The Burnside Blog

By MarkDaMan on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 08:25PM PDT

I know it will be, but it shouldn’t! The people living in Northwest are trying to preserve an inner-city district that will, and should, experience significant growth. They aren’t proposing to tear down any existing historical buildings, at least not from what I can tell. Turning parking lots into a hawt new district that will supply plenty of lower to middle class housing, a streetcar, canals, an entertainment district, all built by a local company, this it totally Portland. I unfortunately see Northwest going nuts. I hope they don’t live up to their reputation.

By Stephen on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 10:26AM PDT

I agree, however I’m cautious when I read articles such as the Tribune’s, about misquotes or inflammatory statements taken out of context. My concerns and questions surround the form and function of the neighborhood association. We usually read about them in the context of being huge NIMBYs, blocking every attempt at change – stewards of the past without consideration of the neighborhoods role in the region or accepting future demographic challenges. It would be interesting to hear from them regarding this particular development and their perceptions.

By Stephen on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 10:26AM PDT

I agree, however I’m cautious when I read articles such as the Tribune’s, about misquotes or inflammatory statements taken out of context. My concerns and questions surround the form and function of the neighborhood association. We usually read about them in the context of being huge NIMBYs, blocking every attempt at change – stewards of the past without consideration of the neighborhoods role in the region or accepting future demographic challenges. It would be interesting to hear from them regarding this particular development and their perceptions.

By jfwells on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 10:39AM PDT

I completely agree with Mark above – this is the perfect project to showcase Portland’s forward thinking by master-planning the entire district for smart growth. What the NW neighborhoods need to think about is that those parking lots are way to valuable land to just sit there. Something will be built there (and as an aside, SHOULD be built there – would we rather see 5,000 residents plopped out in Hillsboro or Vancouver, commuting in to downtown every day?), so shouldn’t they embrace the process and make the most out of it? Understand the constraints: there will be density; there will be development; it will bring in many new residents and jobs. If it is done right, some of their issues can be addressed. If they fight it tooth an nail, development will be piecemeal with no coherent strategy to mitigate congestion and the whole city will be much worse off.

By Stephen on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 03:43PM PDT

No, the neighborhood doesn’t have to think about it in those terms because it will be directly affected by the day to day impacts. Broad brush statements about a showcase development aren’t going to legitimize this project with the neighborhood. Some of the concerns are very legitimate. I live in the neighborhood, and I guardedly support the project, but we have traffic issues as it stands. The city has done a poor job signalizing intersections, marking crosswalks, and installing 4-way stops where needed. It is fine to think this is a super groovy thing and I support the need for increased density but considering the size of the development and the potential impacts, more answers and assurances are needed. It has the potential to be great and the potential to create a 24-7 cluster fuck.

By Monforts on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 05:41PM PDT

My favorite quote in that article is from Peter Finley Fry: “We artificially empower mediocrity. There’s a certain proportion of people who have fear of change anywhere. In Portland, those people are empowered with authority through the neighborhood associations.” This could easily be applied to your other post Thurman Infill 3.0. It’s going on my refrigerator.

By Mike Thelin on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 05:48PM PDT

I nearly wet myself when I read that. The great thing about Portland is that everyone’s opinion matters. Conversely, the terrible thing about Portland is that everyone’s opinion matters. We should change the city slogan from “The City That Works” to “Portland: Collaborating Toward Mediocrity Since the Days of Lincoln.”

By Stephen on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 11:27PM PDT

Before you do wet yourself. I suggest you read the response to the article by the executive director of the friendly house. The article was way inflammatory. Portland is small and hindered by a lot of bureaucracy, but that’s everywhere. What prevents so much iconic development is the lack of big bucks funding projects or visions – or big corporations controlling major interests. Seattle didn’t get is art museum, symphony hall and library without big endowments from microsoft, amazon and starbucks. The neighborhood organizations are vocal, but are they really that strong? Did Lair Hill for its years of whining ever stop the tram or the South Waterfront building height? Don’t kid yourselves. It’s money that counts in this country. The renderings of the development looked great and idealistic, but how stupid was it to present it like that. Just like the Upshur project – big gray blobs showing massing. Are they idiots? Of course people are going to freak out. It’s not necessarily the neighborhood, it’s human nature.

That said, there still is a lot of mediocrity. We see it in our leaders, our business community and many professions, such as journalism.

By Monforts on Thursday, May 01, 2008 at 09:12AM PDT

Stephen- it’s true that the article was biased in favor of the development, as the PT tends to be in general. What isn’t clear is what the big argument is over- is Con-way asking for additional density? Height? Change of zoning? It is already zoned Ex(d) with some height overlays (I think). They should be able to build pretty much what they want already. If they aren’t asking for any changes to the plan, then neighbors have little grounds for complaint, other than to curse Portland Planning. On the other hand, if Con-way is trying to change their zoning, then the neighborhood should understandably be vocal critics (and ideally negotiate with Con-way to improve the project). Maybe Mike can get a clarification, since it makes a big difference before we condemn either Con-way or the neighborhood association.

On the other hand, Fry’s quote was funny/incisive if you have ever spent time with Portland’s neighborhood associations.

By jfwells on Thursday, May 01, 2008 at 10:31AM PDT

According to Portland Maps, the entire area is already zoned EXd which allows a maximum FAR of 3:1 and maximum height of 65’. Exactly the same as the majority of the Pearl District.

By pdx2m2 on Thursday, May 01, 2008 at 11:18AM PDT

The proposed Conway plan is asking for plenty of changes…more height and more FAR….some of the towers proposed looked to be easily 175’ – 200+ feet tall …harder to tell what kind of FAR they are modeling.

By Stephen on Thursday, May 01, 2008 at 01:05PM PDT

I’m no fan of neighborhood associations, especially when I see NIMBYs at work, but the article stated that many were in favor of the development. I thought Fry’s quote was funny, kinda, but it also sounded like a spurned beotch. The dude has a mullet for christ sakes. I agree that the layers of bureaucracy here are daunting, but as far as planning goes, they’ve done a pretty remarkable job that has and continues to garner national and international praise. Without it and the years of planning history, Portland would be kind of a shiny Tacoma. So, yeah, mediocrity is there, but I blame the business community here for not having the balls to step up to the plate, whether it is funding the arts, sports, or good design.

By Monforts on Friday, May 02, 2008 at 09:34AM PDT

Actually, I think Portland has great urban design but largely mediocre architecture. That’s definitely due in part to the lack of a few major patrons, but also to the numerous layers of public involvement. It is difficult, to say the least, to get a controversial project built here, which means that there are fewer examples of truly exceptional architecture. On the flip side, it means there are fewer stinkers, too. I just lament the loss of so many great buildings over the years due to too much public involvement. So- if you blame the business community and I blame the public process, maybe we’ve covered all the bases. Are local architects to blame too?

By Skinny City Girl on Friday, May 02, 2008 at 11:40AM PDT

I blame the rain.

By Stephen on Friday, May 02, 2008 at 07:50PM PDT

You need to eat.

By Rob on Sunday, May 04, 2008 at 09:47AM PDT

Here is a creative solution: the NW’s beautiful vintage apartments are too small, and its beautiful condos and single family homes too expensive to draw many families with school-age children. Yet the neighborhood has some of the best schools in the city: Chapman, MLC and Lincoln, maybe a new school someday in the River District. Wouldn’t the neighborhood prefer a Conway development with a hundred or two units of family-friendly room configuration over declining organic neighborhood enrollment due to economics and aging demographics? The alternative is more commuter students from outside the neighborhood. With no change, that can only grow.

Within the limits of housing and employment law, cannot office space come coupled with apartments in the neighborhood? In other words, the business renting the office could offer employees living space a walk away at market rates. Something to explore to allay the neighborhood association’s concern over automobile commuting.

How about a Flexcar-Zipcar developer partnership or a long term deal for transit passes at a guaranteed rate for residents?

Here is another model. When 405 was built, the district received significant funds for the lost land. How about engaging the district association in a shared equity arrangement giving them an incentive for a financially sound development that is integrated into the neighborhood?

Actually I have always wondered why PDC did not have a shared equity component.

The Mt Hood view is a Portland religious element (St Helens too). The developers will need to identify each homeowner affected using computer models and negotiate based on the probability of other tall development in the same view corridor, based on current zoning.

Finally, the developer could do no better than to see if they can engage former Mayor Clark, who is invested the neighborhood, to find common ground.

I’m sure NIMBY’s would resent the term, but it is human nature to resist change unless it is you that are making it. Sometimes planned change is a better solution than gradual inevitable change. That is the change time scale problem. There is always a conflict between global knowledge (density needs) and specific local knowledge (my street). That is the knowledge scale problem. Bridge both with communication.