That well-known right-wing think tank, the Cato Institute, today released a report about Portland written by that not-so-well-known sprawl-loving, car-happy nut, Randal O’Toole. O’Toole spews out all kinds of so-called data that smart-growth planners probably refuted long ago, such as that transit has lost market share in Portland since they started building light rail and that Portlanders voted against building more light-rail lines.
O’Toole (did I mention that he is right wing?) even dredges up the story of Neil Goldschmidt, Portland’s former mayor who, after retiring from politics, formed a “light-rail mafia” that milked Portland’s planning process, directing hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and no-bid contracts to his clients and friends. So what if Goldschmidt turned out to be be a statutory rapist? That doesn’t mean anything is wrong with Portland’s planning.
Some of the common order cheap levitra http://www.donssite.com/levitra-2998 recommended supplements for this condition include Vitamin C, D and E. His partner is losing interest towards price for viagra 100mg him. To avoid these problems you have to give tadalafil 5mg no prescription any second thoughts before buying this particular product. A complete, multifaceted ed treatment which improves both mental and generic levitra you can find out more physical relaxation.
Contrary to what O’Toole claims, Portlanders love light rail. After all, 75 percent of them voted for it in 1990, and 65 percent in 1994. In 1996, 55 percent voted for it — that’s practically a landslide, isn’t it? So what if only 47 percent voted for it in 1998? Portland is building it anyway. After all, we live in a democracy, and the way Portland figures, that’s three-to-one in favor. Anyone who disagrees with this logic must be a right-wing nut job.
O’Toole concludes that other cities should look at Portland as an example of how not to plan. Well, yeah — if you want to live in a city that actually tries to do something about congestion instead of lavishing most of its transportation money on the 2.2 percent of travelers who ride transit; or a city that thinks it is more important to keep housing affordable than to spend hundreds of millions of dollars saving open space from being developed in a state that is 98 percent open space; or a city that won’t make homeowners who are probably never going to ride a streetcar pay thousands of dollars each to build it — then don’t follow Portland’s example. But who is so right wing that they would want to live in a place like that?
If you want to live in a city that is really hip — I mean a city that gives ten-year property tax waivers to owners of multi-million dollar condos, a city that subsidizes aerial trams so that doctors who are some of the highest paid workers in the state can get from their hospital to their offices a few minutes faster, and a city where anyone with a mere $299,000 can buy a fabulous fifteen-foot-wide skinny house with its own one-car garage (who says Portland is anti-car?) and its own private yard (nearly five feet on either side of the house — that’s practically sprawl!) — then just ignore O’Toole’s right-wing diatribe and encourage your city to follow Portland’s planning example.
I just did a little dubunking of sprawl at:
http://www.portlandfacts.com/Smart/sprawl/sprawl.htm
Thanks
JK
Jim,
I followed your link and saw your photos. Are those really pictures of housing in Portland? Some of that cookie cutter development looks rather ticky tacky to me.
Ah, Cato. The world’s only right-wing think tank that suports legalization of drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage.
Neal,
Speaking on behalf of JK, yes, those are all Portland. I am pretty sure they are all in East Portland, though one or may be over the line in Gresham. Many if not most were also subsidized with either ten-year property tax waivers, tax-increment financing, or below-market land sales. And yes, they are ticky tacky, many destined to be the future slums of Portland (and one or two might be there already).
Most of the planner’s dream homes are along the East Side toy train line, except the top picture is infill in what was a nice N.E. neighborhood, the third row down brick giant is in the Pearl (Waterfront Urban Renewal District) and the fifth row down is a beautiful pair of row houses in St. Johns.
All of the ugly sprawl pictures are from Southwest Porland, between the Sellwood bridge and Lake Oswego.
Thanks
JK
These homes are pretty ugly. I think the main problem with these houses is the fact that the garage is in the front. It takes up space in the house and the driveway wastes what already is a small front lawn, not to mention it looks very unsightly. If you had the garage facing an alley, a slightly wider lot, and better building materials, it could have turned out much better.
Trumbull,
Maybe putting the garage in back is more aesthetically pleasing to tourists. It is not more serviceable to residents. Moreover, studies show that neighborhoods with alleys have higher crime than ones without.
Ironically, the homes you call ugly are being built all over the Portland area. The city held a competition to see how such “skinny houses” could be designed and received lots of entries. Yet almost every one built looks almost exactly like the ones in JK’s photo (see the one I mention in my post). I suspect it is because developers know people want the easy access to their cars that a garage in front provides.
Given a day to kill driving around Portland I could give you hundreds of photos of newer housing that would make those photos look good. Those are actually not bad compared to the ticky tacky stuff that is everywhere!
“in a state that is 98 percent open space;”
So what do you want to do with all that open space? There is a difference between land, and buildable land. You can’t build homes on Mt. Hood or in the coast range because it would be too expensive.
Removing the urban growth boundary would only be a temporary solution to the affordability problem. Once the metro area has exhausted its supply of buildable land, prices will start to go up again.
[Alleys are] not more serviceable to residents. Moreover, studies show that neighborhoods with alleys have higher crime than ones without.
Empirical evidence, plz for the crime assertion, esp. wrt socioeconomic conditions and environmental attributes (e.g design) in neighborhoods.
Also evidence please that alley-loaded garages are less serviceable to residents, including definition of ‘serviceable’ and ‘resident’.
DS
I’d like to reiterate what Dan said. I’ve never seen anything which indicated that alleys in any way affected the crime rate when controlling for other variables.
Having lived in houses with both front and rear-facing garages I have to say I don’t really see how a rear-facing garage is any less serviceable. The advantage of a rear-facing garage is that you can make the garage nearly the width of your plot, while a the same time allowing your house to be nearly the width of your plot at all (without having to leave room for a driveway).
The advantage of a rear-facing garage is that you can make the garage nearly the width of your plot, while a the same time allowing your house to be nearly the width of your plot at all (without having to leave room for a driveway).
I got interested in urban planning some time ago as I was inventorying urban trees for a precursor to a study that led to a standard research tool. Anyway,
I noticed that after a while my time commitment varied by neighborhood. As I went around town, I had to alter my time commitment for the neighborhoods with alley-loaded garages or non-snouthouses. Why? The neighborhoods that didn’t have snouthouses had more people in their front yards, more kids in the street. These folks would ask me what I was doing, I’d tell them, we’d strike up a conversation, my time for measuring the block would be shot.
The point? Non-snouthouse neighborhoods were more active and curious and had more people outside. This got me wondering why and I went into planning to reproduce this phenomenon. Along the way, I found the precepts promulgated here were in the small minority.
DS
“in a state that is 98 percent open space;”
There is a difference between land, and buildable land. You can’t build a home on Mt. Hood or in the coast range because the terrain wouldn’t allow it.
Removing the urban growth boundaries would only be a temporary solution to the affordability problem. Since the Portland area is surrounded by high hills and mountains and once the buildable land in the metro area is exhausted, prices will go up no matter what.
Now Ed, there’s a big big latent demand, don’t you know, by families for houses 25 miles from pavement.
That’s why cities love to extend infrastructure so far & why school districts like driving buses up snowy hillsides 60 miles from base. And why taxpayers love to have their taxes hiked to have an orderly and efficient provision of services way out there & all dads LOVE to cut grass for 3 hours on the weekend.
DS
back to the report itself… i was amazed how unprofessional it was. the author’s strange attraction to lurid details of oregon’s ex governers illicit sex life were particularly distracting. an all too obvious smear job. his investigation of the so called “light rail mafia” had the analytical thrust of a JFK conspiracy theorist.
worse still, there were a couple points in the summary that were seemingly contradicted in the body of the work.
On July 9th, 2007, Dan said: Empirical evidence, plz for the crime assertion, esp. wrt socioeconomic conditions and environmental attributes (e.g design) in neighborhoods.
Also evidence please that alley-loaded garages are less serviceable to residents, including definition of ‘serviceable’ and ‘resident’.
On July 9th, 2007, Dan said: I noticed that after a while my time commitment varied by neighborhood. As I went around town, I had to alter my time commitment for the neighborhoods with alley-loaded garages or non-snouthouses. Why? The neighborhoods that didn’t have snouthouses had more people in their front yards, more kids in the street. These folks would ask me what I was doing, I’d tell them, we’d strike up a conversation, my time for measuring the block would be shot.
The point? Non-snouthouse neighborhoods were more active and curious and had more people outside. This got me wondering why and I went into planning to reproduce this phenomenon. Along the way, I found the precepts promulgated here were in the small minority.
JK: Empirical evidence, plz for the more people in their front yards, more kids in the street assertion, esp. wrt. Non-snouthouse neighborhoods were more active and curious and had more people outside
Same for precepts promulgated here were in the small minority.
Thanks
JK
Jim:
Dan’s counterargument is obviously not empirical evidence, and IMO does nothing to further the debate. However his original objection is valid, when someone states:
“…putting the garage in back…is not more serviceable to residents. Moreover, studies show that neighborhoods with alleys have higher crime than ones without.”
I think there needs to be a supporting link. Especially when he says “studies show” without a link to said studies. My personal experience makes me think that what he presented as fact is merely an expression of personal taste, but I’m happy to be proven wrong if such studies actually exist. However, if he’s trying to pass off opinion as fact he should apologize.
Dan
Along the way, I found the precepts promulgated here were in the small minority.
JK:
DO you really believe that? If so, what is you evidence that:
1. Most people want to live in high density.
2. Most people want to switch from their cars to mass transit.
3. Most people like congestion.
4. Most people want to pay more for housing.
5. Most people prefer neighborhood markets to super stores
I could go on, but this will be a good start.
Thanks
JK
Thank you doog.
My position is the evidenceless assertion will continue to be evidenceless. I provided anecdotal evidence to the contrary and have the literature at hand should the deafening silence be broken (deafening when the purposeful distractions are ignored). My position is also that many assertions on small-minority ideological sites are evidenceless or are found wanting when scant cherry-picked evidence is examined.
DS
Dan said: My position is the evidenceless assertion will continue to be evidenceless.
JK: Is this an admission that you have no real evidence?
Dan said: I provided anecdotal evidence to the contrary and have the literature at hand should the deafening silence be broken (deafening when the purposeful distractions are ignored).
JK: Just another excuse to avoid showing evidence – further proof that said evidence DOES NOT EXIST.
Dan said: My position is also that many assertions on small-minority ideological sites are evidenceless or are found wanting when scant cherry-picked evidence is examined.
JK: That is what the planning class does.
Here is some real evidence:
High Density CAUSES congestion.
High Density increases cost.
High Density destroys affordable housing.
Mass transit DOES NOT save energy.
Thanks
JK
Here are a few more:
Mass transit DOES NOT reduce pollution.
Mass transit DOES NOT save money.
Europeans are abandoning transit too.:
Automobiles are NOT massive subsidised, transit is..
Here are a few more:
Light rail DOES NOT cause development.
Light rail IS NOT safer than cars.
A single light rail line CANNOT carry as many people as a ten lane freeway.
People DO NOT want high density.
Thanks
JK
Hi JK. I stumbled across this site looking into claims and figures regarding light rail in Portland, which I started looking into as an extention of investigating rail history in Portland, which I started looking into after the wilsonville-beaverton construction came through a rail line near my place of employment.
I may not be most people, but I can affirm half of the five points previously raised.
1. Most people want to live in high density.
I do, up to a point. I have a 50×100 lot a block away from metro-classified high density zone. increased density means that many services are within walking distance from me. it takes me longer to drive to my local market than to walk there.
2. Most people want to switch from their cars to mass transit.
I do, if you add the caveat that mass transit must be able to transport me in the same amount of time (or less) than a car can. Portland mass transit currently takes me roughly twice the amount of time for a few of my common use scenarios. I would be happy not to be responsible for one less car.
5. Most people prefer neighborhood markets to super stores
this ties in with point 1. I can walk to my neighborhood markets, taking more frequent smaller trips. this coupled with smaller shops, fewer employees per shop, and less personnel turnover means the neighborhood shops I frequent know me by sight if not by name, and give me more personalized attention than I ever have at a warehouse store. they are effectively my neighbors. I’m not on a super tight budget, and I’m more than willing to pay a slight markup for the increased convenience and a tailored offering of goods for my neighborhood. the warehouse stores appear more generic in their offerings.
I found this interesting paper, stating that Portland’s development pattern is a net plus, by $2.6 Bn.
DS