Yeah sounds like we have to destroy neighborhoods to save them...or some such nonsense.

I don't think anyone here in Have Not Land (east Portland) wants to see a glut of condos and apartments in inner Portland. I think we'd just be happy to have a grocery store within walking distance. The folks in inner Portland forget, when complaining about rent, how much time and money they save by living in so-called walkable communities.

Personally, I wonder why we aren't putting more condos and mixed-use infill on the decaying strip malls along 82nd, 122nd and Division? That, to me, is the equity battle... stop shoving civil service/public works projects out here and work with developers to re-vision the east side, where we have a real need for more residents (customers) and jobs and investment.

Whoa!

These increases in density per square foot of residentially zoned land is degrading most neighborhoods. I know it is degrading mine.

I live in a neighborhood for which the City of Portland, through it's planning processes, has determined is a PARK DEFICIENT NEIGHBORHOOD. That is the official designation. Yet, they are pushing higher density residential building, often with painfully inadequate off-street parking and/or storage. They are putting at least eight people where there was only one before.

Thankfully, it isn't everywhere, just where the whole world sees this painfully rendered Eurotrash condobunker. With all those new residents, and NOT A SINGLE NEW SQUARE FOOT OF PARK SPACE, the neighbors have all had their portion of the public service degraded by craploads of more users. Where is the new park space? Public amenities are not keeping up with the increase in residents. The City needs to call a stop to this stampede towards significant increased density until a means of increasing park space and commensurate public services to assure that the public amenities are not degraded for current residents (and, of course, future ones, as well).

I think we need a moratorium on these 'increased density' building. Perhaps while there are still a whole crapload of them standing empty?

Nick,

So when people don't actually realize any savings of time and money by "living in so-called walkable communities" it's because they forgot? And need to be told by a planner they are saving time and money? Well bless Metro et al for getting the word out.

Putting "more condos and mixed-use infill on the decaying strip malls along 82nd, 122nd and Division?"

Brilliant. More Center Commons everywhere? Or they can all experience the same marvel of the same plan used for Rockwood and follow the same path of $150 million Urban Renewal dollars to try and deal with the crime and blight that approach created. How equitable.

TriMet and Metro are shoving unwanted "civil service/public works projects" upon Clackamas County, Lake Oswego and Vancouver regardless of cost or impact.

Imposinig unwanted projects and density plans is TriMet's and Metro's idea of re-visioning.

As an example of the wholesale con job, Clackamas County Comissioner Jim Bernard has been telling his county residents that Milwaukie Light Rail will prevent Milwaukei and McLoughlin from becoming a slum, that light rail attracts businesses and job and that the high density transit oriented development at Park Avenue and McLoughlin Plan areas must be forced upon them because it is for their own good.

Lake Oswego Mayor Jack Hoffman and his accomplices are telling their citizens that the Streetcar and high density TOD Foothills will re-populate their schools because families with school children will live there. Not his or their children but other people's children.

Vancouver Mayor Leavitt and his fellow RailVolution clones are telling their residents the same tall tales.

All are conspiring against the public will to impose their "plans" upon their unwilling communities. They are working with partner developers to produce the wrong, unworkable, and unwanted visions that have caused many problems throughout the region.
At the same time these worsening unethical zealots are attempting to outright ban, from any UGB expansions, all single family homes on lots.

As Don Henley put it:

I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' "Don't blame me"
They point their crooked little fingers at everybody else
Spend all their time feelin' sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your momma's too thin; your daddy's too fat

Get over it
Get over it
All this whinin' and cryin' and pitchin' a fit
Get over it, get over it

You drag it around like a ball and chain
You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
Got your mind in the gutter, bringin' everybody down
Complain about the present and blame it on the past
I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ***

Nick Christensen:...re-vision the east side, where we have a real need for more residents (customers) and jobs and investment....

godfry: Public amenities are not keeping up with the increase in residents. The City needs to call a stop to this stampede towards significant increased density until a means of increasing park space and commensurate public services to assure that the public amenities are not degraded for current residents (and, of course, future ones, as well).
I think we need a moratorium on these 'increased density' building. Perhaps while there are still a whole crapload of them standing empty?

I can see a need for more jobs, but there is no need whatsoever for more residents....
The infill out there has been way over the top and as godfry mentioned public amenities are not keeping up with the increase in residents.

Unless those neighborhoods want their entire area "redone" by city planning two words:
Moratorium
Downzoning

I am not alone in wanting to preserve characters of neighborhoods.

New York may be ahead of us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/nyregion/10density.html?pagewanted=all

Those in favor of the recent downzonings say they will protect neighborhoods against out-of-scale development, especially in places without the infrastructure needed to handle growth. When balanced by increases in density elsewhere, they say, the downzonings will also stop real estate speculation and keep communities stable.
"If you allow the character of a neighborhood to be eroded, the people who live in that neighborhood will leave the city," said Amanda M. Burden, chairwoman of the City Planning Commission. "We can't allow that to happen. Protecting these different neighborhoods, we are providing New Yorkers with a diversity of housing choices."

I don't think anyone here in Have Not Land (east Portland) wants to see a glut of condos and apartments in inner Portland. I think we'd just be happy to have a grocery store within walking distance.

Let's see...if you live in downtown PDX SW (PSU, Lincoln Tower, etc.), you can walk to one grocery store - a hideous and over-priced Safeway. That's it.

Further up in the hills, in my neck of the woods, the closest full-service grocery stores are 1.5 to 3.5 miles away. That's walking distance - but if it's all the same, I'll drive.

You see, "walking distance" is one of those nebulous, undefined terms that "planners" love to throw around. What, exactly, is "walking distance"? To a whole lot of folks in St. Louis, MO a hundred and sixty years ago, Oregon City was within "walking distance". It just took a whole lot of walking. And today, most folks wouldn't consider that "walking distance".

Personally, I don't consider a three-mile round-trip (with grocery bags on the return leg, mostly up-hill) to be "walking distance". And I prefer my assessment of "walking distance" to that which "planners" and other Really Smart Folks may seek to impose.

Nick Christensen: I don't think anyone here in Have Not Land (east Portland) wants to see a glut of condos and apartments in inner Portland.
JK: “Have Not Land” is an interesting description of one of the few remaining affordable neighborhoods in Portland. (Of course we could have much more affordable housing all over the region, at NO COST, NO SUBSIDIES, and at the stroke of a pen. All we have to do is END Metro’s little Berlin wall.)

Nick Christensen: I think we'd just be happy to have a grocery store within walking distance.
JK: Several Fred Meyer, two Winco, WalMart, two Costco.
Or are you wishing for more of those little, inefficient, stores with limited selection and high prices? People who are willing to get in their cars save lots of money (and have better selection) at the more efficient, lower priced big stores - that is why they are so popular.

Nick Christensen: The folks in inner Portland forget, when complaining about rent, how much time and money they save by living in so-called walkable communities.
JK: There you go again, spreading the planner’s delusions.

Walking DOES NOT save time. Few people can live within reasonable walking distance of a Walmart AND a Home Depot AND a Target.

Walking (or transit) seldom can get you to the best jobs. Cars save time and money and help you get a higher paying job. Car owners are not fools, the anti-car planners are.

Nick Christensen: Personally, I wonder why we aren't putting more condos and mixed-use infill on the decaying strip malls along 82nd, 122nd and Division?
JK: Do you want the whole area to be filled with condo bunkers? How about more single family homes?

Nick Christensen: That, to me, is the equity battle... stop shoving civil service/public works projects out here and work with developers to re-vision the east side, where we have a real need for more residents (customers) and jobs and investment.
JK: Right, just like they did for Rockwood. Have you ever considered leaving it alone?

BTW, my best guess is that the most effective (and the cheapest) way to revitalize a neighborhood is simply to get rid of crime. And I don’t mean crackpot ideals like clamping down on jay walking like they did in NYC, I mean use as heavy a hand as required to stop burglaries, robberies and other person to person crime and property crime.

Thanks
JK

Of course over the last 40 years there are more rich and poor neighborhoolds in cities, because the middle picked up stakes and moved to the burbs -- the rich that stayed in the cities only did so if they could have their cake and eat it to.

The patterns of migration and gentrification reflect what people want -- all the dumb growth, too dense for the neigborhood, stacked particle board developments aren't going to change how people want to live.

JK and Nick - the reason that there aren't "more condos and mixed-use infill on the decaying strip malls along 82nd, 122nd and Division", is quite simple - zoning code. Commercial zoned land, especially CG, generally has much higher value than residential or mixed use classifications, and even though these strip malls may have high vacancies right now, the owners aren't about to take a downzoning without screaming "taking". In their eyes, the potential for future redevelopment at the highest / best use would be preferred over a (probably) risky downzoning now.

You can read a summary of the zones here. And here are the quarter section maps covering SE.

Those condo bunkers are called "stack-a-shacks" some places.
Built with government subsidies they are pure profit for the builder/developers.

A few responses to the dialectic:

Mean Dude - When I talk to residents of my neighborhood - not just the newcomers, but the guys sitting at Riley's on a Tuesday night, the longtime residents still mad about having to pay for their sewer hookups in the 80s and 90s... They want, above all else, more business vitality. But how are you going to achieve that without more wealth in the neighborhood? The PDC seems to bungle every chance they get at helping business along. What else can the eastside do?

Clina - Most E Portland neighborhoods have population densities 1/2 to 2/3 of inner Portland neighborhoods. Ie, Hazelwood about 5000 ppl per square mile, Powellhurst-Gilbert 5200, Centennial 7600 vs. King 9k, Alameda 8k, Creston-Kenilworth 10k.

Jim - I want the area filled with people who shop close to their homes instead of going to other neighborhoods to spend their money. I don't care what kind of home they live in, I just want to see more businesses east of 82nd Avenue. It makes sense to me that apartments have more people than houses, and it's better for everyone to have businesses close to home, regardless of whether you drive, bike, skateboard or moonwalk to get your groceries or go out to dinner.

The downzoning I am referring to and the link provided above was regarding the character and protection of residential neighborhoods and their property values.

I was not suggesting that commercial zoned land be downzoned for even more housing.

When people purchased property in a residential neighborhood zoned R7, R5, that is what they invested in...
The density folks like to turn those into higher use, R5 now becoming an R2?
Are those property owners that wish to have their investment of an R5 not to be taken into consideration? Didn't they think that their property was a "taking" and value reduced when a three story infill was put next to their single family home, huge firs cut, privacy taken, and resale value of their home taken? I have friends who have had this happen to them.

I don't care what kind of home they live in, I just want to see more businesses east of 82nd Avenue.

I think we can agree on more businesses and jobs needed...
but I think people do care what kind of homes they and others in their neighborhood live in...

I will continue to harp about character of neighborhoods, and choices. Some people prefer to live in inner city, more density, others do not.

Nick Christensen: Jim - I want the area filled with people who shop close to their homes instead of going to other neighborhoods to spend their money.
JK: Why? What is the benefit of shopping closer to home instead of
at the lowest cost place, or
the place with the best selection, or
the place with the nicest staff, or
the place with the best color scheme, or
the place with the correct politics.
In other words, why should people give up choices to shop nearby?

If you try to claim that you can have all of those choices if the density is high enough, then please specify the density that will allow about 10 superstores, and a 21st Ave, withing walking distance.

AND, tell us the cost of housing at that level of density.

Nick Christensen: I don't care what kind of home they live in, I just want to see more businesses east of 82nd Avenue.
JK: First you need low cost, large blocks of land. (I you want real jobs instead of more Starbucks.)

Nick Christensen: ...and it's better for everyone to have businesses close to home, regardless of whether you drive, bike, skateboard or moonwalk to get your groceries or go out to dinner.
JK: How is it better if those nearby businesses are expensive or have limited selection etc. (See 1st para above) The ONLY other choice is to have extreme density to support multiple big boxes, then the costs skyrocket.

Please tell me where I am wrong about this?

Thanks
JK

Nick,

I'll see your vision & business vitality and raise you genuine progress and neighborhood preservation.

But let's stop the pretenses.

There is only one thing driving the push to continually densify (ruin) all of our affordable blue collar & middle class neighborhoods and it aint the pursuit of more business vitality.

Admit it. It's the RailVolution, new urbanism, fanaticism fighting the bogeymen sprawl and global warming. Their entire set of theories and premises is of course fatally flawed. Yet the "planning" regime declares the ruining is saving them and preferable no matter the outcome of their plans.

The complicit & deliberate imposition of this extreme agenda while obstructing or circumventing of public approval is despicable.

The 2040 plan and all that comes with it has been an impediment to the very progress most people want. Misappropriating vast sums to produce dysfunction is not the road to vitality or progress.

It's chaos. Metro is equally or more the bungler than the PDC is.

What can be done? Get the grand schemes out of the way, establish more flexible zoning, apply a fraction of the current wasted funding to simple clean up and public safety improvements.

Stop trying to create busy work. Get rid of most of the central planning bureaucrats and stop meddling with the blue collar neighborhoods. They neither want of need any rescue or massive makeover. That;s why they are affordable.

Here is s good idea.

Why don't you give your best explanation and justification for why your people are forcing their agenda upon the Clackamas, Vancouver, Barbur/99 and Lake Oswego communities?

Jim,

You are correct that most consumers will choose where they want to shop based upon price, convenience, selection, staff, or whatever else motivates them. What you have missed is that this isn't all about the consumer; the reason we have zoning and limit land use in certain areas, and allow it in others, is to benefit society as a whole. We would all like to have, say, a supermarket within walking distance; we just don't want it right next door. And that kind of decision process is always trading off convenience to the consumer and benefit to society.

The other factor involved is to try to keep profits local, although here it's a mixed bag of results - from this standpoint there's not much difference between a corporate superstore out on the fringes with 300,000 sf retail, and a more local but still corporate 20,000 sf store - neither one on them will result in much of the profits staying local.

Whether planners (and others) like it or not, someone who spends a ton on a house (e.g., $800k plus in Irvington) doesn't really want to be surrounded by apartments and moss-covered cars from the 1970s. Irvington wasn't so nice for decades, and a lot of that had to to do with those elements pulling down the value of the neighborhood. That was when the suburbs beckoned. If they force this too much, it could well backfire.

John Rettig : .. the reason we have zoning and limit land use in certain areas, and allow it in others, is to benefit society as a whole.
JK : NO more!
Zoning used to be to protect neighborhoods, now zoning is being used to force planner’s deluded schemes on neighborhoods.

John Rettig : We would all like to have, say, a supermarket within walking distance; we just don't want it right next door.
JK : Why do you think we “all” want to walk home with a week’s worth of groceries?
And, I think you missed the context of my comment. It was to show that the whole concept of walkable neighborhoods is another of the planner’s MANY impractical schemes.

John Rettig : The other factor involved is to try to keep profits local,
JK : There is probably not a lot of difference between the big box stores and the little store in terms of how much of the selling price of something LEAVES the area. The big difference is probably that the little store is going to cost more and it is that excess cost that stays.

BTW, its not where the profits go that matters - its where the total money goes. I suspect that the reason planner’s talk about where profits go, is that they think profits are evil. They don’t realize that profits are the reward for better serving the customers.
(It is mostly when politicians are for sale, that profits are otherwise. That is called crony capitalism and is rampant in progressive Portland.)

Thanks
JK

Why aren't there a lot of condo bunkers east of I-205? Because people who can afford to live in condo bunkers don't want to live there.

Why are condo bunkers going up in Irvington, Goose Hollow, Pearl District, Inner Southeast, etc? Because that's where people want to live. And I predict that those condo bunkers would go in even if they weren't subsidized.

You see, "walking distance" is one of those nebulous, undefined terms that "planners" love to throw around. What, exactly, is "walking distance"? To a whole lot of folks in St. Louis, MO a hundred and sixty years ago, Oregon City was within "walking distance". It just took a whole lot of walking. And today, most folks wouldn't consider that "walking distance."

"Every place is within walking distance, if you have the time." -- steven wright

Jim,

If I had said "have a supermarket close by" rather than "have a supermarket within walking distance", it would have better made my point - which was that your first post was very consumer-centric and had missed the tradeoff between convenience to the consumer and benefit to society. Obviously, some will still choose to drive to a supermarkrt, even if it's a "walkable" distance. But walking or driving, close by supermarkets are still preferred by most people, just not right next door. And that's what this tradeoff is all about.

Regarding zoning protecting neighborhoods, it still does, for the most part. Many here, though, have made a valid point that density infill is being very selectively applied - you won't see this happening much in upscale neighborhoods.

Regarding profits not staying local regardless of store size, it seems we agree.

John Rettig : . . . your first post was very consumer-centric and had missed the tradeoff between convenience to the consumer and benefit to society.
JK: What tradeoff?? Who decides what is a benefit to society?? Some elected official that primarily responds to the condo bunker weasels?? Some elected official that follows every crackpot craze that comes along?

John Rettig : But walking or driving, close by supermarkets are still preferred by most people, just not right next door. And that's what this tradeoff is all about.
JK: Show us some data for this.
Or are you saying that people wish that their favorite supermarket is close by? Which is obviously impossible for most people because favorites change over time, stores change and one person’s favorite is another’s hated market. And if you live close to the favorite supermarket, can you also find a location close to your favorite Home depot, Best Buy and Target?

As I have said, the walkable neighborhood is just another in a long line of nutty, schemes coming out of the planning class to tell us how to live, usually making us worse off. (for a list of planner’s lies see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/smart/smartgrowthlies.html)

John Rettig : Regarding zoning protecting neighborhoods, it still does, for the most part.
JK: Yeah, it protects us from someone placing a pig farm in the Pearl, a favorite planner claim. (The planner was so economically illiterate that he didn’t realize that the land is too expensive for farming (except, maybe, for certain unjustly illegal crops)!)

Modern zoning also protects us from people rebuilding a burned down single family house in condo bunker zones.

Modern zoning protects us from someone building a house with a normal yard.

Yeah, zoning is really great now days.

We need to roll back zoning to the way it was before planners started abusing it, then require a neighborhood vote on any changes.

Thanks
JK

Jim,

You appear to be speaking of "zoning" as a verb, i.e. the practice of implementing zoning changes, and specifically the way it is sometimes abused by developers and government (and yes, it is abused, as I openly said in my post).

I'm speaking of zoning as a noun, i.e. what exists on the books and in the city codes, and the general protection it affords, or should afford, present landowners.

The fact that you're asking for it to be rolled back to some time "before planners started abusing it" (which as you know probably never existed from 1934 onward) suggests that you do see some value in the latter, which is the most I'm ever heard of you admitting. Most of your diatribes in this thread and others appear to be along the lines of "some bureaucrats and developers abuse the process, therefore let's do away with all of the rules, eliminate the UGB, and let everyone have at it".

Regarding data for my statement that close by supermarkets are still preferred by most people, I don't have any - it was just an assumption of human nature. Are you going to argue that people prefer far-away supermarkets?

Pretty much everything east of I-205 comprises of strip joints, tract ranch style houses, cheap section 8 apartments, and it"s not very pretty when you get right down to it. Why in the heck would you want to walk to the grocery store in this part of town? To get mugged, raped or run over by the drunks coming out of the the s*** hole bars that you see every two feet? The fancy downtown types don't want to have anything to do with outer east Portland and they never will...not in my life time at least.

Why in the heck would you want to walk to the grocery store in this part of town?

If you don't own a car, and mass transit is not available, then there's not much choice.

John Rettig : I'm speaking of zoning as a noun, i.e. what exists on the books and in the city codes, and the general protection it affords, or should afford, present landowners.
JK: Underline should. In fact, as you recognize it has been hijacked by the planners and their nutty ideas.

John Rettig : The fact that you're asking for it to be rolled back to some time "before planners started abusing it" (which as you know probably never existed from 1934 onward) suggests that you do see some value in the latter, which is the most I'm ever heard of you admitting.
JK: NOT 1934, just back to the time when the city actually required the consent of the subject (and the neighbors) of the zoning to approve changes.

John Rettig : Most of your diatribes in this thread and others appear to be along the lines of "some bureaucrats and developers abuse the process, therefore let's do away with all of the rules,
JK: Refresh my memory - just what practical good does zoning provide to most of Portland? Keep in mind that developers generally have NO problem getting zones changed to anything they want. Example: North Macadam development was to be low rise, then tall skinny towers to preserve the view shed, then screw the view fat towers. Result: ZERO protection to the neighbors.

As to diatribes about bureaucrats, try this:
A chief Metro planner finally admitted that most planners are fascists (his own words)!
See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/planners_are_fascists.html

John Rettig : eliminate the UGB, and let everyone have at it".
JK: Good idea! That will give us more family wage jobs, less neighborhood density, less traffic congestion and more affordable housing. (Few people realize how badly they are being screwed by the UGB.)

John Rettig : Regarding data for my statement that close by supermarkets are still preferred by most people, I don't have any - it was just an assumption of human nature. Are you going to argue that people prefer far-away supermarkets?
JK: You are missing the point - it is NOT just one supermarket. It is a wide variety of desired destinations. There is no way that one can live close to all of them, unless one lives in Manhattan style density with its very high cost of living. That planners are pushing this crap is more evidence that most planners are idiots, or simply DON”T care about hurting people..

Thanks
JK

Keep in mind that developers generally have NO problem getting zones changed to anything they want

Refresh my memory - just what practical good does zoning provide to most of Portland?

Not any property, and not anything. In fact, not most things. If you look at the quarter section zoning maps, you'll note that in the older parts of Portland, most of the residential areas are zoned R5 (single family residential 5000 sf), and not subject to any overlay zones. And you can't drop a heavy industrial use into a commercial zone, or an auto repair business into institutional use. That's what it is protecting.

I do the grocery shopping for my family of five. In support of Jim Karlock's statements I'll attest that I hardly do any grocery shopping at the grocery store that's nearest to my home. The closest isn't the least expensive nor does its have the best deals -- not by a long shot. The stores where I do most grocery shopping are probably in the range of 10 to 15th closest.

My behavior is not unique. Think about it -- if this closest to home thing were that big of a deal the Safeways, then the Costcos, the Targets and the Walmarts would shut down and we would do most all our shopping at 7/11s. The planners plan to suit their masters -- not to facilitate real people living real lives.

Newleaf,
Metro and TriMet also know this is how people shop & live.

They do not care. They'll stick to imposing their agenda while avoiding any explanations just as Nick did.
They cannot face being confronted with the truth or any questions in public.
They have nothing.

They are all a bunch of Sam Adams.

http://www.tigardtimes.com/news/story_2nd.php?story_id=132329666425592100

Adams’ recommendation would require that at least 20 housing units be built in any urban growth boundary expansion areas approved for residential development. He sent it to MPAC members in a memo a week before the meeting.

“I think it’s important that when we add expansion areas for housing, that they meet regional goals for addressing climate change, transit-oriented development, and 20-minute walkable neighborhoods,” says Adams.

As a nearly 40 year resident of this area, it's become my belief that Tom McCall's original intent of urban planning has been mutilated and transformed by Portland area regional government and crony capitalism into the perfect storm of "new urban" rivivalist scammers and the guilt-racked fools they prey upon.

Adams doesn't live in a density housing complex, as I recall he has a yard, garden and chickens.
.....remember "the accident" when we found out what he prefers to drive. I doubt that Car Toys was a walkable destination.

Adams was driving his GMC pickup about 6:15 p.m. at 1457 North Hayden Island Drive, near the parking lot of Car Toys at Jantzen Beach.

Mr.Grumpy,
I think too that Tom McCall's original intent does not match with those who are wanting to redo every part of our city... until not recognizable.

As far as I'm concerned, this one quote from the article tells the whole story.

"During the past 40 years, Powellhurst-Gilbert has seen many of its undeveloped lots filled with low-income housing, says PSU’s Ryerson."

If you want to know why one neighborhood is thriving and the other is struggling, there's your answer. It was caused, in part, by the social engineering of the city and the PDC. Thinking that the solution is to do even more social engineering is a great example of Einstein's definition of insanity.

The city uses "adjustments" and overlay zones when they want to.

What happened to the flood plain and greenway that is now the SoWhat?
What happened to the good planners we had years ago who used a building height restriction and had codes in place for a step down approach in building height to the river?

I had a teacher who told me he worked on that building step down approach to the river. I am thinking that we used to have civic leaders in those days who worked for a good vision for our city. Not like today when developers get to do what is best for their pocketbook.

The city has created avenues for "adjustments" such as adding some street amenity in exchange for allowing extra stories in a condo tower.

I do not have the latest information on this, but I believe they also needed to either "delete or change" some solar access codes in order to facilitate density development.

The city likes to portray green and sustainable, some of us know what green really means around here.

Nick:I don't think anyone here in Have Not Land (east Portland) wants to see a glut of condos and apartments in inner Portland.

Does Nick want to see more of a glut of condos or apartments in his neighborhood?

If the "agenda" of infill at whatever cost, financial or quality of life, does not stop, Have Not Land may prevail across the city.

Comparing the infill density of east portland with other parts of the city, quite a difference. Those inner neighborhoods grew organically as neighborhoods with main streets in some areas, such as Multnomah Village, Hawthorne, Montavilla, etc. They have character which is what draws people to them. The "new urban vision" is a cookie cutter version of planning and in some areas downright dumping ghetto buildings. This is not planning but squeezing in infill any old way, and has nothing to do with any character or human livability.

John Rettig : (Quoting JK)Keep in mind that developers generally have NO problem getting zones changed to anything they want

Refresh my memory - just what practical good does zoning provide to most of Portland?
John Rettig : Not any property, and not anything. In fact, not most things.
JK: Tell me you really believe that!

John Rettig : If you look at the quarter section zoning maps, you'll note that in the older parts of Portland, most of the residential areas are zoned R5 (single family residential 5000 sf), and not subject to any overlay zones.
JK: Except those zoned R2.5 and the multifamily ONLY lining our main arterials and the bomb blast circles of mandated density around toy train stations.

It is NOT OK to limit the devastation to certain areas. Especially when they refuse to add road capacity to match their mandated increase in population density.

John Rettig : And you can't drop a heavy industrial use into a commercial zone, or an auto repair business into institutional use. That's what it is protecting.
JK: I’m so glad you can’t get your car repaired in an institutional zone!!! Give me a break. We probably only need two zones: 1) residential 2) other. We can discuss heavy industrial vs commercial, but heavy industry needs supporting small businesses. Of course planners are to ill informed to understand the needs of businesses (or people other than themselves.)

BTW, I can’t find your answer to my earlier question: do you happen to work for the government or a consulting company or the construction industry.

Thanks
JK

JK: Something I said is bugging me:
We probably only need two zones: 1) residential 2) other.
How many zones do we really need?

What is the purpose of zoning:
1) To dictate the usage of every square inch of the city from the bureaucracy, or
2) To protect the current residents.

If it is #1, what process determines the zoning? Do planners have some special crystal ball to see the future needs? Or do planners simply respond to every fad that comes along and set it in stone, until the next fad? Or are planners simply “for sale” to the highest condo bunker weasel bidder?

If it is #2, shouldn’t the current residents have a large input into any zone changes, and little input from the planners.

My opinion is that Portland is mostly #1 and should be mostly #2. And that only requires a few zones which I won’t try to define.

Thanks
JK

jim karlock,
It should be #2.
I do not know for sure, but think that years ago what put Portland on the map for good planning was when planners were focused on livability and not working for the "cookie cutter" agenda and we know who is behind that.
Ladd Circle for example had a vision, character and livability. . . under our new dictates, that area would be viewed as another area considered "old fashioned" and if they could it would be changed with more density complexes that would replace that charm and livability.

Interesting that Ladd Circle has several circles of beautiful Rose Gardens, how fitting for the City of Roses. Now with the mantra of UGB, there wouldn't be room for those circles throughout our city, would there? Is there room for huge trees or is the plan to eventually replace those with little street trees? Is there room for children to play freely outside or will they have to pay to play in local centers?

Call me old fashioned, but I do know the difference between livability and real community, not just the WORDS that spew community and livability.

I grew up in NE PDX not far from Kennedy school.
In the 1960's Alberta street was a vibrant place full of shops and small businesses.
Then it started the slide downhill, shops closing and businesses moving away.
And now it's back, mostly due to the efforts of people who stayed in the neighborhood and some who moved there due to the lower cost of retail space.
Is it gentrification or just a neighborhood coming back from the doldrums ?

Actually Alberta street was killed on one Sunday afternoon by a riot.

Thanks
JK

Tell me you really believe that!

R5 zones were set up in 1934 for a lot of the inner Portland single family residential areas (which at that time of course was most of Portland). Most of it remains R5 today, with no overlays. Of those that do have overlays, take out the EC and EP overlays for this argument, and you don't have a very large percentage of these properties falling into the category you claim is so burdened.

Honestly, take a look at the quarter sections, Jim, rather than just spouting more nonsense.

BTW, I can’t find your answer to my earlier question:do you happen to work for the government or a consulting company or the construction industry.

None of the three.

John Rettig: Most of it remains R5 today, with no overlays.
JK: Here is what matters:
1) Sections of NE mandates higher than r5 density around Killingsworth.
2) A “mistake” allowed skinny houses on a large number of NE/SE lots since they were 2500 sqft lots sold in lots which the weasels built on each separately.
3) Light rail stations dot the landscape and recommend high densities with no increase in road capacity. (I presume everyone on this blog knows that the toy trains carry only a tiny percentage of the residents of those station bunker’s residents.)

This Metro map (http://www.stopmetro.com/mappage.htm) shows 24 toy train stations, each about one mile dia with a density of 45 people per acre. Simple math gives us 24 x 45 x .79 mi^2 x 540 acres/mi^2 = 460,720 people. Nice trick, leaving most of the neighborhood’s zones unchanged. Of course at full build out, there will be total gridlock of both the roads and toy trains. And much more traffic will go through the neighborhoods in an effort to actually move.

4) On the same map, notice the purple streets - those are “main streets” another target of Metro planner’s destruction with condo bunkers to increase the density by 22%.

5) The yellow streets are to get a 29% increase in density.

6) Oh, lets NOT forget the regional centers like Gateway, Hollywood, Lents, Milwaulkie, Clackamas Town Center area and Gresham that are scheduled to get a 144% increase in density.

OK, you win, they left most of the neighborhood zones unchanged, they just plan to surround them with New York/LA style density. The only areas to be left unchanged are the creme colored areas, all surrounded by much increased density.

Of course this is just another example of how zoning is not protecting us because the planners took control of zoning and used it to destroy our neighborhoods (by destroying most of the surrounding streets).

Thanks
JK