In “So many projects, too little time”, the DJC looked at the speed of Portland’s Design Review process*.
BikePortland took a look at the newly built trail adjacent to the planned Tesla Showroom at 4330 SW Macadam Ave.
The Portland Business Journal wrote about the four-story self-storage building that’s coming to a site at 627 SE Division Place.
BikePortland reported that the city’s bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees have expressed opposition to the Portland Art Museum’s Rothko Pavilion.
The DJC published photos of the expanded Japanese Garden.
Portland Shoupistas reported that proposed changes to buildings planned at 1717 SE Tenino, 5965 SE Milwaukie and 1645 SE Nehalem—which would see 46 parking stalls removed from plans in favor of the addition of 40 affordable units—may not happen, due to the Bureau of Development Services’ interpretation of what counts as “frequent service” transit.
The Oregonian looked at whether Portland can build its way out of a housing crunch.
*This article will be unlocked for the rest of this week. After this week it will only be viewable by DJC subscribers.
While I am always happy to see museums grow, I can only lament the loss of the mid block connection. Combined with the pedestrian crossing on the block west of here, the pass through between the Belluschi museum and the Masonic hall creates a wonderful permeability and an opportunity to experience a passage through the city not shared with motorized vehicles.
After hearing from quite a few folks opposed to the Madison passage closure at Thursday’s Council meeting, Commissioner Saltzman withdrew the proposed amendment. It’s not clear when or if he will re-introduce it.
“quite a few folks” probably consisted of a lot of cranky people who probaly dont take advantage of public access or the museum. And the cyclist that are against it probably go through stop signs, red lights, ride on the sidewalk and cut infront of you then yell at you as if it was your fault.
Noted “walking advocate” Doug Klotz spoke at the town meeting expressing your same concern.. But I was confused by his self proclamation. If you are a “noted walking advocate then walking around the museun shouldnt be an issue. If Doug was a “noted” short cut advocate then I woul;d see his concern. I do think that the designers of the pavilliion did take a measurable amount of consideration for at least visual access through that space. Plenty of light and a visual of the grand elm on 10th and the park blocks to the east. Ived lived on the park blocks for about 8 years now and I have yet to see throngs of bikes and people pass through this public breeze way. If the city is concerned about public access the make the south park blocks safer cleaner and greener by maintaining the lawn of ALL the blocks as meticulously as they do in front of the museum.
While both the 99 and the 70 serve that Sellwood site at 1717 SE Tenino with overlapping 30-minute frequencies, there is a 24-minute schedule gap around 7:45, which doesn’t meet the 20-minute peak hour standard.
Typically, I wouldn’t worry that much about a single 24 minute gap and would argue that the spirit of the frequent service definition had been met.
However, a closer look at this area reveals that the transit service here is anything but frequent and reliable. The 70 and the 99 have more service delays than just about any bus line in the region.
The 70 falls victim to the frequent stopped trains that block access on SE 11th and 12th Avenues between Powell and Division.
The 99 takes a very long time to get from Downtown Milwaukie and Downtown Portland. Service has only gotten slower and more unreliable since construction of the Sellwood Bridge was completed.
If the City wants Sellwood to develop at a higher density, then it needs to get TriMet to permanently address its poor service to the area.
I’d be interested in seeing your data on the reliability of the 70 and 99. I take both on a regular basis and don’t find service significantly less reliable than other lines in the region.
At a higher level, the City passed a policy valuing affordable housing over parking. Based on the policy, it would be nonsensical and against the spirit of the policy, to build 46 parking spaces over 40 affordable units, based on a 4 minute service gap.
Is there a law that says when on a public side walk you have to bget off your bike and walk it so you are not putting pedestrians in danger? If so if you are on a bike going through that passage way then you shpould dismount your bike….
Regarding the DJC article on the speed of Design Review…yes the process can be improved. In fact the city just completed a review of the process yielding several recommendations. However what was curiously absent in the article was the primary reason there was such a backlog of projects to review: namely developers were trying to get their projects vested so they wouldn’t be required to contribute to the affordable housing mandate. Certainly one can’t blame them for wanting to save money but let’s not blame the dedicated members of the Commission or the “process” for what is a temporary problem based largely on financial considerations. Many will be surprised to see how many approved projects will not get built given many developers simply wanted to get vested now for a potential future timeframe of construction. This artificial demand is skewing perceptions of our local market. The question ought to be: should a process as important as Design Review be structured based on a temporary market convulsion? When the market is booming we tend to think it is normal and will be sustained. It isn’t and it will not..
One other note: I have yet to see a project of high quality design and materials get bogged down in review. Generally the slowest reviews have been with out of town firms proposing projects of inferior design and materials. Yes there is a pattern…