A conversation with Jules Bailey

Jules Bailey (Jules Bailey for Mayor of Portland)

BY BRIAN LIBBY

This May's election could have a tremendous impact on Portland's built environment. From hot-button issues like affordable and homeless housing to historic preservation to transit and infrastructure to sustainability, many of the most important and contentious issues facing the city are related to design.

With that in mind, we begin a series of conversations with candidates for mayor and city council. First up is Jules Bailey, who was raised in Southeast Portland and went on to become a three-term member of the Oregon House before his current job as a Multnomah County commissioner.

Portland Architecture: What is an individual building or open space in Portland that you have found personally meaningful, or a source of civic pride, or have really enjoyed spending time at over the years?

Jules Bailey: I always find Pioneer Square inspiring. It was designed by an architect that was one of our own, after much community input. It was funded by Portlanders coming together to buy bricks. And it has given us a “living room” and a center of civic life for decades. It is in many ways our kind of monument: not a structure devoted to power, but a place for the power of community to meet.

Portland is seeing a wave of older homes being demolished, but much of what is replacing these houses seems to be one-for-one and geared to the affluent, not adding density or affordability. How can we change that?

Portland needs more housing supply to combat rising costs. Having older homes demolished and replaced with a single large home is not good for supply, affordability, and often, neighborhood character. First, we need stronger policies to protect historically important homes and buildings. It’s too hard to get homes and buildings on the list, and too easy to get them off. When an older home is torn down, the city can use it’s permitting process and fee waivers to incentivize neighborhood-scale infill. I’ve proposed a “fast-track” process to move infill like smaller homes, duplexes, triplexes, and garden apartments to the front of the line in permitting and to waive fees associated with that development. Doing so changes the market for builders and will get more housing that is available to working families into the market.

Although many if not most local leaders seem to support an urban growth boundary to protect farmland and prevent excessive sprawl, rapid rises in median rents, home values and the cost of living have caused some to question these values. Can Portland keep growing more dense without pricing out our less affluent citizens?

The dramatic rise in the cost of housing in Portland is due to demand and speculation in our housing market. The urban growth boundary has been an important part of what has made our city the livable and desirable place it is, which does cause demand. But the urban growth boundary has not caused supply shortages that drive up the cost of housing. Many other cities that do not have a UGB are also seeing a rise in the cost of housing, and Portland is less dense than many of them by comparison. We don’t have to sacrifice our values in order to protect affordability.

Oregon used to be defined by resource-based industries like timber and agriculture, but increasingly Portland in particular has become a hive for creative industries from architecture to athletic apparel to apps. Do you subscribe to Richard Florida's notion of a creative class as crucial to a city's prosperity?

Portland has a thriving creativity and innovation industry that is a big part of our success story. Portland has the opportunity not to be a place “where young people go to retire” as the tag line on Portlandia tells us, but a place where young creatives come to inspire the next generation of businesses. Companies like Puppet Labs are employing hundreds of Portlanders at high wage jobs right in the core of our city. Design firms are exporting the Portland brand nationally and internationally. And all of these businesses have the opportunity to enhance our larger industries. For example, the Tillamook Creamery Association has been doing a remarkable job of bringing together creatives and the food and agriculture industry to market Oregon products. That creates a strong economy for Portland and Oregon.

Portland recently committed nearly $200 million to renovate the Portland Building and about $80 million to redevelop the US Postal Service site along NW Broadway. Do you support these moves?

I do. We need a Portland Building that is safe and functional for city employees so that the public can get the most out of city government. We also have an enormous opportunity with the US Postal Service site to develop an area with mixed use and affordable housing that showcases our city’s talents in design and sustainability.

Two other local landmarks, Centennial Mills and Veterans Memorial Coliseum (which in full disclosure I've fought to preserve), have seen their futures jeopardized despite having renovation costs far below the costs of the USPS site or the Portland Building, despite having public-private partnerships on the table worth tens of millions available for investing in these city assets, and despite the city's own studies showing investment will pay for itself. How can the next mayor preserve our history and allow these irreplaceable and profitable places to prosper, as previous mayors did for places like Schnitzer Hall, the Pittock Mansion and the Portland Armory?

Veterans Memorial Coliseum has the potential to be not only an important historical asset, but an important functional asset for our city. If we can renovate it and it pays for itself, then all that is missing is leadership. I look forward to providing that. Centennial Mills is a bit more complicated. Several plans to re-use that property have fallen short. I am open to new ideas on the site, but in the absence of immediate opportunity, it may be prudent to spend the money allocated to Centennial Mills on making projects like the Post Office and the Memorial Coliseum more feasible.

Last year reports of a major earthquake ravaging the Pacific Northwest sometime in the next 50 years caused a major uproar. But is the city doing enough to prepare?

No. We have begun with important steps, like upgrading unreinforced masonry construction, preparing to make our bridges safe, and re-certifying our levy system. But the city also needs to look at better building codes, seismic ratings, and especially, how we working in the community to prepare neighborhoods to respond in the event of disaster. For example, we need a plan for people like those that drive our busses to be able to get to job sites in the event of an emergency so they can move people around. We aren’t to that level of detail in planning yet.

Should we be spending our transportation dollars on light rail and streetcar lines, or on paving roads and adding sidewalks? Or is this a false choice?

This is mostly a false choice. Light rail and streetcar are heavily funded by the federal government through a specific program, and we have done a good job leveraging that federal investment. However, we do need more revenue to invest in road maintenance and safety projects, and I support the proposed gas tax to do that.

Many mayors have made changes to the city's planning bureau: Vera Katz split planning from development services, for example, and Sam Adams merged planning and sustainability. Given Portland's reputation as an urban planning leader, and how we have fewer planners than in the past on staff, are we set up to be successful in our current structure?

This is an open question for me. As mayor, one of the first things I will do is assess how the structure of the bureaus is functioning, and whether we have sufficient planning capacity in city government. Portland will see a lot of growth and development in the coming years. Having the planning capacity, and the creative thinking to mange it, is crucial to our success as a city.

What do you think of the current structure in which a mayor assigns oversight of city bureaus to different members of City Council? Might there be a better way to prevent silo'd thinking and encourage collaboration, like assigning commissioners to issues like homelessness or affordable housing instead of bureaus? It's allowed in the city charter.

We have a unique form of city government, and it certainly has its challenges. However, change has to come from the public. If not, it risks being portrayed as a “Mayor’s power grab.” I support looking at ideas like district representation for commissioners, but ultimately, I am ready to lead in whatever form of government we have.

Some have argued that local elected officials risk being over-influenced by developers and other local moneyed interests. How might you assure less connected citizens that they have a voice?

I agree that this is a real problem. That’s why I’ve taken the step of capping my campaign contributions. I am not accepting contributions over $250. While that puts me at a financial disadvantage, it gives voters confidence that their voices are heard. Over 900 people have contributed to my campaign just this year. That’s a broad base of support.

Can you name any local architects or firms working today whom you admire? Or any recent projects?

My dad worked with Will Martin for a while, so I’ve been steeped in Portland architectural history. Portland is blessed with a wealth of talented architects and firms. Bing Sheldon and Clark Brockman at SERA, Jeff Stuhr at Holst, and the team at ZGF, among many others, do great work. I love the ZGF building - it incorporates office space, residential, and ground floor retail, together with a clear commitment to sustainability.

It has been suggested that Design Review is "broken," with a lack of certainty and a prolonged process plaguing local building projects subject to its process. But Design Review is also what has made Portland's central core a huge success. What's your take?

Design review plays an important role, but the process does need to be fixed. Some projects sail through, while others get hung up, and it’s not clear what differentiates the two. You also see some projects, like the Yard, change after they make it through the process. We need clear, consistent guidelines and processes that ensure we can have beautiful buildings as well as certainty for developers.

  

Advertisements

Comments

[Kate Powell]

I'm not satisfied with this answer to Brian's second question -- part of the point is that old homes are being torn down when there are other places where infill can be built. You answer is to tear them down for the following: "I’ve proposed a “fast-track” process to move infill like smaller homes, duplexes, triplexes, and garden apartments to the front of the line in permitting and to waive fees associated with that development. Doing so changes the market for builders and will get more housing that is available to working families into the market." This is only going to encourage developers to build ugly high-rises -- and UGLY high-rises that have no contextual-ism are changing NW Portland into an unwelcoming high-rise town for the wealthy. Further, I am radically against changing the NW Industrial Sanctuary into another Pearl. We now have our little "NYC" and do not need another. It will begin to encroach on NW Portland even further, and sooner than you think this portion will become Pearl on the Hill. Lastly, get a grip on parking. I'm not wild about paying for parking (who is) but the incredibly stupid parking gods ahve changed the parking limits all over our NW area, and frankly, have hurt businesses with extremely shortened parking times. We used to go to two coffee shops and one bakery near the Post Office, but now can't find parking because most of it is shortened to 15 to 60 minutes. You are lucky if you find 60 minutes, and frankly, that is not enough for the long waits and then getting up mid-lunch or breakfast to move the car. STOP IT. Portland is not a European town without cars and great transportation. Wow I had no idea I had that rant in me....

[billb]

Brian, great interview. It really reveals how thoughtful Jules is!

And great question on the Design Commission. This is an expensive time-consumer that is broken. It needs full reform from a strong leader. They run some Designers thru the ringer, and yet they approve the black monstrosity that is welded to the east end of the burnside bridge for the rest of our lives. Everyone I talk to, and I mean everyone, hates it with passion. Design Review failed us badly there.