The recent parking debate has now become politically significant for the future of Portland. As reported recently in the Willamette Week, mayoral hopefuls Charlie Hales and Jefferson Smith have weighed in on this hot topic and not in the progressive way you’d expect. Apparently, despite the fact that Hales fought for this kind of dense development, he hasn’t stood up for the development and Smith’s opinion wasn’t any better. From Jason King here at THINK.urban:
Are we really going to revert to having the car dominate our dialogue about what makes good infill development? Hales and Smith should both heartily sport the policies that allow developers to choose between parking and no parking in these areas if they deserve to be considered for mayor. There are many factors on what makes sense for and how to use the developable area in a site. Mandated parking is the road to lots of mediocre development and elimination of any usable site areas… For the people that live there. And the type of infill we will get won’t make anyone happy. This is the election in Portland for me. What’s it gonna be gentlemen?
Developments on Division (courtesy Willamette Week)
If you haven’t watched the presentations given to city council by neighborhood members concerned with the type of infill occurring in Portland its enlightening.
http://www.portlandonline.com/index.cfm?c=49508&a=411202
From the presentations I got the feeling there is more nuance to the issue then just parking as much of the coverage has tended to focus on. There are issues of quality of design raised. Such as stepping buildings down toward the back of the lot by houses and providing some open space verse covering the entire lot. Also issues of developers that engage in meaningful dialog and work to accommodate there concerns as best they can. Certainly parking was a main issue, but it wasn’t the only issue. On face value some of the parking concerns appeared to have valid concerns.
To me it would seem that if some of the other concerns about infill development where addressed and developers payed more attention to how much they can improve the livability of an area. It would go a long way at reliving concerns of some over parking.
So what would be the best way to promote better stewardship on the part of the development community? So we can avoid damaging backlashes!
On related tangent doesn’t it seem a little odd that the development in division closer in are the ones with parking and the ones further out are without. Its kind of backwards isn’t it.
Posted by Robert Bierma | September 20, 2012, 8:36 pm