In our analyses of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan and the 1993 Albina Community Plan, we sought evidence of Portland planner’s awareness and intentions regarding housing prices and gentrification. We examined each document for words, phrases, and other rhetorical devices indicating the motivations for revitalization, the potential effects of revitalization on residents, and future aspirations.
1979 Comprehensive Plan
The 1979 Comprehensive Plan officially laid out the goals of the UGB and its implementation. Its discussion of the UGB remains very broad; its most specific point about the UGB is its goal to “identify and adopt an urban planning area boundary outside the current city limits. The City will conclude agreements with abutting jurisdictions, establishing a process for monitoring activity within this boundary” (D-1). This lack of specificity may be due to the other policies and papers that served similar purposes, and may have elaborated more. We focus the rest of our analysis on the parts of the Comprehensive Plan relating to diversity and housing.
Overall, the Comprehensive Plan seems to be directed at an audience of current Portland residents with concerns about the stability of their place of belonging as the city attempts to expand. As such, the Comprehensive Plan takes intentional strides to state the importance of measures to retain Portland’s character. Nevertheless, its introduction clarifies: “We must accept some changes or we run the risk of losing all the things that make Portland ‘one of America’s most livable cities’”(B-1). Throughout the report, this motif of inviting change while maintaining the security and character of current neighborhoods and residents continues strongly.
Perhaps because of this audience that seems sensitive to change, the Comprehensive Plan highlights the conservation of diversity over time. When discussing neighborhood improvement, one priority is: “Provide and coordinate programs to promote neighborhood interest, concern and security and to minimize the social impacts of land use decisions” (D-5). Another specifies: “Promote neighborhood diversity and security by encouraging a balance in age, income, race and ethnic background within the cities neighborhoods” (D-5). With regard to housing, the plan uses words such as “fairness” and “equal access” liberally, including specific mention of race, color, national origin, and more (D-6). Finally, the plan gives particular, spelled-out steps towards the maintenance of citizen involvement in city planning (D-16).
1993 Albina Community Plan
The Albina Community Plan begins by laying out its intentions and the problems perceived by its authors (the City of Portland Planning Commission, with the help of the broader Portland City Council and Bureau of Planning staff, as well as the North/Northeast Economic Development Alliance). The plan “is intended to combat the loss of employment base, disinvestment and dilapidation in the Albina area” (1). While this introduction mentions the “interrelationship” between infrastructure and “social and family issues,” the entire report remains broad and unspecific when discussing any social (particularly racial) elements. Also worth noting is the prioritization of improving the “appearance” and “character” of the Albina neighborhood, which could (but does not necessarily) imply a redesign process that fits the desires of a different residential base (9). Finally, the introduction acknowledges that “the past practice of redlining properties…and the failure of traditional lending institutions to provide mortgages to potential home buyers” makes neighborhood recovery difficult; however, it never explicitly mentions racial discrimination and does not open space for the suggestion that redlining could still be continuing (2).
While the report sets out goals and policies for a wide range of categories (including transportation, business growth, education, and more), we focus on housing proposals for this analysis. The section on housing opens by describing the “diversity” of architecture in the community; it suggests that the presence of Victorians, bungalows, and Edwardian homes make Albina’s development worth respecting and preserving. Many of these homes in the area are “vacant and abandoned” (51). The report goes on to highlight several goals, including: protecting distinctive architecture, promoting home ownership, and preserving affordable housing so that “a portion of the housing stock in Albina remain affordable over the next 20 years” (52). Regarding new housing production, the Commission proposes producing “3000 new housing units over the next 20 years,” taking advantage of vacant land, and increasing density to make the area “more desirable.” In place of the current single-dwelling detached houses, the report suggests mixed housing. Regarding affordable housing, the Commission acknowledges the presence of low-income Albina residents and notes that affordable housing is “critical to ensuring that the current Albina residents can stay in the community” (52). The Commission suggests that affordable housing be preserved partially through assistance programs provided by the city, including homeowner, rental rehabilitation, and urban homesteading programs. The report insists moreover that affordable housing benefits families because rehabilitation is cheaper than reconstruction. Finally, the city suggests the stabilization of neighborhoods through the promotion of home ownership. It gives examples of employers who help their employees with purchasing homes, but does not suggest any further options for city involvement.
Overall, the Albina Community Plan prioritizes development but does not provide convincing and accountable dedication to current and non-white residents. While the term “diversity” is used frequently, its use is always in reference to architecture and “historical character.” The report never directs this valuation of diversity and character towards current residents and their lifestyles. While the report touches on issues of affordability and briefly acknowledges the possibility of displacement, its policy and planning suggestions are ambiguous. For example, the report lists as an action: “Revisit the housing affordability issue in the Albina Community neighborhoods in 10 to 15 years after the Albina Community neighborhoods have stabilized. Seek to increase opportunities for affordable housing and reductions in displacement that might otherwise result from neighborhood stabilization and rising property values” (54). This plan of action lacks a way to ensure accountability to current residents. While the report emphasizes that resident representatives were involved in editing the draft (noting particularly that “a special outreach effort was made to special needs populations” (5)), there are many possible situations in which participation could have (but was not necessarily) skewed or misrepresented.