The Oregonian‘s latest coverage of Portland’s densification disaster focuses on outer Southeast Portland, a neighborhood that lacks sidewalks on three out of four streets and has poor roads and transit service to boot. When the city proposed to densify the neighborhood in 1996, residents hotly protested, but the city promised to add sidewalks and improve other services.
Since then, the city has added not an inch of sidewalk, roads are in worse shape than ever, and transit service is even less frequent than it was in 1996. But the city has permitted the construction of more than 14,000 new dwelling units. One homeowner (presumably not the home’s occupant) built five three-story duplexes in his or her backyard.
This is the fate that was planned for Oak Grove, a neighborhood the Antiplanner lived in until 1998. Oak Grove was one of 36 neighborhoods targeted by Metro, Portland’s regional planning agency, for densification. Metro also gave Portland and 23 other cities and three counties population targets that they had to meet by densifying neighborhoods. Oak Grove residents protested loudly enough that they avoided densification, but that just meant that some other neighborhood had to be densified to meet the population targets.
Chronic cialis 10 mg Metabolic Acidosis is the medical term for stomach inflammation is called gastritis. To use viagra prescription uk one example: fatty liver disease–just about the top disease that affects a person’s liver. Yes, it works a bit faster than viagra cheap prescription the traditional blue pills by Pfizer. Rob’s special challenge was physical which is now hard to believe when you see him do a 360 viagra prescriptions online greyandgrey.com twist kick.
Like other Southeast Portland, Oak Grove doesn’t have a lot of sidewalks. It’s reasonable to assume that these neighborhoods were picked for densification for the same reasons they didn’t have sidewalks: they were occupied mainly by working-class families who don’t have a lot of political power. This is one more example of the planners’ bias that working-class people don’t deserve to live in neighborhoods of single-family homes.
Portland’s and Metro’s obsessions with density are destroying the quality of life for people throughout the urban area. All this is so Metro need only make minimal expansions to the region’s urban-growth boundary. Even when it does bring small parcels of land within the boundary, the decisions are challenged and delayed by various land-use activists. As a result, some are thinking of getting the state legislature to add land. But this will just make it a political matter, meaning the wealthy will get their land added (or prevent adjacent land from being added).
Portland’s boundary boundary encompasses less than 0.4 percent of the state, yet the land inside houses nearly 40 percent of the state’s residents. All the urban-growth boundaries in Oregon cover just 1.3 percent of the state, yet house more than 80 percent of the state’s residents. The state is hardly running out of open space; aside from the fact that so little of the state is urbanized, more than half is in national forests, national parks, or other government reservations. In short, this is a stupid plan that accomplishes nothing except spreading misery to the region’s less-wealthy and less-powerful residents.
Metrosucks:
Yeah, that must be how they passed Obamacare, by sitting around and holding conferences.
Yeah, and by having a Democratic majority in the House at the time, and kissing the butts of the big insurance companies by killing any voluntary public option.
Tombdragon, very good points but DNFTT.
Your post will not be read carefully (if at all), and twisted into something you didn’t write.
For the record, again, density per se DOES NOT equal crime
If crime is a function of a percentage of the population or per capita, then obviously density WILL result in a greater overall number of crimes. Just like density results in higher TOTAL congestion even if each person drives a little less. But planners just ignore all these trends because it’s convenient to do so.
So, msetty, since we don’t earn a minimum of 3 times the median individual income, and don’t choose to live in high density housing, in the central core of Portland, we are no better than criminals, and those walking on the shoulder of the road, being hit by cars, are getting what they deserve? I will guarantee most of those living and dying in Portland are liberal underemployed Democrats, yet you blame this on conservative Republicans? I have to remind you that their are no Conservative Republicans in elective office here in Multnomah County so your instance that it is their fault only calls you mantra into more question. Smart Growth and it failure is clearly a flawed, harmful, policy who main purpose it to hurt the middle class economically and physically, if not exterminate them altogether. According to you Smart Growth/High Density housing’s main purpose is to criminalize poverty?
MSetty, there are new urbanists in Portland who are straying too far in
the direction of telling people how to live. The city’s emphasis on discouraging
car use is a big deal- cars are an important part of our lives, yet there is no respect
for that. The walkable neighborhoods and tiny apartments seem, to me, shrinking
peoples lives and encouraging a lot of drinking and gluttony. There was a good
article in Atlantic Cities on the potential mental health issues micro-dorms. People
are starting to go without enough personal space and a sense of “home.” Bars
are the new living rooms.
The City of Portland’s Comprehensive Plan has a lot of scary life-style police undertones.
It is a pity that some of the opposition to uber-density comes from tea party loonies. But that doesn’t mean that there is no dark side to new urbanism.
After finding out how Portland was “planned” (i.e. 25% of new residents shoved into Outer SE with no parks/sidewalks/cafes) I have to say that I have lost faith in the city and new urbanism. Not as a tea party activist, but as a someone who loves Oregon.