Portland Architecture

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?

Code and urban renewal wars

Two stories from today's Oregonian point to battles over where to build, what funds to do it with, and by what standards they should be kept.

First, Mark Larabee reports that a pair of lawsuits against the city are freezing its ability to go forward with the Resource Access Center, the $48 million homeless shelter and day center designed by Holst Architecture of Portland, as well as redevelopment of the US Post Office building downtown by the city.

One suit is challenging the City Council's vote last summer to spend $19 million in urban renewal funds for the River District on building an elementary school in the David Douglas School District in outer, outer southeast Portland. The other suit is challenging the expansion of the River District approved by the council that increased tax revenue available for projects from $225 to $583 million.

Who is filing these suits? According to Larabee's article, it's an unnamed group of 10 people who call themselves Friends of Urban Renewal. Former Portland Development Commission general counsel Oliver Norville is one of them. He told Larabee the main concern is over the idea of David Douglas as satellite for the River District. But even if the city reverses course on the school, the increased River District funding is still a concern to the Friends group, who see the expansion there as "not proper expenditures of tax increment funds," in Norville's words.

Norville also says the city has been unwilling to negotiate with the Friends of Urban Renewal, and that's why the lawsuits have gone forward. Commissioner Nick Fish, however, had harsh words for the group, saying "they took the River District hostage and poor people are paying the price."

So, who is the good guy and who is the bad guy here? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm still trying to figure it out myself. I lean so far towards being against the lawsuit because of its effects but in at least partial agreement about some of the issues involved. There ought to be a better way to settle this.

The idea of these hardball legal tactics preventing the much-needed Resource Access Center for Portland's homeless from getting built is pretty stinky. So is the idea of freezing other River District renewal funds during this terrible economic downturn. We don't need delays on these project--we need them fast tracked.

Still, I personally agree that it's wrong to give River District urban renewal funds to David Douglas or any place outside the River District. And I at least can't disagree with the Friends' other assertion, that added urban renewal funds for the River District might be better spent elsewhere in the city. On that second point, I'm really still in deliberation mode. I also am still trying to decide if the Friends of Urban Renewal name is apt or if it's ironic.

Meanwhile, firebrand Commissioner Randy Leonard is at it again. As Lisa Grace Lednicer reported today, Leonard has helped create a code-enforcement task force that targets and actively goes after some of the city's worst code violators. Some are complaining because of the secrecy associated with the group, and others because the enforcers don't necessarily just target the worst code offenders uniformly - they pick and choose based in part on anecdotal evidence.

Even so, I had to laugh seeing that they'd put the kibosh on Greek Cusina, the rowdy downtown eatery that continually seems to flip its nose at anyone that would question their way of doing things. Leonard's team found some 50 code violations at Greek Cusina, yet its owner, Ted Pappas, still found the gumption to complain that he was being persecuted. This is the same Pappas who tried to organize a boycott of Willamette Week a few years ago when one of its writers, Caryn Brooks, had the audacity to write a particularly unfavorable review of another eatery.

If Pappas is complaining, others, like those living in fleabag residence hotels downtown, are thankful. (Such as George Rumbley of the Westwind Apartments, pictured above in a fine shot by The Oregonian's Fredrick Joe.) From cockroaches to broken boilers, chipping paint to carpet first lain in the Eisenhower administration, Leonard's bunch has succeeded in improving conditions for those living there, and they've been thankful. Nice work, fellas!

Joslin retires as city land-use honcho

Jeff Joslin, Land Use Manager for Urban Design, Design Review, and Landmarks Review with the City of Portland’s Bureau of Development Services, has announced his retirement after 15 years. Recently Jeff sent out a farewell email that, with his permission, I’ll reprint here:

It's with gratitude and reticence that I announce I'm leaving the employment of the City of Portland.  It's been an imposing responsibility, and genuine privilege, to lead various urban design functions during a period encompassing the most active decade of development and change in Portland's modern history.

I've overseen an evolving and remarkable team that has shepherded billions of dollars of projects through increasingly sophisticated and demanding processes, while additionally being afforded the opportunity to participate in the planning and re-planning of Portland's most successful, new, and evolving areas and districts.

As a manager, I've seen my role as understanding the implications of the relevant overarching policies, and identifying and bringing to bear the appropriate human, technical, political, and financial resources necessary to manifest those policies in the most effective way achievable.  I believe the programs I've contributed to have been an ongoing armature and impetus for advancing good design throughout the city, while promoting an ongoing design dialogue that has helped the city grown well as it's grown rapidly.  It's my hope that I've done so successfully and responsively, forwarding the aspirations established by the citizenry, manifested by city leadership, and given voice and force by our remarkable and sacrificing citizen Design Commission and Landmarks Commission.

Portland 15 years ago was a much smaller city than it is today: its approaches to urban design were evolved for the time, but the program was modest.  A year and a half after entering the Bureau of Planning, I was placed in charge of the urban design program, which consisted of 4 employees, and oversaw detailed design and historic review over about four per cent of the city, while also developing urban design and historic regulation in a rapidly changing environment.

Five years later the size of that group had doubled, prior to being segregated into two urban design functions: one in the Bureau of Planning, one in what is today the Bureau of Development Services.  I'd come to believe deeply in the need to ensure the highest and best manifestation of policy and regulation in on-the-ground projects, and from that point on served principally to administer design review and historic design review programs, and staff the respective commissions.

Today, that program covers about twenty percent of the city, and has expanded to a dozen dedicated planners and architects, who - along with numerous indispensable support staff - also coordinate the multitudinous functions of a Design Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission.  Over three hundred projects a year are reviewed and advanced in the most urbanized and rapidly evolving areas of the city.  Our process is comprehensive and detailed - with nearly two dozen different design districts, over a dozen historic districts, and thousands of landmarks - and we review all new development and modifications to existing development in these areas.  The process, and our successes, have been studied and emulated worldwide.

I've no doubt, based on my extensive experience and investigation, that - in the realm of aesthetic regulation - we in Portland have the most evolved and effective approach and system of any city, in this country or beyond.

I inherited a development review process that, fifteen years ago, was broadly critiqued as being capricious, subjective, unpredictable, and un-attuned to the real needs of both citizens, and developers.  Today, despite the fact that the process, scale and number of projects have all increased enormously, there is nearly universal support politically, publicly, and developmentally.  We've learned together how best to creatively collaborate with designers, architects, developers and neighborhood advocates to push projects as high and far as economics, design capability, and regulatory intent would allow.  The process is today is largely viewed as streamlined, sophisticated, and adding value.  The ultimate testament to that is the fact that our most prominent developers, and leaders in our most rapidly shifting neighborhoods, are our most ardent supporters.  I take much personal pride in this evolution.

Also pertinent - in this economic cycle where other permit-related activity has drastically diminished, the work in the Design Team has expanded due to a concentration of capital and activity in the areas we regulate.  This is further testament to the phenomenal success of the system we've developed together.

Core to our work has been the fundamental belief, that quality development based in sound architectural and urban design principles is fundamental to the economic vitality, livability and sustainability of the city.  I'm hopeful that I've served that mission responsibly, and that the values and processes we've worked together to establish and employ will continue to be built on as we move further into this already challenging 21st century.

I leave behind a skilled and gifted team, and a Design Commission and Landmarks Commission of the highest order.  I look forward to watching and backing their efforts to continue growing well the city we love, and to personally contributing to that effort through other means in the future.

For me, there could have been no better urban design role, in no better city, at no better time.  Thank you, each and all, for the opportunity, and for your collaboration and support.

Adams stays

After initially hearing the news yesterday reported by several media outlets (including Willamette Week, The Portland Mercury and The Oregonian) about Mayor Adams deciding not to resign, I didn't want to write anything more. 

In my previous post, I articulated some of the difficult ambiguity that most of us have felt involving the scandal, and how neither resigning nor staying would feel perfectly right. I've also really appreciated hearing from readers that the post struck a chord and that many felt the same sense of wrestling with the issue.

In the time since the original story broke, it has been interesting to see who has taken what side, or neither. The Oregonian and Just Out (!) were calling for Adams to resign practically before the story even broke. The Oregonian in particular surprised me with how sure they were of themselves. There seemed to be very little deliberation, or deliberation done very rapidly.

At the same time, I had to cringe a little at the spectacle of a press conference supporting Adams with Pink Martini frontman Thomas Lauderdale standing before City Hall in his precious little bowtie, or Storm Large joining him to shout out expletives before belching out Tammy Wynette's "Stand By Your Man". 

But this morning's Oregonian editorial pushes me more into the pro-Adams camp than any of Adams' actions could do to push me away. The Oregonian editorial board not only calls Adams's decision a case of voting "for himself," but their essay also accuses those defending the mayor's right to continue in office as doing so out of fear or self interest. They eschew any notion that Adams staying is in the city's interest and anything other than his own. Which is at least indirectly quite insulting to anyone preferring to greet the mayor with forgiveness.

"Some are from organizations that have benefited financially and politically from Adams' presence in City Hall. Some don't want to land on Adams' bad side by failing to back him. Others...are willing to overlook unprofessional behavior, unethical campaign tactics and perhaps even criminal misconduct if necessary."

In other words, the Oregonian editorial seems to say, if you are standing up for Adams, your own interests and motivations are morally empty as well. This is the key part of what I take issue with (although I mean no disrespect to these editors personally, of course). Apparently only they have strong values - provided, of course, we're not talking about forgiveness or taking the long view of things.

If one of these editors had been George Washington's parent when he chopped down the cherry tree, George would have been doing ten to life in a British stockade for juvenile delinquents.

I can see the board initially calling for Adams to resign. But attacking those who don't assess the situation similarly or draw the same conclusions is as Machiavellian as anything Adams did during his days as Vera Katz's fearsome chief of staff.

If the paper is right and we're all being too gracious in letting our elected Mayor begin his term, then a recall effort will provide means for removing him from office.

But in the meantime, after coming down in the middle with regard to the Adams scandal, I can't help but feel that the righteousness of his critics has pushed me away from their arguments.

UPDATE - additional thoughts after the initial post: While this isn't first and foremost an issue of homosexuality but rather lying to the public (or perhaps now the legality of whether kissing is sexual contact, given the admission that Adams and Breedlove kissed before Breedlove was 18), I wonder if part of what's inspiring the Adams-should-resign camp, along with a strictness about the mistake-free sanctitude of the office itself, stems from the fact that this affair forces us to think more explicitly about Adams' being gay. Ironically, being out can have the effect of making one's orientation a relative non-issue. To many people, myself included, it's still a non-issue. But I think there may be others out there who were only willing to go along with an openly gay mayor as long as he did it relatively discreetly. But in this case, I'm not accusing or explaining; I'm asking. I know I support Adams in not resigning, but the fallout of what it means is something to consider pondering.

Wrestling with the Adams scandal

Since news first broke about newly sworn in mayor Sam Adams admitting he lied about his sexual relationship with a younger man, the chorus of voices calling for his resignation has quickly grown strong. The Oregonian, the state's daily paper of record, and Just Out, the city's premiere publication devoted to the gay community, have both called for Adams to step down. So has the Clackamas Tribune (oops, I mean the Clackamas-based Portland Tribune).

I still feel locked somewhere in the middle: I can't necessarily argue that the mayor shouldn't resign, given the obvious breach of trust that exists between him and the citizens of Portland. At the same time, I am resistant to join in calling for the guillotine.

Steve Duin made an excellent point in an Oregonian column this morning: that as Democrat sex scandals go (as opposed to Republican embezzlement) the Adams affair feels more like the troubles that plagued Bill Clinton than those with Neil Goldschmidt - provided of course that it's true the mayor didn't engage in statutory rape with a minor.

By the way, the Monica Lewinsky figure in this affair is actually named Beau Breedlove. His name practically translates as "beautiful sex." This is a bad joke, right?

I have felt supremely disillusioned about American politics for the last decade, dating back to Bill Clinton's impeachment. I still see that episode as a political witch hunt for the ages. In Adams's case, there isn't a witch hunt. But I hear a similar voice asking, "Who cares?" Part of me wants to forgive Adams as a dutiful commitment to Bill Clinton. Newt Gingrich has nothing to do with Sam Adams, but I see that fool in my head when I come close to calling for the mayor to resign. Did you know Gingrich later admitted to an extra-marital affair he committed during the Clinton impeachment? That's the kind of hypocrisy that can come from these incidents when we are quick to mount our moral high horse. The threat can be found in the title of an Alan Dershowitz book on the Clinton impeachment: Sexual McCarthyism.

Obviously lying to the public as an elected official is not kosher. But if such a leader is ever going to be forgiven for lying, it should be when it comes to his personal life. Not only did I not know much of anything about Sam Adams's sex life before this scandal, but I didn't want to know anything.

I've tried to ask myself a few test questions about Adams and his future. For example, if he were heterosexual and had confessed to an affair with an 18-year-old woman, would he be in this much trouble? I'm not sure, but I know I personally once again would find it somewhat irrelevant. Another question I've asked myself is, if a close friend (gay or straight) confessed to me he/she had lied to cover up a romantic tryst and then apologized, would I forgive that friend? This time the answer is simple: absolutely. And would I be able to trust this friend again? Yeah, I would. It's called being a friend.

Another question I've asked myself: If Adams were a Republican, or otherwise a politician with whom I disagreed on the issues, would I be more likely to call for his resignation? It's possible. In that scenario I'd sense a weakness, and a chance for the politicians I prefer to defeat the one I dislike. I'd be calling for a republican sex-scandal-plagued mayor to step down, but probably with the ulterior motive of wanting him gone anyway.

When we elected Sam Adams a few months ago, it was with tremendous fanfare. This wasn't just a new mayor we were electing, but a young, energetic lifelong policy wonk who had earned a great amount of praise and enthusiasm. I wasn't just thinking about Adams's four year term as mayor, but anticipating the possibility of a two or three-term run like Vera Katz had. Does all that enthusiasm completely disappear when a mistake is made? Not for me. There's no doubt Adams's personal judgment and integrity have taken a massive hit in my mind and in just about every Portlander's. Yet I also don't see Adams as a pariah who now lacks those skills, judgment and passion to lead.

Every time I start to think Adams should resign, I wince at joining the chorus of people on their high horses judging the mayor as if none of us have ever lied about our personal lives. Then if I start to say we should let him continue, I must admittedly pause and wonder what kind of wrong message that might send. After all, even if Breedlove was 18, it was really stupid of Adams to risk his entire political life on this affair.

There is also tremendous symbolism associated with Sam Adams in a way that goes beyond his being the head of the Portland city council. He is the first openly gay elected mayor of a major city in the United States. It would be a terrible shame if that historic breakthrough ended in flames. Clearly it is significant that a publication like Just Out called for the mayor's resignation, but I also think that call was about Just Out as much as it was about what they think is right for the mayor. There's so much discrimination against gays and lesbians anyway that they can't afford to be associated with this kind of ethical lapse. That's hard to question as a motive. But I'm disappointed they'd hang him out to dry so quickly. Where's the loyalty?

And as for The Oregonian editorial board calling for the mayor to step down, that's significant too, and may contribute to Adams resigning. At the same time, let me remind you: this is an editorial board that in 2000 endorsed George W. Bush over Al Gore for president. This may sound a little funny, but even if the paper is correct in calling for Adams to step down, I think they're doing because it would look too questionable for them not to take a hard moral line. The Oregonian also seems to be saying in its call for resignation that the problem isn't just Adams lying, but that he somehow wasn't contrite enough. Which I find silly.

I've also wrestled with the notion of Willamette Week reporter Nigel Janquiss, who broke the story. I freelanced for WW for seven years, and got to know Nigel a little bit during that time. He's a good guy and a very, very skilled reporter. But now that Nigel's two biggest stories have been expose pieces on the sex lives of Neil Goldschmidt and Sam Adams, there's a part of me saying inside, "For what?"

While reading a host of opinions from various local leaders, few of them seemed relevant or insightful - except for the comments of new city commissioner Amanda Fritz: "I've been a psychiatric nurse for 26 years, and people make mistakes....People do things that seem ridiculously wrong, and then lie about it." Oh, and the comments of Leslie Carlson, co-chair of the Sustainable Development Commission: "I think we put leaders on too high of a pedestal. I got his apology, and that's enough for me."

Although I'm not ready to call for Adams to resign, two possible strategies for going forward seem interesting and worth further consideration: that Adams voluntarily support a recall effort, which would begin this summer at the earliest, or that he resign and run for mayor in the ensuing general election. In both cases, Adams would not be walking away so much as giving the people of Portland a referendum on his future. It would be a really tough risk for Adams: he'd essentially be giving in to his adversaries' demands. But if Adams were to leave the mayor's office and somehow regain it, that would be the best of all possible outcomes for him.

This is probably a dangerous post to write simply because I'm still thinking as I type. In an environment where more and more have joined the mob calling for Adams's head, I don't feel comfortable joining in. You know what? I lie sometimes too. Calling out the mayor feels too judgmental. It feels like there is no value in forgiveness, or in the trust that we placed in Adams originally.

Another question I've asked myself recently: Would I vote for Sam Adams over Sho Dozono knowing that Adams lied about a relationship with an 18-year-old? Even as I've wrestled with whether Adams should resign, I've almost surprised myself to realize that the answer is a resounding 'yes'. The mayor's office has tremendous symbolic value, and we have to hold that office to a level of integrity. But is Sam Adams still much better qualified to lead the city than Dozono? I think so. I'd rather have an experienced, driven elected official with an impressive track record who lied when cornered about his sex life to protect his privacy than a travel agency owner with no experience in government.

Regardless of how this turns out, though, the irony of seeing Adams tumble from grace like a skydiver without a parachute, all on the day of Barack Obama's inauguration, one of the most important days in the entire history of the United States of America, is something I and many Portlanders will never forget. It's a big enough moment, therefore, that the only thing I'm sure about is I want to avoid any hasty decisions or judgments.

Right now I'm leaning toward saying that Adams should not step down. There is no perfect solution here, but the forgiveness I feel inclined to give our mayor is the same sentiment I would give to any friend or family member who did the same.

 

UPDATE: After giving this more thought, I've come to believe what we need here is an official mechanism for the city to censure Sam Adams, to put on record that we're not letting this mistake slide. But that action should come in lieu of, and stop short of, actually removing him from office. Does censure exist as an act the City Council can pass? It exists in the US Congress, and would have been the more proper means for punishing Bill Clinton as well. Has anybody read the city charter lately?

Let's welcome Mayor Adams with great ideas for the city

Although I believe he was officially sworn in at midnight on January 1, for the last few days our new mayor, Sam Adams, has been making rounds through the community to listen to ordinary voices about the state of the city.

Obviously the biggest issue right now is the economy. As Adams has visited neighborhoods like St. Johns and Parkrose, he learned of closed businesses and vacant storefronts. He can't make the Dow Jones go up or fix the mortgage crisis. And it's a weak mayoral form of government in which Adams only wields so much power beyond any other city council member. But Adams comes into office with a tremendous amount of excitement. He's smart and energetic and, while not to be crossed, seems very willing to listen.

One of Adams's key mentors, former mayor Vera Katz (under whom he was chief of staff), paid attention to design and architecture. There's reason to believe he'll do the same. Even though one never agrees with any elected official all the time, I'm optimistic and enthusiastic myself about the incoming Adams administration.

In the spirit with which the new mayor has gone on a mini listening tour, I think it's a great time for architects, planners, and other members of the design and building industry to give Adams a few ideas and opinions about how, to put it in simple terms, the city can work better.

Many of you reading this are better able to assess individual line-item issues and broader concerns Mayor Adams should heed. Please leave a comment here about what he should prioritize and appreciate.

As someone writing about architecture here over the last decade and watching city government, I'd like to see more of an official action taken toward assuring design excellence in all city projects, be it the ones public employees occupy or the projects agencies like the Portland Development Commission funds. To me sustainability and energy/resource efficiency are huge parts of this, but just that: parts. At PDC, for example, there is a staff member devoted to coordinating sustainability efforts, but nobody working to assure good design. Particularly when you're coordinating involvement from a lot of neighborhood and community voices, I wish there someone doing at the city level what someone like Ed Finer grew famous for doing at the GSA on the federal level: making great buildings. Vera Katz started the Mayor's Design Initiative and Tom Potter discontinued it. Maybe that's a good place to start. I'm just sayin'.

Also, there is a lot of work to be done on the transportation front, be it bridges for MAX over the Willamette and possibly for I-5 over the Columbia. There may be a Burnside/Couch couplet and almost assuredly new streetcar and MAX lines. There could be a lot of federal dollars available if Portland plays its cards right. And besides these projects, what else might Portland be in line for? I'm not sure how much a mayor can do about this, but I'd love to see Adams advocate for high-speed rail on the west coast. With the mayors of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles behind such an effort, the chances would improve. And if we're talking about rail, why shouldn't you be able to take a train from Portland to the Oregon Coast? Anybody driving on to Lincoln City or Canon Beach knows traffic is getting ever more clogged.

Then there are long-term issues like the future of Memorial Coliseum and the Rose Quarter, not to mention the Portland Public Schools property just north of there. There's the downtown US post office space on NW Broadway that could be transformed. Centennial Mills could easily fall through if the developer backs out, so that will need mayoral attention to make sure it happens. Same for Burnside Bridgehead. On the other end of the spectrum, there are surely things city government could do better to make creative projects able to happen. As the city continues to add density, people will get more and more clever about maximizing less obvious urban spaces. Are city regulations going to encourage and not hinder that experience?

Sam Adams might also be able to influence important bodies like the Historic Landmarks Commission and the Design Commission, even though I believe those are part of bureaus that commissioner Randy Loenard oversees. Speaking of which, under Leonard's watch there have been laudable efforts like the Living Smart competition for skinny houses. Why not put some local architects to work on some kind of invited design competition brainstorming new ideas for some city projects?

Four years ago, I wrote a Willamette Week article about key issues facing incoming mayor Tom Potter: the transit mall (how to handle MAX, buses and possibly other vehicles together), South Waterfront (forgetting about whether to tram or not to tram and making sure the rest of the neighborhood develops), and Burnside Bridgehead. Today the new transit mall is nearly complete...finally. South Waterfront has developed a great deal from four years ago and, once the economy recovers, will continue growing. Burnside Bridgehead has been on hold for awhile, but may come back. In fact, it has to eventually given the prominence of that site.

But again, I'm not an architect. I don't even play one on TV (to paraphrase an old aspirin commercial). You tell me--no, tell Mayor Adams--what you'd like to see happen in the 4, 8 or perhaps even 12 years he could have ahead running our city.

OSD seeks Green Investment Fund applicants and feedback for new High Performance Green Policy

Yesterday I spoke with Alisa Kane of the city's Office of Sustainable Development about two efforts underway there: the 2009 green Investment Fund and the city's new High Performance Green Building Policy.

In partnership with the Energy Trust of Oregon and other local agencies, the OSD is seeking proposals for its 2009 Green Investment Fund. This year as much as $425,000 will be awarded to individual projects that significantly conserve water and energy, reduce stormwater entering the sewers and recycle or reuse a substantial amount of materials.

The GIF began in 2001 to support innovative and resource-efficient building projects in Portland and has given away over $2.5 million in the last five years to 32 different projects. In 2005, the GIF evolved into a partnership between OSD and the City of Portland's Bureaus of Water and Environmental Services and Energy Trust of Oregon, Inc.

The GIF awards innovative, comprehensive and transferable projects that excel at whole building integration, energy efficiency and on-site renewable power generation; material reduction, recycling, salvage and reuse; potable water conservation; stormwater management and improving watershed health, and community connectivity.

Among the projects previously funded are the design and installation of a bioreactor at OHSU's Center for Health and Healing (designed by GBD Architects) that captures, treats and reuses 15,000 gallons of wastewater daily for toilet flushing, cooling tower make-up and irrigation. The GIF also funded the first permitted structural insulated panel home in Portland, a living wall that captures and filters rainwater, and the restoration of a historic farmhouse and surrounding property into an educational center demonstrating rainwater harvesting and reuse, on-site renewable power generation and advanced energy efficiency upgrades. Research also was supported on methods to reduce air infiltration through historic double hung windows and the feasibility of capturing and reusing excess heat from the coffee roasting process. And the GIF helped bankroll the transformation of a former gas station into a community center constructed with recycled shipping containers, reclaimed glass panels and salvaged building materials that is on track to become one of the first Living Building Challenge projects in Portland.

Deadline for applying for the Green Investment Fund: February 2, 2009.

Meanwhile, since December 4, the OSD has also been seeking public comment on the draft High Performance Green Building policy (the comment period closes January 20, 2009). The proposed policy provides incentives and technical assistance for new construction and existing buildings that incorporate advanced green building measures.  Leveraging a commercial and residential 'feebate' system to promote green building practices for new construction projects and disclosure of building performance measures for existing commercial buildings, the draft policy seeks to cut carbon emissions from buildings, reduce energy costs for tenants and homeowners and accelerate the growth of local green jobs.  The draft green building policy was developed by OSD staff with input from stakeholders in the design, development, construction and real estate sectors. It's also a toned-down version of the policy first announced by Commissioner Dan Saltzman at the Greenbuild conference in Chicago in 2007.

There will be a presentation of the policy proposal to the public on Tuesday, January 6, from 3:00 pm to 4:30 pm, in the Portland Building Auditorium, at 1120 SW Fifth Avenue. 

Of course the OSD is set to transform under the Sam Adams administration into the Bureau of Sustainable Planning and Development. Of that move, the OSD's Kane told me, "I feel very positive about it. I think our initiatives will be better integrated into the planning of the city. I think there'll be some learning on both sides, but it will only strengthen us in the long run."

The city that works

Today as I write this, the sidewalk outside my house has a foot and a half of snow. The only people who have gone by on foot were wearing skis. Practically the only vehicle to drive by in hours was a postal service truck wrapped in tire chains. My dad's restaurant is closed. The steel mill where my mom works is closed. Just about everything in the city is closed. But you know what isn't? The city of Portland.

Here's the official announcement on the city's website:

"City of Portland offices will be open. All city employees are expected to report to work at their regularly scheduled times. If any employee is not able to report to work on time at their regularly scheduled start time, they must use accrued leave (management leave, compensatory time, or vacation leave) to cover their absence or with supervisory approval and consistent with city rules and collective bargaining agreements, work a flex schedule to cover any missed time.  Employees are expected to notify their supervisor if they are unable to report to work or if they are going to be late."

So not only is the city at work today, but if you fear for your safety and want to stay home -- as any reasonable person would today -- you're going to lose vacation time. I have a fair number of friends who work for the City of Portland, and I feel sorry for them having to unnecessarily risk their safety to make it to work.

If my memory serves correctly, a couple years ago someone at Multnomah County tried to give city employees paid time off for not coming in during dangerous blizzard conditions and a bonus if they did come in. That plan received a lot of criticism, which seems ludicrous to me. But is there something I'm not getting about this? Of course those providing essential services for the city need to be there, people like police and firefighters, people driving snowplows. But does an administrator in a city bureau really need to be pushing papers today? It'd be curious to know who decides for city employees what constitutes a snow day. At almost two feet of snow, what threshold have we not yet reached? Just what is this person trying to prove, and what part of Antarctica did this decision maker come from?

In an op-ed published yesterday in The Oregonian, mayor Tom Potter talked about his legacy of "always putting people first." I can't tell you definitively who told city workers to come to work today, but I believe Potter heads the city's human resources office. Hmm.

UPDATE: This just in from the City as of early this afternoon:

"Due to worsening weather conditions and Tri-Met's reduction in transit service, all City offices are closed effective immediately. All non-essential employees are released from work. All employees who reported to work today will be paid for their entire work day. Employees who did not come to work today must follow the City's inclement weather policy and use accrued leave to cover their absence."

So, you're not in trouble if you didn't brave the blizzard unnecessarily this morning, but you still have to take vacation. Achtung, Little Beirut!

Adams announces changes to city bureaus: Kelly out, planning & sustainability offices combined

Asreported by The Oregonian's Mark Larabee, mayor-elect Sam Adams has announced a series of changes in both the makeup and management of several city bureaus.

Most significant to the design and construction community may be that the Office of Sustainable Development and the Bureau of Planning will be combined into the Bureau of Sustainable Planning & Development. Adams told the Oregonian the move is meant to ensure sustainable principles are at the center of all city planning and building. The bureau will be headed by Susan Anderson, who has heretofore headed the Sustainable Development office. Planning director Gil Kelly is being laid off.

What do the rest of you think of Kelly being gone and the merger of bureaus? According to various reports, his departure had been rumored for awhile. Anderson is a very capable manager, but in a city famed for its planning, should there be concern that the new planning bureau is not being run by a planner? It's natural (if you'll pardon the pun) to want sustainable principles to inform every planning decision, but did sustainability just eat planning? Perhaps I'm over-reacting. But just as with architecture itself, I worry that the very necessary sustainable movement has the fervor to overtake previous concerns. Not every aspect of design and planning has to do with ecology and energy efficiency. You tell me: will we still have strong planning in Portland in addition to strong sustainability leadership?

In other changes and assignments announced by Adams, the Bureau of Housing and Community Development will be split up, creating a new Bureau of Housing and moving development functions to the Portland Development Commission. This seems like a more than reasonable consolidation. At the same time, PDC takes a lot of flak sometimes, and they are now the city's only development force. Also new will be an independent Office of Healthy Working Rivers, staffed by members of the Bureau of Environmental Services and Planning.

As many readers here already know, the city has had a fairly convoluted permitting process. Requests for development can sometimes go through seven different bureaus before finally approval - way too slow. Adams announced that all permitting will now go through the Bureau of Development Services. There will also be a feasibility study conducted regarding establishment of a one-stop customer service center where all city services can be accessed.

Bridge Over Troubled Potter

It's a funny, audacious idea: take the old Sauvie Island Bridge that was recently replaced by a new span, and recycle the structure into a new bike and pedestrian bridge over I-405. It also may be an indication of the risk and reward of Commissioner and mayoral candidate Sam Adams, a proponent of the idea, versus current/outgoing mayor Tom Potter.

The bridge has been discussed for a few years, but originally the idea was to make it a simple, cheap concrete crossing. That's what Mayor Potter still supports, according to an article in today's Oregonian, because it's about $1.5 million cheaper than recycling the Sauvie Island Bridge. But $1.5 million is practically pocket change to a major metropolitan city like Portland, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't choose, money aside, the Sauvie span for its superior aesthetics and the message it sends about Portland's values.

Potter has every right to oppose an extra budget outlay, but when I read that he opposes Adams on this matter, I couldn't help but roll my eyes. Tom Potter is a good man, no question about it. But this is the latest case where, at least when it comes to the built environment, he just doesn't get it. Adams does.

I mean, a long ugly concrete slab in the central city, to save a million and a half? That's like choosing a kiddie burger over a Big Mac to save a nickel.

At the same time, the fact that Adams, as head of the city's transportation department, may be able to push this through, also may show his danger, or at least the irony of this whole thing. The original discussion about a bike/pedestrian bridge was born of talk about the Burnside couplet, which Adams has pushed hard. The bridge itself is just the kind of project that Adams ought to champion, but the couplet is a rogue project that is about much, much more than transportation; a change this big really ought to come as part of a larger central city planning process coming from...city planners. So in other words, I think the bike bridge battle shows Adams at his best, but it's also inextricably tied to a bad idea.

Adams and Potter are like the eager son and the fatigued father. I'd rather have the son leading in this case, but he could perhaps use just a little of the father's restraint. In the case of this proposed bike/pedestrian bridge, though, I think the island is Potter, not Sauvie.

As always, though, I say this as a conversation starter, not an ending. What do the rest of you think?

Potholes, On the Road and In the Head

In Friday's Daily Journal of Commerce, Tyler Graf writes, "Sam Adams' road-maintenance fee continues to make political enemies. No surprises there."

Huh? Actually, there is a surprise here.

Graf is referring the plan hatched by Sam Adams and Randy Leonard to put through a road maintenance plan for Portland that breaks the intended fee into a three-part affair so it doesn't have to be referred to voters. He quotes Jason Williams of Oregon Taxpayers United, a reactionary anti-tax organization that seems to favor anarchy, closed schools, laid-off police and firefighters, and of course pothole-strewn roads, all in the name of protecting the masses from the evil specter of paying their fair share to keep our civilized society stitched together. Williams is supposed to stand as the voice of reason in this story.

Williams calls the Adams-Leonard move to stave off a referendum, which would probably be voted down because pretty much any tax measure gets voted down, "sleazy". Maybe it's sleazy like allowing the lifeblood of our economy--our public roads and infrastructure--to crumble.

Graf does point out at the end that some of Williams' points are psychotically off base. Like saying both the tram and even MAX are failures. Or that Oregon already has the highest fees for automobiles in the region when it has the lowest.

Maybe it's just me, but I think finding a way to fix Portland's roads is exactly the kind of thing we as a city should step up and do. And if city councilors like Randy Leonard and Sam Adams can find a creative way to get this deal done, then that's great. I'm all for democracy, but Oregon already has way, way, way too many initiatives referred to the voters. I expect my leaders to lead some of the time, not to patronize us with having to get a rubber stamp for the tough decisions we'll vote down if it saves us half a nickel. I doubt Adams and Leonard are making many political enemies out of this road fee, but if they are, perhaps this is the chance for the voting public to be heard without actually voting. Let's tell the naysayers that an enemy of decent roads is an enemy of ours.

Considering the State Renewables Credit

The State of Oregon's increased tax breaks for renewable energy businesses has been a subject of debate in and out of Salem lately because of a proposal to double the already sizable credit. As reported by several outlets, The Oregon House Revenue Committee has voted to forward an energy tax credit proposal for the full Legislature's consideration next month.

More than 170 projects worth around $200 million won preliminary go-ahead for renewable energy tax credits last year. Tax credits were boosted to as much as 50 percent of a project's cost. PPM energy alone received $33 million in tax credits for its Klondike III wind farm in eastern Sherman County. That's a lot of money that could have been allocated for schools, health care, and other budget strapped coffers.

Being a political lefty, I also don't always feel great about the huge tax breaks that are routinely used to attract companies. Why should they get it so easy when individual households and our essential institutions pay the price?

Still, I'm reminded of the examples in Germany, Denmark and other European countries that have attracted many millions of dollars in economic benefit thanks to the large number of companies in solar power, wind and various other alternative energy companies. If you remove it, they will come. And it's already begun here in Oregon, too.

Ideally, there would be as much tax revenue as ever being generated for Oregon, just coming at a lower rate from a wider volume of sources. It makes total sense. I just feel a little funny because it sounds a lot like the argument made for trickle-down, Reaganomics, the Laffer Curve and all that stuff from the 80s, which is not something I'm philosophically not onboard with, despite growing up in a household where it was gospel.

"The truth is Oregon's tax breaks for renewable energy businesses are working," an editorial from last Friday's Oregonian read. "How else to explain the glut of companies seeking these benefits?" Renewable energy businesses also tend to create family-wage jobs, the editors also wrote. "By accepting lower than possible tax revenues today, Oregon is investing in its place in tomorrow's greener economy."

In the end I find it hard to argue with the green energy tax credits. I'm not sure yet if it's changing times or a special case. How do the rest of you feel?

New Landmarks Commission Officers Elected With Little Debate

As Fred Leeson reported in a small blurb from today's Oregonian, last week the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission elected its new officers.

Member Carrie Richter nominated fellow member and developer Art DeMuro as chairman, and DeMuro nominated Richter as vice chairwoman. They won approval in a unanimous vote.

For a commission that has perhaps been the most controversial entity in Portland design and construction, I was surprised to see that this vote happened with so little advance notice and public participation.

For all I know, the City probably went through due diligence to give public notice of the meeting. But given that the Historic Landmarks Commission has made some very controversial decisions all over the city, particularly in the last year--the Apple store in Northwest, the Kurisu project on Mississippi, various small projects throughout the neighborhoods--I'd have expected at least some talk about possibly changing the Commission's makeup or at least having some kind of roundtable on its mission and process.

This is not an attempt to badmouth the current Landmarks commission membership. I don't know Carrie Richter, but I've interviewed Art DeMuro before, and found him to be very nice and reasonable. Even so, there increasingly seems to be a disconnect or at least a lack of consensus in Portland on the tenets that comprise the Landmarks Commission's efforts.

How about some kind of public forum to take a new look at the group and its mission?

Delivering New Life to Post Office Site, and More from the City's Wish List

As reported in Tuesday's Portland Tribune, a realignment of downtown urban renewal districts may be in the works that could have a few significant effects. The plans are being drafted by a Portland Development Commission advisory committee.

This is also tied, I believe, to a drafted wish list for about $53 million in federal funds for eight projects from Congress as part of the "2008 Federal Agenda" that Andy Dworkin reported in The Oregonian a couple weeks ago.

One idea being considered is to River District to include up to 61 acres in Old Town/Chinatown area to go with the existing Pearl District portions. This would also guarantee millions of property tax dollars to help redevelop the main U.S. Post Office site. It's something that has been talked about for a long time, and I've long felt this property seemed like a sleeping giant.

What's more, I hope some of the existing post office building could be incorporated into a new structure. It's somewhat shabby now as a post office -- I really have to struggle to think of a post office that isn't shabby in one way or another -- but there are aspects of its mid-century modern design that are very handsome. If it could be done, I'd love to see a kind of hybrid of old and new architecture there. Why not make this a home for a public market, but a lot more as well? Then again, how about a new concert hall for the Oregon Symphony? Or a new contemporary art center? Even just a well executed mixed use project with housing or offices above retail would possibly suffice. If PDC were handling the allocation of that work, though, I'd like to see a revamping of the process to better empower great design as a priority, and not just something that meets livability and sustainability parameters. It doesn't have to be fancy, just good.

Another project included in the advisory committee plans, says the Tribune article, is a possible streetcar line for West Burnside. This, of course, is additionally tied to a re-routing of Burnside and Couch as one-way streets between I-405 to the West and 12th Street to the east.

Plenty of reasonable and intelligent people think this is a good idea, the couplet (pictured at left and below). There's an argument out there that it would foster development and more efficiently move traffic. Maybe so. But I'm still skeptical.  As I've said, it seems like a suburban solution, meant more to move cars than to be good urbanism. I think it'd make an island of blocks between Burnside and Couch like that between Northeast Broadway and Weidler, and between Grand and MLK. Perhaps it's warranted in those cases, but Burnside, I think, is different. It's the only street in the city touching SW, SE, NE and NW -- both literally and symbolically a unifying street. I think it needs to be two-way.

It also seems like the City Council is supporting this idea largely because of the attached streetcar proposal. Regardless, I also don't see how you can make such a major rupture to the traffic pattern on and around Burnside without looking at it in relation to the whole central city.

But, if you have a cool new post office project on Broadway, across from a renovated Union Station with a MAX train going by, a renovated 511 Broadway building occupied by PNCA, the Customs House remade as a boutique hotel (or its developers conceding interest to some type of arts program), and maybe even a completed Burnside Bridge construction project, and that sounds like an exciting transformation.

Hopefully it won't get lost in the mail like the last "Priority" package I sent to my sister.

Beyond the Bowtie: Blumenauer on Architecture

In case you didn't happen to pick up a copy at the newsstand, this month's AIArchitect magazine includes a fairly extensive interview with Congressman Earl Blumenauer, whose district is comprised largely of east Portland and Multnomah County.

"A staunch advocate of the architecture profession and built environment, the congressman is committed to promoting livable communities at the federal level," the intro goes. "Dubbed the “Johnny Appleseed of Livability,” he has authored and co-sponsored legislation to preserve and protect public lands, shift U.S. energy policy towards renewable energy and energy efficiency, curb global warming, and restore America’s lakes and rivers. In the past 12 years, he has visited more than 100 U.S. communities to help local governments, citizens, and civic organizations build effective partnerships to manage growth, improve the environment, and provide transportation choices."

As it happens, one of the first articles I ever wrote, back in about 1997 for the now defunct Our Town, included an interview with Blumenauer. The piece was about faith-based charities and the question of whether federal social-service funding could be allocated to them without violating the separation of church and state (a nice fluff piece to get started with). Why he wanted to talk to a free downtown weekly I'm not sure, but press not involving scandal or gaffes never hurts an elected official.

Blumenauer is practically a lifer as a politician, but he has used that time to steadily win greater influence not only for his Portland-area district, but also to advance the idea of Portland: the way we put together our built environment and transportation matrix.

Asked a relatively softball question in the interview, about what the architecture community "is doing well" to enhance communities, the Congressman--apparently the owner of many, many frequent flier miles--had this to say:

I try to be in a different community every month. Two weekends ago, we were in Miami and San Juan, Puerto Rico. I’m struck by how everywhere, the architecture community is increasingly effective in being part of the community planning process. The [AIA] 2030 Challenge that deals with energy conservation has been seized upon and is being used both in new architectural commissions and in local policies dealing with energy conservation. The architecture community is at the right place at the right time with the right solutions, and they’re being more vocal about it.

Asked about asked architects and political advocacy, he went on:

"I think there’s no better advocate than an architect for tying these pieces together. They understand the role that design principles play, but they also interact with code requirements and comprehensive plan elements. They’re the master weavers and the communicators who talk to the clients, local authorities, and oftentimes people in the community who have concerns about the impact a project will have. The architectural community needs to be willing to engage more broadly in what they do nationally with the AIA and other organizations, including being more aggressive locally and raising the profile of these issues, spotlighting the good stuff, and being constructively critical about outmoded policies and practices. The architect is right in the middle of the most important public policy considerations in any community. The more they understand, appreciate, and act that role, the better off we’ll all be."

Asked later in the interview about what he likes to do in his free time, Blumenauer turns out to be an avid marathoner, completing his 36th earlier this fall. For those politicians able to stay more or less continually in office over the years and (in some cases) decades, without succumbing to scandal or other reasons for backlash, and surviving the ebbs and flows of one party and then another grabbing ahold of the majority, an elected official's career really is a kind of marathon. He's never really the hottest commodity in the cult-of-personality that drives large national media outlets, and he doesn't wield the kind of power that would warrant it anyway. But slowly over time, by consistently carrying his message back and forth between Portland and DC, and to all the other cities he visits, there's no question Earl Blumenauer has had a big effect on Portland's built environment and transportation network.

Now, the bow tie is another matter altogether. But then again, this is not exactly a formally dressing city, and there's probably something appropriate to Blumenauer's look, especially amid the sameness of probably all 544 other elected leaders on Capitol Hill wearing regular ties. (An exception would have been the former Illinois senator and 1988 presidential candidate Paul Simon, but he's no longer in Congress...or alive.) Maybe I'm just jealous that the congressman is being inherently more Portland than I will ever dare.

Notes on Design Competitions, Permeable Pavement (and Tyler Durden)

It seems like a host of design competitions, both actual ones and those merely in the talking stage, have come up a lot lately.

In today’s Oregonian, Eric Mortenson reports on a new competition sponsored by Metro, “Integrating Habitats”, to generate ideas and designs that result in green clusters of development, not just green buildings. The competition has already attracted 234 entries from 10 countries, Mortenson reports, with a respected jury that includes local developer Jim Winkler, German architect Stefan Behnisch, and Metropolis magazine editor Susan Szenasy.

The Metro competition likely won’t ever be a high-profile one because it’s more of an ideas-based competition, rather than one resulting in tangible built work. But it’s a logical next step for the Portland area’s efforts to truly build green in a world-leading way.

Incidentally, the idea of green urban design got me wondering: what's to stop the Portland Department of Transportation from having its road-paving crews from now on use nothing but permeable pavement material?

Speaking of high-profile, today a reader forwarded me a New York Times article about a design competition co-sponsored by actor Brad Pitt to generate houses for the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans. Several star architects and firms like Thom Mayne and Pugh + Scarpa of Los Angeles, David Adjaye of London, and Japan’s Shigeru Ban. (Incidentally, If Pitt's Tyler Durden was the ringleader of Fight Club, what does it make these guys--The Magnificent Several? Charge of the Black Mock-Turtleneck Brigade?)

As I understand it, Pitt’s was an invited competition, as compared to the completely open-ended housing competitions we’ve had here, such as Living Smart to generate skinny-lot houses, and the city’s more recent competition to generate courtyard-style housing. I certainly like the idea of an open competition in that it allows young firms to compete on an even playing field and, theoretically, for the best design to win. But it’s probably no coincidence that the New Orleans designs in the Times today seem a little sexier and more interesting than the work our two competitions generated. But of course it also depends on what you're looking for; in a city competition, pure functionality understandably carries more weight.

Finally, there’s the matter of two local bridges set to be constructed. Recently on this site we talked about the planned new Sellwood Bridge, which is not using a competition. I’d questioned at the time whether a competition would have fostered more originality, but perhaps this particular project is not the right one for such a format because of its modest size. A lot of people seem to think something that functions well will suffice, and they wouldn’t be entirely wrong. However, what is enticing about a competition is the chance to get something better than sufficient—although of course it’s not guaranteed, either.

Where a design competition might be a lot more appropriate is for the new span planned for the I-5 Columbia River crossing. In case you missed it last week, the panel of experts looking at options for the span—particularly whether to expand/repair the existing bridge or build a new one—have recommended an entirely new structure.

The Columbia River bridge has a lot of function to attend to every day (moving thousands of cars efficiently without so much congestion), as well as a lot of red tape to clear (state, federal and local officials). However, this is a bridge that could and arguably should be a real landmark for the state. What’s more uniquely Portland than its rivers and the bridges that cross them? And this isn’t any river; it’s the Columbia, a particularly big, significant one. It's calling out for something not only functional, but beautiful. It doesn't have to be as showy as a Santiago Calatrava bridge like the one pictured here; maybe in the Northwest it should tend to be more like the land bridge being completed in Vancouver as part of the Maya Lin-overseen Confluence Project. I guess I'd be happy with something kind of in between. But, to borrow from the language of my fellow blogger Mike Merrill, it really needs to be awesome.

If one were to advocate for a design competition for the Columbia crossing, what are the chances of making it happen? Who needs to sign off? Many have credited the media and particularly former Oregonian architecture critic Randy Gragg (including Randy) for jump-starting the idea of a competition for the aerial tram. It really seems like the Columbia bridge is the next big public works transportation project that needs a competition.

But just as these projects are different, so too are the competitions themselves. I love design competitions, and have long advocated for them in Portland. But clearly they are no panacea, especially when executed or set up poorly. What would we need to do to ensure a Columbia bridge competition not only happens, but happens correctly? I’m thinking it should be an invited competition, for example, with only certain top firms and designers selected. But in the meantime, getting to that point is the vastly greater challenge. Are we ready to cross that span?

Courtyard Competition Winners and Family Housing in the Central City

On Wednesday night at 7PM, winners of the Portland Courtyard Housing Design Competition will to be announced to the public from city offices at 1900 SW Fourth Avenue, Room 2500A. The announcement follows a day of deliberation by the competition's jury panel. The competition has attracted over 250 submittals from around the country and the world. As the press release goes on to explain...

"Participants were invited to submit innovative designs demonstrating how higher-density courtyard housing can serve as an attractive option for families with children, while also contributing to environmental sustainability, providing an affordable housing option, and responding to neighborhood context.

The competition is part of city efforts to foster design excellence and the creation of new family-friendly housing in Portland's neighborhoods.  During the announcement event, the winning designs will be on display and competition jurors will be on hand to comment on the competition and their choices.  Following this event, the public will be invited to choose their favorite designs as part of "People's Choice" balloting to take place later in November and in December."

Having been in Beijing the week before last, I was interested in that country's traditional hutong housing, which is similarly inwardly oriented, only without much of a real open-space courtyard - just a well, really. But courtyard housing has a rich and very diverse history in places like the Middle East as well as in Europe.

What's interesting about Portland having a go at courtyard housing is that ours is a city that's decidedly oriented to the pedestrian, which in theory can be the opposite of courtyard oriented architecture. Obviously it doesn't have to be one or the other, though, and that's why it will be cool to see what the winners come up with - particularly when you remember that this stuff should ultimately get built here.

Meanwhile, on Thursday from 6-8pm at the Ecotrust Conference Center  (721 NW Ninth Avenue, Second Floor), a lecture and discussion will focus on how Portland continue to provide new housing options for families as the city continues to grow and densify, and how can this be done in ways that are environmentally sustainable.  Presentations will be made by two authorities on child-friendly housing and sustainable community design, Clare Cooper Marcus and Cynthia Girling, who served as jurors for the Portland Courtyard Housing Design Competition. Clare Cooper Marcus is co-author of Housing as if People Mattered and People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Spaces. Cynthia Girling is co-author of Skinny Streets and Green Neighborhoods: Design for Environment and Community and Yard, Street, Park: The Design of Suburban Open Space.

Sounds like these two events go together. Courtyard housing is an ideal way to densify while still maintaining open space for children and families to play or (if your family was like mine) escape each other now and then. Just remember to curb your dog, people.

I recently read a statistic looking at Portland's number of persons per square mile (4,199.17 according to Wikipedia) versus other American cities like Boston (12,327) and Chicago (12,470), which is to say nothing, of course, of New York (27,083). Portland has such a long way to go in terms of real densification. And if the figures are correct, with millions moving here in the decades ahead, I don't think any of us have really completely wrapped our heads around how much the fabric of the city is going to change. But, considering how few hutongs are really left in Beijing when they once comprised virtually its entire fabric, perhaps such things are largely inevitable.

Saltzman Announces New City Green Building Standard

Tonight at PDX Lounge, the Portland showcase at the USGBC's Greenbuild Conference, Commissioner Dan Saltzman announced a new incentive and fee program for all new buildings based on their carbon footprint and energy usage profile.

The standard is still just in the talking stage - it hasn't been approved. But it seems very likely to pass in this city council.

As I understand it, the standard would break down like this: If your building is 45% more efficient than energy code stipulations, you'll actually get a rebate check from the city. If your project is 30% better, there'll be no rebate, but also no fee. If your building is less than 30% more efficient than code, you'll be charged what's called a "carbon fee".

As a point of reference, the OHSU Center for Health & Healing by GBD Architects is about 50% more efficient than code, and it attained a 'Platinum' LEED rating from the US Green Building Council. So even if they wouldn't have to attain high LEED ratings, the City is more or less saying that every building built in Portland will need to either meet that range of greenness (the only way to get those kind of efficiencies) or pay the cost in a very literal sense.

This would be the first carbon fee issued by an American city for new buildings.

I'm sure architects and green building enthusiasts would be quite jazzed about this plan. But there also is probably going to be some fear and trepidation. What do the rest of you think?

Katz Back on the Prowl

Friday's Portland Tribune had an encouraging feature by Jennifer Anderson on former mayor Vera Katz. For three years since leaving office, she's kept a relatively low profile while battling cancer. But now, after finally receiving a clean bill of health, Katz is starting to become a little more active.

Currently Katz is chairing a committee of property owners to decide the placement of a new Willamette River bridge for bikes and pedestrians from the South Waterfront area to near OMSI. (Hopefully it will be as far north as possible to benefit downtowners and not just SoWa.)  The ex-mayor is also a member of the "creative capacity" group that her former chief of staff, commissioner Sam Adams, has created to find permanent funding for the arts. (How about some of that money for design?)

Katz also said this: “I’m thinking of asking Sam, when he’s mayor, if I can serve on the planning or design commission. I’d love that.”

During her tenure as mayor, Vera Katz was more of a friend to the design community than her successor has been. She started the Mayor's Design Initiative and used her office to help shepherd through projects like the Brewery Blocks, the restored Meier & Frank building, the aerial tram, and the East Bank Esplanade that now is named for her.

The best thing about Katz's re-emergence is the fact that there is one -- that she's in good health. But as it happens, the architecture community could also benefit from a reinvigorated ex mayor. If Sam Adams does indeed become mayor, it's not difficult to imagine Katz in some kind of emeritus role like she suggested. What could she do as head of the design commission, or the historic landmarks commission? The latter group could certainly use some help.  Maybe she could even talk Adams out of the ill-advised Burnside couplet. I'd like to see her head a new Mayor's Design Initiative under Adams that not only hands out awards, but seeks to reform various bureaus and commissions to make design excellence, and not just planning and development and sustainability, a top city priority.

Neighbors vs. Developers vs. City, and Properly Framing The Debate

The cover-story headline from today's In Portland section of The Oregonian is a provocative one: "Score One For The Neighbors."

"Tired of infil that doesn't fit," Erin Hoover Barnett's story goes, "residents are fighting back -- and winning."

There are definitely reasons to cheer for the neighborhood in this particular case. The focus of Barnett's story is a project in the Foster-Powell neighborhood near SE 74th Avenue. Developers wanted to put 19 row houses on a site near many single-family homes. On September 13, residents succeeded in winning a City Council vote that rejected developer Jeremy Osterholm's plans. Osterholm had even met with neighbors there about the plan. But, in Barnett's words, "he failed the earnestness test." It's not enough to just pay a lip service to neigbhors, listening and conceding little. In a way, that's very good. But it also can be very dangerous.

Barnett's story (or at least the big-font headline and subhead) casts this largely as a classic David-Goliath story, with the neighborhoods as good-guy crusaders and the developers as bad-guy wreckers of Livable Portland. In reality, of course, every project is different.

It's not at all wrong to look at this case as an indicator of the city council's increasing willingness to side with neighborhoods. There's more urban infill happening all the time, and some of it seems out of scale with nearby houses. And the neighbors have their community's health as motivation, while many developers are swooping into these neighborhoods for a short time driven by financial gain.

However, I also don't think the system is blameless here, nor are the intentions of the neighborhood organizations. First, we have to look to zoning for cues about what's allowable and what's not. That's what developers do. Who wants to gamble on a project that might get rejected? But there's also a lot of wiggle room about height and scale, so more and more often it seems to come down to some kind of fight. I'm not saying I want to cozy up with developers, especially the ones who build ugly, cheap stuff. But this is the same profession that empowers designers. It's a two-way street.

In many cases, it isn't David and Goliath. Instead, it's often a local small business person, maybe a builder or an architect, trying their hand at a small project in order to meet with the city's explicitly stated density goal by filling a market need, and doing so with very little if any profit margin. And with a lot of the people I talk to, like Sum Design Studio, the goal is to express and demonstrate their design talents, which happen to be impressive. But then their project gets stuck in limbo for weeks or months, sometimes even when the neighborhood association favors the design when a few dissenting voices file an appeal that stretches out the process some more.

What I'm saying, I guess, is it's great that neighborhood organizations and various design review mechanisms in Portland are strong, and it's an entirely proper use of their collective power to stop oversized, cheap and ugly developments from happening. But good design can also be undermined by those same efforts, and that's why I read a story like Barnett's and feel a sense of unfairness in the characterization. I felt this same way when Fred Leeson wrote in the In Portland section a few weeks ago about a neighbor's weeping at a hearing when her appeal of William Kaven's fine but modern and flat-roofed design was rejected.

I'm all for power to the people, but they have to earn the moral high ground, which can't be taken by shooting down good projects along with bad ones. We need to fine tune this process to ensure that good design is sorted out from bad. And no neighborhood organization should be entitled to change the design of a project simply for its own sake. With due respect to all involved, it can be a treacherously fine line between the collective little guy fighting for their voice to be heard and ensuingly becoming a localized mob.

I'm thinking now of another story I read in the paper recently, about a suburban resident's battle with her neigbors over her right to hang laundry outside to dry. I'm just sayin', let's not let ourselves do the same with buildings.

When the Levee Breaks (With Sanity)

Spencer Heinz was able to catchup in today's Oregonian with a ridiculous "scorched earth" policy being carried out along the Columbia under the auspices of FEMA emergency management. It makes things painfully clear how things went so wrong on the government's part after Hurricane Katrina.

Along the Columbia beside Marine drive between Interstate 5 and the Portland Yacht Club, nearly 500 full-size birch trees have already been cut down. Wednesday sawing began on another 120 trees. But late afternoon yesterday, a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge issued a temporary restraining order to stop the tree cutting until a hearing on September 28. The injunction was requested by the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association and Columbia Riverkeepers.

The problem, though, is if the trees are left and not cut, FEMA will decertify the levee from its ability to garner flood insurance. And that, in turn, means no federal assistance if the levee were to become breached in a flood. "FEMA and the US Army Corps of Engineers have argued that storms could blow over bigger trees and tear out roots and theireby loosen and weaken levee soils." You know, cut off your nose before it has a chance to spite your face.

It's bad enough the clearcutting we see driving through the Coast Range - like Sampson after getting his head shaved. But when it happens here in Portland, and out of reasoning that is illogical and arguably even bad ecological science, it makes one want to tip over with anger. Cutting trees makes a river levee safer? Who decided that - Weyerhaeuser? Dick Cheney?

In Spencer's story, a Bridgetown resident named Alise Goforth but it best: "That's what led to the failure of the levees in New Orleans. And it's the same policy that's being applied in Portland."

Potter Heads Out to Pasture

As first reported last night by the Portland Mercury's website (I looked all over Oregon Live and only found a vote about the mayor's beard), Tom Potter announced he will not seek a second term as mayor.

Regardless of what any of us think of Potter's performance when it comes to tangible initiatives, you've got to love this guy: a man with record-high approval ratings who shrugs off running again so he can go camping and hang out with his grandchildren.

As Anna Griffin wrote in this morning's Oregonian, though, it would be a mistake to be dismissive of Tom Potter and his four years in office - especially for those of us living near downtown and focused on wonky policy issues. That's how most people in Portland think. Griffin quoted Erik Sten, who may have had the best summation of the soon to be outgoing mayor:

"In a lot of ways, Tom Potter is Portland. He's sincere, he's respectful, he's focused on values rather than specific projects. All the things the political classes want him to be more of, most people don't care about. That's why he's so popular."

Looking ahead, prognosticators identify three probable candidates: city commissioner Sam Adams, developer Rob Ball, and African American Chamber of Commerce founder Roy Jay. Ball would assumedly be favorable to the local building industry; maybe he'd even bring back the Mayor's Design Initiative that Katz started and Potter dropped. Jay is a well respected community leader who, like Potter, would encourage participation from people across the city who've felt left out of civic debate in the past.

One thing that occurred to me immediately about Ball and Jay: if they really do want to get involved in city politics, why are they talking about the mayor's office but never considered a city council run? With the biggest complaint against Potter having been the inexperience of him and his staff at getting legislative and policy measures accomplished, why in the world would we want to choose one of two more political neophytes? Or better yet, if these guys are really interested in public service, why haven't they run for city council or some lesser office?

With the mayoral election still more than a year away, there will probably be a lot more to shake down in the meantime. A few years ago, for example, Erik Sten was the boy wonder of Portland politics. Does he really have no ambition for the mayor's office? There is also former councilor Charlie Hales in the background somewhere; he was instrumental in bringing the streetcar to Portland. There is also Kate Brown, who recently retired from the Oregon Legislature. Hell, why not John Kitzhaber?

Whomever becomes mayor next time around, let's all work hard to make sure design and planning are on his or her agenda.

Historic vs. Modern in TVA's Saturday Market Design For Waterfront Park

After shooting down a proposed Apple store in Portland and successfully getting the impressive Kurisu mixed-use project in the North Mississippi neighborhood dumbed down, the curmudgeonly power of Portland Historic Landmarks Commission has risen once again.

As Fred Leeson reported in last Thursday's Oregonian, a design by TVA Architects and Walker Macy Landscape Architecture for the new covered Saturday Market space along Waterfront Park and the Burnside Bridge, which "earned favorable comments from a a citizen advisory committee" and received approval from the Parks & Recreation bureau after months of study and public comment.

The project also has ramifications far beyond Saturday Market (for those of us not needing hemp necklaces). It's a very prominent site along the Willamette and provides a much-needed covered space for enjoying the park during the rainy months. I'd love to see more of these winter garden-like, indoor-outdoor public spaces in our city.

But because Waterfront Park lies in the Skidmore-Old Town Historic District, the Historic Landmarks Commission also weighed in. And they didn't like the design.

There's no doubt the light steel frame and boxy, diagonal form is pretty modern.  TVA more than most firms seems unapologetically modern in that way. The design consists of two adjacent sloping pieces that mimic the slope of the adjacent bridge. I don't want to say I'm in love with this design, but I feel far more reticent about being lumped in with the opposing viewpoint.

According to commission member Carrie Richter, "It looks like it belongs at the airport." Instead, Leeson reports, the commission wants the design to "reflect historical references by acknowledging street patterns, warehouse shapes or maritime themes."

It seems like this is a debate that keeps happening as it extends from project to project. A modern structure is planned for a historic neighborhood and seeks to establish a contemporary identity of its own. But we have reason to feel protective of historic architecture, districts and neighborhoods. It's hard to argue either of those basic principles. So what's the answer?

I personally feel that if the design is good, modern and historic structures can stand next to each other and actually both benefit from their disparate looks. One usually doesn't want any one structure to stand out incongruously if it harms the surrounding historic architectural fabric, but who benefits when a modern building's design is changed to fit in at the expense of the integrity of the design?

Regardless of whether TVA and Walker Macy's design here survives or is changed, I think the design community and city government need to take a look at how the design review, historic resources and other city agencies can benefit the design community and the urban fabric without taking away from it. Because a sizable portion of interested parties (myself included) worry the latter may be happening too often.

Email From A Frustrated Architect

A few weeks ago I wrote about the small Portland firm William Kaven Architecture and its various housing projects. This week I received a follow-up email from co-principal Daniel Kaven expressing some major frustration at the apparently lengthy process of making his firm’s latest design, a multi-family project in North Portland called the North House, a reality.

The City of Portland actually recently approved the Kaven design on North Albina Vancouver (sorry, I originally wrote the incorrect street - it's in the Albina neighborhood), but it has been appealed by a neighbor near the property. "The proposed development is in a residential zone and therefore should be designed to enhance these existing and predominant features," the appeal argues. "The design is not compatible with the existing structures and neighborhood."

A design review commission hearing this Thursday, August 2 (1900 SW Fourth Ave., Room 2500A) will allow public testimony, and the architects asked me to appeal to the design community to come and support their efforts. It’s not just about the North House, Daniel argues, but the ability of contemporary architecture to get approved in a timely fashion that doesn't let good projects die on the vine.

“The City of Portland has made it excruciatingly difficult to make the most simple changes to its own community-design standards,” he goes on. “I have been sucked into the BDS [Bureau of Development Services] bureaucracy for months now based solely on my attempt to have flat roofs, which exist in order to have more urban space and foster green roof development.”

“The manner in which the City of Portland and neighbors can hold your design hostage has really gotten out of control.  There needs to be major changes in the "community design standards" in order to accommodate modern design. Modern housing, which might only slightly deviate from the standards, is slathered in red tape, while awful track housing still gets the green light.”

I present Daniel’s experience not as gospel, because to be honest I hear varying things about city design review and have never been through this process myself. Anyone I’ve ever talked to at the City seems pretty reasonable about crafting a balance between unchecked design freedom and rigid guidelines. But proof is in the project, of course. What do other architects and developers trying to generate contemporary urban infill projects in historic neighborhoods have to say about their experiences?

It seems tempting to cast this, as Daniel has, as evidence of civic growing pains, wherein residents who love their Craftsman bungalows, Tudors and other pitched-roof single family homes see the arrival of contemporary architecture as out of character. I and many others have argued that, done properly, modern buildings and homes fit in easily with historic styles, and the diversity enriches the entire neighborhood. However, with any project there can be a lot of subtle but important details regarding scale and material that can and should be worked out in order to help a modern structure fit into a more historic context or accentuate the pedestrian experience. One of the appeal's other complaints other than the contemporary style had to do with public access and pedestrian integration, which I think may have been better served as a stand-alone argument rather than this "the world is flat" mentality about the place of contemporary architecture.

The city may have certain legitimate concerns about certain details regarding the North House they want to take time to resolve, and quite often the timetables of public and private concerns can be different ones - like two cars on the freeway who belong in the far-left and far-right lanes but have to somehow ride together. But I know William Kaven is not the only architecture firm to express frustration about red-tape. The very term "red tape" is a cliche, after all, because so many people have reached for such shorthand terms over time for government slowness and time-wasting. Does the BDS need more resources to do its job, or are these architects just Kaven to the pressure?

Progressive Garbage

In today's Portland Tribune, Toby Van Fleet reports on Metro's plan to place a garbage tax on November's ballot that would fund improvements and restoration of natural areas around the region as well as outdoor school for kids and conservation programs.

The tax increase would amount to between 75 cents and $1.25 per month. The comments section on the web version of the article is dominated by people (all four of them) saying they won't support them thar Democrats' latest tax-and-spend initiative, but Metro polling indicates a majority of voters in the region would support spending less than a cup of coffee per household per month on inarguably worthy green-oriented efforts.

Aside from the money involved, this would also be a progressive tax that, however subtly, encourages people to contribute less garbage and more recyclable refuse. Tax-phobics don't like that either, but I've always approved of pulling the tax strings to help society.

It's funny to put it this way, but while we're on the topic of garbage, what other changes could or should Metro make to garbage and recycling collection? I, for example, would like to be able to leave my food waste at the curb for composting pickup. Either that, or maybe we could all stop composting and recycling and, just for fun, make a new mountain in the Cascades out of our trash.