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.” |
|
