Comments on: Portland A “New Urbanism” Hub? Not Quite, Say Some Experts

By: mike

mike — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 07:34:35 +0000

Is New Urbanism code for more malls?

By: thedude

thedude — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:52:13 +0000

There is much more to Cascade Station then what Wood describes. Ironic since I believe his former firm inherited the project after the death of the lead developer and visionary of the project. Wood and his company couldn’t make it work (just like he couldn’t make Ladds tower work or soon to be burnside bridgehead) The guy talks a good game but he’s not exactly a risk taker or even a solid developer (glorified stripmall developer) The DJC should follow up with a more indepth story, this was rather shallow reporting.

By: Truth

Truth — Thu, 31 May 2007 23:23:14 +0000

amen torridjoe

By: torridjoe

torridjoe — Thu, 31 May 2007 21:51:13 +0000

Sort of a strange perspective there–Bridgeport Village isn’t new urbanism, it’s an outdoor shopping mall. There is no related housing, and it is served almost entirely by cars (you could take a bus to Tualatin Park and Ride, but you’d have to cross a busy street at least once, likely twice, instead of being taken to it as at Washington Square).

I’m not an expert, but my vision of “new urbanism” is much more related to core issues about the physical design of homes and the traffic grid, where houses close together with small lots sit on a grid street alignment, with public transit available and commercial districts reachable without a car. That describes neither Bridgeport or Cascade, IMO, and it ignores the fact that much of Portland is already built like that. So to say we’re behind on New Urbanism may be to ignore that much of the city’s old urbanism follows the New Urbanism precepts.