Portland central city plans: past, present, future

Do you remember what you were doing on March 24, 1988? I was a 10th grader at the time, counting the days until I could get my driver's license and speed recklessly through McMinnville, and reading Cliff's Notes of literary classics for English class. But here in Portland, that day saw the release of the Central City Plan (pictured at left).

In other words, it's been more than 20 years since Portland, that much hailed bastion of planning, has updated its plans for the greater downtown core.

But fear not: We won't be sliding back into Dallas or Atlanta-like tendencies just yet. The city is currently at work on a new Portland Plan. A citizens advisory committee is expected to begin work in September, with completion in 2010. There are also intra-neighborhood plans like the North Pearl District Plan, which for example could see that area near the base of the Fremont Bridge go considerably taller. (Which makes sense.)

The last Central City Plan in 1988 was largely an expansion of the 1972 plan, which created high density office and retail cores downtown as well as the Transit Mall along 5th and 6th Avenues. The 1988 plan focused on greater connections with the river and expanded the notion of the central city to the south and east. The '88 plan also emphasized introducing housing to the urban core.

In an interview published earlier this month in The Oregonian by Stephen Beaven, Steve Iwata of the Planning Bureau said the goal this time around is to bring more jobs to the central core neighborhoods. "I think we've done pretty well on the housing side," he said, "But job creation, that's a significant challenge."

I'd amend that thought just slightly: We need more job creation in the northern part of the central city, particularly the Pearl District. There are already numerous office spaces under construction there. But we still need lots more housing in the traditional part of downtown and in Old Town. That's the only way we can get downtown to stop feeling dead on evenings and weekends, or overrun with vagrancy. This phenomenon has improved measurably in the central core over the last 20 years, but there is still a long way to go.

How would the rest of you like to see the new Portland Plan for the central core put together?

Arun Jain, chief urban design strategist for the city, has with his staff created several studies of past Portland planning efforts, such as those involving famed New York freeway builder/neighborhood destroyer Robert Moses, and earlier plans involving the famous Olmstead Olmsted brothers of Central Park fame. (The plan at right is from 1897.) Jain, who I also interviewed in June for Design Within Reach's 'Designs on Portland' discussion series, has also scoured the globe for cities whose topography, street grids, relationship with bodies of water and other factors either resemble Portland or provide a historic case study: Barcelona, Savannah (Georgia), Glassgow Glasgow, Edinburgh, Philadelphia and Kyoto.

Of the street grid examples, "Each city uses its grid differently," Jain says. " Some follow it rigidly (Philadelphia, Barcelona, Savannah) whereas others manipulate it for emphasis (Kyoto, Edinburgh, Glasgow).  Philadelphia and Barcelona have disturbed the monotony of their grids through powerful diagonals but Savannah deliberately enhances its character through repetition and extension of the historic grid."

"In contrast, Kyoto plays with its grid by combining or further sub-dividing it to satisfy changing function and need. Kyoto also overcomes monotony through a height strategy that allows only temples and prominent structures to dominate.."

Regarding topographical factors, Jain says, "Cities with the strongest natural forms have a natural advantage in framing and defining their urban form.  Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Kyoto have capitalized on their assets by deliberately limiting development on surrounding hills, preserving only large historic monuments and allowing only few prominent institutions and outlooks." 

Each city’s relationship with water varies, too. Proximity to water frames and contains the urban cores of Philadelphia and Kyoto, while Barcelona and Savannah have water as an edge, and Glasgow and Edinburgh embrace both sides of their river.

Then there is the character and identity, something as important to Portland as its architecture. "Barcelona pursues its agenda of social equity in terms how art and design are expressed in the city," Jain says. "Glasgow has chosen to leave industrial artifacts to retain historic memory and character and reinvent itself as a cultural and youth-oriented city.  Edinburgh has strict design guidelines to retain historic character and ambiance while using monuments and icons to pursue the creative city and promote innovation.  Kyoto encourages preservation and restoration of the traditional Machs building form.  Savannah has adopted a strategy to createa city of parks.  Philadelphia has used a mix of traditional historic inheritances and reuse of existing infrastructure to continue its evolution."

What do these comparisons mean? They provide a template, or a guide, for how we go forward with issues like establishing more creative and recurring uses of Portland’s grid, creating better waterfront relationships to and across each river bank, promoting civic functions and events to strategically activate street life, and enhancing existing assets (such as bridges) through lighting and design. If we don't, we could end up with a freeway-strewn city like Moses planned in this map.

At the same time, planning can only do so much. It's the private sector who mostly fills out the city. That said, Jain is right that we ought not to plan in a vacuum. We don't want Portland to be any other city, but some of them have been at it a lot longer than us.

Meanwhile, there is also an upcoming series of evening lectures as part of Riverfest that will feature a variety of speakers who will discuss Willamette River's role - past, present, and future -- in shaping the city we live in. The lectures will be held September 2, 3, 4 and 5 from 7:00pm - 9:00pm at the former McCall's restaurant at 1020 SW Naito Parkway. The series is officially called "The Lower Willamette Group/Port of Portland Willamette Chautauqua". Just don't try to say it five times fast.

Comments

[Rodger]

Well. That put it in some perspective. March 24th 1988 I was 2 months and 2 days from being born just entering my final trimester inside my mother.

[Michael M.]

There is, or was, a Portland neighborhood called "Palestine"? First time I've seen that on a map of Portland.

[val]

First a correction, one that I wish would stick because I have pointed it out on several occasions in the Portland blogosphere: That map purportedly created by Robert Moses showing the proposed freeway network WAS NOT created by Robert Moses. That map was created for the 1966 Portland Comprehensive Plan by (I believe) the Portland Planning Commission. Robert Moses never suggested the number of freeways outlined in that report. Look at Moses' 1943 report - Portland Improvement - and you will find which roads he really imagined for Portland. Sorry, but after years of research on Portland's freeways, it continues to bother me how Moses is given far to much credit (or disdain) for our road network.

Now - after a deep breath - I wanted to comment on a common thread among the cities Brian mentioned. Almost all of these cities have defined their desire to preserve their historic character - something that the City of Portland has yet to do. In fact, the City has yet to find the gumption to even take a fresh look at its 25 year old (or so) historic resources inventory. How can it be that new plans are being created for the city, while we don't even have a grasp of the resources we should be protecting? It is clear that cities like Savannah, Kyoto, and Edinburgh have much to teach us. I hope the powers that be are finally willing to listen.Another deep brerath.

[Andrew]

Glasgow (one S), what a dump! But it does have a grid system, hills, and a river so it must be relevant.

[ben]

barcelona is a fantastic example of a city that embraces its history while exploring new and modern design at the same time. portland (and specifically the historic landmarks commission) should take this comparison seriously. the way the new laces through the old in barcelona is so much more elegant and appropriate than the hackneyed way our deep-breath portland preservationists want to dictate design. it is also the most economically successful city on that list, i would say partly because it allows the city to be both about its past AND its present/future.

[intheknow]

I totally agree with ben.
I really worry about our city taking sides against what can be modern and relevant to today in favor of history in some blanket generic fashion.
Revisiting the master plan for portland has the potential to improve and sharpen our vision - but also the potential to stiffle forward progress by determining that anything older than "25 years old" should be preserved and worse yet... held up an a template for any new buildings near it.

[GLV]

"Steveata of the Planning Bureau"

That's some name!

[goose]

not to jump on the poor spelling/typo bandwagon but one of my penn professors threatened to not let me graduate if i spelled olmsted with an "a".

i definitely think portland needs to step it up with its historic preservation protections. we're not that old to begin with so we don't have a multitude of historic buildings that really help connect one with the beginnings of the city. we need to keep what little remains of this city's history. i don't believe the way to do that is by freezing time. there are already so many empty holes (surface parking lots where older buildings once stood) in our historic areas which should be filled with contemporary mixed-use buildings thereby adding 24-hour life to somewhat dead zones. the city needs to change the tax structure so that teardowns are not favored over preservation. and we need some young intelligent blood on the landmarks commission and on the city council to shake things up. its time we stop patting ourselves on the back and start addressing our failures.

also, though i love it with all my heart, i would not necessarily look to philadelphia for guidance as their decisions for the last several decades have been completely top-down. ~philadelphia has mowed down thousands of buildings, some cherry-picked and some by the block, for reasons ranging from blight and public safety to urban renewal and creating a "mall" to celebrate our independence.~ a new mayor brings new hope but almost everything good in that city has come at a grass-roots level by individuals and neighborhoods determined to make their city a little bit better.

[MOB]

While some might argue that this doesn't have anything to do with the "central city plan" I think it is paramount to developing the central city the way we want and that is to not expand the urban growth boundary. We have few traditional boundaries to stop sprawl; we should make farmland one of them. Farmland this close to a city is precious, we should hold on to it as it increases our quality of life by our ability to purchase locally grown produce that is actually locally grown. It benefits the city and we should encourage the "densification" of our city's existing footprint.

[ws]

MOB, I think the importance of the point you raise can't be over emphasized. Unfortunately, the market probably more determines, rather than diminishing square miles of farmland close to urban areas, whether the urban growth boundary will expand.

It seems very, very hard to get to the point where grasping a concept such as building up for density is accepted, outside of a sever crisis of energy availability. I wish it were far simpler than that, and that the fields of Bethany in Washington County hadn't been already paved over. That this kind of thing happens may be something we in Oregon will come to sorely regret.