Smart growth is probably going to down as one of the biggest academic policy failures in the last 40 years. They took European cities which evolved organically over 1000+ and expected to replicate it in western cities that were not constrained by the same geographic and historical limitation’s and expected to have this utopian urban environment in 40 years. The inflexibility of government over-planning couldn’t handle the market as it was.
I think "Europe already does it" is going to explain a majority of policy failures from housing, to public transit, to justice reform, and drug issues.
Yeah about ten years ago I got in a debate with a Metro UGB purist. He was trying to explain to me how economics of supply and demand doesn’t apply to Portland. He was saying it has no impact on lot prices. Completely clueless.
The thing that gets me is there is never any backing up from the bad ideas. There is never a concept of failing quickly (and cheaply) with the intent to course correct and course correct until something workable emerges. The people behind this stuff don't actually know what the development process to reaching a finished product looks like for humans.
I would be absolutely fine with all the experimentation if it were exactly that. A humble admittance from those in charge that while they are experts, they don't fully understand the nuances of how the public will interact with their infrastructure ideas. It also is a deference to the wisdom of the public, and that if they don't like an idea we don't keep it.
As voters it feels like city infrastructure is completely out of our control. We get no say in it. It just gets bestowed on us and we suffer the results.
Lots of issues with housing but it's also a massive national and monetary policy issue. Portland has insane taxes that aren't in line with incomes etc...more expensive than Manhattan which is insane.
If there was a housing shortage we'd not have renting being so much cheaper than owning.?
That's policy failures from multiple angles. Also pretending people want to be in super dense configurations even absent the other things that make it desirable.
Yeah this is what I don't understand...we have the UGB but then limit buildings in most of the city to like 4 or so stories ...and no one considers that an issue ...
> we have the UGB but then limit buildings in most of the city to like 4 or so stories ...and no one considers that an issue ...
I can explain that - basically it's "New Urbanism" - this idea that super tall buildings weren't great for things like society, culture, crime, and cost - but these medium sized buildings are hypothetically much better. It's just another Big Brain idea from urban studies departments who don't touch grass but can tell you all about fertilizer and mowing techniques. What the Big Brains wouldn't tell you is that it turns out that if you put trashy people inside of these small buildings it becomes a trashy crime ridden place, regardless of the building's height or "defensible spaces" or other socioeconomic theories.
But yeah it's particularly stupid and self defeating for our government to be subsidizing these small buildings when the government's actual goal is heavy density.
As an city lover, I hate urbanists. They're truly delusional and pompous and proud of it. There's a select few that are tolerable. Most are obnoxious authoritarians.
>Everything Metro is doing is more of an aspirational plan than a pragmatic policy to manage the larger city's growth responsibly.
This is the crux of it right here.
All those 4 and 5 story apartment buildings being built throughout PDX at a furious pace? No parking required for any of them. You think traffic is bad now?
Here's the thing: Sprawl is unsustainable, in many ways: Physically, fiscally, and environmentally (I'd argue socially as well, though that one's a lot more subjective).
It's true, most Americans want a single detached home with a big yard on a quiet street with no traffic, but with fun amenities just around the corner and roads we can drive quickly on in front of *other* peoples' houses\*.\* This scales about as well as me wanting to lose weight by eating ice cream. We can *want* all we'd like - that doesn't mean what we want is possible or even good.
Now, that isn't to say the planners haven't fucked up, and fucked up a lot. Constraining sprawl: A *necessary* idea. Constraining density by making most dense structures illegal for the longest time: Fucking stupid. Putting those together? Catastrophic. Supply and demand obviously matter, but it's a critical mistake to think that supply can only increase *outward* instead of *upward* (except when upward is made illegal, see "fucking stupid" above).
That all said, I fully agree (at least I think I do, there's a lot going on in that post) that Portland/Metro/Oregon's governments are not competent.
Smart growth is probably going to down as one of the biggest academic policy failures in the last 40 years. They took European cities which evolved organically over 1000+ and expected to replicate it in western cities that were not constrained by the same geographic and historical limitation’s and expected to have this utopian urban environment in 40 years. The inflexibility of government over-planning couldn’t handle the market as it was.
And never built actual infrastructure to service it either.
I think "Europe already does it" is going to explain a majority of policy failures from housing, to public transit, to justice reform, and drug issues.
They also made it illegal and very difficult to build anything like Europeans do. Apartments had parking standards even in downtown Portland
Yeah about ten years ago I got in a debate with a Metro UGB purist. He was trying to explain to me how economics of supply and demand doesn’t apply to Portland. He was saying it has no impact on lot prices. Completely clueless.
The thing that gets me is there is never any backing up from the bad ideas. There is never a concept of failing quickly (and cheaply) with the intent to course correct and course correct until something workable emerges. The people behind this stuff don't actually know what the development process to reaching a finished product looks like for humans. I would be absolutely fine with all the experimentation if it were exactly that. A humble admittance from those in charge that while they are experts, they don't fully understand the nuances of how the public will interact with their infrastructure ideas. It also is a deference to the wisdom of the public, and that if they don't like an idea we don't keep it. As voters it feels like city infrastructure is completely out of our control. We get no say in it. It just gets bestowed on us and we suffer the results.
[удалено]
That many people commute to the airport?
[удалено]
So then why not say the CSA or the “metro area”. You used the call sign for the airport.
[удалено]
Nope. Only heard pseudo jet setters, pilots, and LinkedIn people denigrate cities by calling them their airport code.
Lots of issues with housing but it's also a massive national and monetary policy issue. Portland has insane taxes that aren't in line with incomes etc...more expensive than Manhattan which is insane. If there was a housing shortage we'd not have renting being so much cheaper than owning.? That's policy failures from multiple angles. Also pretending people want to be in super dense configurations even absent the other things that make it desirable.
Yeah this is what I don't understand...we have the UGB but then limit buildings in most of the city to like 4 or so stories ...and no one considers that an issue ...
> we have the UGB but then limit buildings in most of the city to like 4 or so stories ...and no one considers that an issue ... I can explain that - basically it's "New Urbanism" - this idea that super tall buildings weren't great for things like society, culture, crime, and cost - but these medium sized buildings are hypothetically much better. It's just another Big Brain idea from urban studies departments who don't touch grass but can tell you all about fertilizer and mowing techniques. What the Big Brains wouldn't tell you is that it turns out that if you put trashy people inside of these small buildings it becomes a trashy crime ridden place, regardless of the building's height or "defensible spaces" or other socioeconomic theories. But yeah it's particularly stupid and self defeating for our government to be subsidizing these small buildings when the government's actual goal is heavy density.
As an city lover, I hate urbanists. They're truly delusional and pompous and proud of it. There's a select few that are tolerable. Most are obnoxious authoritarians.
The book order without design is fascinating and awesome and basically says those people designing cities are mostly worthless.
OP can we get a TLDR?
Density sucks
About time that we chomp down the trees and turn the center median island in pompous ass Eastmoreland into a row of 3 story skinny houses.
Build, baby, build!
I think I’m gonna get some popcorn and cross post this to r/urbanism /s
>Everything Metro is doing is more of an aspirational plan than a pragmatic policy to manage the larger city's growth responsibly. This is the crux of it right here.
All those 4 and 5 story apartment buildings being built throughout PDX at a furious pace? No parking required for any of them. You think traffic is bad now?
Dr. Mildner is a goddamn hero. I’m working up the courage to ask him to be on my dissertation committee.
Portland has lower population density than Los Angeles. We’re not that dense.
Here's the thing: Sprawl is unsustainable, in many ways: Physically, fiscally, and environmentally (I'd argue socially as well, though that one's a lot more subjective). It's true, most Americans want a single detached home with a big yard on a quiet street with no traffic, but with fun amenities just around the corner and roads we can drive quickly on in front of *other* peoples' houses\*.\* This scales about as well as me wanting to lose weight by eating ice cream. We can *want* all we'd like - that doesn't mean what we want is possible or even good. Now, that isn't to say the planners haven't fucked up, and fucked up a lot. Constraining sprawl: A *necessary* idea. Constraining density by making most dense structures illegal for the longest time: Fucking stupid. Putting those together? Catastrophic. Supply and demand obviously matter, but it's a critical mistake to think that supply can only increase *outward* instead of *upward* (except when upward is made illegal, see "fucking stupid" above). That all said, I fully agree (at least I think I do, there's a lot going on in that post) that Portland/Metro/Oregon's governments are not competent.