Density

[soleri]

New article in The Portland Monthly: Why Portland Desperately Needs More Urban Density.


http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/st...ity-april-2015

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by soleri

New article in The Portland Monthly: Why Portland Desperately Needs More Urban Density.


http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/st...ity-april-2015

Yup.

[urbanlife]

An interesting point about the suburbs being more dense than the city itself, this leads me to think that expanding transit, especially rail, as well as buses, and bikeable/walkable design to these new developments throughout the suburbs is key to making density throughout the metro work in favor of the metro and city. This would make the metro much more sustainable in that sense.

I would love to see a growth of 300-450ft towers in downtown of residential units to help strengthen the concentration of density within the city core. Something that we have been seeing to some degree in the outer neighborhoods of downtown like the Pearl, SoWa, Lloyd, and even starting in Inner Eastside.

I do agree with the article, I would like to see more of Portland's inner neighborhoods and even outer neighborhoods begin to try and duplicate the density and layout of King's Hill.

All and all, it is a very good article and a very good idea on a direction Portland should be headed in.

[65MAX]

While I agree that Portland can definitely accommodate a doubling of population within its current boundaries, I disagree with the "numbers" he's using to justify his argument.

The author uses this little nugget....

"Consider one measure: Density of persons per square mile within major West Coast cities (as compiled by CityData).
1.San Francisco: 17,935
2.Berkeley: 11,164
3.Los Angeles: 8,281
4.Seattle: 7,779
5.Oakland: 7,247
6.San Jose: 5,710
7.Sacramento: 4,937
8.Portland: 4,537
9.San Diego: 4,180"

The implication being that Portland is barely as dense as the most sprawling of West Coast cities, San Diego. This is horrendously misleading. That "persons per square mile" number completely ignores the fact that we have orders of magnitude FAR MORE parkland within our city limits than any of the other cities on this list.

Also, not considered... the Willamette is a 1/2 mile to one mile wide mostly uninhabited swath through the middle of the city that none of the other cities (except possibly Sacramento) have. The others may border large bodies of water, but that water area isn't calculated into their total square mile figure like it is with Portland's.

Another fact that skews our "density" number negatively... PDX is entirely within our city limits. SEA, SFO, OAK, these airports and their accompanying vast uninhabited acreage are not actually in their namesake cities, and thus not a net drag on their overall densities.

So if you factor in all of the uninhabited areas, whether it be parkland, open water, airport space, even our expansive port facilities, and figure population density based only on the areas that are actually inhabited, (and do the same for the other cities), I guarantee you we are denser than San Jose and Sacramento, and probably as dense as Oakland and Seattle.

Finally, since when is Berkeley a Major West Coast City?

Despite the author's misleading density numbers, I agree with most of what he advocates.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

While I agree that Portland can definitely accommodate a doubling of population within its current boundaries, I disagree with the "numbers" he's using to justify his argument.

The author uses this little nugget....

"Consider one measure: Density of persons per square mile within major West Coast cities (as compiled by CityData).
1.San Francisco: 17,935
2.Berkeley: 11,164
3.Los Angeles: 8,281
4.Seattle: 7,779
5.Oakland: 7,247
6.San Jose: 5,710
7.Sacramento: 4,937
8.Portland: 4,537
9.San Diego: 4,180"

The implication being that Portland is barely as dense as the most sprawling of West Coast cities, San Diego. This is horrendously misleading. That "persons per square mile" number completely ignores the fact that we have orders of magnitude FAR MORE parkland within our city limits than any of the other cities on this list.

Also, not considered... the Willamette is a 1/2 mile to one mile wide mostly uninhabited swath through the middle of the city that none of the other cities (except possibly Sacramento) have. The others may border large bodies of water, but that water area isn't calculated into their total square mile figure like it is with Portland's.

Another fact that skews our "density" number negatively... PDX is entirely within our city limits. SEA, SFO, OAK, these airports and their accompanying vast uninhabited acreage are not actually in their namesake cities, and thus not a net drag on their overall densities.

So if you factor in all of the uninhabited areas, whether it be parkland, open water, airport space, even our expansive port facilities, and figure population density based only on the areas that are actually inhabited, (and do the same for the other cities), I guarantee you we are denser than San Jose and Sacramento, and probably as dense as Oakland and Seattle.

Finally, since when is Berkeley a Major West Coast City?

Despite the author's misleading density numbers, I agree with most of what he advocates.

That number is not affected by the river. They divided by land area; 4500 people/sq mile really is the number. Now, How many square miles is the airport land? I don't really think that brings our numbers down either...

So, their point actually still stands. We are a really sparse city in a metro surrounded by denser suburbs. WE NEED TO BUILD MORE. I know you all have gotten annoyed at my refrain, but seriously. Sacramento is denser? What the eff? Our game is all talk. And people still want less to be built than is occurring.

Our model is failing.

[colganc]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

That number is not affected by the river. They divided by land area; 4500 people/sq mile really is the number. Now, How many square miles is the airport land? I don't really think that brings our numbers down either...

So, their point actually still stands. We are a really sparse city in a metro surrounded by denser suburbs. WE NEED TO BUILD MORE. I know you all have gotten annoyed at my refrain, but seriously. Sacramento is denser? What the eff? Our game is all talk. And people still want less to be built than is occurring.

Our model is failing.

Who cares. Good place to live? That is what matters. If a person can afford to live in a good place that is even better. Most of those cities fail at those two tests. Portland chasing those other cities densities is a waste of time.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

While I agree that Portland can definitely accommodate a doubling of population within its current boundaries, I disagree with the "numbers" he's using to justify his argument.

The author uses this little nugget....

"Consider one measure: Density of persons per square mile within major West Coast cities (as compiled by CityData).
1.San Francisco: 17,935
2.Berkeley: 11,164
3.Los Angeles: 8,281
4.Seattle: 7,779
5.Oakland: 7,247
6.San Jose: 5,710
7.Sacramento: 4,937
8.Portland: 4,537
9.San Diego: 4,180"

The implication being that Portland is barely as dense as the most sprawling of West Coast cities, San Diego. This is horrendously misleading. That "persons per square mile" number completely ignores the fact that we have orders of magnitude FAR MORE parkland within our city limits than any of the other cities on this list.

Also, not considered... the Willamette is a 1/2 mile to one mile wide mostly uninhabited swath through the middle of the city that none of the other cities (except possibly Sacramento) have. The others may border large bodies of water, but that water area isn't calculated into their total square mile figure like it is with Portland's.

Another fact that skews our "density" number negatively... PDX is entirely within our city limits. SEA, SFO, OAK, these airports and their accompanying vast uninhabited acreage are not actually in their namesake cities, and thus not a net drag on their overall densities.

So if you factor in all of the uninhabited areas, whether it be parkland, open water, airport space, even our expansive port facilities, and figure population density based only on the areas that are actually inhabited, (and do the same for the other cities), I guarantee you we are denser than San Jose and Sacramento, and probably as dense as Oakland and Seattle.

Finally, since when is Berkeley a Major West Coast City?

Despite the author's misleading density numbers, I agree with most of what he advocates.

When we subtract PDX and Forest Park from the density numbers for the city, Portland has a density of 5,024 based on 2013 numbers. I would like to see Portland's average density get up to about 6-7,000 sq mi when you factor out PDX and Forest Park.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

When we subtract PDX and Forest Park from the density numbers for the city, Portland has a density of 5,024 based on 2013 numbers. I would like to see Portland's average density get up to about 6-7,000 sq mi when you factor out PDX and Forest Park.

Thanks for the correction! We still don't beat -gasp- aloha... I wonder how impacted density will be when all the huge projects are done.

As for you saying, "who cares," cognac, I would rather our housing not spiral toward absurdity like SF. We can fix a failing model if people get on board and stop trying to stop needed projects.

[urbanlife]

Going off of wikipedia for density numbers.


Aloha is 6,679
Cornelius is 5,905
Portland is 5,024 sq mi (without PDX and Forest Park)
Beaverton is 4,795
Gresham is 4,551
Sherwood is 4,221
Tigard is 4,067
Hillsboro is 3,833
Forest Grove is 3,673
Happy Valley is 1,679

I don't think the source for the density numbers were that accurate on the link, though they were quite generous to the suburbs and overall the Portland metro is around 4,500 sq mi which is pretty good.

Aloha has a ton of apartment complexes if I remember correctly, so I get it's population density, but Cornelius I have no clue how it is so high for an area that doesn't look like it would have a density number like that.

Though Aloha is a great example of a part of the Westside that should have light rail running through it.

[colganc]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Going off of wikipedia for density numbers.


Aloha is 6,679
Cornelius is 5,905
Portland is 5,024 sq mi (without PDX and Forest Park)
Beaverton is 4,795
Gresham is 4,551
Sherwood is 4,221
Tigard is 4,067
Hillsboro is 3,833
Forest Grove is 3,673
Happy Valley is 1,679

I don't think the source for the density numbers were that accurate on the link, though they were quite generous to the suburbs and overall the Portland metro is around 4,500 sq mi which is pretty good.

Aloha has a ton of apartment complexes if I remember correctly, so I get it's population density, but Cornelius I have no clue how it is so high for an area that doesn't look like it would have a density number like that.

Though Aloha is a great example of a part of the Westside that should have light rail running through it.

Go look at the census quickfacts site. You have mixed 2013 and 2010 numbers. If PDX and Forest Park are removed is Hillsboro airport and the Washington County fairgrounds going to be removed? Will any adjustments for job centers be done? Aloha has a relatively small job base. Most of Nike's campus isn't part of Beaverton.

Undeveloped land that gets annexed by the suburb cities, does that get removed or left added in the calculation? When comparing against SF is the Presidio and Golden Gate park left in? Treasure Island? The empty sections of those contribute over 10% of the land in SF.

Also not to shock you too much, but i am pretty sure SFO actually is in San Francisco county/city.

On Cornelius, the city boundaries don't include adjacent undeveloped land. It also doesn't have a relatively large jobs base in the city boundary.

This density comparison is totally pointless and meaningless.

[pdxtraveler]

Another big drag on density numbers, the whole Smith and Bybee Lakes, and Expo Center area. The old Vanport flood plain.

[Encolpius]

Totally behind this. Quibble about the numbers all you want, but they illustrate how ineffective it's been to focus so much development (and development subsidies) in a narrow pocket of the central city. This is expensive in terms of raising land prices in the central city (making it more expensive to construct the public buildings that need to be located there), inefficient in terms of the costs of constructing, heating and air-conditioning highrises, and inefficient since the vast majority of this housing is for a luxury market and therefore includes more square footage and amenities than most of us want or need or will ever be able to afford. Not saying we should sprawl instead like Los Angeles, but we need a different model, and Potestio's is one I can support. Many of the Garden Cities were utopian projects originally, something like hippie communes, and I can surely see Portland doing something interesting with the concept. It also presents a lot of interesting architectural possibilities, as height could be utilized in a way that was actually meaningful -- that is, it could truly designate a neighborhood focus and even a building or buildings of public significance, not just ordinary condo and office towers. I also like the idea of making each neighborhood responsible for developing its own plan for accommodating its share of added density. As long as every neighborhood bears its share there's no reason to keep expanding the UGB.

[pdxtraveler]

Ahh, I was always curious about certain parts of town. Many neighborhoods over 7000/sq mi.

http://www.city-data.com/nbmaps/neig...nd-Oregon.html

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by colganc

Also not to shock you too much, but i am pretty sure SFO actually is in San Francisco county/city.

Um, no. SFO is in San Mateo County, near Millbrae. It's at least 6 or 7 miles south of the SF border. Sorry to shock you, but....

Originally Posted by colganc

This density comparison is totally pointless and meaningless.

Except that's what the author is using to justify his whole argument. I agree that it's meaningless, because of the cities he listed, Portland has a far, far greater percentage of its land area tied up in uninhabited areas. Huge swaths of land that will never have housing, where we definitely do not WANT housing (parks, floodplains, industrial areas, runways, etc.) and thus will always bring our density number down compared to our west coast siblings.

So yes, the density numbers are meaningless here. Why not just say that we need to accommodate a doubling of our population in a way that doesn't diminish our quality of life? THAT'S what he should be arguing. Being disingenuous about how we're just as bad as San Diego, that just distracts from the real substance in the article that he's trying to promote.

[soleri]

I don't quite see how planning will devolve to the neighborhoods or, if it does, how the neighborhoods then use their powers as wisely as Rick Potestio think they should. What I see now are neighborhoods in a defensive crouch, zealously guarding their old houses, parking, and scale. Whether this is right or wrong is less interesting than the fact that it's real as opposed to ideal.

I think the trick in creating more density involves listening to the stakeholders while also enabling the templates that allow for more development. You can't do this by browbeating or shaming them. They love Portland just as much as we do. The city has threaded this needle fairly well given how incendiary the issue could be. There's an aspect of human nature that will always cry NIMBY (see: any suburb). That planning has heightened zoning allowances in the 2035 plan without the sky falling is due to a government that doesn't merely impose fiats but actually listens.

I worry a lot about the UGB and how Republicans are already using anti-Portland sentiments to galvanize the soreheads and low-information voters (a tautology, I know). One of their tactics is to show Portland as this urban monster which will force everyone to live in high rise with half the square footage of their house and without a car. It's worse than SOCIALISM!!!

Portland is going to continue to grow, particularly with the western drought sharpening the realization that climate change is going to bite the Sunbelt pretty hard. I have talked to several recent arrivals in the last month from California who describe Portland as a paradise by comparison to where they lived before. The irony is that their influx will be used by the real-estate industrial complex to turn Portland into a California kind of nightmare, with sprawl eventually eating up a big part of the Willamette river valley. Right now, we're getting people who understand why Portland is special. They don't want to ruin it. The future immigrants may not be nearly so thoughtful.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by soleri

I don't quite see how planning will devolve to the neighborhoods or, if it does, how the neighborhoods then use their powers as wisely as Rick Potestio think they should. What I see now are neighborhoods in a defensive crouch, zealously guarding their old houses, parking, and scale. Whether this is right or wrong is less interesting than the fact that it's real as opposed to ideal.

I think the trick in creating more density involves listening to the stakeholders while also enabling the templates that allow for more development. You can't do this by browbeating or shaming them. They love Portland just as much as we do. The city has threaded this needle fairly well given how incendiary the issue could be. There's an aspect of human nature that will always cry NIMBY (see: any suburb). That planning has heightened zoning allowances in the 2035 plan without the sky falling is due to a government that doesn't merely impose fiats but actually listens.

I worry a lot about the UGB and how Republicans are already using anti-Portland sentiments to galvanize the soreheads and low-information voters (a tautology, I know). One of their tactics is to show Portland as this urban monster which will force everyone to live in high rise with half the square footage of their house and without a car. It's worse than SOCIALISM!!!

Portland is going to continue to grow, particularly with the western drought sharpening the realization that climate change is going to bite the Sunbelt pretty hard. I have talked to several recent arrivals in the last month from California who describe Portland as a paradise by comparison to where they lived before. The irony is that their influx will be used by the real-estate industrial complex to turn Portland into a California kind of nightmare, with sprawl eventually eating up a big part of the Willamette river valley. Right now, we're getting people who understand why Portland is special. They don't want to ruin it. The future immigrants may not be nearly so thoughtful.

Your final point about forced transplants is important. If we're going to save our rural/wilderness from the California model, we meed to be very strategic RIGHT NOW. I just don't see it happening, though. I honestly think the willamette valley will go the way of LA with the way humanity acts. I wish there were solid regulations to protect our most valuable resources-- i actually believe ecosystems should have the right to exist.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

So yes, the density numbers are meaningless here. Why not just say that we need to accommodate a doubling of our population in a way that doesn't diminish our quality of life? THAT'S what he should be arguing. Being disingenuous about how we're just as bad as San Diego, that just distracts from the real substance in the article that he's trying to promote.

100% This.

Ooh, ooh, Portland ranks lower than Aloha in terms of density. Is there anybody here who, based on that statistic, now thinks Aloha is a more urban place with greater quality of life than Portland? C'mon now.

I'm all about urban density, but the idea that density is more important than other factors is short sighted if not entirely misguided and downright foolish. It's like the constant repetition of comments longing for a new tallest. A new tallest sure would look good on post cards. Yay for pretty post cards. But several smaller buildings would have a greater impact on quality of life downtown than one new tallest tower possibly could. I don't live in a post card, so quality of life is what matters to me.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Your final point about forced transplants is important. If we're going to save our rural/wilderness from the California model, we meed to be very strategic RIGHT NOW. I just don't see it happening, though. I honestly think the willamette valley will go the way of LA with the way humanity acts. I wish there were solid regulations to protect our most valuable resources-- i actually believe ecosystems should have the right to exist.

We DO have solid regulations that protect our natural resources and we've had them for decades. The trick is to keep them solid and not expand the UGBs around every city to accommodate sprawl.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

100% This.

Ooh, ooh, Portland ranks lower than Aloha in terms of density. Is there anybody here who, based on that statistic, now thinks Aloha is a more urban place with greater quality of life than Portland? C'mon now.

I'm all about urban density, but the idea that density is more important than other factors is short sighted if not entirely misguided and downright foolish. It's like the constant repetition of comments longing for a new tallest. A new tallest sure would look good on post cards. Yay for pretty post cards. But several smaller buildings would have a greater impact on quality of life downtown than one new tallest tower possibly could. I don't live in a post card, so quality of life is what matters to me.

I don't fully buy your stance. Design is definitely important, but so is density. We have large swathes of single family homes that don't make much sense so close to city center. These hoods need to be much more permissive for new development that will increase density.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

We DO have solid regulations that protect our natural resources and we've had them for decades. The trick is to keep them solid and not expand the UGBs around every city to accommodate sprawl.

20 year supply is not a very solid regulation, in my opinion. I agree with your suggestion to reign that in.