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

A)B!x
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...

Justin,

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.

http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/CaltechNews/articles/v38/oil.html

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?

Miles,

THANK YOU!!

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,

THANK YOU!!

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 was...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 ;-)