I'd like to comment but they've got us packed in so tight, I barely have room to move my arms.

In theory, the corner lot provisions could increase density by the amount described, but EVERY corner lot owner would have to tear down their house and replace it with a duplex. Not likely to happen.

To generate such supporting statistics, your reader also assumes that every R5 block is 200' x 200'. In my neighborhood they are 200' x 460' which yields half as many corner lots.

Zoning has all sorts of weird quirks. If you are against density I guess this is a problem. I always assumed that this was a good goal - reducing transit time, sprawl and all. I have a hard time seeing Portland as cramped.

The owners of houses on corner lots can also tear them down, or add on, to make two housing units, and sometimes a third bonus housing unit, and then use them as adult foster care facilities, thus getting 15 residents into a space that on the surface looks like it's zoned for one single-family home.

as long as growth is considered positive, inevitable and imminent, density is required. "planners" don't determine this--politicians do. Gil Kelley's position is, in effect, a politician functioning as a planner.

i'm not against the amorphous concept of "density"--Portland's been growing denser in spurts for 150 years--i'm against the concept of growth and urban development as an abstract, inevitable force that we simply accomodate and guide.

like the UGB, which seems more a set of reins on a half-wild horse rather than a strong fence around a farm. ultimately, you run out of land and the UGB becomes meaningless; under current beliefs, all that's left to argue is when, not if.

Maintain the balance of change vs. stability in a city has got to be a tricky job. Hard to say what the right answer is but slow steady growth is probably the best option. Negative growth is death for a city, just look at Detroit, MI for an example of that. Manhattan is the other extreme where rapid growth plus a natural boundry forced the growth upwards. Not too many single family homes with white picket fences on 5000 sq ft lots anymore in Manhattan.

I think the biggest problem in Portland is the fact that the city officials are arrogant p**cks. They believe they "know the truth" about how the city should look and they don't really communicate with the public. They do have sham "input" sessions but they stack the deck in their favor whenever possible. Of course on the flip side, the folks of Portland keep electing these **** back into office so I guess Portland gets the public officials that they deserve.

According to the City's Chapter 33.110.240.E (pdf):

Duplexes and attached houses on corners. This provision allows new duplexes
and attached houses in locations where their appearance and impact will be
compatible with the surrounding houses. Duplexes and attached houses on corner
lots can be designed so each unit is oriented towards a different street. This gives the structure the overall appearance of a house when viewed from either street.

Ligedog: concerns about corner lot density increases is not about being against density, but about being for our existing neighborhoods.

Many of our older neighborhoods have parking problems with older lots/homes not having off street parking or little. So when density is 25% to 100% more just for one block, parking suffers.

When old neighborhoods have one or two story homes with ten ft. side yards, but two new homes are built on a corner lot with 3500 sq/ft per homes, three stories high or more, five feet from the property line with bays extending within three ft. of existing neighbors side yard, with inadequate parking when the two new homes have occupants with six cars and only two spaces are required by code;

when city planners have reinterpreted how heights of homes are calculated whereby heights are measured from new grades that can be increased with berming or retaining walls and not from existing grades, thus easily increasing maximum heights of homes from 30 ft to 40 ft.;

when buses, mass transit sorely doesn't serve many of our neighborhoods with convenient, nearby services;

then this kind of density increase isn't serving our city well.

Within three blocks of my home there has already been three examples of "corner lot upzoning". One parcel with one home was subdivided into three parcels with the two new parcels fronting a 6 ft wide public stairway/sidewalk that has been in existence for 100 years The city determined that this was a "street", thus met the corner lot increased density standard.

The second example is a present corner lot with one home that is on a 100 ft x 100 ft lot. The developer plans on tearing down the nice older home and building three homes.

The third example is a corner lot with one home. Its future is questionable. The listing realtor (he knew about the corner lot upzoning) marketed the house for $200,000 more than the initial prospective realtor. I know the seller. It sold close to the asking price.

The infill developers in the city know about this advantage, and are actively using it. This alone changes our existing neighborhoods as this inflates the land costs and makes the present homeowners pay more property taxes, and lucky to hold on to living in their chosen neighborhoods. Heck with the past setback, height, maximum lot coverage requirements, etc. MAXIMIZE. Change our neighborhoods overnite and not over a good period of time. But why should we care, density is uber-planning.

"reducing transit time"

How much more density do you think we need before this might start to happen, rather than going in the opposite direction?

The real goal is to increase property values which will increase tax revenue which will, in the end, drive out people in the lower income brackets. In other words, it's the perfect liberal plan to redesign the city landscape to suit their goal of never having to see a poor person in their midst. Of course, what they fail to realize as usual is who will wait the tables, mow their yards, clean their houses, and watch their kids once they drive all the poor people away.

I doubt there is any evidence that increased density will reduce commuting or transit time. Transit time in Manhattan is a killer unless you're within walking distance of where you're going. Not only is the time a factor but it costs a bunch of money to catch a cab everytime you want to go somewhere. Subway is cheaper but that takes even more time.

A lot of the info published by the planners are lies that can easily be exposed by spending some time in high density cities such as Tokyo, Manhattan, etc. Sure it is kind of cool to grab the subway/tram/streetcar/whatever to the ballpark for a game but the constant noise, garbage, crime, etc that comes with the density is a big downer.

Tax Revenue? Property Taxes in Oregon are pretty stagnant ,it takes a lot of years for taxation to come close to catching up with property values due to all the caps imposed in the 90's.

Look at the bright side! By cramming everyone into town, you're saving farmland, so that some guy in the country can scrape off all the topsoil, dump pea gravel on top, put a bunch of potted plants on the pea gravel, spray them with pesticides that leach into the groundwater, treat his employees like dogs, and call himself a nurseryman!

Sure your neighborhood is ruined - but you're saving farmland!

Farmland uber alles!

I think that if developers want to do infill, they should be required to pay for infrastructure improvements. They just stuck ten houses cheek-to-jowl down the road aways - on what used to be a single home/large lot space. That's ten to twenty more cars on a road with limited capacity. Even if some of the folks choose to use bikes (possible, since that area's relatively flat), the developers are creating congestion where none existed. If they can't or won't address that problem, then they shouldn't be allowed to build infill.

Jack, if you want to see this regulation at work, swing by the intersection of NE 14th and Failing on your way to the grocery store.

Two of the corner lots are standard 50 x 100s with single family houses.

The northwest corner was a conversion from a single-family to a duplex, where they kept the original house. The architecture is not inspired, but it's not terrible. The newer unit is available.

The southwest corner has two, 1920s era, single family houses on 50' x 50' lots -- the exact same density as the new duplex. (Perhaps one of them should be removed to preserve somebody's idea of neighborhood character.)

Is this level of infill really such a crime? Personally, I think most opposition to density is a response to crap architecture, not more units.

Yes. For me it's the response to crap architecture. We'll be sorry when we have no historic districts.

Some of our city has alleys. The city's interpretation that public sidewalks, stairs are "streets" can also apply to alleys, like in Ladds Addition. So this mean even in mid-blocks we could have 100% density increases. Is this appropriate for any neighborhood, besides our distinguished, historical ones?

Jack, check around your inner-city neighborhood for these "opportunities" for density. Money could be yours and you'll be meeting Metro's Goals, and you may get a Good Citizen's Award from Mayor Sam Adams office.

I am o.k with letting people develop their property as they see fit unless it imposes costly externalities upon neighboring property owners. Seems like determining the extent of externalities is best done on a case by case basis.

What I don't care for is the city borrowing and spending to foster the increase in population density. There are significant negative attributes to artificially pushing Portland to become another Manhatten (New York city). Owners of single family homes with yards generally work pretty hard to maintain trees, plants, and bird life in and around their yards. With smart growth, this tender loving care is no longer done by a home owner but instead entrusted to some bureaucrat. This is alienating. Moreover, there is more noise and congestion introduced into once quiet neighborhoods.

I would like to see population growth more spread out geographically with open spaces via yards and between satellite communities. Dedicated bike paths could be incorporated into these new developments. Portland could use its federal and state subsidies to construct more dedicated bike paths instead of helping build highrise concrete bunker-like living quarters and archaic, slowing moving streetcars.

Don't panic, Lee. The regulation applies only to corner lots, which are defined as at the intersection of two streets. The definition of "street" is more expansive that I would have guessed, but it expressly does not include alleys.

"Street. A right-of-way that is intended for motor vehicle, pedestrian or bicycle travel or for motor vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian access to abutting property. For the purposes of this Title, street does not include alleys, rail rights-of-way that do not also allow for motor vehicle access, or the interstate freeways and the Sunset Highway including their ramps."

Lots of fun with definitions can be found in 33.910.

Folks who believe that the city does not change , and that they have some 'moral right' to the conditions of a place that existed whenever they moved in,
astonish me. How self centered can one get ? New homes and townhouses mean possible new
friends and great experiences.
Density can bring people together in a richer cultural
soup. Embrace change !

Properly managed density isn't necessarily bad IF the new structures are well-constructed and fit into the neighborhood, have adequate parking for the vehicle numbers they'll be adding to the mix (and for this to happen, the city would have to revise its naive notion that there need not be enough parking for all residents if the new structure is on or near a Tri-Met line), and if the handing out of 10 year property tax abatements and the practice of showering developers with monetary "rewards" of one kind or another STOPS.

Zoning is a quasi-legislative process which is supposed to require public hearings. If any were ever held, I would bet the official definition of street wasn't aired. This is quintessential Portland: Calling anyone who calls for fair process selfish, obsesssed, unenlightened, maybe a cowboy or a redneck? -all while manipulating facts and avoiding transparency before the public (After all, how much transparency do selfish, obsessed, unenlightened rednecks deserve? The illuminati know better. In truth, it is through the hearings process we can all learn and grow, while avoiding costly mistakes.

Benschon. No panic, you need to do some research. Those who testified at hearings on a project in the 7600 block between SW Hood and SW Fulton Park Place thought the same as you when you cite the definition of "streets". But the hearing officer concurred with planning bureau staff that a dedicated mid block sidewalk is a "street" under the "pedestrian" word. Look the case up. A street alley would be the same in the loose interpretation capabilities of the city, since it allows for all three uses as defined in "streets". Alleys could more than easily meet the city's interpretation more than a 6 ft. sidewalk. Who follows the strict interpretation of Title 33? Only those who the planning bureau doesn't favor. By the way, the developer of this one case is a Walsh Construction executive.

Take a look at this case and tell us how two homes each on 2200 sq ft lots when the base zoning is R5 (5000 sq ft.) respects the neighborhood and the 1910 stately home five feet right to the south or the home to the north across the so called "street"-sidewalk. Tell us where guests park or even the owners park, or how this helps transit when bus service is over eight blocks away and the nearest mass transit is three miles away.

andy: I doubt there is any evidence that increased density will reduce commuting or transit time.
JK: Actually there is evidence that increased density CAUSES congestion. See: PortlandFacts.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm

andy: Transit time in Manhattan is a killer unless you're within walking distance of where you're going. Not only is the time a factor but it costs a bunch of money to catch a cab everytime you want to go somewhere. Subway is cheaper but that takes even more time.
JK: Another example of transit being slower than driving. Yet the planners want us to give up driving.

andy: A lot of the info published by the planners are lies that can easily be exposed by spending some time in high density cities such as Tokyo, Manhattan, etc.
JK: I have a bunch of their lies exposed at PortlandFacts.com/Smart/SmartGrowthLies.html

It is really sad to see the government having to lie to people to get acceptance of their plans.

Thanks
JK

Lee, I looked up your case, and it does appear that you got the short straw. I'm sorry--I can tell you're still ticked off about it.

It seems to me, though, that this was a very unusual set of circumstances. The original lot had THREE street frontages that allowed it to be split into two corner lots. How often does that occur in residential neighborhoods? Ironically, if that city walkway (SW Custer) also had vehicular access, you could have made a better argument that it was an alley ("A right-of-way that provides vehicle access. . ."), and therefore not a street. As it was, I can see how the city would be able to say it met the definition of "street." Bad break.

My earlier point was that alleys aren't streets, according to the definition, and therefore alleys can't create corner lots. Pending a creative interpretation otherwise, that's still true.

Benschon, this is not a "very unusual set of circumstances". First the original lot did not have three street frontages. Maps from the early 1900's show this sidewalk/stairs right of way. Secondly, Fulton Park was incorporated as its own town back in 1880s with platting of streets in this area. The concrete sidewalk has been there for almost a century.

This is also not unusual for our city. There are many sidewalk/stairs throughout our city, especially in the westhills, NW Portland and SW Portland, through the rest of the city. This interpretation by CoP affects all of these circumstances. A lot of "corner" situations besides the standard each block corners. Add them up, it's very significant.

Now there are serious initiatives to add many additional bike trail/ paths and pedestrian trails/walks/paths to our present system. In fact todays O reads that Adams is calling for more with millions of dollars attached. If these are public ways through new access ways or adding to present ways, then this Finding by the Hearing Officer will apply to all the numerous "corner lots" achieved by this ruling.

Many times our CoP planners, hearing processes don't see the ramifications of some of their findings, even though citizens politely point them out. It is time for some serious listening by city officials. The neighborhood residences are figuring it out, why not they?

Cynthia, above, is right on. Unless you are in their club, you are really not entitled to an opinion. All they want is a cheering section for their give-aways of public resources. Anybody who isn't cheering for the latest give-away is a "hater".

I think we need new terms for democracy and fiscal responsibility that make them sound hip enough for dinner discussion at Blue Hour. How about, "Enhanced Involvement" and "Green Resource Sustainability" ?

"Cynthia, above, is right on. Unless you are in their club, you are really not entitled to an opinion."

Oh nonsense. You have three minutes. You're free to waste all of it at a public hearing.

ligedog
"Tax Revenue? Property Taxes in Oregon are pretty stagnant ,it takes a lot of years for taxation to come close to catching up with property values due to all the caps imposed in the 90's."

That is patently false. Revenues from property taxes have gone up a ton since the 90's. 1996-7 they got $2.4 billion and last year they took over $4 billion. Hardly stagnate.

A recent study showed again that Oregon
State and Local governments are one of the top spending in the nation.

Oops, here we go again. We object to density but have no alternative proposal. Anyone have any better ideas?

Unit: Oops, here we go again. We object to density but have no alternative proposal. Anyone have any better ideas?
JK: I did above but you ignored it:
All we have to do is wake up to the fact that density is destroying Portland’s neighborhoods and all the UGB is accomplishing is keeping land cheap for Neil’s wineries and his fellow travelers.

Get rid of the UGB and our overcrowding problems will go away (mostly)

Thanks
JK

Unit, I'll stay on track to this post. Yes, all over European cities they are tearing down existing neighborhoods and increasing density by 25% to 100%, and even with high- rises. Everywhere!

Density doesn't mean obliterating existing neighborhoods with their style and history, or their citizen mix; and over night or in ten years.

I guess I'll just repost this cause I can.

Regarding the "we need to build up not out" myth: We are doing both. The UGB by law must contain 20 (the planners are working on making that 50) years worth of buildable land. As we "densify" the core we continue with old style suburban sprawl (Clark County WA, Happy Valley, etc...).

The problem is we continue to encourage growth by subsidizing it. In the SoWa district taxpayers will be on the hook for something like $500 million in infrastructure upgrades to service all those "green condos". In Happy Valley and Bull Mountain we let developers sprawl out and we end up paying for new roads, schools, parks, etc...We give tax breaks to big companies so that they can employ all these newcomers, once again deferring the social costs of growth. We build developer oriented transit projects (lightrail, streetcar, 12 lane bridges to Vancouver) at great taxpayer expense when there are much cheaper alternatives that do not encourage further growth.

The costs of all this growth in terms of livability and money are past on to future generations and decision makers. It's time to say no to growth for growth's sake.

Now that the whole real estate/lender/developer/planner/builder thing is hopefully off ballance (despite efforts to bail them out), we need to work on truly sustainable alternatives to growth.

lw, I agree that we don't do a very good job of preserving history in our redevelopment. In fact, that's probably the area where I think we are most lacking. I'd like to see a discussion centered around how we do this better. Unfortunately, any debate about HOW to do density turns into a debate about WHETHER to do it.

One of the downsides of turning moderate-density areas into high-density areas is that we destroy investment that has already been made in establishing workable neighborhoods.

Unit, I think we have hit the tipping point and sometimes beyond in many of the tricks that have been employed to create density in our existing neighborhoods.

When a neighborhood has usable sideyards, backyard, and front yards, has off street parking, has trees, shrubbery, solar access, schools, parks, etc.; then you have several planning agencies dictating that you shall increase your density by 50% or double, or....the list continues, and they reduce substantially all the listed forementioned attributes, then you have problems and discord.

Making corner lots from one housing unit into two is not good for neighborhoods. Reducing yards to less and sometimes zilch, how does that make living enjoyable or even green? Placing a four story house 3 feet from an existing one or two story home, how does that allow for solar access so we can be green, have a garden, or prevent mold growing on our interior walls? How does making lack of parking helping with the reality that 95% of our citizens still use vehicles?

You get the picture. We just need reality in our planners.

"The UGB by law must contain 20 (the planners are working on making that 50) years worth of buildable land."

Yes but it's been warped into fraud where UGB expansions are now non expansions becasue the land is locked up with other planning constrainsts.
There's essentially no aditional land from ANY recent UGB expansions going clear back to 1998 that are currently buildable. Just like the bafoons and liars at Metro want it.

"One of the downsides of turning moderate-density areas into high-density areas is that we destroy investment that has already been made in establishing workable neighborhoods."

That's some serious insight from the curmudgeon. So Hoffman Construction can't build workable neighborhoods overnight? Streetcars alone don't make neighborhoods workable? Hmmm.

Unit keeps asking for an "alternative proposal" to create density.

Here's one just for this post topic. If the collective (not just a few planners, or a few citizens,or a blueribbon committee, or a Adams Townhall contrived meeting)decides that corner lots might be useful to modestly increase density in our existing and new neighborhoods, how about these standards:

1)Only existing corner lots exceeding 25% (or 50%) of the base zone requirement in sq. footage may apply. (example-R5, 5000 sq. ft. lots would require 7500 sq.ft. for two residences at the 25% standard)

2)Lot coverage of the two combined residences cannot exceed 40% lot coverage-5% more than the R5 base zone.

3)All R5 setback, parking, height, etc requirements remain in effect.

4)The two residences may not be connected forming a duplex. (This keeps the nature, quality of the existing neighborhood intact-single family homes with sideyards and footprints in context with existing.)

5)Corner lots cannot be created by using public sidewalks, stairs in mid-block considered as "streets".

These few examples could possibly make the "corner lot increased density concept" more acceptable to neighborhoods. But then, maybe not. But at least CoP should follow all the Title 33 requirements for rezoning, because that is what this concept really did. It is an in-depth process with public imput and notification.

If the limits were that tight, so few lots would qualify there would be no point in having the regulation at all! If that's the objective, OK, but let's be honest about it.

I would be curious to see some real numbers about how frequently this provision has been used, city-wide. Sure, there are 1000+ potentially re-developable infill corner lots, but I have only ever noticed a handful of cases. And this rule has been in place, what, about 4 years now?

I live on a corner lot that is eligible, but the economics of tearing down my 1926 house or attaching another one to it make zero sense. There was a corner lot in my neighborhood that used the provision, and it turned out just fine--no catastrophe.

Denschon, since you are a planner, how can you state "there are 1000+ potentially re-developable infill corner lots" when the number is in the many thousands? Look at the zoning maps.

Also, just in the third case I cited way above, most corner property owners don't know about this zoning change, like the owner I cited. Then to compound this, three realtors contacted by the owner before listing didn't even know of the change. The fourth realtor did. Most builders, developers, architects, realtors besides homeowners don't know about this change.

If you could make an additional $200,000 because you have a corner lot as this owner did, then you might reconsider, if you wanted your child to attend the college of his choice. But then, some people just want to stay in their appreciated neighborhood and money isn't everything. That is fine.

I also cited three cases just within a few blocks of my home, and the cats not out of the bag yet, but slowly becoming well known.

benschon, as one example, at SW 53rd and Hamilton someone bought a house on a corner lot and is before the city now, asking to tear down the house, split the lot into two, put up a new house on the south lot, then split the north lot (which would be the corner lot) into two lots of 3000 SF each and put a house on each. The area is zoned R7. The same person is applying to do the same thing at 60th and Hamilton, 1/2 mile west, on a corner lot.