New Urbanism and its Opponents

[pdxstreetcar]

I have stood on the roof of the Hillsboro Parking Garage in downtown Hillsboro which the MAX trains pass right by and from the roof you can see the farm land to the south about 6-7 blocks away.

If you drive about 25 minutes out of downtown Portland you can be in farmland.

While there is much debate about Portlands zoning laws regarding their effect in the suburbs, the planning in downtown Portland is widely celebrated and seen as very successful such as Pioneer Courthouse Square, Bus Mall, Waterfront Park, MAX, historic districts, traffic calming, Pioneer Place Mall, Pearl District, Brewery Blocks etc.

Damascus sounds very interesting. I have seen some rough plans for it that look incredible.

[kurtosis]

Many of these policies were approved by voters (such as Metro) and others were created by elected officials.  Portland has for a long time had a strong community spirit and a belief in neighborhood activism. 

However in November a controversial measure passed on the ballot, Measure 37 which will change Oregon. "It lets property owners file claims against governments whenever a land-use or zoning regulation restricts how they can use their land and reduces its value. State and local officials can either compensate them for that reduction in value, or waive the regulation and let the owners do what they want."  It has a lot of unanswered questions which have to be sorted out.  The measure was worded to the voters in a way that made it sound really attractive.  There have been many ballot challenges to Oregon's planning and zoning laws since they were first enacted in the early 1970s but this is the first one that succeeded.

Well, I would say that the measure was worded to sound attractive because it's supporters really believe that getting rid of the smart-growth restrictions is attractive (especially farmers who could make a lot of $ off their land), regardless of whether you and I disagree with them. So I think one has to accept that, for now, there is going to be this opposition to the anti-sprawl movement. The Seattle Times article makes it sound like there has been a long standing hostility towards these laws since they were implemented. 30 years on the challenges don't appear to have subsided and I don't think they would, even if the current measure had failed. That is, I don't think if you could just keep the smart growth laws in place long enough that people in Oregon will inevitably adapt to them.

To be clear, I favor the type of development in cities like Portland- high density residential, good public transit, etc. And I don't think anyone is obligated to follow a 100% libertarian approach to get it. But Portland's approach seems to set this up as a govt mandated vision. Even if a lot of people support the idea this tactic is almost asking for opposition. So I don't think it is a sustainable approach and I'm worried that there will be enough pent up anger that it may eventually become difficult to promote any kind of sensible development. I also don't think it would ever be feasible in many areas of the country, regardless of how much we "educate" people.

I dont think the housing situation is any worse in Portland than SF, Seattle or other large and popular cities.  Isnt one of the main the reason property values rise because there is a lot of demand? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. Another factor can be that new housing is not being provided to keep up with demand. I'm more familiar with New England cities where there is huge resistance to developing the affordable housing the region needs, usually presented in terms of preserving the traditional new england village feel, or the quaint characteristic look of Boston. This is often pitched as progressive, pro-smart growth but it's not getting the job done, and more and more young families are leaving b/c they cannot afford to stay.

[kurtosis]

The article that youlinked to is from the Reason public policy institute. You have to remember that they have a political agenda as well.  (libertarian and free market to the extreme) 

True, and on a global scale I don't agree with libertarianism. I discussed it here:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=10183

However I think that the arguments made by this institute are quite good. In particular they deal with the issue of what approaches can best advance new urbanism. Going after overly restrictive, suburban style zoning laws is very shrewd. It lets us say "Look, we have an idea for good development so let us try it out, instead of outlawing it." There's an interesting book that just came

out discussing all the detrimental effects of mandated off-street parking laws on development.

I think these fights are a more winnable than pushing for more smart-growth restrictions.

I see your point about smart growth coming across as "eating your vegetables." and I don't necessarily think that Portland's approach would work everywhere. It took a hell of a lot of political will to pass the kinds of laws they did in the early 70s.

But I would argue that these policies/laws have been pretty successful here.  For instance, the Portland regional Daily Vehcile-miles traveled per capita has declined between 21.7 to 19.5 between 1996 and 2002. This is the opposite of the national avg for urbanized areas which increased from about 21.5 to 22.8. 

I'm not surprised by these stats. Portland's approach has probably done a lot of good, but there seems to be so much pent up anger that the govt is basically forcing everyone to "eat their vegetables" that I worry it will not hold up in the long run.

[Mike D]

Another factor can be that new housing is not being provided to keep up with demand. I'm more familiar with New England cities where there is huge resistance to developing the affordable housing the region needs, usually presented in terms of preserving the traditional new england village feel, or the quaint characteristic look of Boston. This is often pitched as progressive, pro-smart growth but it's not getting the job done,

[kurtosis]

I was impressed by this column from the president of the CNU. (responding to a "libertarian" who is against new urbanism):

http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/04/18/s...icle_483319.php

"The New Urbanists do not demand the elimination of suburbia - only that we be allowed to build compact, walkable and mixed-use communities.

Current zoning codes in most areas allow only the development of single-use, auto-dependent housing subdivisions, shopping centers and office parks. New Urbanists have found that there is a strong market demand for traditional towns, and that towns should not face regulatory obstacles greater than conventional suburbia.

The New Urbanists think that it is fiscally prudent that new development should, when it requires theextension of infrastructure and services, pay its own way. Currently, subsidies for extending urban services effectively rob taxpayers in existing communities that have long since paid for their infrastructure.

The New Urbanists insist that building on existing infill lots should not be subject to a permitting process more difficult than that required for greenfield parcels. Government should honor equal economic opportunity for both urban and rural landowners.

Greenhut says he's for freedom and, if he is, he should join us in seeking to ease restrictions that block traditional urban development. "

---------------------------

Whatever role you think that govt can or should play I think that this is a very winnable argument for new urbanism. What I like about the CNU is that their starting point has been to get together a large number of planners,architects, etc. who can implelement good development and build on that. It's hard for opponents to make a good argument for why they shouldn't do that.

Whereas Portland's Smart Growth approach has been to dive into a contentious political battle which,

despite the real beneifits of their policies, they are still fighting 30 years on.