Portland Downtown Neighborhood Association - analysis of parking in South Park Blocks

1. SOUTH PARK
BLOCKS
Concerns about
Parking Expansion
Portland Downtown Neighborhood
Association, Daniel Friedman, 5-9-2008

2. Resolution
Portland Downtown
Neighborhood Association
RESOLVED: The Portland Downtown Neighborhood
Association favors removal of all parking spaces on the inner
perimeter of the South Park Blocks upon the completion of
the TriMet Transit Mall.
Passed by Unanimous Vote of the
PDNA Board, April 21, 2008

3. Concerns
Citizen Involvement and
Stakeholder Consultation
Decision-Making Process
Impact on Park Activity and Uses
Impact on Public Safety
Impact on Pedestrian Safety
Aesthetic Impact
Compatibility with Existing
Planning and Policy Directives

4. Citizen Involvement
and Stakeholder Consultation
PDOT sent letters to property-owners along
the blocks affected, soliciting comments.
Only one reply was received.
Aside from letters to property owners, no
public announcements were made and no
citizen input was solicited.

5. Citizen Involvement
and Stakeholder Consultation
Non-owner residents of the Park Blocks were
neither informed nor consulted.
Civic groups concerned with parkland, trees,
and public spaces were neither informed or
consulted.
Pedestrian and cycling groups were neither
informed nor consulted.
The Portland Historical Landmarks
Commission was neither informed nor
consulted.

6. Citizen Involvement
and Stakeholder Consultation
The Downtown Neighborhood Association
was neither informed nor consulted.
Aside from owners of adjacent properties, the only
stakeholder contacted was Portland Parks &
Recreation.
PP&R endorsed temporary use of the added
spaces but opposed continued use after
completion of Transit Mall construction.

7. Decision-Making Process
! ! PDOT excluded all
discussion of aesthetic
impact from it’s
deliberations about
whether to extend parking
to the inner perimeter of
the South Park Blocks.
! ! [SOURCE: Ellis McCoy,
Parking Operations
Manager, Portland, at
DNA Land Use &
Transportation
Committee Meeting,
4/9/2007]

8. Decision-Making Process
Original Decision to Remove Inner-Perimeter Parking
1980-1983
• Extensive interviews with stakeholders
• Exhaustive planning process, including preparation of South Park
Blocks Framework Master Plan by leading landscape architects
[Zimmer Gunsul Frasca]. SPBFMP recommends removal of
interior SPB parking spaces.
• Public hearings on SPBFMP by Council
• Formal vote on SPBFMP by Council [11/5/1980]
• Public hearings on parking removal by Design Commission
• Formal vote on parking removal by Design Commission [9/1983]
If removal of parking required formal approval by
Council and the Design Commission, what process
should be required for restoration of parking?

9. Impact on Public Safety
Parking was removed in
the early 1980s partly to
deter crime and reduce
public-nuisance activities
by enhancing visibility.
The intent was to
“make the interior of
the blocks safer by
making them more
visually open”.
[SOURCE: Doug Macy,
Walker-Macy, Design
Team, South Park Blocks
Renovation]

10. Impact on Park Activity and Uses
Door-opening along narrow sidewalk impedes pedestrian movement

11. Impact on Park Activity and Uses
Door-opening along narrow sidewalk impedes pedestrian movement

12. Impact on Park Activity and Uses
Door-opening along narrow sidewalk impedes pedestrian movement

13. Impact on Pedestrian Safety
Mid-block crossing is inherently dangerous. Both pedestrian and
driver views are obstructed by autos and SUVs.

14. Impact on Pedestrian Safety
Inner-perimeter parking increases frequency of mid-block crossing
Drivers cross once to purchase parking sticker

15. Impact on Pedestrian Safety
Inner-perimeter parking increases frequency of mid-block crossing
• Drivers cross a
second time to
attach parking
sticker to car
window
• Many cross a
third time in
order to
proceed to
destination

16. Impact on Pedestrian Safety
Driver-side door-opening creates hazard along sidewalk.

17. Impact on Pedestrian Safety
Inner-perimeter parking increases
backing and maneuvering along sidewalk edges of park

18. Impact on Pedestrian Safety
Passenger-side door-opening creates hazard in right-of-way

19. Impact on Pedestrian Safety
Many children play in the Park Blocks, including toddlers from the St.
James Lutheran Church Child Care Center.
Backing, parking and door-opening reduce visibility, make crossing
more hazardous, and increase risk for children playing near Park edges

20. Aesthetic Impact
Fence Effect: Passersby have difficulty seeing into Park

21. Aesthetic Impact
Fence Effect: Pedestrians on inner sidewalk have difficulty seeing out

22. Aesthetic Impact
Fence Effect: Bench sitters find that their view is greatly diminished

23. Aesthetic Impact
Parking enforcement signs add visual clutter to the park

24. Aesthetic Impact
Unsightly markings disrupt the visual unity of the park design

25. Aesthetic Impact
Markings Detract from Original Grey-Green Design Scheme
When the Park Blocks were re-designed in the early 1980s, a
deliberate decision was made to heighten visual continuity by using
grey pavers and sidewalks rather than, for example, red brick.

26. Aesthetic Impact
Curb striping is visually jarring and radically alters park color palette

27. Aesthetic Impact
Inner vs. Outer Park
Outer Park = the entire expanse of space defined by the buildings that
surround and form the “walls” of a public square.
Outer
Park
Inner
Park

28. Aesthetic Impact
Inner vs. Outer Park
“Visionary park planner
Frederick Law Olmsted's idea
of the 'inner park' and the
'outer park' is just as relevant
today as it was over 100 years
ago. The streets and sidewalks
around a square greatly affect
its accessibility and use, as do
the buildings that surround it
… An active, welcoming outer
square is essential to the well-
being of the inner square.”
SOURCE: “Ten Principles for Creating Successful Squares”,
Project For Public Spaces, 2007

29. Aesthetic Impact
Fence Effect
Instead of the outer square of the Park Blocks being defined by the
surrounding buildings, a wall of parked cars cuts the blocks off from their
surroundings, redefines the edges and proportions ofquot;the park, separates the
inner park from the outer park, and creates a constricted sense of space.

30. Aesthetic Impact
BEFORE: !No cars, no curb markings, no signs. Consistent grey/green
color palate. Inner Park continuous with Outer Park.

31. Aesthetic Impact
AFTER: !Cars, curb markings, and signs disrupt visual unity, violate color
scheme. Wall of cars fences Inner Park off from Outer Park.

32. Compatibility with Planning Directives
• SPB spaces lie within easy walking distance of the Streetcar, the
Transit Mall, and the MAX. No place in Portland is better-
supplied with public transportation links.
• The Transportation System Plan commits the city to policies
designed to quot;constrain the parking supply to encourage the use of
alternatives to the automobile”.

33. Compatibility with Planning Directives
At issue…
91
spaces
Parking currently available to the
general public in the downtown
core [Market to Burnside,
Waterfront to 11th]…# !
7,400
on-street spaces
13,400
off-street spaces

34. Compatibility with Planning Directives
Almost 700 spaces have been added
to the immediate area since
Transit Mall construction began
––with potential for more.
• The recent completion of the Park Block 5 garage added 677
spaces of underground parking in the South Park Blocks area.
• When finished, the Transit Mall will put into service additional
curb-side spaces in pull-outs along 5th and 6th Avenues.
• An unknown number of spaces could be reclaimed from the
more than 400 downtown spaces which are currently
quot;reserved for construction activities” [PDoT press release,
11/15/2007]. It isn’t clear how many of these spaces are actually
essential for ongoing construction activities.

35. Compatibility with Planning Directives
Parking along the inner perimeter of the Park Blocks increases
traffic on SW 9th and SW Park, both of which have been
designated as quot;traffic control zonesquot; for more than 25 years.
South Park Blocks Framework Master Plan, p. 20:quot;
quot;The parking concept for Park and Ninth
adjacent to the South Park Blocks proposes
that all segments of Park and Ninth from
Market to Salmon between intersecting east/
west streets be eventually developed as traffic
control zones, discouraging through trafficquot;.

36. Compatibility with Planning Directives
South Park Blocks Framework Master Plan
• Mandated removal of parking from South Park Blocks
CCTMP: Central City Transportation Management Plan
“The CCTMP is the principal planning document guiding
transportation policies in the Central City”
Goals include:
• “minimize congestion”
• “increase transit use, walking and bicycling”
• “improve air quality”
• “enhance Central City's overall environment and attractiveness”

37. Compatibility with Planning Directives
TSP: Transportation System Plan
The TSP encourages greater utilization of public transit by those
traveling to downtown Portland for work, school, and leisure
activities
Principles adopted by the TSP include:
• quot;demand management and parking management
strategies...designed to reduce automobile trips, encourage transit
use, and discourage commuter parking”
• policies designed to quot;constrain the parking supply to encourage
the use of alternatives to the automobile.”

38. Compatibility with Planning Directives
• While a three-hour limit keeps Park Block spaces from being
used by commuters, it makes them an attractive nuisance for
“short-hop” parking.
• Increased availability of short-hop parking downtown and in
the PSU area discourages use of public transportation by
students and shoppers and increases traffic congestion.
• Many city planners argue that “you can't build your way out
of a parking shortage” because greater availability of parking
only has the paradoxical effect of heightening demand.

39. Text
Text
Text
Text
CONCLUSIONS

40. Spaces were added to the South
Park Blocks by administrative edict
and without adequate consultation.
Over the objections of the Parks
department, PDoT reversed a
planning and design decision that
was made 25-years ago. The
original decision was reached with
substantial input from the public,
including public hearings and
formal votes by the city's Design
Commission and by Council.
CONCLUSIONS

41. The disputed spaces compromise
public safety, impede mobility,
interfere with park activities, and
increase hazards to pedestrians.
The aesthetic impact is substantial,
violating the guiding principles of
the 1980-3 redesign of the South
Park Blocks and diminishing the
attractiveness of one of the
country’s most acclaimed and
successful public spaces.
CONCLUSIONS

42. Located in the city’s most transit-
rich zone, the South Park Block
spaces add to traffic congestion
downtown, encourage short-hop
trips, and undermine the city’s
efforts to promote transit use.
The spaces undermine the South
Park Blocks’ designation as a
“traffic control zone”.
CONCLUSIONS

43. Portland Downtown
Neighborhood Association
2008