It's a long way from conceptual to actual, and the devil may be in lack of detail

Some illuminating questions and answers have come out of the open houses dedicated to proposals brought about by the Residential Infill Project (more info and background here).

Among the queries heard from the keen audience at the East Portland Neighborhood Office event:

• "Is this the proposal for developers or for homeowners?"

• "I have $90,000 in student loans, is there anything in this proposal that would help me afford a house?"

I did not hear how the first query was answered, but for the second, planning chief Joe Zehnder said the proposals will not help with affordability.

City planners Morgan Tracy (left) and Joe Zehnder take questions at the
East Portland Neighborhood Office on July 13, one of several outings
for proposals issuing from the Residential Infill Project.

The building bonanza of the last several years has seen housing prices skyrocket, further proof you can't build your way to affordability (even more proof: New York City). You can, however, make creative use of the vacant land that remains—as the planning department reported, we have twice as much as we need to meet density goals until 2035. In the meantime, let's adapt solid old buildings for new uses, and treat the vacant sites as opportunities to show new development can benefit the entire community. Wouldn't we all love additional great neighborhoods to live in and explore?

Even more worrying for the loan-burdened student at the East Portland event, if we continue to lose single-family homes at such an astonishing rate, there will be ever fewer of them available to buy. The city's current demo-favorable policies decrease the type of housing that respondents in a Metro study overwhelmingly favored: the good old detached home. Read on for stats about places whose streetscapes are dominated by single-family homes and yet they're not dumping them into landfills because "in density we trust."

One of Portland's dense new buildings that went up in a hurry recently caught fire, just three years after opening. The fire, according to the news report, "disabled the complex's fire detection systems." Eighty residents were displaced, but are probably counting themselves lucky.

                                          Courtesy Patrick Hilton/Citylove

Neighbors dig into data

Patrick Hilton of Citylove crunched the numbers the city gives for population forecasts and desirable density increases. Slides from a recent presentation show some of his findings. He found we already have sufficiently dense neighborhoods—even higher than what seems to be the city's target—so why keep demolishing already?

                                                                      Courtesy Patrick Hilton/Citylove

                                                                      Courtesy Patrick Hilton/Citylove

                                                                       Courtesy Patrick Hilton/Citylove

Small setbacks spur creative response

Roseway neighbors who in the wake of new construction faced a window staring into their breakfast nook devised this privacy screen:

                                                                                    Courtesy Randel Perkins

We've got 1000 questions for 1000 Friends

In Québec, new construction (right) matched in size, setbacks, and volume to
older construction shows how easily the two can co-exist. Note how
established trees are allowed to remain as well. Portland can learn from this!

Portland may strive to be a world-class sustainable city, but its recent record-breaking years of demolitions speak otherwise.

Fox News is contacting local activists for a coming exposé focusing on the ironies of our "green" city—tossing old-growth homes full of character and craftsmanship in the landfill, mowing down mature trees, and unleashing plumes of hazardous materials across neighborhoods. Why?

What's even harder to believe are the recommendations coming out of the Residential Infill Project (actually, more the city staff's, but the group was capably led to the foregone conclusions—something astute observers picked up on right away). After wonking out in an office building downtown for months, the developer-heavy group (surprise!) went beyond the mission of the project and decided to propose opening up much of the city to even more demolition; start reading from Page 12 here. Modest homes don't stand a chance in the face of a radical rezoning that allows a free-for-all of use. They will be plowed under in a second by those who speak "affordable housing" but really only want to mine real estate gold.

If "affordable housing" was what these developers crave to create, then let's see some already. It is difficult to give a nod to more construction when what is being built brings such outsize impacts and so little benefit to the neighborhoods. Antidemolition activists can point to a litany of code violations large and small; add to them the fallout of hazardous materials from mechanical demolition, unpaid fines (some are just factored into the pro forma, or never paid at all), lax oversight, noncompliance with code, and lack of accountability and there's reason for skepticism.

Opportunities exist to build better

The Urban Growth Boundary is not to blame. Again, there's that city study showing we have enough vacant land to meet density goals twice over until 2035. Even television news stations are tuning in to the fallacy that we need to demolish to make room, showing that there's plenty of vacant, buildable land within the UGB. It's just that developers would rather trash the lower-hanging fruit of smaller well-built homes in established and well-functioning neighborhoods. How about creating new exciting neighborhoods to live in and visit?! Let's bring quality and creativity back to our built landscape.

Another Québécois trick for new
construction: Save a historic, handsome
facade, and build behind it (and another old-
growth tree). 

Show Portlanders a preponderance of solid, creative construction that actually addresses housing needs beyond offering market-rate, amenity-poor apartments, and it could be easier to look forward to more. I've long wondered why the developers don't pony up for some good public relations, they need it so. Now it looks like they've found that outfit in the form of 1000 Friends of Oregon.

It's hard to imagine that a group inspired by Tom McCall would embrace recommendations to further raze quality housing made of old-growth materials. What happened?!

McCall's not here to speak for himself, unfortunately, but a staunch preservationist as he was likely would be appalled that thousands of Portland homes were painted with bull's-eyes, just waiting to go to the landfill to make way for another MDF manse or plex. This was a guy who would have smirked at the projected influx of people moving to Portland and questioned the necessity of killing ourselves to put out the welcome mat.

Sunny-sounding group makes awkward start

Another group working PR for the developer-led recommendations out of the Residential Infill Project is the newly launched Portland for Everyone. Their first event is Wednesday and sold out. Apparently, Portland is for everyone but only the first 45 people. Why not show up anyway to show you care about your neighborhood?

Under the utopia envisioned by the recommendations (which by the way are making the open-house rounds and everyone should go to as many as possible; more background and details here) most everyone becomes an apartment renter, even when 80 percent of respondents in a Metro study said they wanted to live in a detached house.

One of the first things that Portland for Everyone did was swipe a local photographer's image to paste all over its website and other materials, without asking permission or god forbid paying to use it. For artists increasingly pinched by the cost of housing, that's gotta hurt. First, they lose their studios and places to live in a building bonanza; now they suffer theft of their artwork and livelihood.

Credibility and inclusion will play a large part in these coming conversations. Anyone undecided should weigh what the proponents and opponents have to gain or lose, and why they're involved in the first place.

How green was our city

                                                                                   Courtesy Lisa Zap Kiraly

Let the demo-delay derby begin

Last spring, the city dithered over new demolition-delay rules to address neighbor outcry over record-breaking numbers of demolitions, with the promise that a year on, the rules would be revisited and fine-tuned if necessary. Of the dozen or so appeals that have been filed, not a single house has been saved. If the process for filing for the appeal was less onerous, and developers plying Portland had more heart in negotiations, perhaps the delay could help preserve some units of our rapidly disappearing store of affordable, unique, and well-built housing.

Portland Hearings Officer Gregory Frank (second from right)
listens to Concordia neighbors present their appeal for a demo
delay in their neighborhood, a request that was granted in
February.

At last week's meeting of the Development Review Advisory Committee group tasked with demo-delay follow-up, the Office of Neighborhood Involvement's Paul Leistner delivered a rousing speech in favor of "participatory democracy" even while delivering the sad news that it may not be until July that Portlanders can be assured streamlined and timely notice on what's coming down in their neighborhoods. Six months ago, nearly the same discussion occurred.

Bravo to the neighbors who brave the demo-delay process, because it's our only tool until we forge a better one. Tell City Council how you wish it could be more effective, for example by restoring the 120-day delay Portlanders used to have at their disposal to save affordable homes, and all the good stuff that comes with them (trees, open space, craftsmanship, to name a few). The longer amount of time would help encourage developers to the negotiating table, and provide enough time to effect a sale. In one demo-delay case, the would-be buyers simply ran out of time to consummate the deal, and the house was lost.

Change is in the air

Courtesy Eastside Portland Air Coalition

Erin Brockovich made a point at the Air Forum earlier this month of making sure we knew what we had to do.

With hundreds of Portlanders enraged about the toxic "hot spots" cropping up in their neighborhoods, and hundreds more in the fallout zones around homes demolished by mechanical means, public health and safety moves to the fore. There's more about Brockovich's talk here, along with additional scenes from the well-organized and packed event that took over the aptly named Revolution Hall.

Along with Brockovich, many local activists spoke on other aspects of the cause, including Tamara Rubin (right), whose film, MisLead: America's Secret Epidemic, exposes the preventable but irreversible condition of lead poisoning.

Pirates keep plying

A gang of three (from left), Jeff Fish, Nancy Thorington, and
Maryhelen Kincaid, eases the way for teardown builders.

While activists organize, teardown builders keep hammering away, including a push for a last-minute amendment to the Comp Plan that threatens thousands of homes citywide. The Development Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) meetings continue to offer a solid education of the commerce-at-all-costs perspective. At a DRAC meeting earlier this year, Bureau of Planning staffer Shawn Wood had no sooner finished presenting on the proposal to deconstruct homes when developer Jeff Fish launched into a litany of complaints about how deconstruction would take longer, cost more, and so on and on. It was enough to make you want to build on vacant land.

Fish, a former chairman of the committee, has its ear, and good friends, too, where he needs them. Here's what some of those friends are up to.

Everett Custom Homes brings a triple dose of suburban style
to Northeast Portland. Call it "Tualatine."

Yet more proof that suburbanites are working over Portland;
sidewalks aren't for walking, right?

Erosion concerns are here.

Three walls and you're out: Randy Sebastian socks it to 'em
on Northeast Fremont.

Tonight!

For more info on tonight's free event Let's Take the Lead on Lead at 6:30 p.m. at the Hollywood Theatre, 4122 NE Sandy Blvd., visit the United Neighborhoods for Reform blog here.

Comment tampering takes the cake [updated]

We stand strong despite the shenanigans on all levels.

Like the Stop the Demolition of Portland Homes signs that keep disappearing, public comment isn't safe. Especially when submitted to the city of Portland. Take the recent example of city planners erasing much of what the Beaumont-Wilshire Neighborhood Association (BWNA) had to say about changes afoot in the neighborhood.

As a board (and full disclosure: I'm on it) we worked hard last fall to submit comment, as requested by city staff, on changes proposed under the Bureau of Planning's Mixed Use Zones Project. It took us some weeks, and several drafts, but we finally submitted a letter on Nov. 16 that outlined our vision for Northeast Fremont Street, the thoroughfare that serves our neighborhood (and many others).

It happened that our vision differed from the one the city was proposing.

Art at Oregon College of Art & Craft could be interpreted
 as a message for Portlanders from their planners.

Activists have long wondered why city decisions don't reflect the wishes of those living at the ground level, and now we know why. Decision makers aren't learning what we have to say because it is not allowed to get to their eyes and ears.

At the time of writing our comment, some members of our board argued that we shouldn't just criticize the proposals at hand, but should also praise the planners for what we saw that was good and useful in the proposals. Boy, did that backfire.

Planners behind the Mixed Use Zones Project gathered all the public comment received, whether from individuals or city-blessed (we thought) groups like ours, into a single massive document. We were stunned to discover our comment significantly altered; about all that was left was the positive things, but nothing about our concrete suggestions for Fremont, or even what we had learned that would be useful in planning Fremont's future (for example: TriMet planners told us there would be no frequent service for transit along Fremont in the foreseeable future, certainly a factor in planning development there).

Other deletions, as listed by BWNA's land use chair:

• Our stated strong opposition to CM-2 zoning for Northeast Fremont -- GONE

• Our sentence re: the Fremont corridor being poorly served by public transit -- GONE

• Our "gotcha" where we found the planners had changed the wording of CM-2 criteria from well served by frequent transit to just well served by transit -- GONE

• The unsuitability of the infrastructure on Fremont to support high-density development, such as narrowness of the street and other factors – GONE 

• A reference to our having submitted comments in the past but having them basically ignored -- GONE

• A mention that we had in fact worked with our liaison Nan Stark but apparently to no avail -- GONE

This wasn't some sloppy copy-and-paste that left much of our neighborhood's comment on the cutting room floor; this was a paragraph-by-paragraph careful excision of information and well-researched conclusions that ensured a silenced voice in how "we" plan this city.

For all of you who also submitted comment on various proposals related to city planning—whether online, by letter, or in other forms—has your voice been heard? How would you know?

[Update: The response from the Bureau of Planning:

Dear Ms. Strunk and Mr. Bookwalter [the authors of the Beaumont-Wilshire Neighborhood Association comment]:

It has come to my attention that the Beaumont-Wilshire Neighborhood Association (B-WNA) is concerned that Bureau of Planning and Sustainability staff has “tampered” with comments submitted by the association on the Mixed Use Zones Discussion Draft (http://portlandlandmatters.blogspot.com/2016/01/comment-tampering-takes-cake.html).  Please let me clarify what happened and attempt to address any misunderstandings. 

BPS staff compiled comments from the public, advisory committee (PAC) members, and technical advisors into a spreadsheet, primarily for internal staff review of issues and further analysis.  We have kept the original comments from B-WNA and others in our records as well.  In that compilation process, some comments were summarized for brevity or in some cases to consolidate issues.  However, the intent was to capture the main points of the comments in a summary spreadsheet document.  That spreadsheet was shared with the PAC (and public in attendance) at the meeting on 12-16-15 to give them a sense of the content, range and volume of comments staff received on the Discussion Draft.  We acknowledge that some of the details in the original B-WNA Discussion Draft comments were not fully included in the spreadsheet summary, and I apologize for any misunderstanding this has created. 

In terms of the B-WNA Discussion Draft comments, it is project staff’s understanding that BWNA strongly opposes the CM2 zoning that is being proposed via the output of the MUZ conversion table; B-WNA believes the CM2 zone is not appropriate for a number of reasons (lack of frequent transit and other services, the character of surrounding area, the width of Fremont Street, etc.), and that B-WNA believes that the CM1 zone is a more appropriate zoning choice for this location on NE Fremont.  The B-WNA letter also brings up concerns about changes in the zone characteristics language, and acknowledges issues the B-WNA supports, such as parking requirements for areas that lack frequent transit service, and new rules for height measurements.  

Given the concerns you raise about the summary spreadsheet passed out on 12-16-15 and in order to be as transparent as possible, BPS will post all the MUZ Discussion Draft comments, as submitted, to the BPS Mixed Use Zones web page.  We will also notify the PAC so that they can review the entire set of comments. 

I would be happy to meet with you to discuss the B-WNA comments and concerns further.  Please feel free to contact me directly if you wish to set up a meeting.

Thank you for your ongoing participation in the Comprehensive Plan Update and Mixed Use Zones Project. 

Sincerely,

Barry Manning

Barry Manning | Senior Planner

Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability

1900 SW 4th Avenue #7100, Portland, OR  97201

503.823.7965 (p) | 503.823.7800 (f)

barry.manning@portlandoregon.gov]

A few observations:

• Nothing on the cover of the bureau's document of compiled comment says anything about the content being "edits," "highlights," "summary," "main points," or "consolidation." Even if it did, the surgical editing of the BWNA comment to take out criticism and leave in all the praise speaks for itself.

• The members of the public advisory committee, technical advisors, and planning staff are decision makers, or at least proposal drafters, who would benefit from reviewing unedited comment from stakeholders, such as directly affected and locally knowledgeable neighborhood associations.

• Will anyone go to the website and read all the comment posted there, as now pledged by the bureau? How will we know what other comment is not appearing in its entirety?

• These are not "misunderstandings."

• We stand by the evidence as printed.

The Portland Tribune story further discusses this issue, and includes the original neighborhood comment along with the edits made by city planners.

Residential Infill Project participants walk to talk

As part of its mission to create improved new-construction guidelines, the Residential Infill Project stakeholder advisory committee—aka RIP SAC—recently toured some Portland neighborhoods, looking at new and old development to better inform their decisions.

It was enlightening to see what the walks included and how people responded. At the Powelhurst-Gilbert walk on Nov. 14, for instance, John Hasenberg (picking up his name tag, above) of the Oregon Remodelers Association and a RIP SAC member, opined that the demolition outcry was all about "rich people fighting other rich people." It sounds like he hasn't met any renters or lower-income people desperately seeking housing or even a starter home that won't be scooped up by a teardown developer and summarily sent to the landfill. Maybe he runs in different circles, but then why would he disparage those who can afford to use his services?

Vic Remmers debriefs with the group in Eliot.

At the Eliot walk later that day, Vic Remmers used the opportunity to market one of his firm's homes.

Meanwhile, part of the RIP SAC budget has gone toward a survey that somehow will help divine what people want to see in new development, although it's not clear how the answers will be interpreted, given how opaquely they are written, such as "New homes bring new families and vibrancy to neighborhoods"—huh? How does this benefit help handle lot sprawlers taking the place of creative site-specific architecture? Thinking of my own neighborhood, I have seen many classic Portland homes that have served generations torn down for huge homes inhabited by many fewer people, and sometimes just one person.

If "vibrancy" is something that only comes through new construction, I haven't seen it. In fact, many buyers of these homes probably have to work too hard to pay their mortgages to engage with neighbors and their neighborhood.

After the Eliot walk Nov. 14, city staffer Julia Gisler (in red) and
moderator Anne Pressentin (in blue) note comments by RIP SAC member
Rick Michaelson (far left).

At the Dec. 1 meeting, RIP SAC's own members wondered how scientific the survey was, and what it would prove.

So go ahead, take the survey meant to help "shape the project's evaluation criteria and potential options." But better to show up in person at a RIP SAC meeting to say how you really feel, in your own words. The next opportunity is at 6:10 p.m. for the meeting that runs 6-8:30 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 5, at 1900 S.W. Fourth Ave., Room 2500A. As the last meeting showed, the committee needs to hear from neighbors citywide.

In the meantime, take this survey, which might help get at the heart of the problem:

My neighborhood is (choose one):

RIP SAC members (from left) Garlynn Woodsong, Tatiana Xenelis-Mendoza,
David Sweet, and Maggie McGann stroll a Southeast cul-de-sac as part of the
Nov. 14 walk.

1. a place to live
2. a profit center

Portland's elected leaders should represent the interests of (choose one):
1. Portland residents and taxpayers
2. out-of-town teardown developers
3. short-term Wall Street investors

If I don't stand up for my interests:
1. Who will?

Water flows make woes

With the winter deluge, Portlanders are reminded of the usefulness of trees and permeable surfaces, which can absorb water instead of sending it into the streets and to overburdened storm drains. Even after shelling out big bucks for the Big Pipe, the overflows continue.

One wonders if the loss of mature urban trees during these record-breaking years of home demolitions (when a lot is typically razed of every living thing), combined with the sheer footprint of the replacement homes (one neighborhood's two-year study showed they are 2.3 times bigger) and the adjoining outsize hardscapes have added to our water worries.

The big players don't seem to mind, building headlong in the downpours and not bothering to cover their work. The following images show standing water, creating some pretty squishy material underfoot, in homes built in the rain.

Jeff Fish, former chair of the Development Review Advisory Committee, which eases the way for developers in city processes and politics, is proud of saying that developers "self-certify" as to the moisture content in the homes they build. I love that. "Looks OK to me!" you can imagine them saying. "Now cover it up with drywall!"

Here's a great article about mold and other problems with new construction. As the author notes, they sure don't build like they used to. He points out that the more processed the materials—and that's all the lower-quality builders pop for—the less resistance they have to mold and water. Several real estate agents in Portland agree that mold is a much bigger problem in new construction than in the older homes, and the article shows the many reasons why.

Here are pictures of the standing water in homes under construction in Portland. Pity whoever buys them.

Positive change is possible—let's see some

While the city rolls up its sleeves to clear the way in the comprehensive plan for the mostly out-of-town developers and Wall Street investors plying our city, it's worth wondering why. It used to be people picked Portland as a place to live because they wanted to be part of the creativity, and contribute to it. They would throw in together as roommates, renting homes in real neighborhoods and pitching in for causes that interested them. There was no expectation of gleaming new loft apartments with dog washes.

Listen to one Seattle artist's commentary:


John Criscitello (Excerpt, 2015) from Jason Evans on Vimeo.

Now people arrive in Portland with cravings for cupcakes, ice cream, and cocktails (not that there's anything bad about those things), but actual participation in the community beyond a commercial bent ranks low. In other words, if you're bringing to the party nothing beyond an appetite, it's like showing up at Burning Man with a six-pack, a video camera, and an RV—nothing to share, everything to take.

If Portland pursues this kind of immigration wholesale, seems like we'll just have more selfie takers and jokes at the shooting scene and more newcomers mowing down creative, valued members of our cultural scene.

Killing us softly, I see.

Commissioner Dan Saltzman (in tie) drops by the October meeting of the
Development Review Advisory Committee, where Development Services
Director Paul Scarlett (on his left) talked about the bureau's
continued cost-recovery mode even with $30 million in the bank.

Rich with cash, poor on enforcement

Senior planner Barry Manning and others at the Bureau of Planning love to say that "one size does not fit all" when it comes to Portland development. So why do they want to collapse nine existing zones into four? This doublespeak recalls some of the finest heard from the Bush enterprise, viz., if one's military record is at issue, go ahead and attack the competitor's Purple Heart, or if one's cozy familial relationships with Middle East interests are called into question, start a war there.

Manning attended the Development Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) meeting Oct. 15 to present the mixed-use zones concepts, where "bonuses" such as additional height will be awarded to developers to do the right things. When Los Angeles tried something similar, the new rules had the opposite effect and projects emerged even bigger and more onerous, leading to a building moratorium there until such loopholes can be closed and code fixed for the better. Hopeful moral to that story: We don't have to go south to learn from others.

A demo worker taking down a house on Southeast Hawthorne
Boulevard had this to say to antidemo activists last month, but
he should save it for the bosses who exposed him
to hazardous materials that could affect him for life.
Courtesy Julie Handsaker Gray

At the same meeting (more on it here), DRAC members again expressed concern about the Bureau of Development Services' running balance of $30 million, how that looked to outsiders and whether the funds were enough (!) and whether they would be poached by City Council. All good questions. Presumably, the bureau awaits the bill from the seemingly apocryphal computer system called ITAP, which may make the Water Bureau's software debacle look like kid stuff. (Maybe like a good wrestler down for the count, BDS should have ITAP-ped out by now.)

In the meantime that $30 mil just sits there. I asked whether some of the money could be used for enforcement, and Director Paul Scarlett answered, "Yes and no." Given the lack of oversight over demos and building, the latter answer seems most accurate.