2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

With the exception of San Diego, Portland's density is the lowest of the principal cities on the west coast. 

Our central city is riddled with parking lots and under used land. 

Industrial sites are wastefull of land. Compare the campuses of employers in Washington Co. to similar campuses in Silicon Valley. Look at a solar panel or silicon chip factory in Germany, China or Japan. One will see far denser, more integrated mixed use environments in the home county/country of parent companies than are implemented here. 

Unfortunately this debate has become polarized between sound-bite arguments. 

The "up" vs "out" argument is not going to get us to the answer. 

"Beside" and "between" might be a better way to frame the issue.

My study of 11 districts in the region demonstrates that all density is not alike. For example, most new suburban neighborhoods are far denser than most inner city neighborhoods. 

However, dense suburban neighborhoods are designed for the auto, so the experience and behavior is still suburban in nature and un-sustainable. 

Three of Portland's oldest, greenest neighborhoods are denser than the Pearl District and close to the density of the South Waterfront, but without the uniformity, sterility, and lack of trees/landscaping that characterizes these two districts. 

These neighborhoods (Goose Hollow/King's Hill, Sullivan's Gluch, NW Alphabet district) are mixed in building type, housing unit type, and use. Towers, courtyard apartments, apartment blocks, townhomes, and single family houses mingle with each other in a manner that provides for large trees, intensely cared for gardens, and an even blend of offices, retail, and services. Parks and transit, amenities crucial to livabilty are ample. 

This mixture of housing options results in a mix of people whose income, culture, interests, activities etc, is more diverse than in districts where housing options are limited and uniform.

These neighborhoods exemplify a model of development that could be described as a "garden city" in which a variety of building types is woven into a landscape of mature trees and gardens.

We should not expand the UGB, but learn to work within it.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I believe that the UGB should not be expanded. 

The question then becomes one of accomodation. How and where will people go?

The issue of cost is important as well. The region has an investment in infrastsructure within the UGB that can be capitalized upon... to create greater efficiencies than can be realized by extending the infrastructure into the surrounding landscape.

I have studied the issue in depth, and presented a proposal at PNCA in the pdXplore Exhibit of July 08, for accomondating growth of up to 1.5M people WITHIN the existing Portland city limits. 

One model for this growth exists here in Portland: the King's Hill and Sullivan's Gulch neighborhoods achieve the needed densities, while keeping the neighborhood character that Portlanders and the region desire. The central block of King's Hill has a density of 90-100 units per acre, with extensive areas dedicated to gardens and courtyards. This density exceeds the average density of the Pearl District; is comparable to the densities of the South Waterfront, but with a much more enjoyable character.

Sullivan's Gulch ( and areas north of Hawthorne around 30th) achieve densities of 20 units per acre.

In all these cases, the height of buildings generally does not exceed 3-4 stories, with many at 2 stories. 

Importantly, in addition to these low buildings, there are towers ranging from 10-24 stories interspersed. These are widely spaced, but integrated within the lower building fabric. 

The result is that the towers can boost density, yet be buffered by trees and spaced widely so that the overall effect is one of an intimate garden like neighborhood.

With this uniquely Portland model of development, we can create a "garden city" that keeps the best qualities of Portland intact.

By providing 1500 units in a three block radius around each city park, we can add 300,000 to 400,000 new residents to our city, without major disruption. Further, our parks and schools, now in disrepair or being abandoned, can become the green commons and institutions at the center of the community.

By increasing density along our major transportation corridors, around our parks, on our parking lots, on our brown fields, and carefully integrated within our existing neighborhoods, we can accomodate the projected growth, and create a beautiful, sustainable, and exciting city.

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I am concerned about policy and facts/figures that inform sound policy making.

Therefore, I worry that facts and figures can be construed to support a particular agenda. Truth in stating "facts" is critical.

Case in point: Sam is stating that the Burnside corridor is one of the most dangerous in Portland. To defend the Bike Bridge, he has included Everett, and Glisan, both streets blocks away in his definition of "Burnside Corridor".

From city surveys, it is my understanding that the deaths and serious accidents he cites are concentrated at the West end of the Burnside Bridge, where large amounts of traffic encounter a district that is characterized by youth oriented bars and shelters for homeless persons who have serious problems including substance abuse.

I wonder: what role does drug use, including alcohol, have to do with the rate of accidents in this area? Is the street at fault, or the behavior of the motorists and pedestrians?

I ride my bike 2-4 trips per day (at a variety of times including rush hours) on Glisan, Everett, Flanders and Johnson. In 20 years, I have not witnessed any serious accidents on these routes, and find motorists to be very cognizant of the presence of cyclists, especially where bike paths cross freeway entrance/exits.

I think Everett and Glisan could be better designed to provide for cyclist and pedestrian safety, but do not see the need to add Flanders to the mix with a new crossing over the I-405.

Most cyclists use Johnson for E-W travel as it is more advantageously located with regard to housing, employment, services, and connections to the Broadway Bridge/East side of Portland.

It is my observation that "facts" are being manipulated to justify a project whose need, based on specific usage or accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians at its location can not be proven.

posted 5 years ago
view in context

A lot is being said about funding programs for our city, including transportation and housing:
1) Sam states that funding is dedicated to use, his argument for using funds on the Sauvie Island Bike Bridge as being only for such projects and not transferable to projects for bike safety(such as in SE Portland), Therefore, I ask, what justifies, 1 Million in Federal funds from a program designed to preserve historic and cultural assets to be allocated to the Sauvie Island Bike Bridge Project? What about the bridge, Flanders Street, or other aspects of the project is historic or represents a cultural asset?
2) If funding for projects such as transportation is so "clobbered" together, as in the Bike Bridge example with funding from sources such as SDC charges, cultural programs, urban renewal sources, how can we address the basic issue of funding? Can we create a general fund for housing, for transportation, for planning, etc such that funds may be dedicated to highest and best need, not pet projects?

posted 5 years ago
view in context

I have grave concerns for how our city is planning for growth. I emphasize the word planning, as it is my observation that the PDC and Bureau of Transportation have far more power in directing the form of our city than the Bureau of Planning. A case in point is the Burnside-Couch Couplet, which is essentially a auto-based transportation project opposed by both the Planning Bureau and Planning Commission. My question: Which of the three bureaus: Planning, Transportation, and Parks, has primacy, if any, and which if any would the candidate choose for his portfolio? I ask that the candidates answer the question as stated, and not add lists of other bureaus or dodge the question with non-answers.
A follow up question: The Bureau of Planning is currently working to update the City's Comprehensive Plan. Will the candidate, as mayor, support this process and await it results before proceeding with new development or significant interventions to the existing city fabric?

posted 5 years ago
view in context

I wonder if anyone remembers the Canary Island Palms that once graced the southern Oregon coast...in particular around Coos Bay? These and other palms were once commonly planted there...and were killed by an extreme cold front in the 60's that extended to California and also severely damaged eucalyptus trees in Oakland.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context