August 10, 2004

Policy And Politics In Planning And Development

On The Bureau Of Planning And Portland Development Commission

Today's Portland Tribune has a look at plans for the Lloyd Center area, which contains an interesting glimpse at the identity tensions between the Portland Development Commission and the Bureau of Planning:

The agency's aggressive method of defining a master plan for the Northeast neighborhood, however, has riled some members of the city's Planning Bureau.

Traditionally, city bureau planners are the first to lay down the blueprint for a neighborhood. But over time, the PDC has moved into that role -- because it has the cash to finance projects and move faster on construction projects, observers say.

Since 2002, the agency's staff has defined the future of the Burnside Bridgehead retail-office project at the east end of the Burnside Bridge, the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard corridor, Old Town/Chinatown, Gateway and now the Lloyd District.

The PDC "is seen as more entrepreneurial," said planning consultant Peter Finley Fry, while the planning department tends to get bogged down in massive projects such as River Renaissance.

For what it's worth, PDC's website says that its vision "is to be a catalyst for positive change in the creation of a world-class 21st Century city; a city in which economic prosperity, quality housing and employment opportunities are available to all" and that its mission "is to bring together resources to achieve Portland's vision of a diverse, sustainable community with healthy neighborhoods, a vibrant urban core, a strong regional economy and quality jobs for all citizens."

Meanwhile, the Bureau of Planning's website saus that it "plan[s] for neighborhood livavility and centreal city vitality," "smart development and to prevent urban sprawl," and "works alongside citizens to create the long range goals, plans, and strategies that guide Portland’s future."

It was something of a synchonicity to find this article in the Tribune today because we happen to be reading Chaprer 8 of Carl Abbott's Portland: Planning, Politics, And Growth in a Twentieth-Century City. While the ins and outs of the ways in which the Planning Commission (which now serves "under" the Bureau of Planning) has been used and abused over the course of its existence is a thread running through the entire book, this particular chapter happens to describe the period in which PDC was created under Mayor Terry Schrunk in 1958.

In redeveloping the fringe of downtown Portland, the Development Commission pointedly ignored other planning entities. The Housing Authority expected land for public housing projects within urban renewal project areas in return for providing the start-up funds. Throughout the 1960s, in fact, the Housing Authority, in the words of its longtime chairman, Fred Rosenbaum, "didn't get the time of day" from the PDC. In 1958, the Planning Commission had urged without success that the ordinance establishing the PDC explicitly require Planning Commission review of its actions. Three years later, a memo from Schrunk that designated the Planning Commission as the coordinating agency for all development and renewal projects had just as little influence on the Keller-Kenward operation. Schrunk also appointed a committee to coordinate the preparation of the workable plan for urban redevelopment required by federal regulations; he included representatives from HAP, PDC, and the Planning Commission staff and named his executive assistant Frank Ivancie as chairman. There is little evidence, however, that the committee had any influence on PDC policy either before of after it was formalized by ordinance in 1963.

The Planning Commission was lefdt as a service agency to administer subdivision regulations and the new zoning code that finally passed the city council in 1959. After Lloyd Keefe resigned as planning director in the same year to head Downtown Portland, Incorporated, his successor quickly recognized the political and organizational weaknesses of the Planning Commission and its professional staff. In his annual report in September, 1960, Charles Woodward pointed out that using the name did not transform a set of separate reports and a map into a comprehensive plan. He complained that the Planning Commission's subordination to [city commissioner] William Bowes blocked its direct access to other members of the city council. Bowes opened the mail coming to the Planning Commission, read outgoing correspondence, and jealously monitored even casual conversations between planners and other city commissioners. At the same time, the city council as a whole provided little policy guidance.

Returning to the Tribune article, we find this sentence leading off a section whose heading indicates a problem with clarity as far as the roles of PDC and the Bureau of Planning: "From the community’s perspective, the two agencies’ efforts sometimes create questions about who is in charge of the planning and of setting city planning policy."

Sounds familiar. We'll leave it to thhe reader to click through to the Tribune article and look for any other similarities or parallels.

But meanwhile, and finally, there is a brief bit about PDC and the Bureau of Planning at the tail end of a Randy Gragg article on Tom Potter in today's Oregonian, which says of the Mayoral candidate that "he would keep both the commission and the Bureau of Planning in the mayor's portfolio," and quotes Potter himself as saying, "I want to shift the focus from bricks and mortar to people."

For whatever it's worth, Mayor Vera Katz in fact does have both entities in her portfolio.

Posted at 01:32 PM | PermalinkComments (5) | TrackBacks (0)
More In Design & Development, History

« Previous Next »