I think the choice is really between staying Portland, and giving into the Big Box urge. Now, I understand (in a vague way) why it might seen as being necessary to have a large store anchor a development. By the same token, however, it’s completely worthwhile to work it backwards.

Instead of anchoring an area with a large store, think of it the other way. Build the area up around where the big box would have gone, and use the space where the Lowe’s or Home Depot would be to ferment the growth of small businesses and artists. Sure, it’s just a reworking of Lisa’s views on the matter, but I do happen to believe in what she’s saying.

What’s another reason we should be against this? It violates Dave Sucher’s guidelines for an “Urban Village”. This is another paradigm I happen to agree with, more because David convinced me of it through his book (which I got a free copy of, disclaimer, disclaimer) and his blog (which I read free, disclaimer, disclaimer) than through any independent formulation of views.

How does this tie into City Comforts? Becuase one of David’s three tenets of building an urban village is that it must be built to the street, and I don’t trust a “big box” to do so. Putting a suburban store like this in the middle of the city will make me sad, and destroy any chances of making it a livable area.

However, if the PDC is willing to, we could concievably make yet another 23rd Ave, or Hawthorne district (or Belmont, or Freemont, or whatever up-and-coming neighborhood you feel that I’ve left out, but shame, this is my blog not yours) or Perl District, because it’s an *area* being redeveloped, not any one street.

Related posts:

1. Iranians in Portland, Oregon
2. Hollywood Value Village, I really miss you…
3. Woodcrafters of Portland see below
4. Portland Scores on Public Spaces
5. Out with the old at PSU