Over the past two weeks, I’ve examined the meeting minutes of the Residential Infill Project Stakeholder Advisory Commission, going back to the project’s inception. Though the group was composed predominately by developers, architects, and realtors, this did not mean that these interests came into the process with fully formed notions of policy to pursue; rather the City of Portland planners directed the process from the beginning, channeling the project and urbanist leanings of the SAC to form a set of policies in line with competing municipal interests to appease homeowners and encourage densification. In their introductory presentation, the City of Portland first defined the three topics to be addressed by the project—first, the scale of new houses and remodels; second, narrow lot development; and third, alternative housing options.
Additionally, the City posed questions under each of these topics, guiding thought towards the directions decided upon. For the scale of new houses, they asked: How can new houses complement existing neighborhoods? Should the rules be the same for all areas? For narrow lot development, they asked: What should the lot dimensions be? What scale of house should be allowed? Should the rules be the same for all areas? And for alternative housing options, they gave secondary or junior ADU’s, cottage cluster developments, internal conversions, and stacked flats as options to pursue. The City further delimited the bounds of the project—it was to be concerned only with single-family zones, would not address formal zoning changes, would not consider trees, demolition taxes, deconstruction requirements, tiny-houses, micro-apartments, architectural style, street improvements, or development fees. Some of these issues are concurrently being dealt with by a different agency within the City, are to be dealt with in a future project, or were simply taken off the table.
For several months, SAC members discussed their feelings about their broad goals, what kind of future they wanted for Portland, and what they saw as the upsides and downsides of development. They were led on several neighborhood walks to see recent examples of infill, to discuss what ones they liked and ones they didn’t and to discuss the relative merits of different types of “missing middle” housing. City planners brought the group up to speed on the relevant zoning code and economic feasibility. From these discussions, general surveys, and models from other cities, EnviroIssues, Deca Architecture, and the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability led a charrette of design options in January which further solidified the policy options. The process, then, was very intentionally shaped from the beginning with the topics, perceived issues, and general policy responses preordained. Developers on the SAC played an important role in providing a receptive ear to urbanist narratives of infill and the solutions associated with those narratives, with many stating that densification to promote affordability was a primary goal of theirs in this process during the first meeting.
The group stayed away from majority votes, instead trending towards a consensus based on mutual dislike of the compromise reached, albeit with the result tilted in favor of the dominant urbanist bloc. This summary report makes these allegiances clear, despite the redaction of names from the bulk of the meeting minutes. The summary categorizes the two broad perspectives of the SAC as the “housing diversity” and “neighborhood context” perspective, which roughly accord to the urbanist and preservationist perspectives I’ve highlighted. The housing diversity bloc was, the report notes, composed a majority of the SAC. It was also far more vocal, being more active on the official Facebook page and attaching a signed letter to the summary report urging greater densification of single-family zones than was ultimately proposed by the Residential Infill Project SAC.
I also delved into the structure of the bureaucracy of Portland for gathering data for a social network analysis of policy governance. In particular, I looked at the member composition of the various committees and commissions working under the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS), the Portland Housing Bureau (PHB), and the Portland Development Commission (PDC). The BPS committees tended to be single-project stakeholder commissions, with the notable exception of the Planning & Sustainability Commission, which acts as the main public-facing arm of BPS and advises the City Council on long-range plans related to land use. It is formed of 11 volunteer members, including two members of the Residential Infill Project Stakeholder Advisory Committee. PHB and PDC, by contrast, tend to use more permanent advisory commissions. The members and affiliations of the housing-related BPS, PHB, and PDC advisory commissions, as well as the groups endorsing Measure 26-179, Portland for Everyone, and United Neighborhood for Reform’s anti-demolition resolution, are listed on this page. There certainly seems to be ample data for a social network analysis of these groups. Cursory examination reveals a relatively large number of developer and architecture firms with members on multiple commissions, with Gerding Edlen and ZGF Architects appearing four times over 14 commissions and Orange Splott, LLC appearing on 2 commissions and endorsing Portland for Everyone. Business associations and some neighborhood associations also make frequent appearances. Getting this data imported into Gephi and visualized may reveal further patterns, as will systematically conveying data on the centrality of different actors to the network.
Next week, I will be attending the public PSC meeting on the Residential Infill Project. This is essentially the first airing of the post-public feedback residential infill project and it will be very interesting to see what, if any, changes are recommended.