May 21, 2004

(Updated) Burnside Bridgehead Redevelopment Concept

Public Process Begins On So-Called Home Depot Proposal

Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.

Late yesterday afternoon, the Central Eastside Urban Renewal Advisory Committee (URAC) at its regular monthly meeting discussed the so-called Burnside Bridgehead Redevelopment Concept -- more popularly known as the proposed development which could include a Home Depot at East Burnside and MLK Jr. Boulevard.

Discussion began with a presentation on the concept from Michael O'Connell of the Portland Development Commission.

After some background on PDC and the Central Eastside Urban Renewal Area, he offered up some information from the 1998 Lower East Burnside Redevelopment Plan, whose "study area" includes the ten blocks from SE 2nd to SE 12th Avenues, between SE Ankeny and Couch Streets.

Most of the overview information O'Connell provided on the Burnside Bridgehead Redevelopment Concept is in that presentation linked above, so rather than rehashing it here, reads should click through and view that for the background.

Once O'Connell's presentation was over, he began to address the issues for which most of the 50 or so people in attendance were there.

"Home Depot approached us and expressed considerable interest," O'Connell said. PDC's response to them was that the involvement of Home Depot "could only work if it were part of a mixed- use development" which used a "compact urban form."

O'Connell continued: "We need to do a lot of work to determined whether or not this concept is the right thing for the City." According to his presentation, the four questions of the "concept evaluation" are: 1) Is the scale of the concept approproate for the site? 2) Are the mix of uses appropriate for the area (office, retail, housing)? 3) Is a large format retailer an appropriate use? 4) Is Home Depot an appropriate ancchor retailer?

"We can't answer these questions," O'Connell said, "without doing a lot more research." So far, he says, a preliminary traffic analysis indicates that the concept will work, but that analysis will also be further refined. In addition, an economic impact analysis (e.g. jobs, fiscal benefits) and a market impact analysis (e.g. existing business and commerce in the area) are still to come over the next few months.

O'Connell said that public input is critical when it comes to any action that may or may not be taken on this concept. Key decision points that remain in the future exist at PDC, the Bureau of Planning, and the City Council. "All of these," O'Connell said, "are public decisions."

With this Thursday URAC meeting serving as the kick-off to the proposed project's timeline, discussion is expected to continue throughout the Summer and into the Fall are further URAC meetings and open houses. That timeline is included in O'Connell's presentation.

URAC members had the first opportunity for questions and comments. At this point, our notes are not always clear whether the answers are coming from O'Connell or Lew Bowers, his colleague on the Burnside Bridgehead Redevelopment Concept, so unless we know for certain, we'll just be reporting them as coming from PDC. Neither the questions or answers are verbatim quotes.

URAC Member Questions

What are the advantages of developing the entire site -- which would include Blocks 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, and 76 -- rather than just Block 76? PDC's response was that the fuller apparoach offers "more of a critical mass."

Will public money be used for the redevelopment project? PDC explained that working out the concept comes first, with the financial analysis coming later. As it stands: "I can't sit here and tell you that this project is financially viable." It was pointed out, however, that the required parking structure beneath the project would not be viable without urban renewal funds.

Have all the blocks in question been acquired? According to Bowers, Block 76 was already owned, and last week PDC approved the purchase of three-quarters of Block 75. It has an option on Blocks 67, 68, and 69.

What is the impact on transportation? According to previous work (we believe this was likely a reference to the Burnside Transportation and Urban Design Plan) , the Couch exit needed to go down SE 3rd -- but the analysis for this concept indicates that it can use MLK? According to PDC, consultants told it that using MLK would work if they took a sliver off the eastern edge of Block 76 to make additional traffic lanes for the right-hand turn onto Burnside.

Six to seven lanes to get across MLK? How is that pedestrian friendly? O'Connell replied, "I can't answer that right now."

There was a question we believe was about the proposed eastside streetcar, but we didn't catch it. We assume this was the question because of the answer. According to PDC, the traffic analysis included the potential streetcar (in fact, it's present on at least one of the diagrams in the presentation), and it's arguable that the housing component of this concept would not be viable without a streetcar, and may require one.

Has a developer been chosen? According to Bowers, selection of a developer will be put off until there is further "community dialogue" about the concept. He said that there are a "number of developers in Portland and the Northwest we think are capable of this." He did not name them.

If this concept doesn't come together and isn't approved, what happens? According to O'Connell, Blocks 67, 68, and 69 are only under option, so PDC could let them go and "proceed with a smaller, mixed-use" project on Blocks 75 and 76. But, he conceded: "There is no back-up plan."

What sorts of residential units will be included? Will it include affordable housing? According to O'Connell, it's "so conceptual right now" that this particular issue is "unclear." He says that it is not PDC's vision that this primarily will be low-income housing -- but given the location, it also is not likely to be high-end housing either.

There was a question about pedestrian access that we didn't quite capture except with the words "pedestrian access." Bowers' response was that there was "no easy answer."

On the matter of Home Depot, it was suggested that one choice was to "have them work with us," but what if the City says no? What are the options? Will Home Depot simply locate at another site down the street? Bowers said that this would be a "good question to ask the Home Depot representative." Any site with the proper zoning, he said, would be appropriate. "This is not the only site that they've looked at," he said. He added that "other large retailers are looking in the central City as well."

Is a Home Depot the best type of retailer for mixed-used housing? Is PDC prepared to look at the possible negative economic impact on existing area businesses serving the home improvement market? Bowers explaiend part of the history which led to this concept, which includes the need for "more central City housing." He says that it had been established that to make this happen, "residents want this sort of large-format retailer," which means the question is how to "do it in an urban form." Bowers argued that "given the existing niche" in home improvement, a new retailer "may be some synergy." He did say that they had talked to businesses about this assumption and they were told that they did not believe it was correct. That question, Bowers said, is "an important factor" in whether or not the concept would go forward, and that more data is needed.

If you're selling market-rate housing, it's unlikely they have a need for a Home Depot, so will PDC be looking at other types of retailers? Bowers responded by pointing out that under the concept, in addition to the 100,000 square feet for large-scale retail, there is another 70,000 square feet for smaller retailers.

Is PDC trying to acquire property further east up by the intersection of Burnside and Sandy, as word on the "grapevine" has suggested? Bowers said that they are "following up on a plan for the Burnside/Couch couplet" (see the previously-mentioned Burnside plan). "We are looking to better understand development opportunities along that length," he said.

Doesn't it make sense to bring a developer on early? "That's something we should talk about," Bowers said."

(A URAC member doubled back and pointed out that the previously-mentioned comment about property further east on Burnside wasn't something that can from the "grapevine," but had come up in a meeting with the Portland Office of Transportation.)

How comfortable are people with having a "big box" structure at all, given that it "promotes a whole lot of car activity," can have an economic impact on local business, and that people want to see positive development on the inner eastside?

Is it necessary to have a big retailer? O'Connell said that "typically, a 'big box' retailer would draw more customers," and that filling the entire 170,000 square feet with smaller retailers does not provide a "critical mass."

Public Comment

We didn't catch all of the public comment provided, and much of it did not include responses from members of the URAC or the representatives from PDC with these comments asked questions. So if we don't present answers, it's likely because there weren't any provided.

If housing is being looked at, why was an earlier proposal for a smaller project not considered?

In terms of proposed employment opportunities, what are the criteria and goals? How many full-time, family-wage jobs with benefits? This from someone from a local hardware store.

"These people will put small business out of business," said someone from another hardware store. "This is just unconscionable, people," he added. "A 'big box' retailer and six lanes of traffic?"

A member of a committee on pedestrian issues raised concerns over the proposed traffic flow, and the potentially dangerous crossing on MLK.

A resident of the Buckman neighborhood and a business owner pointed out some omissions from O'Connell's presentation and the bullet points on "mission" and "goals" taken from the previously-linked Lower East Burnside Redevelopment Plan. O'Connell's presentation simply offered: Create a place that is attractive to major corporate employers, supported by a mix of retail, housing, commercial and transit; Set a benchmark for what will happen on the Eastside; Use the redevelopment of Block 76 and the plan as an attractor for investment. What was left out, she said, were items also in that Plan such as making the area more pedestrian friendly and supporting existing businesses. In addition, that plan speaks of making the area a "gateway" between the Central Eastside and Downtown. "This proposal," she said, "is not a gateway."

A member of the Kerns Neighborhood Association returned to the previously-linked Burnside Transportation and Urban Design Plan and the so-called "Burnside/Couch couplet," which speak of traffic calming and making the area more pedestrian friendly. "People don't walk to Home Depot or a 'big box' store," she said, arguing that this concept "will bring in major new auto traffic," and is "completely contrary to the Burnside/Couch plan."

A member of the board of Southeast Uplift suggesting "[using] this as an opportunity to do something creative and innovative."

A member of the local skateboard community pointed out that due south of Block 67 is the "world famous Burnside Skatepark," which has been around for more than a decade, and has been a good neighbor. "Due to our history in the neighborhood," he said, "we expect to have a seat at the table.

To make an editorial comment, we should say that we adore the fact that the skateboard community was represented during the public comment period at this meeting. Not being tuned into such things, it never occurred to us that the Burnside Skatepark was right there, and it's reassuring that they made sure to show up for this.

Another Buckman resident said: "I don't think the guy from PDC understands what living on the Eastside is all about."

A "recent immigrant" from Oklahoma City -- "Where Home Depot," he said, "has had their deepest dreams realized." -- offered some context regarding "big box" retail. For example, within the City limits of Oklahoma City, there are thirty-two Wal-Mart locations. He argued that local businesses are wiped out, and in addition to the inevitable traffic problems in and of themselves, such stores bring "big vehicles" -- and, in fact, parking needs are significant for Home Depot locations precisely because the vehicles needed to haul products away are, well, not small. He also asserted that Home Depot is "very strongly anti-union." He concluded by saying that if people wanted to get political about it, the compan gave $1.5 million to George W. Bush.

One of the founders of Hippo Hardware first explained that they are impacted by existing Home Depot locations in a positive way -- in that they "make it a point to not carry anything they do," which means customers need to come to Hippo Hardware to get certain items. "I'm not opposed to 'big box' stores," he said. But he would prefer something like a Costco. "A Costco," he said, "at least supports small business" -- in that small businesses need to buy things in bulk. "This will be fought like a McDonald's on Division," he said, "like a porno shop on Capitol Highway." He said this project would cause a "black eye to PDC."

Another resident of the Buckman neighborhood wondered why PDC was able to talk about the concept now when they had previously said they couldn't because negotiations were underway.

Another person in attendance asked what the steps were following the three analyses that will be conducted, and said it was "important to come up with Plan Bs."

Someone from a local automotive business asked just when some portion of MLK was going to be expanded to six lanes, and what would happen to existing businesses along that part of MLK?

(We're not sure if it was at this point -- we believe so -- but it was explained that the only expansion of MLK was along a sliver of the east side of Block 76, to allow for turning lanes onto Burnside. Therefore, no existing businesses would actually be affected by the expansion.)

An interior designer asked about the alternative benefits of "diffusing public money throughout the district" rather than focusing on a large-scale project such as this one.

The man behind SavePortland argued that regardless of the funding sources for the development itself, tax dollars would be involved because of the need to provide City services to the property.

"There's always another shoe to drop," warned the co-founder of Hippo Hardware.

Another person in attendance asked about the impact on shelters and other social services that exist along this corridor. There was a brief and confusing intra-audience debate over just what was located in the area.

Still another said: "My understanding is that this is not a done deal."

Someone from a "brand imaging firm" asked: "Had the identity of the distreict been considered at all?" He seemed to be arguing that any redevelopment should necessarily build upon the identity the district has already developed for itself.

Another person asked why PDC isn't talking to (for example) Parr Lumber, or any other company whose headquarters is here in Portland.

Finally, someone asked about whether there's been "any thought to public space to compensate for the traffic."

URAC Discussion

There was some brief final discussion by memebrs of the Committee. We didn't capture it all because little new was raised during this period. But one member did ask whether the pubic process matters, and whether in fact a deal had already been reached.

"There is no deal reached," said Bowers, "with Home Depot or any other retailer or developer."

The only remaining question we recorded, asked how invested is PDC in making sure some larger project happens. "Will you back up and just use Block 75 and 76?" It's not in our notes, but we're fairly certain that PDC reiterated their earlier response, in which they stated that they currently only have an option on the other three blocks required for this concept -- meaning that, in theory, a smaller project is still a possibility.

Presumably, any further information out of PDC will be posted to their Central Eastside Urban Renewal Area page. For another look at Thursday's meeting, see this item from Portland Indymedia.

Posted at 09:54 PM | PermalinkComments (7) | TrackBacks (0)
More In Burnside Bridgehead, Design & Development

« Previous Next »