The Burnside Blog
Is the Burnside Couplet Necessary?
Even for a guy who tries to stay on top of development projects, it seems that in Portland there are too many city-sponsored projects and not enough time. At least that’s how I felt last Wednesday when I walked past the Cleaners event space at the Ace Hotel and saw about 60 people (Comprising a who’s who of PDX planning) crammed into the tiny storefront. The powers that be (backers include PDC, PDOT and Commissioner Sam Adams) were hosting an open house to promote one of the next big projects, a multi-million dollar plan to change the face of West Burnside forever.
Understating the full effects of the Burnside Couplet, the crux of the project is to transform both Burnside and Couch into one-way streets. Burnside would become eastbound below I-405, Couch would become westbound and it’s traffic flow would increase exponentially. All along the way, there would be increased public space, more green space, widened sidewalks, new trees, and more public art. More recently, plans have been added to construct a streetcar line down Burnside from 24th Avenue in NW Portland. The renderings even call for a new public plaza in front of Fantasy Adult Video.
There were maps, renderings, and computer-generated images of what Burnside would look like post-fix. On a tiny monitor, a video of virtual Burnside from Crystal Ballroom to the Willamette River played. With all the new trees and shiny buildings superimposed, the effect was incredible. I watched the video thrice, mesmerized by my future neighbors: the cyber townspeople that would populate Burnside 2020. There was hardly any traffic and tiny fuel efficient cars buzzed about. Stylish animated people were crammed onto the sidewalks. It was magnificent. Thanks to the Couplet, Virtual Portland looked just like Berlin.
I left the open house excited about the couplet, but at some point (as I walked home along Burnside Street), I realized that what excited me most about the plans had nothing to do with one-way streets.
For the purposes of full disclosure, I live on West Burnside (in the Civic), and a facelift to the neighborhood would certainly help my property value in a very positive way. Still, Burnside is special, and there is no place in Portland that I’d rather live. Even before I moved into the building that old time residents decry as the death of the neighborhood, I lived in an apartment two blocks away. In a city that loves to routinely administer facelifts and often sterilize its traffic and pedestrian arterials, Burnside remains Portland’s only authentically gritty urban thoroughfare. If the couplet happens, Burnside could become the next Pearl District. Now I for one like the Pearl District, but I also believe that texture and grit are part of what makes a city authentic. Not every neighborhood can or should be the Pearl District.
That’s not to say that Burnside doesn’t need some fixes. The street is hostile to both pedestrian and cyclist, and not exactly friendly to small businesses that aren’t car dealerships, dive bars, porn shops and fast food between I-405 and 23rd Avenue. It seems to me that wider sidewalks, more trees, a physically separated bike lane and a new streetcar line along Burnside would do wonders.
Why make it a one way and dump West Bound traffic on Couch Street? It just doesn’t make any sense. If it does, please explain.
I named my blog after Burnside because I love the street. Burnside is Portland’s creative hypotenuse. It forms the baseline to many of Portland’ dynamic urban neighborhoods like the Stark Street area of the West End, Lower Burnside on the east shore of the Willamette River and the Pearl District. It cuts through many neighborhoods, but retains a unique urban geography that no other street has. It could use some changes, but it seems that too many changes would (as a colleague puts it) screw with the city’s DNA.
It also seems that below I-405, Burnside is developing fine on its own.
So, what needs to happen with Burnside? I’d like to know what others think.
By pdx2m2 on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 11:15AM PDT
I’m sure you will get all the arguments here…the community is pretty well divided on this one.
For all the love of Burnside being part of the DNA of the City it doesn’t seem that way to me. On the east side it gets much more friendly after Sandy spins off and even intimate once it reaches Laurelhurst and beyond. It doesn’t seem to be this huge mark in the landscape of the city..except downtown.
I’m not really attached to the couplet as the decision although my guess is that if we agreed with you that it needs to be more friendly and safe for pedestrians and bike that requires reducing traffic lanes which either results in gridlock (ala Lovejoy) or moving some of this traffic to another street like Couch.
I think Burnside is and will remain unique and won’t be the Pearl because of the traffic that it will carry no matter what the form. I also think it doesn’t need to be the divisive canyon that it currently is separating downtown from the Pearl and NW.
By eileen on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 11:27AM PDT
“I think Burnside is and will remain unique and won’t be the Pearl because of the traffic that it will carry no matter what the form. I also think it doesn’t need to be the divisive canyon that it currently is separating downtown from the Pearl and NW”
pdx2m2 makes a good point.
And, won’t the couplet erode some of the pearlescence of Couch…especially as far up as 12th, or so?
By ben on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 12:50PM PDT
from what i understand the argument boils down to the traffic engineers. you can’t get the improvements everyone wants while keeping present traffic flow unless you do the couplet. personally i think burnside could stand to slow down and it wouldn’t be the end of the world. people will adjust.
but the couplet is just so disjointed and strange. unfortunately i think the politicos and land owners that drive this thing have tied couch improvements to future private and public development including streetcar and a number future projects in old town. i don’t think those agreements stand if the couplet doesn’t happen. tail wagging the dog.
By Randall on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 02:00PM PDT
I was also there last Wednesday and shared your fascination with the propaganda video. Eileen makes a great point that that it likely wouldn’t be possible to spruce up the streetscape without removing a lane or two of traffic. By doing so, Burnside goes one-way.
By eileen on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 02:30PM PDT
West Burnside has been under considerable traffic duress over the past year with the light-rail work. I wonder if the traffic engineers are watching…because we’ve had restricted patterns for significant periods.
Folks seem willing to sit in slow moving traffic for the sake of crossing burnside bridge. Granted, these traffic patterns are temporary and drivers don’t necessarily know what they’re getting into, but generally the traffic seems unabated. The automobile seems to generate its own inertia…come hell or high water.
I don’t understand why Ben says “tail wagging the dog”. Are streets and light-rail not infrastructure components that facilitate getting to and from catchment areas?
By ben on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 02:52PM PDT
infrastructure decisions should be based on solid urban planning, not sealing the deal. i think the couplet is quid pro quo. i could be wrong, but that’s my impression.
your thoughts on the current traffic conditions are right on. burnside is doing fine and it has had constant construction on one part or another for over a year. we could lose lanes permanently, widen sidewalks and avoid messing with couch, in my opinion.
By eileen on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 03:31PM PDT
There is no doubting that these decisions should come on good urban planning. And “the deal” is a dangerous component of any planning (or other decision making) process, but, “the deal” and good urban planning are not necessarily exclusive.
“Disjointed and strange” doesn’t seem like a good thing, generally. I suppose the next question is whether the current proposal is THE proposal or merely a feasibility report. Is it designed? I suspect not.
I do suspect Burnside improvement can be had without the couplet…but light rail probably doesn’t.
By Mike Thelin on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 07:37PM PDT
I believe it is designed. A similar proposal for East Burnside begins construction in 2008, and I believe the final decision on the couplet by City Council is due in May. It’s easy to loose track of city projects these days.
By eileen on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 08:43PM PDT
Perhaps they’ll let out the smaller pieces to further design….maybe the green wedges and the urban shards such as seen on the park block intersection.
I poked around west burnside this afternoon. Am surprised by how wide a corridor it is. Even at the north edge of the park/burnside intersection, where the buildings seem so tight, it’s not so terribly tight.
The proposal will slow traffic (which is perhaps the biggest problem on w-burn), through both restriction and through a change in character. But I think a lot of the character shift is brought about by additional parking along burnside. How is parking is allotted? Perhaps I missed it in the proposal but it seems like a lot.
I also wonder about a hybrid version that splits light rail between burns and couch, dedicates less right of way to parking on burns, and keeps Burnside two-way. I now agree with Ben regarding disjointed…especially if this thing is designed, as Mike indicates. Think about the Belmont/Morrison split at SE 25th. It’s wierd. Does the current proposal diverge much from that? I’m not sure.
In the end, though, I expect this isn’t a disaster. The couplet will have its particularities and quirkiness. It will work, and will foster growth.
I guess my final question is how “carbon foot print” dovetails with what seems like an over-wrought development plan. If the couch portion isn’t completely necessary then…well, it’s not necessary. Sustainable integrity tells us to scale it all back. It reminds me of that not-named-here architecture firm that gutted their 5-year old offices to do a “green space.” Kinda dopey at best: disingenuous and irresponsible in all likelihood.
By Stephen on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 12:17AM PDT
I’m with you, the westside design looks swell and video sure is groovy – but give me a break. Considering the deteriorating condition of the roads in Portland and the contentious issue of funding road improvement, will Portlander’s continue to support a council willing to spend transportation dollars on this? Or a streetcar on Burnside? There already is a street car in NW and Downtown and nothing on Hawthorne or NE Broadway or Sandy.
Burnside needs help – paving it would do wonders for one. The addition of lighted crosswalks for the increasing pedestrian traffic would also help. Increased sidewalk width in places would help. However, it is an urban street. The only true urban street is a city obsessed with bricking and calming every inch. Cities have major thoroughfares. They can be vibrant and wonderful without park benches and reflecting pools.
The alternative to the couplet is supposed to presented in Feb 09, along with the preliminary sketches of the couplet.
By Mike Thelin on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 08:07AM PDT
Thanks for the comments Stephen. Incidentally, do you know who is proposing the alternative to the couplet? PDOT?
By Rob on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 10:40AM PDT
Apropos topic for the Burnside Blog which is influential in the design, architecture, planning community. I would bet you could spend a day with the transportation department getting a fuller briefing, understanding all the interlocking elements; maybe there is a print article there. The couplet has many supporters and years of design, analysis and public involvement.
For anyone, maybe walking Burnside from West 24th to East 13th would provide a perspective.
By Stephen on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 05:21PM PDT
Thanks Mike. It is actually the Bureau of Transportation that is working on an alternative.
By Mike Thelin on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 06:53PM PDT
Ah…I lose track of my bureaus.
By The Doctor on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 03:51AM PDT
10 years of debate on the couplet… do some research:
Burnside is not wide enough to make the sidewalks wider, or add bike lanes, or a streetcar, without shrinking the auto lanes. They’re already at the min width, so you either reduce them to 2, or you outlaw cars on the road.
The not-so-perfect alternative is to shift half the traffic to couch.
But really, don’t take my word for it: there have been studies endorsed by the the Pearl District and NW neighborhoods, years of study and process. Sam Adams even sent it back to the process even after consensus was reached; if that wouldn’t have happened, it would have been COMPLETED already.
Finally, this street has 6 out of the 10 most dangerous intersections in Portland, where pedestrians are routinely killed and maimed. The “I like urban grit” argument is long played out and, assuming you do not wish to turn yourself into a statistic; a self-destructive one, particularly for someone who lives on the street.
Has anyone here even been to Europe? Or any other country? Usually the goal is to make places have a higher quality of life for its citizens, not lower them. 60’s are over, bud.
By MIke Thelin on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 08:23AM PDT
Doctor: Thanks for the comments, and for reminding us that the Sixties are over. I for one had no idea.
I’m not personally playing out the urban grit argument, which I find ridiculous and overplayed in Portland. I would like to see more development along Burnside but I also wonder if the Couplet is overkill.
You’re right to point out that Burnside is wrought with dangerous intersections. I can’t help but think of the biker who was killed by a truck in front of the Crystal Ballroom last fall. Still: To acknowledge that Burnside needs fixes doesn’t necessarily justify the Couplet. Physically separated bike lanes and bike boxes are cheaper fixes.
By Stuart on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 08:24AM PDT
You’re using Sam Adams to justify your argument? Please name one idea that Sam Adams doesn’t like.
By truth on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 07:36AM PDT
Wow, I think the doctor needs to write himself a prescription for an attitude adjustment.
By Monforts on Monday, March 24, 2008 at 12:44PM PDT
From a discussion I had with someone at PDOT, it is really the streetcar that is driving this couplet, no? There are alternative routes for bike lanes, which cannot presently be accommodated on Burnside. It is dangerous, yes, but that has less to do with its width than with improvements that could be made at those intersections (no turn on red, better crosswalk visibility, more enforcement of speeding, etc.). I can think of almost no cases where a one-way couplet calmed or slowed traffic; in fact they will tend to make it more of a racetrack without all sorts of traffic calming measures.
Why not a less invasive solution? More stoplights, timed at 20mph; currently they are not set up to discourage speeding. And no turn on red. Finally, discourage biking on Burnside while providing better lanes parallel to it with access to the bridge.
Stephen, I like your style: why does PDX have to throw bricks and fountains at every “undesirable” urban condition? It seems that a few simple measures could go a long way.
By Mike Thelin on Monday, March 24, 2008 at 02:31PM PDT
I too enjoy Stephen’s insight on Portland’s approach to sterilizing the urban core. I’m in constant contact with planner types, and though intentions are well and good, I’m often shocked by how few of them actually live downtown or in a an urban setting in general. That’s not to say their input isn’t valuable, but sometimes the plans are over-reaching. Burnside needs fixes, but Burnside doesn’t need to be Streets of Tanasbourne.
By eileen on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 11:08AM PDT
Mike,
Admittedly, I’m not well read on all the issues at hand. And certainly, if an alternative is out there I’m not privy to it. Still, it’s not clear to me how one could provide ”...wider sidewalks, more trees, a physically separated bike lane and a new streetcar line along Burnside…” without fundamentally rethinking/restricting Burnside’s automobile traffic. Or, maybe that’s the question, shall we dispense with cars on the west side?
And, really, even if you get your shoehorn to work or if you excommunicate the automobile, haven’t you swept away our beloved grit after all?
Hm, what would Haussmann do?