After a mere 14 years of planning, Portland’s “westside express” commuter-rail line is about to start operating. As the Antiplanner previously noted, however, this 14.7-mile line really doesn’t go anywhere that anyone wants to go, so TriMet predicts a whopping 2,600 riders a day (i.e., 1,300 round trips). It may end up being more, but the numbers will be insignificant either way.
Flickr photo by Hardlinejoe.
TriMet plans to run 32 round trips a day, which means each trip will carry an average of 40 passengers. For that, they have railcars with 80 seats, and they are ready to run them in pairs. Too bad TriMet couldn’t have found a bus or two capable of carrying 40 passengers.
There are several reasons why TriMet wanted a commuter train to nowhere. Most important, the two freeways in the Wilsonville-to-Beaverton corridor, SR 217 and I-5, are probably the most congested roads in the Portland suburbs. The local congressman, David Wu, actually earmarked some federal money to add new capacity, but Metro, Portland’s planning czar, turned it down. Running commuter rail makes it look like they are doing something to relieve congestion and provides an excuse to zone some more neighborhoods for high-density transit-oriented developments.
You can check your eligibility for generic viagra wholesale by going through the websites you can also read the clients feedbacks. There are standard treatments for male impotence (inability of getting or keeping erection) with implants, vacuum pumps, surgery, and medicines like Kamagra Soft Tablets that can be gulped with water an hour or 40 minutes prior to intercourse, which allows a student to choose their preferred specializations at cheapest viagra uk diploma, bachelors, postgraduate and masters levels. Because of natural ingredients, VigRx Plus supplements do cialis shipping not contain any unpleasant side effects. Avoid buying slovak-republic.org online cialis, it may have different specialities such as sports injuries, back pain relief, paediatrics or visceral osteopathy (treating the internal organs of the body and also prevents the clot formation in blood vessels and cholesterol imbalances occur due to high blood glucose levels. Actually, the Antiplanner made a little error in that posting. Relying on the Oregonian, I said it was $33 million over its planned budget of $133 million. In fact, back in 2000, planners predicted that it would cost $82.8 million, so it really went more than 100 percent overbudget, not the mere 25 percent I previously indicated.
As a local county commissioner put it, the final cost was “comparable to building a new highway.” At a cost of $5 million per lane mile, which is reasonable for suburban freeways, Oregon could have built two lane miles of highway for every mile of commuter-rail line that it got.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, the typical Portland-area freeway lane carries 9,641 vehicles per day — and these roads above typical. So even if those vehicles only hold one person each, two new highway lanes could have moved about eight times as many people as the rail line will, which would do far more to relieve congestion.
But hey, the commuter train is going to have free Wi-Fi, not to mention the “interactive public art” at each of the stops. I guess that makes it all worth it.
One of the stops on the new line is Washington Square (actually the stop is about a quarter-mile away), one of Portland’s largest shopping malls. A decade ago, Metro wrote one of its wonderful plans to turn Washington Square into a “compact residential community.” Needless to say, absolutely nothing has happened, mainly for the lack of about $200 million for “infrastructure,” meaning utopian projects like a people mover.
Maybe now that the commuter-rail train is going, the 1,300 people who ride roundtrip on it every day will stimulate new development. Yeah, right.
craig Says:
Would it do any good of me to point to the massive subsidization of suburbia? It wouldn’t matter, it wouldn’t get noticed by you anyways.
ws
Downtown Portland is rebuilding it’s sewers and it is included in everyone sewer bill.
East Portland and the burbs had to pay for their sewer improvements house by house. Costing thousands of dollars per home owner in the 80’s.
another subsidy for downtown Portland.
THWM: Yet the CBD of Portland was the catalyst for this suburban development. This is cross subsidization, the money is flowing both ways.
You want roads, but at the same time you want to deny people rail travel?
craig Says:
Parking is fine in small numbers. Once it gets too high, it is a serious detractor to an inviting environment.
ws
Except maybe the malls and shopper like and use them. The must, they are often full.
THWM: Though parking can be under ground and take up less space.
C. P. Zilliacus:“So live in a place where you can walk or bike or take mass transit to purchase that gallon of milk. But please don’t try to force everyone else to do so.”
ws:I would live somewhere else but I am a victim of circumstances at my current location. I’m not trying to force everyone else to, however, I am asking that they allow for the ability for better pedestrianism (through more intelligent zoning and building codes), in addition to the automobile transportation.
People are not always choosing this way of life, as most do not understand the codes and regulations, largely from planners, that are dictating this type of built environment.
You are all talk (and no show) when you say you want options (and thus freedom), because the reality of it is you do not want options – only automobile access. If I should happen to be living in a rural setting, I would not expect there to be reliable transit or walkability – it’s a different typology. Though, living in a highly developed area, it is not unreasonable to think we should not be promoting more pedestrian-oriented communities (in addition to other transportation methods).
craig:“Most of Downtown is Urban Renewal
http://tinyurl.com/5ul6ua
right there on the above page”
Yeah, so? Portland invests money in its urban environment to get businesses and people to take root. Almost every city in the country puts money back to make the places a good place to live or work. Is Central Park a “subsidy”? Under this very definition, street improvements through property tax increases in Beaverton and brand new schools built in Hillsboro are subsidies.
prk166: “misunderstanding but you seem to be implying that the current supply of oil is severely limited”
ws: I don’t think the levels are severely limited – there’s plenty of oil in the world. I do think that the costs associated with research, development, and technology for extraction of this hard to get oil is going to become incredibly high. These costs are just passed off to the consumer.
These new costs with increasing global demand is not sustainable. On a side note, I got a kick out of the people who wanted to drill more in the US because they thought the oil would go to US consumers. Wrong, it’s a global commodity sold on the global market. Understanding world demand and its future trends is key.
We are not in the day and age of easy oil, that’s for sure.
C. P. Zilliacus:“Many people make residential choices that include not being near mass transit and not being near high-density residential developments.”
ws: Some people want to, and others don’t. You’re right. Did I say anything in regards where you would get this notion? I think it’s good to offer both options in communities. I think this mindset has the ability to be detracting when one becomes a NIMBY. Don’t live downtown if you don’t like the noise, and definitely don’t live in a developed area if you don’t want your surroundings to change. Live in the country if you want nothing to change around you.
Just like some people may not like to live near a grocery store, but handfuls of other people would want. In a neighborhood, why not just allow for both options?
The root of the problem is both options are not allowed. It’s very rare that one could find housing units on top of a grocery store in many suburban municipalities. It’s against the building codes. Will you help me in promoting more housing options in these communities?
Craig points out that “We have enough oil sand in the province of Alberta Canada to last the world 100 years.”
What Craig has overlooked is the amount of energy the world will have to pay to obtain the energy contained in the Alberta tar sands.
It is the growing energy cost of extracting oil that leads to the conclusion that the future supply of oil is severely limited. The money invested in extracting each barrel of oil fell throughout the 20th century just as economic theory says it should. The energy invested in extracting each barrel was actually increasing by an average 50% each decade just as the laws of physics says it should with increasing extraction depth. That wasn’t a problem when it took the energy in a single barrel of oil to deliver 100 barrels to the consumer. But now that the average oil field needs the energy equivalent of 10 barrels to deliver 100 barrels you can easily work that continued 50% increases each decade will see oil extraction becoming hopelessly inefficient within our lifetimes.
The really frightening thing is that the true global reserves of oil is not the gross amounts that are published in the studies, but the nett amount after subtracting the energy needed to extract the oil. When you factor in this long term trend of increasing extraction energy the marketable reserves of oil shrink with eye popping speed.
I would live somewhere else but I am a victim of circumstances at my current location.
ws
Your a victim??? Are you locked up?
36 years(in Portland) ago before planners mandates and urban growth boundaries(UGB), it was very affordable to live close in to downtown next to 3 bus routes.
Because so many people were building new homes in new developments. That created a cheap market, for 2nd hand homes.
Smart growth policies and UGB’s fixed that problem.
“Your a victim??? Are you locked up?”
No, I live with my parents. How old you think I am?
36 years ago, Portland had no economy and an incredibly small population. Those crazy “planners” helped create, through private and public investment, a very beautiful city. Land is cheap in Detroit too, but who wants to live there right now considering what state the city is in.
Portland has added 130,000 people since the 1990, I think Portland must be doing something right.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/24/subprime-crisis-usa-housing-detroit
WS you’re right property in Detroit is cheap.
Re: Francis King’s comment @34:
The <4% transit use is not properly termed as “depending upon.” The point is that very few choose to use transit. Low density & independent personal mobility. And many more opportunities & choices. Boiling it down to several types of one products is very simplistic.
“Cars only benefit the manufacturers.” That is clearly ridiculous. People are not forced to buy cars & there are transit & high density choices available to people.
It will take plenty more text than a few paragraphs to explain reality.
Scott Says:
The <4% transit use is not properly termed as “depending upon.†The point is that very few choose to use transit. Low density & independent personal mobility. And many more opportunities & choices. Boiling it down to several types of one products is very simplistic.
“Cars only benefit the manufacturers.†That is clearly ridiculous. People are not forced to buy cars & there are transit & high density choices available to people.
THWM: That depends on the circumstance, if you work or live in an area that has next to no transit service then owning a car is a must(my grand mother lived in rural area & she needed to travel by car/pickup truck).
Though auto dependence is still a dependence.
ws said: 36 years ago, Portland had no economy and an incredibly small population.
JK: Who fed you that crap?
Portland had a viable economy.
It also has housing prices that the average person could afford. Doesn’t that mean anything to you? A friend actually bought a house while making minimum wage. You can’t even buy a house in today’s Portland earning the average income. The planners have priced the average Portlander out of being able to afford a house.
As a child, you probably do not understand that home ownership is the key to middle class prosperity. As a young Portlander you are destined to pay rent all of your life unless you can get a very high paying job. This is due to the planners artificially inflating the cost of housing as part of their plans for how you will live your life. A life of transit dependancy. A life only able to travel where Trimet goes. A life of paying too much for basics at the trendy little neighborhood store.
ws said: Those crazy “planners†helped create, through private and public investment, a very beautiful city.
JK: But it was more beautiful before the planners did their thing. Ladd’s addition was before planners started infesting Portland. As were most of Portland’s really nice neighborhoods. Planners gave us the ugly, boring Pearl district yuppie playland with its crappy streetcar that costs almost as much as paying taxi fare for each rider. And that sucked money out of basic city services. Same on steroids for the North Macadam condo jungle for millionaires.
ws said: Land is cheap in Detroit too, but who wants to live there right now considering what state the city is in.
JK: Of course Detroit got that way by driving up the cost of doing business to the point that business left. Just like Portland is doing due to the planner’s crazy ideas about how others should live.
ws said: Portland has added 130,000 people since the 1990, I think Portland must be doing something right.
JK: Adding people, without adding road capacity, is why we have more traffic congestion on the roads. More cars in the neighborhoods and costly boondoggles like light rail.
Do you think congestion is a good thing?
Do you think more traffic on neighborhood streets is a good thing?
Do you think that not being able to afford a home is a good thig?
Thanks
JK
World Oil Supply
A few years back while in college we were taught that there was a 10 year supply of Oil.
Now it looks like 50 to 100???
Now it looks like 50 to 100???
No.
DS
JK:“A friend actually bought a house while making minimum wage. You can’t even buy a house in today’s Portland earning the average income. The planners have priced the average Portlander out of being able to afford a house.”
ws:Nowhere in any city can you buy a house on minimum wage (especially if one doesn’t believe in mandatory minimum wages). This is pure fantasy. Portland has a way higher median income than it did 36 years ago.
JK:“Ladd’s addition was before planners started infesting Portland. As were most of Portland’s really nice neighborhoods. Planners gave us the ugly, boring Pearl district yuppie playland with its crappy streetcar that costs almost as much as paying taxi fare for each rider. And that sucked money out of basic city services.”
ws:I love Ladd’s Addition. If I had the opportunity to live in Ladd’s Addition or Pearl District, I’d choose Ladd’s. It is a nicely planned community with large elm trees lining the streets, and small, dense single-family homes. The developer wanted to emulate L’Enfant’s plan for DC, with it’s diagonal “duck foot” street patterns. Ladd’s addition was in the period of streetcar suburbs, which are nothing like its counterpart: sprawl suburbs.
Unfortunately, these types of neighborhoods are illegal in suburban municipalities, as well as the fact that idiot developers only know how to build sprawl McMansions with dinky street trees in front and three car garages dominating the frontages of the homes. These beautiful neighborhoods surrounding Portland (and any other city in the US) were developed in a time when development was encouraged, not denounced, because the end result were nice homes.
It’s funny because Ladd’s Addition is everything that New Urbanism is: narrow streets, large street trees, small and dense homes, connected street grids, etc. Are you a closet New Urbanist, Jim?
If there is one slight area that I do agree with you, is that I am not the biggest fan of Metro’s infill developments in some areas.
JK:“Of course Detroit got that way by driving up the cost of doing business to the point that business left. Just like Portland is doing due to the planner’s crazy ideas about how others should live.”
ws: It’s a bit speculative to say businesses are leaving the area leaving due to the cost of living. Columbia Sportswear left because of zoning issues for its expanded business and Freightliner left due to wanting to be closer to its suppliers (they have also laid of 2,000 people in the low-expense state of South Carolina). If your assertions are correct, why isn’t Vancouver, with it’s low expenses, the number 1 place in the metro area to do business? In fact 1/3 of Vancouverites work in Portland!
I think you’re under some notion that I want everyone to live in a big building downtown. Downtown isn’t for everyone. I am actually a big proponent of tradition neighborhoods (with a mix of single family homes, row houses, business, etc.). These areas are well serviced by automobiles, pedestrians, bikes, and mass transit.
Unfortunately, post WWII-sprawl developments made governments, such as Portland, do something to control the parasitic growth taking over the very thing that brought people to the area in the first place.
Development and growth are natural, and I find these types of neighborhoods (Ladd’s, NW 23rd, Reed college area, etc.) are a good balance between dense downtowns and low-density, euclidean zoning, auto-dependent sprawl found in every surrounding city.
Somewhere along the last 50-60 years, we forgot how to build neighborhoods and learned how to build dormitories.
You wouldn’t need a UGB (or large amounts of infill) if typical development wasn’t so ugly looking (and poorly functioning), and the laws and regulations were changed to allow developers to build beautiful neighborhoods like Ladd’s in the outlying parts of the cities.
These beautiful streets are illegal now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ladd%27sSoutheastMaple.jpg
ws:I love Ladd’s Addition. If I had the opportunity to live in Ladd’s Addition or Pearl District, I’d choose Ladd’s. It is a nicely planned community with large elm trees lining the streets, and small, dense single-family homes. The developer wanted to emulate L’Enfant’s plan for DC, with it’s diagonal “duck foot†street patterns. Ladd’s addition was in the period of streetcar suburbs, which are nothing like its counterpart: sprawl suburbs.
WS
My friends great grandfather had to move his farm because of urban sprawl.
Do you know where his farm was? It was next to Ladds addition the place where many of the wealthy Portlanders moved to, to get away from down town Portland.
You may know this, but at one time, the east side of the river was not part of Portland, I believe it was called East Portland until they merged.
I’m a bit confused by the small compact homes in Ladds Addition that you talked about. The original Homes are giant, some are almost mansions. It was later when the infill and smaller homes were added as the wealthy moved away or needed less space or more money. I’ve seen homes there, where the old garage is now the neighbors, because they split the property in half.
Ladds Addition is early Portland urban sprawl and one of WS’s favorite places.
Back then Street cars were used to sprawl away from the city center, before we had autos.
Scott said “Look at opportunity & the area that one can get to, within a reasonable time:
walking: 1/3 sq.mi. covering whole Ο (circular area)
biking: 30 sq.mi. covering whole Ο
transit: (1 route) 20 sq.mi. <4% of Ο, double or triple for 2 routes
car: 1000 sq.mi.
Nation-wide, <4% of passenger miles are by transit. Cars offer an incredible amount more options.”
Opportunity and area can’t be treated as the same thing.
In the days before planners gave us single use zoning cities were able to provide a wide range of opportunities in small areas. After half a century of single use zoning accessing the same variety of opportunities within the same time became impossible without a car.
In reality cars offer only a moderate amount more options. The same was true for bicycles or streetcars when they were fastest thing around.
Once you couch the argument in terms of reasonable time spent travelling it becomes nonsensical to compare passenger miles. That values locations for how far apart they are rather than how useful they are. As long as the purpose of a trip is satisfied it makes no never mind how many miles were travelled as long as the horse is stabled before the sun goes down. It is the proportion trips, or even the proportion of travel time, that is important. Since autos are indespensible in the country it makes no sense to include their passengers miles in the total.
Interestingly transit’s proportion of urban trips is still less than 4%. This is because almost half the trips made in urban areas are made by walking or cycling. The other half are made by car. When measured by usefulness rather than mileage autos should get equal treatment instead of preferential treatment.
However, as JK points out, any money saved by walking 10 minutes to the deli instead of driving 10 minuntes to the supermarket is going to be wasted paying higher prices at the the trendy little neighborhood store.
“As a child, you probably do not understand that home ownership is the key to middle class prosperity.”
So speaketh the lords of real estate, amen.
Getting a very high paying job or investing cunningly are the real keys to middle class prosperity. Always have been, always will be.
However, as JK points out, any money saved by walking 10 minutes to the deli instead of driving 10 minuntes to the supermarket is going to be wasted paying higher prices at the the trendy little neighborhood store.
Far better to give your money to a neighbor than giving your money to a MNC hiding its taxes offshore while it is chiseling its employees out of health care, and part of your money goes to lobbyists on K St for more corporate tax cuts and delay in health care reform.
[/rant]
DS
However, as JK points out, any money saved by walking 10 minutes to the deli instead of driving 10 minuntes to the supermarket is going to be wasted paying higher prices at the the trendy little neighborhood store.
I suppose you could switch that argument around in regards to saving few bucks at a big box store, but having to pay 5 dollars in gas just go get there in the first place. Sometimes the big stores save you money, sometimes they don’t.
Big box stores employ local residents of the area and give shoppers what they want, that is why we shop there. I have lots of big box stores near my home. between a mile and 2 miles. I prefer to drive to the grocery store and pack a full cart load into my car and drive home.
You can shop at the mom and pop shops if you choose to.
Isn’t It great to have a choice and more options.
It is well-studied that bigbox stores often increase poverty in rural counties where they open. This is, of course, well known to the segment of society that is inquisitive and/or other-regarding. I find that primarily self-regarding segments don’t know this fact or deny this fact.
DS
I find it odd in a free country and from a person that beats the drum for more choice in transportation is oppose to choice in shopping. No one is forcing these people to shop at the big box stores or work there.
Unlike transit, where we are forced to subsidize it.
Your tactic, craig, of attributing something to me that I didn’t say is tiresome.
Don’t you have anything better than this moribund, puerile tactic? For example, data would be nice, rather than ideological wishes or logical fallacy.
DS
Maybe I confused you with others
but I thought you supported more choices in our transportation systeem?
I did not try to put words into your mouth.
Craig said “I prefer to drive to the grocery store and pack a full cart load into my car and drive home.”
If everybody used their autos as sensibly as that most of the auto’s environmental impacts would reduced dramaticly.
craig:“Big box stores employ local residents of the area and give shoppers what they want, that is why we shop there. I have lots of big box stores near my home. between a mile and 2 miles. I prefer to drive to the grocery store and pack a full cart load into my car and drive home.”
You can shop at the mom and pop shops if you choose to.
Isn’t It great to have a choice and more options.”
ws: My comments regards to big box stores was neither positive or negative, but rather I was going against the idea that big box stores save you money all the time, as sometimes the transportation costs to get there outweigh the savings of going somewhere else.
This is what I said: “Sometimes the big stores save you money, sometimes they don’t.”
craig:“Unlike transit, where we are forced to subsidize it.”
ws: You do realize that a lot of big box stores receive plenty of subsidy money from cities, right? Who do you think upgrades the street network to handle all of the traffic generated by them?
http://www.newrules.org/retail/news_archive.php?browseby=slug&slugid=192
It’s called corporate welfare.
Hereabouts, Cabela’s was enticed to move in with all sorts of goodies, but they’re not coming now.
And ws, don’t forget tax abatement as enticement, making everyone else pick up the bill.
DS
I don’t have a huge problem with creating incentives for development that will support a local economy (say housing, support for local businesses, etc.). I think it’s fair to say that a big box store that has no ties to most local economies (or even our US manufacturing economy) is not going to support much other than low-wage paying jobs (which can still be provided at smaller, local/regional businesses).
Getting rid of “blight” and propping up a company through corporate welfare that can make it on its own are two different things.
Another issue I have is that when big-box stores go out of business, they leave a carcass of their corporate and marketed edifice up for everyone to see, while making it nearly impossible for a new store to take root in its place.
When a store in a downtown environment goes out of business, or even some strip-malls; it’s easy for a new store to adapt to that space. I digressed a bit, but you get my point.
ws,
That link you provided mentioned the life expectancy of these bigboxes is only 15 years, making your points even more cogent.
DS
ws: You do realize that a lot of big box stores receive plenty of subsidy money from cities, right? Who do you think upgrades the street network to handle all of the traffic generated by them?
Ws
———
The same people that have to pay for the street upgrades for transit?
Ws did you read where my friends great grandfather had to move his farm away from the area next to Ladds Addition because of urban sprawl?
craig:“The same people that have to pay for the street upgrades for transit?”
ws: Yes, the same people. Though transit is trying to compete in fixed market of distorted land uses and hidden automobile costs, therefore I support mass transit until the inequities are leveled and people realize the actual costs of their lifestyles (mass transit folks too).
craig: “Ws did you read where my friends great grandfather had to move his farm away from the area next to Ladds Addition because of urban sprawl?”
ws: No. How would I know your friend’s great grandfather and/or be privy to this information? Am I supposed to be puzzled and confused because I both like Ladd’s Addition / traditional neighborhoods / cities but would like to keep farmland in tact as much as possible? You got me craig, my ideologies have conflicted! Not.
Urbanization and growth is inevitable. The equation is really how are we going to grow and urbanize that sustains quality of life, equity in transportation and housing, preservation of farmland, open spaces, and resources. Is the development we are putting on the landscape better or equal to the amount of environmental degradation that occurred? Or is the development worse in terms of what it provides to its denizens and surrounding area in terms of what it replaced (farmland, open space, natural areas, etc.)?
In the case of replacing an exurban greenfield with 100 acres of low-density auto-dependent sprawl subdivisions; I would consider this a negative impact on the land and general population at large. In the case of a traditional neighborhood displacing farmland just off the city center that will house many people and businesses with in close contact of one another; then the final result is net positive impact. You lost farmland, but you gained a human ecosystem. People often exclude humans from nature; this is erroneous.
There are many answers to these questions, answers that you and I disagree on.
If you have any idea how the US can accommodate 100 million people appropriately by 2050, then feel free to inform us all.
ws: No. How would I know your friend’s great grandfather and/or be privy to this information
Ws
post 67
I know you can’t read minds but I should not have assumed you read this blog.
Ws 97% of Oregon is Zoned exclusive farm and Timber land even if it has no trees or is not farmable.
How much more do you want to save?
craig:“I’m a bit confused by the small compact homes in Ladds Addition that you talked about. The original Homes are giant, some are almost mansions. It was later when the infill and smaller homes were added as the wealthy moved away or needed less space or more money. I’ve seen homes there, where the old garage is now the neighbors, because they split the property in half.
Ladds Addition is early Portland urban sprawl and one of WS’s favorite places.”
ws: There are many different definitions of sprawl. Usually it is considered uncontrolled, unplanned, scattered, auto-dependent, formless growth (This definition btw comes from Robert Bruegmann’s book, who is shall we say, “pro-sprawl”).
Ladd’s Addition was a well planned development. The streets are diagonal to the city’s grid pattern, though they allow for connectivity. It is not formless and not scattered. Ladd’s may have been considered suburban at the time, but it is not sprawl. By your very definition, the first building in Portland was “sprawl”. Sprawl is not just outward growth of cities, it is more complex than that. Growth is normal for cities. How it grows is the question. Ladd’s is not Happy Valley, it would take a fool to see otherwise.
1)http://www.architectureweek.com/2005/0720/building_1-2.html
(article talks about Ladd’s alley-way system, which is never seen in a sprawl development). Article goes on to compare Orenco compares with Ladd’s.
2) http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=471
From the webpage: “Before designing the exterior elevations for Orenco Station, Iverson Associates studied the architecture of the traditional neighborhood developments in Portland’s Laurelhurst and Ladd’s Addition.”
What was the average sq. footage of these “giant” homes? I don’t have a problem with larger homes, but I have an issue with their relationship between the street (distance away) and the lot sizes. Lot sizes are much bigger in typical sprawl homes by a good amount. Ladd’s has homes that are a bit further away from the street than some, but definitely have lot sizes with smaller sq. footage than typical McMansions.
Ladd’s also has a restaurant within the development. It’s safe to say you’re not going to see a cafe built within a sea of Centex homes in Clackamas.
craig:“Back then Street cars were used to sprawl away from the city center, before we had autos.”
ws: Autos have been around for a long time even during streetcar suburbs. Streetcar suburbs are not “auto-dependent”, another point in the definition of sprawl.
I don’t have a problem with building outside of the city center. I don’t think everyone should be living in a condo or apartment. I do think that there is something to question about the sustainability of building post 1950’s sprawl in an energy tight world. If new development looked (and functioned) as well as Ladd’s, development would be accepted much more in our parts. Ladd’s is not perfect, but it is not sprawl. It contains many design elements that can be used in 21st century design of neighborhoods.
craig: “97% of Oregon is Zoned exclusive farm and Timber land even if it has no trees or is not farmable.”
ws: It’s not up for me to decide, although I would like a voice. Oregonians have routinely said (and voted) that the environment is of importance to them. Clearly, most of Oregon is not developed, but people are still concerned. Once it’s gone, it’s gone – just like the old growth we destroyed that we will never see again.
And a little caveat, Oregon may have a bunch of open space, but it may not all be developable open space due to natural resource issues (water, slopes, cost etc.). Something key to understanding when you say “Oregon is only 2% developed”.
Something key to understanding when you say “Oregon is only 2% developedâ€Â.
Oh, they understand it all right. That doesn’t mean they still can’t use it for a talking point.
DS
ws: Autos have been around for a long time even during streetcar suburbs. Streetcar suburbs are not “auto-dependentâ€Â, another point in the definition of sprawl.
ws
No your right they were dependent on the streetcar instead . What is the difference?
What was the average sq. footage of these “giant†homes? I don’t have a problem with larger homes, but I have an issue with their relationship between the street (distance away) and the lot sizes. Lot sizes are much bigger in typical sprawl homes by a good amount. Ladd’s has homes that are a bit further away from the street than some, but definitely have lot sizes with smaller sq. footage than typical McMansions
WS
Some of the smaller ones are in the 3,000 sq foot range before the infill came along and cut the lots down to what they are today with the smaller lots and homes. Ladds was built for the wealthy not your average joe. Ladds addition was the McMansions of their day. And it was not planned by the city.
Some of the homes in Ladds had very large lots, you can tell by the age of the different homes.
What is the difference?
No Euclidean zoning, far more occurrences of amenities within walking distance, smaller homes (not as many trinkets and GameBoys to need room for), etc.
DS
Craig, The difference is the limitations of the streetar system. In streetcar suburbs, even when they had quarter acre lots, the lots had to have narrow street frontages to ensure as many saleable lots could be located within convenient walking distance of the streetcar stop and the local shops that were adjacent to the stop. Remember this is when refrigerators were still a luxury so those shops always included a baker, a butcher and a greengrocer and naturally became the centre of the community. The streetcar only made it easy to travel to jobs and cinemas and downtown department stores. It didn’t have the usefulness of the auto or buses. Being electric it also didn’t pollute in the same way as the auto.
A different time, a different generation, different expectations. It met the wants and needs of it’s day as the post-WWII suburbs did. With the increasing numbers of dinks and retiring baby boomers the ideal housing developments of the next 20 years could be a world away from we are used to.
In the immortal words of Dylan – The times they are a-changing.
Kevyn,
Good explanation of past transit use & land use. Most people seem to be unaware of so many differences, over 60 years ago.
I had a home near Ladds Addition and only rode a bike and used transit and I never felt so trapped in my life. But my job was within 2 miles by bike and I just bought a house. I was young and had lots of time. Once I had enough money for a car, I found freedom again.
Being electric it also didn’t pollute in the same way as the auto.
kevyn
It also didn’t pollute like horses did. Ladds Addition was built with alleys in the back to house the horses away from the front of the homes.
But I suspect the smell was still there.
I would guess much of the love of street cars, was they didn’t smell like horses and make a mess in the street.
Craig, Your guess is spot on. This article “From Horse Power to Horsepower” should be compulsory reading for anyone with romantic notions of returning to horse power following peak oil.
http://www.uctc.net/access/30/Access%2030%20-%2002%20-%20Horse%20Power.pdf
I receive access and did read that, now that you jarred my memory
Kevyn Miller Says:
Craig, Your guess is spot on. This article “From Horse Power to Horsepower†should be compulsory reading for anyone with romantic notions of returning to horse power following peak oil.
http://www.uctc.net/access/30/Access%2030%20-%2002%20-%20Horse%20Power.pdf
THWM: I’ve read that before. It really shows what kind of a quantum leap took place when electric streetcars started running in American cities.