Making it pretty? The maps are probably made with GIS software. Relatively simple and inexpensive. But they communicate the information in a powerful and concise way, no?

As far as money spent by the City of Portland to communicate with citizens, I would argue that this is high on the bang for buck scale.

I can only imagine how much these maps, and the whole "Portland Plan" public involvement rigamarole, are setting us back. For that much buck, you'd need a bang that would shatter windows for a mile around.

"I'm not against planning, but..."

Increasingly, I am against probably most of the planning done around here. This document you link to is a good example. Let me tell you how this goes:

1) Pdx hasn't planned for "food systems" in the past

2) Pdx Planner: "We should track food systems as part of the Pdx Plan!"

3) Spend money on the planning (research, public outreach, etc.) and producing these documents.

4) Pdx Planner (five years from now): "We produced all of these great documents laying out goals for the food system, but we're not doing anything about it! I mean, why did we do these plans if we're not going to affect change?"

5) Portland "Food Advocates" (you know they must be out there): "Yes! This is an equity issue! We must address the adopted goals of the plan! The city is committed to them!"

6) Pdx Planner to Council: "We need to start a group in the Planning Department to focus solely on these food system issues. We'll need to fund five planner positions."

7) Council: "Yes indeed! Let no one claim that we are not 'progressive' on every issue."

8) Food Planners (Two years later): "We're going to need at least $500,000 to start our various studies and grant programs."

9) Ten years from now: City has a million dollar "food systems" program. (Compare to #1 above.)

That's how this works. All because we already have twice the planning staff we should have with twice the budget they should have.

sure, that stuff ain't cheap. But if an extra few thousand bucks (and really, that's probably the difference between standard GIS fare and sprucing it up to look super pretty like this) makes the document more interesting, more accessible, and more approachable, and maybe even more likely to inspire community members to get involved with decision making processes at their local neighborhood level,I'd be willing to wager that the cost-effectiveness of high-end design and layout in a document like this is similar to all the money being spent for all the community visioning events being held around the city.

Mr Bog, you need to realize that when you have an overstaffing (outside of BDS I haven't heard of any layoffs) situation like CoP, you need to look professional even if you are not.

Sam hires 30 staffers with no background in what they are doing for spin and do we really need a PR person for the Water Bureau? I guess to justify an 18% increase even after the PURB says no and yells at them for wasting money.

PWB is my pet peeve, but I am sure every CoP bureau has been told to polish the apple - even if it is full of worms.

What a bunch of crap.

sure, that stuff ain't cheap. But if an extra few thousand bucks (and really, that's probably the difference between standard GIS fare and sprucing it up to look super pretty like this)

You're misunderstanding the cost of creating these GIS baubles. When consider the labor, the data collection/review/re-review/ then GIS data mapping is quite expensive. These didn't cost "a few thousand dollars".

Snards' comment above is right on, in some cases. As someone trained as a planner, I believe about 85% of the "city planner" positions in Portland are unnecessary.

So much of the PDX government infrastructure is just people spending their days finding ways to justify re-funding of their position. Often, their "mission" is just an amateurish jumble of catchphrases. For example:

http://www.ecohuman.com/portlands-office-of-sustainable-healthy-thriving-prosperity-76

Thanks for the laugh, ecohuman. Can you imagine the staff hours spent sitting on how many different committees to come up with, revise, and then adopt those slogans, visions and mission statements?

It reminds me of the vision statement that came out of Potter's visioning statement. Run through the wringer and attempting to say so much, that it ended up saying nothing at all.

Ecohuman, OCD, rather than OSD would seem to be a better term for a vague agency whose chief raison d'etre seems to be to compulsively perpetuate its existence, complete with unicorns, rainbows and buildings with windows that open.

We live in a city which paid someone to develop the inane slogan, "The City That Works" and in a state where a major university paid an agency to produce the letter "O" as a logo. I thought it was just the letter "O" in Melior font but it turns out it is, "a graphical symbol which the University paid to have developed."

That had to be the easiest money any agency ever made.

Mark this day - I agree with Ecohuman.

We live in a city which paid someone to develop the inane slogan, "The City That Works"

Actually, I believe they simply stole it. That used to be the slogan for the City of Chicago; may still be, for all I know.

I don't disagree that a lot of Portland-style planning/planners are duplicated and unnecessary, but the "Portland Plan", specifically the document series that has come available to anyone is invaluable. I would like to note, that a lot of their GIS data was probably already gathered by other agencies, it's just a matter of someone generating the well-presented maps.

It's good stuff and very accessible for anyone in Portland to get better involved with the city -- whether they like or dislike something.

but the "Portland Plan", specifically the document series that has come available to anyone is invaluable.

Tell me about all the people that could benefit from a "major grocery retail provider overlay map". Then, I'll show those people how to do it with Google Maps in five minutes.

It's good stuff and very accessible for anyone in Portland to get better involved with the city

Nope. First, the "public involvement" going on now is for show--that is, to fulfill Statewide Planning Goal #1 and a few local requirements. Sure, those running it don't overtly think it's for show--but it is. Want proof? Sit down sometime and I'll show you the results of "citizen involvement" in other local plans. Second, calling it "good stuff" is so subjective as to be meaningless. The "Plan" is being done for political reasons, and because several dozen people like planning things. Adams, for example, has been internally (and somewhat externally) clear that he wants his name all over it, as part of his "legacy".

I would like to note, that a lot of their GIS data was probably already gathered by other agencies, it's just a matter of someone generating the well-presented maps.

No, not really. First, it's a tradition that bureaus (and work groups) duplicate work around here. Second, I know for a fact that the water-related issues were the subject of much new data collection and GIS interpretation.

Yes, it's good stuff, like about 1548 of the same people who always "participate" in these endeavors year after year. They will "get better involved" with the city. And half of those will be those that get paid to do so, by their employers or groups they represent.

This is the Portland Way-then they call it "citizen involvement", it's "consensus building", and the "citizens have mandated" whatever. And I'm not cynical, it's true.

The link seems to be not working, and it locks up the browser trying to access it.

For link problems, see the main site.

http://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/

Everything you want to know about the plan.

I should point out: this is a "strategic" plan--meaning it's not big on specifics.

How do I get my hands on a glossy paper hard copy, suitable for framing with UV protection?

"this is a "strategic" plan"

Meaning we'll get a new 25 year plan every 5 years or so. Kinda like downtown and the re-shifting of paver bricks.

The city might best stick to mapping and databasing that which they are are charged to maintain - for example, where are we underserved with police / fire / medical / sewers / water system / sidewalks etc? I've seen snippets of some of these things mapped on a small scale, but I'm not sure that there's mapping that summarizes these critical things on a single large map, on a quality level that matches these maps.

And I would guess that the likes of Fred Meyer, Safeway, Albertsons, etc. already know most of this information themselves, and it might be available to the public if they knew where to find it. So any work expended to do this duplicates what is already known.

For the rest of the story, tally up the out lay to the consultant's under the planning bureau budget for this project. I did it once for the SW community plan and it was well into the 6 figures.

We live in a city which paid someone to develop the inane slogan, "The City That Works"

Actually, I believe they simply stole it. That used to be the slogan for the City of Chicago; may still be, for all I know.

Portland stole it from Chicago after the local papers made hay out of catching city workers sleeping in their city vehicles:

"Sleeping? Not us. We're the 'City that works.'"

ecohuman:"Tell me about all the people that could benefit from a "major grocery retail provider overlay map". Then, I'll show those people how to do it with Google Maps in five minutes."

ws:Ok, you can show me, actually. How does one perform a 1/4 mile buffer polygon of all grocery retailers in Google maps for the Portland area in 5 minutes?

ecohuman:"Second, I know for a fact that the water-related issues were the subject of much new data collection and GIS interpretation."

ws:So Portland is doing new water-related data gathering...that must mean that all the data used in the reports was "duplicated"?

It's part of Sam's Graphic Designer Workfare Program aimed at keeping young creatives marginally employed so they don't decamp to cities with real jobs.

Ok, you can show me, actually. How does one perform a 1/4 mile buffer polygon of all grocery retailers in Google maps for the Portland area in 5 minutes?

Nice try, "ws".

So Portland is doing new water-related data gathering...that must mean that all the data used in the reports was "duplicated"?

That doesn't even make sense. Except to you.

ecohuman, i'm a geographer, i get paid to make maps with GIS at my local university. Quite a lot of that data already exists, thanks to Metro/CoP et al, and is used for all kinds of city services that i'd imagine you'd find quite useful. So yeah, the data was probably expensive, but since it exists the marginal cost of making this map is probably not too much. It doesn't take a cartographer more than a day's work to find the addresses of grocery stores and geocode them.

i'm a geographer, i get paid to make maps with GIS at my local university.

It's okay to say "Portland State", Aaron.

Quite a lot of that data already exists, thanks to Metro/CoP et al, and is used for all kinds of city services that i'd imagine you'd find quite useful.

Let me simplify here: "data" is always useful to the creator of it.

but since it exists the marginal cost of making this map is probably not too much. It doesn't take a cartographer more than a day's work to find the addresses of grocery stores and geocode them.

We can go back and forth all day about what data does and doesn't exist. My main point was this: it's mostly an expensive, masturbatory exercise in self-justification. I've seen what GIS does to people--especially local government decision makers. Never has the phrase "the map is not the terrain" been more true than in the use of GIS to represent "reality" around here. Is it a useful tool? Of course. But mainly, it's used as a way to make useless or mundane data seem somehow useful.

All of this is especially true in "urban planning", which is a particularly abstract, values-laden exercise. Portland, however (thanks in large part to PSU), treats it as a social science; GIS is constantly used to make what's really a value judgement somehow more "scientific". I know this personally, firsthand.

For example, I've seen "geocoded" census data used repeatedly by local economists to make predictions about the future here. Anybody who's lived long enough knows the farcical nature of those predictions.

I'll simplify again: In other words, Aaron, maps and data aren't how decisions get made around here, and the map is not ever the terrain.

ecohuman:"Nice try, "ws"."

ws:I was actually being serious. So you're saying you can't create such maps with ease in Google maps? You just said you could...

ecohuman:"That doesn't even make sense. Except to you."

ws:Most people who have had access to Metro's data already knows a lot of the data generated in these colorful maps had already been gathered sometime ago.

Eco, feel free to stick to your anti-capitalist, no-growth, Luddite blog; your comments are entirely inaccurate and inflammatory.

I was actually being serious. So you're saying you can't create such maps with ease in Google maps? You just said you could...

"such maps"? You were geeking out about a GIS feature, not how to create maps.

But since you asked, I can, and I offered to sit down and explain it (not post a tutorial). The average citizen can do it, with a bit of coaching; a tech-savvy person with Internet access and the Google API can do it even fancier.

And if you're as technically knowledgeable as you claim to be, you'd already know it--because, in fact, Metro and CoP have used Google in the past to do it.

Most people who have had access to Metro's data already knows a lot of the data generated in these colorful maps had already been gathered sometime ago.

Prove it. No, easier: prove that the data the maps generated for the water-related background report were "gathered some time ago". I think a few people might disagree with you.

Eco, feel free to stick to your anti-capitalist, no-growth, Luddite blog; your comments are entirely inaccurate and inflammatory.

Speaking of innacurate and inflammatory. This alst statement shows fairly clearly that you don't know my views at all, either here on another blog.

ws, feel free to hang out in the corner and discuss the nuances of GIS data. and, feel free to keep responding.

ecohuman:"But since you asked, I can, and I offered to sit down and explain it (not post a tutorial). The average citizen can do it, with a bit of coaching; a tech-savvy person with Internet access and the Google API can do it even fancier.

And if you're as technically knowledgeable as you claim to be, you'd already know it--because, in fact, Metro and CoP have used Google in the past to do it."

ws:I'm going to go out and say the "average citizen" is not going to endeavor on their own and do their own mapping, even though your claims of how easy it is seem to be highly overstated.

I actually never claimed to be technologically savvy, but I do know GIS at a very reasonable level. I could not figure our how to get any powerful use of the Google maps tools other than free-hand polygon drawing. I may have missed something. Nor do I know coding for Google API -- but that's clearly and advanced feature.

Mapping grocery store locations is not rocket science or overly time consuming and I think such a map is telling of the food deserts that occur particularly on the Eastside. It's very good data imo.

I feel that the more information that is presented to citizens the better. Or maybe I'm just a census/data nerd.

The American Planning Association's magazine recently devoted an issue to local foods and direct-from-farm -to consumer programs. The cover is very colorful. Actually, it is not a bad idea to focus on mixed market areas for food in this global economy, or we could end up in a situation where major ag counties in Oregon, like Marion and Umatilla, are feeding the world while Oregon is the sencond hungriest state.

The American Planning Association's magazine recently devoted an issue to local foods and direct-from-farm -to consumer programs.

Yep--August/September issue of Planning Magazine.

or we could end up in a situation where major ag counties in Oregon, like Marion and Umatilla, are feeding the world while Oregon is the sencond hungriest state.

Fundamentally, though, food's not a planning issue, as much as planners strain to make it one. Oregon's not the second hungriest state because of lack of food security--it's the second hungriest because of consumption and corporate market choices. Cheap, local, unprocessed food is available to buy and eat in abundance, but Oregon (and Portland's) own globalization efforts work counter to other efforts.

For example: how does a city focus intently on becoming an "international city" that builds trams and scenes for tourists, all while talking of "being local"? Maybe Adams knows. Certainly an important "planning" issue for this goal is to position the city as a tourist attraction, and spend accordingly.

The push to densify--here in Portland, evidenced by the UGB--makes land an extremely valuable commodity. Setting it aside for "urban agriculture" gets a lot of lip service, but in the end, land owners and developers rule the day, as they always will in a land scarcity scenario. And "urban agriculture" really isn't the answer to food security either, though it's a hip issue now. Planners and local governments love hip issues.

For example--Portland plans to add "1,000 new garden plots" to community gardens. However, it's eliminated several community gardens in the past several years--so the addition brings us up to--less plots than 7-8 years ago. The people using community gardens are basically the same tiny percentage of people who always use such things. The truth is, food's been grown in abundance around Portland in yards for a century.

The bottom line? The best changes of this kind never come from an army of planners bent on behavior modification. They come from personal choices and grassroot efforts. No amount of zoning and "issue" wonkery is going to make a meaningful change (though you'll find proponents quick to take full credit for any change).

And "living green"? For another example of the cognitive dissonance that entails, see this recent story:

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/11/misery_manor_offers_super_effi.html

And here's a question to ask about a recent food topic: Does the food cart craze reinforce use of local food, or does it reinforce globalization of food and tourism? Think about it.

I agree with you, ecohuman that the best changes come from grassroots and personal efforts. Is seems that Portland "planning efforts since the 80s have created considerable contradictions: the genuine spontaneous creativity found in NW Portland with it artist's lofts and affordable lunch spots, for example, has been replaced by the contrived"creative class" .

But planning is supposed to be a process that applies logic to any system, so that uncertainty can be contained, and I do think that food systems can be analyzed, so that we can understand local conditions that you describe very well and then design programs and strategies from there.

And regarding food carts, I am OK with the ambiguity.

But planning is supposed to be a process that applies logic to any system, so that uncertainty can be contained

Actually, that's not what planning is at all. But, I can understand why it seems that way--it's often presented as a rational, "logical" process.

Like, say, the logical South Waterfront development planning. Or the rational planning for the Tram, or the logical planning of a new I-5 bridge. Or the logical planning of the recent "Visioning" process. Or the rational planning of...you get the picture.

"Strategic" plans like the Portland Plan are the most spectacular example; by their nature they're not rational or logical at all--they're "goals" so generic that it's hard to disagree: access to food? Yeah. Clean air? Of course. Jobs? Yes indeed. Better way of life? Er...sure, yeah, I want everything better!

The beauty of it all is, Portland's called a "planning mecca" without much critical thought (or criticism) of why that's somehow a "good" thing. The best things about the area and the city had nothing to do with planning. That old story about the freeway planned to pass through SE Portland decades ago? Planners didn't prevent it from getting built--planners *planned* it!

And so on. If folks could learn nothing about planning, I'd say this: we need a large and healthy dose of humility when racing forward with "plans" for making a place "better"--because in fact, urban planners spend most of their time undoing the mistakes, arrogance and hubris of those that came before them.