Discussion:
Cascade Station: A Urban & Transit Planning Failure?
(too old to reply)
Paul J. Berg
2007-07-19 13:56:59 UTC
Permalink
~

From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 19, 2007

Mayor Tom Potter, announcing Ikea's decision to come to Portland two
years ago, said the Swedish furniture giant "shares Portland's values."

In many ways, that's true: The company boasts generous worker benefits
and the store will offer parking for 90 bicycles.

But Wednesday's grand opening at Cascade Station next to Portland
International Airport also represents a failure of one of city and
regional leaders' most cherished values: building MAX light-rail train
lines to new neighborhoods so that people aren't required to drive.

The region's leaders are used to legislating these values, but this
time, the market didn't play along.

"The idea was, let's build an urban village next to the airport in an
industrial core," said Craig Sweitzer, who tried to market Cascade
Station to retailers.

The economy slowed, 9/11 played havoc with retail development,
particularly around airports, and maybe the idea just wasn't right for
the location.

"It was just not feasible," Sweitzer said.
Ikea officials and planners put the best possible spin on the results,
noting that the MAX line to the airport is a success, with more than a
million trips in and out of the terminal last year. And that it was
built without having to raise taxes.

They also insist Ikea will certainly attract more transit riders than a
vacant Cascade Station has drawn since the light-rail service arrived
nearly six years ago.

But a 280,000-square-foot Ikea filled with furniture and housewares in a
sea of parking is not the transit-friendly urban village that planners
envisioned.

In 1997, the city and the Port of Portland gave Bechtel Corp.
development rights to 120 acres of vacant land in exchange for building
the light-rail line. The company kicked in $28.2 million of the $125
million cost.

Bechtel partnered with Trammell-Crow to develop the Cascade Station
property.

The original urban center plan called for more than a million square
feet of office space, 1,200 hotel rooms, 400,000 square feet of retail
space, a cinema with as many as 24 screens and the creation of 10,000
jobs.

At first, the idea of a "train-to-plane" rail line, great freeway access
and the trendy "new urban" cache was a hot selling point. Promotional
brochures showed shoppers strolling park-lined streets.

National retailers lined up to hear about it at the International
Council of Shopping Centers convention in Las Vegas in May 2000,
Sweitzer said.

"At the time, our project was the big up-and-comer in the Northwest," he
said. "Within one year, that line shrank to zero."

What happened?

"The biggest hurdle we had at the time was getting over the size limits
placed on the big-box stores. We couldn't get over 50,000 square feet."

The small size was a crucial piece of the urban village concept, but by
2001, the retail market was changing rapidly, and retailers were
demanding bigger and bigger boxes.

The city later tweaked the cap to 60,000 square feet, but it was still
too small.

"It's hard enough to make a lease with a national retailer, then to be
told it can only be this tall, and this size," Sweitzer said. "It made
it virtually impossible."

A day after the airport MAX line opened, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks stopped Cascade Station in its tracks.

"After 9/11 national retail as a whole kind of came to a stop, and with
that we lost the initial anchor tenants we needed to draw the regional
and local tenants," Sweitzer said. "Add that to the constraints on size,
and it just fell apart from there."

There were other issues. Federal aviation regulations do not allow
housing next to the airport because of noise concerns. The lack of
neighborhoods of customers and employees was a big hurdle, Sweitzer
said.

Planners and officials now agree the Cascade Station vision was probably
doomed from the start.

"I think it was the wrong location," said John Fregonese, who along with
planning pioneer Peter Calthorpe designed the concept's streets and
parks layout.

"Sometimes reality has a different idea," Fregonese said.

He said the lack of housing posed a major problem: "That really killed
off the idea."

In 2005, city leaders conceded defeat and agreed to allow as many as
three far larger stores -- a zoning change that lured Ikea.

"It didn't work out the way it was planned,"
City Commissioner Randy Leonard said. "But when government sets up a
plan for an area, the lesson is, you need to remain flexible so the
economics of what you are planning for makes sense."

Leonard said he thinks the Ikea makes sense for that area.

And Port officials remain upbeat about light rail.

"We believe that declaring the project a failure at this point is
premature and perhaps unwarranted," spokeswoman Martha Richmond said in
an e-mail to The Oregonian. "From our perspective, getting light rail to
the airport was a huge success. It was the first train-to-plane transit
service on the West Coast."

Richmond noted light rail offers a commuting alternative for the 10,000
people who work at the airport. As Cascade Station develops with hotels,
restaurants and shopping options, "even more people will ride Airport
MAX," she said.

Ridership on the line has steadily increased. In 2006, TriMet logged
more than 1 million boardings and deboardings at the airport's MAX
station.

"I think we misunderstood the fundamentals of the site," said Jillian
Detweiler, a TriMet planner who 10 years ago worked for former City
Commissioner Charlie Hales, a strong backer of the Cascade Station deal.

"Light rail was on the books, but no one was working towards making this
happen," Detweiler said.

The bottom line for TriMet: "We got our train."

Joseph Roth, an Ikea spokesman, said the nearby light-rail station will
be a plus for the store. And at least for the rest of this year, the
company will offer a $10 discount on the delivery fee -- typically $55
-- for shoppers who take MAX.

And, Roth said, "Not everybody who shops there will buy a sofa."

-- End of News Article --

Poster's Comment: Is the Cascade Station Project a planning failure?
OR, Was the City of Portland just outwitted by Bechtel and the
Light-Rail Mafia?

~
george conklin
2007-07-19 14:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 19, 2007
Mayor Tom Potter, announcing Ikea's decision to come to Portland two
years ago, said the Swedish furniture giant "shares Portland's values."
In many ways, that's true: The company boasts generous worker benefits
and the store will offer parking for 90 bicycles.
But Wednesday's grand opening at Cascade Station next to Portland
International Airport also represents a failure of one of city and
regional leaders' most cherished values: building MAX light-rail train
lines to new neighborhoods so that people aren't required to drive.
The region's leaders are used to legislating these values, but this
time, the market didn't play along.
"The idea was, let's build an urban village next to the airport in an
industrial core," said Craig Sweitzer, who tried to market Cascade
Station to retailers.
The economy slowed, 9/11 played havoc with retail development,
particularly around airports, and maybe the idea just wasn't right for
the location.
"It was just not feasible," Sweitzer said.
Ikea officials and planners put the best possible spin on the results,
noting that the MAX line to the airport is a success, with more than a
million trips in and out of the terminal last year. And that it was
built without having to raise taxes.
They also insist Ikea will certainly attract more transit riders than a
vacant Cascade Station has drawn since the light-rail service arrived
nearly six years ago.
But a 280,000-square-foot Ikea filled with furniture and housewares in a
sea of parking is not the transit-friendly urban village that planners
envisioned.
In 1997, the city and the Port of Portland gave Bechtel Corp.
development rights to 120 acres of vacant land in exchange for building
the light-rail line. The company kicked in $28.2 million of the $125
million cost.
Bechtel partnered with Trammell-Crow to develop the Cascade Station
property.
The original urban center plan called for more than a million square
feet of office space, 1,200 hotel rooms, 400,000 square feet of retail
space, a cinema with as many as 24 screens and the creation of 10,000
jobs.
At first, the idea of a "train-to-plane" rail line, great freeway access
and the trendy "new urban" cache was a hot selling point. Promotional
brochures showed shoppers strolling park-lined streets.
National retailers lined up to hear about it at the International
Council of Shopping Centers convention in Las Vegas in May 2000,
Sweitzer said.
"At the time, our project was the big up-and-comer in the Northwest," he
said. "Within one year, that line shrank to zero."
What happened?
"The biggest hurdle we had at the time was getting over the size limits
placed on the big-box stores. We couldn't get over 50,000 square feet."
The small size was a crucial piece of the urban village concept, but by
2001, the retail market was changing rapidly, and retailers were
demanding bigger and bigger boxes.
The city later tweaked the cap to 60,000 square feet, but it was still
too small.
"It's hard enough to make a lease with a national retailer, then to be
told it can only be this tall, and this size," Sweitzer said. "It made
it virtually impossible."
A day after the airport MAX line opened, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks stopped Cascade Station in its tracks.
"After 9/11 national retail as a whole kind of came to a stop, and with
that we lost the initial anchor tenants we needed to draw the regional
and local tenants," Sweitzer said. "Add that to the constraints on size,
and it just fell apart from there."
There were other issues. Federal aviation regulations do not allow
housing next to the airport because of noise concerns. The lack of
neighborhoods of customers and employees was a big hurdle, Sweitzer
said.
Planners and officials now agree the Cascade Station vision was probably
doomed from the start.
"I think it was the wrong location," said John Fregonese, who along with
planning pioneer Peter Calthorpe designed the concept's streets and
parks layout.
"Sometimes reality has a different idea," Fregonese said.
He said the lack of housing posed a major problem: "That really killed
off the idea."
In 2005, city leaders conceded defeat and agreed to allow as many as
three far larger stores -- a zoning change that lured Ikea.
"It didn't work out the way it was planned,"
City Commissioner Randy Leonard said. "But when government sets up a
plan for an area, the lesson is, you need to remain flexible so the
economics of what you are planning for makes sense."
Leonard said he thinks the Ikea makes sense for that area.
And Port officials remain upbeat about light rail.
"We believe that declaring the project a failure at this point is
premature and perhaps unwarranted," spokeswoman Martha Richmond said in
an e-mail to The Oregonian. "From our perspective, getting light rail to
the airport was a huge success. It was the first train-to-plane transit
service on the West Coast."
Richmond noted light rail offers a commuting alternative for the 10,000
people who work at the airport. As Cascade Station develops with hotels,
restaurants and shopping options, "even more people will ride Airport
MAX," she said.
Ridership on the line has steadily increased. In 2006, TriMet logged
more than 1 million boardings and deboardings at the airport's MAX
station.
"I think we misunderstood the fundamentals of the site," said Jillian
Detweiler, a TriMet planner who 10 years ago worked for former City
Commissioner Charlie Hales, a strong backer of the Cascade Station deal.
"Light rail was on the books, but no one was working towards making this
happen," Detweiler said.
The bottom line for TriMet: "We got our train."
Joseph Roth, an Ikea spokesman, said the nearby light-rail station will
be a plus for the store. And at least for the rest of this year, the
company will offer a $10 discount on the delivery fee -- typically $55
-- for shoppers who take MAX.
And, Roth said, "Not everybody who shops there will buy a sofa."
-- End of News Article --
Poster's Comment: Is the Cascade Station Project a planning failure?
OR, Was the City of Portland just outwitted by Bechtel and the
Light-Rail Mafia?
~
Why anyone wants to put housing for familes next to an active airport
baffles me. The noise is a horrible problem near any airport. It lowers
the quality of life, and trains make a lot of noise too. The best neighbors
for an airport are trees, not rail lines and fake villages.
Baxter
2007-07-19 15:18:51 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Why anyone wants to put housing for familes next to an active airport
baffles me. The noise is a horrible problem near any airport. It lowers
the quality of life, and trains make a lot of noise too. The best
neighbors for an airport are trees, not rail lines and fake villages.
No one ever proposed putting residential at Cascade Station. They
envisioned hotels

And MAX is NOT noisy - what you'll hear from people is that "you can't hear
it coming".
Stephen Sprunk
2007-07-19 15:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
The noise is a horrible problem near any airport. It lowers the quality
of life,
and trains make a lot of noise too. The best neighbors for an airport
are
trees, not rail lines and fake villages.
And MAX is NOT noisy - what you'll hear from people is that "you can't
hear it coming".
Very true. One of the supposed factors in Houston MetroRail's high accident
rate is that people never heard the trains coming. Portland's LRVs are just
as quiet -- one of the good news/bad news things about electric vehicles.
The fossil-fuel-burning cars around them are so noisy that you can't hear
the tiny noise that electric vehicles make.

S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
george conklin
2007-07-19 17:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by Baxter
The noise is a horrible problem near any airport. It lowers the quality
of life,
and trains make a lot of noise too. The best neighbors for an airport
are
trees, not rail lines and fake villages.
And MAX is NOT noisy - what you'll hear from people is that "you can't
hear it coming".
Very true. One of the supposed factors in Houston MetroRail's high
accident rate is that people never heard the trains coming. Portland's
LRVs are just as quiet -- one of the good news/bad news things about
electric vehicles. The fossil-fuel-burning cars around them are so noisy
that you can't hear the tiny noise that electric vehicles make.
Next you are going to tell me that putting housing next to airports is a
good idea because you cannot hear the airplanes either, nor is there a risk
for crashes, etc.
Baxter
2007-07-19 19:12:02 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by Baxter
The noise is a horrible problem near any airport. It lowers the
quality of life,
and trains make a lot of noise too. The best neighbors for an airport
are
trees, not rail lines and fake villages.
And MAX is NOT noisy - what you'll hear from people is that "you can't
hear it coming".
Very true. One of the supposed factors in Houston MetroRail's high
accident rate is that people never heard the trains coming. Portland's
LRVs are just as quiet -- one of the good news/bad news things about
electric vehicles. The fossil-fuel-burning cars around them are so noisy
that you can't hear the tiny noise that electric vehicles make.
Next you are going to tell me that putting housing next to airports is a
good idea because you cannot hear the airplanes either, nor is there a
risk for crashes, etc.
Why would we say that, georgie porgie?
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-19 22:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by Baxter
The noise is a horrible problem near any airport. It lowers the
quality of life,
and trains make a lot of noise too. The best neighbors for an
airport are
trees, not rail lines and fake villages.
And MAX is NOT noisy - what you'll hear from people is that "you
can't hear it coming".
Very true. One of the supposed factors in Houston MetroRail's high
accident rate is that people never heard the trains coming.
Portland's LRVs are just as quiet -- one of the good news/bad news
things about electric vehicles. The fossil-fuel-burning cars around
them are so noisy that you can't hear the tiny noise that electric
vehicles make.
Next you are going to tell me that putting housing next to airports is a
good idea because you cannot hear the airplanes either, nor is there
a risk for crashes, etc.
Why would we say that, georgie porgie?
In your case, because you'll trot out any old Lie to support the New
Urbanist Terrorists.
Baxter
2007-07-20 01:09:58 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Baxter
Why would we say that, georgie porgie?
In your case, because you'll trot out any old Lie to support the New
Urbanist Terrorists.
Your "New Urbanist Terrorist" owns a Real Estate company. Private
Enterprise.
Stephen Sprunk
2007-07-19 20:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Very true. One of the supposed factors in Houston MetroRail's high
accident rate is that people never heard the trains coming. Portland's
LRVs are just as quiet -- one of the good news/bad news things about
electric vehicles. The fossil-fuel-burning cars around them are so noisy
that you can't hear the tiny noise that electric vehicles make.
Next you are going to tell me that putting housing next to airports is a
good idea because you cannot hear the airplanes either, nor is there a
risk for crashes, etc.
Um, why would I say that? Airports are a blight on residential property for
dozens of miles around due to the horrific noise. It's incomparable to
virtually-silent passenger rail.

S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
george conklin
2007-07-19 22:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Very true. One of the supposed factors in Houston MetroRail's high
accident rate is that people never heard the trains coming. Portland's
LRVs are just as quiet -- one of the good news/bad news things about
electric vehicles. The fossil-fuel-burning cars around them are so noisy
that you can't hear the tiny noise that electric vehicles make.
Next you are going to tell me that putting housing next to airports is a
good idea because you cannot hear the airplanes either, nor is there a
risk for crashes, etc.
Um, why would I say that? Airports are a blight on residential property
for dozens of miles around due to the horrific noise. It's incomparable
to virtually-silent passenger rail.
So to use that so-called silent transit (ha ha), you have to build houses
near the airport. You really know how to confuse everything.
Baxter
2007-07-20 01:12:49 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Very true. One of the supposed factors in Houston MetroRail's high
accident rate is that people never heard the trains coming. Portland's
LRVs are just as quiet -- one of the good news/bad news things about
electric vehicles. The fossil-fuel-burning cars around them are so
noisy that you can't hear the tiny noise that electric vehicles make.
Next you are going to tell me that putting housing next to airports is
a good idea because you cannot hear the airplanes either, nor is there a
risk for crashes, etc.
Um, why would I say that? Airports are a blight on residential property
for dozens of miles around due to the horrific noise. It's incomparable
to virtually-silent passenger rail.
So to use that so-called silent transit (ha ha), you have to build houses
near the airport. You really know how to confuse everything.
The area was zoned for office and commercial - especially theaters.
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-20 02:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Very true. One of the supposed factors in Houston MetroRail's
high accident rate is that people never heard the trains coming.
Portland's LRVs are just as quiet -- one of the good news/bad news
things about electric vehicles. The fossil-fuel-burning cars
around them are so noisy that you can't hear the tiny noise that
electric vehicles make.
Next you are going to tell me that putting housing next to
airports is
a good idea because you cannot hear the airplanes either, nor is
there a risk for crashes, etc.
Um, why would I say that? Airports are a blight on residential
property for dozens of miles around due to the horrific noise. It's
incomparable to virtually-silent passenger rail.
So to use that so-called silent transit (ha ha), you have to build houses
near the airport. You really know how to confuse everything.
The area was zoned for office and commercial - especially theaters.
MORON!

[Planners and officials now agree the Cascade Station vision was probably
doomed from the start.

"I think it was the wrong location," said John Fregonese, who along with
planning pioneer Peter Calthorpe designed the concept's streets and
parks layout.

"Sometimes reality has a different idea," Fregonese said.

He said the lack of housing posed a major problem: "That really killed
off the idea."
]
Sancho Panza
2007-07-22 18:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by george conklin
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Very true. One of the supposed factors in Houston MetroRail's high
accident rate is that people never heard the trains coming.
Portland's LRVs are just as quiet -- one of the good news/bad news
things about electric vehicles. The fossil-fuel-burning cars around
them are so noisy that you can't hear the tiny noise that electric
vehicles make.
Next you are going to tell me that putting housing next to airports is
a good idea because you cannot hear the airplanes either, nor is there
a risk for crashes, etc.
Um, why would I say that? Airports are a blight on residential property
for dozens of miles around due to the horrific noise. It's incomparable
to virtually-silent passenger rail.
So to use that so-called silent transit (ha ha), you have to build
houses near the airport. You really know how to confuse everything.
The area was zoned for office and commercial - especially theaters.
The article said differently: "a failure of one of city and
regional leaders' most cherished values: building MAX light-rail train
lines to new neighborhoods so that people aren't required to drive."
Curt
2007-07-22 20:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sancho Panza
The article said differently: "a failure of one of city and
regional leaders' most cherished values: building MAX light-rail train
lines to new neighborhoods so that people aren't required to drive."
They're extending MAX down I205 as we speak. It's going to be about six
blocks from my house. I'm looking forward to it -- if I ever want to go
somewhere on a plane, I won't have to drive to a park n ride, or take a cab,
or anything. I can, essentially, walk to London if I want. I think that's
pretty cool. Oh, and the value of my house will go up dramatically once I've
got MAX.

Curt
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-19 22:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Post by george conklin
Why anyone wants to put housing for familes next to an active airport
baffles me. The noise is a horrible problem near any airport. It
lowers the quality of life, and trains make a lot of noise too. The
best neighbors for an airport are trees, not rail lines and fake
villages.
No one ever proposed putting residential at Cascade Station. They
envisioned hotels
And MAX is NOT noisy - what you'll hear from people is that "you can't
hear it coming".
Did you bother to read the article?

["The idea was, let's build an urban village next to the airport in an
industrial core," said Craig Sweitzer, who tried to market Cascade
Station to retailers.]

[There were other issues. Federal aviation regulations do not allow
housing next to the airport because of noise concerns. The lack of
neighborhoods of customers and employees was a big hurdle, Sweitzer
said.

Planners and officials now agree the Cascade Station vision was probably
doomed from the start.

"I think it was the wrong location," said John Fregonese, who along with
planning pioneer Peter Calthorpe designed the concept's streets and
parks layout.

"Sometimes reality has a different idea," Fregonese said.

He said the lack of housing posed a major problem: "That really killed
off the idea." ]
george conklin
2007-07-19 22:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Baxter
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Post by george conklin
Why anyone wants to put housing for familes next to an active airport
baffles me. The noise is a horrible problem near any airport. It
lowers the quality of life, and trains make a lot of noise too. The
best neighbors for an airport are trees, not rail lines and fake
villages.
No one ever proposed putting residential at Cascade Station. They
envisioned hotels
And MAX is NOT noisy - what you'll hear from people is that "you can't
hear it coming".
Did you bother to read the article?
["The idea was, let's build an urban village next to the airport in an
industrial core," said Craig Sweitzer, who tried to market Cascade
Station to retailers.]
[There were other issues. Federal aviation regulations do not allow
housing next to the airport because of noise concerns. The lack of
neighborhoods of customers and employees was a big hurdle, Sweitzer
said.
Planners and officials now agree the Cascade Station vision was probably
doomed from the start.
"I think it was the wrong location," said John Fregonese, who along with
planning pioneer Peter Calthorpe designed the concept's streets and
parks layout.
"Sometimes reality has a different idea," Fregonese said.
He said the lack of housing posed a major problem: "That really killed
off the idea." ]
Maybe people decided not to build next to an airport. Planners were trying
to force people to make bad decisions.
Baxter
2007-07-20 01:16:19 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Paul J. Berg
He said the lack of housing posed a major problem: "That really killed
off the idea." ]
Maybe people decided not to build next to an airport. Planners were
trying to force people to make bad decisions.
The area was never zoned for residential.
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-20 02:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Paul J. Berg
He said the lack of housing posed a major problem: "That really
killed off the idea." ]
Maybe people decided not to build next to an airport. Planners were
trying to force people to make bad decisions.
The area was never zoned for residential.
MORON!

[Planners and officials now agree the Cascade Station vision was probably
doomed from the start.

"I think it was the wrong location," said John Fregonese, who along with
planning pioneer Peter Calthorpe designed the concept's streets and
parks layout.

"Sometimes reality has a different idea," Fregonese said.

He said the lack of housing posed a major problem: "That really killed
off the idea."
]
Baxter
2007-07-20 01:08:10 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
Why anyone wants to put housing for familes next to an active airport
baffles me. The noise is a horrible problem near any airport. It
lowers the quality of life, and trains make a lot of noise too. The
best neighbors for an airport are trees, not rail lines and fake
villages.
No one ever proposed putting residential at Cascade Station. They
envisioned hotels
And MAX is NOT noisy - what you'll hear from people is that "you can't
hear it coming".
Did you bother to read the article?
["The idea was, let's build an urban village next to the airport in an
industrial core," said Craig Sweitzer, who tried to market Cascade
Station to retailers.]
You're a complete idiot. Craig Sweitzer is not a Planner - nor does he have
any job with the City -- he owns a Real Estate company. Conklin and you are
complaining about the wild ideas of a private businessman.

------
City officials and Bechtel envisioned a dense urban commercial development
that would live up to the tens of millions of dollars invested in light rail
and advance the region's goals for density and urban infill. The FAA
prohibited housing on the site because of its proximity to the airport and
its associated noise. Federal officials agreed to allow office and retail
development.

When zoning for the tract was approved in 1999, Bechtel, with
partner-developer Trammell Crow, thought a movie theater and office tenants
would be initial anchors.

http://urbanworksrealestate.com/about/TheOregonian10_21_05.htm
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-20 02:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
Why anyone wants to put housing for familes next to an active
airport baffles me. The noise is a horrible problem near any
airport. It lowers the quality of life, and trains make a lot of
noise too. The best neighbors for an airport are trees, not rail
lines and fake villages.
No one ever proposed putting residential at Cascade Station. They
envisioned hotels
And MAX is NOT noisy - what you'll hear from people is that "you
can't hear it coming".
Did you bother to read the article?
["The idea was, let's build an urban village next to the airport in
an industrial core," said Craig Sweitzer, who tried to market Cascade
Station to retailers.]
You're a complete idiot. Craig Sweitzer is not a Planner - nor does
he have any job with the City -- he owns a Real Estate company.
Conklin and you are complaining about the wild ideas of a private
businessman.
------
City officials and Bechtel envisioned a dense urban commercial
development that would live up to the tens of millions of dollars
invested in light rail and advance the region's goals for density and
urban infill. The FAA prohibited housing on the site because of its
proximity to the airport and its associated noise. Federal officials
agreed to allow office and retail development.
When zoning for the tract was approved in 1999, Bechtel, with
partner-developer Trammell Crow, thought a movie theater and office
tenants would be initial anchors.
http://urbanworksrealestate.com/about/TheOregonian10_21_05.htm
MORON!

[Planners and officials now agree the Cascade Station vision was probably
doomed from the start.

"I think it was the wrong location," said John Fregonese, who along with
planning pioneer Peter Calthorpe designed the concept's streets and
parks layout.

"Sometimes reality has a different idea," Fregonese said.

He said the lack of housing posed a major problem: "That really killed
off the idea."
]
Don Homuth
2007-07-19 15:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Why anyone wants to put housing for familes next to an active airport
baffles me. The noise is a horrible problem near any airport. It lowers
the quality of life, and trains make a lot of noise too. The best neighbors
for an airport are trees, not rail lines and fake villages.
As a general rule, though, the order in which such things happened was
the opposite.

Back when airports were being built, they weren't Near cities.

The cities later expanded out to the airports. That's been the case
in almost Every place where you've seen the phenomenon.

Airports are a Huge public investment not easily moved thereafter. So
as a rule, they aren't.

But land near airports is cheap, and developers tend to move into
areas under the flight path because of that.

Only after folks, who should really have known better coming in the
door, have purchased their homes at a lower cost than otherwise, and
which are conveniently located between the airport and the city, start
to become annoyed at the Constant and Growing airplane flights to the
complaints start coming.

People can live with noise, so the tradeoff is between a lower cost of
housing than it would otherwise be, a shorter commute than otherwise,
and the noise.

It's the same way with other things too. Folks move to The Country
because...well, it's The Country.

Then they discover that the farmer upwind raises a half dozen pigs for
personal consumption and to sell to friends. Then the complaints
start that no one should be Allowed to raise pigs so close to a
residential development that wasn't there when raising the pigs first
started.

But...that's what The Country smells like.

And when one buys a house near an airport, that's what airports sound
like.
george conklin
2007-07-19 17:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
Why anyone wants to put housing for familes next to an active airport
baffles me. The noise is a horrible problem near any airport. It lowers
the quality of life, and trains make a lot of noise too. The best neighbors
for an airport are trees, not rail lines and fake villages.
As a general rule, though, the order in which such things happened was
the opposite.
Back when airports were being built, they weren't Near cities.
The cities later expanded out to the airports. That's been the case
in almost Every place where you've seen the phenomenon.
Airports are a Huge public investment not easily moved thereafter. So
as a rule, they aren't.
But land near airports is cheap, and developers tend to move into
areas under the flight path because of that.
Only after folks, who should really have known better coming in the
door, have purchased their homes at a lower cost than otherwise, and
which are conveniently located between the airport and the city, start
to become annoyed at the Constant and Growing airplane flights to the
complaints start coming.
People can live with noise, so the tradeoff is between a lower cost of
housing than it would otherwise be, a shorter commute than otherwise,
and the noise.
It's the same way with other things too. Folks move to The Country
because...well, it's The Country.
Then they discover that the farmer upwind raises a half dozen pigs for
personal consumption and to sell to friends. Then the complaints
start that no one should be Allowed to raise pigs so close to a
residential development that wasn't there when raising the pigs first
started.
But...that's what The Country smells like.
And when one buys a house near an airport, that's what airports sound
like.
Planners should not encourage "villages" near airports, like Portland
did. It is just plain bad public policy to hem in an airport as planners
like to do. They did this to RDU too. And the land was NOT cheap. And
when flight tracks change and new runways are opened, homeowners can and do
successfully sue to damages. The public pays, but planners go on their
merry way, even though they are responsible for the damage.
Don Homuth
2007-07-19 18:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Planners should not encourage "villages" near airports, like Portland
did. It is just plain bad public policy to hem in an airport as planners
like to do.
Why not? The land is in Private hands, and to restrict its use would
just Deeply Fromage the various land-rights sorts hereon.

Alternatively, gubming possibly Could (a) buy the land outright and
keep it as a buffer, or (b) buy the development right (not the
entirety of the land itself) from the owner.

But...there's no Money to do that. Capital is stretched enough as it
is.

OTOH, those who buy property within, say, 4-5 miles of an existing
airport are apparently aware that it's there, and that the sound of
landing or circling aircraft is something they are going to have to
live with.

But...the total number of flights seems to be the factor that adds
most to the overall annoyance. But the number of flights is not a
function of an effort to annoy someone. It's a function of market
demand for air flights.

Which is kindasorta what airports are all about.
Post by george conklin
They did this to RDU too. And the land was NOT cheap.
Land is never "cheap" as a general rule, especially near airports.
But it is comparatively Less Expensive than land elsewhere.

For my money, land near airports ought to be zoned for commercial and
industrial use -- not residential. But that's not always possible,
and those landowners have a Right to develop, do they not?
Post by george conklin
And when flight tracks change and new runways are opened, homeowners can and do
successfully sue to damages.
Sometimes and sometimes not. It all rather depends on the
circumstance.
Post by george conklin
... The public pays, but planners go on their
merry way, even though they are responsible for the damage.
Planners cannot force a zone change. They can merely recommend one.
And the Private Property Rights folks hereon don't much care for that.

The end result is that if a developer really Wants to develop RFN, the
planners have only so many tools to try to regulate that. Sometimes
they can; sometimes they can't.

But those purchasing homes near airports can Always know that aircraft
make noise, and that flights will tend to increase.
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-19 22:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
Planners should not encourage "villages" near airports, like Portland
did. It is just plain bad public policy to hem in an airport as
planners like to do.
Why not? The land is in Private hands, and to restrict its use would
just Deeply Fromage the various land-rights sorts hereon.
You just don't have CLUE ONE about the land under discussion. You might
want get Informed before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself.
george conklin
2007-07-19 22:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
Planners should not encourage "villages" near airports, like Portland
did. It is just plain bad public policy to hem in an airport as planners
like to do.
Why not? The land is in Private hands, and to restrict its use would
just Deeply Fromage the various land-rights sorts hereon.
Alternatively, gubming possibly Could (a) buy the land outright and
keep it as a buffer, or (b) buy the development right (not the
entirety of the land itself) from the owner.
But...there's no Money to do that. Capital is stretched enough as it
is.
OTOH, those who buy property within, say, 4-5 miles of an existing
airport are apparently aware that it's there, and that the sound of
landing or circling aircraft is something they are going to have to
live with.
But...the total number of flights seems to be the factor that adds
most to the overall annoyance. But the number of flights is not a
function of an effort to annoy someone. It's a function of market
demand for air flights.
Which is kindasorta what airports are all about.
Post by george conklin
They did this to RDU too. And the land was NOT cheap.
Land is never "cheap" as a general rule, especially near airports.
But it is comparatively Less Expensive than land elsewhere.
For my money, land near airports ought to be zoned for commercial and
industrial use -- not residential. But that's not always possible,
and those landowners have a Right to develop, do they not?
Post by george conklin
And when flight tracks change and new runways are opened, homeowners can and do
successfully sue to damages.
Sometimes and sometimes not. It all rather depends on the
circumstance.
Well, let us say I was closely involved in a huge number of such suits
and the plaintiff's won. The airport did not.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
... The public pays, but planners go on their
merry way, even though they are responsible for the damage.
Planners cannot force a zone change. They can merely recommend one.
And the Private Property Rights folks hereon don't much care for that.
See below. Portland encouraged a 'village" near the airport where
private money would not wanted it. Why? To support rail. Dumb vs stupid.
Post by Don Homuth
The end result is that if a developer really Wants to develop RFN, the
planners have only so many tools to try to regulate that. Sometimes
they can; sometimes they can't.
But those purchasing homes near airports can Always know that aircraft
make noise, and that flights will tend to increase.
Planners in fact draw up land use maps and get the zoning they want. If
they plan for housing near airports, if a zoning change is requested they
support it. Otherwise planners can and do change zoning themselves through
the city councils. They did that when Durham put in its UDO. Then
commissioners had to change some of it BACK when they realized what they had
done hidden in a 600 page document of total confusion and doubletalk. So
when Raleigh's planners advocated putting more houses under the flight
tracks, they got their way.

The airport could have purchased the land and had the income to do so, but
only buys land cheap when offered. I argued against that policy, like
squeezing widows and orphans, but you know how it goes.
Baxter
2007-07-20 01:15:28 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
Post by Don Homuth
Planners cannot force a zone change. They can merely recommend one.
And the Private Property Rights folks hereon don't much care for that.
See below. Portland encouraged a 'village" near the airport where
private money would not wanted it. Why? To support rail. Dumb vs stupid.
Your facts are entirely wrong. Portland, City of, did NOT encourage a
'village' - they zoned the area for office and commercial - NOT residential.
No residential is or was envisioned for that land.
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-20 02:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
Post by Don Homuth
Planners cannot force a zone change. They can merely recommend one.
And the Private Property Rights folks hereon don't much care for that.
See below. Portland encouraged a 'village" near the airport where
private money would not wanted it. Why? To support rail. Dumb vs stupid.
Your facts are entirely wrong. Portland, City of, did NOT encourage a
'village' - they zoned the area for office and commercial - NOT
residential. No residential is or was envisioned for that land.
MORON!

[Planners and officials now agree the Cascade Station vision was probably
doomed from the start.

"I think it was the wrong location," said John Fregonese, who along with
planning pioneer Peter Calthorpe designed the concept's streets and
parks layout.

"Sometimes reality has a different idea," Fregonese said.

He said the lack of housing posed a major problem: "That really killed
off the idea."
]
george conklin
2007-07-20 11:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Baxter
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
Post by Don Homuth
Planners cannot force a zone change. They can merely recommend one.
And the Private Property Rights folks hereon don't much care for that.
See below. Portland encouraged a 'village" near the airport where
private money would not wanted it. Why? To support rail. Dumb vs stupid.
Your facts are entirely wrong. Portland, City of, did NOT encourage a
'village' - they zoned the area for office and commercial - NOT
residential. No residential is or was envisioned for that land.
MORON!
[Planners and officials now agree the Cascade Station vision was probably
doomed from the start.
"I think it was the wrong location," said John Fregonese, who along with
planning pioneer Peter Calthorpe designed the concept's streets and
parks layout.
"Sometimes reality has a different idea," Fregonese said.
He said the lack of housing posed a major problem: "That really killed
off the idea."
]
Baxter just posts anything he feels like and that includes ignoring the
original post and figuring no one would notice.
Baxter
2007-07-20 22:14:43 UTC
Permalink
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Lobby Dosser
MORON!
[Planners and officials now agree the Cascade Station vision was probably
doomed from the start.
Baxter just posts anything he feels like and that includes ignoring the
original post and figuring no one would notice.
------
City officials and Bechtel envisioned a dense urban commercial development
that would live up to the tens of millions of dollars invested in light rail
and advance the region's goals for density and urban infill. The FAA
prohibited housing on the site because of its proximity to the airport and
its associated noise. Federal officials agreed to allow office and retail
development.

When zoning for the tract was approved in 1999, Bechtel, with
partner-developer Trammell Crow, thought a movie theater and office tenants
would be initial anchors.

http://urbanworksrealestate.com/about/TheOregonian10_21_05.htm
Amy Blankenship
2007-07-23 03:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
Planners should not encourage "villages" near airports, like Portland
did. It is just plain bad public policy to hem in an airport as planners
like to do.
Why not? The land is in Private hands, and to restrict its use would
just Deeply Fromage the various land-rights sorts hereon.
Alternatively, gubming possibly Could (a) buy the land outright and
keep it as a buffer, or (b) buy the development right (not the
entirety of the land itself) from the owner.
But...there's no Money to do that. Capital is stretched enough as it
is.
OTOH, those who buy property within, say, 4-5 miles of an existing
airport are apparently aware that it's there, and that the sound of
landing or circling aircraft is something they are going to have to
live with.
But...the total number of flights seems to be the factor that adds
most to the overall annoyance. But the number of flights is not a
function of an effort to annoy someone. It's a function of market
demand for air flights.
Which is kindasorta what airports are all about.
Post by george conklin
They did this to RDU too. And the land was NOT cheap.
Land is never "cheap" as a general rule, especially near airports.
But it is comparatively Less Expensive than land elsewhere.
For my money, land near airports ought to be zoned for commercial and
industrial use -- not residential. But that's not always possible,
and those landowners have a Right to develop, do they not?
Post by george conklin
And when flight tracks change and new runways are opened, homeowners can and do
successfully sue to damages.
Sometimes and sometimes not. It all rather depends on the
circumstance.
Well, let us say I was closely involved in a huge number of such suits
and the plaintiff's won. The airport did not.
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
... The public pays, but planners go on their
merry way, even though they are responsible for the damage.
Planners cannot force a zone change. They can merely recommend one.
And the Private Property Rights folks hereon don't much care for that.
See below. Portland encouraged a 'village" near the airport where
private money would not wanted it. Why? To support rail. Dumb vs stupid.
Post by Don Homuth
The end result is that if a developer really Wants to develop RFN, the
planners have only so many tools to try to regulate that. Sometimes
they can; sometimes they can't.
But those purchasing homes near airports can Always know that aircraft
make noise, and that flights will tend to increase.
Planners in fact draw up land use maps and get the zoning they want. If
they plan for housing near airports, if a zoning change is requested they
support it. Otherwise planners can and do change zoning themselves
through the city councils. They did that when Durham put in its UDO.
Then commissioners had to change some of it BACK when they realized what
they had done hidden in a 600 page document of total confusion and
doubletalk. So when Raleigh's planners advocated putting more houses
under the flight tracks, they got their way.
The airport could have purchased the land and had the income to do so,
but only buys land cheap when offered. I argued against that policy, like
squeezing widows and orphans, but you know how it goes.
Aren't you one of the people who says that if an entity wants to preserve
land for a specific purpose (such as expanding an airport, for example),
then they should buy it? And if they fail to buy it they then have no right
to complain of whatever use it gets put to...?
Baxter
2007-07-19 19:10:45 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
And when one buys a house near an airport, that's what airports sound
like.
Planners should not encourage "villages" near airports, like Portland
did.
No, they didn't. Their plan was for commercial, not residential
development.
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-19 22:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
And when one buys a house near an airport, that's what airports
sound like.
Planners should not encourage "villages" near airports, like Portland
did.
No, they didn't. Their plan was for commercial, not residential
development.
Read the article, dimbulb!
Baxter
2007-07-20 01:12:01 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
And when one buys a house near an airport, that's what airports
sound like.
Planners should not encourage "villages" near airports, like Portland
did.
No, they didn't. Their plan was for commercial, not residential
development.
Read the article, dimbulb!
The article and YOU are short on research. The guy mentioned is NOT a
planner and has nothing to do with City or County (or any) government.
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-20 02:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
And when one buys a house near an airport, that's what airports
sound like.
Planners should not encourage "villages" near airports, like Portland
did.
No, they didn't. Their plan was for commercial, not residential
development.
Read the article, dimbulb!
The article and YOU are short on research. The guy mentioned is NOT a
planner and has nothing to do with City or County (or any) government.
MORON!

[Planners and officials now agree the Cascade Station vision was probably
doomed from the start.

"I think it was the wrong location," said John Fregonese, who along with
planning pioneer Peter Calthorpe designed the concept's streets and
parks layout.

"Sometimes reality has a different idea," Fregonese said.

He said the lack of housing posed a major problem: "That really killed
off the idea."
]
Clark F Morris
2007-07-20 00:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Don Homuth
Post by george conklin
Why anyone wants to put housing for familes next to an active airport
baffles me. The noise is a horrible problem near any airport. It lowers
the quality of life, and trains make a lot of noise too. The best neighbors
for an airport are trees, not rail lines and fake villages.
As a general rule, though, the order in which such things happened was
the opposite.
Back when airports were being built, they weren't Near cities.
The cities later expanded out to the airports. That's been the case
in almost Every place where you've seen the phenomenon.
Airports are a Huge public investment not easily moved thereafter. So
as a rule, they aren't.
But land near airports is cheap, and developers tend to move into
areas under the flight path because of that.
Only after folks, who should really have known better coming in the
door, have purchased their homes at a lower cost than otherwise, and
which are conveniently located between the airport and the city, start
to become annoyed at the Constant and Growing airplane flights to the
complaints start coming.
People can live with noise, so the tradeoff is between a lower cost of
housing than it would otherwise be, a shorter commute than otherwise,
and the noise.
It's the same way with other things too. Folks move to The Country
because...well, it's The Country.
Then they discover that the farmer upwind raises a half dozen pigs for
personal consumption and to sell to friends. Then the complaints
start that no one should be Allowed to raise pigs so close to a
residential development that wasn't there when raising the pigs first
started.
But...that's what The Country smells like.
And when one buys a house near an airport, that's what airports sound
like.
Planners should not encourage "villages" near airports, like Portland
did. It is just plain bad public policy to hem in an airport as planners
like to do. They did this to RDU too. And the land was NOT cheap. And
when flight tracks change and new runways are opened, homeowners can and do
successfully sue to damages. The public pays, but planners go on their
merry way, even though they are responsible for the damage.
What the article said was that they planned this hotel, retail and
office area without considering retailers want to be in an area close
to housing. Since being near the airport precluded nearby housing,
the area near Cascade Station wasn't that suitable for retail. It DID
NOT say that the planners had envisioned residential development for
the area. It did note that the planning had overlooked what should
have been obvious,
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-20 02:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clark F Morris
It DID
NOT say that the planners had envisioned residential development for
the area.
IT DID! Read again for comprehension.
g***@yahoo.com
2007-07-21 08:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clark F Morris
What the article said was that they planned this hotel, retail and
office area without considering retailers want to be in an area close
to housing. Since being near the airport precluded nearby housing,
the area near Cascade Station wasn't that suitable for retail. It DID
NOT say that the planners had envisioned residential development for
the area. It did note that the planning had overlooked what should
have been obvious,
Supporting retail of some sort in that location should not be a problem.
Oregon has 0 sales tax, and there is this nice bridge that brings people
from Washington (which does have a sales tax) to Oregon to buy stuff.

In fact, that is one reason why the existing retail (Home Depot) is there,
and probably why Ikea decided they would move there.

The interesting thing is that about a year or more ago, Conklin used all
the new commercial properties going up around airports as an argument
against improved passenger railroad service. "These new developments want
to be near airports" or some such. That's not what happened in Portland,
and I pointed that out at the time.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-19 22:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
And when one buys a house near an airport, that's what airports sound
like.
What Are you Yapping about? Did you bother to Read the article?
Paul J. Berg
2007-07-19 20:40:32 UTC
Permalink
~

From Daily Journal of Commerce (Portland, Oregon) - May 31, 2007

In the 1980s, reeling from decades of urban sprawl, the nation's
planners entered a new phase of place-making in the form of New
Urbanism. The movement favored development with traditional features
like parks, trails, mixed-income housing with front porches and backyard
garages, multi-use buildings, and living spaces all clustered near
commercial service areas. In other words, New Urbanism was meant to
create miniature town centers in outlying areas of larger cities. But
during the last 25 years, the theory of New Urbanism has largely
remained just that - a theory.

"Portland has aspects of what New Urbanism would like to be," Scott
Langley, head of Ashforth Pacific Inc., said Tuesday. "I don't know of
any New Urbanism here, but it's more of a journey than getting there.
Maybe New Urbanism is an umbrella thought to what Portland is becoming."

In the metropolitan region, most urban planners and developers look to
Orenco Station in Hillsboro as the epitome of successful New U! rbanism.
But that development, hailed as a success story, has its problems, Bruce
Wood, developer of Bridgeport Village, told real estate professionals
Wednesday at a forum held by Portland State University. Even on the
development's Web site, the builders of the 260-acre Orenco Station,
population 2,600, boast it's new housing "that feels like a real
community," suggesting that, even though Orenco Station looks like a
community and acts like a community, in some ways it truly is not. "The
public perspective on Orenco is that it's great, but it's not
financially sustainable," Wood said. "The only way to create density out
there is to build parking, and that's a challenge. The private sector
doesn't want to build it on green spaces." The developers of Orenco
Station, Wood said, also had the challenge of creating infrastructure
where there was none. Building infrastructure will always be a problem,
Bruce Warner, executive director of the Portland Development Commission,
said Wednesday at the forum, because private developers don't understand
t he financing structure needed to pay for it. "We use tax increment
funding in urban renewal areas, and the private sector doesn't
understand what that means," he said. "We need to build infrastructure,
but it doesn't add financing until something gets built there."

Cascade Station, in the PDC's Airport Way urban renewal area, was
supposed to be Portland Proper's first New Urbanist experiment, with an
office and retail park, a 24-screen movie theater, a 1,200-room hotel,
small shops, restaurants and eventually residential units planned for
its 120 acres. It failed. One of Cascade Station's major selling points
was a new MAX light-rail line that would pass by it on the way to
Portland International Airport. On Sept. 10, 2001, the airport MAX line
opened. The next day's events put Cascade Station on hold, until
recently, when the project's entire scope changed to include big-box
retailers like Ikea, which will open a store there July 25. What was
slated to be Portland's shining example of New Urbanism turned into not
much more than another retail hub on the outskirts of town.

Another problem with the New Urbanism theory, Peter Calthorpe, a
Berkeley, Calif., architect and planner, told the group Wednesday, is
that it hasn't changed much since the 1980s. "New Urbanism has been
taken for granted as retro, a throwback," he said. "Adding several
layers over the years is how you update New Urbanism." The way to do
that is to combine some of New Urbanism's original principles -
diversity of uses and a mix of people - with new ones like conservation,
restoration and transportation, Calthorpe said. City Commissioner Sam
Adams, the most vocal advocate for a Burnside-Couch streetcar line,
suggested planners start thinking about development-oriented transit
instead of the traditional transit-oriented development, saying
Wednesday, if you build the transportation, businesses will follow.

Langley, who moderated the forum, agreed, saying subdivided development
areas that had once sprawled are beginning to redevelop around a mix of
uses. It's about adding connectivity," he said. "Wherever there are six
lanes of street with one-story buildings, that's a real estate
resource."

~
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-19 22:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J. Berg
"Portland has aspects of what New Urbanism would like to be," Scott
Langley, head of Ashforth Pacific Inc., said Tuesday. "I don't know of
any New Urbanism here, but it's more of a journey than getting there.
Maybe New Urbanism is an umbrella thought to what Portland is becoming."
I haven't seen drivel like this since a couple Landscape Architecture
courses more than 30 years ago!
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-19 22:16:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J. Berg
There were other issues. Federal aviation regulations do not allow
housing next to the airport because of noise concerns. The lack of
neighborhoods of customers and employees was a big hurdle, Sweitzer
said.
They didn't know there was an airport nearby, or they didn't know the
Federal regulations and they thought people would want to live That close
to an airport??

These guys are all Loose Canons!
george conklin
2007-07-19 22:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul J. Berg
There were other issues. Federal aviation regulations do not allow
housing next to the airport because of noise concerns. The lack of
neighborhoods of customers and employees was a big hurdle, Sweitzer
said.
They didn't know there was an airport nearby, or they didn't know the
Federal regulations and they thought people would want to live That close
to an airport??
These guys are all Loose Canons!
No, they are normative. They decide what they want, and then try to make
you do that by manipulation of government. Other normative people include
religions leaders and preachers. Planners have a lot in common with any
religious fanatic. Look at Pat and other posting here. They automatically
say that what they have decided is best and if you find huge holes in what
they post, then you are against "future generations." That kind of
normative thinking is not that of loose canons. They are highly directed
and shooting straight at the average person. They want to change behavior
because they define what we do as wrong and they are out to correct us.
Lobby Dosser
2007-07-19 23:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul J. Berg
There were other issues. Federal aviation regulations do not allow
housing next to the airport because of noise concerns. The lack of
neighborhoods of customers and employees was a big hurdle, Sweitzer
said.
They didn't know there was an airport nearby, or they didn't know the
Federal regulations and they thought people would want to live That
close to an airport??
These guys are all Loose Canons!
No, they are normative. They decide what they want, and then try to
make you do that by manipulation of government. Other normative
people include religions leaders and preachers. Planners have a lot
in common with any religious fanatic. Look at Pat and other posting
here. They automatically say that what they have decided is best and
if you find huge holes in what they post, then you are against "future
generations." That kind of normative thinking is not that of loose
canons. They are highly directed and shooting straight at the average
person. They want to change behavior because they define what we do
as wrong and they are out to correct us.
Trust me, In Portland they are Loose Canons. Top to Bottom.
george conklin
2007-07-19 23:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by george conklin
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul J. Berg
There were other issues. Federal aviation regulations do not allow
housing next to the airport because of noise concerns. The lack of
neighborhoods of customers and employees was a big hurdle, Sweitzer
said.
They didn't know there was an airport nearby, or they didn't know the
Federal regulations and they thought people would want to live That
close to an airport??
These guys are all Loose Canons!
No, they are normative. They decide what they want, and then try to
make you do that by manipulation of government. Other normative
people include religions leaders and preachers. Planners have a lot
in common with any religious fanatic. Look at Pat and other posting
here. They automatically say that what they have decided is best and
if you find huge holes in what they post, then you are against "future
generations." That kind of normative thinking is not that of loose
canons. They are highly directed and shooting straight at the average
person. They want to change behavior because they define what we do
as wrong and they are out to correct us.
Trust me, In Portland they are Loose Canons. Top to Bottom.
Well, they have planners all over the country saying they are the future.
Steven
2007-07-22 17:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by george conklin
Post by Lobby Dosser
Post by Paul J. Berg
There were other issues. Federal aviation regulations do not allow
housing next to the airport because of noise concerns. The lack of
neighborhoods of customers and employees was a big hurdle, Sweitzer
said.
They didn't know there was an airport nearby, or they didn't know the
Federal regulations and they thought people would want to live That
close to an airport??
These guys are all Loose Canons!
No, they are normative. They decide what they want, and then try to
make you do that by manipulation of government. Other normative
people include religions leaders and preachers. Planners have a lot
in common with any religious fanatic. Look at Pat and other posting
here. They automatically say that what they have decided is best and
if you find huge holes in what they post, then you are against "future
generations." That kind of normative thinking is not that of loose
canons. They are highly directed and shooting straight at the average
person. They want to change behavior because they define what we do
as wrong and they are out to correct us.
Trust me, In Portland they are Loose Canons. Top to Bottom.
Well, they have planners all over the country saying they are the future.
I remember that! Wasn't that the reason it took 20 years to get the
Boise Towne Square?

Why are they Japanese cameras?
Stephen Sprunk
2007-07-19 22:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
No, they are normative. They decide what they want, and then try to make
you do that by manipulation of government. Other normative people include
religions leaders and preachers. Planners have a lot in common with any
religious fanatic. Look at Pat and other posting here. They
automatically say that what they have decided is best and if you find huge
holes in what they post, then you are against "future generations." That
kind of normative thinking is not that of loose canons. They are highly
directed and shooting straight at the average person. They want to change
behavior because they define what we do as wrong and they are out to
correct us.
That sounds remarkably like what you do, Conky.

S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
george conklin
2007-07-19 23:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by george conklin
No, they are normative. They decide what they want, and then try to make
you do that by manipulation of government. Other normative people
include religions leaders and preachers. Planners have a lot in common
with any religious fanatic. Look at Pat and other posting here. They
automatically say that what they have decided is best and if you find
huge holes in what they post, then you are against "future generations."
That kind of normative thinking is not that of loose canons. They are
highly directed and shooting straight at the average person. They want
to change behavior because they define what we do as wrong and they are
out to correct us.
That sounds remarkably like what you do, Conky.
Only in your dreams. I have argued against normative-types from the
start, in favor of studying real behavior, not imagined behavior.
Paul J. Berg
2007-07-19 23:24:16 UTC
Permalink
~

Anyone going to the IKEA Grand Opening at Portland's Cascade Station?

If so,are you going by light rail or auto?

~
Baxter
2007-07-20 01:17:11 UTC
Permalink
It's nice to have a choice.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Paul J. Berg" <***@webtv.net> wrote in message news:15800-469FF2A0-***@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
~

Anyone going to the IKEA Grand Opening at Portland's Cascade Station?

If so,are you going by light rail or auto?

~
2007-07-20 03:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
It's nice to have a choice.
So are you expecting to bring your new entertainment system home with you
no MAX?
Bill Shatzer
2007-07-20 06:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by
Post by Baxter
It's nice to have a choice.
So are you expecting to bring your new entertainment system home with you
no MAX?
Ikea delivers.

Peace and justice,
John Mara
2007-07-21 15:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
"Baxter" wrote>
Post by Baxter
It's nice to have a choice.
So are you expecting to bring your new entertainment system home with
you no MAX?
Ikea delivers.
It makes sense to have furniture delivered. I certainly don't want to
schlep furniture.

John Mara
Baxter
2007-07-20 06:03:57 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by
Post by Baxter
It's nice to have a choice.
So are you expecting to bring your new entertainment system home with you
no MAX?
IKEA is offering a discount on delivery costs.
Scratch
2007-07-23 02:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
Anyone going to the IKEA Grand Opening at Portland's Cascade Station?
If so,are you going by light rail or auto?
No, I probably will take my Motor Home to a Wal-Mart Super Store that
day and do some shopping. Maybe stop by and buy some Exxon products
along the way.

LOL :)
Steven
2007-07-23 05:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scratch
Post by Paul J. Berg
~
Anyone going to the IKEA Grand Opening at Portland's Cascade Station?
If so,are you going by light rail or auto?
No, I probably will take my Motor Home to a Wal-Mart Super Store that
day and do some shopping. Maybe stop by and buy some Exxon products
along the way.
LOL :)
When the Chinese stop trying to kill our pets or us and they stop
using edible crops to "replace" gas, I still won't go there if a Kmart
or other is available.

Paul J. Berg
2007-07-20 04:13:12 UTC
Permalink
~

Federal law prohibits the building of permanent housing on airport owned
land.
The Port of Portland (Portland International Airport) retained ownership
of the land in the Cascade Station development area. Bechtel just has
the development rights.

When the Cascade Station development was first publicly introduced, the
possibility of future residential housing within the Cascade Station was
mentioned, but not yet planned.

Several years later, it was announced that federal law prohibited
permanent housing on airport owned land.

With all the lawyers involved from Bechtel, the Port of Portland, the
City of Portland, and TriMet it is surprising that none of them knew
about the federal prohibition on housing on airport owned land. Give me
a break.

~
g***@yahoo.com
2007-07-20 06:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J. Berg
The original urban center plan called for more than a million square
feet of office space, 1,200 hotel rooms, 400,000 square feet of retail
space, a cinema with as many as 24 screens and the creation of 10,000
jobs.
The biggest problem in all this wasn't the concept itself, but the
combination of this plus all the look-alike developments that Portland
Development Commission and various others have funded all over the
region. There is only so much market for hotel space, and yet the PDC
seems to want to put them everywhere.

The ideal case would have been to get the airport hotels that are on the
east side of I-205 to move to Cascade Station, and put the Ikea in the old
hotels' locations next to the Home Depot that is over there. On the other
hand, that would have been an expensive waste of fairly new buildings.
Had anyone bothered planning ahead, the hotels could have been put at the
Cascades station area when they were originally built, but alas that was
not the case.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Loading...