Is planning and enlightenment the difference?

Wake up, Seattle. Portland's art world is gaining on you.

Portland has a nice street of small businesses and shops along Southeast Belmont, bustling without being San Francisco-style boutique. The University District or Capitol Hill each might have had a Belmont if Seattle encouraged innovative urban planning and enlightened landlords.

What do we have instead along the Ave and Broadway? Big chains and panhandlers. Wake up, Seattle. Portland is gaining on you.

I wonder what the writer means and expects by the term "innovative urban planning?" By urban form, the streets she talks about -- both Belmont and Broadway -- are anything but "innovative." They represent a traditional "Main Street"/Three Rules form very well. (Gosh, I hope I am remembering Belmont correctly!) My question is not so much criticism as curiosity. What do non-specialists mean when they use such terms as "innovative urban planning?" Something, I am sure but I wonder if it much to do with urban form. The words which people use in asking about the built environment frame the answer.

As to enlightened landlords -- don't kid yourself.

More broadly, this issue -- Why does Seattle not (and it does not) measure up to Portland and Vancouver BC as urban civilization? -- is gaining ground as a topic of conversation in Seattle and that is a good thing.

Comments

[mb]

oh man, I love the pearl district. and those small blocks!

[Sirkulat]

Seattle, the armpit of the Northwest, only pretends to be liberal and progressive. It's controlling forces are arch-conservative mavins of Big Business and Religiosity, who are steering Seattle's ship of state into the rocks which appear, in their inebriated vision, to be a luxurious new world order.

[David Sucher]

Uh...Sirkulat...what does that mean? Are there specific policies which you don't like? Can you suggest in all seriousness that the Mayor and council of Seattle (much as I disagree with them on issues large and small) are "arch-conservatives?" It seems to me that words lose their meaning when used to call the elected officials of Seattle "arch-conservatives."

[Kent]

David,

Having lived for long periods of time in both cities, I think the difference is that Seattle has a dysfunctional form of city government that for some reason makes it nearly impossible to make hard decisions, especially hard decisions that go against the grain of the business community. The end result is basically "process gridlock" on the major planning issues. You want some examples?

PUBLIC PARKS: Portland's premier park, Forest Park is an absolute gem and accessible from many different directions. Seattle doesn't quite have a comparable central park. But has still made a mess of its largest park, Discovery Park. A sewage treatment facility in the middle of the city's biggest and best park?

TRANSIT: With the same levels of Federal transit dollars in the 80s, Portland built a light rail system, Seattle gave up on a light rail/bus mall and built the fiasco called the bus tunnel mainly because Nordstrom didn't want a bus mall in front of its flagship store, which they ended up abandoning anyway. Anyone who's commuted in Seattle will tell you that the problem is getting TO downtown rather than THROUGH downtown.

PUBLIC SQUARES: Portland built Pioneer Courthouse Square out of an old parking garage. It's a beautiful public square that has become a central part of the city. Seattle had the same idea to build a similar public square where the Westlake Center now sits. But the business community didn't want vagrants hanging around so they go the city to build a mall instead with a little tiny square in front that crossed on both sides of Pine street. Then they fought for years about whether or not to close Pine St and ended up just botching the entire thing. Portland's square occupies a city block and didn't require any street closures. Seattle's idiotic square crossed across a major street meaning that it either doesn't work as a square or messes up the traffic flow.

WATERFRONTS: Portland's waterfront park vs the viaduct. No need to say any more.

COASTAL ZONE PLANNING: Washington sold off nearly every foot of waterfront property in the state in the 19th century, down to the low water mark in most instances. Oregon holds all coastline in public trust up to the vegitation line and requires property owners to allow public access.

I honestly don't know why Seattle is so dysfunctional compared to Portland. There just seems to be a total unwillingness to plan major projects and stick through them in Seattle. Sound Transit is one example, the Monorail is another. The Seattle Commons is a third. Big ideas get started then they get nickled and dimed to death until they finally die. Once Portland commits to a project the city seems to slog through and get it done without the same level of backbiting and second guessing. The light rail system is an example. The tram being built up to the med school is another.

[JRoth]

To respond to the initial question, my guess would be that, in this context, "innovative urban planning" means something like relaxed zoning/code enforcement. As in recapturing nonconforming upper floors for residential pruposes, or being flexible on life/safety issues like sprinklering that can make renovations/reoccupation of old buildings infeasible.

But that's purely a guess based on the roadblocks that often hinder redevelopment in older Pittsburgh neighborhoods. One example, tho', of "innovative urban planning" (in the sense that, here at least, building inspection is effectively part of City Planning) is interpreting the code to permit residential loft occupancy in buildings with a single exit stair + a fire-protected elevator. Which doesn't directly impact storefront boutiques, but certainly can bring bodies into a moribund neighborhood.

[Brian Miller]

That might be a challenge, jroth, in cities located on the Pacific Ring of Fire. I'm not sure it would a good idea to relax redundant fire and safety code regulations here. I'm not certain of this-this is just my gut reaction. I'm curious enough to ask our Chief Building Official this question!

[David Roberts]

I suspect you're overthinking this. Most people don't know jack about urban planning. They only know what they've grown up around. They think walkable areas with small-scale businesses and mixed-use buildings are "innovative" because they're used to chain stores and highways. There's not much more to it than that. It's all part of the ahistorical fog in which much U.S. public dialogue takes place.

Hey, David, on a slightly-but-barely related note: I live in Ballard. Inspired the the farmers market and various fairs and such, I've come to the conclusion that a several block area around Ballard Ave/Market/24th should be closed off permanently to car traffic and made pedestrian-only. On a scale of one to yeah-right, how crazy is this?

[David Sucher]

David Roberts,

I largely agree with your first point. But the reporter, Regina Hackett, is not just "most people" and so I was taking her phrase seriously. She may not bed an expert but she had something in mind. I wonder what?

As to a 'pedestrian-only' area in Ballard - at first glance, I am against it. I don't t like such areas and very few of them have ever worked. Leary Avenue is a low-speed 6-lane street; I can't see the point. Ballard Avenue is narower but I don't see what banning cars would gain.

I think it is better to calm traffic than to prohibit cars.

[Richard Layman]

Having just been in Portland for the National Trust conference, I was blown away by the dynamism of its independent retail, not just downtown but throughout the city. I've written a couple entries in my blog that you may find to be of interest: "The Last Word, not mine, on Portland's Dynamic retail environment, plus "America Unchained" and "More about Portland, historic preservation, retail vibrancy, and urban growth boundaries" and "Why Portland Oregon has a thriving and dynamic independent retail environment." All in October. RL