be blunt, less foolishly.
More fundamentally, we need to decide what kind of city Portland will become — that’s in our hands, as it was in 1970, and always has been. Will we become a playground for architects and their self-serving fantasies? (And other narrow financial interests?) Will we become a sad shell of our own past, mired in failed divisive approaches and magical thinking, rewarding only a few in the end? Or will we actually work together to find common ground, and make Portland a truly livable “city for all?”
Tough words from 48 years ago – and sadly becoming all too relevant again.
In 1970, the famous New York Times architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable came to Portland, and she didn’t like what she saw. Writing in the Times, she heaped scorn on the Rose City for accepting a generation of bland corporate “towers and bunkers” that spoiled the unique natural and built heritage of the city.
Portland, she said, had “a better-than-average assortment of Anywhere U.S.A. products, with their interchangeable towers and plazas multiplying a slick, redundant formula… In style, scale and impact it will be alien corn, in every sense of the word.”
She also reminded us of what we do have, and need to protect, including “small scaled, comfortably pedestrian streets.” The trouble is, she warned, “this is a dreamworld urbanism; a city blessed by nature and by man. It is so lovely that Portlanders are lulled into a kind of false security about its urban health.”
Aren’t we ever.
About the big new buildings of that age she said, “No one has stopped looking at the tops of these buildings long enough to see what is happening on the ground. Each one is contributing to the devitalization of the city.”
Two years later, Portland adopted the landmark 1972 Plan, and the city committed to preserving and building on its walkable urban heritage. In that era of reforms, we got the preservation of the Skidmore Fountain area, the new Pioneer Square, Tom McCall Waterfront Park, and the revival of many other great old neighborhoods — often under the threat of demolition. Many of those successes came only after long fights by neighborhood activists.
How ironic that we now seem to be sliding back into the same bland, ugly formulas, driven by questionable logic and faulty reasoning – and attacks on the same neighborhood activism that helped trigger our urban renaissance. Now they’re not grassroots champions, but “NIMBYs,” “racists,” “opponents of affordability,” and more.
What is also nonsense is the idea that expensive high rises are the ticket to affordability, that demolition of existing affordable housing stock is somehow the path to promoting diversity, and that we save farmland by building a few hundred more units atop tall buildings in the core. No, we save farmland by building more walkable compact mixed use in the suburbs, where 80 percent of the region lives. We keep the best of what we already have, including the best inner-city neighborhoods. We become a better city by repairing and improving our worst places, not by destroying our best ones.
Perhaps the worst myth of all? That Portland won’t be a “real city” until it joins all the other wannabe cities and builds a crop of shiny new towers. That it’s time to put on our “big boy pants.” (That statement — expressed by a senior member of the city planning hierarchy — is just as childish as it sounds.)
Thanks to that same hierarchy, just this month, Portland’s city council voted to approve building heights that will block many of Portland’s most iconic views, including the view of Mt. Hood from Vista Bridge (the image of innumerable post cards, and the opening shot of the Portlandia TV show). In the wake of that decision, Ms. Huxtable’s words have special poignancy:
“Against the suave schlock of some of Portland’s current architectural imports, Mt. Hood doesn’t stand a chance.”
Global leaders in urban sustainability gather in Kuala Lumpur — and challenge conventional wisdom and “business as usual”
KUALA LUMPUR: This week I am at the World Urban Forum, with a focus on implementing the New Urban Agenda — the landmark document on sustainable urban development agreed to by all 193 member states of the United Nations. There is a heavy focus here on evidence-based approaches, and on research into action by leading universities. We are here as part of our research unit, the Centre for the Future of Places at KTH Royal Institute of Technology (where one of us is a senior researcher, and another has been a visiting scholar). We have been involved in a partnership with UN-Habitat to develop language on the importance of public space, which is now secured in the New Urban Agenda — but now the emphasis is on implementation.
One of the key challenges is in thinking through current assumptions and beliefs, and assessing which are sound and which are not. Given the recent debates in Portland, we were struck by the session below (which occurs tomorrow as we write this). We have also seen other work challenging much of the current conventional wisdom about urban sustainability and livability (as we have written about in this blog). Surely we need to examine our own assumptions in the light of evidence, and be open to debate and challenge. Surely we need to be more willing to learn from others around the world, and share our own lessons learned as well?
A more extensive report from the World Urban Forum will follow soon! Meanwhile, here is the listing for the session that caught our eye:
Anatomy of Density: Why Tall Buildings Can’t Solve the Problem of Urban Growth Monday 12 February 2018, 17:00 – 18:00
Organization: NYU Stern Urbanization Project
This session will focus on several exciting new developments in the study of density. Much effort has been made to establish the importance of density in addressing a range of ills, from long commutes to climate change to the obesity epidemic. By comparison, relatively little effort has gone into the study of the components of density, the factors that affect it, and the steps that can be taken to increase it. Moving beyond the simple assumption that cities need infill, growth controls, and higher buildings, this session explores three primary factors that make up the density of a city – Floor Area Occupancy, Building Height, and Residential coverage – and shows that density is, in fact, the result of seven components, each of which can be affected by regulatory changes or infrastructure investments. These components will soon be measured in the full United Nations sample of 200 cities, but the simple explication of this new understanding of density can help point the way toward the creation of more compact, inclusive, and sustainable cities.
The expensive skyscrapers represent “the wrong properties Londoners don’t need.” Is Portland headed down the same path?
More cautionary news is on offer for Portland’s “irrationally exuberant” fans of new tall buildings in the core. Simply adding units is not an effective strategy for affordability: it matters where the units are, how much they cost to build, and what are the dynamics of global real estate markets. Word to the wise?
The Guardian newspaper reports this week that “half of new-build luxury London flats fail to sell” and “developers have 420 towers in pipeline despite up to 15,000 high-end flats still on the market.”
The article continues,
The swanky flats, complete with private gyms, swimming pools and cinema rooms, are lying empty as hundreds of thousands of would-be first-time buyers struggle to find an affordable home.
The total number of unsold luxury new-build homes, which are rarely advertised at less than £1m, has now hit a record high of 3,000 units…
Builders started work last year on 1,900 apartments priced at more than £1,500 per sq ft, but only 900 have sold, according to property data experts Molior London. A typical high-end three-bedroom apartment consists of around 2,000 sq ft, which works out at a sale price of £3m.
There are an extra 14,000 unsold apartments on the market for between £1,000-£1,500 per sq ft. The average price per sq ft across the UK is £211.
Molior says it would take at least three years to sell the glut of ultra-luxury flats if sales continue at their current rate and if no further new-builds are started.
However, ambitious property developers have a further 420 residential towers (each at least 20 storeys high) in the pipeline, says New London Architecture and GL Hearn.
Henry Pryor, a property buying agent, says the London luxury new-build market is “already overstuffed but we’re just building more of them”…
Some developers have delayed construction of projects, while others have taken properties off the market. All 10 of the apartments at the top of the Shard – priced at up to £50m each – remain unsold more than five years after the Duke of York and the former prime minister of Qatar officially opened “Europe’s first vertical city”.
“We’re going to have loads of empty and part-built posh ghost towers,” he says. “They were built as gambling chips for rich overseas investors, but they are no longer interested in the London casino and have moved on.”
Steven Herd, founder and chief executive of MyLondonHome, an agency that specialises in new-build homes for investment, says his firm is struggling under the weight of overseas investors who bought in the last couple of years and are desperate to sell.
He says hundreds of Asian investors who had bought London developments off-plan in 2015-16 in the hope of making a quick profit by selling apartments on closer to completion have instead lost hundreds of thousands of pounds. “They intended to flip [buy and sell on] the apartments and make big profits, but it hasn’t worked out like that, and now they are trying to get out at the smallest possible loss.”
He adds that in one case a Russian investor bought an off-plan property in 2014 for £3.1m, but couldn’t afford to complete and sold it for £2.55m.
Herd says the [developments are] “the wrong properties that Londoners don’t need”.
“We’d be much better off with decent quality but lower-spec homes built for actual Londoners. What’s the point in having private cinema rooms that sit empty and resident’s swimming pools with no one swimming in them; it just seems wrong.”
“The big one” will certainly be very bad. Our actions beforehand could be worse.
Something terrible is going to happen in the Northwest, including Portland. FEMA estimates that some thirteen thousand people could die – many more than the two thousand in Hurricane Katrina. The aftermath could leave our region similarly stranded and transformed beyond recognition.
This event — a major earthquake — could happen tomorrow, or it could happen in 400 years, or at any point beforehand. Prudence suggests that we take reasonable steps to be prepared.
For some, that means demolishing — or performing huge expensive seismic upgrades — to thousands of buildings, many of them low-rise historic structures. If they are demolished, they will have to be replaced with new buildings.
It’s enough to make some architects salivate.
But for just about everyone else, it’s hysteria of the worst sort. Of course deliberate steps need to be taken — especially around preparedness. What should people do before, during and after the event? What is the safest place to be during the event, and the safest way out of a building after the event? How can the worst effects of such an event be mitigated? What are the most dangerous structures – typically unreinforced mid-rise buildings, or buildings with poorly reinforced concrete roofs and floors that are likely to “pancake” — and how can we take steps to retrofit them?
We need to understand the risks, just as we understand any risk in life. We buy life insurance, and companies are willing to sell it to us, because it’s possible to accurately quantify the risk of a person dying in any one year. Many people pay perhaps hundreds of dollars a year each into a pool, from which a few people are paid millions of dollars much less frequently — and the companies are able to accurately quantify the risks and stay in business.
What’s the probability of “the big one” in the next 50 years? A recent study put the maximum at as much as 20% — meaning there is an 80% probability that it will NOT happen in the next 50 years.
By contrast, at current levels we already kill about one person per day on Oregon roads. At that rate, in the same 50 years we WILL kill over 18,000 — in other words, more than “the big one,” whose probability of occurrence in the same time interval is much lower.
Yet we don’t stop people from driving. We take all reasonable measures — traffic safety, air bags, and so on — and we accept the risk. We see it as a price we pay for the benefits of mobility.
Right now we have many thousands of beautiful, historic, affordable homes, apartments and other buildings, many of which are low-rise. (They include the classic “courtyard apartments” where many Portland residents live, including this author’s own residence.) These buildings often have wood-frame cores and exterior masonry walls. The exteriors could indeed slough off, but the entire structures are unlikely to collapse. Those who take shelter in their central hallways, and then exit as soon as practical and safe, will likely survive.
Should we require all of the owners of these buildings to perform very expensive seismic upgrades in a short period of time? Will we trigger a wave of demolitions of some of our most affordable, beautiful, enduring — sustainable — structures, replaced by many more and (let’s face it) uglier buildings? (Sorry, architects – but our professional win-loss score nowadays is there for all to see.)
Is that smart? Well, it’s profitable for some — and that’s a dangerous distortional force on good judgment, and the best interests of our city.
For more on this, the Northwest Examiner has an extensive article this month:
Paradoxically, sometimes reducing lanes means better traffic flow — AND better livability and more transportation choices
Portland planners like to show off the city’s many progressive achievements. But one place they don’t show off is West Burnside, especially the segment west of I405. We’ve heard some folks refer to this stretch of dirty, dangerous, ugly road as an “open car sewer.” That seems about right.
Ironically, this stretch is not even particularly efficient at handling traffic through movement. That’s because periodic left turns at unsignalized intersections obstruct through movement in the left-hand lanes, and frequent bus stops obstruct through movement in the right-hand lanes, causing significant congestion. Pedestrians also have the right of way at the many unsignalized intersections, stopping traffic in all lanes — and putting the pedestrians in considerable danger from careless motorists.
The issue has been considered before. Over a decade ago, the City studied alternatives and developed a plan for a “couplet” system. West Burnside would become a one-way eastbound street, and West Couch would take the remaining westbound traffic (similar to what happens now just east of the river). Because of the tendency of traffic to move fast on these one-ways, the plan also included a new streetcar line on both streets.
But that plan is now on indefinite hold. And in any case, the couplet was never intended to extend west of 16th Avenue, so the stretch in the photos above would remain more or less the same. (You can read the 2006 report here.)
So what else can be done, then? We can certainly take a lesson from other cities that have adopted progressive reforms. One street that seems to have around the same traffic as Burnside (22,000 cars per day) is La Jolla Boulevard in San Diego. A project there known as a “road diet” kept the same capacity of vehicles, but cut down crashes by 90 percent, and did other very good things.
It sounded a lot like the problems we have on West Burnside today:
The project was designed to transform a wide, automobile-oriented thoroughfare to a pedestrian-friendly, neighborhood center…. [There was a] lack of comfortable public spaces, and financial stagnation of area businesses, notes restreets.org. “The wide, heavily trafficked road functioned as a barrier that divided the neighborhood physically and psychologically’…
So the plan was actually to remove lanes, and make the remaining lanes work just as well or better — as well as providing more attractive sidewalks and public spaces, and better ability to handle walking, biking, buses, and other ways of getting around:
The traffic count remained approximately the same (23,000 vehicles per day before, 22,000 after), but walking, bicycling, transit use, on-street parking and retail sales all climbed to much higher levels, the city reports. Retail sales rose 30 percent and noise levels dropped 77 percent…
That all sounds good — but how is it possible that removing lanes won’t result is massive traffic delays? Our friend Dan Burden, consultant on the project, explains:
“Motorists,” Burden reported in The San Diego Union- Tribune in February 2017, “understandably dreaded this change before it was made. But they found that instead of waiting 24 seconds for a pedestrian to cross 70 feet of road, they now only wait 3–4 seconds, or don’t have to wait at all. Businesses that feared the loss of customers arriving in cars actually improved their trade. … Today motorists are getting to their destinations in less time, because they aren’t stopping.”