Growth
must be actively managed to keep Portland livable.
Portlanders express deep appreciation for the City’s strong
planning efforts and for the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB),
which has prevented Portland from sprawling like many other
cities in the United States. Portlanders credit the UGB
with “making Portland what it is” and enhancing urban livability
in a number of ways. In the face of predicted population
growth, most Portlanders want to see the UGB maintained,
although a very small group feels it should be relaxed or
even removed to keep housing prices affordable. The more
popular view, however, is that Portland should be able to
offer more affordable housing while maintaining a strong
growth boundary.
In addition to discussions on the UGB, this section contains
discussions on density, growth and their relationship to
urban livability. Many Portlanders value density and would
prefer to see the city build up rather than out to accommodate
a growing population. Other respondents, however, value
the city’s current “human scale” and do not want too much
density if the results include taller buildings or obstructed
views of nature. Many residents voice concerns about rapid
growth and want the City to thoughtfully and proactively
manage this growth as it has done in previous decades.
Note: This section contains themes and
viewpoints that overlap with and in some cases repeat those
expressed in the section on Urban Livability: Population
Growth. A reading of both sections would, therefore, provide
the most complete picture of Portlanders views on the topic
of growth.
- Growth
should be managed thoughtfully, sustainably and with
ongoing and broad-based community input.
- The Urban
Growth Boundary helps keep Portland livable.
- What role should density play
as a growth management strategy?
- Growth
should be managed thoughtfully, sustainably and
with ongoing and broad-based community input.
- Many respondents state their appreciation
for the thoughtful and measured way in which Portland
has managed growth in the past and want to see this
approach maintained in coming years.
- A number of people voice the concern that
currently developers are driving growth, rather
than community planning determining how, where
and how fast we grow.
- Respondents are also concerned that growth is:
- Happening too fast;
- Happening without proper public input; and
- Primarily serving the interests of developers
and a small group of wealthy individuals as
opposed to the majority of Portlanders who need
attractive, affordable places to live and raise
their families.
| “Right
now we are just going too fast everywhere you
look. That doesn’t leave enough time for proper
public outreach or planning. It’s hard to gauge
benchmarks when you’re jumping over benches to
get things done.” |
| “Slow
growth and understand that a city’s future doesn’t
have to be dictated by the percent of growth,
new homes, condos, roads, etc… but by its ability
to creatively address and manage its resources
and people so as to maximize everyone’s standard
of living without compromising the environment.” |
- "Come to an agreement with all
regional leaders about growth management, what it
is, what it should be –all underpinned by the fundamental
understanding that the region wants to be in control
of its future, and that typical land use policy
won’t get us there.”
- “Slow down! Time-out for re-evaluation of where
the city is going in respect to buildings, traffic
congestion, and livability.”
- The
Urban Growth Boundary helps keep Portland livable.
- Many respondents love the UGB, expressing the
opinion that it is one of Portland’s most unique,
valuable and innovative growth management tools.
- The UGB is credited with enhancing urban livability
in the following ways:
- Creating a more compact (and therefore accessible)
city;
- Creating a more vibrant, dense and “alive”
urban core;
- Controlling sprawl, which appears to be of
fundamental value to many Portlanders;
- Helping Portland create a strong, local identity
that is distinct from “Anywhere, USA;”
- Protecting farmland and nature close to the
city, which contributes to Portland’s “big city/small
town” feel; and
- Controlling population growth.
- Many respondents believe that affordable housing
can exist in Portland, even with a strong UGB and
reject the argument that the UGB has to be relaxed
in order for affordable housing to become a reality.
- A minority of respondents feel that the
UGB is making Portland too crowded and too expensive,
and should therefore be removed.
| "The
urban growth boundary is keeping our city vital
and the surrounding country uncluttered.” |
| "This
isn’t really a change, but rather an appeal…keep
the urban growth boundary strong! I’ve been to
too many sprawling, unplanned, poorly zoned cities
to see the results. Portlanders are still proud
of our city and want it to be vibrant, welcoming,
clean, and comfortable." |
| “I
think the zoning boundary around the city needs
to be put back. That is the main thing that put
Portland on the map. It is what every city needs
to do…I grew up in Las Vegas (I’m 54) and watched
it grow from 48,000 to 2+ million and it wasn't pretty.” |
|
- What
role should density play as a growth management strategy?
Many Portlanders express conflicting feelings about high-density
living as a growth management strategy. Some respondents
feel that as the city grows, it will be absolutely necessary
to increase density in order to preserve common greenspace,
reduce our ecological footprint and accommodate new residents.
On one extreme, some people imagine a future in which
most families live in flats or multi-family units with
shared garden/play/park space and easy access to public
transportation and other amenities. These respondents
would rather see the city “build up, not out,” even if
that means more high-rise buildings throughout Portland.
On the other extreme, some residents are opposed to
increasing density at all, believing that this creates
an over-crowded city, blocks precious views of nature,
and encourages population growth, which they would rather
prevent. There are also many concerns about the quality
of current high-density development, especially high-rise
condos and “tall, skinny” townhouses and infill homes
in neighborhoods. A number of residents say that they
don’t want increased density in their neighborhoods
because, based on the way current infill looks, they
fear the character of their neighborhood will be jeapordized.
In the middle of these two opposed views are a large
number of Portlanders who want to increase density while
preserving Portland’s current look and feel as much
as possible. These individuals advocate for high-density
development that is architecturally consistent with
surrounding buildings and that maintains the City’s
current “human scale.” They want to see infill that
is well-integrated with nature and neighborhoods, affordable
to individuals at various income levels, sustainably
built, and aesthetically pleasing (for more, see Urban
Livability: Residential).
The following quotes partially represent each of these
three differing viewpoints:
| “[In
2030] the neighborhoods that are in place now have risen
up instead of sprawling out. There are still essential
shops in each neighborhood that can provide you with
groceries, dry cleaning, and entertainment.” |
| “Right
now, a lot of energy is being spent to improve and use
acreage, space, and materials that are part of Portland’s
wealth. Portland promoters want more people, more money,
more business, more, more, more. That’s good but a lot
of that exuberant over-zealousness should be curtailed.
Please, no wall-to-wall buildings, no cluttered air
space, stop selling the city so hard because its normal
growth is more than adequate for our needs.” |
| “Maintain,
in a post-Measure 37 world, the urban integrity by careful
consideration of how we grow. Increasing urban density
is a big part of this, adding to the core city while
at the same time keeping the city human scale…almost,
but not necessarily, a catch-22.” |
 | 
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
