Point-Counterpoint on PDC's Future Urban Renewal Plans

The opinion section of Sunday's Oregonian offered two opposing views on what the Portland Development Commission should do next with respect to its urban renewal areas: to keep devoting resources to making the central city more dense, or to focus more on outlying areas in need such as Parkrose and Rockwood.

Portland State University urban studies professor Carl Abbott favors declaring victory in the central city and heading eastward to do more good:

"The equation [for urban renewal starting in the 1970s] had two simple parts: Shore up downtown as a center for retailing, employment and culture. Preserve and revitalize older neighborhoods to keep them attractive for the middle class.

It worked. From the slopes of the West Hills to the slopes of Mount Tabor, the city is a success by any comparative standards.

The Portland 'miracle' is yet to work its wonders, however, in the city's far eastern neighborhoods. These are areas with more people in poverty, more immigrants, fewer parks and a lot less creative class buzz."

By contrast, Patricia Garner, land use planning committee chair for the Pearl District Neighborhood Association and a project manager with Chesshir Architecture, says there are still important pockets of land in the central city currently not in urban renewal districts that need to be developed and densified. Namely, the flats of Goose Hollow and the area around Con-way in Northwest:

"If these to areas were developed to their full capacity, the city could see an increase of at least 4,000 new housing units and one million square feet of new office capacity. The more that is built in these urban environments, the less we have to build in other neighborhoods."

Gardner also addresses what urban renewal is and isn't:

"One of the biggest misconceptions about urban renewal financing is that fat cat developers are given money to create their projects for rich people. This is not true....Urban renewal does not work in established, healthy neighborhoods unless there is a desire to fundamentally change the character of that neighborhood toward more density. But it works fabulously in these blank opportunity sites."

I tend to agree more with Patty Gardner on this one. Of course Abbot isn't wrong that poorer neighborhoods would certainly benefit from more investment in services and infrastructure there: libraries, open spaces, schools, transit. But urban renewal money isn't social service money. It's meant to plant seeds in mostly vacant areas and make neighborhoods. It's true that some of the close-in industrial areas in Northwest Portland seem better candidates for high density than neighborhoods like Parkrose and Rockwood that are far from the city center.

If we're going to go very dense outside the city center, however, it should be at key transit intersections, such as Parkrose's next-door neighborhood, Gateway, where Interstates 5, 205 and 84 intersect along with the MAX line to downtown, the airport and eventually Clackamas. But Gateway already is an urban renewal area.

To some extent, pitting low-income outer Portland neighborhoods against the central city for urban renewal dollars feels like an incongruent, apples-to-oranges affair. Even so, we shouldn't abandon our dance partner -- the central urban core -- in the middle of the floor to cut a rug on the fringe of the dance hall.

Comments

[Matt Davis]

The last thing the poor African Americans and Hispanics in East Portland need is the fucking Portland Development Commission coming in with good intentions and white-washing the district.

Let's restrict the urban renewal interest to Old Town and Goose Hollow, where the "battle has already been won."

[Mike]

Brian,
I have to agree with you. One of the reasons that Portland is lauded for being green is the focus on infrastructure in downtown. Are we willing to add light rail lines, fareless squares, and transit malls in these outer Portland areas? PDC dollars have been spent to make these infrastructure items work.

It is just in the last five years that downtown has started to come alive with the Pearl, South Waterfront, and other development in between. Are we ready to abandon it already? I would hate to see it come unraveled the second we stop paying attention.

Downtown Portland is good, but with the continued support of development immediately surrounding the core, it could be even better.

[Joseph Readdy]

Unfortunate choice of east side alternatives: Rockwood is a part of a relatively new urban renewal district managed by the City of Gresham redevelopment agency. The five-year lag between initiation of the district and the recent developer request for qualifications that might lead to a mixed-use redevelopment project is typical.
When might it be possible to end the Rockwood urban renewal district? It could very well be twenty or thirty years from now.

[Red]

There seems to be a lot going on with this discussion.. Urban renewal is and always has been intended to be a catalyst for private investment in urban areas. It's not meant to be a long-term presence to be relied upon. That's why there are sunset dates on urban renewal areas. I think downtown, the Pearl, and Goose Hollow are all well on their way to be "completed" without public investments. Those are highly desirable locations with premiums on accessibility. The east side has shown the ability to succeed without urban renewal funds ever entering in the mix. New infill development has occurred on Belmont, Hawthorne and Division already. This was the result of zoning regulations allowing greater development rather than public investment. The demand for residences there is strong, regardless of the quality of the streets.

The outer east, whether we go there or not, is home to thousands of Portlanders. They have needs and desires too. Parks, schools, and other public investments are strongly needed to make these communities viable to entice private investment.

Sure, there's always room for improvement in downtown and surrounding high-density areas, but relatively speaking, when we're limited in how much urban renewal we can have, there are other areas needing urban renewal more.. Let's not get lost in our pursuit of a more perfect urban experience at the expense of the more vulnerable populations.

[Paul]

If we really want to be dense in our core, we've got a long way to go. Go look at some of the East Coast Cities - now that is density. We have so much unused and underutilized land and property inside the UGB right now; what we need to do it set the UGB where it is right now, and leave it for 50 years. That would just lay it all out there for everybody too see and understand. Developers could look at the land available inside the UGB, and start with the areas that they thought were best, then gradually fill in as we go along. City Leaders, PDC and Metro could look comprehensively at how to provide a transportation system to meet the needs of this density. And people outside the current UGB would realize that for the next 50 year, they will remain outside the UGB and plan accordingly. Urban Renewal Plans could be developed from the inside out - a comprehensive look at what we have to work with, starting from close in and working out toward the boundary.