Oregon 2100: Urban Form and Settlement Patterns

In 1987 New York City adopted the report of its Commission on the Year 2000. A year later Los Angeles followed the same course and approved a report prepared by its Los Angeles 2000 Committee. In Oregon we have been equally active in the development of alternative scenarios and strategic plans for the year 2000. The Oregon Progress Board and its Benchmarks is just one example. Others include Portland\u27s Civic Index process and Future Focus, METRO\u27s Goals and Objectives study and LCDC\u27s Growth Management Study. These studies and numerous others across the country reflect a the desire to enhance, or at least maintain, the quality of our social and physical environments as we move into the 21st century. The year 2000 is obviously a significant milestone. It is not only the end of one century and the beginning of another one, but it is also the transition from one millennium to another. Other than the attached symbolism, however, the year 2000 is no more significant for us today than 1990 was nine years ago. Nevertheless, symbolism is an important and very powerful tool if used properly to challenge our imagination and focus our attention on the real issues, assuming we can delineate them in the proper framework

Where are we going? A look into Beaverton's future

30 pp. Maps, charts,tables, illus. Published June 2, 2005. Captured May 15, 2009.What should Beaverton want? Vision: transportation; housing; education; employment; identity. Why Beaverton? Role in the Region [From the document

The Portland region: Where city and suburbs talk to each other ... and sometimes agree

Portland, OR, is often cited as an example of successful regional governance and planning. The metropolitan area appears to match many of the precepts of the popular compact city model of urban growth and to demonstrate the capacity of local and state government to shape growing metropolitan regions. Given this reputation, it is important to evaluate the relevance of the Portland experience for other communities, distinguishing unique local circumstances form generalizable characteristics. This analysis explores the spatial character of metropolitan Portland in the 1990s, summarizes the politics of regional planning, examines weaknesses in the Portland approach, and offers suggestions for other metropolitan areas. The study finds that many of Portland\u27s accomplishments center on urban design, but that the region\u27s most distinguishing characteristics is its attention to political process. The discussion concludes with suggestions about the value of extensive civic discourse,incremental policy making, and institution building