Comments

1
As a bicyclist, I'm delighted to hear of your automobile woes. :-).
2
This town is really trying hard to become Seattle. What's next, lunar surface roads and hyper aggressive beggars?
Although I would like a baseball team...
3
As a cyclist AND (unfortunately) a car owner, you're missing this rant's point. Cars exist. City Planners NOT asking Developers to plan for that is a mistake. Sure, gas prices, traffic and limited parking will slowly discourage driving. And when they do, people will park their cars longer and bike more... But they won't get rid of them entirely. Not in our lifetime. So the streets will be lined with them. On Division and 37th, 82 units-worth. I'd rather see bike racks above ground and parked cars below it.
4
No cost to you, cyclist, to ask Developers to plan for parking. It won't encourage driving. That's like saying condoms encourage risky sex.
5
What the hell is it with all these people whining about construction?
6
Well to be honest, there probably isn't much construction in Iowa or Kansas or wherever all these kids are moving here from, so the occasional chopped down tree or condo unit construction probably alarms them to no end. It's kinda adorable actually.
7
It is true!

It's ok babies. This is what happens when cities grow up.
8
Grown up cities like where? Los Angeles? With very urban planning, hideous sprawl and strip malls... If you want Portland to stay livable, keep an eye on developers. Make them play by the rules. Because once they build it, our infrastructure feels it's weight. Roads, schools, fire, police and libraries are impacted at rates twice the revenue brought in...

Grown up cities require more and more development just to maintain the weight of the growth. Grown up cities, when done without questioning citizens, become aging, dying ones...
9
Is "parallel parking' some type of euphemism for lesbian sex? I am a bit distanced from what the kids say now. How would one use it in a sentence?
10
0.5/10. LAZY AND BORING. GO AWAY.
11
@klezmire YES HOW VERY DARE THEY BUILD MORE APARTMENTS IN A CITY THAT NEEDS MORE HOUSING.
12
I love how klezmire defends adding more parking by warning we may end up like Los Angeles if we don't. Yeah, LA has no problems with too many automobiles on the roads. Just what Portland needs, more cars and more parking!

Of all the areas in Portland where parking is abundant, you move to inner SE then bitch about wanting more parking spaces? Rich!
13
arenit: Creating more parking doesn't mean more people driving. That's bad logic. Creating dense housing within the Urban Growth Boundary will create more people driving within the Urban Growth Boundary. Maybe not all the time. Hopefully they cycle and take public transit and walk. Maybe the 82 units squeezed 4 stories tall onto 1/4 acre at 37th and Division won't add to the traffic at all. But that's highly unlikely. And the impact on Richmond will ripple. Next time it will be your area. I'm advocating for responsible development. Not providing parking will put 82 parked cars on the surrounding streets just so Urban Development Group can save a buck. And that's irresponsible development.
14
tcraighenry:

Build, develop, provide! Yes. But smart, responsible building and development doesn't leech from it's surroundings.

This is a great city. And the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability has let one Developer slip through unnoticed. Within the Division Street Plan and the "20-min Neighborhood" Urban Development Group has found a loophole. And they are stretching it. Their design pushes all zoning to it's maximum--height, density, setbacks and clearances--at the expense of businesses and homes nearby. Let's solve Portland's housing shortage, but not in one spot, on one corner, where the impact will certainly be disastrous.
15
LA isn't that bad you guys... He was OUR all-star after all.
16
Interesting parallels between today's SE Portland and equally progressive thinking Boulder, Colorado in the early '70's.
Infilling development closest to amenities is still encouraged to reduce sprawl and excessive car trips per day.
Developing parking lots and municipal parking garages was discouraged to signal a disincentive for using cars. Unfortunately this ideal did not change the average car use of 6 trips per day and land was soon purchased for surface lots and downtown parking at an inflated cost.
Highly subsidized neighborhood "Eco-Passes" are still available for a very efficient bus service.
Over 100 miles of bike paths and millions of dollars in safe underpasses have been constructed.
One developer in the early 70's even convinced the County Commissioners that driveways shorter than the two car length minimum would be good for air quality since owners would be discouraged from buying and using a second family car. This ideal also failed soon after the developer took advantage of the profits from a few extra units in his redesign and today there are second cars blocking sidewalks and filling streets.
Old habits with car usage don't change much. Concerned citizens should insist that the Weird Bar corner follow all bulk Zoning Regs including off-street parking and consider both future traffic "calming" devices and posted local evening curbside parking hours for the older denser neighborhoods that pre-dated today's stubborn auto habits.

17
"As a cyclist..." blah blah blah.
Urban Development is just buzz word for gentrification, which you refuse to acknowledge your participation in. Silly bitch, I hope your tires pop.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.