Detail, east Portland photo, courtesy Miles Hochstein / Portland Ground.

For old times' sake
The bojack bumper sticker -- only $1.50!

To order, click here.

Excellent tunes -- free! And on your browser right now. Just click on Radio Bojack!

E-mail us here.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on July 7, 2005 9:30 PM. The previous post in this blog was A stop in Albany. The next post in this blog is Message to Super Vicki. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.



Law and Taxation
How Appealing
TaxProf Blog
Mauled Again
Tax Appellate Blog
A Taxing Matter
Josh Marquis
Native America, Discovered and Conquered
The Yin Blog
Ernie the Attorney
Above the Law
The Volokh Conspiracy
Going Concern
Bag and Baggage
Wealth Strategies Journal
Jim Hamilton's World of Securities Regulation
World of Work
The Faculty Lounge
Lowering the Bar
OrCon Law

Hap'nin' Guys
Tony Pierce
Parkway Rest Stop
Along the Gradyent
Dwight Jaynes
Bob Borden
Dingleberry Gazette
The Red Electric
Iced Borscht
Jeremy Blachman
Dean's Rhetorical Flourish
Straight White Guy
As Time Goes By
Dave Wagner
Jeff Selis
Alas, a Blog
Scott Hendison
The View Through the Windshield
Appliance Blog
The Bleat

Hap'nin' Gals
My Whim is Law
Lelo in Nopo
Attorney at Large
Linda Kruschke
The Non-Consumer Advocate
10 Steps to Finding Your Happy Place
A Pig of Success
Attorney at Large
Margaret and Helen
Kimberlee Jaynes
Cornelia Seigneur
And Sew It Goes
Mile 73
Rainy Day Thoughts
That Black Girl
Posie Gets Cozy
Cat Eyes
Rhi in Pink
Ragwaters, Bitters, and Blue Ruin
Rose City Journal
Type Like the Wind

Portland and Oregon
Isaac Laquedem
Rantings of a [Censored] Bus Driver
Jeff Mapes
Vintage Portland
The Portlander
South Waterfront
Amanda Fritz
O City Hall Reporters
Guilty Carnivore
Old Town by Larry Norton
The Alaunt
Bend Blogs
Lost Oregon
Cafe Unknown
Tin Zeroes
David's Oregon Picayune
Mark Nelsen's Weather Blog
Travel Oregon Blog
Portland Daily Photo
Portland Building Ads
Portland Food and
Dave Knows Portland
Idaho's Portugal
Alameda Old House History
MLK in Motion

Retired from Blogging
Various Observations...
The Daily E-Mail
Saving James
Portland Freelancer
Furious Nads (b!X)
Izzle Pfaff
The Grich
Kevin Allman
AboutItAll - Oregon
Lost in the Details
Worldwide Pablo
Tales from the Stump
Whitman Boys
Two Pennies
This Stony Planet
1221 SW 4th
I am a Fish
Here Today
What If...?
Superinky Fixations
The Rural Bus Route
Another Blogger
Mikeyman's Computer Treehouse
Portland Housing Blog

Wonderfully Wacky
Dave Barry
Borowitz Report
Stuff White People Like
Worst of the Web

Valuable Time-Wasters
My Gallery of Jacks
Litterbox, On the Prowl
Litterbox, Bag of Bones
Litterbox, Scratch
Ride That Donkey
Singin' Horses
Rally Monkey
Simon Swears
Strong Bad's E-mail

Oregon News
The Oregonian
Portland Tribune
Willamette Week
The Sentinel
Southeast Examiner
Northwest Examiner
Sellwood Bee
Mid-County Memo
Vancouver Voice
Eugene Register-Guard
OPB - Portland
Salem Statesman-Journal
Oregon Capitol News
Portland Business Journal
Daily Journal of Commerce
Oregon Business
Portland Info Net
McMinnville News Register
Lake Oswego Review
The Daily Astorian
Bend Bulletin
Corvallis Gazette-Times
Roseburg News-Review
Medford Mail-Tribune
Ashland Daily Tidings
Newport News-Times
Albany Democrat-Herald
The Eugene Weekly
Portland IndyMedia
The Columbian

The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Steve Earle
Joe Ely
Stevie Wonder
Lou Rawls

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Thursday, July 7, 2005

Oh my God! You're kidding!

This morning, while I was eating my fruity granola breakfast (literally and figuratively), I didn't mess with The Oregonian. Instead, remembering the adage about "when in Rome," I flipped through the Eugene Register-Guard.

But upon my return home, I did open today's O to catch a hard-hitting front page story by the guy I like least in all of Portland media. That's right, readers, it's Randy Gragg, the O's architecture critic (or something like that), and, based on the way that paper operates, likely the nephew of editor Sandy Rowe. Anyway, the O ran a big front-page splash, with lots more coverage on the cover of, and inside, the enclosed InPortland magazine. In it, the Graggmeister, exercising his full journalistic might, informs us, that... wait a minute, stop the presses, get ready for a scoop, this is really a big one....

The Pearl District is a lousy place to raise kids, and very few people are dumb enough to try.

Holy moly! You don't say.

Even funnier than the huge play that this obvious fact gets, is the tone that's taken in Gragg's "analysis" of the situation. There's an aura of mystery and wonderment about it. How did this happen? We built huge condo and apartment towers with no real neighborhood around them, settled for a small concrete slab and fountain which we had the nerve to call a "park," and gee whiz, families won't live there. How in the world could this have taken place?

Gee, Randy, I would have thought that your hero, Charlie Hales, who was running a lot of things at City Hall when the Pearl "blossomed," might have told you the reason over coffee. Maybe he did and you were too starstruck to write it down. Or you could have kept talking to Portland's 200 or so paid urban planners, whom I thought we were paying millions to actually think about questions like these in a timely manner, until someone gave you a square answer.

Anyway, let me tell you why there are no kids in the Pearl District: Because families and kids weren't on Homer Williams and Joe Weston and Neil Goldschmidt's punch list of how to get rich down there. And when they said "Jump," Vera Katz and Sam Adams and Erik Sten all responded, "How high?"

And that's exactly why the South Waterfront isn't going to have any kids in it, either.

The article adds to the hilarity by contrasting the Pearl with a new development in Vancouver, B.C., where there are gaggles of youngsters living in the high-rises. Suddenly Gragg suggests that we ought to do (or should have done) what was done up there.

You see, that's the whole problem. When the Developer Welfare recipients have a "vision" for Portland, that's just how they sell it. We'll be another Vancouver, B.C. We'll be another Barcelona. To this day you can hear Tom Imeson whispering these sweet nothings to Sam Adams over the Caesar salad at Higgins.

What we should be doing is asking, how do we keep being Portland? What has brought so many immigrants to this place? What makes it attractive? What is its history? What are its core values? If we ask these questions, we do not get the Pearl or South Waterfront as the answers. In contrast, when we're always trying to be like somebody else -- and the identity of that somebody else changes depending on the latest spiel being ladled out by the condo moneybags -- we have every right to expect a massive planning failure.

The kind of failure that Gragg's story has belatedly noticed.

And of course, now that it's too late to do anything about it, the O is right on the case.

Comments (37)

Duno about anyone else, but I've been waiting all day for you to get to this one. Heh.

"Now that it's too late to do anything about it, the O is right on the case."

I gotta hand it to you Jack, that's the best slogan for the O that I've heard. They really should run that on the front cover - truth in advertising, and all that.

Nah...I was waiting as well. Was looking for you at the pool, no less...

I have some pointed comments myself to make about it as well - but it'll happen tomorrow.

Another extremely odd assertion in the story is the statement that unlike in Vancouver, the city had no leverage over the developers in the Pearl. Since the properties were zoned for highrise, the article suggests, there was nothing the city could do to prevent the district from becoming a childless particle board skyscraper jungle.

What trash. The city bent over backwards, spending millions upon millions on infrastructure and granting obscene amounts of tax abatements to those properties. We built and agreed to pay to operate an entire streetcar system for these people, for crying out loud. If the city had really cared in the least about kid-friendly amenities, it could have held back all the handouts unless and until the presence of those amenities was assured.

Then there's Homer talking about how there would have been children's facilities if "the market had wanted them." For the King of Municipal Handouts to be hiding behind the wisdom of market forces at this late date is positively obscene.

Oh -- and there's no need for the Pearl to be a real neighborhood, as "the streetcar line will be the neighborhood." This town is now officially off its rocker.

"I'm going to try to lay off him for a while."

"No really, that was it, I'm laying off."

Quick Quiz:

Who wrote the above quotes in a June 29 blog about Randy Gragg?

Was it

B)Brian Libby
C)Randy Leonard
D)Jack Bog

The Answer.... (drumroll please) ... D) Mr. Bog.

Apparently, in tax professor legalize "a little while" means "one week".

Though, in all honesty, I was hoping you would post something about Gragg's article. If you're becoming Lars Larson, then Gragg is the Democratic party, and that makes for ...good times... good times...


I took Jack's choice to "lay off" Gragg as a personal decision to scale back any gratuitous kvetching about him for a while.

But when Gragg pokes his head up to try to spin away some of the increasingly obvious criticisms of Portland's recent urban planning projects during Jack's self-imposed detente, well, he deserves a reaction like this.

I say pass the ammunition.

If they're going to run him on the front page, I can't resist.

The difference between Vancouver and Portland is peppered all over that column, take a look:

"the city required"
"The city of Vancouver required"
"developments must have"
"Vancouver requires"
"they demanded"

And so on.

I'm glad Jack wrote what he did. I just couldn't resist poking fun.

Is it too late to have Beaverton annex the Pearl District? I mean, they've already got The Round--they might as well complete a monopoly on urban renewal boondoggles for what it's worth.

Am I still banned? This is a test

OK, now that I'm not banned, I can comment. Leaving aside the Gragg stuff (I won't defend him), how many children were there living in the industrial area before the Pearl came to be what it is now? My guess is, not many.

I think it's funny that Jack is objecting to the fact that the Pearl doesn't support kids -- I thought he was just opposed to the outright existence of the Pearl.

What is your ideal vision for the area north of Burnside and West of the river, Jack? Old, unused industrial warehouses? Single family housing units? Office buildings?

I think the Pearl will continue to evolve. I don't know if it will ever be teeming with kids -- but it might evolve into something different down the line. Too soon to tell. But not, apparently, too soon to snark.

Chris--I think the problem is that even though the city planners should have known that it is generally good for a city to have lots of families, they designed the Pearl (and SoWa) in such a way that families would never want to live there. I mean, what was it, 25 KIDS live in the Pearl? That is laughably absurd.

Yes, the Pearl can evolve, but the article makes it clear that "family friendly" places need certain features, none of which the Pearl has. So it's hard to see how it will ever evolve in that direction without direct intervention, and with the paucity of buildable land there now, it's hard to see where we'll build parks, schools, day care centers, etc. that kids and families need.

Chris G.,
I've never got the idea that Jack was against the Pearl, per se, but with the way the Pearl was implemented. Huge waste of money, and not very useful. Kind of like most other things he is against.
Personally, I don't think the Pearl will evolve into anything other than what it is, or a run-down version of same. Aside from tearing down the buildings and starting over, there's not a good way to improve upon the situation.

The article does touch on what may be a structural difference in the position of Vancouver and Portland.

Vancouver is the "beneficiary" of the Hong Kong uncertainty factor, immigration, and it's status as the largest city in Canada's West. This positions it to regulate and mandate in a political culture that is more comfortable with regulation in the first place. But just in structural terms, where else are the people and the money going to go in Western Canada?

Portland is in a structurally weaker position in the Western US. People and money have other options, other large cities to build in. And so developers have greater structural power (I hypothesize) to write their own tickets, set their own terms, and local politicians have perhaps less power to tell them how it is going to be.

This is an explanation, not an excuse.

Here's the reality though. Oil futures are at $60/barrel and heading up. We are at or nearing the peak of global oil production, and the entire world is on the verge of a radical change in the relationship between transportation, work and residential housing. High density urban housing is the world of the future, and your house in the distant suburbs will soon enough feel like a noose around your neck as you scramble for the $10/gallon gasoline to get you there and back.

It's not too late to make the downtown a better place for children, and everybody else, and the global oil economy makes the process of seeking a low transportation life inevitable for everyone.

Should far sighted city leaders get ahead of the changes that the the cost of energy will drive... or just wait for $10/gallon gas to work its magic on the market?

It's not clear whether Vancouver's child population is regulation driven (the structural factors I alluded to) or demand driven (article cites immigrants accustomed to high rise family living) or both, but notwithstanding the structural explanation, still the energy and transportation cost equation is bound to create demand for in-city family friendly housing in Portland and I have to believe that developers will wake up to it very soon.

The oil is running out, and the world will change.

I would like to know why it is wrong to have an area of town where people can live without kids. I'm not saying I don't like kids. I love kids, and would like to have kids one day. Maybe no kids in the Pearl has more to do with Portland Schools and parents moving out to "better" school districts than it does the lack of parks. Or maybe they feel the suburbs are better for the children to run and play. Who knows? Still I don't know why it is wrong for the Pearl to be lacking kids?

AND I have to agree with a previous post. Let's keep Portland, Portland; not BC, or any other city. I love Portland, which is why I moved here. It is one of America's unique cities with its own feel and flavor. Let's make our own city!

Chris: how many people lived underwater before the submarine was invented? Not many? Oh really?

It wasn't physically possible to live underwater before the sub? Isn't that also true for families living in a zoned commercial warehouse district?



I don't know what Jack's objection to the article is, but I can think of two. 1) The Pearl *could* have been family friendly but now it's too late and what a surprise, it's only now that the O is finding out, or 2) What absurdity, to even think a place like the Pearl could *ever* be family friendly.

My own reaction is definitely (2). Please! Vancouver BC is chock full of Asian immigrants with long experience of raising families in very tight quarters. Gragg massively underplays this--HEY! Where are the sociologists when you need them!--and massively overplays the role of city regulations.

Don't get me wrong--a few additional real parks, not artsy fountains and meditation gardens would be nice. But few families are going to choose to raise their children in a crowded, noisy, grassless and treeless zone with no closeby schools, parks (not one block size mini parks, I mean *parks*, grocery stores, etc. etc.

Most parents don't have the time or the disposable income to eat every night at bluehour and shop at whole foods and live in a small 2 bedroom 300k condo.

Not when you can still spend the same amount of money and have a house with a yard and a fence and other families nearby and *still* be just a few blocks from all the urban amenities you need. I'm thinking Hawthorne, Belmont, Sellwood, Multnomah Village, Irvington, the list goes on and on.

Finally an easy Miles,


I don't know what Jack's objection to the article is, but I can think of two. 1) The Pearl *could* have been family friendly but now it's too late and what a surprise, it's only now that the O is finding out, or 2) What absurdity, to even think a place like the Pearl could *ever* be family friendly.

My own reaction is definitely (2). Please! Vancouver BC is chock full of Asian immigrants with long experience of raising families in very tight quarters. Gragg massively underplays this--HEY! Where are the sociologists when you need them!--and massively overplays the role of city regulations.

Don't get me wrong--a few additional real parks, not artsy fountains and meditation gardens would be nice. But few families are going to choose to raise their children in a crowded, noisy, grassless and treeless zone with no closeby schools, parks (not one block size mini parks, I mean *parks*, grocery stores, etc. etc.

Most parents don't have the time or the disposable income to eat every night at bluehour and shop at whole foods and live in a small 2 bedroom 300k condo.

Not when you can still spend the same amount of money and have a house with a yard and a fence and other families nearby and *still* be just a few blocks from all the urban amenities you need. I'm thinking Hawthorne, Belmont, Sellwood, Multnomah Village, Irvington, the list goes on and on.

Finally an easy

This Portland urban fantasy of families in S. Waterfront and the Pearl is just that--a fantasy. Give it up!

If you're interested in families, let's focus on how Portland can encourage affordable housing and good working class jobs and maintain reasonable transportation out at Gateway, and Raleigh Hills, and Lents and etc etc etc. That's where the families are and that's where they'll stay.

How about an article on skinny houses?

Paul just said what I said in my post over here.

Although I didn't comment about the folly of retrofitting the Pearl to add in the parks and amenities to attract the kids who won't move there anyway after the fact - while you let existing resources where there already are children and families wither away. How much money is Parks and Rec spending now to refurbish Parks in inner NW? (I remember hearing figures in the millions earlier this spring.)

And how much money is it not willing to spend on, say, Buckman Pool?

Jack thought it would be a great idea to develop the South Waterfront with about 700 single-family houses on 5,000 square foot lots. Then we could have a "much-needed" "family-friendly" single-family neighborhood for rich people who can afford houses at a half-million or so, just like Irvington, Alameda, Eastmoreland, the West Hills, Laurelhurst ...

Wait a minute! We have single-family housing for rich people in this city already? Who'd a' thunk it?

Hey Matt,

I'm just saying, did Jack (or anyone) intend for the Pearl to be full of families? Was that a stated mission of city planners? I'm not so sure it's not like families have been driven out of the Pearl. They have plenty of housing options.

Knowing what Jack wanted the Pearl to be (if anything) and how its fallen short of his goals would be helpful. As far as I know, he has not expressed a desire for it to be much of anything -- he just wants Portland to stay the same as it was when he moved here.

I mean, if the Pearl Dist. and SoWa were big industrial centers, there'd still be tons of traffic and noise and all the stuff Jack says he hates. But you wouldn't be able to stroll leisurely through them on a weekend, going to Urban Grind or the Daily Cafe or any of the other nice places to hang out down there now.

Hearing Jack say what he WANTS for these districts instead of what he DOESN'T want would be a nice change. Propose something, Jack!!!!!!

Also, isn't it interesting to note the Tribune article today showing the Portland metro area is actually growing faster than planned? Geez, I guess the Pearl and SoWa will be necessary in order to reduce sprawl.

And and there's a bit in the Trib also about that gelato place opening near Jack that he hates. Ha! I guess this just isn't Jack's day...

Portland's downtown adult condo and apartment housing trend is not unique. In addition to Vancouver, the trend can be found in Seattle's Belltown neighborhood and downtown San Diego. A recent article in the American Planning Association's Planning Magazine by Mark Hinshaw (unfortunately not available generally on the web) talks about the trend, and extols it.

This is just another reason to unreasonably bash the Pearl, a pretty common occurrence on this site. But SOMEONE'S got to defend it ... The answer is to design the South Waterfront to be more kid-friendly, not to abandon the whole project and go back into our turtle shells.

Well thank you in turn Paul, but I'm going to disagree.

Family friendliness is the simplest most direct measure of civilization. A world without children is a dead world.

A world that is safe and inviting for children is a world that is worth living in for everyone.

A city that invites parents to be present in it with their children is alive and good and just and fair... a city that does not invite parents with children is a failure.

Children are a test of who we are as a human society... and the Pearl district so far fails that test miserably.

I offered an explanation of why it might be more difficult the city of Portland (compared to Vancouver BC) to leverage any power to create a city in which children can live... but the fact that it hasn't succeeded in doing this is a tragedy.... a tragedy of capitalism, a tragedy of federalism, a tragedy of the oil economy... attribute it to what you will.

I choose to live in NE Portland with young children.... but apparently not so many people are doing that.

The relative absence of children is the Pearl's and Portland's profound loss.

Renovating abandoned Pearl warehouses into housing was a great, great thing. But after that, I wish we would have had blocks of regular Portland houses, and buildings like the Sellwood Lofts and the Belmont Dairy. A couple of new Tri-Met bus lines running through. Maybe even some row houses. And of course, a park that deserves to be called a Portland park.

It would have been far cheaper, wildly successful, and a symbol of this city's commitment to its livability.

Homer Williams would have wanted no part of that. So be it.

Instead, we decided that whatever some guy in Urban Planning Gazette thinks is best for San Diego must be best for us. Don't look now, but I see lots of vacant apartments in the Pearl. And the future will not be kind to the place.

We're repeating the mistakes, in an even bigger way, in North Macadam.

As a newcomer to PDX who works in the Pearl - I share the sense that the multistory apts and condos will not stand the test of time. FWIW - I'm a single 30 something professional who chose to NOT look for housing in the Pearl because it seemed too $$$ and too trendy in a cookie cutter fashion. The retail mix in the Pearl reflects (I think) the eclecticism of the Portland ethos. The housing mix in the Pearl does not.

I'm not sure if 'typical' Portland homes would have worked in the Pearl area - but rowhouses (3br/2.5ba) lining common green spaces (a'la the Park Blocks) interspersed with lofts/warehouse condo conversions - the appeal would have been wider.

This is another example, in a lengthy list, of why what goes on around here should not be referred to as "planning".

Genuine "planning" would require the consideration and inclusion of some very basic components to a functioning community.

What about the children?,,,,, apparently never occurred to "them" the planners.

Any honest and informed look at our so-called
"planning" reveals many such lapses.

Tremendous contradictions reign supreme as the
dysfunction surfaces in many forms.

One dramatic example of obvious "planning" incompetence is the attempt to stick a pizza parlor with $30,000 TRAFFIC IMPACT fee for simply moving across the street contrasted by South Waterfront having NO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY at all.

How's that for "planning".

It aint planning folks.

It's convoluted and perpetual conceptualization.
Ushered along with delusion and followed by the bobbing and weaving excuse making Gragg is good at.

Gragg who referred to the airport MAX as the "only privately built light rail line to an airport in the country" is hopelessly dishonest and disconnected from reality.

Worse, is whatever acknowledgments of shortcomings he makes in the Pearl is about to be multiplied as decisions to do much more of the same promises more of the same results.

All the while emerging planning blogs are declaring wild successes. &%#@()&

I may be way off the mark here, but doesn't downtown Portland have a substantial amount of buildable land in its core? I see many surface parking lots and decrepit abandoned buildings that could be replaced with the same (or better/taller) condo towers used in the Pearl. I also think these stupid regulations limiting building height are another reason Portland is building out, instead of up -- Portland's version of urban sprawl.

I have to agree with Jack et al that the Pearl was merely a cash-cow for Homer Williams and his ilk.

I'll also digress here a tad, but I and my family live in Beaverton on a 8,000 sq ft. lot. It's an older, middle-class neighborhood within walking distance to a grade school, a park, a greenway with bike paths, a 7-11, a laundromat and grocery/drug store. I'm able get most necessities accomplished without ever using my car.

I think it's unfair to bash the 'burbs with accusations of sprawl and bad planning. Many suburban areas keep the majority of residents within their neighborhood -- and without the superfluous streetcar or tram. The idea that downtown Portland will become some sort of dense, residential mecca is a joke. Most families like having a yard, parks and schools nearby. I doubt downtown will ever achieve that.

"But after that, I wish we would have had blocks of regular Portland houses, and buildings like the Sellwood Lofts and the Belmont Dairy."

I agree with a previous comment that argued that 1) Any low-density housing solution in the Pearl would have resulted in painfully unaffordable and probably unsellable units. 2) Central Portland (including Irvington, Alameda, Laurelhurst, East Moreland, West Hills) already has PLENTY of overpriced single family housing.

But I'd also like to add that dense high-rise housing is found in our neighborhood's most successful inner city neighborhoods, from DC's Dupont Circle to Philadelphia's Rittenhouse Square. Single family housing adjacent to central commercial districts is almost unheard of.

Finally I want to express irritation with the notion that planning for one (or two if you include) neighborhood which represent an extremely small portion of new or existing housing stock in this city does not constitute our expression of values across "society", the "city" or any other dramatic, wide scale, statement about Portland's view toward children.

most successful inner city neighborhoods, from DC's Dupont Circle to Philadelphia's Rittenhouse Square

Yep, that's right. Portland needs to emulate Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. -- two of the most unlivable places in the country. Keep talking, you're making my case for me.

already has PLENTY of overpriced single family housing

And you know why it's overpriced, my socialist friend? Because there isn't enough of it!

I wouldn't suggest that we should emulate them, only that they stand as examples of vibrant neighborhoods without kids. Why not learn from successes (or failures), here and elsewhere?

As for the notion that adding a few hundred housing units downtown will increase affordability across the metro area, or relieve pressure in nearby expensive neighborhoods, I'll trust you're aware of how silly that sounds...

So Jack Bog, you ARE in favor of sprawl after all, so we can all live on our single-family lots. 700 more single-family homes on the South Waterfront wouldn't make dent in demand to affect prices.

But wait, you've also indicated in other posts that you might be a no-growther. You want to see housing prices rise some more? That policy prescription would certainly do the trick.

Now that I've stopped sneering, there is a middle way that makes sense, and your Belmont Dairy comment was a pretty good one.

I'll trust you're aware of how silly that sounds...

Not as silly as touting Philadelphia and DC as models for urban living.

I don't know if they teach this at Colgate, Nolan, but there's this thing called supply and demand. The reason Portland's inner neighborhoods are so expensive is, that's what people come to this area to get. If we'd build what people want instead of what "planning" geniuses (and money grubbing developers) tell us we have to want (with "progressive" politicians in tiger suits and bow ties repeating it over and over), it would be a much better city.

Get the last word for now, if you must, but history will put the Pearl District right in there with South Auditorium -- high-rise mistakes that seemed both glamorous and "progressive" at the time. By then you'll be the congressman from Philadelphia.

Gordo, the Pearl blows, and even The Oregonian is starting to see that. Have a nice weekend anyway.

The Pearl -- housing, restaurants, shoppes -- was built for the latest wave of New Californian immigrants, relatively young, relatively well-off, relatively (and then some) full of themselves. Those who planned it and paved way for it glory in the vision -- and the reality. To Adam, who said "Let's make our own city!" ... you will & have.

I suppose it's a question of whether newcomers change the place or the place changes the newcomers, but the Pearl has never been Portland. Portland may become more & more like the Pearl.

I think some of you are missing a big popintin South Waterfront an the Pearl.
It's the hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars being diverted to these development schemes.
What ever shape South Waterfront would have taken there is ample proof it would have been far preferrable to what is now happening. And without the bending of the zoning rules, overcrowding and tax givewaways.
Those who continue to push the SoWa plan are liars, theives and/or the naieve, period.

"The Portland streetcar helps tie it all together"

Today's O editorial demonstrates the ultra stupidity which guides the city.

The editorial, while addressing the need to now accommodate children, (something which never dawned on them earlier) in the Pearl and South Waterfront lists some current amenities and then.
"The Portland streetcar helps tie it all together"

What the heck is that doing in this piece.

Is Diane Linn working at the O?
Is Bob Caldwell also Gordo?

700 houses? Gordo, why is it you folly along with the extreme opposite in defending South Waterfront? There are many forms the district could take that accommodate every conceivable need and without hundred of millions of tax dollars.

If only it emulated the Kruse Way area, the most successful mixed use in the State it would shine. Instead we get 325ft. high rises, excessive density and overcrowding and the rest of the nonsense you support with more nonsense.

The Pearl buildings all have toxic mold growing in them anyway, so it's probably best that kids aren't exposed ;-)


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Oh my God! You're kidding!:

» Why should there be kids in The Pearl? from My Whim Is Law
Of course there aren't kids living in the Pearl District - but instead of lamenting that state or trying to retrofit it? I'd argue that it makes perfect sense and isn't worth fixing. That means, of course, that you should... [Read More]


As a lawyer/blogger, I get
to be a member of:

In Vino Veritas

Lange, Pinot Gris 2015
Kiona, Lemberger 2014
Willamette Valley, Pinot Gris 2015
Aix, Rosé de Provence 2016
Marchigüe, Cabernet 2013
Inazío Irruzola, Getariako Txakolina Rosé 2015
Maso Canali, Pinot Grigio 2015
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Kirkland, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2016
Cantele, Salice Salentino Reserva 2013
Whispering Angel, Côtes de Provence Rosé 2013
Avissi, Prosecco
Cleto Charli, Lambrusco di Sorbara Secco, Vecchia Modena
Pique Poul, Rosé 2016
Edmunds St. John, Bone-Jolly Rosé 2016
Stoller, Pinot Noir Rosé 2016
Chehalem, Inox Chardonnay 2015
The Four Graces, Pinot Gris 2015
Gascón, Colosal Red 2013
Cardwell Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
L'Ecole No. 41, Merlot 2013
Della Terra, Anonymus
Willamette Valley, Dijon Clone Chardonnay 2013
Wraith, Cabernet, Eidolon Estate 2012
Januik, Red 2015
Tomassi, Valpolicella, Rafaél, 2014
Sharecropper's Pinot Noir 2013
Helix, Pomatia Red Blend 2013
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
Campo Viejo, Rioja Reserva 2011
Villa Antinori, Toscana 2013
Locations, Spanish Red Wine
Locations, Argentinian Red Wine
La Antigua Clásico, Rioja 2011
Shatter, Grenache, Maury 2012
Argyle, Vintage Brut 2011
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16 Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2014
Benton Hill, Pinot Gris 2015
Primarius, Pinot Gris 2015
Januik, Merlot 2013
Napa Cellars, Cabernet 2013
J. Bookwalter, Protagonist 2012
LAN, Rioja Edicion Limitada 2011
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Rutherford 2009
Denada Cellars, Cabernet, Maipo Valley 2014
Marchigüe, Cabernet, Colchagua Valley 2013
Oberon, Cabernet 2014
Hedges, Red Mountain 2012
Balboa, Rose of Grenache 2015
Ontañón, Rioja Reserva 2015
Three Horse Ranch, Pinot Gris 2014
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
Nelms Road, Merlot 2013
Chateau Ste. Michelle, Pinot Gris 2014
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2012
Conn Creek, Cabernet, Napa 2013
Villa Maria, Sauvignon Blanc 2015
G3, Cabernet 2013
Chateau Smith, Cabernet, Washington State 2014
Abacela, Vintner's Blend #16
Willamette Valley, Rose of Pinot Noir, Whole Clusters 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Ca' del Baio Barbaresco Valgrande 2012
Goodfellow, Reserve Pinot Gris, Clover 2014
Lugana, San Benedetto 2014
Wente, Cabernet, Charles Wetmore 2011
La Espera, Cabernet 2011
King Estate, Pinot Gris 2015
Adelsheim, Pinot Gris 2015
Trader Joe's, Pinot Gris, Willamette Valley 2015
La Vite Lucente, Toscana Red 2013
St. Francis, Cabernet, Sonoma 2013
Kendall-Jackson, Pinot Noir, California 2013
Beaulieu, Cabernet, Napa Valley 2013
Erath, Pinot Noir, Estate Selection 2012
Abbot's Table, Columbia Valley 2014
Intrinsic, Cabernet 2014
Oyster Bay, Pinot Noir 2010
Occhipinti, SP68 Bianco 2014
Layer Cake, Shiraz 2013
Desert Wind, Ruah 2011
WillaKenzie, Pinot Gris 2014
Abacela, Fiesta Tempranillo 2013
Des Amis, Rose 2014
Dunham, Trautina 2012
RoxyAnn, Claret 2012
Del Ri, Claret 2012
Stoppa, Emilia, Red 2004
Primarius, Pinot Noir 2013
Domaines Bunan, Bandol Rose 2015
Albero, Bobal Rose 2015
Deer Creek, Pinot Gris 2015
Beaulieu, Rutherford Cabernet 2013
Archery Summit, Vireton Pinot Gris 2014
King Estate, Pinot Gris, Backbone 2014
Oberon, Napa Cabernet 2013
Apaltagua, Envero Carmenere Gran Reserva 2013
Chateau des Arnauds, Cuvee des Capucins 2012
Nine Hats, Red 2013
Benziger, Cabernet, Sonoma 2012
Roxy Ann, Claret 2012
Januik, Merlot 2012
Conundrum, White 2013
St. Francis, Sonoma Cabernet 2012

The Occasional Book

Marc Maron - Waiting for the Punch
Phil Stanford - Rose City Vice
Kenneth R. Feinberg - What is Life Worth?
Kent Haruf - Our Souls at Night
Peter Carey - True History of the Kelly Gang
Suzanne Collins - The Hunger Games
Amy Stewart - Girl Waits With Gun
Philip Roth - The Plot Against America
Norm Macdonald - Based on a True Story
Christopher Buckley - Boomsday
Ryan Holiday - The Obstacle is the Way
Ruth Sepetys - Between Shades of Gray
Richard Adams - Watership Down
Claire Vaye Watkins - Gold Fame Citrus
Markus Zusak - I am the Messenger
Anthony Doerr - All the Light We Cannot See
James Joyce - Dubliners
Cheryl Strayed - Torch
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Saul Bellow - Mister Sammler's Planet
Phil Stanford - White House Call Girl
John Kaplan & Jon R. Waltz - The Trial of Jack Ruby
Kent Haruf - Eventide
David Halberstam - Summer of '49
Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead
Maria Dermoȗt - The Ten Thousand Things
William Faulkner - As I Lay Dying
Markus Zusak - The Book Thief
Christopher Buckley - Thank You for Smoking
William Shakespeare - Othello
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything
Cheryl Strayed - Tiny Beautiful Things
Sara Varon - Bake Sale
Stephen King - 11/22/63
Paul Goldstein - Errors and Omissions
Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Steve Martin - Born Standing Up: A Comic's Life
Beverly Cleary - A Girl from Yamhill, a Memoir
Kent Haruf - Plainsong
Hope Larson - A Wrinkle in Time, the Graphic Novel
Rudyard Kipling - Kim
Peter Ames Carlin - Bruce
Fran Cannon Slayton - When the Whistle Blows
Neil Young - Waging Heavy Peace
Mark Bego - Aretha Franklin, the Queen of Soul (2012 ed.)
Jenny Lawson - Let's Pretend This Never Happened
J.D. Salinger - Franny and Zooey
Charles Dickens - A Christmas Carol
Timothy Egan - The Big Burn
Deborah Eisenberg - Transactions in a Foreign Currency
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. - Slaughterhouse Five
Kathryn Lance - Pandora's Genes
Cheryl Strayed - Wild
Fyodor Dostoyevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
Jack London - The House of Pride, and Other Tales of Hawaii
Jack Walker - The Extraordinary Rendition of Vincent Dellamaria
Colum McCann - Let the Great World Spin
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
Harper Lee - To Kill a Mockingbird
Emma McLaughlin & Nicola Kraus - The Nanny Diaries
Brian Selznick - The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Sharon Creech - Walk Two Moons
Keith Richards - Life
F. Sionil Jose - Dusk
Natalie Babbitt - Tuck Everlasting
Justin Halpern - S#*t My Dad Says
Mark Herrmann - The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law
Barry Glassner - The Gospel of Food
Phil Stanford - The Peyton-Allan Files
Jesse Katz - The Opposite Field
Evelyn Waugh - Brideshead Revisited
J.K. Rowling - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
David Sedaris - Holidays on Ice
Donald Miller - A Million Miles in a Thousand Years
Mitch Albom - Have a Little Faith
C.S. Lewis - The Magician's Nephew
F. Scott Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
William Shakespeare - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Ivan Doig - Bucking the Sun
Penda Diakité - I Lost My Tooth in Africa
Grace Lin - The Year of the Rat
Oscar Hijuelos - Mr. Ives' Christmas
Madeline L'Engle - A Wrinkle in Time
Steven Hart - The Last Three Miles
David Sedaris - Me Talk Pretty One Day
Karen Armstrong - The Spiral Staircase
Charles Larson - The Portland Murders
Adrian Wojnarowski - The Miracle of St. Anthony
William H. Colby - Long Goodbye
Steven D. Stark - Meet the Beatles
Phil Stanford - Portland Confidential
Rick Moody - Garden State
Jonathan Schwartz - All in Good Time
David Sedaris - Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Anthony Holden - Big Deal
Robert J. Spitzer - The Spirit of Leadership
James McManus - Positively Fifth Street
Jeff Noon - Vurt

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 5
At this date last year: 3
Total run in 2017: 113
In 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269

Clicky Web Analytics