PDC elects new officers: is design missing?

The Portland Development Commission (PDC) held its annual election of officers at its June 24 board meeting and chose Scott Andrews, president of Melvin Mark Properties, as the new board chair.

The agency has even prepared this video report on the election, posted to YouTube:

Although Andrews only joined the PDC board in August of 2008, he has a history of civic involvement. He previously served as chair of the Portland Business Alliance and is currently chairman of the Regional Business Plan Steering Committee. For Melvin Mark Companies, one of Oregon’s leading commercial real estate businesses, Andrews supervises all leasing activity.

While Andrews and the other board members may be solid citizens, and deserve kudos for their public service, I've long found it disappointing that the PDC board does not include more members of the design and architecture communities on its board.

Take a look at the rest of the new and outgoing officers and board members. Andrews, the new chair, replaces Charles Wilhoite, who is managing director of Willamette Management Associates, a financial consulting firm. John Mohlis was also elected secretary of the board and Bertha Ferran was elected acting secretary. Mohlis is the secretary/treasurer for the Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council and Ferran is a senior mortgage consultant at Windermere Mortgage Services. Also on the board is Steven Straus, president of Glumac.

So out of that group, you have members of the real estate industry, finance, a labor union, and engineering. Indeed, most all of those fields have something to do with buildings, either their sale, construction or, in the case of engineering, even a bit of design. But no architects.

The nature of an agency like PDC is that it must juggle the competing interests and expertise of many different people. The agency is part developer, part planner; part public, part private. It's rife with politics and has a history of both wonderful successes and second-guessing. Obviously there is no sinister campaign to keep architects out of the board, but might there be some missing contribution to the PDC board that could come from people with design expertise?

Comments

[PD]

Why do we need the PDC? Their history has more to do with rotten politics and losing money while they play developer with tax dollars than with success. I say dump the PDC and send the money to Portland Public Schools. It truly is sad how far off the priorities are in Portland, isn't it.

[Earl]

Another group that has been historically under-represented on the PDC is the citizens of Portland. Particularly homeowners, whose property taxes are diverted by the PDC away from schools and public safety to support private ventures that usually do not live up to their promises of living wage jobs and affordable housing.

[Rob]

PDC is a large organization and board decisions are necessarily abstract. Design, architecture and planning liaison with the City would occur at the staff level. Today it is probably the purview of the specific developer partner for a project. Most major developers in town are very engaged in Portland arts.

Convince the board members that they would benefit from subsidiary publicity in the design press by incorporating named designers in projects.

Note developers are sometimes design risk adverse, and public developers doubly so. It is individual patrons who engage risk in design.