Burnside, west of 7th Avenue, within what is now the Central Eastside.13 Originally the area was ...... "PDC Plans Redevelopment for Former Baloney Joe's Site,".
THE CENTRAL EASTSIDE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT CONTESTED VI S ION S OF REVITALIZATION
BY JENNI MINNER PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING MARCH 2000 GENTLY EDITED FOR REPRINTING 2007
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. .4 "PLANNING AS PERSUASIVE STORYTELLING" ................................................................................................. 5
REVITALIZATION OF MATURING INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS ..................................................... 7 REVITALIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS IN OTHER CITIES ................................................................. lO
A PLANNING HISTORY OF THE CENTRAL EASTSIDE ..................................................................14 PERCEPTIONS AND POINTS OF CONTROVERSY ...........................................................................27 LIVE/WORK, WORK/LIVE, AND INDUSTRY VS. INDUSTRIAL USE ........................................................... 27 INDUSTRIAL PARK IN THE CITY ...................................................... ............................................................... 30
LESSONS FOR AND FROM PLANNING ............................................................................................... 32 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................................. 34
3
1-
z
w ..J ...J
w§"'"' ~ U.O..
I
From Portland's Industrial Areas: An Initial Appraisal of Blight and Related Factors -Portland Planning Commission, 1967
4
INTRODUCTION
A group of Harvard students visited Portland in order to conduct a course studio in urban design. One student wrote in their report A Vision for the Central Eastside:
Integrating the Region, Engaging the Willamette: "Portland's reputation for boldness and long-term vision first drew us to the city. I must confess, however, of feeling a little disappointed after our first visit to the site [the Central Eastside Industrial District]. As we crossed the Morrison Bridge from downtown to Central Eastside, the Willamette River seemed to divide not two parts of a city, but two eras and two states of mind. Two hundred acres of Portland's bestlocated land appeared still recovering from history. To be sure, there were healthy and prosperous businesses here, and the studio was encouraged by the general eagerness to act upon this golden opportunity. 1 " The students' document suggested bold steps to achieve revitalization of the district: removal of the segment of the I-5 highway that bisects the district, creation of an urban wetland, introduction of high technology and bio-technology firms to the district, and consolidation of 200' by 200' blocks into superblocks. Like the Harvard document, this paper examines Portland's Central Eastside Industrial District, an area of Southeast Portland that has already received extensive study and multiple planning efforts through the years. Instead of recommending steps to revitalize the district, however, this paper explores the area as a maturing industrial district placed within the particular context of Portland's planning efforts. With a building stock that includes a significant number of buildings dating back to before the turn of the 20th century, the area has been recognized as a "blighted" area in several studies, has been designated an urban renewal district, and has been the site of years of revitalization and economic development efforts. The district contains large areas of land that act as a sanctuary, protecting industrial uses from the negative effects of other land uses, and ensuring that commercial or residential development does not encroach into the industrial district. Through the years there have been varied and often conflicting visions of the district. These visions illustrate perspectives that have been negotiated over the years, coalescing into plans and corresponding implementation efforts. One of the primary issues since the early 1980s has been the appropriateness of the industrial sanctuary designation of large areas of the Central Eastside.
I
p.57. Harvard Graduate School of Design, not dated.
5 This paper is intended to bring about a better understanding of how the stakeholders involved in ongoing planning efforts perceive change in the district, and how those perceptions continue to shape the district's future, especially regarding the industrial sanctuary designation. The paper's purpose is two-fold: 1) to offer an examination of the Central Eastside as a particular type of industrial district, and 2) to discuss perceptions of the future of the district, which may be applied to other industrial districts or to better understand the Central Eastside itself.
"PLANNING AS PERSUASIVE STORYTELLING" Author James A. Throgmorton writes of understanding planning as a "fragmented and heterogeneous mix of stories and storytellers." In his book Planning as Persuasive Storytelling: The Rhetorical Construction of Chicago's Electric Future, he explores the planning of electrical utilities in Chicago through the participation of main "players" that were involved in "the story" of utility planning. He takes particular note of how those players defined the problem of utility planning and the stories that they told in order to persuade particular audiences to take particular actions. By taking note of the rhetoric used in plans and how people spoke about issues, he gives the reader a better understanding of decision making as a negotiation among stakeholders. According to Throgmorton, planners write "persuasive and future-oriented texts that reflect differing or opposing views that can be read and interpreted in diverse and often conflicting ways, and planners achieve persuasiveness by attending to the key principles of fiction writing and reader-response theory." Throgmorton goes on to write about the constitutive aspects of the storytelling, meaning that those that are persuasively telling planning stories are shaping the way that a community is understood and how this can shape "community, character, and culture." "As authors with membership in an interpretive community, planners actively construct the flow of their future-oriented narratives. 2 " Newspaper articles, plans and studies provided a set of persuasive texts that were analyzed to understand revitalization efforts in the Central Eastside throughout the district's history. Particular attention was taken in noting who wrote each text and how the story of the area as an industrial district is told. Interviews with City of Portland Planning Bureau staff, Portland Development Commission staff, and members of the Central Eastside Industrial Council were conducted to develop a more thorough understanding of planning and revitalization efforts in the Central Eastside. It may seem odd to introduce yet another story to explain the process of change in an industrial district that has been repeatedly studied and has multiple plans. This paper is one more document that seeks to present a vision of the Central Eastside. It is hoped, however that this paper can be self-conscious in its attempt to reveal some of the subtext within plans, newspaper articles, and among those that are involved in affecting change 2
p. 53. Throgmorton, 1996.
6
within the district. This paper examines the rhetoric of change in order to build a greater understanding of the district. This understanding may be useful for application to maturing industrial districts in other cities. It may also be useful for developing future policies within the Central Eastside Industrial District. This paper is also intended to contribute to a broader discussion of the process and the discipline of planning. The paper will first provide an introduction to the concept of planning as a process of persuasive storytelling. Planning efforts in the Central Eastside Industrial District will be presented throughout the paper with this conceptual framework. The next section will focus on the revitalization of industrial districts and the various approaches to economic development and planning of these particular urban forms. The section will include case studies of revitalization efforts in other cities to provide a context for comparing revitalization in the Central Eastside. In the third section of this paper, a history of planning in the Central Eastside Industrial District will include a discussion of various plans and studies of the industrial district throughout the years. The fourth section, "Perceptions and Points of Controversy" further analyzes differences in how stakeholders perceive the Central Eastside and how they present solutions to their perceptions of problems and priorities. The last section presents conclusions to the paper.
7
REVITALIZATION OF MATURING INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
For the purposes of this paper, the term "revitalization" is used in a general sense to refer to the intentional efforts at improving an area. The term revitalization has many connotations, depending on the speaker and their perspective. It can refer to the economic development of an area through increased profits of businesses or an increase in the number of businesses. Revitalization can refer to the expansion of employment opportunities. It can mean improvements to the quality of life of residents and employees in the district through better designed streets and supporting services. In several of the plans and studies of the Central Eastside, the term is left open to the interpretation of the reader and for later negotiation. The phrase "maturing industrial district" is used in this paper to describe a district with smaller blocks, older buildings, which has evolved from the earlier patterns of industrial districts dating from around the turn of the 20th century. Many of these districts were formed in the earliest decades of cities' history, when many industrial uses were dependent on waterborne transportation. For this reason, the Central Eastside is located along the banks of the Willamette River, and other districts like it are located around other bodies of water. Another unique attribute of these maturing industrial districts is that they are often located close to central business districts. This means that they can both serve the needs of downtown areas, but are also subject to the effects of gentrification or the expansion of office development from the downtown core. It should be noted that industrial parks are an urban form distinct from that of the
industrial district. Industrial parks are much newer and were generally seen by planners and economic development specialists as a strategy for encouraging economic development during the 1960s and 1970s (Grant, 1996). The reference to parks in the term "industrial park" alludes to the origin of these industrial areas on greenfield land. Industrial parks reflected the lower land costs of the suburban in comparison to inner city land, the greater flexibility of larger parcels, and the ability to bui~d office space to suit on greenfield land. The cycle of abandonment, decay, and blight are a part of the history of U.S. cities, and have occurred for various reasons. Some cities experience population growth or economic conditions change, and their industrial districts are met with speculative pressures to convert old warehouses into lofts. Other industrial districts contain industrial properties that have gone years without investment, negatively impacting properties that have received investment and are fully functional as industrial properties. Other industrial districts often contain multistory buildings that certain types of firms find insufficient to fulfill their needs. Environmental pollution may also limit the redevelopment potential of certain industrial properties, leaving large tracts of land abandoned and entire industrial districts underutilized.
8 The blight of some maturing industrial districts is associated with the relocation of industries farther from the central business district. "Since World War II, industrial activity within U.S. cities has become increasingly decentralized ... "3 Cadwallader attributes this trend to the unattractiveness of central cities to some types of industrial firms. Firms chose not to locate in the central city or move from it due to aging or obsolete buildings and infrastructure, higher land costs, traffic congestion, or gentrification and conflict associated with the introduction of other land uses in the area. Peripheral locations offered cheaper land, space for horizontal building structures, and greater accessibility to freeways. Policy regarding revitalization or redevelopment of maturing industrial districts is important within the context of Portland and Oregon's statewide planning program. Within the state of Oregon, urban growth boundaries are drawn around cities and around the Portland metropolitan region in order to preserve farm and forest land. Most recently, there have been questions raised as to whether there is an adequate supply of industrial land in the region. This resulted in the Industrial Lands Study. This study concluded that within Multnomah County there is a need to discover strategies to ensure that constrained industrial lands are ready for new businesses and expansions. The revitalization of maturing industrial districts, if successful, may serve the region by continuing to provide viable locations for industry. One of Metro's goals through the 2040 framework and functional plans is to establish a jobs/housing balance so that people have the ability to live near to their work. The Central Eastside, like many other inner city industrial districts, is located close to transit, in a prime location for employees that need it. Inner city industrial districts may also provide valuable employment opportunities to inner city neighborhoods. An industrial district within the central city allows industrial firms to participate in a more compact urban form. The Central Eastside Industrial District provides a location for some industrial firms that is an alternative to suburban locations. There are a multitude of strategies that may be used for revitalization and economic development in maturing industrial districts. Each strategy involves a certain amount of local government involvement, and strategies can range from market-based approaches to those that rely heavily upon government investment or subsidies. Strategies can vary according to whether they are people or place-based strategies, sometimes combining the two strategies. Strategies that promote the creation of new jobs in an area for the benefit of residents may be defined as people-based approaches, but may also spur reinvestment in a district's buildings and infrastructure. Revitalization of industrial districts may be funded through tax increment financing associated with an urban renewal designation. This approach is currently being used in the Central Eastside Industrial District. Tax increment financing allows a city, through a 3
p. 160. Cadwallader, 1996.
9
development agency, to finance improvements in transportation, sewer, water or other types of infrastructure. The development agency may provide loans to business owners for building improvements, obtain properties for business creation or expansion, or finance public improvements that enhance private business development. In tax increment financing, increases in property values above the assessed values at the time of urban renewal designation are used to pay for improvements within the urban renewal district. In this way, property tax revenue is reinvested within the community for revitalization and economic development. Another approach to revitalization may be the protection of land through land use regulations, in order to control real estate speculation. This is another implementation tool that has been applied to the Central Eastside in the form of industrial sanctuary designation. This is a Portland Comprehensive Plan designation implemented through zoning, which limits uses to those that are industrial. Some residential and commercial development may be allowed, but they are strictly limited and subject to conditional use review. Often there are "brownfield" sites in older industrial districts. Brownfields are defined by the Environmental Protection Agency as abandoned, idled, or underutilized industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. Local governments can participate in clean up and redevelopment of these sites, areas that may otherwise be ignored by the private sector. While the Portland Development Commission is in the process of assembling land for redevelopment, there is not yet information about whether these parcels contain significant pollution. There are no superfund sites located in the Central Eastside. However, the Environmental Protection Agency monitors several businesses in the area. 4 Workforce development is an example of a people-oriented strategy for revitalization and economic development. If the problems of an area are perceived as related to a need for additional educational opportunities for the local workforce, educational and job-training programs can be implemented through local colleges or nonprofit organizations. Within the Central Eastside there are vocational programs at a branch of the Portland · Community College that are related to industrial jobs in the district. The Central Eastside Industrial Council, the official business association in the area has continued to look for opportunities with educational institutions both inside the district and outside of the district, and is currently interested in building more ties to Portland State University, on the other side of the Willamette River.
4
According to the EPA's Envirofacts Warehouse, a geographical information system application available on-line. Data was queried based on zip code and a map of the area. There may be limitations to this data source and further research may be required to verify whether there have been any super fund listings not available in this database.
10 The approaches to revitalization mentioned above are but a few examples. There are many other strategies for bringing investment into a maturing industrial district or for enhancing an area. The strategies that are chosen are based on how the problems of an area are perceived. The next section focuses on place-based revitalization in other cities, with an emphasis towards reuse of buildings or properties that are outdated. REVITALIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS IN OTHER CITIES The efforts at revitalization of maturing industrial districts that seem to get the most media attention are efforts at adaptive reuse, in which warehouses or other industrial facilities are assigned new uses. From Toronto to London to Portland, there are many examples of individual industrial buildings to entire districts redeveloped for uses other than industrial. The redevelopment of two older industrial areas in Toronto, called the "Kings", has been touted as the reinvention of planning in Canada (Greenberg and Lewinberg, 1996). KingParliament and King-Spadina are two inner-city industrial districts located along Toronto's waterfront. Combined, the two districts comprise an area of approximately 500 acres. Previous zoning and development regulations have kept these areas reserved for industrial development. The Kings area has generally been described as depressed, with aging buildings thathave not experienced reinvestment for quite some time. Even with strict regulations to limit uses to those that are industrial, an illegal housing market began to appear in the area and entertainment establishments such as bars and lounges were allowed to locate there as they were deemed too loud for other areas. Since then, the areas have been renamed reinvestment areas, and uses that were once forbidden have been embraced. Mixed uses are now encouraged, including housing and office development. There are some regulations that ensure that the form and scale of new development and redevelopment fits in with the character of the district. These regulations are in the form of height restrictions and building envelope rules. The regulations are meant to ensure that buildings have a ground-level connection to the sidewalk and to allow daylight to the street. The South of Market district in the inner core area of San Francisco is another example of the retrofitting of older industrial areas for newer uses. In the case of South of Market (SoMa), the district has become known for its multimedia firms. These firms range from publishing to computer to entertainment and telecommunications industries. Along with these new technology industries have come supporting upscale housing, retail, and entertainment developments that cater to employees in the district.
11 Near to the SoMa district, the Mission Bay district has also been called the next 11 real estate hotbed. 115 The area, once called a 11 marshy former railyard and warehouse wasteland," 6 had been slated for redevelopment since the 1970s. After earlier development proposals did not materialize, a $4 billion dollar project was approved in 1997 by the regents of the University of California to relocate the University of California life sciences campus to Mission Bay. The San Francisco redevelopment agency donated 13 acres of land to the project and another 30 acres was contributed by the primary landowner in the area, the Catellus Development Corporation, which is also the developer for the commercial part of the project. The area will include a mix of uses, including moderate to market-rate apartments, condominiums, retail and office space, as well as biotechnology research facilities. It is hoped that this project will not only use an underutilized area of the city, but will spur the development of additional high paying biotechnology jobs in the area. In Chicago, CityFront Center is a new development that is beginning to take shape in a former industrial district. Like the reuse of former industrial areas in the Mission Bay and South of Market districts, warehouses will be reused for hotel, retail, office, and residential uses. At the forefront of revitalization efforts is the redevelopment of a former furniture exhibition and distribution building, recently readapted to house retail and commercial spaces. The building was redeveloped by the Broadacre Development Corporation, which will capitalize on the building's waterfront location and historic character. A 16-story apartment building with 505 apartments is also under construction, and additional development is anticipated in conjunction with the new developments. Not all revitalization projects involve the conversion of inner-city industrial districts into land for other uses. According to an Urban Land Institute panel discussion/ there are often low vacancies and high rents in industrial areas, meaning that new industrial projects can be feasible. Some industrial firms are willing to pay higher-rents for proximity to central business districts and transportation systems that can improve access to firms for both employees and customers. Revitalization projects for industrial uses can mean either the construction of new facilities or the reuse of older facilities. Older industrial districts may have multi-story buildings that can be used by start-up businesses or by industries that are specializing in smaller more specialized warehousing and distribution. 8 The University Park Commons
5
6
7
8
Ho, Cathy Lang, 1998. Ho, Cathy Lang, 1998. Building Design and Construction, 1990. Building Design and Construction, 1990.
12 project in Memphis, Tennessee is an example of redevelopment for industrial uses. 9 A nine-acre collection of industrial buildings built during the 1930s will be redeveloped for light manufacturing and distribution uses. The development will also include 20,000-sq. ft. of office space. Indianapolis, Indiana is also gaining new inner-city development; more than 450,000-sq. ft. of industrial space has recently been constructed in the first two years of the nineties near Bush Stadium. 10 The district had been largely underutilized and abandoned for a decade, and the revival was publicized as a symptom for unmet demand for industrial space near to the downtown. More research is needed that compares industrial zoning regulations across the country. As mentioned earlier, some cities see potential in revitalizing industrial districts with a new infusion of commercial or residential development. Other cities are maintaining policies like Portland's industrial sanctuary, which limit new development in industrial districts to primarily manufacturing uses. A New York Times News Service article printed in The Oregonian highlighted the debate over the maintenance of policies restricting industrial districts to traditional industrial development. "Berkeley a bust for high-tech firms," focused on the 1985 West Berkeley Plan in Berkeley, California, which restricted several key parcels of land to manufacturing uses. "'West Berkeley is being held hostage to the sentiment on the part of some activists that the city has to return to the good old days of lunch pail jobs and blue-collar industry," said Polly Armstrong, a City Council member. 'They're a group of people who appear to be waiting for General Motors to come to Berkeley to launch a new 11 Saturn plant. "' The debate in Berkeley has been heated over areas such as a 10-acre parcel where buildings have been abandoned for almost 20 years, ever since a Colgate-Palmolive plant left. An office complex for biotech, multimedia and software firms was proposed for the site, but the developer backed out when the city insisted that 20 percent of the site be devoted to manufacturing. 12 The site is now being redeveloped by the city's largest manufacturer, Bayer Corp.'s pharmaceutical division, as a parking lot. The debate lives on as nearby cities accommodate high tech and multimedia industries that no longer have room to expand in Berkeley. Meanwhile, the city's industrial policy limits development to more traditional manufacturing uses. This example illustrates the pressures to relax zoning restrictions to allow for the changing nature of some industries, while older economic development policies are still in place to maintain a manufacturing base in the city.
9
Overstreet, James, 1997.
10
11
12
Harton, Tom, 1990. P. A22. Katie Hafner, October 31,1999. Hafner, Katie, October 31,1999.
13 With the examples illustrated above in mind, the next section will focus on the history of revitalization efforts in the Central Eastside Industrial District. Similar issues run through the history of the Central Eastside, as the policies to maintain the area as an area for traditional industry meet pressures to change the Central Eastside Industrial District's landscape.
14
A PLANNING HISTORY OF THE CENTRAL EASTSIDE The Central Eastside was once a part of the former city of East Portland, incorporated in 1870. East Portland's business center was located between SE Morrison and East Burnside, west of 7th Avenue, within what is now the Central Eastside. 13 Originally the area was swampy, a site of sloughs, and the area west of Grand A venue was filled in the 1880s. First Avenue, now the right-of-way for the Southern Pacific Railroad, was originally the site of the Oregon and California Railroad. The East Portland area became one of Portland's first industrial districts when it was incorporated into the City of Portland in 1891. The institutionalization of industrial zoning began with the City of Portland's first zoning code, adopted in 1924. Like other cities in the 1920s, Portland adopted a zoning code that protected residential and commercial uses from the negative externalities of industrial uses, such as smoke, odor, and glare. The code allowed residential and commercial uses in industrial zones, reflecting the belief that separation of industrial uses from encroachment in residential and commercial areas was the primary threat. In the 1920s and 1930s industrial firms began to move North, as new land along the Willamette River was zoned for industry, and new marine terminals were built (Abbott, 1983). According to Abbott, "By the early 1930s, two-thirds of Portland's manufacturing jobs were located along both sides of the river north of the Broadway bridge." 14 During the 1950 and 1960s, declining property values in the inner Southeast Portland neighborhoods were met with plans for removal and redevelopment. This era of planning and development brought clearance of residential properties, especially along 11th and 12th Avenues, between Powell and Division. The cleared properties were then redeveloped for industrial uses. Industrial encroachment into residential neighborhoods was to become a main issue with neighborhood associations that later demanded buffers against the negative effects and encroachment of industrial firms. In April of 1967, a Portland Planning Commission study of industrial areas was published entitled "Portland's Industrial Areas: An Initial Appraisal of Blight and Related Factors." The study was partially financed through a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant. The study found problems in industrial areas within the Central City including increasing traffic congestion, the deterioration of older building stock, and rising land costs. A main question for the study was whether industrial blight occurred and if it was associated with relocation of firms to outlying areas. 13
14
p . 14. City of Portland, Central City Plan of 1988. p . 140. Abbott, 1983.
15
The study found that the Central Eastside had traffic congestion due to "overcrowding" and lack of off-street loading areas (p. 34). The study reported that there was little vacant land in the area. The Mount Hood Freeway, which was planned but never built, was anticipated as one of the solutions to traffic problems. The study calls the Central Eastside Industrial District "the most complex of Portland's industrial concentrations" and concluded "The result of these varying factors is confusion and congestion in the first order with little in the way of self-generating remedial action possible (p. 37)." In the next decade, the City of Portland conducted a number of studies that focused on industrial land within the city. These studies included: the Greater Portland Industry Study (1974), a Bureau of Planning and Chamber of Commerce project; the Portland Industrial Land: Development Possibilities by the Portland Economic Development Committee (1975); and the Overall Economic Development Program (1976) by the Bureau of Planning, among others. During this time, the Central Eastside was included as part of one of Portland's Special Impact Areas (SIA). These areas were found to have "the worst economic problems in the entire Portland metropolitan area" and were eligible for economic development grants through the US Economic Development Administration. 15 The Central Eastside was located in the South sub-area, which included the industrial districts of Brooklyn, Macadam, and the Central Eastside. A study of the SIA found that there was a "job drain" in which jobs were mostly held by people outside of the sub-area. By 1978, the attention had shifted from economic development to benefit Southeast residents to the support of businesses within the district. That year, a Central Eastside Revitalization Study was published through a joint effort of the Office of Planning and Development, the newly forming Industrial Council, several other City bureaus, and a team of consultants. The study was considered part of the implementation of the Overall Economic Development Program of 1976, and was initiated as the first of a series of plans for industrial areas in the district. It was meant to be a demonstration project for the revitalization of other industrial districts. Among other actions, the study called for the building of a ramp to 1-5 southbound. Another proposal was to build a showcase cooperative building for produce companies to share. The study referred extensively to the participation of the newly forming Central Eastside Industrial Council. It gave the Industrial Council extensive power, at least on paper. The study repeatedly emphasized that the Industrial Council would need to approve revitalization plans in the area, and the Council became the main vehicle for citizen participation in the planning process. While the revitalization study was basically nonbinding to the Portland Development Commission, the Industrial Council, or the City Council, it acted as a kind of promise of the future negotiating power of the Central Eastside Industrial Council.
'sc.1ty of Portland, July 1986. Page 58.
16 The study made recommendations that would prove to be divisive at the time, and conflicts that would live on in the future. In the appendix of the study, one can find letters and other documentation of the comments made by representatives of the surrounding Buckman, Brooklyn and Basford-Abernethy neighborhoods. All three neighborhood associations came out with positions against the formation of the Central Eastside Industrial Council. Southeast Uplift, an organization that acts as a district coalition of neighborhood associations in Southeast Portland made the statement: "The Board, representing nineteen neighborhoods, has helped direct policies which integrate concerns of both residential communities and business interest and is aware of the philosophies of each. We do not believe a separate neighborhood association status would benefit the Eastside Industrial Council in obtaining their goals. Rather, we contend such a group would segment the area." After years of fighting what they perceived as industrial encroachment into surrounding residential neighborhoods, the neighborhood associations and Southeast Uplift appeared openly nervous of the kind of power that an industrial "neighborhood association" would have. As mentioned above, a strong recommendation in the plan was for construction of a ramp to I-5 southbound. Several transportation planners wrote letters stating that it was premature to advocate for transportation system improvements until more studies had been conducted. The stalled construction of the ramp to southbound 1-5 was a controversy that would live on. The 1978 revitalization study emphasized that the ramp would be a critical component of revitalization but by 1993 the City Council had removed the ramp to I-5 from the list of the city's transportation projects. It was again revisited by the City Council in 1996, but the City Council again decided to abandon the
Box 1: The following were perceptions of City officials and local businesspeople that prompted the 1978 Industrial Revitalization study: • Manufacturing firms are leaving the area, and other firms are likely to seek suburban locations. •
The area has extensive traffic and parking congestion and freeway access problems. Many buildings in the area are obsolete for modern industrial use.
•
Employment in the area is declining.
•
There are deficiencies in existing public services in the area, primarily streets and sewers.
•
There is insufficient space for businesses to expand. Source: Central Eastside Industrial Revitalization Study, 1978.
17 idea. This decision may have been related to the $20 million dollar cost of the project, and the ongoing discussions about relocating the freeway on the east bank of the river. 16 Portland's first Comprehensive Plan under Oregon's new statewide planning program was adopted by the Portland City Council in 1980, and took effect January 1, 1981. It was written during a time when there was a growing consciousness about the limited amount of industrial land that would be available for future development. At the same time, a relatively "hot" office market had produced several office developments within the Central Eastside, as well as other industrial districts within Portland. According to Bureau of Planning Planner Michael Harrison, who participated in the writing of the plan, the industrial sanctuary designation in the Comprehensive Plan was the response to the realization that industrial land should be protected in a city that would "run" into other jurisdictions. It was an acknowledgement that the City of Portland could not annex much more land without approaching the city limits of other nearby cities. In 1983 the Central Eastside Industrial Council approached 1000 Friends of Oregon, a land use planning watchdog organization, to write a document that would articulate many of the obstacles to revitalization of the district. The document, entitled Central Eastside Industrial District: Benefactor of Portland's Economy, was to be instrumental in defining many of the perceived problems of the time, as well as changing the zoning of the district. The document emphasized both the importance of industry in the district and its fragility. It supported the new industrial sanctuary designation, and advocated for continued refinement of implementing zoning within the Central Eastside. Within the document, six subdistricts were identified which were perceived as having distinct development patterns and needs. As if a challenge to both the 1000 Friends study and the 1978 Industrial Revitalization Study, a second revitalization study was prepared for the Portland Development Commission by consulting firm Northwest Strategies, Inc. with Fred Glick Associates, Inc. The 1984 Industrial Revitalization Study was considerably different in tone than the 1978 study. The 1984 study no longer emphasized investment in existing industrial businesses. The study reported that after several years of study with PDC and participating wholesalers the cooperative produce wholesale project of the 1978 study was not feasible 17. The second discussion draft version of the 1984 study was pivotal in advancing discussions surrounding the opening of industrial sanctuary lands for other types of nonindustrial development, as well as designation of the Central Eastside as an urban renewal area, and creating subdistricts in the area. The discussion was later revised to change this direction.
16
17
The Oregonian, February 1996.
p. 8. City of Portland Development Commission, 1984. According to consultant Peter Fry, this was due to rising interest rates and the competitive nature of produce wholesalers.
18 The discussion below refers to the second draft of the 1984 Industrial Revitalization Study, as it reveals changing perceptions of the Central Eastside. This draft included manY references to change: "While the district is economically active, it is showing signs of its age, and also of probable change to come ... Today the district contains a mix of industrial and commercial uses. There are indications of increasing commercial pressures." 18 The draft also discussed "hot spots," areas where investment activity would somehow have a "dramatic impact on the district's future ... a virtual investment 'ring around the collar' has occurred from Union/Grand to the river, which makes the enclosed property an area of intense interest from the perspective of public policies and private investment strategies." 19 The study also questioned the stringency of the Industrial Sanctuary, and mentioned the possibility of office and housing being allowed, or even encouraged in the district.
The draft contains a section in which there are summaries and excerpts of comments from 26 business and community leaders. Unforturmtely, it does not identify which viewpoints came from business or community leaders, so it is difficult to surmise from the document if there were positions forming among planners, business and property owners, and others. According to other sources, these viewpoints probably represent a fracture in the perspectives of Central Eastside Industrial Council members. This fracture will be discussed in more detail later in the paper. In 1986, an urban renewal plan for the Central Eastside Industrial District was approved by City Council. In order to meet urban renewal requirements the area had to be determined to be blighted according to Federal regulations. The conditions that qualified the Central Eastside as an urban renewal district were: " The existence of buildings and structures, used or intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial or other purposes, or any combination of those uses, which are unfit or unsafe to occupy for those purposes because of any one or a combination of the following conditions: (E) Obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character or shifting of uses." Only 12.1% of the structures in the area were found to be in substantial compliance with the building code.20 Most of the document addressed issues related to urban renewal requirements, and did not raise issues such as potential changes in the nature of industry and technology, or the question of what future development in the Central Eastside would look like. Instead the urban renewal plan was based on the policies of Portland's Comprehensive Plan. 18
19
20
p. 1. City of Portland Development Commission, 1984. p. 1. City of Portland Development Commission, 1984 p. 5. City of Portland, July 1986.
19 Portland's 1988 Central City Plan is also a chief document in the discussion of the functions, policies and visions for the Central Eastside. An earlier Downtown Plan did not include the Central Eastside. The 1988 plan gave new attention to the Central Eastside as a vital area of the Central City. In describing the area's history, the document 1s authors report that retail and office uses located primarily on the West Side of the Willamette until recently. The Central City Plan then brings into question the future of the Central Eastside and of several other districts: "Since the 1950s, development activities in the Lloyd Center area, the North Macadam Corridor and the Central Eastside have produced an expansion of the area of Portland; and where retail and office activities are primarily located. The growth of over a dozen industrial districts within Portland, well beyond the boundaries of the 1121 Central City, have reflected changing industrial patterns. Policy 1 of the document addresses Economic Development and specifically: "D. Support and Maintain manufacturing and distribution as significant components of the Central City Economy" 22 Policy 20 addresses the Central Eastside District: "Preserve the Central Eastside as an industrial sanctuary while improving Box 2: Policies for the Central Eastside in Portland 1s freeway access Central City Plan: and expanding the area devoted to the Eastbank A. Encourage the formation of incubator industries Esplanade." 23 (See Box 2.) in the district. B. Reinforce the district's role as a distribution While Policy 1 and Policy 20 are center. firm policy statements reflecting C. Allow mixed use developments, which include commitment to industrial housing, in areas already committed to sanctuaries, the mention of nonindustrial development. changing industrial patterns is D. Preserve buildings that are of historic and/or not further expanded upon or architectural significance. resolved. The plan calls attention E. Develop Union and Grand Avenues as the to the development of other principal north-south connection and commercial industrial districts and parks, but spine in the district for transit and pedestrians. leaves the question of whether F. Continue implementation of the Central Eastside this affects the Central Eastside Economic Development Policy. for future study and debate.
Source: Central City Plan, August 1988.
21
22
23
p. 14. City of Portland, 1988. .
p. 38. City of Portland, 1988. •
p. 76. City of Portland, 1988.
20
0'
1000'
2000'
Scale In Feet
-----
Central City Plan District Boundary Subdistrict Boundary
Effootlve February 7, 1996
Map 510-1
Central City Plan District and Subdistricts
rrzzzz~.zr.
Subarea Boundary
Bureau of Planning • City of Portland, Oregon
Central City Plan District Map. Note map scale may be inaccurate due to resizing. -City of Portland Bureau of Planning
21 Visions of Portland's Eastside Waterfront (1989) was written by Bureau of Planning staff as a report to the City Council in response to the Council's interest in relocation of the freeway. It included broad visions of the areas around the Eastbank waterfront. The report would prove to be one of the main sources for later plans for the Eastbank Esplanade, a waterfront park currently being constructed through tax increment financing money. The plan came at a time when the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) was moving into the area along the east side waterfront. Many of the scenarios or visions contained in the plan are of pedestrian esplanades that connect OMSI to the Willamette River and to the Convention Center and office developments of the Lloyd District. The main reason for the visioning study was to look at possible redevelopment opportunities along the waterfront if the Marquam Bridge and the Eastbank Freeway configuration were changed. The prospect of moving the freeway prompted visions of residential, retail, and office development in conjunction with open space and recreational uses that some felt would better utilize the area as a central city waterfront district. The document did not purport to solve the problem of what the effect of office or housing development would be on the industrial sanctuary areas of the Central Eastside. In the appendix of the report, it did express concern about the industrial sanctuary, but left the issue to further public debate and study. A 1994 Bureau of Planning report entitled Growing Better: A Report to the Planning Commission on Phase I of the Livable City's Project was part of a project intended to address the growth management goals of the City of Portland's Strategic Plan. The report includes proposed growth principles for residential, commercial, and industrial areas. As one of the growth principles, the report recommends revisiting the idea of industrial sanctuaries. While the report states that recommended strategies are meant for outside >~ -~-- -~ ~." ~.-~..,_,___ '""1 _____ . -;~~t r· -~-__ . . . . -- ~-
~;-----
j
"
---: j
tJ---r--~ ~~-.,....,..---.,.---~ " ~---..,__r---------
L·-.
I
~~~~~~-~ ~~-~~~~
River Esplanade with Shops South of Burnside Bridge
,. i !1,
\
~ Vision six of Visions Portland's Eastside Waterfront: high density housing and commercial. - Citv ofPortland Bureau of Planninz. 1989
22 of the central city, the report is important to the study of Portland industrial districts as it explicitly addresses the possibility of removing the industrial sanctuary designation in order to create more pedestrian-oriented, mixed use development. The document established steps to implement this process of converting industrial sanctuaries to mixed use development areas. The first three steps are:
• Criteria for further identifying potential sites must be determined . • The need to remove the Industrial Sanctuary designation would be reviewed and •
clarified. Identified sites must be analyzed in light of competing policies. 24
This report is important to the Central Eastside, because it represents a discussion of the possibility of revisiting the concept of industrial sanctuaries. However, the document specifically reserves judgment as far as industrial sanctuaries within the central city. Despite the questioning of the industrial sanctuary policy in the Livable City Project report, another document was also adopted in 1994, which reaffirmed the City 1s commitment to industrial sanctuaries. The City of Portland 1s Economic Development Policy: Integrated Policies for Jobs and the Economy is a revision to the City 1s Economic Development Policy of 1988. The document was produced through the efforts of members of Mayor Vera Katz 1s Business Roundtable and other participants that met during several months in 1993. This document addressed all of the Comprehensive Plan policies that specifically relate to economic development. Policy 14 encourages urban development and revitalization. Under this policy, the document states, 11 The City will encourage physical development that meets the City 1s economic development goals. To accomplish this, the City will continue to support industrial sanctuaries ... 1125 Strategy D of the 1994 Economic Development Policy update (see Box 3), refers to the continued development of the Eastbank Esplanade. This riverfront park along the East bank of the Willamette is currently under construction. The park is beginning to emerge as a scaled down version of the development suggested in the 1989 Visions of Portland 1s Eastside Waterfront. The visions of the Eastbank Park from the 1989 report, with a reconfigured interstate highway system and housing and commercial development, have not materialized. Yet, these visions may continue to pique the interest of those with a stake in revitalization efforts in the Central Eastside. To some, the completion of the Eastbank Esplanade may signal a change in the character of the Central Eastside. The park 1s completion may remind some of the visions of a revitalized waterfront with housing and commercial development as depicted in the sketches of the 1989 reoort.
24
25
p. 85. City of Portland Bureau of Planning, 1994 p. 25. Portland City Council, 1994.
23 Just as a Harvard student wrote of the Central Eastside as "recovering from its history," the description of new sculptures in the Eastbank Esplanade refer to the passage of time, but in a celebratory tone. "The artists-- Ean Eldred, Richard Garfield, James Harrison, John Kashiwabara and Peter Nylen-- said their work is to remind the city of the ghosts of the past. The east bank area once was a separate city, with flourishing international trade in the days of the clipper ships. 'Each new era has left its own mark,' Eldred said, 'and 26 that will be obvious along the riverbank trail. '" The Eastbank at Burnside: Lower East Burnside Redevelopment Plan, completed in February of 1999, is a new vision for the redevelopment of Burnside Street, a major corridor within the Central Eastside. The document by the Portland Development Commission, provides another vision for the Industrial District that is emblematic of revitalization of industrial districts that include a strong commercial and office component. The area covered by the Lower Burnside Plan includes blocks between NE Couch and SE Ankeny from 2nd to 12th Avenue.
Box 3:Excerpt from the City of Portland's Economic Development Policy: Integrated Policies for Jobs and the Economy. Cen tral City Sub-Districts: Central Eastside • Strategy A Continue to recruit appropriate industries to sanctuary sites in the Central City. •
Strategy B Continue to assemble large sites or provide infrastructure for the expansion of existing area businesses. Action item 1 Construct the extension of SE Water Ave. to the Southern Triangle Area with participation of Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, Portland Community College and Portland General Corp. Action item 2 Complete site assembly and redevelopment of the four block Belmont/Main project.
•
Strategy C Promote the Selection of the Central Eastside for the relocation of back office functions from downtown.
•
Strategy D Conclude the policy debate and make recommendations on eastside transportation and land use for stabilization of Central East Side Industrial District. Action item 1 Proceed with Eastbank Riverfront Park planning, design and implementation.
26
Stewart, Bill in The Oregonian. January 4, 2000.
24 The plan begins:
"It is amazing to think that a central bridge and main arterial to and from downtown Portland would represent the dark side of our great City. How can one of the City 1s most conspicuous locations be so underutilized? How can a city with policies and action directed toward livability and a healthy urban environment preserve a sordid reputation and less than livable place? For decades, these questions tormented property owners, political figures and citizens. We simultaneously condemn and condone the circumstances that make the Lower Burnside Area what it is today." Cover of the Lower East Burnside Redevelopment Plan -Portland Develovment Commission.
The Lower Burnside Plan calls for the creation of a corporate employment center, and the establishment of a new identity for the district that includes retail and housing. Specifically supported by Industrial Council members is the idea of a signature office tower that would act as a gateway to the Central Eastside. According to the Industrial Council 1s planning consultant, the siting of a headquarters for a large industrial firm could serve both as a gateway and as an anchor tenant to attract new investment and businesses in the area. 27 The plan also recognizes the existence of several theatres and a multimedia firm that are located in the area suggesting an environment that might be inviting to the location of creative services or multimedia businesses. Meanwhile, in other areas of the Central Eastside, there were substantial changes in the industrial sanctuary policy as implemented in the city 1s zoning code. The Bureau of Planning began a process in 1998 to review its policies for industrial and employment areas in order to comply with regional policies. Title 4 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan mandates that all cities and counties within the three county metropolitan region limit the size of retail uses:
27
Interview with Peter Fry, 1999.
25 "The intent of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept is that Employment and Industrial Areas contain supportive retail development. Employment and Industrial areas would be expected to include some limited retail commercial uses primarily to serve the needs of people working or living in the immediate Employment or Industrial Areas; not larger market areas outside the Employment or Industrial Areas." 28 In response to the task of complying with Title 4, the Bureau of Planning prepared a report to the City Council recommending changes to the zoning code. The process went beyond compliance with Title 4, however and resulted in a review of the industrial sanctuary policy. Revisions to the zoning code included specific changes to the IGl zoning in the Central City Plan District. These revisions apply specifically to the Central Eastside Industrial Sanctuary. 33.510.113 Office Uses in the IGl Zone was added: "The City would like to provide opportunities for offices that contain manufacturing and production components, such as software design/production, advertising, web page design and production, video production, and others to locate near the Central City. These 'industries' of the future' (as Mayor Vera Katz calls them) are usually classified as Office uses by the Zoning Code, even though they may contain manufacturing or production components. However, the nature of these businesses usually require lower land costs and more flexible workspace than traditional office space provides, yet their locational preference is usually close to the City Center."29 This change may appear to be more lax than the previous industrial sanctuary policy in that it allows some office uses. However, the report states, "To strengthen the regulations that implement the industrial sanctuary policy, the proposal in this report is a tiered approach that assures the greatest protection to the industrial zones and lesser protection to employment zones." 30 This may be the case in restricting the size of large "big-box" retail in industrial zones, but the intent of these new regulations does change the amount of discretion that is available to the Bureau of Planning in allowing office uses in the sanctuary. Taken together with the Lower Burnside Redevelopment Plan, the zoning changes signal a change in the targeted industries for the Central Eastside. The original vision of the industrial sanctuary portrayed the revitalization of the Central Eastside, and its role in the city and region, as a center for traditional light industrial uses, such as wholesaling and manufacturing. Changes in the City's targeted industries and changing perceptions of the Central Eastside Industrial District and its industrial sanctuary areas have substantially changed the direction of revitalization in the district.
28
29
30
Section 3.07, p. 36. Metro, September 1998 update of the Urban Growth Management Function Plan. p. 36. City of Portland, March 1999. p. 11. City of Portland, March 1999.
26
Central Eastside Industrial District Current Zoning NStreets Willamette River Zoning districts EG1 EG2 EX IGl M
IH
OS R1 RX Purple line indicates approximate location of Central Eastside Industrial District boundary. 0 500 1000 1500 Feet
General Employment 1 (EG1) and General Employment 2 (EG2) These zones allow a wide range of employment opportunities without potential conflicts from interspersed residential uses. EG2 areas have larger lots and an irregular or large block pattern. Central Employment (CX) This zone allows mixed-uses and is intended for areas in the center of the City that have predominantly industrial type development. The intent of the zone is to allow industrial, business, and service uses which need a central location. General Industrial 1 (IG 1) IG 1 areas generally have smaller lots and a grid block pattern. The area is mostly developed, with sites having high building coverages and buildings that are usually close to the street. IG 1 areas tend to be the City's older industrial areas . Heavy Industrial (IH) This zone provides areas where all kinds of industries may locate including those not desirable in other zones due to their objectionable impacts or appearance. Open space (OS) Areas that provide functions such as space for recreational activity and preservation of sensitive environmental areas. Residential 1,000 (Rl) Medium density residential zone that allows approximately 43 units per acre. As high as 65 units/acre with bonuses. Zoning data source is the City of Portland, Office of Planning and Development Review, 1999. Zoning descriptions are excerpts from the 1999 City of Portland zoning code.
Central Residential (RX} High-density multi-dwelling zone that allows the highest density of dwelling units of the residential zones. Generally the density will be 100 or more units per acre.
27
PERCEPTIONS AND POINTS OF CONTROVERSY
LJVEfWORK, WORK/LIVE, AND INDUSTRY VS. INDUSTRIAL USE "For now, the Central Eastside is a blue-collar collection of produce warehouses, small factories, manufacturing plants and supply businesses. It's rail cars and delivery trucks, tile stores and bakeries, restaurants and automotive shops. But it's • n31 changmg. In September of 1999, an article was printed in the Oregonian, which opened up the Central Eastside as a further topic of public interest. The article, "A lofty controversy: As
Portland grows the Central Eastside and livability have some asking, "Will this be the next Pearl District?", publicized the issue of artists' residences in the Central Eastside. For years, there has been a scattering of residences in the district, dating from before industrial zoning of the district. Other housing development has occurred through the years along the commercial corridors on Grand Avenue and Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. This article focused on housing within the industrial sanctuary. The controversy related to a caretaker clause that allows a person to live in the industrial sanctuary in order to protect and ensure safety in industrial buildings. According to Peter Fry, consultant to the Industrial Council who assisted in the establishment of the caretaker clause during the 1980s, the clause was intended to allow artists to live and work in the industrial sanctuary. The specific language was changed in 1986 to address the potential environmental hazards to residents in the Central Eastside. In a July 1999 article in the Portland Business Journal, City Commissioner Charlie Hales was quoted as saying: "The legislative history suggests the [City] council intended to allow one caretaker unit per property. I'm told Peter thinks we ought to allow one 'caretaker' per business and allow as many units as a building will physically accommodate. That may be the direction the eastside industrial area wants to head, but I'm uncomfortable opening the floodgates to housing without discussion about what that change would mean for industrial concerns in the district. "32 Both articles brought a broader public consciousness about the possible connection between the Central Eastside Industrial District and redevelopment that has occurred or that is being planned on former industrial properties in both the North Macadam and Northwest areas of downtown. According to the Oregonian article mentioned above,
31
32
The Oregonian, September 1999. Portland Business Journal, July 9, 1999.
28 "while Michael Harrison, the city 1s chief planner, sees the importance of the Central Eastside as an 1industrial incubator 1 for start-up businesses, he also says the area will eventually outlive its industrial value and evolve into something else." As mentioned above, the concept of work/live spaces within the industrial sanctuary is a point of contention. Some members of the Central Eastside Industrial Council distinguish between the concept of live/work and work/live spaces. The emphasis in work/live spaces is placed on work space while the living space remains clearly an accessory to the work area. This arrangement would allow, for instance, an artist or web developer to live and work within the area. This suggests that some Industrial Council members feel that residential development may be permissible in the Central Eastside. Some Council members have commented that a few residents would provide more security in the district as people that live in the district would be in the area during the evening to note any criminal activity. Not all Industrial Council members agree, however. The existence of competing factions of the Industrial Council in regards to housing or other issues of future development in the district can be attributed to the varied membership of the business association. Some business owners use the organization as a vehicle for the protection of the industrial sanctuary, while others value the Central Eastside for its real estate development potential. This represents a rift between those who value the district for its use value, as a place for industrial businesses, and those who focus on the area 1s exchange value, the land within the district as a commodity. The Central Eastside 1s industrial sanctuary areas are valued by some as an important industrial business incubator. As a business incubator area, land is reserved for future industries, allowing small businesses to emerge and leave the area as they grow. Therefore, movement in and out of the Central Eastside is not considered a threat to the area 1s stability; instead the movement is part of the essential functioning of the district as an incubator. According to Michael Harrison, a lead planner at the Bureau of Planning, since the 1974 study of the suburbanization of Portland 1s industrial firms, industrial districts within Portland have continued to foster the development of new firms. Small local firms produce the bulk of employment growth in the area, according to Harrison. This is in contrast to the view that attraction of large businesses from outside of the area provides the bulk of jobs. Wage levels in industrial jobs are often higher than service jobs, and the industrial sanctuary designation, therefore assists in meeting economic development goals. The industrial sanctuary designation is also a method to keep the negative externalities of industrial uses away from residential uses. More recently it is seen as a method to keep the negative externalities of residential and commercial uses away from industrial businesses. Residential development in industrial districts can result in complaints by new residents and opposition to the continued operation of industrial firms. In this way, industrial uses can be likened to agricultural uses, in which residential
29 developments lead to conflicts with agricultural uses. Commercial development near to industrial uses also has negative effects, often through the additional generation of transportation trips as office and retail uses draw more customers and employees to an area. This added trip generation interferes with industrial firms that rely on trucking service, which is particularly sensitive to added traffic congestion. The industrial sanctuary can also be seen as a kind of land banking mechanism. Land is set aside for industrial uses through zoning, keeping land prices lower by limiting speculative pressures to increase property values. Older buildings are then maintained as 11 vintage capital. 11 This vintage capital ensures that there is a supply of affordable space for start-up businesses. Perhaps one of the biggest contradictions and points of contention is the 11 sanctity 11 of the industrial sanctuary. In other words, should there be flexibility in implementing the industrial sanctuary? Is the sanctuary a mechanism for ensuring that only industry gets use of the land, or is there an ability for industrial firms to use the land for housing for their employees or for office uses that are in connection to the industrial process? The City of Portland's industrial zoning code was amended to be a performance-based code, instead of a list of permitted businesses33 . This change was meant to allow for some flexibility in the zoning code to allow for the changing nature of industry, instead of listing every kind of conceivable industrial use that is to be allowed in the district. Ironically, the performance-based code is still running into differences in the definition of an industrial use. In interviews at PDC, recent changes in Industry SIC codes to include call centers or software production as industrial uses, were cited as reasons for considering these uses industrial. The Bureau of Planning, however, views a use by the kind of externalities that it generates and by the kind of building requirements that it has. The zoning code changes associated with compliance with Urban Growth Management Functional Plan allowed some office uses, but only if it included a substantial amount of production. Peter Fry, consultant to the Central Eastside Industrial Council, maintains that if a firm that produces products locates in the district, it should be allowed as an industrial use, even if all or most of its production is located outside of the Central Eastside. This definition goes beyond the conditional uses allowed in the zoning code, and would require further alteration of the zoning code.
33
Interview with Susan Hartnett, City of Portland Planning Bureau, 1999.
30 INDUSTRIAL PARK IN THE CITY Controversy regarding the industrial sanctuary designation goes beyond a mere difference in what is considered an industry. As pointed out repeatedly in this paper, there are conflicting visions of what an industrial district could and should look like. Currently, the Portland Development Commission is bringing together key public and private stakeholders to discuss possible opportunities and visions for the redevelopment of areas around the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry and adjacent to the Eastbank park. Several innovative elements have been discussed, including the possibility of developing larger buildings with flex space for the location of research and development firms. These visions suggest a newer type of industrial area, more reminiscent of the industrial park. While the updating of industrial facilities may bring new business types to the district, there are questions as to how these new businesses would fit in with both the goals of the City of Portland and the Central Eastside Industrial Council. Some Central Eastside Industrial Council members talk of the need to increase employment densities in the area, and suggest the construction of office towers that could serve to increase densities. If the Council supports increases in the employment densities of the Central Eastside, research and development flex buildings are not the kind of building type with the greatest . 34 dens1ty. Another issue with converting portions of the Central Eastside into an area for flex space and research and development firms, is the limited ability to convert substantial portions of the Central Eastside into an industrial park. This type of conversion suggests the consolidation of smaller blocks into superblocks. According to interviews at the Bureau of Planning, regional and state transportation planning mandates are increasingly against decreasing transportation connectivity at the local level. More street closures are being denied, and superblocks in downtown areas are increasingly seen as detrimental to the pedestrian environment and to the connectivity of the traditional grid system. There are other difficulties in consolidating smaller blocks into superblocks. Many of the Central Eastside blocks are a patchwork of many property owners and businesses. This is in contrast to most new industrial parks, which are greenfield developments, and where there are strict CC&Rs that set uniform standards for future development. Another challenge to the concept of converting much of the Central Eastside to a newer industrial park design is whether this conversion would be desirable in a location close to the central city. There are quite a few historically designated buildings in the Central Eastside, and other buildings that may qualify. As mentioned earlier, the area may function better as an industrial business incubator with affordable older buildings. The area is also a valuable landscape reflecting Portland's earlier history. There may be 34
Otak, Inc. December 1, 1999.
31 irony in that saving the district for industrial uses could mean radically changing the character of the area. In other words, in order to maintain the area as an industrial district, perhaps the small blocks must be consolidated. Some older historical buildings would need to be demolished to make way for newer buildings that meet the needs of industrial users. While it is unlikely that the entire District could be redesigned, these changes could vastly alter the area, removing the last vestiges of Portland's early industrial history. The landscape of the area is an example of an early industrial district, and this must also be considered in the process of revitalizing the Central Eastside.
32
LESSONS FOR AND FROM PLANNING
Urban planning must operate in a state of uncertainty, as planners must use educated guesses to facilitate the preservation of values and the attainment of future goals. As Portland State University Professor Seymour Adler puts it, plans often contain "multiple, vague and conflicting goals." Even within a particular plan, there are visions of the future that must vie for priority and implementation. In the case of maturing industrial districts, one must negotiate the many opposing perceptions and values that will shape the current and future identity of districts like the Central Eastside. The question that pervades rhetoric about the Central Eastside is "should there be an industrial sanctuary?" However, whether or not the industrial sanctuary should exist is not discussed directly in most of the documents about the Central Eastside. Instead of an overt policy debate, the rules of the sanctuary are being altered incrementally. Through changing economic circumstances and shifting perceptions of stakeholders, the industrial sanctuary policy continues to be supported by most parties as a general policy statement. However, the goals and strategies of the policy are interpreted differently according to the interests of each stakeholder. In light of the varying definitions of revitalization, evaluation of tools such as the industrial sanctuary designation and urban renewal district in the Central Eastside would be helpful in negotiating the varying perspectives on the future of the district. While leaving the definition open to interpretation allows a greater diversity of stakeholders to accept studies and plans, it makes evaluation of the tools to achieve revitalization difficult. Does one measure the number of new industrial businesses in the area? Should potential improvements to the environment and "quality of life" of the district be identified and does it matter if it benefits nearby residents, tourists, or business owners? Should the number of employees who are employed or the quality of the jobs in the district determine the success of planning efforts? These are just a few of the potential questions that could be a measure of planning efforts in the Central Eastside Industrial District. The two main revitalization tools that have been highlighted in this paper are being implemented by two different City agencies. The Planning Bureau implements the industrial sanctuary designation, while the Portland Development Commission oversees the urban renewal district. An important question to answer is: Are these policies being coordinated? In light of Throgmorton's concept of planning as persuasive storytelling, it seems important to reconcile the goals and strategies that are being produced in each agency to determine whether the visions for the future of the Central Eastside are complementary. It is imperative that clear policies be developed for maturing industrial districts. These older industrial areas can play important roles in the future location of industry and for inner city landscapes. Industry practices and requirements continue to evolve. In some
33 cases, waterfront areas that were traditionally industrial are becoming more valuable and are the focus of considerable pressure to convert to nonindustrial uses. Industrial buildings built before seismic standards or the Americans with Disabilities Act continue to age and some of these buildings go years without significant investment in maintenance. In order to develop and achieve long term planning goals for these areas, there must be extensive and open debate about the future of these industrial districts. Perhaps the most important finding of this paper is in illustrating the power of the plan. The plan does not merely stitch together individual perspectives into one vision. Nor does the plan distantly reflect the truth. Instead, the authors of a plan participate in telling a persuasive story based on research and a thorough understanding of a place. The planner constructs a compelling vision of what an area is and what it may become, profoundly affecting the future.
34
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1000 Friends of Oregon. 1983. The Central Eastside: Benefactor of Portland's Economy. Portland, Oregon Abbott, Carl. 1983. Portland: Planning, Politics, and Growth in a Twentieth Century City. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Baker, Nena. January 8, 1996. "Task force recommends Water avenue off-ramp," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. Beckman, Stephanie. Fall, 1997. Local Industrial Policy: Two Case Studies Reveal the Strengths and Weaknesses of Portland's Approach. Field Area Paper for Master of Urban and Regional Planning Program, Portland State University: Portland, Oregon.
Business Journal- Portland. July 9, 1999. "Eastside artists in a quandary," in the Business Journal- Portland. Portland, Oregon. Building Design and Construction. July 1990. "Thar's gold in them thar inner-city industrial developments," in Building Design and Construction, v31 n7 p27(1). Cadwallader, Martin T. 1996. Urban Geography: an analytical approach. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Christ, Janet. June 19, 1998. "PDC Plans Redevelopment for Former Baloney Joe's Site," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. Christ, Janet. June 8, 1995. "Room to grow," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. City of Portland, Bureau of Planning. March 1975. Portland Industrial Land: Development Possibilities. Portland, Oregon: City of Portland. City of Portland, Bureau of Planning. June 1976. Overall Economic Development Program. Portland, Oregon: City of Portland. City of Portland, Bureau of Planning. May 1978. Central Eastside Industrial Revitalization Study. Portland, Oregon: City of Portland. City of Portland, Bureau of Planning. August 1988. Central City Plan. Portland, Oregon: City of Portland. City of Portland, Bureau of Planning. January 1989. Visions for Portland's Eastside Riverfront: A Report to the City Council. Portland, Oregon: City of Portland.
35
City of Portland, Bureau of Planning. July 31,1991. Special Design Guidelines for the Design Zone of the Central Eastside District of the Central City Plan. Portland Oregon: City of Portland. City of Portland, Bureau of Planning. June 1993. Growing Better: A Report to the Planning Commission on Phase I of the Livable City Project. Portland, Oregon: City of Portland. City of Portland Development Commission, Economic Development. Sept. 7, 1984. Central Eastside Industrial District Revitalization Study. Portland, Oregon: City of Portland. Erickson, R. 1983. The evolution of the urban space economy. Urban Geography 4:95 -121. Fry, Peter. 1999. Interview. Fry, Peter. 1999. "Movers and Stayers in Portland, Oregon's Central Eastside Industrial District." Portland, Oregon: Portland State University. Fry, Peter. March 3,1996. "Water avenue ramp isn't a subsidy; it's a reinvestment, " a letter to the editor in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. Fry, Peter- Editor. 1994. 1994 Business Directory. Portland, Oregon: Central Eastside Indus trial Council. Goldfield, Robert. May 17, 1996. "Old industrial site may get new life," in the Business Journal- Portland, volume 13, number 12, p 1(2). Grant, Jill. May 1996. "Designing Industrial Parks" in Plan Canada. Ontario, Canada: Canadian Institute Planners. Greenburg, Ken and Frank Lewinberg. May 1996. "Reinventing Planning in Toronto" in Plan Canada. Ontario Canada, Canadian Institute of Planners. Hafner, Katie. "Berkeley a bust for high-tech firms," in The Oregonian. Reprinted from the New York Times News Service. Portland, Oregon. Harrison, Michael- City of Portland Bureau of Planning. 2000. Interview. Harton, Tom. January 8, 1990. "An industrious future," in Indianapolis Business Journal, v10 n40 pS12(19). Hartnett, Susan- City of Portland Bureau of Planning. 1999. Interview.
36
J{o, Cathy Lang. February 1998. " San Francisco shake-up: entire neighborhoods are under construction, brimming with new cultural facilities, a new campus - and controversy" in Architecture, v87 n2 p40(5). Bogan, Kevin J. April10, 1995. "The Multimedia Gulch, aka Hollywired Siliwood: SoMa (South of Market), San Francisco, CA." in Forbes, v155 n8 pS36(2). Kiyomura, Cathy. August 23, 1995. "Water avenue ramp rears its controversial head again," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. Lydersen, Kari. July 11, 1996. "Southeast businesses work on rebirth, too," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. Lydersen, Kari. May 30, 1996. "PCC's new center serves the district well," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. McGriff, Denyse- Portland Development Commission. 1999. Interview. Metro. December 17, 1998. Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Portland, Oregon. Miller, Brian K. March 1999. "Suburban Siren Song Luring Portland Firms," in The Business Journal. Portland, Oregon. Newman, Morris. January 9, 2000. "A $4 Billion Mix of Uses in San Francisco," in The New York Times. New York City, New York. Nkrumah, Wade. Oct 6, 1999. "Planning Consultant Lands Friends as well as Job," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. Nkrumah, Wade. May 5,1999. "East Burnside Catches City's Attention," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. Nkrumah, Wade. June 21,1996. "Welcome mat put out for club," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. Oliver, Gordon. January 14, 1996. "Council debate on freeway ramp is sizzling again," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon.
The Oregonian. February 1,1996. "Don't build ramp now," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. Otak, Inc. December 1, 1999. Regional Industrial Land Study for the Portland- Vancouver Metropolitan Area. Portland, Oregon.
37 Overstreet, James. July 7, 1997. "Sprucing up the inner city: industrial park adds jobs to
vacant area" in Memphis Business Journal, v19 n9 p1(2). Memphis, Tennessee.
Portland Business Journal. July 9, 1999. "Eastside artists in a quandary," in the Portland Business Journal. Portland, Oregon. Portland Development Commission. July 1986. Central Eastside Urban Renewal Plan. Portland, Oregon: Portland Development Commission. Portland Development Commission. February 10, 1999. Eastbank at Burnside: Lower East Burnside Redevelopment Plan. Portland, Oregon: Portland Development Commission. Rose, Michael. "City, state land deal driven by PDC's east-side strategy," in The Business Journal. Portland, Oregon. Volume 16, Number 35. Smith, Bryan. "City plans to replace homeless shelter," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. Stewart, Bill. January 4, 2000. "Art finds place in Eastbank river park," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. Stewart, Bill. July 17,1999. "Eastbank promenade makes strides," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. Stewart, Bill. Aug 27, 1998. "A Couple Will Create Markers to Give People A Sense Of Where They Are or Would Have Been Had They Walked Along the Willamette Before." Portland, Oregon. Stewart, Bill. October 3, 1997. "No Shortage of Ideas for Eastbank Park," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon. Umlauf, Elyse. "Chicago's riverfront is resurrected; adaptive reuse of warehouse is spearhead in the redevelopment of an untapped district of the city," in Building Design and Construction, volume 30, number 6, p56(5). Cahners Publishing Co. Urban Land Institute. 1994. Urban Growth: Development Prospects and Issues. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute. Waddell, P., and V. Shukla. 1993. Manufacturing location in a polycentric urban area: A Study in the composition and attractiveness of employment subcenters. Urban Geography 14:277-96. Walter, Erin. February 2, 1999. "Portland Plans Business District Improvements," in The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon.
