The City of Portland gets it. What a great -- and a steadily getting better -- American city. I remember being at a conference some years ago in Portland. A friend of mine, Les Hall from Oklahoma, brought his wife along to the conference since neither of them had been in Portland before. While Les spent the first day at conference sessions, his wife wandered the streets of Portland. When they met back at the hotel that evening, Les' wife said to him, "I've found myself a new job." To which Les replied, "Really, what is it?" And she said, "I don't know yet, but it's going to be in Portland, Oregon." Who wouldn't want to live here?

I was in Portland on behalf of the Architectural Heritage Center. This is a remarkable organization run since its inception by Cathy Galbraith. The AHC is an outgrowth of the Bosco Milligan Foundation. The foundation owns the collection of architectural treasures salvaged by Jerry Bosco and Ben Milligan over 25 years when too much of Portland's built heritage was lost to the wrecking ball. Much of this collection is now on display and accessible to the public at the historic West Block in downtown Portland.

Portland is known worldwide for its growth management policies and progressive planning practices, of course. But what Portland does better than any other American city is its public transit. It's dependable, easy to use, simple to understand, clean, quiet, safe, available in all parts of the city, and expanding. And the streetcar system is a particular treasure.

A very high quality development is taking place in what is known as the South Waterfront. This is 136 acres for reclaimed industrial land. Ultimately 20 high rises will be built, but a half dozen are there already. All are high quality, well designed (and no doubt expensive). But Portland developers are building the first landmark neighborhood of the 21st Century.

At the other end of the spectrum is 23rd Street. It was probably 20 years ago when I was first on 23rd, and it's emergence as a cool shopping/dining street had just begun. But it has certainly maintained that character. The vast majority of the shops are small, independently owned, and funky. The area is vibrant and while most of the people on the street are young, there was a wide chronological diversity. Don't go to Portland without visiting (and eating on) 23th Street.

Another high point of the Portland trip was catching up with a long time friend, Ruth Scott. Ruth started the Oregon Downtown Development Association over twenty years ago. She later ran the Association for Portland Progress the downtown advocacy and management organization. For the last nine years she's been the president of the Innovation Partnership. This organization is what Ruth calls a "think tank and do tank" bringing together community and political leaders to address Oregon's persistent problems. The Innovation Partnership leaves the easy issues to others; they only take on the tough ones. Every city should have the likes of an Innovation Partnership and a Ruth Scott.

My host in Seattle was Historic Seattle, Inc. This is an unusual organization, in that it is in part a membership based non-profit organization (like most preservation groups). But it is also part public development authority of the City of Seattle. This second role has allowed them to undertake some wonderful historic real estate development projects over the years. A great recent success story is the redevelopment of the Cadillac Hotel.

But the public event they hosted was at the Good Sheppard Center. The GSC was built in 1906 by the Sisters of the Good Sheppard as a home for "wayward girls." It finally closed in 1973 (although I doubt that it was because there were no more wayward girls by then). After strong neighborhood resistance to turning the 11 acre site into a shopping center, the City of Seattle acquired the property and turned it over to Historic Seattle to redevelop.


Today the Good Sheppard Center is a incredible complex housing a charter school, non profit offices, artists live-work spaces, an experimental garden, and, most recently restored, a wonderful small theater area. This last space is in big demand for musical performances, public lectures, and other events calling for an intimate space with great acoustics.

If for whatever reason you're interested in reading the text of my presentation, Historic Seattle has posted it on their website.

Historic Seattle is now headed by Kathleen Brooker, formerly the executive director of Historic Denver. Kathleen replaced long time Historic Seattle executive director John Chaney. And obviously both John and Kathleen are people who get it.

But I met two more in Seattle. The first is City Council member Sally Clark. Sally chairs the Planning, Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee of the Council. And is Seattle ever lucky that's the case. Here's why she impressed me: 1) she is obviously very smart (and in case you've never noticed that's not always true of elected officials. You don't have to be a Mensa member to be elected to the city council.) 2) She understands what the problems are; 3) She understands that the problems are complex; 4) She doesn't pretend to have all the answers; and 5) She is inclined to evaluate possible answers on a systematic, rational basis.

That might not seem such a great endorsement. But how many of your city council members possess those five characteristics? Damned few I expect.

And the second one who "gets it" is a young woman reporter for the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce. Her name is Shawna Gamache, and she covers architecture, engineering and city government. Now I didn't actually meet Shawna, but we exchanged emails, talked on the phone and I read her blog, SeattleScape. I have occasion to talk to local reporters with some regularity. But it is rarer than you might think that they have both a nuanced understanding of and a passion for the areas that they are assigned to cover. But the sophistication of the questions that Shawna asked, and the commentary in her blog demonstrated to me that she's one of those who get it.

You know it isn't really necessary that everyone in a community "gets it". It's only necessary that there are a few articulate voices who do. And having a city council member and a young reporter is a great place to start.

Labels: adaptive reuse, Seattle

I've always loved Seattle, particularly the grittiness of it. Although the grittiness seems to be disappearing apace. But Seattle has always been at the forefront of trying to address difficult urban issues. They don't always get it right, but unlike many cities, they don't shy away from trying to find solutions (or at least mitigations) to seemingly intractable urban problems.

That means that Seattle is often the laboratory of urban ideas, policies, and approaches. But at the moment I think there's a real need to try to balance a series of legitimate public policy priorities. The Mayor, Greg Nickles, is among the leaders in the US on environmental issues, having lead the US Council of Mayors initiative to commit to meeting the Kyoto Protocol in their cities. Certainly a commendable goal. And Mayor Nickles' primary vehicles to do that are density (writ large, no pun intended) and public transit.

But walking around Seattle neighborhoods, talking to neighborhood activists, developers, preservationists and city officials, here's my observation -- there are unintended consequences to this "density above all" approach that need to be addressed. In Seattle three other important public policy priorities seem to be being sacrificed at the altar of density -- affordable housing, historic preservation, and small business.

Example one. Here's a picture of a 1930s apartment house close to downtown. I don't know exactly, but I'd guess it contained 35 or 40 apartments. I'd also wager that the rents there were on the "affordable" side, relative to much of Seattle, and the proximity to employment centers and public transportation meant one could live there sans automobile. From a preservation perspective it's ok, but certainly not a building I'd go to the mat for on historic preservation grounds alone. But it is now vacant, awaiting demolition and replacement by a 25 story condo building. Density, certainly, but at the expense of both affordable housing and historic preservation. Without knowing the particulars, I'd wager my exorbitant day's pay that the units in the new building will be out of reach for 100% of the residents of the old building. And of course the residents of the new high rise will have cars whether they need them or not, so there will be a 305 car parking garage beneath new the building.

Of course the argument is often made in justification of demolition, "well, that's not what the 'market' wants anymore". Well, in case there's a doubt whether the "market" would live in a building like this? Not three blocks away is the virtual twin of this building with a "no vacancy" sign in front, while every new high rise residential building I saw in the neighborhood had "for rent" signs.

Example two. Earlier (April 30, 2008) I wrote about the differences between neighborhood business districts and shopping centers in neighborhoods, using Boise, Idaho as an example. Well, unlike Boise, Seattle is fortunate in having lots of great neighborhood business districts. These are commercial areas, almost entirely populated by locally owned, independent businesses, serving the convenience needs of the nearby residents. And most of the buildings housing these businesses are one and two story. Like the apartment building above, one might not make the case for saving these buildings solely on a historic preservation basis, but when it's combined with providing relatively affordable space for small business, the case for keeping them in place gets stronger.

But in the push for density, these low scale commercial buildings are decidedly at risk. Now Seattle seems to have pretty good urban design guidelines. Across the street from the building above is this building, that meets many of the tests of a good urban structure -- built to the sidewalk, retail on the ground level, relatively good materials, mixed use, and a good design. And it certainly advances the Mayor's density drive by being six stories rather than one or two. But I can guarantee that none of the locally owned businesses across the street could afford the rents in this new building. And if the modest buildings they now occupy are razed to make room for the next version of this building? They'll be lost to the Seattle economy as small businesses entirely.

Historic preservation in most of America has moved from being an end in itself -- save old buildings in order to save old buidlings -- to being a vehicle for larger, and perhaps even more important ends. These two Seattle examples are great illustrations -- historic buildings providing affordable housing, and affordable space for small business. And the myopic focus on "density" is putting that substantial contribution of historic preservation at risk.

Labels: Density, neighborhoods, small business

This week I was fortunate to be hosted by three great preservation groups in three western cities -- Phoenix, Seattle and Portland. The Phoenix group that organized a luncheon was the Capitol Mall Association. This is an aggressive community development corporation that not only has historic preservation as part of their mission, but also affordable housing and economic development and has programs in English as a second language, financial literacy, crime prevention, and others. Over the last decade CMA has rehabilitated 10 historic homes in their neighborhood and built over two dozen infill houses.

Their credibility is now such that not only did they turn out 150 people to the luncheon at the historic Biltmore but the executive director, Shannon Dubasik, also got the mayor, Phil Gordon, to give introductory remarks. Well, lots of mayors show up and say, "thanks for being here today, I know what you're doing is important, so keep it up and thanks." But this guy really gets it. Gordon, a former real estate lawyer, has been an investor in historic rehabilitation projects himself and was part of drafting the first preservation ordinance in Phoenix long before he began his political career.

His presentation mentioned both historic preservation projects that have been completed and those on the drawing boards. But more important than those individual projects, Mayor Gordon succinctly identified historic preservation in a policy framework. He noted that Phoenix uses heritage buildings in four ways -- historic preservation, economic development, arts and culture, and sustainable development. And all four, says Gordon, are important for the future of his city.

But in Phoenix it isn't just CMA and the mayor who get it. One of the major sponsors of the lunch was the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, LISC. LISC is one of the most valuable non-profit resources in the country. Historically their primary focus has been affordable housing in inner cities. But in recent years LISC has become much more comprehensive in their understanding of what is needed beyond just housing to have great urban neighborhoods. Teresa Brice, the executive director of the Phoenix LISC office, is an example of that. Teresa was a Loeb fellow at Harvard a couple of years ago, an experience that I'm sure further expanded her view of the necessary variables for great neighborhoods -- historic preservation and sustainable development among them. And she was right to point out at the Phoenix luncheon that preservationists need to be more aggressive in presenting the historic preservation/sustainable development link beyond just talking to each other.

And one more who gets it -- Emily Talen, professor at Arizona State University in Tempe. Emily is the co-editor of a great new academic publication -- the Journal of Urbanism. Emily is the smartest of the New Urbanists, but is intellectually independent enough that she doesn't buy whole hog every piece of idiocy that some of the CNU leadership occasionally spout. Emily is a scholarly academic urbanist, but one who also understands the role of historic preservation in making great cities and the critical role of sustainable development in cities today.

Later this week, Seattle and Portland.

Sustainable development is critical for the future of the planet. So called green buildings are an important part of a comprehensive sustainable development strategy. An important part, but not the whole thing. Far, far too many environmentalists and "green architects" in the US think that green buildings and sustainable development are synonyms and they are not. That is equivilent to thinking that going to the dentist is all there is to health care.

Here is my latest example of myopic idiocy of environmental groups. The Nature Conservancy, allegedly a leader in the environmental world (in spite of the Congressional investigations into their conflict of interest policies) is building a new state headquarters in Indianapolis. Their director even says, "We're an international conservation organization. If anyone should be walking the walk of sustainability it should be The Nature Conservancy."

I couldn't agree more. So what is their version of "walking the walk?" - tearing down a hundred year old industrial warehouse to build a LEED certified suburbanesque green gizmo building. Why? "Oh, it's deteriorated beyond saving" they say, when in fact engineering reports say that is not the case. "Oh, but it would be too expensive" they say, and yet their budget would permit $175 per square foot to be spent. Is that enough? Well, another non-profit is renovating an older building of about the same size in Indianapolis which will be LEED certified, and their estimated costs? $68 per square foot.

OK, I'm not being exactly fair. The Nature Conservancy is going to be reusing the building - once it's demolished they are going to grind up the bricks and use them in the walkway of their "conservation" garden. And when local preservationists began objecting to the plans to demolish an historic structure, how did the Nature Conservancy respond? "You do that and we won't build here at all." - the bully tactics one expects from some sleazy corporate site selection guy, not from a non-profit organization which brags about its concern for communities.

So if any of you have connections with the Nature Conservancy you ought to let them know that their Indiana chapter is making a mockery out of the claim to be walking the walk of sustainable development.

Labels: green buildings, Sustainable Develoment

I learn from my clients -- or sometimes their assignment forces me to learn for myself. This was recently the case in a trip to Boise, Idaho. I was invited by Terri Schorzman of COMPASS -- the Community Planning Association of Southeast Idaho. Terri had invited me to make a presentation on property rights as part of a speaker series COMPASS is hosting.

But since she was stuck paying for a day's worth of my time, Terri contacted Katina Dutton, the development manager for Boise's Capital City Development Corporation for how else I might spend my time. It turns out that the City of Boise and CCDC have been looking at strategies to enhance and revitalize 5 or 6 shopping centers located within Boise's residential neighborhoods.

Well, over the years I've worked in a number of neighborhood business districts around the country including Philadelphia, Chicago, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Albuquerque, Baltimore and elsewhere, so at first I thought, "No problem". But then during my pre-visit discussions with Terri and Katina I realized that what they were describing in Boise were not really neighborhood business districts at all, but rather shopping centers that are located in neighborhoods. So I spent the weekend pondering what the differences between the two are. And here, for what it's worth, is my list.

Neighborhood Business Districts (NBDs) usually have multiple building owners

Neighborhood Shopping Centers (NSCs) are usually a single owner

NBDs are pedestrian oriented

NSCs are automobile oriented

NBDs are predominately locally owned businesses

NSCs are predominately chain businesses (at least until they begin to decline)

NBDs are integrated with the residential neighborhood

NSCs are isolated

NBDs are usually part of the urban grid

NSCs bear no relationship to the gird

NBDs include buildings that have been constructed over time

NSCs are built all at once

NBDs are often two and three story buildings

NSCs are nearly always one story buildings

NBDs often have functions beyond merely retail

NSCs are usually exclusively retail (until the center is declining, in which case the owner will take whomever comes along)

NBDs usually have only on street parking but lots of means of pedestrian access

NSCs have lots of asphalt parking but little convenient pedestrian access

The orientation of businesses in NBDs is external and on both sides of the street

The orientation of businesses in NSCs is either internal or on only one side

NBDs have an intense use of land

NSCs have an excess of land

NBDs can have a sense of community ownership, regardless of who the deed holders are

NSCs are seen as simply an investment of some Real Estate Investment Trust

The strategy for declining NBDs is revitalization

The straetgy for declining NSCs is redevelopment

By its very nature, revitalization of NBDs is incremental

Redevelopment efforts of NSCs are often massive and comprehensive

Revitalization efforts in NBDs are usually private sector led and public sector supported

Redevelopment of NSCs is usually public sector led and private sector implemented

Obviously there are exceptions to the above in both Neighborhood Business Districts and Neighborhood Shopping Centers, but I think most of the charactertistics apply to most of the situations.

But what I learned from having to think this through for Boise is this -- When confronted with declining Neighborhood Shopping Centers the strategy ought to be, "How can we make this a Neighborhood Business District instead?" Perhaps the list of distinctions above can be the starting point.

Post Script: One great approach Boise is taking is putting branch libraries in these neighborhood shopping centers -- a great first step in converting them to neighborhood business districts.

Labels: neighborhood business districts, neighborhood shopping centers

I often tell clients, students and audiences that I have the best job in the world -- and that is no exaggeration. Every year I get to visit a hundred or so communities throughout the United States, and in recent years a dozen or so countries.

And here's what I do -- I go in, pretend I know what I'm talking about, and leave. No responsibility, no implementation, no follow through. Who could have a better job than that? And that's probably just as well, because I really don't have many skills. But I do have one -- I'm a very good note taker. I see what people are trying to do, what seems to work, what doesn't, and from those notes I make lists. That's what I really am -- a list maker.

But I've recently realized that I'm being a bit selfish with what I'm learning, that there ought to be a way to more widely distribute these great lessons. A blog may be it. So I'll give it a shot. While my clients pay me to come to their community, I nearly always learn more from them than they from me. And so I hope to translate what's being done in downtown revitalization, historic preservation, and economic development in any given community to a larger context. That will probably be in the form of lists.

So read, comment, refute, or add as you see fit. I know there are lots of lessons being learned in places I don't get to visit first hand, so I'd love to hear them.

Thanks for reading, and thanks in advance for any ideas you throw my way.

rypkema