Notes from Arun Jain's vision for Portland's future

On April 9, the City of Portland's outgoing Chief Urban Design Strategist, Arun Jain, gave a presentation at the American Institute of Architects' Center for Architecture to highlight the results of his staff's multi-year study of Portland and where we go from here.

The work consisted of three principal components: (1) an urban design assessment to get at the heart of urban design issues in the city, like height restrictions, topography, environmental issues, etc.; (2) creating a basis for selecting areas of highest place-making potential, the places where future growth makes the most sense; and (3) what Jain calls "framework elements", the values we hold important going forward like enhanced green streets and certain "nodes" where public areas or other special places might exist.

Jain began the talk by emphasizing the complexity of cities. He quoted urban theorist Christopher Alexander in saying, "A city is not a tree." In other words, Jain said, "This is really about overlapping networks. They're not as clean and simple as we'd like. Cities are messy." But often our memories of cities, he added, are the unusual places where traditional street grids or other familiar aspects of city planning act differently.

"There's no right or wrong to cities," Jain continued. "Solutions are either better or worse, and many create other problems...But we don't need to predict the future to make great cities." The role of urban design, he explained, is to look at urban form, quality, and pattern.

Some of the challenges Jain spoke of seemed a little funny: not the fear of change he spoke of, nor confusion over design's role, but when he said, "We're always dogged by citizen involvement." Part of the reason I really like Arun Jain is he's an academic - and certainly not a populist. How many people at the City would actually say public involvement is a pain?

Jain's work developing an urban design strategy began in 2006, intended as a lead-in to formation of a central city plan and the overall Portland Plan being hammered out.

Really, though, rather than looking forward, it seems Jain spent more time looking back. In his presentation, Jain spoke of numerous previous Portland plans dating back nearly a century.

A 1912 plan, for example, created more wide thoroughfares in the early years of the automobile. A 1932 Portland plan designated the downtown west waterfront as a park, something that only happened 50 years later. This plan also initiated locally the Beaux Arts "city beautiful" movement.

Then there's the famous Robert Moses plan in 1943, which introduced a system of highways and freeways - some of which were built, some not. The 1966 plan expanded the downtown core and for the first time identified individual neighborhood "units" and emphasized how each one should have a school, park and retail. It also added more freeways. The 1972 plan gave us much of the Portland we know today, with the downtown bus mall and an emphasis on smart growth.

Jain also studied several cities that have aspects of city planning applicable to Portland. Barcelona favors the notion of social equity: building important projects in the poorest neighborhoods. Edinburgh, with its Royal Mile, shows "you can't always concentrate retail in one area," he says. "They have to hold lots of festivals to make it work."

Kyoto (pictured above left), Jain believes, shows a good approach to the street grid, allowing a variety of sizes. Jain loves Portland's small 200x200-foot blocks, he says, "but it eats open space, and is too small for things like a symphony hall." Kyoto's "floating grid," he says, keeps the grid system but allows for the principal of congregating blocks together like tatami mats into larger parcels in certain areas.

Glasgow, Jain explained, wanted to be a city of youth and technology and has become just that, providing a key comparison for Portland. Philadelphia's diagonal streets give dynamism to its street grid, much like our own Sandy Boulevard. "It's a traffic engineer's nightmare," he added. "But who cares? It's fun."

Looking ahead, Jain identified several "places of change" in Portland that could and should accommodate more high-density growth: inner Burnside, the MLK/Grand loop, the Lloyd Center/Convention Center district, and inner North Portland.

One of the most eagerly anticipated parts of Jain's study was exactly how much height, or extra height, should be allowed in areas like the northern Pearl District where industrially-zoned areas are giving way to mixed-use and residential. I'm still not sure how this will pan out, but Jain seemed to indicate that a single height limit, even for a small neighborhood, should be frowned upon and would allow too much sameness. "There needs to be some cleverness," he said.

A bold offering for the future was Jain's idea to make certain key streets not only green in the sense of having sidewalk bioswales or permeable pavement, but actually to make the streets themselves more park-like, thereby connecting various real parks around the city with an infrastructure of public spaces that connect them. It's "streets as less of a conduit and more of a place," he explained.

Jain focused on the Central Eastside Industrial District as an area of future growth and not forever a continuing industrial enclave. This isn't a surprise. Everybody knows the Central Eastside is a sleeping giant.

But on a related note, since the east bank I-5 freeway overpass is not likely to go away soon, nor is the industrial designation, Jain identified the area near OMSI as a key growth area in the immediate years ahead. There will be a new MAX/streetcar and pedestrian bridge being built there, and it is prime riverfront property across from downtown.

"The freeway and the CEID restrict the Central Eastside from rampant speculation," Jain said. "Now is a time to set it up better."

Jain also called for an extension of Sandy Boulevard past Burnside so it meets Morrison Street and connects to the Morrison Bridgehead.

He additionally looked at the US Postal Service site on Broadway in old town as a place for a "consolidated campus or institution," with small buildings and a human scale. That doesn't sound good for those of us who would like to see the post office building saved and renovated for a new use. It's not very small.

Overall, I've always been exceptionally impressed with Arun Jain: his intelligence, his commitment to research and the historical view, and his unwillingness to rush. At the same time, I heard a snicker or two from architects after his presentation. The just of their comments were that anybody could have identified the Central Eastside and OMSI for future growth, and it needn't have taken years to do so. Perhaps there's at least a kernel of truth in both arguments, but given how rapidly the city is sometimes inclined to embrace change, it was helpful having a tortoise amongst the hares.

With Jain now having left the City, there will be big shoes to fill when it comes to Portland looking at itself and assessing where the city wants to go. But there are no plans to find another Chief Urban Design Strategist for the City of Portland. That makes Jain's work for the last few years studying the city all the more important.

You can read the entire Urban Design Assessment here.

Comments

[Aneeda]

"Jain also called for an extension of Sandy Boulevard past Burnside so it meets Morrison Street and connects to the Morrison Bridgehead."

Hasn't the City essentially condemned this lower section of Sandy with the east side couplet project? I don't think you will even be able to continue on Sandy after this project is complete.

[Steve]

I have been an Industrial Designer for decades, for the past 17 years designing furniture. Talking with potential customers or users of my products was sometimes frustrating but usually a positive and interesting learning experience, which motivated me to solve my customer’s problems. We take every opportunity to listen to our customers and it is one reason we are so successful.

As a City Planner, the citizenry are YOUR customer, and it is a disservice when a service provider considers it a “pain” to be “dogged” by customer feedback.

This attitude does not surprise me rather is confirms my experience with the city government. We need to find a mechanism, better than reelection or the threat of recall to motivate our government representatives to create an open, more welcoming relationship with their customers.

I think this less than convivial attitude toward the citizenry is part of our Mayor’s problem.

[Arun]

Brian, thank you for all your wonderful coverage of urban design issues.

I'd like to address Steve's issue directly and reassure him that not for a minute was I suggesting the public process was a pain. In fact, I completely agree the city has been terribly superficial in its attempts to engage its citizenry on most significant public matters.

Few would argue however that the public process when conducted poorly often results in highly skewed outcomes that do not satisfy anyone. Some say success is when no one is completely satisfied. I disagree and feel broad public consensus can be achieved.

That kind of success is only possible when the city is able to conduct a process that elevates public debate to the level where complex issues can be understood and properly considered by all. Most people do not consider long term and "big picture" solutions as part of their daily lives. Nevertheless we all have a stake in the future. It is therefore the responsibility of the city to clarify issues through due diligence in preparing material to levels where serious and meaningful public debate can occur. That is what I attempted to do with the urban design framework and all its supporting elements.

The urban design framework as described was not created in a void. It had a Resource Group of over 20 professionals and creative thinkers during its process. In addition it had a Technical Advisory Committee that represented a wide range of public agencies. You can check out the participants in the opening pages of the Urban Design Assessment available online.

Despite this engagement, the framework is at best a working draft. It was intended all along to be the first template upon which an extended public debate could occur on how we might leverage limited resources to create great public spaces and places.

If the process follows its intended course, a good public debate would now start on the framework's implications, assumptions, and the best translations of its implied opportunities. That includes reinventing it if necessary, but always keeping in mind the issues and big ideas behind the diagram. The framework should be taken as a statement of future potential and focus, not a "cooked" solution.

A final framework may not look like the one you see, but the intent in carrying it this far has been to ensure the alternatives suggested by citizens remain mature and carefully thought through.

In that vein I sincerely hope this work remains a base on which everyone can have fun with, build upon and eventually call their own.

[Steve]

Thank you for the well considered reply.

On a positive note, I feel the Sellwood Bridge Project is an example of the proper way to engage the public to evaluate development alternatives.

Now, we need to make this vital piece of infrastructure a priority ahead of a new smaller baseball stadium.