Metro Portland 2040 Population Projections

[fflint]

Originally Posted by 10023

San Francisco has a population density of just over 18k ppsm. Hammersmith & Fulham, a residential borough of London that is mostly leafy and green, is at 28k ppsm. Part of the difference is narrower streets and good public transit. But that compares to 85k ppsm in Manhattan or 35k ppsm in Brooklyn.

You're comparing apples to apple slices here. Complete cities contain all sorts of less-populous land uses that mere residential districts of larger cities do not.

The City and County of San Francisco had an average population density of 18,451 persons per square mile in 2015, in an area with significant non-residential uses: nearly 20% of SF's total land area is devoted to open space and parkland--some 5,693 of the city's total 29,000 acres; SF contains one of this hemisphere's most extensive and substantial office/commercial cores; large swathes of land have been given over to maritime and industrial uses, medical, governmental and correctional facilities, utilities, etc.

The densities at which San Franciscans actually live, where they live, are much higher than the citywide average you're using to compare with a primarily residential borough of London. It's not an apt comparison.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

well yeah, if the politics allows a dictatorship of zoning and a command economy forcing construction of highrises irrespective of economics, anything is possible.

but in the real world, nobody is going to be knocking down Portland's stock of beautiful craftsman homes to build woodframe apartments. setting aside the aesthetic arguments, the economics wouldn't make sense

that leaves the commercial corridors which are going to fight this tooth and nail.

there are no urban prairies or industrial wastelands, like parts of central detroit or Long Island City, on which to buy up cheap land and build.

the only place I really see this happening is lining sandy blvd with high rises. it's still close to the city (better economics) and pretty underutilized (more of a traditional strip mall corridor for the most part).

Heavy industry tends to fight rezones and other uses due to the effect on land costs, pushes for quiet, etc., but retail and office landlords generally don't. Non-industrial commercial districs are a huge part of infill.

Portland would presumably never zone multifamily in a 100% single-family area, but between the non-industrial commercial districts, the single-family fringes of those districts, and various arterials around town, they could zone enough multifamily land to make it work. The question is whether they're doing that or plan to.

As for economics, a six-story woodframe certainly works. Replacing four $500,000 houses with a 100-unit apartment is a bargain...just $20,000 per unit. With limited rezones those properties might go for multiples of that. With broader rezones the multiple would be lower due to plentiful supply.

Personally I love six-story density. Lots of it in my area.

[memph]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

well yeah, if the politics allows a dictatorship of zoning and a command economy forcing construction of highrises irrespective of economics, anything is possible.

but in the real world, nobody is going to be knocking down Portland's stock of beautiful craftsman homes to build woodframe apartments. setting aside the aesthetic arguments, the economics wouldn't make sense

that leaves the commercial corridors which are going to fight this tooth and nail.

there are no urban prairies or industrial wastelands, like parts of central detroit or Long Island City, on which to buy up cheap land and build.

the only place I really see this happening is lining sandy blvd with high rises. it's still close to the city (better economics) and pretty underutilized (more of a traditional strip mall corridor for the most part).

Yeah... not sure how it isn't economically worth it to replace SFH with midrise. Many cities will replace one SFH with one bigger SFH.

This street in Mississauga has several individual houses being replaced with semi-detached homes.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.54618...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Lots of similar stuff going on in Calgary with individual SFHs being replaced by larger SFHs, semi-detacheds, four-packs, townhouses, etc.
Ex this SFH on a corner lot gets replaced with 4 townhouses... and the townhouses aren't even that crowded on the lot, they probably could have fit 6 with lesser setbacks.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.03633...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Calgary style 4-packs under construction just down the street.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.03713...8i6656!6m1!1e1
There's loads of this kind of lowrise infill in South Calgary/Bankview, although it exists in many other close in Calgary neighbourhoods too.

And BTW, a lot of Portland, especially more outlying areas, is not beautiful craftsman homes. Portland does have some, and I think there should be an effort to preserve them, but it's not like that's even a majority of SFH housing stock. Portland has tons of 40s-60s tract style bungalows and ranches.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.47737...8i6656!6m1!1e1
Many aren't in sufficiently central locations to support widespread highrise density, but low-rise infill like the Calgary examples should be fine.

In the more historic and centrally located neighbourhoods, you could just allow higher (midrise or highrise) densities in the few areas where you allow development, and keep the rest mostly intact (you could still allow ADUs though).

[The North One]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

As mhays pointed out, you could easily accommodate that many people with mid rises and medium density buildings.

Theres really no such thing as a city thats run out of room to grown. Just the political will to do so.

This is a lie, geography plays a huge role in how large a city can get, after a certain point you might be able to squeeze room here and there but it becomes incredibly difficult. We're never going to build high density mid rises like in the 1800's even if laws permitted it, the standard of living in the U.S. is too high. The only option is "Manhattanization" and as you could have guessed cities like SF are fighting it tooth and nail and not even Manhattan with it's built up pre-war urban fabric and additions of newly built modern developments is nearly as dense as it used to be. To pretend that there will always be room for people is just plain arrogance and ignorance.

In the case of Portland at the moment I think it certainly has room for this generation, there are many areas they could build up. Future ones? I see it running into lots of trouble.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

or they could just look to other american cities.

my neighborhood of edgewater on chicago's northside is almost entirely low-rise (with the exception of some highrises along the lakefront) and has a population density of ~35,000 ppsm and is extremely leafy and green. it's like living in an urban forest.

I would love to see Portland reach the density of neighborhoods like Edgewater, which if I were to be living in Chicago, I would probably be in the Edgewater neighborhood because I felt it was really that perfect balance of density without feeling overcrowded. Though Chicago's neighborhoods in general are well designed to handle density without giving you the sense of overcrowding.

[Derek]

I'd love to see some projections for Clark county as well, as it's outside of Portland's UGB. I know the article is referencing the "Metro" regional government, but that obviously doesn't include municipalities in Washington state.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by The North One

In the case of Portland at the moment I think it certainly has room for this generation, there are many areas they could build up. Future ones? I see it running into lots of trouble.

Are you talking about Portland proper, or the metro? Because if you're talking about the metro, the "limit" to the boundary here is fluid--man-made, unlike the natural boundaries of Seattle or San Francisco. Furthermore, Washington is in some ways capable of being a blowoff valve. I just don't find your argument to be based in the reality of policy and land availability here. Google South Hillsboro.

[memph]

Originally Posted by The North One

This is a lie, geography plays a huge role in how large a city can get, after a certain point you might be able to squeeze room here and there but it becomes incredibly difficult. We're never going to build high density mid rises like in the 1800's even if laws permitted it, the standard of living in the U.S. is too high. The only option is "Manhattanization" and as you could have guessed cities like SF are fighting it tooth and nail and not even Manhattan with it's built up pre-war urban fabric and additions of newly built modern developments is nearly as dense as it used to be. To pretend that there will always be room for people is just plain arrogance and ignorance.

In the case of Portland at the moment I think it certainly has room for this generation, there are many areas they could build up. Future ones? I see it running into lots of trouble.

There are several Manhattan neighbourhoods that are denser than they've ever been though. It's mostly just certain neighbourhoods like the Lower East Side that un-crowded. The built density has definitely gone up. I'd be curious to see how the daytime population changed too, rather than just residential population.

Also not sure how the US standard of living is too high for mid rise density? How exactly is housing in a place like Beacon Hill of a lower standard than Texas Donut style apartments? The price that housing in Beacon Hill or the North End, and New York equivalents will fetch, suggests otherwise. That housing is not just expensive compared to less expensive cities, they're expensive even relative to the cities they're in.

Portland is still very low density, Vancouver is 3 times denser and still has plenty of low rise and SFH neighbourhoods. In fact only about 20-25% of Vancouver residents live in apartments of 5+ stories (yes, that's for the city proper). And anyways, American cities aren't going to be growing forever. The world's population growth should be slowing down in a few decades. It's quite likely that the population growth Portland will experience from 2015 to 2040 will be more than the growth it will experience from 2040 to 2150.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by subterranean

Are you talking about Portland proper, or the metro? Because if you're talking about the metro, the "limit" to the boundary here is fluid--man-made, unlike the natural boundaries of Seattle or San Francisco. Furthermore, Washington is in some ways capable of being a blowoff valve. I just don't find your argument to be based in the reality of policy and land availability here. Google South Hillsboro.

Well I'm not an expert on Portland, I don't know where the exact city boundaries end.

It looks to me like there is plenty of land that can be more developed on the west side of the river from downtown if policy permits it, it seems like nothing but low rises. What part of my "argument" are you referring to? That notion that Portland has room for this generation? Or that it won't have room in the future?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

I would love to see Portland reach the density of neighborhoods like Edgewater, which if I were to be living in Chicago, I would probably be in the Edgewater neighborhood because I felt it was really that perfect balance of density without feeling overcrowded. Though Chicago's neighborhoods in general are well designed to handle density without giving you the sense of overcrowding.

unrelated to the density equation, edgewater has also managed to find that sweet spot of stable racial diversity, which isn't terribly common in a segregated city like chicago.

edgewater demographics:

54% white
16% latino
14% black
12% asian
4% other

it's still (slightly) majority white, but it has a decent mix of other groups as well.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by memph

There are several Manhattan neighbourhoods that are denser than they've ever been though. It's mostly just certain neighbourhoods like the Lower East Side that un-crowded. The built density has definitely gone up. I'd be curious to see how the daytime population changed too, rather than just residential population.

Also not sure how the US standard of living is too high for mid rise density? How exactly is housing in a place like Beacon Hill of a lower standard than Texas Donut style apartments? The price that housing in Beacon Hill or the North End, and New York equivalents will fetch, suggests otherwise. That housing is not just expensive compared to less expensive cities, they're expensive even relative to the cities they're in.

Portland is still very low density, Vancouver is 3 times denser and still has plenty of low rise and SFH neighbourhoods. In fact only about 20-25% of Vancouver residents live in apartments of 5+ stories (yes, that's for the city proper). And anyways, American cities aren't going to be growing forever. The world's population growth should be slowing down in a few decades. It's quite likely that the population growth Portland will experience from 2015 to 2040 will be more than the growth it will experience from 2040 to 2150.

Overall Manhattan is much less dense than it used to be: http://ny.curbed.com/2014/9/25/10042...-100-years-ago

Only few neighborhoods that weren't super dense to begin with are exceptions or neighborhoods that have been converted from mostly commercial to residential.

I didn't say that it was too high for mid rise density in general, just the kind of insane mid rise density we saw in early periods aren't going to happen today. Americans now have more options than people did in the early 20th century. Beacon Hill used to be a neighborhood of all single family mansions, it's been cut up into apartments that are desirable because of it's walkable fabric and great architecture. Neighborhoods in Manhattan were different, you had entire families living in single bedroom apartments within very close proximity to each other. They were mostly immigrants who had no other choice. Today suburban living is an option, it's more affordable and these families get all the space they need to live to a higher quality of life. A neighborhood like Beacon Hill is very desirable but that doesn't mean people are willing to live in a one bedroom apartment with seven other people. Today you might see young people willing to sacrifice and live with more roommates but they still aren't living in the same levels of high density, they find cheaper options in outer neighborhoods and live with less roommates if they can, or they're pushed out by high costs all together.

[10023]

Originally Posted by fflint

You're comparing apples to apple slices here. Complete cities contain all sorts of less-populous land uses that mere residential districts of larger cities do not.

The City and County of San Francisco had an average population density of 18,451 persons per square mile in 2015, in an area with significant non-residential uses: nearly 20% of SF's total land area is devoted to open space and parkland--some 5,693 of the city's total 29,000 acres; SF contains one of this hemisphere's most extensive and substantial office/commercial cores; large swathes of land have been given over to maritime and industrial uses, medical, governmental and correctional facilities, utilities, etc.

The densities at which San Franciscans actually live, where they live, are much higher than the citywide average you're using to compare with a primarily residential borough of London. It's not an apt comparison.

Sorry, but this doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I used H&F as an example because it's not that central and is what most Americans would consider a comfortable built environment, but all of central London's boroughs have population density above San Francisco's, and it's not as if London is short on parkland, office space and other uses compared to San Francisco. In fact all of Great London's 607 square miles, which includes lots of actual farmland, has a residential density of over 14k ppsm. Inner London, which includes 12 boroughs which are roughly coterminous with the old County of London, has an area of 123 square miles with a density of 26k ppsm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_London

San Francisco is simply not that dense.


Anyway, going back to my point, there's a lot of fear of "Manhattanization" when people try to suggest higher residential densities in American cities, but the real problem is with built form and the very centralized nature of most American cities. You can have density without skyscrapers, and it's remarkable how consistent the density is over vast swaths of cities like London, Paris or Barcelona as opposed to American cities.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by subterranean

Are you talking about Portland proper, or the metro? Because if you're talking about the metro, the "limit" to the boundary here is fluid--man-made, unlike the natural boundaries of Seattle or San Francisco. Furthermore, Washington is in some ways capable of being a blowoff valve. I just don't find your argument to be based in the reality of policy and land availability here. Google South Hillsboro.

Seattle's metro boundaries are man-made too. We've chosen not to sprawl into large areas where we could.

[memph]

Originally Posted by The North One

Overall Manhattan is much less dense than it used to be: http://ny.curbed.com/2014/9/25/10042...-100-years-ago

Only few neighborhoods that weren't super dense to begin with are exceptions or neighborhoods that have been converted from mostly commercial to residential.

I didn't say that it was too high for mid rise density in general, just the kind of insane mid rise density we saw in early periods aren't going to happen today. Americans now have more options than people did in the early 20th century. Beacon Hill used to be a neighborhood of all single family mansions, it's been cut up into apartments that are desirable because of it's walkable fabric and great architecture. Neighborhoods in Manhattan were different, you had entire families living in single bedroom apartments within very close proximity to each other. They were mostly immigrants who had no other choice. Today suburban living is an option, it's more affordable and these families get all the space they need to live to a higher quality of life. A neighborhood like Beacon Hill is very desirable but that doesn't mean people are willing to live in a one bedroom apartment with seven other people. Today you might see young people willing to sacrifice and live with more roommates but they still aren't living in the same levels of high density, they find cheaper options in outer neighborhoods and live with less roommates if they can, or they're pushed out by high costs all together.

Yes, but the Lower East Side also had a density of 400,000 ppsm, at those densities Portland would have a population of 50-55 million. I think we all know Portland is never going to get anywhere near that big so why worry about whether Portlanders are going to have to live in 1910 LES style conditions? LES without the crowding would still have a density of about 100,000-150,000 ppsm vs 4,300 ppsm for Portland.

BTW you can look up Portland's boundaries quite easily, just enter Portland, OR in google maps and they should show up.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle's metro boundaries are man-made too. We've chosen not to sprawl into large areas where we could.

Seattle is bound on two sides by water. This is all I meant.

[llamaorama]

Just armchair observations:

When you look at Google Maps satellite view, Portland does seem to have a lot of flat land surrounding its suburbs, in parts where it could interface with existing built up areas and it wouldn't so difficult to extend existing infrastructure. North of Hillsboro along the US-26 corridor as an example. That is already a large job center with Intel, so one would expect that robust residential growth would follow if enabled.

Those suburban municipalities could annex, extend infrastructure, and extend zoning into those areas. It would be in their interest to do so, to expand their tax base and achieve economies of scale. Cali-style subdivisions(small lots, townhomes on the periphery, pocket parks) that have a moderate population density, mixed use stuff, there would be interconnected greenbelts to preserve creek bottoms and wetlands. Room for the hundreds of thousands of residents the area will have to absorb one day, and in a decently attractive package.

What's BS is what most of the Puget Sound region looks like outside of urban centers, or Damascus on the other side of the PDX metro. Areas technically outside the urban growth boundary are completely choked by multi-acre "hobby farm" lots. It's not really rural or natural nor does it preserve agriculture, the areas lack coherent roads or utilities or services, suffer from having a fuzzy urban wildland interface that makes everything from forest fires to coyote attacks a problem.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Just armchair observations:

When you look at Google Maps satellite view, Portland does seem to have a lot of flat land surrounding its suburbs, in parts where it could interface with existing built up areas and it wouldn't so difficult to extend existing infrastructure. North of Hillsboro along the US-26 corridor as an example. That is already a large job center with Intel, so one would expect that robust residential growth would follow if enabled.

Those suburban municipalities could annex, extend infrastructure, and extend zoning into those areas. It would be in their interest to do so, to expand their tax base and achieve economies of scale. Cali-style subdivisions(small lots, townhomes on the periphery, pocket parks) that have a moderate population density, mixed use stuff, there would be interconnected greenbelts to preserve creek bottoms and wetlands. Room for the hundreds of thousands of residents the area will have to absorb one day, and in a decently attractive package.

What's BS is what most of the Puget Sound region looks like outside of urban centers, or Damascus on the other side of the PDX metro. Areas technically outside the urban growth boundary are completely choked by multi-acre "hobby farm" lots. It's not really rural or natural nor does it preserve agriculture, the areas lack coherent roads or utilities or services, suffer from having a fuzzy urban wildland interface that makes everything from forest fires to coyote attacks a problem.

South Hillsboro

[memph]

Originally Posted by 10023

Sorry, but this doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I used H&F as an example because it's not that central and is what most Americans would consider a comfortable built environment, but all of central London's boroughs have population density above San Francisco's, and it's not as if London is short on parkland, office space and other uses compared to San Francisco. In fact all of Great London's 607 square miles, which includes lots of actual farmland, has a residential density of over 14k ppsm. Inner London, which includes 12 boroughs which are roughly coterminous with the old County of London, has an area of 123 square miles with a density of 26k ppsm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_London

San Francisco is simply not that dense.


Anyway, going back to my point, there's a lot of fear of "Manhattanization" when people try to suggest higher residential densities in American cities, but the real problem is with built form and the very centralized nature of most American cities. You can have density without skyscrapers, and it's remarkable how consistent the density is over vast swaths of cities like London, Paris or Barcelona as opposed to American cities.

Central San Francisco is quite dense, but it drops off faster than with London. Everything South and West of The Mission/Castro is less dense than inner London. Even Richmond District is a bit less dense.

I agree with transit and centralization being somewhat of an obstacle (along with zoning). At best, there's a few rapid transit lines converging downtown, and relatively little urban employment outside downtown.

Looking at Toronto for example, the densest part of the city is the area south of Bloor east and especially west of downtown, but aside from the subway at the edge of that area along Bloor, it's only served by streetcars in mixed traffic. The area around Rogers Rd and Eglinton West has also been poorly served by transit although the Eglinton LRT will help with that.

There should be an effort to form secondary nodes as downtown is getting increasingly built out, not just Scarborough Town Centre and Etobicoke Centre which are pretty far flung, but also nodes closer to downtown but still far enough to shorten the commutes are people living further from downtown. These secondary nodes should be served by multiple transit lines, and connected to downtown by "express rapid transit"... something faster than LRT stopping every 500m. What's missing and IMO needed for Toronto could probably apply to many American cities too.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by memph

Yes, but the Lower East Side also had a density of 400,000 ppsm, at those densities Portland would have a population of 50-55 million. I think we all know Portland is never going to get anywhere near that big so why worry about whether Portlanders are going to have to live in 1910 LES style conditions? LES without the crowding would still have a density of about 100,000-150,000 ppsm vs 4,300 ppsm for Portland.

BTW you can look up Portland's boundaries quite easily, just enter Portland, OR in google maps and they should show up.

Just a correction to your post, LES has a density of 72-73K, not 100-150K unless you are maybe looking at daytime hours because there is an influx of people in Manhattan during the work days, but the night times, the density is much lower....Though, 72-73K is still massive and you are basically stacking people on top of people.

Portland, and just about every city in this country will never get that big, which is why I do laugh when I hear fears of cities becoming "Manhattanized" because that just means someone doesn't know how much a place would have to change to get even close to what Manhattan is like.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Just armchair observations:

What's BS is what most of the Puget Sound region looks like outside of urban centers, or Damascus on the other side of the PDX metro. Areas technically outside the urban growth boundary are completely choked by multi-acre "hobby farm" lots. It's not really rural or natural nor does it preserve agriculture, the areas lack coherent roads or utilities or services, suffer from having a fuzzy urban wildland interface that makes everything from forest fires to coyote attacks a problem.

True, we should tighten the restrictions on those.

But even now there's huge benefit to keeping the population minimal outside the urban growth boundaries, environmentally and in terms of infrastructure, air pollution, etc.