In a few threads now, we have had discussions about Portland growing as a city, and wanted to find a mroe central location for some of people's ideas. Was curious what you wantto see happen in Portland, with a real plan towards it. It's easy to say bring baseball here. Provide some details. Publicly financed stadium? Where does the money come from, etc. What area of improvement do you want to see. What areas of town do you want improved? What improvements are most important to you? What is least important to you? What could our local government do to get these changes made? What changes should they make to encourage these developments, improvements, etc. Like less taxes on business, less taxes on people, whatever. Anyone got any ideas? As I somewhat jokingly mentioned in another thread, I'd love to be mayor of Portland. Probably, I would hate it, but the thought of it fascinates me, as I have loved Portland since I moved here, but am always caught wishing stuff could be improved in different areas, as Portland to me seems somewhat stuck in place, almost. So..what are your thoughts, suggestions and so forth. What would you like to see done, and what would it take for me to get your vote? For others(maxiep), what would it take with me as mayor to get you to move, or move back, to Portland?
No offense intended for you or anyone else on here that it might apply to, but given fairly recent history, if you aren't gay, you don't qualify for the job.
In so many ways, Portland is extremely forward looking. Metro is a phenominal idea. So often, you have counties and jurisdictions competing with each other. Coordination is critical. The UGB was a tremendous idea that has allowed more mass transit and better infrastructure at a lower cost. Our population is well educated, our climate temperate, our cultural scene diverse, our quality of life high and our cost of living isn't outrageous. However, with all of our advantages, too often we're too cute by half. Like it or not, metropolitan areas compete for corporate headquarters. We stand on the sidelines and say we're above simple bribery, unless it's for a PC company like Vestas. In 1980, Portland was home to 9 Fortune 500 companies. Today the metro area has one. There are none in Portland proper. It seems whenever there's a merger, we lose--Fred Meyer, Willamette Industries, etc.. Whenever we have to compete with another area (Atlanta and New Orleans) we won't step to the plate. The reason is simple: if you propose a corporate subsidy, you won't get re-elected in Portland. That mindset has to end. For Portland to evolve, it has to start wooing heavy industry. We're going to lose white-collar business on the West Coast to Seattle and San Francisco, so we'll get the scraps. However, we should COMPETE for those scraps. However, we have a terrific port and lots of industrial land. Our proximity to ports in Japan and China should make us an ideal assembly area. It would provide a new and steady job source. As tax base isn't built on what are called "rooftops", meaning residential growth. Municipalities generally lose money on a residential unit. They make it up with a business base. I know we're going after high-tech and bio-tech, but all that does is subsidize Clackamas and Washington Counties. Those firms, when they grow and become successful, don't stay downtown. They move to office parks in the 'burbs. If we're interested in downtown growth, we need to attract banking, trade and other white collar jobs with lots of middle-class jobs. Developing an exchange in Asian commodities imported into the US would be a help. Find a way to build on our apparel business by wooing affiliated firms. And finally, take a tax hit by giving a few corporations subsidies to relocate here. Getting those executive salaries and decision makers here will help tremendously in terms of developing our tax base because they bring on all sorts of ancillary businesses. As for baseball, we had a plan. However Tom Potter and Ted Kulongoski didn't either want to use the State's credit rating or sacrifice the revenue from Video Poker to make it happen. It's a damn shame, too. Baseball would have shown off Portland summers to the entire country. And MLB badly wanted to avoid putting the Expos in DC. Pete Angelos made his money by being a class action lawyer (asbestos). They paid him a pretty penny to give up Washington.
I'd love to see more of a retail/nightlife/restaurant vibe near the river. Get something like bridgeport village on the east bank or something (or I'd prefer the west bank as I usually don't cross the bridge). Baseball team will be ok. Has to be a nice bar/social area to hang at though. Also would love more modern architechture around town. Encourage building new constructions with more modern themes.
I would also get rid of the ban on self-serv gas. Get a sales tax in Oregon while reducing the state income and property tax across the board. Make it also more attractive to set up businesses.
I'm with you on the river idea. Not sure how to do it, but it bothers me that we have a nice river cutting straight through the middle of our city, andthere's really noghting to do on it. I think it'd be cool if Naito went underground from something like the Ross Island bridge to the steel bridge or thereabouts, and had that whole area as a pedestrian area, but since they just re-did Naito recently, I'm guessing that isn't happening. It's kind of depressing, though, to see the area around the river not really in use, when most other cities seem to have something on their waterfronts. I like the park area we have along the river, so it would be difficult to navigate adding more to the area, while not eliminating green area there. The whole inner SE needs to be updated. Place is a dump. Bunch of burnt out building, etc. Kind of how the Pearl used to be a while back. Factories, warehouses, etc. Would be nice to see a push to build that area up a bit. Anyone seen a study of what a local sales tax could bring in revenue wise? Has there been one done on Portland? I'm kind of 50-50 on modern architecture. While it would be cool to have a variety, you run the very real risk of having it look out of style in another decade or two. Someone in the Olympics topic mentioned not wanting an old ugly 60s looking architecture stadium, and having modern architecture could pose that problem. Still, some variety probably wouldn't kill us.
It takes an economic base to have a "cool entertainment area". We should be less focused on entertainment and more focused on industry. We're so far ahead on the livability scale, we don't have to keep focusing on it.
modern architecture is rather timeless if done correctly. You'd want a mix of modern, then weird. The weird would be Unique things really stand out and make a big impact on a city.
KEEP IT WEIRD!!!! CHANGE NOTHING!!!!! SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY AND WEAR GREATFULL DEAD SHIRTS! NO MORE HIGH RISES... PEEEEAAAAAAACCCCCE OUT MAN
I thought this article in yesterday's print edition of the Portland Trib was pretty on-point for this topic. We used to at least be big on ideas, short on execution. Now we're not even big on ideas. We are officially small-time. Where have all the bold ideas gone?
I wish the city would raise the height limits of multi-purpose high rises. The city of Portland is, IMO, using Vancouver as a template. Just look at the vision of South Waterfront
Would never happen. They'd have sixteen city council meetings about it, complete with testimonies from 800 angry downtown condo owners and West Hills residents angry that their views of Mount Hood would be blocked and their property values would go down the tubes. If there's a bold idea in Portland, there is a City Council meeting and 10 or more angry Portlanders ready to scream their heads off in resistance. I appreciate the concept of trying to involve the public in every decision, but there's a reason why we follow a representative form of government in this country. Involving too many people in a single decision cripples the process. Most of us learned that in grade school.
I remember hearing a story about a bunch of hippie Portland NIMBY's protesting the building of the Koin Tower and Wells Fargo Tower. But I can live with a more human like skyline of 25-35 story towers like Vancouver. When you look at the skyline of Vancouver it looks like Hong Kong. A majority of those towers are only 25-floors.
Fez, where did you get that picture from, and the one of the wind tower thing? That south waterfront picture looks pretty sweet. Although I don't know what is going to go into those buildings. The main concern I would have about soemthing like that is, while we develop new areas like that, our downtown starts, or seems to, lose more and more businesses from the storefronts. Always depressing to walk around the downtown of a pretty good sized city, and see that many vacant spots. At the same time, I'm here hoping the SE waterfront area can get developed in a similar fashion as the Pearl. Maybe not with the same groups, stores, etc., but basically rebuilding the area and keeping a lot of the original structures, but just moving in actual tenants. Maybe S Waterfront could become our new financial district, as maxie mentioned needing, and help prop up development elsewhere. Maybe a boos of industry a little further N of Portland?
I forgot.. This happened when the South Waterfront development began. The orig. height limit was 225' and NIMBY's were up in arms about that. Long story short, NIMBY's failed in this attempt as the height limit for SoWa was increased by 100' to 325'.
