Thread by @sarahforpdx

Attended a thought provoking lecture today, “The Miracle of Density”: The Politics of Urban Design and Densification in downtown Bogotá" by Federico Pérez, a prof in @Portland_State Honors College

There were some HEAVY lessons therein for the #YIMBY movement, gonna try relay 1/x

First off, we gotta rethink how we talk about density because TBH, it's not density NIMBYs fear, it's overcrowding and all the threats that an urban mob presents 2/x

“The spectre of the crowd has always haunted” urban planning efforts, fear of the “unruly masses”-- We conflate density w overcrowded nhoods, unruly and uncivilized. These fears are “rather spectacularly performed" (think of the children, said the NIMBY) 3/x

Density is a poor stand in for how we discuss urban livability. We need to be talking about things like proximity & distance & how the spaces between us are determined by class, gender, etc

We need to talk about the texture & lived experience of density, not just it's form 4/x

And it's not your imagination the STREETS play a huge role in this. According to Perez's, wide automobile thrufares cut through the heart of working class nhoods keep them from being too closely knit and allow security forces better control of the urban environment 5/x

(Think Robert Moses, PDC, and the scraping clean of ethnic nhoods for the construction of Portland's South Auditorium district-- feels much different than say Ladd's Addition or Sunnyside) 6/x

As with all urban planning & development it's about control--of power, resources, access--through control of urban space.

There's sanctioned (I'd say sanitized) density in So Waterfront whereas places like N. Williams & Division feel almost illicit, like density snuck in 7/x

The question this raised for me:

How can we retool local narratives (YIMBYism) around accommodating growth? What does an inclusive growth framework that includes density (but doesn't revolve around it) look like esp vis a vis accommodating the working class and poor people? 8/x

Here's the thing: what we opt to build at any given time OBLITERATES the alternatives of what could be constructed. We're not being explicit enough that underbuilding is an act of "spatial cleansing" that pre-emptively excludes all sorts of people, but also magic & beauty 9/x

[pause: gotta get off the bus, will be back to finish the lecture recap in a few...]

To get around the NIMBY fears around the "illicit" densification (the idea that density is going to sneak in lot by lot) is simply to go full press on building an inclusive city by sanctioning density everywhere: Bogata's "unmanaged growth" is essentially self-managed growth 10/x

Instead of focusing on FARs and building heights and setbacks, let's actually focus on neighborhood character (something NIMBYs love) and talk about our build out in terms of social relations between groups of people rather than relations between buildings and streets 11/x

Inclusionary density, then, can be miraculous, but only if it's well designed. And, well, good design is something Portlanders can really come together around-- we can talk about projects in terms of:
1. topography
2. relationships
3. volume
4. experience

What do you think? 12/x

(This is aligned w my thinking on "pink tape" development gleaned from Detroit: firststopportland.blogspot.com/2016/11/detroi…)

[Tl;dr If we're not going to build public housing, we need to make for-profit density easier & cheaper & faster to keep up with housing demand 13/13]

unroll