January 23, 2005

Public Workshop Generates Clear Priorities For Burnside Bridgehead

Deadline On Developer Selection Appears Headed For Extension

As the afternoon moved dangerously close to 2:00 PM, a series of meeting rooms at the Oregon Convention Center had drawn only a couple handfuls of people. We overheard one Portland Development Commission staffer remark that it looked like they'd have far too many facilitators. Given the public interest in the matter at hand, the nearly-empty room did seem entirely inconsistent.

Such was the early scene at the Burnside Bridgehead public workshop held Saturday afternoon. But with Portland being the sometimes lugubrious place that it is, there was, in the end, little cause for concern. By the time the workshop had the chance to get underway, all but two or three of the many tables arranged around the rooms for participants were full.

Of all the public process engaged in so far as part of the Burnside Bridgehead project, Saturday's workshop may be the most emblematic and could be the pivotal test in whether or not PDC is going to let public priorities more commonly guide public policy.

Unlike previous meetings on the Burnside Bridgehead project, this was the first opportunity for the public to directly confront PDC commissioners with opinions (what the facilitators described as "hopes and concerns") on the development. With a format designed to generate small discussions which would then be reported to the entire group, the four current PDC commissioners circulating from table to table along the way, there can be little doubt now, if there still was any in recent weeks, that the leadership of PDC is very aware of what the public has to say.

"This for us is a very, very important time," said PDC Chair Matt Hennessee during the preliminaries, who said that the public outcry over big box retail at the site had sent a clear signal that the public viewed PDC as moving too quickly.

"That's right, and we'll keep moving," he at first joked. "No, no," he quickly added. "We'll slow down and listen to you."

Before the session got underway, there were a number of announcements regarding the current timeline leading towards a decision on the Burnside Bridgehead.

First, the regularly-scheduled February 9 meeting of PDC, at which public comment on the Bridgehead project will be taken, has been moved from PDC's own building to OMSI in order to better accomodate the large crowds the issue has tended to draw. "We have a large room, and we are on the Eastside," said PDC Commissioner Janice Wilson.

Second, the February 23 meeting of PDC, currently listed as the day on which the Commission will select a developer, is also undergoing some changes. If the Commission is not ready to make their decision, the developer selection likely will be pushed back into the month of March. If the Commission is ready to make the decision, the time of the meeting likely will be changed from the normal hour of 8:00 AM to a time "more conducive" to public attendance.

What's the early word on whether or not the decision will be pushed into March? Well, at the conclusion of the workshop, Hennessee gave an indication falling just short of definitive that the developer selection indeed will be delayed in order to accomodate the results of public input so far, and any further need for public involvement in the stages that remain.

Eavesdropping On Table Discussions

When the small group discussions got underway (after a rather length and entirely uninteresting set of warm-up exercises which made the entire endeavor seem like some sort of mass Alcoholics Anonymous meeting), we lurked and hovered around the room, stopping at various tables to eavesdrop.

What follows are the bits and pieces we overheard as we wandered, and as such as merely samples of the full width and breadth of the discussions. Each table later distilled their "hopes and concerns" into lists of three each, which were reported to the entire room.

• Table 16 was discussing the importance of public space, having the site be a "nucleus" for development in the district, a catalyst which included intregration of transportation needs and functioned as an incubator for small businesses.
• Table 3 was discussing the need for the development to match the vision and goals of the Central Eastside Industrial Council, the need to generate employment, being a catalyst for development, and the question of inner-city vitality.
• Table 5 was discussing the need for the project to have a positive impact on jobs in the Central Eastside, a desire for remarkable architecture, and the development's role as a gateway.
• Table 7 was discussing the Burnside Skatepark.
• Table 8 was discussing the vision of the development jumpstarting activity in the area, and the need to attract enough people and enough money for it support itself.
• Table 9 was discussing flexible and sustainable space, a mixture of uses, increasing employment, and reflecting the industrial nature of the district.
• Table 10 was discussing the need for low-income and family-based housing.
• Table 16 was discussing the idea of the development being on that's in use twenty-four hours a day.
• Table 2 was discussing an emphasis on the local and the arts, the importance of safety, and the nature of a development that is appropriate to the context of the neighborhood.

Reports To The Group

Those discussions ultimately led to each table composing lists of their top three hopes and top three concerns regarding the Burnside Bridgehead development. While this is what was being reported back to the group as a whole, PDC made clear that all material generated by each table during the course of their discussions would be collected and taken into consideration as well.

Table 1:

• Hoped for job creation; an end product the district and the City would be proud of; and aesthetic consistency with the neighborhood.
• Concerned about the possible displacement of existing businesses; traffic impacts; and the amount of public subsidy.

Table 2:

• Hoped for a focus on the local economy; responsiveness to local needs; and a sense of place and connectivity.
• Concerned about the use of public subsidy; whether or not the uses would match local demands and needs; and the risk of gentrification and altering the current demographics.

Table 3:

• Hoped for public involvement in the process; jobs that benefit the community; and a development which reflects the City's vitality.
• Concerned about the financial feasibility; fitting into the community; and the possibility of a dead environment at certain times of the day.

Table 4:

• Hoped for a vibrant mixed-use community with multi-model transportation and susbtainable design; a catalyst and incubator for businesses and the neighborhood; and an inspiring design which sets a precedent that is not the Pearl District and honors the neighborhood's history and heritage.
• Concerned about big box retail running the risk of a large vacant space with ugly parking, increased traffic and boring structures; a project that isn't stimulating and is a piece unto itself; and not being part of the Eastside's creative development but instead "too shiny" and too much like the Pearl District.

Table 5:

• Hoped for a focus on the local community, with sustainable and family-wage jobs; a good design that fulfills previous plans for the district and creates a gateway with is worthy of the location; and the inclusion of affordable housing.
• Concerned about proposals which included big box retail to begin with or that might fall back upon including it later; not being unique to Portland or reflecting the Eastside; and becoming too car-oriented.

Table 6:

• Hoped for maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood, and being a part of it by not becoming an island; being financially successful and supporting the local infrastructure; and becoming a place for real people.
• Concerned about traffic congestion; dislocation of people and small businesses; and "confusion about the process the public needs to create opportunity" and the need to not fall back upon a corporate, national culture.

Table 7:

• Hoped for preserving and enhancing local businesses, family-wage jobs, and the skatepark; a design which creates a sense of place that serves as a gateway to the Eastside and enhances public space; a good stewardship of the use of public money; and a project that enhances trust amongst PDC, the public, and developers.
• Concerned about selecting a proposal which is the safest rather than the best; how the public subsidy will or will not be taken into consideration by the evaluation committee; and the view that the public process should have started from the very beginning rather than only at this late stage.

Table 8:

• Hoped for succeeding in catalyzing vitality, with industry on the west and mixed-use on the east; including multi-modal transit and fixing the bottleneck of car traffic; and attractiveness architecturally, built sustainably, and taking full advantage of views.
• Concerned about an increase in traffic, especially cars and congestion; being too upscale like in the Pearl District, rather than being in scale with the neighborhod; and a project that won't fit in, that's too fancy or "too shiny".

Table 9:

• Hoped for making the project environmentally and economically sustainable, with flexible uses which reflect the industrial nature of the Eastside; being financially feasible and enlivening the area for a long time; and serving as a conduit between the east and west sides, with uses that reflect both sides of the river.
• Concerned about being economically viable without "airlifting" big box retail into the site; ensuring longterm flexibility of the space rather than just the needs of particular businesses based on today's standard; possible public disinvolvement if the project is so monolithic it disenchants the community.

Table 10:

• Hoped for a project that is pedestrian and bike friendly; a viable project in terms of both budget and timeline; and one that stimulates the neighborhood and is a good model for working together.
• Concerned about whether the public will continuee to be involved in the process from here on out, since the plans could change dramatically when the developer is selected; that the PDC be held accountable for the project's budget and timeline; and that the project might not be visionary enough for Portland or have a good design.

Table 11:

• Hoped for bringing life and vitality to the district, with a people-friendly and human scale, and with a creative space; an economic stimulus and job creator; and pleasing architecture with design that is good for both east and west and is sustainable.
• Concerned about driving away diversity in the neighborhood; the need for traffic to mesh with the Burnside/Couch plan; and having financial and onwership models which maintain affordability for small-scale retail, housing, and creative spaces.

Table 12:

• Hoped for building upon the craftsman- and artist-oriented nture of the area, extending what is unique to the area; contributing to Portland's unique image with a place that's not found anywhere else; a focus on local business and small business, and the specialty businesses and essential services which define the area; and friendliness to bikes and pedestrians in a place that "stays funky".
• Concerned about creating a "boutique" feel or something too Pear District or too high-end; ending up with a sterile, suburban, corporate environment; vehicular access and parking; and ensuring that no big box retail is included.

Table 16:

• Hoped for architectural and design integrity, respecting the history of the area, and the shapes and looks of "what used to be"; creating a twenty-four hour district, where the housing includes people who do different things and use different services at different times; and an orientation towards local businesses which continues what's been going on in the district.
• Concerned about having a character that's "not too glassy" that doesn't impact negatively upon the history of the area; ensuring that traffic is light and conforms to current uses; issues regarding the costs of living and of doing business; and having the current residents involved in what the new space will look like.

Themes And Pushback

Following the table reports, Hennessee rose to offer a list of what he saw as the themes that appeared to be comon. While he presented this as a "top thirteen" list, the count appeared to falter along the way. Whether or not there were actually thirteen we have no idea, but this is what we managed to catch.

• Day and night life.
• A project that is friendly to the Eastside.
• Designed architecturally friendly, not shiny, and not the Pearl District.
• Diversity of community.
• Affordability.
• Fair and sensitive to local businesses in the area already. Meaning: No big box.
• Friendly to pedestrians and bikes. (Participants called out additions, including dogs, cats, and children.)
• Be sensitive to the issue of the funding gap.
• Make sure you know what you are doing, don't just do it.
• Public involvement.
• Skateboaders as part of the process and not forgotten.
• We want it to be funky. It is about funkiness. (To this, Hennessee said: "When I was thinking about these things, I didn't think that would come up.")

Not to burden this post with too many lists, but after Hennssee presentedhis perception of common themes, participants began tossing out some other items to which they thought it important to draw some attention.

• Keep historic buildings and architecture, and the integrity of that.
• Keep current residents.
• Connectivity to surrounding areas.
• Environmentally friendly.
• Gateway.
• Community gathering place, public market or something that's indoors.
• Job creation.
• Grocery store would be fantastic.
• Educational center.
• Local businesses and alternative transportation.
• Very local, very humanitarian, and not elitist.
• Affordable housing.
• Greenspace, including communtiy garden.
• Small-scale or medium-scale full-service lumber yard.
• PDC should recruit businesses which make area a statewide center for green building and home suppliers.
• Affordable studio space and live/work space for artists and creative enterprises.
• Integrated information services such as wireless.
• True living-wage jobs.
• Incubator, which "they've been doing all over the country and it's about time we catch up".
• Cooperative work spaces, with shared equipment and tools, etc.

At this point, there was some discussion of just where the process would go next, especially given all of the new information, both from the public and from the developers, that has come forward in the past couple weeks.

Michael Whitmore, a member of the committee evaluating the proposals from the three developers who responded to the Request for Proposals, pointed out that many of the ideas offered up in the workshop were not elements of that RFP.

Since the premise of big box retail only recently was (ostensibly) ditched from the project, and since there's no way to know ina dvance how the developers will or will not take all of the recent publicinput into account, how (Whitmore wanted to know) was the evaluation committee expected to make an sort of recommendation?

"How do we go back and look at our process and fit this into it?" Hennessee offered as a restatement of the question. He suggested that part of the reason that members of the development teams -- well, Beam and Opus, at any rate, since Gerding/Edlen was not present -- came to the workshop was in order to hear what the public had to say.

"We're taking this input in [and] we're going to wrestle with it," said Hennessee. "It requires us to sit down again with the developers with this input and find how this information influences what their proposal actually is."

Which prompted from one participant the obvious question: If PDC is going to take all of this new information into consideration, does that mean extending the deadline for selecting a developer?

"We're going to have to," Hennessee said.

Whether prompted by that declaration that the decision would have to be delayed -- which as we said, based on earlier statements, would mean into March -- some participants offered futher suggestions for continued public involvement in the process.

Amongst the ideas were: Continuing the process once a developer was selected, including perhaps something akin to a caucus to help the develoepr tune the design to public priorities; an opportunity to talk to the developers prior to a selection (epecially given all of the new discussion since their original proposals), since there hasn't been a chance to hear what the three developers think of all of the public input so far.

Brad Malsin of Beam Development asked PDC also to push back a Monday deadline by which the developers are supposed to respond to a number of issues, so they have a chance to be "more sensitive to everything we heard today". He also agreed that the public should have a chance to ask questions directly to the developers.

"I agree with what Brad says," a representative of the Opus team concurred. "It makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?"

Final Word

We'll give the final word to one of the workshop participants. After all of the table discussions, reports back to the whole group, and extra feedback, this participant offered this as one example of how far the conversation had come from a kind of stereotypical anti-development attitude.

"Did you notice," he said, "that no one in this room said don't build it?"

Posted at 10:35 PM | PermalinkComments (7) | TrackBacks (0)
More In Burnside Bridgehead, Design & Development, Livability

« Previous Next »