Density

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Before I even begin, I want to make it clear that:
I want greater density.
I want more housing.
I want more mass transit.
I want more of all of the things that come with creating an active, vibrant, urban neighborhood. Give me more, More, MORE!

That being said, this whole "more density" thing grows tiresome, because it's so vague, and though I hate to say it since your heart is in the right place, it's so misguided.

"More density" lacks any context other than saying you want a bigger number on a sheet of paper that denotes Portland's population density, as if that's a cure-all for the rapidly increasing cost of housing. It's not. In fact, greater density has the opposite effect.

Nothing draws a crowd like a crowd.
Nothing increases competition like competition.

As more people move into a neighborhood - thus increasing density - they also bring an increased demand for goods and services. That means increasing opportunities for retail to profit. That means more bars and pubs, restaurants and shops, not to mention groceries, libraries, pharmacies, mass transit... you name it. And as all of that stuff comes to a neighborhood, the neighborhood becomes even more of a great place to live, which means more people will want to live there, which means increasing competition for apartments, which means increasing opportunities for landlords to jack up rent knowing they'll get whatever they ask for.



...our shortage of what, precisely? Be specific. Are you talking about housing in general? Or are you talking about AFFORDABLE housing? I ask because there is no shortage of housing. We don't have people living in hotels waiting for anything available to open up. We do have a shortage of affordable housing, but increasing density (which is a generational task! Come on now!) is NOT going to bring down the price of rent.



If we manage to build enough high rise apartments and condos in Portland to drastically increase our city's density over a period of a decade or even twenty years, the "culture in our city" as we know it would be lost. Portland wouldn't be the Portland we recognize anymore. The city's culture has already dramatically changed over the past two decades. I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm just stating a fact. Using density as a rallying cry for preserving the "culture in our city" is silly. Radical change brings... wait for it ...radical change.

Yes, we have a shortage of affordable housing, but increasing density also increases prices because increased density makes neighborhoods more attractive as more residents create opportunities for more goods and services. That's where the basic supply and demand law falls apart in practice. Look at inner SE for an easy example. Ten years ago, you could rent a dump in inner SE for under $500 a month. I knew people who were doing it. But the area was so sketchy that most people didn't want to live there. A friend of mine was dating a guy who lived just across the river in SE, and it was a point of embarrassment for her. They always went back to her place, in NW. Never to his. But look at inner SE now... and wait until 5 years from now. As all of the new development brings new high rises and new retail, new shops and new bars... just wait and see what the effect on rental prices is going to be, even at the older places. It's going to jump, Jump, JUMP. That neighborhood is going to pop. Hello, increased density. And hello skyrocketing rent.

I'm not saying increased density = higher rent. I'm saying increased neighborhood desirability = higher rent. It works like this:

Increased density = higher population in a given neighborhood.
Higher population = more opportunities for shops and bars.
More shops and bars = a hipper, more vibrant neighborhood.
Hipper neighborhood = more people wanting to live there.
More people wanting to live there = higher rent, because landlords can charge more.

Sadly, the benefits that come with increased density, such as better mass transit, more restaurants, pubs, bars, shops, new parks, increased vitality and fun... all of those things make a neighborhood more desirable, which makes more people want to live in the neighborhood, which drives up competition for apartments, which drives up the price of rent. I've seen rents rise by 1/3 in the last five years downtown. A lot of it is being driven by the resurgence of the west end, and Target, and the Apple Store, and everything else that's going on downtown.

If you're thinking that increased density will bring down housing prices... it won't. And if you think increasing density is something we have to fight for... it's not. Thanks to our urban growth boundary (which I am thankful for!), increasing density is a foregone conclusion (and I'm glad, because I support it fiercely). Yeah, places like Lake Oswego and Clackamas may fight it, but they'll lose those battles over time.

Exactly!!

Thank you, 2oh1. Hopefully this doesn't fall on deaf ears.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

The number you see in statistics isn't going to change fast, but if you look around at real life examples, you'll see an abundance of huge increases in density.

It isn't hard to look at a very selective set of real life examples that would lead you to a very different conclusion from the statistics, which show that Portland overall is growing far less quickly than its suburbs, that the dire shortage of affordable housing is driving massive growth in places like Aloha and areas east of 82nd that don't have basic things like sidewalks or nearby parks. After all, why would you ever travel to Aloha? Why would you venture east of 82nd?

You're right to point out that lots of high rise construction is occurring in the neighborhoods where high rise construction is possible, with obvious consequences on Portland's skyline. San Francisco has also been seeing an unprecedented boom of skyscraper building south of Market Street -- is it going to fix their housing shortage? Does it mean 'great increases in density' for the city as a whole? No and no. High-rises in the Pearl District won't provide the 40,000 affordable homes our region is lacking, either.

You're right that well-designed density makes a neighborhood more attractive, but in fact Portland and the metro region has plenty of areas of ugly density as well. Places like Powellhurst-Gilbert may have lots of housing, but they're far from 'twenty minute neighborhoods'. And plenty of neighborhoods that are already quite attractive have nowhere near the amount of density they could support. I agree with you that increasing density in the Pearl District and South Waterfront won't bring down housing prices very much… but spreading public investment widely enough (and using it smartly) may eventually help to make every Portland neighborhood attractive and appropriately dense.

In short, increasing density is indeed something we have to fight for -- and we have to fight against developers clamoring for inordinate subsidies for the Pearl District and South Waterfront, against the disproportionate power of wealthy NIMBYs in Irvington and Laurelhurst, against a PDC who believes in subsidizing a Trader Joe's in a strip mall with no affordable housing, right in the heart of Albina, to the tune of $2.5 million… just as much as we need to fight the yahoos in Clackamas County. Unless by increasing density you mean increasing density in Felony Flats and Aloha and Gresham, in which case… you're right, if we do nothing, that's a foregone conclusion.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

High-rises in the Pearl District won't provide the 40,000 affordable homes our region is lacking, either.

Neither will a vague term like density. Real life solutions are what's needed. I gave real life examples of major projects bringing density, but they must be hard to imagine, especially from overseas. There's a lot more growth going on than you realize.

Originally Posted by Encolpius

I agree with you that increasing density in the Pearl District and South Waterfront won't bring down housing prices very much...

It won't bring down housing prices at all. In fact, it will push them further up as it makes the neighborhood even more desirable. I'm certainly not against it. I want more housing built, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how to prevent the betterment of a neighborhood from driving up prices in that neighborhood. More dense becomes more walkable, which becomes more desirable, which becomes more expensive as more people want to be there. There aren't going to be easy answers, but a statistic which represents density is no cure all.

Originally Posted by Encolpius

but spreading public investment widely enough (and using it smartly) may eventually help to make every Portland neighborhood attractive and appropriately dense.

You're speaking in vague terms. Which neighborhoods, precisely? How much of an increase in population do you think those specific neighborhoods can handle, and where? Most importantly, as the new, more dense housing is built, and as it provides opportunities for more people to move into the neighborhood, how do you prevent the betterment of the neighborhood from making it more attractive to people who aren't already in the neighborhood? That's a big part of what drives up prices in a given neighborhood, because it's a big part of gentrification. Make a neighborhood more attractive and provide opportunities for newcomers, and you'll get newcomers who sense opportunity. You've probably been gone long enough that you're not familiar with the changes in NE.

Originally Posted by Encolpius

In short, increasing density is indeed something we have to fight for

We?

No. Density as a catch-all cure is not something we should be fighting for. It's vague and does not address what's really needed. Affordable housing is what's needed, but this vague word that assigns a number to an entire metropolitan area does not address that need.

Originally Posted by Encolpius

and we have to fight against developers clamoring for inordinate subsidies for the Pearl District and South Waterfront, against the disproportionate power of wealthy NIMBYs in Irvington and Laurelhurst, against a PDC who believes in subsidizing a Trader Joe's in a strip mall with no affordable housing, right in the heart of Albina, to the tune of $2.5 million… just as much as we need to fight the yahoos in Clackamas County.

You want to fight (from London) against developers who are building density in the Pearl and South Waterfront? Honestly, I think you're here just to fight. Militant, militant, fight fight fight. You want density! DENSITY! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!! Great, so here's where massive amounts of density is being built - being built on a scale which most cities have never seen, by the way. DOESN'T MATTER! FIGHT IT! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT! Against disproportionate power of wealthy NIMBYs and Neloiberals, even though that's not what the word means, and fight! And when you are getting what you want, FIGHT THAT TOO! Fight, for the fight, for the sake of the fight!!! ...wait. What?

[58rhodes]

the only thing that will bring down the cost of housing is to way overbuild and a sinking economy.Density in of itself doesnt cure affordable housing issues. See Boston, San Francisco. DC, New York even Seattle among other cities.

[58rhodes]

actually the main reason for density is to increase the local tax base

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Neither will a vague term like density. Real life solutions are what's needed. I gave real life examples of major projects bringing density, but they must be hard to imagine, especially from overseas. There's a lot more growth going on than you realize.



It won't bring down housing prices at all. In fact, it will push them further up as it makes the neighborhood even more desirable. I'm certainly not against it. I want more housing built, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how to prevent the betterment of a neighborhood from driving up prices in that neighborhood. More dense becomes more walkable, which becomes more desirable, which becomes more expensive as more people want to be there. There aren't going to be easy answers, but a statistic which represents density is no cure all.



You're speaking in vague terms. Which neighborhoods, precisely? How much of an increase in population do you think those specific neighborhoods can handle, and where? Most importantly, as the new, more dense housing is built, and as it provides opportunities for more people to move into the neighborhood, how do you prevent the betterment of the neighborhood from making it more attractive to people who aren't already in the neighborhood? That's a big part of what drives up prices in a given neighborhood, because it's a big part of gentrification. Make a neighborhood more attractive and provide opportunities for newcomers, and you'll get newcomers who sense opportunity. You've probably been gone long enough that you're not familiar with the changes in NE.



We?

No. Density as a catch-all cure is not something we should be fighting for. It's vague and does not address what's really needed. Affordable housing is what's needed, but this vague word that assigns a number to an entire metropolitan area does not address that need.



You want to fight (from London) against developers who are building density in the Pearl and South Waterfront? Honestly, I think you're here just to fight. Militant, militant, fight fight fight. You want density! DENSITY! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!! Great, so here's where massive amounts of density is being built - being built on a scale which most cities have never seen, by the way. DOESN'T MATTER! FIGHT IT! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT! Against disproportionate power of wealthy NIMBYs and Neloiberals, even though that's not what the word means, and fight! And when you are getting what you want, FIGHT THAT TOO! Fight, for the fight, for the sake of the fight!!! ...wait. What?

Absolutely brilliant. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[maccoinnich]

Please name the developments underway at the moment in the Pearl or South Waterfront that are being offered subsidies.

[58rhodes]

Seems to me that some of you are hoping a San Francisco pops up in Portland? Well its not going to happen for a good many years and reasons. The greatest charm Portland has is its seasoned neighborhoods and beautiful parks, that's what draws people here. Im all for a few 500 to 600 foot buildings and great mass transit but Portland has a while to go before it gets to an extreme density.Just enjoy Portland for what it is. And stay west of 82nd LOL

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

Seems to me that some of you are hoping a San Francisco pops up in Portland? Well its not going to happen for a good many years and reasons. The greatest charm Portland has is its seasoned neighborhoods and beautiful parks, that's what draws people here. Im all for a few 500 to 600 foot buildings and great mass transit but Portland has a while to go before it gets to an extreme density.Just enjoy Portland for what it is. And stay west of 82nd LOL

Portland probably will need to get as dense as SF in the next couple of decades to accommodate growth, I'm sorry to burst your glimmering vision of '50s nostalgia. In fact, SF has a tremendous shortage of housing. We probably should aim to be DENSER than current SF to meet demand and not tax our urban growth boundary, our farms, our ecosystem with sprawl. Density and transit are the way to go, and many may agree with me. I'm sorry fast change is scary, though.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Portland probably will need to get as dense as SF in the next couple of decades to accommodate growth, I'm sorry to burst your glimmering vision of '50s nostalgia. In fact, SF has a tremendous shortage of housing. We probably should aim to be DENSER than current SF to meet demand and not tax our urban growth boundary, our farms, our ecosystem with sprawl. Density and transit are the way to go, and many may agree with me. I'm sorry fast change is scary, though.

Portland will never have the economic base of San Francisco--hate to burst your bubble

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Portland probably will need to get as dense as SF in the next couple of decades to accommodate growth, I'm sorry to burst your glimmering vision of '50s nostalgia. In fact, SF has a tremendous shortage of housing. We probably should aim to be DENSER than current SF to meet demand and not tax our urban growth boundary, our farms, our ecosystem with sprawl. Density and transit are the way to go, and many may agree with me. I'm sorry fast change is scary, though.

nobody I know would agree with you but hey keep on dreaming

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

Portland will never have the economic base of San Francisco--hate to burst your bubble

San Francisco should be double as dense as it is now, so if you read what I said, you'd see we agree from opposite ends of the spectrum. In 20 years, Portland should be as dense as SF is now is what I said. By then, we'd have the population to demand it. SF is in a 50 year shortage. That place is insane. Anyway, I hope this clarifies the comparison. You misunderstood PDX today for PDX 20 years from now, and you also misunderstood the density of SF is woefully under what that city demands in present.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

San Francisco should be double as dense as it is now, so if you read what I said, you'd see we agree from opposite ends of the spectrum. In 20 years, Portland should be as dense as SF is now is what I said. By then, we'd have the population to demand it. SF is in a 50 year shortage. That place is insane. Anyway, I hope this clarifies the comparison. You misunderstood PDX today for PDX 20 years from now, and you also misunderstood the density of SF is woefully under what that city demands in present.

San Francisco's housing costs are already to high for its economy, is that what you want for Portland?

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

San Francisco's housing costs are already to high for its economy, is that what you want for Portland?

You have causality backward. Lack of housing and lack of *enough* density is wjat makes SF so expensive. It's a common misconception to think the opposite, but making Portland denser will stabilize rents if there's a high demand and low housing vacancy.

The problem in SF is that they have a fifty year shortage due to there being no new housing neing built. Portland needs to densify to avoid that, not stop building... That wont stop the demand.

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Portland probably will need to get as dense as SF in the next couple of decades to accommodate growth, I'm sorry to burst your glimmering vision of '50s nostalgia. In fact, SF has a tremendous shortage of housing. We probably should aim to be DENSER than current SF to meet demand and not tax our urban growth boundary, our farms, our ecosystem with sprawl. Density and transit are the way to go, and many may agree with me. I'm sorry fast change is scary, though.

Retracted.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

You have causality backward. Lack of housing and lack of *enough* density is wjat makes SF so expensive. It's a common misconception to think the opposite, but making Portland denser will stabilize rents if there's a high demand and low housing vacancy.

The problem in SF is that they have a fifty year shortage due to there being no new housing neing built. Portland needs to densify to avoid that, not stop building... That wont stop the demand.

The demand wont be here with our attitude against corporations

[58rhodes]

Portland I doubt will ever catch up with Seattle much less San Francisco

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

The demand wont be here with our attitude against corporations

Once again, there are predictions by demographers saying Portland is going to add a tom of population. We need to build to accomodate. Save our ecosystem from sprawl and stabilize housing prices so we don't create an income exclusive city.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Once again, there are predictions by demographers saying Portland is going to add a tom of population. We need to build to accomodate.

And your recommendation is to build, in 2015, for a population that will not fully arrive until 2065?

This whole debate is so silly. It's ridiculous. The increase in density you dream of is already happening, if only you'd allow yourself to see it.

What was the population of the Pearl District in 1995? In 2005? In 2015? Population in a given neighborhood is population density. Here, it's increasing, which is precisely what you want. Lloyd is going to absolutely erupt with new urban density. We just had a thread begin yesterday about a thousand new units in one development alone. I wouldn't be surprised to see 30,000 units come to Lloyd in time. We've already got thousands either being built or in the works. Inner SE is going to erupt with new housing. The Pearl is still filling in and still has a lot of room to keep filling in. Conway is going to bring massive change. That's a lot of new housing, and it'll lead to even more housing to be built in the areas surrounding the Conway properties.

Need an example from further out instead of at the center of the city? Look at the increases in and around Hillsboro. The population growth there over the past 20 years (that's increased density) has been astounding. And it continues.

All of this talk about needing density is said as if Portland's urban density isn't already rapidly increasing, but it is. All of this talk about needing density is said with zero context. Where specifically do you want housing built, and what specifically do you want to see built there? Portland isn't going to become Manhattan. Even if a million people moved here in the next 20 years (not gonna happen), Portland still wouldn't be as dense as Manhattan, because we'd see more massive infill. It's amazing how much room Portland still has to grow inward.

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Save our ecosystem from sprawl and stabilize housing prices so we don't create an income exclusive city.

Save our ecosystem?
The crime train is comin'!
Tha'r comin' fer ar' gunz!!!
THAT DINGO ATE MUH BABY!!!!!

The only thing I hate more than when conservatives spew grossly exaggerated nonsense in hopes of getting people riled up is when those on my side of the political, social and environmental spectrum do it. Be better than that.

Increasing urban density isn't going to stabilize housing prices at all. It's going to cause them to further escalate. I cannot stress that enough.

Using density as a rallying cry misses the point entirely. Our population is growing. Housing will continue to be built because, as our population grows, there's money to be made by building housing. That means increased urban density (nobody is talking about tearing down apartment complexes and replacing them with single family homes. Any housing that comes will be increased urban density).

The conversation needs to be about controlling the effects of density. How do we stop the rapidly rising cost of housing? How do we deal with the added congestion to our roads that comes with a growing population? How do we provide the public services a growing population will require? More schools. More teachers. More needs for healthcare. More mass transit. More public safety, more environmental strain, I could go on and on. More of so many things a larger population will require. Increased density is inevitable. The question is, how do we deal with it?

I'm going to say that again because it's important: Increased density is inevitable. The question is, how do we deal with it?

Saying we need more density is like saying we need the sun to come back up tomorrow. It's coming whether we want it or not.

The conversation shouldn't be about the need for density. It's coming.

The conversation should be about dealing with the issues caused by increased urban density. Holy cow, how is that not brutally obvious?

Density is coming.

If Portland's population grows by 300,000 people in the next few decades, housing will be built because that's how developers make their living. A conversation needs to be had about housing prices, not density. Density is coming. How do any of us afford to live here if housing prices continue to spiral?

The idea that building more housing will bring down the cost of housing is middle school naiveté. It doesn't work that way in the real world. Not in a city with an urban growth boundary unless we build Soviet style ghettos, and nobody is suggesting that.

Dude. Really. I love your morals and I am on the exact same page in terms of your belief system... but somebody fooled you into thinking more urban density = more affordable, and that's just plain nuts. Fighting for density is like Noah begging for water. The flood is coming. The real conversation needs to be about dealing with it, not getting it. It's already on the way.

[PDXDENSITY]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

And your recommendation is to build, in 2015, for a population that will not fully arrive until 2065?

This whole debate is so silly. It's ridiculous. The increase in density you dream of is already happening, if only you'd allow yourself to see it.

What was the population of the Pearl District in 1995? In 2005? In 2015? Population in a given neighborhood is population density. Here, it's increasing, which is precisely what you want. Lloyd is going to absolutely erupt with new urban density. We just had a thread begin yesterday about a thousand new units in one development alone. I wouldn't be surprised to see 30,000 units come to Lloyd in time. We've already got thousands either being built or in the works. Inner SE is going to erupt with new housing. The Pearl is still filling in and still has a lot of room to keep filling in. Conway is going to bring massive change. That's a lot of new housing, and it'll lead to even more housing to be built in the areas surrounding the Conway properties.

Need an example from further out instead of at the center of the city? Look at the increases in and around Hillsboro. The population growth there over the past 20 years (that's increased density) has been astounding. And it continues.

All of this talk about needing density is said as if Portland's urban density isn't already rapidly increasing, but it is. All of this talk about needing density is said with zero context. Where specifically do you want housing built, and what specifically do you want to see built there? Portland isn't going to become Manhattan. Even if a million people moved here in the next 20 years (not gonna happen), Portland still wouldn't be as dense as Manhattan, because we'd see more massive infill. It's amazing how much room Portland still has to grow inward.



Save our ecosystem?
The crime train is comin'!
Tha'r comin' fer ar' gunz!!!
THAT DINGO ATE MUH BABY!!!!!

The only thing I hate more than when conservatives spew grossly exaggerated nonsense in hopes of getting people riled up is when those on my side of the political, social and environmental spectrum do it. Be better than that.

Increasing urban density isn't going to stabilize housing prices at all. It's going to cause them to further escalate. I cannot stress that enough.

Using density as a rallying cry misses the point entirely. Our population is growing. Housing will continue to be built because, as our population grows, there's money to be made by building housing. That means increased urban density (nobody is talking about tearing down apartment complexes and replacing them with single family homes. Any housing that comes will be increased urban density).

The conversation needs to be about controlling the effects of density. How do we stop the rapidly rising cost of housing? How do we deal with the added congestion to our roads that comes with a growing population? How do we provide the public services a growing population will require? More schools. More teachers. More needs for healthcare. More mass transit. More public safety, more environmental strain, I could go on and on. More of so many things a larger population will require. Increased density is inevitable. The question is, how do we deal with it?

I'm going to say that again because it's important: Increased density is inevitable. The question is, how do we deal with it?

Saying we need more density is like saying we need the sun to come back up tomorrow. It's coming whether we want it or not.

The conversation shouldn't be about the need for density. It's coming.

The conversation should be about dealing with the issues caused by increased urban density. Holy cow, how is that not brutally obvious?

Density is coming.

If Portland's population grows by 300,000 people in the next few decades, housing will be built because that's how developers make their living. A conversation needs to be had about housing prices, not density. Density is coming. How do any of us afford to live here if housing prices continue to spiral?

The idea that building more housing will bring down the cost of housing is middle school naiveté. It doesn't work that way in the real world. Not in a city with an urban growth boundary unless we build Soviet style ghettos, and nobody is suggesting that.

Dude. Really. I love your morals and I am on the exact same page in terms of your belief system... but somebody fooled you into thinking more urban density = more affordable, and that's just plain nuts. Fighting for density is like Noah begging for water. The flood is coming. The real conversation needs to be about dealing with it, not getting it. It's already on the way.

Ive clearly advocated for inclusionary zoning to make income inclusive neighborhoods. Density does, however, stabilize rents if there's a shortage. Additionally, the UGB must be inextricably linked to protecting the environment; it's why it's there.

Density is needed. If we steer the rhetotic toward density increasing costs wjat do you think would politically happen to the UGB? It would be forced out for sprawl in the name of affordability. Absurd.

Again, no, we're not building for non existent people. They will move here. It's where we decide to put them that's important. Not on the periphery as that taxes the poor, the ecosystem, and our ability to provide services. Density is and always has been the answer for population growth here. To claim SF would be just as expensive if there had been housing to meet the demand is elementary simplistic thought, not even middle school.