The Burnside Blog
Rugrats in the Pearl
In today’s Portland Tribune, Peter Korn reports of an effort by Pearl District mothers to make their chosen neighborhood more kid-friendly. Korn reports that it’s not attracting young families to the Pearl District that’s the problem. What’s difficult is trying to keep them around once their kids reach school age because the Pearl lacks amenities such as day care, a community center and a school.
So, if there were such amenities, would family’s stick around? Here’s what Randy Leonard has to say:
“My view is that the demographic that was targeted there are retirees, singles and professional couples,” Leonard says. “There are couples with small kids. There will be families that are willing to raise their kids there, but it will be an exception.”
With all due respect to Mr. Leonard (whom I hold in high regard), I find his forward thinking to be backwards in this case. The idea of families living downtown may seen new to Portland, but millions of parents choose to raise their families in urban areas worldwide. If we need examples of what planners and developers must do retain families in urban neighborhoods, we only need to take a cue from our northerly neighbor Vancouver, BC where community centers, day care centers and in some cases schools are often bundled into large urban developments.
It wasn’t long ago when the idea of condo living in Portland seemed out-of-the-ordinary to any demographic. And in just a few years, Downtown Portland has attracted thousands of new residents (including myself) enjoying the amenities that only downtown can offer. Developers like Williams and Dame and Gerding Edlen, along with the City of Portland and PDC, built neighborhoods and residents came. Why should we assume that measures to attract and retain families wouldn’t have the same effect?
By Craig on Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 07:43AM PST
Randy’s blind spot is inner city issues. He doesn’t really understand true dense cities (check out his support for the parking Garage in NW) understandable since nice dense cities in the US have been something of a rarity. As more and more people discouver the value of urban life we’ll begin to see some leadership on urban issues, but for now Randy’s thoughts are not surprising. It would be interesting to find out how many on the council have actually lived at some point close in DT without an auto. That is how you learn about a true dense cities many lifestyle advantages.
By Stephen on Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 10:21AM PST
Although the services highlighted in the article are essential, it is affordability that is key to drawing families into the city core. I think it’s goofy to assume that once the kids are 8, families will want to move out. Maybe in some cases, yes, but in others no. The key is how do we create housing in the city core that is affordable to the average wage earner? If developers are allowed to build taller in the city core will that help offset building costs and allow for larger, less expensive units? Do all units have to be furnished with cherry cabinets, viking ranges and granite counter tops. Is it time for Portland to pull itself out of the 80s and realize the days of strict, out dated height limits are no longer sustainable. I don’t think we have many options here.
By Mark on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 at 07:35PM PST
Good points Mike, but you left out one thing. Only the rich could afford to raise their kids in the Pearl.