Different looking, for sure. I can't understand the disgust pointed at the freeway however. I've yet to hear a cognizant argument about why the highway would of been so terrible. Portland may have developed into a much larger city had the freeway been built. More jobs and more opportunity, for one. Is that so bad?

@ MIZZZ: That's the worst thing that could possibly happen.

It's imperative that we make it as expensive and annoying as possible to run a business that does ANY business outside the 503 area code. That way, we'll ensure that Portland gets hit harder than most when recessions happen, and there will be a net increase in desperately poor families, who can now (hypthetically) all take bikes/mass transit everywhere (read: unemployment office) since they can't afford a car.

Yay for bikes and mass transit! Boo for absolutely everything else!

Mizzzzzz: Move to Houston or Atlanta if you want freeways. Why does every city in the USA have to look and act exactly the same? I like Portland, I don't want LA, Phoenix, or Dallas. If I did, I would move there...

Keep in mind, Miz, that it wasn't just one freeway that was proposed. Robert Moses' plan was for multiple ring roads connected by spoke freeways, which would've done in way more that 1% of Portland's housing stock, and with it many of our eclectic neighborhoods. If this supposed juggernaut had gone through, Portland would likely have become just another Indianapolis or Kansas City. THAT is why the highway would have been so terrible. A mailman on Clinton street got pissed off at this prospect, rallied his neighbors and hooked up with an ascendant Neil Goldschmidt, and as a result, Portland has bankable cachet, an awesome light rail system, a formidable creative class and the envy of the nation as a progressive, policy forward community. The importance of shutting down the Mt. Hood Freeway project, as it relates to Portland's character today, cannot be overstated.

@CC, that is some quality double-negative snarking you're doing there buddy.

Keep up the good work.

@ Colin: There are roads that lead out of Portland, y'know. If you think our town gets hit hard during a recession, go spend some time in Detroit. Mile upon mile of freeways and a laughably inadequate public transit system are not doing those folks a whole lot of good these days...

Sarah's article mentions how I-5 dramatically changed North Portland, and it's true: go up there and see how the "Michigan Street Freeway" killed neighborhoods.

the Mississippi St. district was cut off from many of the people who'd shopped and lived around there for decades, and went into sharp decline. It took twenty years a boatload of carpetbagging yuppie interlopers to make the place lively once more.

And try to imagine Mississippi St.'s success without the Failing St. Pedestrian Bridge:

"It was only reopened in 2003, after neighborhood activists waged a fight to be able to access the Interstate MAX. It was closed in 1991 because it was felt that crimes were committed in Overlook (the west side of the bridge) by people of Boise (the east side of the bridge), who would evade police by fleeing across the footbridge."

http://www.altportland.com/dailydose/faili…

Pretty enlightening stuff. Mississippi was orphaned, just like several (now-treasured) districts in SE would have been. An obliterated Clinton Street would be just the beginning.

@ Tommy,
I'm not saying that freeway would have been a great idea. Partly, I'm just reacting against knee-jerk freeways-are-badness, and partly against the fallacy that one stupid freeway would have killed everything we love about this city. Neighborhoods rise and fall constantly, and for a number of reasons, and being eviscerated by a highway is just one of them. There are also plenty of parts of town that are just blocks from a freeway where houses start at north of $400K.

Oh, and thanks for suggesting I leave town because I don't agree completely with your perspective, that's beautiful.

People make a city, and sometimes not all of those people want to live their lives in the "sustainable" straitjacket people like you would probably impose on them if you had their way.

Portland wouldn't be Detroit, KC or ATL no matter how many freeways are/were built. People are what makes a city, not how much cement is laid for transport.

For what it is worth, I will never exclusively ride a bike or public transit. I'd be poor and homeless without a vehicle and freeways to access different areas. At the very least, I wouldn't have the opportunities I've had thus far. Something that just isn't possible with a fairly unconnected network of transit that is pushed into a downtown area that is severely lacking in working class, long term jobs that produce enough income for one to buy a home and raise children. Run-on!

BTW, still haven't heard a cognizant argument against the freeway.

The $500 million (originally in 1974 dollars but inflated with time - and inflation was high in the late 1970s) ended up being spent on hundreds of road and street projects all over the region, plus a portion of the light rail line to Gresham. The Hwy 26 / 217 interchange, for example, and the widening and signaling of Powell, and highway 43 through Lake Oswego are illustrations of where that money went once the so-called "Mt Hood" Freeway was traded in and the money freed up for other projects. So instead of spending hundreds of millions to destroy one part of town with a mega-project, the same money was spent over a period of nearly twenty years on many, many smaller road and street improvements which benefitted the whole region.

Look at Ladd's Addtion in the picture--pretty amazing to think what it would be like had this been built. The pic doesn't even show the Parkway that would have headed north on 20th from the Mt. Hood Freeway to connect with I-84, taking out at least everything on 20th and probably more.

Colin, my suggestion that you leave town was purely in jest. Subtext gets lost in the written word, obviously, and I probably should have considered that. My apologies, and you're more than welcome to stay...

Like you, I have little time for knee-jerk reactions to anything, but I don't think that's what's going on here. America is a large country, and when we emerged at the end of WWII as the world's pre-eminent economic power, it seemed as though connecting every corner of the land with ribbons of asphalt was a good idea. The urban renewal schemes of the 1960s and 70s seemed like good ideas as well. Those ideas, while not without merit or benefit, had some unintended consequences. Portlanders, for whatever reason (perhaps due to their own relative provinciality), were a little quicker to realize this than folks in a lot of other cities. My stance on all of this is not that freeways are a bad thing, but that an informed citizenry that steps up and gets involved in civic and policy matters is a good thing, and I think that Portland, as a case study, bears this out. And I have to wonder, if Portland had had significantly more of its neighborhoods wiped out by freeways, would there be any houses selling north of 400K here at all?

Oh and btw, being as we've never met, I'm not really sure what you mean by "people like you." That's beautiful...

Ok, here's one. In the 1970s Portland was a non-attainment zone for carbon monoxide. (i.e., we had a shitload of CO, and that;s bad for people to breathe) The City had to place a ceiling on the number of parking spaces downtown in response to a DEQ order because our air quality was so bad. Transit and progressive parking management resulted in dramatic increases in air quality, and by the 1990s, DEQ stopped even monitoring for CO. Given the inevitable increase in traffic that a massive freeway would have induced, one can plausibly posit that NOT building that freeway has had a demonstrable, positive impact on air quality.

BTDubs, my comment was intended to be "a cognizant argument against the freeway.."

By the way, the term "Mt Hood" Freeway was an overstatement - the first and only segment they had the money for was between the Marquam Bridge and I-205 in Lents. Ultimately they would have tried to extend it from there further east had the first part gotten built but of course that would have been even more expensive.

Abernathy School would be within a spitting distance of the Mt. Hood Freeway, letting our kids inhale a steady stream of toxics. Some of the nicest neighborhoods, as well as some of the more affordable ones, would be impacted by this. For those of you who weren't around, blocks and blocks of affordable homes were wiped out when I-205 and I-5 were built.

I'm not against cars, or highways for that matter. But I don't think urban form should be aimed at accommodating auto traffic. Cities are comprised and should be designed for people, not cars.

However, maybe it would be nice to have something-- not a freeway, per say-- but at least a relatively unimpeded north-south boulevard between I-5 and I-205 that connects NE and SE. Right now it feels pretty convoluted by car, even more so by bike. Crossing the squiggly-assed Banfield is always a big issue.

right down 39th or so would be ideal. and we could still call it Chavez.

There is a LOT of truck traffic going over the Mt Hood highway, and there is NO easy way to get through Portland to do this. There needs to be something done about this. As it stands, you have truck traffic, including oversize loads, traveling through basically neighborhood streets to get out to Sandy. I've been there and done that, and it isnt fun. And trucks ARE necessary, for all you nay-sayers.

@ mizzzzzzzz "BTW, still haven't heard a cognizant argument against the freeway." okay, try this:

If you build it, the cars will come. That scientific debate ended in the 1960s. New highways just add capacity for more cars to make more trips, faster. That sounds great except what happens to the town? People have an incentive to move somewhere cheaper (read: further out) because they can still get there just as fast. So they travel more often, and longer distances.
More cars + more trips = more congestion. So then we spent all that money on a new highway, but we're back in the same congested situation we were in before the highway, only now everyone lives 20 miles further away than they would have if the highway weren't ever built. And since everyone moved 20 miles away, the retailers and businesses followed their customers. And the schools followed, and so on. Then what's left in our town? nothing. Sound familiar?

"Neighborhoods rise and fall constantly, and for a number of reasons, and being eviscerated by a highway is just one of them."

That's an interesting statement. It's kind of like saying dogs live and die all the time, so what's the big deal if I hit yours with my car?

Yes lots of things cause neighborhoods to fail, but when it's their actual neighborhood folks are usually less existentialist about the situation.

@Mizzz.... BTW, still haven't heard a cognizant argument against the freeway." Somebody is talkin' above their vocabulary level. By "cognizant," I believe you meant "cogent." It's OK. They both start with "C." You were close. I could give you plenty of cogent reasons... but then would you really understand? (snark... Troll.)

Miz: Go back and read my first comment on this thread, and you will find what I consider to be a cognizant argument, not just against the Mt. Hood freeway, but also for intelligent use of federal transportation funds. If you choose not to accept my comment as such, then that's your prerogative. While it's true that people make a city, those people do not exist in a vacuum, and it's useful to consider what draws and keeps those people. The majority of people living in Portland today, like myself, came here from somewhere else because the quality of life is better than it is in places like Detroit (some would call us yuppie carpetbaggers, but show me somebody who hasn't at some point left the town in which they were born). That quality of life, in the case of Portland at any rate, is determined in large part by wise urban planning which encourages diverse transportation options, preservation of housing stock, proliferation of green space, etc. Nobody's arguing against driving here, just that public policy should not solely reflect the needs of those who choose to employ that mode of transportation.

Chunty: I agree. At the very least, we could really use a few more bridges over I-84.

Colin and The Freeway, sittin' in a tree! : D

Lill Sally: technically, you're right, but you might be splitting hairs here.

@ Atomic: If you take away our god-given right to breezily dismiss things, what will we have left?

I'm not saying the freeway should have been built. I don't want anyone's home to be bulldozed. I'm just saying (poorly) that I disagree with what I perceive to be an editorial stance (beyond just this post) that is flatly against new roads, bridges, extension of infrastructure to suburbs, etc, and whose answer to everything seems to be an wonderful-but-totally-unworkable, "everyone should live super close-in, and all growth should be up, not out, and we should almost never drive."

To sum up, I'm making a niggling point about my completely-hypothetical disagreement, and wasting everyone's time.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some puppies to drown.

"that is flatly against new roads, bridges, extension of infrastructure to suburbs, etc,"

Who ever was against new roads, bridges, or extension of infrastructure to suburbs?

What we ARE against is 12 lane new roads, bridges, or extensions of infrastructure.

Making more roads more efficient and safe makes sense.

"basically neighborhood streets to get out to Sandy"

Hmm, maybe you go a different way. But from anywhere in Portland I can get to Sandy on at LEAST major arterials, if not freeways or 4 lane highways. I don't drive through a single "neighborhood street" to get to Sandy from either Sellwood or Irvington.

Making bigger roads to cure congestion is like trying to lose weight by buying bigger pants.

We want "smart" growth, not "growth for any reason" growth. And that includes thinking about how we get around.

"Crossing the squiggly-assed Banfield is always a big issue."

That's one of the problem with huge interstates - they literally cut through neighborhoods. Unless we spend billions building a bridge every other block - we have completely isolated wither side of the interstate.

"Something that just isn't possible with a fairly unconnected network of transit that is pushed into a downtown area that is severely lacking in working class, long term jobs that produce enough income for one to buy a home and raise children. Run-on!"

So my wife and I who both work downtown in middle-class jobs and use transit to get there - we don't exist? And you said with an "unconnected network of transit". If we spent as much money on transit as we do on autos we would have a massively connected network of transit.

Clinton St. Theater/Pub, Dots, Broder, Savoy, Mother Nature's, Piccolina, Press Club >>>>>>>> Freeways. all the "cognizant" argument i need.

Commenty Colin - I don't know if it's an editorial stance as much as a crusade by Sarah Mirk against all things related to motorized transport.

Portland isn't Detroit, but it does have a very high unemployment rate, and I suspect that the same type of businesses that employ "creatives" also view workers as more disposable. (One of my friends was recently fired by Laika in a bloodletting.)

The U3 (the standard unemployment measure quoted by the media) does not include underemployed people, such as "creatives" working in the service industry.

Getting back to the article - the Mt. Hood Freeway probably was unnecessary and building it would have been a mistake. Then again, Portland has done other stupid planning decisions like build the tram, build the Pearl as an expensive playground for yuppies instead of using it for the new OHSU campus, and promoted the building of expensive condos at the expense of low-to-moderately-priced single-family housing and townhouses.

Here's a cogent argument against the MHF:
The environmental impact study in 1973-74 made it clear that even if the freeway were built to its largest proposed capacity (8 lanes plus dedicated busways), it would have still been overloaded not long after it was complete. In addition, another bridge would have been needed over the Willamette because the Marquam Bridge (which was built assuming that one day the MHF would also be built) was deemed too small to accommodate all that expected traffic. The new bridge would have added another $100 million or so to the project cost for a freeway that was already being disputed, a freeway that would not have the capacity necessary, and a freeway that was increasing in cost all the time because of rampant 1970s inflation. So, as Mr Bragdon has pointed out above, having the MHF money spent on all sorts of other transportation projects around the area was a much better use of funds in the long-term; local leaders were able to take advantage of the inflated value and get huge sums of infrastructure funding that would have otherwise not been available.