The new post industrial city in the making- Harbor Drive teardown in Portland Oregon

Harbor Drive Teardown in Portland, Oregon, December 2014 1

Harbor Drive Teardown in Portland, Oregon: The making of a post-

industrial landscape

Introduction

This paper aims to develop a detailed understanding of the Harbor Drive freeway demolition project, in

Portland, Oregon. Portland is a city that lays at the confluence of Willamette and Columbia River in the

state of Oregon. The first settlement in Portland was on the banks of the Willamette River at “The

Clearing” also nicknamed “Stumptown”. This project also lay on the banks of the Willamette and was

initiated by Governor Tom McCall in 1969. Harbor drive was finally closed in 1974 and a public park

overlooking the river was developed in its place. The park is in fact now named after the Governor and is

called the Tom McCall Park, it consist of 37 acres of green space in the immediate vicinity of downtown

Portland. It was developed in five phases from 1976 to 1988 and continues to be improved to meet new

needs and high demand for public open space in downtown Portland. The park provides pedestrian

access to the river front and a number of outdoor recreation and event spaces for Oregonian’s as well as

visitors.

To locate the project in the larger context of the city this paper will first trace the transportation planning

history of Portland City with a special focus on understanding the inter-relationship between land use and

transportation in the development of the city. Through this study it will review how the city developed

along the banks of the river in the first phase and further inland in the second phase and what

transportation modes made this development possible. It will then locate the Harbor Drive case in this

larger context and look at the more detailed development of the case, to understand how the policy

implementation for the demolition took place. The paper will also examine the socio-economic & political

context in which this project took place.


The main thrust of this paper would be to understand how effective leadership by key stakeholders and

their innovative strategies led to this unprecedented action (the demolition of a highway), in a context

that largely favored the private car as the dominant mode of transportation and viewed mobility planning

through highway building as the key model for development. The case will outline the socio-economic

and historic context and a key underlying public sentiment that ultimately supported the replacement of

the freeway by the Tom McCall Park. The paper will go on to identify the key external events that served

as turning points in the case and how the policy and planning framework linked to these external

events/elements to propagate the demolition of harbor drive.

The reason this case is key to the transportation planning history in USA is because it marked an

unprecedented first in several ways. It went against the grain of the dominant planning mode of its era

which was largely influenced by the Federal Highway Act, promoting mobility planning as the key panacea

for all social and economic problems in the cities. Further it was the first State Government led initiative

which went against its own big brother establishment i.e. the federal government supported highway

development mandate. This was also unprecedented in an era where state/city governments were

eagerly accepting federal money to build highways, inter-states, freeways and crosstown expressways in

the name of development but often to the detriment of its citizens and its cities. It gives an important

perspective on an enlightened State and its capacities to break from the status quo through leadership

and coalition building. It marks an important narrative of establishment against establishment, a narrative

not often told and rare in that period which was dominated by the people against the establishment

narrative marked by the highway revolts, the west side story and many other community struggles

against state led inner city urban renewal projects.


Regarding the firsts it is important to note that at least two dozen American cities have discussed or

planned removal or teardown of inner–city elevated expressways and a few cities have already done so.

In the 1970’s Boston, New York City and Portland, Oregon initiated such teardowns. Each teardown had a

distinct replacement strategy, Boston replaced the central artery with a system of tunnels and greenways,

New York replaced the west side highway with a street level boulevard; and Portland bulldozed its harbor

drive to make way for a waterfront park. Portland was the earliest along with New York and showed the

most effectiveness in achieving the goal. Boston took many more decades to achieve and was contested

for the cost overruns and extensive use of public funds. In New York, the West Side Highway had come to

the logical end of its life in 1974 (when it was closed) as it had considerably deteriorated since the 1920’s

when it was built as one of the first highway projects in the country. The Portland teardown was unique in

the fact that it tore down a recently built city transport infrastructure (the harbor drive was built in 1943)

while claiming that the opening of a public park space and access to the river front as a public amenity

was an equally viable economic model for revitalizing the declining downtown. It also drew attention to

environmental pollution and congestion as a key cause for the exodus of residents from the downtown

thus bringing into perspective for the first time the importance of livability and environmental planning as

key criteria for economic sustenance of regions and cities. In many ways this laid the path for Portland to

become one of the most environmentally progressive and livable cities in the US.

Figure 1- Harbor Drive Case

Significance- Marked a change in

view from an auto centric view of

city development to a thinking

that includes a more diverse set

of values and interests.


The Portland case also represents several turning points in the planning discourse. It challenged the auto-

dominated transportation planning model to consider the impacts of highway design on urban spaces. It

also directly connected environmental impact concerns with mode choice in transportation planning,

thus promoting a more nuanced view of transportation planning and its impacts of the city and its

physical attributes and natural systems. It also changed the focus away from mobility/speed a 30,000 feet

mechanistic planning view to access and quality of built fabric a more pedestrian view. A view that

needed consideration to create walkable neighborhoods that promoted mix-use zoning. While Portland

was an early innovator that enlarged the transportation planning discourse in these ways its larger

contribution was its role in democratizing the planning debate. The harbor drive project created a process

of citizen engagement in planning debates that dislodged policy making from the annals of technocratic

and bureaucratic agendas to a people driven agenda. How this happened and what was the context for

the change will be discussed in the following sections.

Portland a brief snapshot of the transportation history

This section of the historic overview will begin with an overview of the transportation history of Portland

at the city level. The focus will be to understanding the changing pattern of city growth with a particular

focus on this section of the west bank of the Willamette River where Harbor Drive was first built and then

demolished.

Portland was founded in 1851 as a key port in the Pacific Northwest. The early settlers laid much of the

transportation framework that exists today in Portland. The famous 200mx200m Portland street grid was

laid out in this period. Most riverbank land use during this era was dominated by port activity, industries,

storage spaces and shipping centers along with residential areas. In 1869 the first rail lines were laid


down to transport goods and meeting industrial production and distribution needs, while horse drawn

carriages and water ferries continued to serve as a means of human transport.

Figure-2- Timeline of Transportation development from 1851-72, by PBOT

As the city grew it city expanded to the east and west of the river banks and bridges were built over the

river to connect the banks. In 1890 the first electric street car service opened in Portland to connect and

facilitate human transit for the growing city.

Figure-3- Timeline for Transportation development from 1880-96, by PBOT

Figure-4- Street Car Network-1889 and Land use

Map 1890, L . E. Thompson & Co.

See attached map from 1889 indicating

the extent of the street car corridor

and its influence on land development

patterns further east and west of the

1889


banks of the river. The land use pattern shows a distinct correlation to the streetcar corridor.

As the city urbanized and grew there was renewed focus on the desire to integrate city development with

its beautiful natural landscape. Portland is situated in the river valley surrounded by the Tualatin

Mountains. In 1904 Olmsted was invited to prepare a plan for the Lewis and Clark Center Exposition on

the lines of the City Beautiful Movement after the grand success of the Chicago fair. His 1904 report to

the Park Board presented waterfront improvements and network of green spaces and infrastructure for

Portland. The city continued to develop green space plans since then to create civic identity through

public open spaces, preserving natural vistas and increasing access to the shorelines. The Benett Plan and

the Cheney Plan in the following years are key examples of this renewed focus of the city in sustaining

and revitalizing its natural resources and green spaces.

It is important to note that during this city beautiful movement Portland

was also an active place for a city biking movement. In fact in 1898

Governor Geers passed the first Bicyclist Road Map of Portland which

engaged this very area near the harbor drive site as the main location for

several bike paths crossing the river (See Figure-6 on the right for a part plan,

Bicyclist Road Map- 1898).

Figure-5- Olmsted’s Report to

the Park Board and the 1901

Land use map -C. H. Crocker

Co. Lithograph


While the bike movement gained momentum 1900-12 Portland continued to see the growth of the street

car system and the waterways as the main mode of personal transportation.

Figure-7- Transportation development timeline 1898-1912, by PBOT

1912 marked the peak of the street car era. Land use and city growth during this period was

predominantly determined by access to the street car network. The map below from 1912 shows the

correlation between the expanded street car grid and the city’s land use patterns.

Figure-8- Streetcar network and land development pattern in Portland in 1912, American Map & Reproducing Company

From the 1913 onwards however with the growing popularity of the personal automobile started

challenging the dominance of the street car. More roadways were built to accommodate the growing

automobile traffic across Portland throughout the early 1900’s.

1912


Figure-9- Transportation development timeline from 1913-20, by PBOT

Through the 1925- 50’s automobile use became common place. The planning in Portland now focused on

traffic efficiency and infrastructure investment. It was during this period in 1942 that Harbor drive was

constructed as a 4-lane freeway to accommodate the growing traffic congestion issue facing downtown

Portland.


The 1950’s saw the start of the Federal highway Act. The city began to sprawl and the shifting land use

patterns were inadvertently funded by the Interstate Highway System that made new land accessible.

The Portland suburbs developed during this period. (See below Figure-11- timeline from 1950-70, by PBOT)


A color coded time line map of the land use below shows the growth of Portland over these different

time periods. (See below Figure-12- Portland annexations by decades, by the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability)

As the reliance on cars increased congestion grew. In the 1970’s -2000 traffic congestion and declining

downtown inspired Portland to re-evaluate its land use and transportation investment. To counter this

Mass transit services was prioritized, neighborhood livability became a main consideration in Planning

and infrastructure investment. In 1972 the downtown plan was adopted inspired by the writings of Jane

Jacobs. The plan focused on public space design to revitalize the central business district. The plan gave

priority to increasing the number of residential areas in the central city zone to promote a mix of uses and

introduce affordable housing as a measure to promote mix-income neighborhoods.


The red and orange areas show the

settlement along the banks of the

Willamette River from 1800-1912

(primarily dominated by the

streetcars and water transportation).

The light blue and dark blue zones

show the peak of the suburban

development from the 1940-80’s

(primarily dominated by the private

car and highway development

period).


1980’s-1998- The city took further steps to improve livability and walkability of the downtown areas. The

Central City Plan is adopted in 1989 which takes on urban design principles to create a pedestrian friendly

environment in the central city area. The plan uses key elements of planning incorporating land use,

transportation, parks, open space and access to the river as focus areas. It also adopted the 1996 Bicycle

Master Plan and followed by the 1998 Pedestrian Master Plan.

Figure-14- Transportation development timeline 1980-98, by PBOT

2000-Today- Portland is a nationally recognized multi-modal transportation leader. The emphasis has

been on retrofitting and maintaining a transportation network that is safe and accessible for all. A

streetcar feasibility study that was initiated in 1990 finally took shape with part funding received through

a federal HUD grant. Today the streetcar covers a length of 14.7 miles and is served by 2 lines & 7 cars.

Portland also introduced an aerial tram service funded jointly by OSHU University, south waterfront

owners and the city of Portland. (See below Figure-15- Transportation development timeline from 2000-10, by PBOT)


The harbor drive case within Portland ‘s transportation planning history

In the early part of 1900’s the area around the banks of the Willamette River was primarily occupied by

docks, bridges, rail yards, shipping container zones and manufacturing plants with a smattering of

residential uses. These areas often suffered flooding during high tides and surges. As a result of the

constant flooding by mid-1900’s housing and business started shifting away from the banks to the west of

this zone. In 1929 Harland Bartholomew prepared a Waterfront Decline Report that outlined the prime

cause being flooding, decline in water transportation, inaccessibility, obsolescence and lack of a definite

plan. The report called for acquisition of all land between Front Street and the river for redevelopment.

This marked an important step for the future development of the Harbor drive, as it marked the moment

when 13 blocks were acquired, a number of waterfront structures were condemned and a 32’ high sea

wall was built keeping a 25’ easement for the riverfront walkway and essentially the water front changed

hands from primarily private ownership to primarily public ownership, which made the future changes

possible. (Figure 16 below- Historic Photos showing construction of seawalls and roadways as public levees against flooding,

from the Waterfront Park Master Plan, www.portlandparks.org, by EDAW)

In 1943 with increased automobile use, the

downtown area in Portland suffered heavy traffic

congestion and decline. It was then that the Portland

city aware of the funding available from the

Roosevelt administration through the federal

highway act invited Robert Moses to Portland to

propose a Portland Improvement Plan. It was

through this plan that I-405 freeway loop and the I-5

loop gets proposed as a major central city loop.

Harbor drive also gets built as a limited access at

Figure 17- Map- 1943 Portland Improvement Plan by Robert

Moses at www.portlandoregon.gov

http://www.portlandparks.org/


grade freeway. The freeway is a 4- lane roadway that reduces the riverside easement from the original

25’ to 16’ thus further reducing access to the river. The flip side of the roadway building during this period

was the suburbanization of Portland as we saw in the land use map study early on in the paper. This

exodus of residents and businesses from the downtown resulted in further economic decline. To counter

this in 1963 the City Council asked the Portland Planning Commission to develop a 28 block waterfront

study, in order to revitalize the downtown. In 1968, this Downtown Waterfront Plan inspired by

Olmsted’s (1904) plan of parks and greenways along the river recommended eliminating Harbor Drive

and developing the land as a park to beautify the downtown riverfront.

In 1966 Tom Mc Call became the governor of the state of Oregon. As a journalist before entering political

office he had produced a documentary on the pollution in Oregon which had helped spur the

environmental clean-up of the air and the Willamette River. In 1968 while he was in office the state

highway department proposed widening of harbor drive and relocating it between front avenue and the

west bank of the Willamette River. It was to facilitate this that the City of Portland acquired the Journal

Building, the last remaining building on the waterfront. By this time however many citizens groups had

other ideas about how cities should be designed, environmentalist had already caught on to the

recommendations of the Downtown Waterfront Plan. A number of groups advocated for the revival of

the city beautiful ideas proposed by the Olmsted plan in 1903 calling for the development of parks and

greenways along the riverbanks. This spurred governor to appoint an inter-governmental task force to re-

valuate Harbor drive and recommend a framework to consider alternatives. By 1969 the task force was

setup. Its task as an intergovernmental agency was to coordinate and develop a comprehensive plan for

the west bank of the river between Burnside and Ross Island. The goal was to ensure optimum

enhancement of the area between Front Avenue and the river to revitalize the area and consider


alternatives to freeway expansion plans. The task force was a 9 member committee appointed by the

governor and the mayor.

The committee consisted of:

- Glenn Jackson- Chairman of the task force, Chairman of the board of pacific power and light co and

chairman of the highway commission

- John D Mosser, an attorney and chairman of the State Sanitary Authority

- Dennis Lindsay, attorney and chairman of the Port of Portland Commission

- Ira Keller, President of Western Kraft Corporation and Chairman of the Portland Development

Commission

- Herbert Clark, President of Holman Transfer Company and Chairman of the City Planning Commission

- Francis Ivancie, Commissioner of Public Affairs, City of Portland

- Clifford Alterman, attorney, Chairman of the Multnomah County Planning Commission

- C Ralph Walstrom, President Property Counselors Inc.

- Dr John Phillips, Vice President for Administration, Lewis and Clarks College

The composition of the task force with a mix of state and city agency officials and business and university

representatives suggests an important move by the governor in trying to bring the state agency’s

recommendation (i.e the Highway Commission’s recommendation) for harbor drive widening in line with

the city’s desire to look at alternate visions for improving downtown Portland.

In 1969 while the taskforce was developing its plans the governor organized the property owners of key

waterfront parcels south of Hawthorne Bridge to agree to a one year moratorium on the sale or

development of their holdings. This was an important step as it allowed time for more comprehensive

development once the waterfront plans were solidified and avoided any conflicting developments in the

interim. In July 1969 the taskforce presented its first report. The report recommended three options for


the redevelopment of Harbor Drive. Option-A proposed to widen Harbor Drive to six lanes and realign it

around the journal square building in order to straighten it and ease the bottle neck around this junction.

Option B proposed moving the 6 lane slightly depressed Harbor drive further in land and adjacent to

Front Avenue opening up access to a larger waterfront area with two pedestrian bridges making the

connection to the waterfront. Option C considered partly depressing harbor drive to allow direct access

to the waterfront and adding a public park and boating facility at the water edge.

Figure 18- 1969 Task force Plans- Three options for Harbor drive realignment


Dismayed by the taskforce’s proposal, several environmental groups and citizens’ organization began to

propagate a reconsideration of the plans. It is during this time in July 1969 that Allison, Bob Belcher and

Jim Howell formed the Riverfront for People organization to draw up a campaign against the widening of

Harbor drive on the riverfront. This propelled Governor Tom McCall to send a letter to Glenn Jackson the

chair of the taskforce on July 15th 1969 to reiterate his objective to develop a riverfront park and request

timely decision of the task force. In August 1969 the Portland City Club another non-profit, non-partisan

civic organization formed in 1916 issued a report on the taskforce plan. While criticizing the taskforce

plans the report recommended that unless the waterfront redevelopment proposal stimulates and

inspires development in the adjacent area which gives reasonable indication for financing capability

Harbor drive should be restricted to minor improvement where necessary for relieving traffic congestion.

It recommended that the plan should consider a varied well programmed use for the greenway tied to

the downtown area and that the study area should be extended to south of the Hawthorne bridge as

originally recommended and that the development of this waterfront should relate to the riverfront

development at the south city limits. However in spite of this public outcry the taskforce reinforced the

decision to retain the 6 lane freeway in the relocated location stating that “the state highway engineers

Figure 19- 1969 Task force Plans- Three options for Harbor drive realignment


projected there would be 90,000 trips per day in the corridor by 1990” and there was no way one could

get rid of harbor drive.

During this period the riverfront for people team continued to raise public awareness and campaign

against the expected widening of harbor drive through the press and petition drives and hosting several

picnics and block parties on the site next to journal square building to protest against taskforce plans.

Seeing an opportunity in this public alignment in Oct 1969 the mayor finally pushed the Taskforce to seek

public opinion through a public hearing to generate consensus on the plan for the riverfront. On Oct 15th,

1969 an article in the Oregonian reported on the outcome of the first public hearing held on Oct 14th. It

reported “that the Governor’s taskforce got an earful at the hearing”. At this hearing Robert Belcher head

of the riverfront for the people committee submitted petitions bearing 2500 signatures asking for a

unique waterfront and urging the task force to make no little plans. The mayor saw in these events a

further opportunity to engage citizens formally in the planning process to counter the resistance he was

seeing within the taskforce. In December 1969 the governor appointed a Citizen Advisory Committee

consisting of 18 members in order to create a consensus on the harbor drive plan and work with the task

force.

The citizen advisory committee then hired an independent consulting firm DeLeuw Cather & Company,

San Francisco to study harbor drive options. Once again the traffic engineers said it was impossible to

convert harbor drive into a park. Instead Deleuw-Cather proposed creating a couplet of two lane wide

one-way streets to carry the harbor drive traffic. Harbor drive would become a surface level street

carrying traffic in one direction while front avenue the next street up from harbor drive would be made

the second one way street carrying traffic in the other direction. The plan was strongly criticized by

Richard Ivey a local planning consultant who insisted that improved access between existing Front

Avenue and the parallel freeways (I-5) could justify complete removal of the roadway. It was during this


time that the City Planning Commission stopped any plans for the hasty closure of the harbor drive to be

replaced by the couplet street plan by insisting that this plan be considered with along with the

development of the Downtown Plan which was underway. This decision gave sufficient time for the Glenn

Jackson’s team (the taskforce) to consider all alternatives.

When the downtown plan finally came out it gave Portland and its downtown a clear direction for future

planning. Concerned over the loss of green spaces, traffic congestion and dilapidated conditions of the

neglected waterfront the plan recommended the formation of a Waterfront Urban Renewal District. This

plan thus gave steam to the leaders fighting for harbor drive removal to push the task force to reconsider

the Harbor drive removal as proposed by the 1968 Downtown Waterfront Improvement Plan and in line

with the aspirations of the renewal district. The waterfront district was finally set up in 1974 with

authorization to use tax increment to finance large public improvement projects. This coupling of the

Harbor drive project with the Downtown Plan was key to tying the project to a larger goal and in some

sense ascertaining its inevitability in order to ensure the growth of the entire district. This plan was also

the first comprehensive plan that involved broad participation of stakeholders, including retailers,

Figure 20- Plans from- Elements of Vitality, Results of the Downtown Plan, City of Portland Office of Transportation


residents, civic, professional organizations, public officials to create the “planning guidelines”. It

prescribed tradeoffs between different public agencies, public interests, private interest and competing

uses to build consensus and thus helped create a larger network of citizen collaboration and engagement.

It is important here to mention the democratic mayor Neil Goldschmidt who championed this downtown

plan and worked closely to open the planning process to local groups & community members. He was a

strong supporter of public transit and in fact successfully led the campaign for abandoning the Mount

Hood Freeway Plan. He was a key collaborative partner helping bring state and city interests in line for the

removal of harbor drive freeway along with Governor Tom McCall.

It was during this time that Glenn Jackson (the head of the task force) under pressure from the Governor

and the Public to find an alternate to harbor drive called on Richard Ivey to discuss alternates for

complete removal of Harbor drive. Ivey presented to him an option that was drawn up in his office

(CH2M) for the removal of harbor drive that diverted traffic to the inner loop and Front Street. As per

historical records published on the Portland State University website it is believed that Glenn Jackson had

the state engineers draw up this plan discussed with Ivey and present it to the city council reinstating

Ivey’s theory that if the public were notified about the closure well in advance traffic would simply be

diverted from harbor drive to the parallel freeways which had extra capacity. The city council approved

this plan. And harbor drive was finally closed on May 23, 1974 after Freemont Bridge was completed to

carry traffic to parallel roads (I-405). By the end of 1974 the entire road was closed and demolition began

for the development of the park.

In 1975 the Waterfront Park Plan was developed by Wolff Zimmer Gunsul Frasca & Royston, Hanamoto,

Beck and Abey. The development was phased over five phases and was completed in 17 years at a cost of

$20 million. Completed from Front Avenue and Ankeny Plaza to the north of Burnside Bridge, it was


mainly funded by tax increment funds. The park was finally opened in 1978 and was renamed the Tom

McCall park in 1984. In 1982 the Portland Parks Recreation department updated the master plan to

accommodate growth while the old plan was still in implementation. The new plan accommodated

changing needs and improvements and a management plan was developed to address user related wear

and stress on the park infrastructure. The park remains a popular destination for events, festivals

throughout the year.

After the removal of harbor drive there was minimal negative traffic impact partially due to the street

patterns and traffic management of downtown Portland. In order to better manage traffic and more

effectively use the street grid, all downtown streets were turned into one way streets and the traffic

lights were signalized to enable vehicles to travel across downtown with minimal stopping. Reduced

speed limits were also enforced to ensure pedestrian safety and a bike compatible environment.

Figure 21- Master Plan for Tom Mc Call Park, Photographs of the park (Google Earth)


The removal of harbor drive was also a catalyst in the revitalization of the downtown waterfront area. It

opened direct access to the river and 73 acres of land. This led to the creation of the downtown

waterfront urban renewal area (DTWF URA) which covers 309 acres of land area. The DWTF promoted

development around waterfront amenities. A number of projects were successfully implemented

providing additional tax revenue helping encourage growth and transforming the downtown into a

vibrant place.

Key learnings about policy making from the case

1. Key Historic moment, post highway era and the demand for public participation-In the late 1960

people of Portland like the rest of the nation were reeling from the negative impacts of the

callous technocratic highway era planning that ripped neighborhoods, destroyed street life and

displaced people with little care. They demanded better engagement of the community in

planning the city. Portland’s leaders encouraged and facilitated this engagement. Both Tom Mc

Call and Neil Goldschmidt understood this public sentiment and worked across party lines to

institutionalize public participation in the planning processes in Portland.

2. Vision of change- New visions of the city for the people inspired by the writings of Jane Jacobs

influenced a number of Central City and Downtown plans that were commissioned by the city

council at this time in response to the downtown congestion. Frustrated with increasing density,

high pollution and reduced open space a number of citizens groups pushed for better living

conditions and planning to consider a holistic approach to development and growth. These plans

were key in promoting a mix-use downtown with a pleasant pedestrian environment and

integration of parks and open spaces for public use.

3. Key Policy entrepreneur – Governor Mc Call was a key policy advocate pushing for idea of creating

better access to the waterfront, striking a balance between mobility and access and developing a


public park at the waterfront as a public amenity for Portland. Without his leadership and

persistence it is unlikely that harbor drive would have been closed and replaced by a public park.

4. Countering institutional status quo- When the Governor faced resistance from the

intergovernmental task force to consider alternates for complete removal of the harbor drive. He

was quick to counter it by establishing a Citizen’s Advisory Group to work with the task force.

Thus without directly challenging the institutional setup he created a counter force which could

balance the discussion while still continuing to push for change from his side.

5. Multi-actor networks are key- The formation of the River Front for People and continuous

advocacy by the Portland City Club were key to keeping public interest in the project alive. The

awareness campaigns by these groups created a density of knowledge networks that allowed

citizens to be informed participants in the process. This building of public opinion and interest

was key to putting pressure on the task force at public hearings.

6. Key External events- The completion of the Freemont Bridge and completion of the I-405 loop

provided a key turning point in the harbor demolition case. Planners like Richard Ivey saw this as

an opportunity to propose an alternate traffic route along the I-405 thus justifying the removal of

harbor drive.

Key Learnings for a planner from the case

As a planner and practitioner the case offers some key learnings for transportation planning.

1. Value of mobility in Urban Planning should be carefully weighed against other values like livability,

walkability, environmental benefits, health benefits, social equity and economic development

2. Overall network efficiency should be evaluated carefully before adding capacity to existing

roadways. Some of the projected growth in traffic based on traffic models or existing traffic

congestion issues can be dealt with better traffic management and distribution to ensure

effective utilization of the existing network.


3. Integrated transportation planning that balances all modes of transportation and links it to land

use development is key to ensuring a well-developed and balanced urban environment.

4. Freeway removals can help reconnect city grids and provide opportunity for developing

important public open space and greater pedestrian access with complete street designs.

5. Reduction in roadway capacity must be managed and mitigated and monitored over time. Long

term commitment should ensure that design solutions balance the needs of all users.

6. Equity considerations are key. Displacing traffic to other residential neighborhoods maybe a

concern, it might promote some businesses over others, it might lead to increased property

prices pushing the poor out of neighborhoods. This unfortunately was the case in downtown

Portland.

7. Public opinion is key. Encouraging a healthy debate on the competing values must take place to

ensure long term sustenance. A comprehensive well-articulated civic vision for enhanced quality

of life, sustainability and economic development are important for the success of a plan.

Conclusion

In summary the case illustrates how three key elements drove the policy forward. The first and most

significant was the role played by Governor Tom McCall as the policy champion. His strategic decisions at

key moments were critical to bridge over the institutional impasse and push the agenda forward. His

astuteness and nimbleness in changing strategy when the situation demanded was key to enabling the

project. Whether it was forming the Citizens Advisory Committee or requiring Public Hearings to counter

the status quo being suggested by the State Highway Engineers or getting an agreement from business to

hold development in the area till further planning decisions were made, these were all important and

timely decisions. The second key element the case illustrates is the recognition and significance of

external events in policy making. It was the acuity of Richard Ivey the local planner who saw the

opportunity in key external events as they presented themselves. He recognized that the completion of I-


405 and Freemont Bridge offered a solution to the lost capacity problem that the closure of harbor drive

posed and this solution presented the final resolution to the technical issue that was stalling the harbor

drive demolition project. This poses the question that not everything is lost to finding technical solutions,

technical solutions are indeed important and it would serve experts to better their case by listening to

people and looking for out of the box thinking on alternate solutions. Harbor drive demolition would not

have been possible if a solution had not been found to mitigate the lost capacity of the freeway by

proposing alternatives. The final mitigation measure for harbor drive closure in fact also included another

technical solution, the turning of all Portland downtown streets into one way streets to allow better

efficiency in the using the existing capacity of the roadways and dissipating some of the loss of capacity at

harbor drive. The last but not the least is the significance of community participation and the role of

collaborators in the form of nonprofit groups and civic agencies who can build public awareness and

engage community interest in the planning of their city. The engagement of such networks through the

Citizen Advisory Committee, the Riverfront for People and the Portland City Club was elemental to Harbor

Drive demolition. It created channels of communication both formally and informally engaged with the

planning process that helped retain the diversity of voices. Portland has a long history of citizen

participation and over the years has invested significantly in this effort to build a strong, engaged and well

informed citizenry who are sophisticated in their understanding of urban issues and are very proactive

and effective in bringing their voices to the table. This has to a large extent helped depoliticize planning

processes and pulled them out of the chambers of bureaucracy to more democratic channels of

negotiation through public referendums and citizen’s advisory committees.


While the Portland has successfully engaged community participation in the planning process over the

years, it has been lacking in the effort to hear the voices of the most marginalized. The harbor drive

project and the downtown revitalization plan have led to economic growth and revitalization but they

have lacked in their effort to maintain social and fiscal equity. The downtown has seen significant real-

estate investment in high end retail, commercial and residential space build up, but it has lagged in the

opportunity to retain and add affordable housing, making the downtown into an elite neighborhood. The

lack of affordable spaces in these perfectly manicured clean and well-functioning environment’s need to

be questioned and deliberated on. Discourses on livability and walkability that promote remaking of

waterfronts and neighborhoods cannot be too forgiving of gentrification, and if they continue to be , they

will surely receive the same backlash as the urban renewal strategies of the 60’s did. It is therefore

important for well-intentioned environmentalist, politicians and civic groups to continue to seek the

interest of the poorest while working to promote progressive environmentally sensitive planning ideals.

Otherwise the livability movement faces the danger of being rightfully claimed as the new “growth

machine” of the post-industrial city.

The three key instigators in the

harbor drive demolition project were:

1) The Policy Champion

2) External Turning Point

3) Collaborators


The post-industrial city thus poses a special challenge in this regard. Are these cities guilty of

incorporating some images while excluding other? Is the image of the industrial economy and workers

colonies too dirty for this pristine city to inhabit? These are questions that no one city can answer as

these are questions about the structuring of our global economy, where the space for industrial

productivity is being shifted to places where circumstances are more opportune to be exploited for

higher capitalist gain or rather who cannot yet afford the livable agenda.

While at this juncture of the case discussion it would be easy to slip into the binary of environment versus

society discussion that is often promoted by the opponents of environmentally progressive policies. It is

important as stewards of public interest that planners and professionals propose a more balanced

approach that promotes weighing short term and long term goals, that looks at a more integrated

human-environment conceptual framework. Cognizance of social issues is as vital as is cognizance of

environmental issues and the two cannot be looked at as separate issues. They are interconnected and

interrelated and require equal consideration and deliberation. While it is important to acknowledge the


challenges for the future it is also important to point out the important milestones these movements

have achieved in changing the planning discourse. They have successfully-challenged the status quo of

mobility based transportation planning, refocusing our attention on mass-transit and mutli-modal

transportation networks, promoting active means of transport including walking and biking and above all

reconnecting transportation to land use planning by promoting mix-use neighborhoods and asking for

environmental values to be weighed in transportation mode choices, all these are significant

achievements.

Note on research method

The research presented in this paper is based on official data and reports available on the government

websites as public information, including documentation of official memo’s, technical plans, reports, data

published by university archives, scholarly reports and articles published by reputable academic journals

and publications in newspapers as well as journals by civic groups involved in advocacy for the project. No

direct interviews with stakeholders/organizations were conducted due to the lack of time and constraints

of distance.

Bibliography

- Urban Design in Portland, Oregon, as policy and process: 1960-1989, Carl Abbott, Department of

Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon 97207, USA

- The Expressway Teardown Movement in American Cities: Rethinking Postwar, Highway Policy in

the Post-Interstate Era, Raymond A. Mohl, Journal of Planning History 2012 11: 89 originally

published online 9 November 2011

- The Post-Interstate Era: Planning, Politics, and Policy since the 1970s, Raymond A. Mohl and Mark

H. Rose, Journal of Planning History 2012 11: 3 originally published online 9 November 2011


- A Riverfront Park Runs Through it: A bend in the river for citizen involvement in Portland--40

years later, Tim DuRoche, Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies, [email protected].

- Shifting Urban Priorities: The Removal of Inner City Freeways in the United States, By Francesca

Napolitan, Master in City Planning Thesis at the MIT, June 2007

- Lessons learned – Freeway Removal, Seattle Mobility plan, 6 case Studies.

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/ump/06%20seattle%20case%20studies%20in%20ur

ban%20freeway%20removal.pdf

- Freeway Deconstruction and Urban Regeneration in the United States. Author: Cervero, Robert,

University of California Transportation Center, Oct 2006

- The Portland edge, challenges and successes in growing communities, Connie P Ozawa, Island

Press, 2004.

- The Greater Portland Plan, Bennett, Edward, Dana, Marshall, 1912

- Annexations by Decade- City of Portland, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, 2014

- The Portland Planning Commission an Historical Overview, City of Portland Bureau of Planning,

Laura Campos, Dec 1979

- Results of the Downtown Plan, City of Portland Office of Transportation

- Planning Guidelines: Portland Downtown Plan, City Planning Commission, 1972

- Journal Building Site Use and Riverfront Development, Portland City Club Bulletin, 1969

- Keeping Portland Moving, Portland Bureau of Transportation, Transportation Timeline, 2012

- Open Space & Park Development-1851-1965, Portland Parks & Recreation, 2010

- Shaping neighborhoods and nature: Urban political ecologies of urban waterfront

transformations in Portland, Oregon, Chris Hagerman, Cities, 2007

Other online resources

- Historic Maps- http://www.davidrumsey.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.davidrumsey.com/


- Portland Master Plans- http://pdxplanning.weebly.com/portlands-great-plans.html

- Portland Official Documents- http://www.portlandoregon.gov

- https://www.asla.org/nonmembers/lamarticle/rivercity.htm

- http://www.zgf.com/portfolio/

- http://www.rhaa.com/projects/urban.htm

- http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysHarbor.html

- Land use maps- http://oregonexplorer.info/landuse/OregonLandUse

- Streetcar History- http://www.portlandstreetcar.org

http://pdxplanning.weebly.com/portlands-great-plans.html

http://www.portlandoregon.gov/

https://www.asla.org/nonmembers/lamarticle/rivercity.htm

http://www.zgf.com/portfolio/

http://www.rhaa.com/projects/urban.htm

http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysHarbor.html

http://oregonexplorer.info/landuse/OregonLandUse

http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/

The new post industrial city in the making- Harbor Drive teardown in Portland Oregon

Documents

Transcript of The new post industrial city in the making- Harbor Drive teardown in Portland Oregon