[sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST (fwd)

Eric Bruun ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu
Wed Jan 21 01:15:33 JST 1998



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:18:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Garrity <garrity at teleport.com>
To: Eric Bruun <ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: [sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST

Eric, you are absolutely correct that 1990 census data is invalid when
studying Portland.  The late 1980's recession in this area slowed growth
considerably.  Even in 1993, when I moved to Portland, homes were plentiful
and affordable.  Things have changed considerably in five years.  In the
first handbook I published for C-TRAN, I was hard pressed to find a
substantial number of good infill projects that could be used as examples.
Today, I cannot even keep track of them. There are apartment projects being
built next to, on top of, and part of shopping centers in what until
recently was a suburban strip environment.  It is very common to see
rowhouses/townhouses being built on vacant lots in Portland.  I will be
interesting to see a comparison of the 1990 and 2000 census.  The trend
toward smaller households no doubt continues, although the rate of change
has likely gone down.  But the total number of households in the City of
Portland appears to be increasing dramatically in what is essentially a
fixed area.

As far as affordability, that is a raging debate here in Portland.  Home
builders argueing that a lack of land is causing the problem do them selves
a disservice when it is revealed that new housing on the fringe is all
luxury, single-family housing built on very large lots.  Urban neighborhoods
are gentrifying.  With household size decreasing, though, density is
actually going down in established urban neighborhoods, making the delivery
of services, including transit, less efficient. I feel a blanket acceptance
of accessory dwelling units can be a big part of the solution.  People are
generally afraid of density due to fears of depressed property values, and
increased "urban problems" (percieved increase in crime, noise, traffic,
etc).  The fact that there is excess capacity in our public systems is not
seen clearly by most people.
Mark.


At 10:15 AM 1/19/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>The Census data up to 1990 that Cox cites below is very obsolete. The
>infill craze, and there really is some infill going on, is over the last
>few years. However, it is still limited and is causing a lot of hardship
>for people of modest means as real estate values approach those of 
>San Francisco. Cox is right that the average density is lower
>than Los Angeles, as LA does have some dense areas.  However, I think the
>data will show that Portland is increasing in density, and not decreasing
>like almost every other city. Eric Bruun
>
>
>On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote:
>
>> Article in current issue of THE ECONOMIST suggests that Portland's 2 decade
>> old urban growth boundary had forced infilling development. US Census Bureau
>> data for the 1980-1990 period indicates no such trend (latest data
>> available). Among 10 US urbanized areas with  more than 1 million
>> population, Portland ranked last in percentage density increase. Ranked 7th
>> in overall density --- barely half that of Los Angeles.
>> 
>> Details at...
>> 
>> http://www.publicpurpose.com/dm-uargn.htm
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Wendell Cox
>> WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
>> International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic
Planning
>> The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal
>> http://www.publicpurpose.com
>> Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax  +1 618 632 8538
>> P.O. Box 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA
>> 
>> "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant  of the people by
>> identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost
>> that is no higher than necessary."
>> 
>> 
>
>




More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list