Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife
Keep in mind, Barcelona is an entire city of 6-8 story buildings with a density of 41,000/sq mi compared to Portland's 4800/sq mi. Barcelona is also 39 sq mi compared to Portland which is 145 sq mi.
Now think about that one, almost 4 Barcelonas could fit in Portland with its 6-8 story buildings. Portland could do 1/4 of the city with 6-8 story buildings and would add the amount of population that lives in Barcelona on top of the size of Portland.
|
I don't really think it's all that helpful comparing the density of a city that was around during the Roman Empire to a city that gained 86% of its population after the automobile.
I also don't think lifting the height limit is essential to meeting some magical density figure. Still, even as progressive as Portland and Oregon are in their policies, the historic timeline of our development patterns along with just simply most Americans' expectations (yes, even Oregonians) for space, their comfort levels with density, and especially their tendency to be parochial and violently individualistic, is a lot different than Europeans, or the rest of the world for that matter. Spain also observes the cultural practice of siestas, which I absolutely love and wish we'd adopt, but that doesn't mean I think there should be a city-wide mandate to shutdown for three hours starting at 2 p.m. everyday.
Could you imagine if some deep-pocketed out-of-state company just started buying up entire blocks and installing Barcelona level density all over neighborhoods in Portland? Holy shit, the cries of gentrification, displacement, and from historic preservationists etc. would reach a crescendo the likes San Francisco hasn't even seen. Which, in my mind, is all the more reason that we should allow higher levels of density and lift the height restrictions in places where it's more appropriate.
Give us some of the real reasons why they're there in the first place, why they make sense, define the public good of the height limits and why the benefits of those limits outweigh the potential public good of lifting them, and then people can have an honest discussion about whether or not it makes sense. As of right now, it sounds like it's on super soft footing.
The best answer I heard so far was to protect views from public places. Still, I don't even think there are many places where you can see Mt. Hood from most of Washington Park except in the most fleeting of places due to the tree canopy. And as for Terwilliger Blvd. and Mt. Saint Helens is concerned, were those limits put in place before the top blew off? Also, looking at Terwilliger, I'm not even sure downtown is in the direct line of site of Saint Helens judging by maps. Is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMH
Closer to home is Washington DC with no high-rises due to the city-wide height restriction that was instituted after the Cairo Apartments was built too tall in the early part of the 20th century. The decision had nothing to do with maintaining views of the Capitol dome or the Washington Monument. Without high-rises, the city has a lively density of 11,500 / sq mi while providing great access to sunlight and air to all of its residents.
|
Again, I have no clue what this has to do with Portland. Despite the Capitol Building myth, there is literally no reason for maintaining the height limit based on its original premise because it was based on the yet untested building form and limitations of fire departments at the time that of course have been solved in literally every other major city of the world for the last hundred or so years. The height limit there is in place to maintain and preserve character, which in Oregon is actually illegal due to our clear and objective standards for needed housing outlined in 660-008-0015.
Prev
Linear Mode
