October 01, 2004

Midtown Park Blocks To Become Park Avenue District

Plan For Destruction Replaced By Plan For Connection

We should have had at least a fairly-detailed item on the Draft Park Avenue Urban Design Vision at some point in the past week or so, but it just didn't happen. While we will have a couple of brief comments, in the main, we're just going to provide an extensive list of links to relevant material, coverage, and discussion in as close to chronological order as possible.

Once again, we have a number of pages of notes from Wednesday's session of City Council, at which the initial steps of the plan were put into motion. But we're a little distracted by trying to put the finishing touches on a story of an entirely different variety. Some of our lingering concerns were shared by those who testified -- such as the need for affordable housing as part of any downtown development plans.

But on the whole, especially when compared to the mass-scale, history-demolishing unecessary disaster that was the original plan being pitched for these blocks, this new approach isn't one that deserves dismissal. The over-wrought complaints of Jack Bogdanski that they are daring to do anything at all, and the bizarre fetish that Randy Gragg has for projects only being worthwhile if they are large and dramatic, both seem to miss that what's been crafted is a far subtler, much more subdued attempt simply to build upon the existing strengths of the district, as well as to increase connections between and amongst various parts of the City.

For us, the new design concept suitably passes our "ethic of accessibility" test through which we are trying to filter developments (both political and design) in town -- excepting, of course, the problem with focusing on "market rate" housing with little to no discussion of affordable housing. But in the near-term, the only aspects of the plan immediately on the drawing board, it would seem, are the construction of a new park/plaza on Block 5 and the revitalization of O'Bryant Square. There's time to make sure concerns over housing issues are addressed as the district plan comes together.

That said, only two final remarks. There is a discrepancy between the above-linked design concept and a document distributed earlier this week by the Portland Development Commission when it comes to the potential approaches to O'Bryant Square. In the former, the options presented are either movign the Square one block north, or some sort of building being developed on the north end of the existing Square, effectively reducing the Square's size by fifty percent.

In the PDC document, however, the Square remains where it is, but simply undergoes some revitalization. In a rare exception to their usual responsiveness to us, PDC never got back to us about this discrepency. But without question, we oppose any approach to this district which includes moving O'Bryant Square or halving its size.

(Note: PDC's publications page does not include the document they distributed earlier this week, but only a copy of the Urban Design Vision which also is available at the first link we provided in this item. We have no idea whether or not what PDC had made available in person will ever appear online.)

On the upside -- and very much unlike the previous plan being pimped out by the Park Blocks Foundation -- the new plan also appears to save our much-beloved Virginia Cafe. It may seem a minor point to some, but the destruction of the Virginia Cafe would be a deal-breaker for us on any plan for the Midtown Park Blocks/Park Avenue District.

Posted at 09:31 PM | PermalinkComments (7) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Design & Development, Livability

« Previous Next »

Comments (7)

  1. Coffeetrader on 01 Oct 2004

    This is a project that definitely needs to be done. It has taken years for it to come together. Now they need to just do it.
    Except any ideas about buying up all of these standing businesses and tearing them down to make partks. This is a bad idea.
    The former Goodman block by the tower needs to be developed or place multi-level parking on the block. The Singer Block also needs to be renovated. As well as teh space above the bar in the Park 600 blocks. The following block, part of it needs to come down.
    Goldschmidt and Moyer's pipe dream of an idea making the park blocks into a park was a dream. A very unattainable one.

  2. Jack Bog on 04 Oct 2004

    There are a lot of neighborhoods that need help. Why this one? I can't believe putting cobblestones in front of Rich's Cigar Store is such a priority. It's all about the cronies and their real estate holdings.

  3. Anne Dufay on 04 Oct 2004

    Jack Bog writes >>>There are a lot of neighborhoods that need help. Why this one?

    I think this is a very very good question. I think it gets to the heart of Portland's most overwhelming, over-arching problem right now.

    We can not figure out how to finance anything of significance if we cannot pick the funds off the "funny-money" tree to do so. We can't. We can't. We can't.

    So City Hall plucks the easy fruit, and who can blame them, given they'd probably be run out of town (dare I say "on a rail" hee hee) if they tried to do anything without first assuring us it all "won't cost us anything."

    Or, even worse, in the incentive-sense, when they did try and come up with something creative -- to fix our pitiful pot-holed third-world streets -- and dedicated many hours of Commissioner and Bureau Head time to stumping for it, Salem put the kibosh on it.

    So they stick to the magic-hat stuff. And they've pulled some cool, worthy projects out of that hat, and we can all feel good about those - particularly if we keep our eyes where they’re wanted -- looking only at individual projects, and not at the direction of the city as a whole. For the city is so much more than just the inner core – (and even there we’re putting up more pedestrian than world class architecture), while, city-wide, our infrastructure fails in lock-step with our schools. A bad, bad sign.

    But we citizens are not just pitiful victims in this process. We give "The City" a pass because we're too lazy or busy or something to try and figure out what those "free money" claims really mean, because, lets face it, we want to believe it. And so, in many areas, established neighborhoods crumble - streets rot, kids walk to school in the ditches along streets without sidewalks and we're told, confidentially, this will never change.

    Wanna make the hair on the back of your neck stand up? Read the report PDOT put out, oh at least a year ago now. Read what they say, these loyal, circumspect bureaucrats, about whether we can pay for maintenance to the capitol stock we have now, read what they say about whether, given this "challenge" we should be adding any further capital improvements, any, any at all.

    In the context of who wrote it, I've heard it called a "cry for help".

    (I seem to have digressed just a bit from your question, I'm sorry)... So, I'll stop now, people will start throwing rotten tomatoes if I take this rant much further :-)

  4. Joe Zehnder on 06 Oct 2004

    Thanks for your attention to the Park Avenue Vision. The full report is available on the Bureau of Planning website: http://www.planning.ci.portland.or.us/pdf/ud/parkave_vision_screen_0904.pdf

    Regarding O'Bryant Square, the report describes the next phase of the project as follows:

    "The design of O’Bryant square will be considered as part of the next phase of planning for
    the Park Avenue blocks. In the near term, the city will be designing improvements to the
    square that will be built with funds from the 2002 Park Levy.

    In a longer-term vision, we could consider the design, use and location of O’Bryant Square
    in the context of the development of the blocks around it. This opens up some new
    opportunities to consider the multiple roles of the park:

     as an important part of the central city open space system,
     as an element that links the north and south park blocks,
     as a place-making element that benefits the development of its surrounding blocks and the vitality of Park Avenue."

    The ideas in the report of moving or developing on part of O'Bryant Square are just to provoke thinking about what could be possible in the long run. We guarentee that there will be plenty of chances to critique both near term and longer range plans for the park in the next phase of the project.

  5. Nathan Koren on 09 Oct 2004

    I moved to the "Park District" in July, and confess that I was largely unaware of an proprosed improvements to it. I'm printing out the "Park Avenue Vision" right now, and look forward to studying it thoroughly.

    Having confessed my nearly complete ignorance of the matter, I should mention that I've taken to wandering through O'Bryant square, contemplating what can be done about it. Although there are obvious improvements which need to be made, in terms of giving it a face-lift, I don't believe that these are the either the most urgent or the most effective way of improving the square.

    Public squares tend to work less because of what they are, than because of what they connect. Pioneer Square works spectacularly well because it is bordered by Max stations on two sides and the transit mall on the third. It also doesn't hurt that Pioneer Square is physically a very sociopetal space (while O'Bryant Square is less so), but take the transit elements away and Pioneer Square would be a ghost of what it is now.

    As long as O'Bryant Square isn't treated as "connective tissue," I'm afraid that almost any amount of face-lifting will be lost on it. It seems to me that the most important parts of a revitalization, in order of importance, are:

    1.) Increasing the number of storefronts facing onto the square, which could perhaps be incouraged through tax incentives. This would put more "eyes on the street" and generally improve the social quality of the area.

    2.) Improving Pedestrian access on all four corners of the square (as right now, Washington can be a bit of a nightmare cross).

    3.) Improving the physical infrastructure of the square itself.

    Okay, the PDF has finished printing. Let's see if anyone else is thinking along similar lines.

  6. Chris Smith on 10 Oct 2004

    I'm happy to say that in November, City Club of Portland will be moving into one of those storefronts facing O'Bryant Square. City Club would like to be a partner in revitalizing the square. Any thoughts on how we can help?

  7. The One True b!X on 10 Oct 2004

    For mroe on the City Club's impending move, and its intentions, see our earlier coverage of their new location.

Trackbacks (1)

  1. Affordable Housing Advocates Peddle A Poison Pill To Wealth Development on 02 Oct 2004

    B!x seems hip to discussing Affordable Housing issues. Think from the perspective of a broker that does not want to have a legacy analogous to that of Ken Lay. A simple illustration might be useful. A new subdivision called Big...