Portland needs more high rises and other high-density housing developments to protect neighborhoods of single-family homes, says Portland city councilor and leading mayoral candidate Sam Adams. Adams admits that Portland’s major high-rise development, the South Waterfront or “SoWhat” District, is floundering despite having received close to $300 million subsidies, so he proposes that Portland lobby the state and federal governments to provide even more subsidies.
The Antiplanner’s friend, Jim Karlock, videotapes Portland-area political events and, in this case, taped himself asking Adams about the financial future of the SoWhat District. You can read some of the reactions of Portland residents to Adams’ reply at Jack Bogdanski’s blog.
How do subsidized high rises protect single-family homes? Adams’ reasoning, as he previously stated in a speech to Portland’s City Club, is that Metro, Portland’s regional planning agency, has given Portland a target of accommodating 300,000 new residents (up from 529,000 in 2000) by 2035. To Adams, this give Portland a choice: spread those new residents around to all neighborhoods or concentrate them in high-rise and other high-density development in a few sacrifice areas.
So Adams proposes that all new residences in Portland should be “within 1/4 mile of all existing and to-be-planned streetcar and lightrail transit stops” (previously). By only building housing within a quarter mile of rail stops, Adams says, Portland will “simultaneously encourage responsible, transit-supportive development while protecting our existing single-family neighborhoods from undue growth.” Since people in established single-family neighborhoods don’t like density in their vicinity, Adams can heroically support density without appearing to impose it on most people in the city.
Of course, Adams would never consider the third alternative: expand (or get rid of) the urban-growth boundary so that people can live where they want, at the densities they want. Letting people live on 7,000-square-foot lots would promote “auto dependency” (ignoring Portland’s experience showing that people living in transit-oriented developments drive just about as much as people in single-family homes).
Can Portland achieve Adams’ goal of packing 300,000 people into a few rail corridors? Anyone familiar with Vancouver or Toronto, both of which have focused on high rises in transit corridors, would be inclined to say yes. But Americans are not as sheep-like as Canadians (sorry Canadian readers). Rather than live in high rises, many Portland-area workers will live in Vancouver Washington, Salem Oregon, or other more-or-less distant suburbs that are outside of Metro’s authority.
The procedure might low cost levitra take up to 30 to 60 minutes. This empowers quick ingestion into the circulation system inspire slovak-republic.org buy levitra no prescription space to increment , at long last prompting an erection . But you are having trouble in getting an erection, which hinder the sexual intercourse.There are numerous reasons that make erection a stressful buy tadalafil in canada task. The sexual levitra viagra cialis aroused men get better results in bed than Ever Before Premature ejaculation plagues more men than is really known.
Which explains the subsidies: you have to bribe Americans into living in density. The SoWhat District is supposed to have “up to 5,000 housing units” at a subsidized cost of $300 million (some of the subsidies are for office space, but the total isn’t proving enough). If we figure 2 people per housing unit (since very few children live in Portland’s dense developments), the cost of bribing 300,000 more people to live dense developments rather than flee to the unregulated suburbs will be a mere $9 billion.
To “protect” itself from density, each single-family household in Portland will have to pay roughly $40,000, or nearly $1,500 a year in taxes between now and 2035. No one is going to vote for that kind of tax increase, and tax-increment financing (which is already hurting fire, police, and other services) won’t cover the cost either.
There are so many other things wrong with Adams’ idea that it is hard to know where to begin.
1. High rises require vast amounts of steel and concrete, the production of which generate huge amounts of greenhouse gases. I haven’t done the research yet, but I suspect single-family homes are far more environmentally friendly.
2. Since there is little evidence that transit-oriented developments significantly reduce driving, putting 300,000 people in high-density developments will greatly increase traffic congestion, which will further add to energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Then there is the sociological question: is it fair for one generation to tell the next, “We are going to make sure that you will not live as well as we do”?
Ultimately, I have to wonder if people like Adams have become so focused on the tools–density and rail–that they have forgotten the goal, which is to make Portland a better place to live. Are they building rail transit in order to justify coercing people into living in high densities? Or are they building high densities in order to get a few more people to ride rail transit? And what is the point of either one of those goals if the resulting city is more congested, more expensive, more polluted, and suffering from more crumbling infrastructure?
Antiplanner 1. High rises require vast amounts of steel and concrete, the production of which generate huge amounts of greenhouse gases. I haven’t done the research yet, but I suspect single-family homes are far more environmentally friendly.
JK: Single family homes are usually wood frame which sequesters carbon. Cutting trees for homes allows room for more trees to sequester more carbon. (Personally I think it insane to sequester plant food at a time when it is an even bet that we are about to enter a severe cold spell lasting several tens of years, but who knows.)
Antiplanner 2. Since there is little evidence that transit-oriented developments significantly reduce driving, putting 300,000 people in high-density developments will greatly increase traffic congestion, which will further add to energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
JK: Here is sone evidence that even it they drive less, congestion will still increase:
The Oregonian If the Eastside Streetcar is built, about 4,537 housing units would be added along the route, compared with 1,105 without it,… Residents in such dense neighborhoods travel an average of 9.8 miles a day by car, less than half the 21.8 miles a day for Portland-area suburbanites. By driving less, they reduce roadway congestion, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
(oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/119069070835770.xml&coll=7)
(oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/119069070835770.xml&coll=7)
JK: Wrong.
The correct math is:
Low density……1,105 x 21.8 = 24,089 new car-miles per day IN THE AREA UNDER DISCUSSION.
High Density….4,537 x 9.8 = 44,462 new car-miles per day, about double the total new driving IN THE SAME AREA
That is an example of how high density causes congestion.
Also see: portlandfacts.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm
Antiplanner Ultimately, I have to wonder if people like Adams have become so focused on the tools–density and rail–that they have forgotten the goal, which is to make Portland a better place to live. Are they building rail transit in order to justify coercing people into living in high densities? Or are they building high densities in order to get a few more people to ride rail transit? And what is the point of either one of those goals if the resulting city is more congested, more expensive, more polluted, and suffering from more crumbling infrastructure?
JK: Of course, it is not about transit, it is about mega projects that shower money on political supporters and provide ribbon cutting ceremonies. As John Charles reported: one bureaucrat told him that the project was a success on the day it opened. (Because success is completion, ie: when the money has been spent.)
Thanks
JK
It occurs to me that the Antiplanner and the “planners” he lampoons are essentially talking across purposes.
Planners (particularly in Oregon) want to protect farm and forest lands, which seems to be the fundamental goal of the statewide land use planning program.
The Antiplanner’s goal is essentially for Oregonians to be allowed to live wherever they want (i.e. on any farm or forest land they choose).
So, the two “groups” have different goals. Yet the Antiplanner doesn’t seem to acknowledge this explicitly. Instead, he spends his time criticizing the means by which Oregon planners attempt to achieve state land use goals.
If the Antiplanner believes that farm and forest lands should be protected from development, he should say so AND explain to us how allowing development in those areas simultaneously protects them from development.
If the Antiplanner doesn’t believe that farm and forest lands should be protected from development, then he should make that clear rather than simply criticizing other people’s efforts to protect them.
ignoring Portland’s experience showing that people living in transit-oriented developments drive just about as much as people in single-family homes).
Evidence please. I cannot find these empirical, tested data to support this statement. Especially as it goes against current knowledge.
I know, Randal, that it’s hard to support your statements but do try this time.
Thank you in advance.
DS
I haven’t done the research yet, but I suspect single-family homes are far more environmentally friendly.
Actually, SFD are the most energy-inefficient. Can’t find the papers this morning pre-fully caffeinated, will provide when found. Shared walls & floors, and large yards contribute to UHI, TPD lower per unit.
Since there is little evidence that transit-oriented developments significantly reduce driving
I call bullsh*t. TPD * and VMT are lower, across many studies. Two seconds on The Google images will show the doubtful (not the willfully ignorant, tho)
DS
http://tinyurl.com/3u6nr7
Dan —> The problem I have with TOD development driving studies is they take the numbers they find of someone living there and compare it to someone who lives out in the suburbs. What I’d like to see is how much more or less people who live in TODs drive compared to their immediate neighbors. I suspect the lionshare of the less driving claim is actually that people who live in the inner city tend to drive less. The other reason is that you have these odd balls who decide to live at the end of the line out in suburbia even though they work downtown. So they make a point of living in a TOD. They don’t drive 5 days a week so they’re driving looks much less lower than the surbuban neighbors who actually turn out to live much closer to their jobs.
Dan, look at the statement you’re calling bullshit on. Antiplanner is talking about causation, not correlation.
And why is Portland freaking out over adding 300,000 people in 30 years. What is that? 100,000 per decade? 10,000 per year? Assume 4 people / unit and that’s only 2500 units added each year. Or are those projections for those they expect to move into the urban growth boundary?
Portland’s problem is they are forcing density apon their residents. The Property owners lost Local control may years ago as to how their property is zoned.
The Planners don’t care because we are too dumb to know what is best for ourselves.
opps may should be many
In a previous thread, I quoted a study that looked at causation between less driving due to transit. It is always interesting how those supporting Randal’s position tends to ignore such things and other stuff posted by Dan, D4P and others who don’t buy the dogma.
From the data it is clear from Dan’s charts that even moderate density small lot single family will reduce vehicle trips and trip length. Reams of this sort of data has been around for nearly thirty years now, starting with Pushkarev and Zupan, who developed this sort of data for the New York City region from 1960’s data–the general outlines which still hold for every other U.S. urban area. See davidpritchard.org/sustrans/PusZup77.
BTW, the “self selected” argument is bunk, since the self-selected still need areas to live in order to reduce their driving besides Randal’s favorite auto-oriented suburbia. According to housing market studies (which I’ve also often quoted in these threads, so find them yourself!) those who desire denser, transit-oriented environments is around 30%-40% of the population. Also, since it often takes 10-15 years for large projects such as the South Waterfront to develop, it can’t be judged a failure yet.
msetty said:
those who desire denser, transit-oriented environments is around 30%-40% of the population.
Then they should pay for what they want and not expect the rest of us to subsidize it. Such as the South Water Front project in Portland
South Waterfront tram project, not on time not on budget
http://www.portlandfacts.com/Transit/TramOnBudget.htm
Dan, You emphasize the claim “about double the total new driving IN THE SAME AREA”. I haven’t been able to find any study that actually states where the vmt occurred. If, as seems probable, the vmt is self-reported annual vmt/365 then there is an alternative explanation that allows TOD dwellers to drive half the vmt of suburbanites without creating much extra congestion. It all depends on whether the purpose of travel is work/errands or recreation. The subby’s 8,000 miles per annum could consist of 18 miles of urban driving per day (6500 miles per annum) and 1,500 miles of ex-urban recreational travel. The TODdy’s 3,500 mpa could consist of 3 miles udpd and 2,500 miles of ex-urban recreational travel. Thus doubling population density would increase aadt by 15% even though vmt per capita would have increased by 50%. It is certainly valid to question whether compulsory TOD residents will have the vehicle usage characteristics of voluntary TOD residents or whether, being frustrated subby’s, they will have suburban vehicle usage characteristics.
Some useful data and analysis of Portland travel diaries reveals that there no significant difference in number of trips or travel time for residents of high, medium and low density areas of Portland. However at the highest densities there is a big difference in mode choice and distance travelled. It is reasonable to conclude that city dwellers get out and about just as much as suburbanites and that they spend the same amount of time travelling but they don’t need to travel as far to achieve the objective of travelling, ie getting from A to B. If my alternative scenario above is accurate then the money TODdy’s save on daily car usage (and not having children) is being spent on recreational travel.
The first of these two papers is source of the info in he last para. The second paper comes a bit closer to your original argument.
http://www.rand.org/scitech/stpi/Evision/Supplement/lawton.pdf
nexus.umn.edu/Papers/Density.pdf
“Some useful data and analysis of Portland travel diaries reveals that there no significant difference in number of trips or travel time for residents of high, medium and low density areas of Portland. However at the highest densities there is a big difference in mode choice and distance travelled. It is reasonable to conclude that city dwellers get out and about just as much as suburbanites and that they spend the same amount of time travelling but they don’t need to travel as far to achieve the objective of travelling, ie getting from A to B.”
Exactly. See this, for example. There has been some other research showing that people tend to have a constant “travel time budget” of a bit more than an hour per day. Only in extreme situations does the average increase dramatically, such as in Third World cities with inadequate transportation by any means.
Apologists for the vehicle/highway systems, such as some of the posters here (e.g., Gridlock Karlock), tend to claim that thos living in higher density areas have less “mobility” but the facts you quote show such notions are utter rubbish. Good post!
Why would you call someone a name like (e.g., Gridlock Karlock)when he is against grid lock and congestion? unlike the tranist posters on this blog
High density needn’t involve subsidies at all. Amsterdam is famous for it’s canal-side housing, which combines height with a narrow frontage. These buildings are high density, but are appealing to own, and have a price-tag to match.
Building apartments is less satisfactory because of noise and water leaks. If they are built more than 3 or 4 storeys high, then lifts have to be provided, and the ownership experience is badly degraded. It would be best to find a middle position between houses with large lots and apartments.
There is at least one paradox in asking for subsidies for the high rises.
The subsidies will essentially force suburbanites and rural residents to subsidize the high density residents. Yet, according to the Portland city council pundits, as well as other people who usually propose such subsidized funding, high rises and other high density projects, offer a higher standard of living compared to the suburbs.
So in that respect these proposed subsidies are a regressive transfer of wealth.
It is a transfer of wealth from the unfortunate (low quality of living) residents of suburbia, to the lucky (high quality of living) residents of the high rises.
Are they really advocating that those worse off should subsidize those who are better off? That would seem inconsistent with their social ideology.
Portland is planning to stuff its 300,000 or so new residents into high-rises.
So, let me see,
if I moved my research lab to Portland I can look forward to living in a high rise apartment? I wonder how many of my staff engineers and scientists would also be thrilled to follow me. “We went to college and graduate schools for 9 years and now we work to bring you new cancer cures in exchange for the great opportunity to live in a Portland high rise apartmentâ€Â. Seems like an attractive exchange indeed.
Apparently Portland’s attitude to accommodating new residents is:
“City of Portland – NO Vacancy – If your life’s ambitions and aspirations go beyond being stuffed in apartment 3124, don’t bother coming to Portlandâ€Â.
I agree with your argument that Portland’s apartment subsidies are a regressive transfer of wealth. I suspect that if you look at Portland’s growth policies 100 years ago they would have been fixated on building bridges and all-weather roads to open up new land for housing. Middle and upper class housing. Leaving the poor stuck in ghettos in the city. 50 years ago they started building freeways to open up land for quarter acre subdivisions. Same objectives. Today it’s smart growth and light rail. Still the same objectives. All the while funding the infrastructure in a way that created a regressive transfer of wealth.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
#19:
Aaaaa-men, brother.
Same way with biofuel subsidies hurting the poor wrt food prices. And freeway exhaust affecting the poor. Etc.
DS
Gridlock Karlock has his own hidden agenda, but still this comes down to trade offs for the area & it’s residents.
Even Henry David Thoreau said:
Each town should have a park, or rather a primitive forest, of five hundred or a thousand acres, where a stick should never be cut for fuel, a common possession forever, for instruction and recreation. All Walden Wood might have been preserved for our park forever, with Walden in its midst… [Journal15 October 1859]