Portland Architecture

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.

Green Building A to Z With Jerry

Although he left Portland about a year ago for the more scorched pastures of Arizona, Jerry Yudelson was for many years a fixture in our city's burgeoning green building movement, mostly for Interface Engineering. You don't meet many people with training as an engineer and in marketing, but that is Jerry's niche. He's trained more than 3,000 people in the US Green Building Council's LEED rating system and chaired the Greenbuild conference's steering committee for four years.

Jerry seems to crank out books like other people finish the Monday crossword. His fifth and latest makes an ideal reference material for any architect, builder or green building enthusiast's bookshelf. Published by New Society Publishers, It's called Green Building A to Z: Understanding the Language of Green Building.

(In the interest of full disclosure, he once hired me to help him on a publication about the OHSU Center For Health & Healing, a GBD Architects-designed project but in a collaborative environment with a lot of Interface-supervised very very efficient mechanical systems that helped make the Platinum LEED rating possible.)

One thing that struck me as funny in the book, but in a good way, is the mixture of technical terms, philosophical ones, and the more casual. For example, there are entries for brownfields, biophilia, biodiesel, certified wood, displacement ventilation, hybrid technology, and so on. But there are also these entries: 'cool roofs', 'question authority', 'paradigm shift', and my personal favorite, 'Unbridled Enthusiasm!' I say this not to tease Jerry, but just to point out the readable nature of his book. Which is helpful, because it would be very easy for a book like this to get overly technical...and gather dust.

Meanwhile, here's hoping Jerry is eventually able to exit the desert and come back to the green building capitol of America.

Design + Development = Sum Design Studio

A few months ago, while touring Keven Cavenaugh’s new Rocket building on Burnside, I also met two of its tenants: Matt Loosemore and Eric Hoffman of Sum Design Studio. Both came from larger local firms and have partnered to design and develop small infill projects.

Sum’s first building is a three-unit condo at Southeast 45th and Stark, near the Portland Nursery. Each unit is 1600 square feet with three bedrooms, a single-car garage in back, and a roof deck on top. They’re also incorporating a large bioswale that will hold the rainwater from the roof.

Hoffman and Loosemore also have a few more projects up their sleeve. There is a recently completed Flint Studios (left), headquarters for Cycle Oregon in North Portland, just a few blocks north of Memorial Coliseum. It has four apartment units above, all of which enjoy views of downtown and the Fremont Bridge. And next year Sum hopes to break ground on a mixed-use residential project on Northeast 15th and Alberta (below). This is an early rendering of the space. In all cases, there seems to be a nice economy of form and a preference for wood as an exterior material.

Wood is a very popular exterior choice today, some might even say overdone. Holst Architecture’s Belmont Lofts was the first to do it so noticeably and well, and the firm’s Thurman Street Lofts is a smaller and simpler but still impressive example. But I think using these kinds of materials transcends architectural fads and hearkens back to earlier Northwest modernism of Belluschi, Yeon and Storrs.

Of course Matt Loosemore and Eric Hoffman haven’t had the chance to show that level of mastery, but they are the latest of many small young firms in town who seem to be taking the reigns of their career and developing a host of nice small projects. Hopefully Sum’s portfolio of built work will continue to add up.

My only criticism so far? I think they should remove 'Design' from their name and just call themselves 'Sum Studio' -- they could even make their logo remiscent of an old 45-RPM record, on which many an Elvis and Carl Perkins song was pressed. Or maybe they could keep their name but use the old Phil Collins song "Sussudio" for some kind of radio jingle: "Just say the word: Aaaaaooooo! Sum! Design! Studio!"

Stuart Emmons, Karrie Jacobs, and Portland Tow Trucks' Legalized Theft

Stuart Emmons has long been one of my favorite local architects. He often gets involved in forwarding the cause of design in city politics, op-ed articles, and his involvement with the local visual arts community. He's a real crusader, at least rhetorically speaking, for making design a greater priority in city projects, with more architects sitting on commissions and task forces throughout the City. Where was the building community's presence in Mayor Potter's recent city-wide visioning project, for example? Practically non-existent.

  Stuart's firm, Emmons Architects, also does some great design work, including master planning for South Waterfront and Waterfront Park/Naito Parkway as well as here and there some fine buildings. The firm's latest work is modest in scale but impressive: new offices for Guardian Management. The key here seems to be simplicity and transparency. Nothing flashy save for maybe some of the preserved columns. Oh, and I love the background wall display in the second picture - it appears to be a collection of Monopoly houses. So, is Guardian the wheelbarrow, the dog, or what?

Many of Emmons' potentially best work has gone unbuilt. One was a boldly colorful modern design for a PDC project at MLK Boulevard and Fremont that lost out to a traditionally styled building by LRS Architects; it was selected with input from neighbors but (no disrespect to the firm) I'm yet to hear a single person call it anything but some variation of 'ugly'. (Incidentally, though, an excellent chef named Stu Stein runs the ground-floor restaurant there, Terroir. I once ate the most delicious wild boar dish by him at a cooking competition - he didn't win, but his dish was absolutely my favorite. He was at the Peerless Hotel in Ashland then. But I digress...) I've also heard Emmons has been close on a couple condo jobs.

And then there's the disastrous Fire Station 1 design competition held by the city. Emmons, partnering with the quietly very solid Hennebery Eddy Architects, was one of three finalists along with Allied Works and Thomas Hacker, the latter of whom won the competition. It was  some very good company regardless. In the end, we all lost, when the city pulled the plug on the project - quite mistakenly, in my opinion. Ankeny Plaza had the chance to be a really special place, and now I'm not so sure that'll be the case. And then there's the invigoration of Old Town the station would have brought, especially with a cool fire bureau museum - which would have been the best possible version of an authentic 9/11 tribute, too.

Speaking of Fire Stations, though, Emmons has previously designed and seen built a couple of attractive-looking fire stations, including station #27. Top design writer Karrie Jacobs, formerly of Dwell and now writing a column for Metropolis and blog for House and Garden (she also spoke here last fall), opined about Emmons' Fire 27 building recently:

The city's criteria is all about improving response times, better accommodating female firefighters, and  upgrading earthquake resistance.  Emmons' designs tackle all that practical stuff, and do so with an unusual amount of architectural sophistication.  Fire 27, for example, is an homage to Oregon's metal farm buildings, a nod to the firehouse's semi-rural setting.

Which brings me to the lunch meeting I had with Stuart last week. I was running late for our rendez-vous at the Side Door Cafe. I pulled my car into a lot there that said 'Parking for Burns Bros Only'. I meant to run in and tell Stuart I was here but had to move my car. But somehow I let myself get distracted and just sort of forgot. When I came out 45 minutes later, my car was gone. It'd been towed by Retriever Towing, which has contracts with countless private parking lots around town.

From the get-go, I decided to admit I had screwed up and just pay the fine to get my car back. But I was thinking it'd be something like $25 or $50. It sucks but it's my fault, right? Boy was I being naive. The fee to get my car back was just a few bucks under $200. I was livid. But of course Retriever Towing, whose lot is underneath the I-405 overpass between the Pearl District and Northwest's 'Slabtown' and consists of a cheap trailer surrounded by chain-link fencing, is used to angry people.

A half-second after I climbed the wood-planked stairs into the trailer office to say, "I'm here to pay the ransom note on my car," they quickly informed me that these were 'city approved rates'. They had a big poster with City of Portland certifications and stipulations for what tow-truck fees should be. So I'm not sure who to be angry at. The blame naturally starts with myself, but the fee to get my car back seems so outrageously high that it's actually a far-worse offense than parking in somebody else's lot for three quarters of an hour. (And that lot was more than half empty.)

Retriever Towing is clearly the pack of vermin in this story, stalking the city's lots looking for fresh meat. But ultimately they're just responding to a business opportunity that's apparently been explicitly signed off on by the city. So is it Burns Brothers I should be angry with, or the city itself? If so, I'd like to see towing fee regulation changed so people aren't so taken advantage of. I'm not the only one who's parked illegally before. What about the next person?

For those of you thinking there's a lesson I should be learning about not driving my first place to that meeting with Stuart last week, I'm way ahead of you. Believe me, I've already berated myself countless times for not biking, walking or busing to lunch. After a big hero sandwich, I needed to work off some calories anyway. Instead, I get robbed, and more or less by my own city. Thanks Portland!

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."

Doorknobs and Stained Glass:Visiting Old Portland

Several years ago (back when he was on NBC) I remember David Letterman reading a Top 10 list of rejected Jeopardy! categories. Along with titles like "Things That Ooze" and "Things That Only I Know", I remember one of the fake categories was "Doorknob Lore".

Bret Hodgert would probably do well at that last category. He's the proprietor of a new architectural hardware and salvage shop on Southeast Division and 41st I visited a few days ago. Like vintage clothing, Portland has long been a place where you could find lots of fun old architectural items, whether it's at The Rebuilding Center, Rejuvenation, or even some of the older hardware stores. Hodgert's place isn't nearly as big as some, but it's a fun place to browse - almost like a museum of century-old lamps, doors, chandeliers, windows and, yes, doorknobs.

Hodgert has a secret he won't tell: where he gets all these pristine Victorian and other old home hardware and housewares. His one tip-off is that he regularly visits towns in the Midwest, where there are sadly countless old homes in disrepair with valuable old parts most likely to end up at the dump, unless somebody like him rides in to the rescue.

One of my favorites in the shop is a stained glass piece with grapes in the center. Surely it's a religious thing more than a drink thing - water into wine and such. But some winery really ought to shell out the bucks for this piece - it's gorgeous, and would make an ideal centerpiece at somebody's tasting room.

Does the Urban Growth Boundary Mean A Less Volatile Housing Market?

I was just looking for something to write a post about this afternoon when an email came in a Portland Architecture reader named Keegan regarding the local and national housing markets.

While home sales have admittedly slowed here as part of a nationwide trend, the Portland metro area housing market isn't doing as badly as most elsewhere. Keegan wonders if this is possibly a reason to "really trumpet the Urban Growth Boundary and the fact that it helps control us from over-supplying too many housing units."

"I believe one of the tragedies in the built environment is the abandonment of so many central cities with their stock of beautiful, historic houses, all while excess housing stock is built on the edges (i.e. Detroit). Portland instead focuses inward as best as possible, and perhaps now some benefits can be seen."

There are others out there who know more about this stuff than I do. However, my feeling is that while there probably is at least a loose correlation there, I'm not sure we could ever really prove it. The evidence is anecdotal. I know the Urban Growth Boundary drives prices upward in general, regardless of economic figures' natural ebb and flow. Look at the nation's most expensive real estate market: Manhattan. It's a very finite piece of land - a skinny island.

The fact that Portland also seems to increasingly be an emblem to the rest of the country of healthy living--weekend mountaineer/kayaker/cyclist, weekday pedestrian/cyclist--also can't help but affect the perception of the land here and its corresponding value. In most ways, we have more or less the same problems as any city: crime, traffic, etc. But at least here the system feels a little bit more sustainable, not even just in the sense of ecology but also in not being as susceptible to collapse should peak-oil or other economic threats come true.

It's also important that we have the right balance in the conversation. It doesn't serve us well to just pat ourselves on the back. I probably do too much of that already. When you look at dangers like Measure 37's land-use holocaust and Bill Sizemore's ballot initiatives assaulting the government's ability to raise sufficient funds for things like schools, police, libraries and social services, it's amazing there's as much back-patting as there is. Those are not architectural matters, but of course it's all related too.

To tie this back around to the original question about land use and real estate, does anyone know if any realtor organizations have taken a stand on Measure 37 or its proposed "fix" on this November's ballot, Measure 49? The local architecture community is throwing its support behind Measure 49, even the normally apolitical Architecture Foundation of Oregon. We could use local realtors to join the growing political consensus across all traditional boundaries (urban-rural, left-right) devoted to saving the state from strip malls.

Have a Green Weekend

Just in case the TBA Festival, the Affair @ the Jupiter Hotel, various concerts and football games aren't your thing, this Saturday brings the sixth annual "Build It Green!" homes tour and information fair.

The tour, featuring 18 remodels and new homes, two high-rise condominiums and one co-housing development, will be held from 11AM to 5PM. The idea, according to my handy press release is to showcase "a variety of ways homeowners are conserving energy and other natural resources while creating beautiful, unique and healthy homes." Tickets are $15 or $10 for one on a bike or bus, or if you're a student or senior.

Some of the homes on the tour are carbon-neutral and/or very low energy users. There are also examples on passive solar and hydronic heating, salvaged materials, cob building, rainwater catching and more. There is also an 1899 Victorian home that was severely damaged by fire that was remodeled green. Another house was purchased for $1, moved to a new site, and fully renovated.

After the tour there is also an "information fair" at Environmental Building Supplies at 819 SE Taylor Street from 4:30 to 7PM.

The "Build It Green!" tour is part of the 2007 Oregon Green and Solar Tours program, coordinated by Solar Oregon and the National Solar Tour, sponsored by the American Solar Energy Society. It's presented locally by the Portland Office of Sustainable Development.

Things I've Learned So Far From the Newly Revised Edition of Bart King's Architectural Guidebook To Portland

First released in 2001 and recently gone out of print, Bart King's Architectural Guide Book to Portland has long been a valuable resource for those interested in the history of our local built environment. A lot has happened in the seven years since the book's initial publication, and Bart definitely includes most all of the condos and other projects that have come in that time. Publication is set for late October, I believe, with an improved graphic look and a new publisher, OSU Press.

I'm still in the early stages of looking through my advanced copy, but just for fun I decided to list six random facts I've discovered so far (why six, I couldn't tell you -- the phone probably rang after that and I walked away from the computer). These are taken pretty much verbatim from the book:

In 2004, the Project for Public Spaces listed Pioneer Courthouse Square as one of the six best public squares in the world.

If the US National Bank building downtown on Broadway is closed, note the carved bronze doors on the east and west sides of the building. These were made by Avard T. Fairbanks, a sculptor, who also created the Dodge Ram symbol and the Plymouth Flying Lady.

Frank Gehry called the Pietro Belluschi designed Equitable Building (now known as the Commonwealth) “a masterpiece in aesthetics, technology and engineering.”

The Multnomah County Library was the only library in the U.S. to offer regular service to a Japanese internment camp during World War II.

The Crystal Ballroom was originally designed with an elevator that would lift cars to extra parking on the structure’s east half.

The South Park Blocks were once enclosed with a dirt track known as “The Boulevard”, where horse racing occurred.

I've had the chance to meet and get to know Bart a little bit, and he's an engaging, smart guy. He used to have a career as a high school teacher, but decided to try and put a book project together in order to kind of walk the talk to his students, as I remember it being put in a past Oregonian profile. Bart's done a few different book projects since the guidebook came out, none having to do with architecture. But it's clear he's done the hard work of unearthing lots of history about Portland's buildings and the people who made them.

When the first edition of the book was published back in '01, I reviewed it for Willamette Week. More than talking about the Architectural Guidebook itself to talk about Portland's place in things:

Bart King's An Architectural Guidebook to Portland arrives at a curious moment. Propelled by years of economic boom and public fervor for the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao--a reminder of great architecture's power to revitalize cities--the last few years have brought impressive projects to virtually every West Coast city but ours.

Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, San Francisco and Las Vegas have new museums by legendary architects Frank Gehry, Steven Holl, Rem Koolhaas, Mario Botta and Antoine Predock. Stunning new ballparks are rising in Seattle, San Francisco, Phoenix and San Diego. Seattle's new Koolhaas-designed library, an angular labyrinth of glass and steel, truly boggles the mind. Meanwhile, we've undertaken a variety of modest restorations with only one really signature project in the last two decades-Michael Graves' Portland Building-which is almost universally reviled. It's not to say cherished older institutions like the Portland Art Museum, City Hall and Central Library deserved the wrecking ball-far from it-but what kind of mark has this generation made on the landscape?

Seven years after I wrote that, I'm not yet sure how to answer my own question. We as a city didn't go for trophy architecture like other cities when the opportunities arose. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. I hate Frank Gehry's Experience Music Project up in Seattle, and as much as I was blown away initially by the Rem Koolhaas-designed Seattle Central Library, I wonder how well that design and the building itself will age over time. Meanwhile, our old Georgian Central Library looks as great as ever. But sooner or later we'll need a concert hall again, or a courthouse (as seems to be happening with the county), and I sure hope people get it right.

America's Indie Rock Mecca

In a fabulous Tuesday essay in Slate magazine, Taylor Clark describes the critical mass of famous and acclaimed indie rock bands that now call Portland home: The Shins, Modest Mouse, Steven Malkmus, Sleater-Kinney, The Decemberists, maybe even the great Johnny Marr or (god forbid) perennially shirtless Red Hot Chili Pepper frontman Anthony Kiedis.

Why am I writing about this on an architecture blog? According to Clark's piece, the attracting force isn't any kind of traditional "scene" where bands influence each other sound-wise. Instead, it's the city itself that attracts. These are people stuck in vans touring most of the year. Portland is where hipsters go to retire, to hang out in bars on Mississippi and Alberta and even to ride mass transit. Clark continues:

So what's luring them here? The rockers themselves have somewhat confusingly praised Portland as a city "entrenched in juvenilia" (Sleater-Kinney's Carrie Brownstein), a place with a sense of "calm longevity" (chief Decemberist Colin Meloy), and a home of "really great public transportation" (the Shins' Mercer, who, it's safe to assume, didn't come here for the bus routes).

Musicians...moved to Portland for the same reason as the rest of us: It's easy to live here. In the words of a friend of mine who used to be the music editor at the local alt-weekly, Portland is like a resort community for indie rockers who spend half the year working themselves ragged on tour. You can venture into public dressed like a convicted sex offender or a homeless person, and no one looks at you askew. It's lush and green. Housing is affordable, especially compared with Seattle or San Francisco. The people are nice. The food is good. Creativity is the highest law. For young, hip Portlanders, financial success is a barista job that subsidizes your Romanian-space-folk band or your collages of cartoon unicorns.

It's more than musicians, too. We've heard this talk before, of course, particularly as it concerns the "creative class" that author Richard Florida writes of. I don't want to spout the same old factoids about how the city is becoming hip. But there's more to it than that. How is Portland's cultural identity going to change in the years ahead? Are we destined to become more of a big-big city? We've never sought that status like Seattle has, but it may be coming anyway. (Incidentally, these photos of The Decemberists, Sleater-Kinney and The Shins I took at the filming of a live DVD called Burn to Shine a couple years ago. You can see more pics here.)

And how might these creative voices continue to affect the built environment in Portland? It's already happening, of course. Many of you reading this could be architects recently relocated here in the last few years. I love that. I'm not one of those Oregonian's who is weary about outsiders moving in. Particularly if they're educated and creative-minded, that bodes well for Portland. I may not be as hip as a hipster, but I'll take these people embracing inner Portland in a heartbeat over, say for example (to use a rancid stereotype), Republicans moving to Tigard from Orange County.

Lake Oswego Streetcar: Two Options?

On Monday a Metro steering committee recommended studies of two options for a future streetcar between Portland and Lake Oswego to relieve congestion on highway 43.

This is one of the only places in the Portland metro area where an existing, fully functioning rail line already exists: the Willamette Shore trolley line. But the steering committee unanimously voted to study and consider both that line and another possible route along Macadam Avenue.

I suppose a streetcar along Macadam would be more accessible for residents, particularly those in the John's Landing area along that street, just south of the South Waterfront. But with the rest of the city waiting years and years and years for their eventual streetcar lines, it seems pretty damn silly to me for Metro to even consider anything but the existing trolley line.

If people aren't happy with the line they already have between Portland and Lake Oswego, maybe we could focus on bringing the streetcar to the east side, not only the proposed MLK/Water Avenue loop but east-west extensions on major arterials such as Burnside, Killingsworth, Stark, Hawthorne or Powell.

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.

Potter's Beard, and Parks In Parking Spots

On the front page of today's Oregonian came this hard-hitting news story: Mayor Tom Potter has grown a beard. And, as Andy Dworkin dutifully reported, "Asked whether he plans to keep the beard, Potter suggested a public referendum." (Somebody call the Pulitzer committee.)

One hopes this is a joke, a joke in which Potter pokes fun at himself. Can't the guy make a decision about anything without a public 'visioning' process? But even as a gag, it's telling. At certain times, Potter has shown strong leadership, such as when he ceased Portland's cooperation with the Joint Terrorism Task Force or, in a lesser but more absurd example, started enforcing anti-jaywalking laws. Tom Potter is a good man. But am I the only one who should be laughing at the beard-referendum suggestion but isn't? It's only funny when it isn't so true. Come on, Mr. Mayor, lead!

Another story from today's paper, by newly-minted city hall reporter James Mayer (as compared to their newly minted business, science, news, living, metro, drivetime, A&E, home & garden, and sports writers and editors - maybe newly shuffled janitors and receptionists too), reports on a nationwide effort to turn parking spots into greenspace - at least temporarily. Organized by the Trust for Public Land, Portland will be one of several cities participating in National Park(ing) Day on Friday, September 21.

The idea is to plug a downtown meter with a few hours' worth of quarters (assuming, like me, you can't ever make a credit card work), lay down some sod and maybe a bench, and presto! A few square feet of asphalt are transformed into park space the size of a car.

Portland's temporary park(ing) will be created by William Wilson Architects, MCM Architects and MacDonald Environmental Planning. Acccording to Mayer's report, the idea is to create an "outdoor break room". I absolutely love the spirit of this - a kind of political act based on the right to leisure and beauty. But does a park just a few feet wide and up for only a few hours really require two architecture firms and an environmental planner? I'm going to assume it's the enthusiasm of the effort that led to this trio, not the need for many cooks working on a simple broth.

Also, the park(ing) demonstration got me thinking: Instead of doing this with a couple parking spots, how about a bunch of us show up at one of the Goodman family's surface parking lots downtown and buy up all the spots in the lot for a day? We could put up some BOORA/TBA-style temporary architecture to demonstrate the absurdity of surface parking lots in such a high-density area. Actually, though, that's what many of Portland's cart-bound food purveyors have already done, not as a joke but as simple businesses making a living. In a way, the huge number of food carts parked in lots downtown are the same statement as that organized by the Trust For Public Land. And you'll get a great burrito (or curry, or sausage, or spring rolls) out of it too!

PDC Announces Three Developer Finalists for Centennial Mills

Today the Portland Development Commission announced the three firms selected as finalists for the Centennial Mills project: The Cordish Company of Baltimore, The Lab LLC of Costa Mesa, California and Nitze-Stagen of Seattle. Each will be paid $40,000 to respond to PDC's official request for proposal (RFP), which will require a detailed plan and presentation for the 4.5-acre waterfront site.

Before these finalists begin in earnest, what words of advice and hope can we give them?

I wish I knew more about why these three firms were selected. Hopefully it's not overly based on their financial capability, as may have been the case with the Burnside Bridgehead project - at least come selection time. But I don't see PDC as the problem or even necessarily the focus here. Rather, I think now is the time the developers need to hear from Portland about what we want and don't want at Centennial Mill (not actually pictured here - I didn't have any good CM shots so I chose one from Twin Peaks).

Since they're all out-of-towners, it seems these firms need to go the extra mile to reach out to the community and get their input. How about these developers coming to town and running some kind of charrette or town meeting?

Also, if these firms have the resources to handle such a potentially big, important project, that likely means they're pretty big. I hope that doesn't mean they'll be making the choice large developers often seem to make: tame architecture by huge service firms. That's a stereotype, of course, but still tethered to reality, I'd say. Whether they come from Portland or out of town, I hope these three developers have the courage to seek out talented people to work with, and not just the people they've worked with before, or the people who have the longest track record with similar projects. Amaze us!

It should go without saying that historic preservation and sustainability should be keywords here. But I don't think that's enough. I hope developers aren't afraid to contrast the historic mill buildings with some contemporary architecture. It's important to fit in, but that doesn't mean neo-historic new buildings alongside the old ones.

And then there's the question of exactly what recipe of retail, housing, and/or other services belong there. It has to be mixed-use, but are the developers gonna bring in chains or local stores? What'll they do or not do about the police department's horse paddock next door - does any of these three developers have the gumption to go the extra mile and suggest a plan for annexing the horsey barn space down the road?

I don't mean to just re-hash the conversation we've already had a few months ago about the Centennial Mills site, but it really strikes me that this is one of our last real chances to tell both the client, PDC, and especially the developer-finalists, what we want to see in Centennial Mill. Complaining after the fact is a much more difficult way to affect change than preventing things in the first place. We have to speak up now, or be forced to hold our peace once the blueprints are confirmed.

Streetcar Vote and Route Fairness

This Thursday the Portland City Council will vote on whether to approve financing for the $147 million Eastside streetcar project. If it goes as planned, the $147 million project will create a loop going up and down MLK Boulevard and Water Avenue with loop ends at the Broadway Bridge and, eventually, a new rail bridge to connect the line with the South Waterfront extension.

It seems highly probable that the measure will pass, but along the way it will cost some more than others. But it will also, as the streetcar has done in the past, act as a development tool that can benefit savvy property owners. No telling how many minutes it will take, for that future development tool to carry passengers from one neighborhood to another—the streetcar is notoriously slow with far too many stops.

In this month’s Southeast Examiner, my neighborhood paper, Lee Perlman writes of a property owner on Southeast 7th Street, Martin Smith, who was the sole opposition voice testifying at a hearing on August 15.

The streetcar line wouldn’t benefit his industrial business (“IG1”), Smith said, but because of how the lines for property assessment have been drawn, he won’t get the one-third discount going to property owners in the district’s Industrial Sanctuary west of MLK Boulevard.

Smith probably has a point that a streetcar won’t benefit his own business much. But Martin, buddy, look above your shoelaces: Your land is about to get a lot more valuable. Sure, it’s a pain to move your business. But wouldn’t many thousands of dollars in profit help you out when a condo developer looks to transform your site?

Part of this issue is one I doubt even many city leaders are willing to admit: the days of the Central Eastside Industrial District, at least as we know it, are numbered. I mean, come on: an industrial sanctuary right across from downtown along prime riverfront real estate? If that makes any long-run sense, I say we just put a warehouse along Waterfront Park while we’re at it.

I must say, though, that I join with Martin Smith in having an objection, but one of a different kind. I’m all for the streetcar. I love the streetcar. But has anybody else noticed that the all-important southern river crossing for this east-side streetcar will happen very inconveniently south for most of us living in Southeast residential areas?

It really seems to me like if there’s a Willamette crossing at South Waterfront instead of, say, the Hawthorne Bridge, that will be far less practical for the many, many Southeasters looking to use the streetcar, and to the great benefit of South Waterfront residents. That’s not fair! We’ve already built streetcar projects twice on the west side and never on the east. Now, when they finally plan one for the east, it benefits residents on the west side in South Waterfront more than people in Southeast neighborhoods that have been here for over a century!

The City Council would be totally insane to vote down the streetcar this Thursday. At stake is $75 million in matching federal funds. But I’d urge the Portland Department of Transportation to re-think the route of that loop in a way that benefits those who have been left out of streetcariana so far, not the condo dwellers in whose homes the paint has barely dried.