These projects often resulted in studies, surveys, and reports that continue to be useful to researchers and those interested in the growth and development of the metropolitan region.
George A. Russill Fellowship
The Russill Fellowship
The George A. Russill Fund of the Oregon Community Foundation and Portland State University’s Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies have collaborated to support scholarly work that benefits the greater Portland community and encourages careers of exceptionally useful and effective public service in the spirit of George Russill.
The George A. Russill Fellowship was created within Portland State University’s Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies to support the engagement of outstanding students in applied research projects that promise to help the Institute and/or community leaders to recognize and address the most critical, pressing issues facing metropolitan Portland area communities today or in the future. By doing so, the Oregon Community Foundation and the Institute hope to inspire the recipients of this award to pursue careers of creative service or scholarship on behalf of the highest aspirations of their communities and society generally.
About George A. Russill
George A. Russill was born in Oregon in 1938. He earned a bachelor's degree from Williams College in Massachusetts and a law degree from Stanford University. He worked on Oregon Senator Wayne Morse’s 1962 re-election campaign before he was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1963. Russill spent more than a year in Vietnam, and received an Honorable Discharge in 1966 as a 1st Lieutenant.
In 1969, Russill and his wife, Sandra, returned to Oregon where he began work in labor law. In 1970 he was diagnosed with lymphoma and began chemotherapy. He volunteered for several political and civic causes throughout the early 1970s until Portland Mayor Neil Goldschmidt asked him to serve as an assistant and liaison on government and business issues. He returned to practice labor law when his cancer reemerged in 1976. George Russill died on April 24, 1978 after an eight year battle with lymphoma.
Following his death, friends and colleagues established the Geroge A. Russill Community Service Award to honor an individual for exceptional voluntary public policy service to the community. The award was given from 1980 through 2004 when the fund was altered to become a fellowship in lieu of the community service award. The fellowship was designed to support graduate students at Portland State University involved in the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies.
Russill Fellows and Fellowship Papers
Click on the titles to download .pdf files of each paper.
Bi-State Cooperation Project
Draft final report of the Interstate Cooperation Project! Click here to down load the .pdf file.
Background
On March 16, 2006, Governors Chris Gregoire and Ted Kulongoski met at the 2006 Bi-State Metropolitan Forum to address a group of public and private stakeholders from Oregon and Washington and to identify and discuss issues of mutual concern. Each Governor acknowledged the interdependence of the two states and the interconnectedness of the region's economy. They encouraged both public and private-sector leaders to ignore the state boundary and find areas in which cooperation could improve prosperity, quality of life, and government efficiency on both sides of the Columbia River.
Their comments reflect the opinions of a growing number of private and public sector leaders. During the conference breakout sessions, participants set forward ideas for cooperation which ranged from a bi-state compact for post-secondary education to the harmonization of standards for certified industrial sites. A common theme woven through many of the comments was the need to break through legal and bureaucratic hurdles that place unnecessary restrictions on cooperation between the states. Dozens of participants volunteered to work in groups to follow-up on the ideas generated during the conference.
At a meeting in the office of Congressman Brian Baird on August 11, 2006, a group of leaders from the Portland Vancouver Metropolitan Region continued the discussion and identified a number of potential benefits for more effective bi-state cooperation. However, they also recognized the need to make a strong case emphasizing the benefits of such cooperation to citizens on both sides of the border.
Evidence from Other States
A recently-published report by the Brookings Institution highlights multi-state cooperation as an increasingly important strategy for global competitiveness. Addressing this trend in a November 5 column in the Washington Post, Neal Peirce wrote, "Megaregions will be active units of the new global economy—its time we wake up and smell the coffee." More than 300 multi-state agreements currently exist and more are being developed to address a broad range of policy issues, including transportation, economic development, port management, homeland security and higher education to name a few.
Need
The following are suggested as key products need to advance our progress:
- An inventory of opportunities for bi-state cooperation that are difficult to capture in the current environment.
- A review of how other states have benefited from developing a framework for bi-state or multi-state cooperation.
- A summary of the key benefits available to the region using a bi-state cooperation framework.
- A description of the key legal and organizational tools that can be used to provide a bi-state cooperation framework.
Project
A team of faculty and students from WSU Vancouver and PSU's Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies is addressing the following questions:
- What are the key policy areas that could benefit from bi-state cooperation?
- What problems and barriers can be addressed by developing new tools for bi-state cooperation?
- What are the structure and scope of successful interstate agreements, both here in the Pacific Northwest and in other regions?
- What are the key benefits of existing and potential interstate cooperative arrangements?
- What resources are available to assist in the development of interstate cooperative arrangements?
The primary source of information for this project is interviews with key stakeholders, particularly in the Oregon and Washington business community. This information will be supplemented with interviews with key public sector officials familiar with existing bi-state agreements, both here and in other states. We are also conducting a thorough review of public management literature to evaluate the scope and effectiveness of multi-state agreements.
Support
This project is supported by the Bi-State Coordination Committee, which is chartered by member agencies to review, discuss, and make recommendations about transportation, land use, and related issues of bi-state significance.
Chair
Rex Burkholder
Metro
Commissioner Steve Stuart
Clark County
Commissioner Sam Adams
City of Portland
Councilor Mike Bennett
City of Gresham
Jeff Hamm, Executive Director
C-TRAN
Larry Paulson, Executive Director
Port of Vancouver
Don Wagner, SW Administrator
WSDOT
Vice Chair
Mayor Royce Pollard
City of Vancouver
Multnomah County
Dennis Osborn, Interim City Manager
City of Battle Ground
Fred Hansen, General Manager
TriMet
Bill Wyatt, Executive Director
Port of Portland
Jason Tell, Region 1 Manager
ODOT
Funding has been provided by:
City of Gresham
City of Portland
City of Vancouver
Clark County
Multnomah County
Washington State Department of Transportation
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)
The Portland-Vancouver metropolitan region is developing a Regional Business Plan through a public- private partnership. The plans objective will be create regional agreement about a few key strategies and initiatives that are most important to making the regions economy successful in the 21st century.
With some help from federal government funding, the public sector is assembling a document that captures the essential elements of previous economic development plans around the region, and organizes them in the format of the Oregon Business Plan. This document will meet the federal requirements for a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). Meeting those requirements has some potential funding advantages, but more important is the information the evaluation provides toward the preparation of the Regional Business Plan.
The initial efforts of developing the Regional Business Plan are being led by the region's private-sector business organizations, which have started a steering committee. Their effort will be expanded to include the region's public sector leaders, who are viewed as important partners in any effort to address the region's economic future. The Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies is part of a consulting team led by ECONorthwest that is assisting in the development of the plan.
Both public-sector and private-sector activities are essential to the development of the Regional Business Plan. Many people from organizations in both sectors are working in close collaboration to develop the plan.
The CEDS final report can be found here (.pdf).
Sustainable Foodshed Project
Growing a Sustainable Portland Metropolitan Foodshed
The Portland, Oregon metropolitan area is well known nationwide for its cutting edge sustainability vision, urban development and farmland protection framework. The region has a large number of productive small farms within and near urban areas. There is a growing interest in, and support for, locally grown, sustainable food. This interest is driven by rising concerns over public health, food security, transportation costs, climate change, economic turmoil and the search for a more community-based, sustainable lifestyle.
Growing a Sustainable Portland Metropolitan Foodshed seeks to identify ways to strengthen the regional food production system. The project identifies key challenges that face our foodshed growers and producers and develops tools for both planners and growers to overcome them. This project has attempted to help find solutions to address these unique challenges for both existing and emerging urban farmers. The project is funded by a grant from Western Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE).
The project was carried out by a broad private-public-academic team within the Portland region. Partners include Portland State University’s Institute for Metropolitan Studies (PSU), Oregon State University (OSU), and leading agricultural producers.
Food System Sustainability Project
Click here to download the final report of the food systems sustainability project, Planting Prosperity and Harvesting Health: Trade-Offs and Sustainability in Our Regional Food System (.pdf file, 16.4 MB).
This final report includes revisions based on feedback from the April 25 forum on food system sustainability, as well as additional indicators.
Click here to download the executive summary of the project, including findings and next steps.
The report and the forum were made possible in part by grants from Kaiser Permanente Northwest and the Food Innovation Center at Oregon State University.
Why An Assessment?
The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate, or measure, the trends of the region's food system. It starts with goals (or a vision) for that system, and uses data indicators to measure progress toward them over time.
Students and faculty from Community Food Matters, funded in part by a Portland State University initiative, were involved in momentum building around sustainable food systems from 2000 onward. Through their efforts, an advisory group of food system stakeholders and more than 70 local Portland Food System conference attendees highlighted the need and desire for a food system assessment.
Food System Assessments, or activities that involve systematic collection of data and dissemination of information, can be used at the community level (see the Community Food Security Coalition), the county level (see UC Davis Programs), and the state or regional level (see The Vivid Picture Project) to help community leaders and decision makers devise strategies to improve local issues.
Why "Regional"?
The "region" for this assessment is defined as Oregon and Washington producers/suppliers/farmers through the distribution chain to consumers in the six county Portland-Vancouver area (Clark, Washington, Columbia, Yamhill, Multnomah, Clackamas counties). This is the region that our Institute is charged with assisting (see IMS Mission). It is also an effort to bridge "urban" concerns with those that are "rural".
Why "Stakeholders"?
Literature on indicator projects reveals that data indicators and assessments have the most utility when decision makers who have the power to create policies and programs are actively involved in creating the vision, the data, and contribute to helping one another understand what data trends really mean (e.g. the context).
- Individuals have been asked to help with the discussion who have a stake in the food system being economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable.
- These individuals work for programs or in policies that have an impact on shaping or altering the system through decision making and use of resources (e.g. training farmers, organizing workers, or creating markets). Or, they are member of a group that is organized to impact programs/policies that do.
- Collectively, they represent diverse perspectives (economic, social, environmental, cultural); which is crucial for this process to be credible and viable.
Everyone has a stake in the food system; later we would like help in defining specific processes for input of anyone and everyone. We are also conducting "informational" interviews with a broad range of other stakeholders who are not direct advisors for the goals and data.
Why "Indicators"?
Indicators include data that provides a summary of certain features of a place or system; the Gross Domestic Product is an aggregated economic measure. They can also "indicate" the status of a problem; recycling rates, crime rates, poverty and unemployment rates are examples of this. Indicators can also help manage complicated, interrelated, systems through providing information related to specific actions.
Indicators do not directly drive policy - they just provide information. It is the collaborative process and an ongoing dialogue among decision makers and other stakeholders that gives the data utility. Indicators only influence programs and policy, or system change, when they become part of our thinking and ordinary decision making. The objective of this project is to provide contextually meaningful, rigorous data to decision makers.
- We used several other assessments and literature from urban planning, urban sustainability, and system science to guide how data is selected.
Why "Collaboration"?
While it can be challenging to work together, group expertise means we can cover more ground. The food system is complicated, involves multiple sub-systems (e.g. markets, bioregions, cultures) and is continually changing. An indicator only represents a very small part of what program and policy makers want to pay attention to. Participation and collaboration among individuals with different perspectives gives us the potential to wrestle with those differences and help invent innovative ways of addressing them.
In discussion groups, we will have a facilitator trained in consensus-based processes. The objective behind this is to help us move beyond differences, protect our individual values, but still find common areas for agreement.
What do we mean by "Sustainable"?
The concept of sustainability originates in conservation biology: broadly, the idea that resources can be used in a certain way so that these resources will continue to exist for future generations.
There are multiple contested definitions that have emerged over the years. Sustainablity encompasses social, economic and environmental concepts. Thus, instead of one definition, we are asking stakeholders to create an outcome-driven understanding of the concept. In other words, when these user-defined goals are met - that's when our system is "sustainable."
Portland Region Community Gardens
As part of the Food System Sustainability Assessment, IMS is compiling a comprehensive directory of community gardens* in the Portland region. This directory is intended both as an information resource for the community and as a research tool that will allow us to track changes in community gardens over time.
Currently, a list and map of all the gardens we have identified at this time are available. You can use the map above to find a garden. Use the tool in the upper left corner to navigate and zoom; click on a pushpin for mnore information about that garden. We are seeking input on gardens we have missed so that we can make the directory as complete as possible. Click here to view a map to see the Google Maps page with the map and directory of gardens. The map. You can also click here for a list of the community gardens (.pdf file). If you know of a garden that's not on the map/list, please tell us about it.
We have also been gathering information about the characteristics of these gardens, including size, user restrictions, plot availability, and amenities, and will be making that information available in a later release. There are two gardens that we are still seeking a contact person to provide information on:
- the Greenfingers Community Garden at Clackamas Community College and
- the Gladstone Gardens maintained by the Gladstone Garden Association in Meldrum Bar Park.
If you have information or know who to contact about either of these gardens, please contact us at ims@pdx.edu or 503-725-5170.
* Our working definition of a community garden is a garden in which people can either reserve their own plot to cultivate, or can participate in a shared garden, from which they can take home produce. This includes gardens with and without user restrictions.
Greater Portland-Vancouver Indicators (GPVI)
Economic, Social and Environmental Well-being
Greater Portland-Vancouver Indicators Brochure (.pdf)
Cities and counties in the Portland area are bound together by the air we breathe; the land we build and play on; the water we drink; the roads we travel; businesses, goods and services that drive prosperity; and most importantly, by people who live, work and play throughout the region. Because of this connectedness, when something good or bad happens in one part of the region, it almost always impacts the well-being of other parts and the region as a whole.
The Greater Portland-Vancouver Indicators will track the ups and downs of the whole region's well-being. They will provide a shared lens to track social, environmental and economic well-being. They will serve as a common language to help communities collaborate across boundaries to expand their strengths and proactively create a better future.
Project Components
This project is about more than creating a collection of indicators, data and a website. It is about:
1. Choosing indicators, a political and strategic process. What are the goals of communities and organizations across the region? How are they measuring progress? How can we leverage these efforts to form a collective vision, goals and regional indicators of progress?
GPVI Indicator Criteria, January 2011
2. Measuring indicators, a technical process. How can we gather and report the data with clarity, accuracy, reliability and validity--without having to spend a lot of extra money?
3. Using indicators, a communications and results management process. How can we best share the data, learn from each other the meaning behind the data and co-create the most effective paths forward? How can we use the data to drive better results and accountability?
Indicator Catergories
During 2009, Portland State University and Metro collaborated with Washington, Clackamas, Clark and Multnomah Counties; Portland Development Commission, Greenlight Greater Portland; the City of Portland; and POSI (Portland + Oregon Sustainability Institute) to draft a framework for regional indicators. In 2010, after considerable discussion, one of the eight categories (Healthy, Safe People) was split into two: Healthy People and Safe People. The final nine categories are:
Education,
learning that leads to opportunities and benefits for both individuals and the broader community
Quality Housing and Communities,
the home foundation from which we thrive
Economic Opportunity,
assets and opportunities that foster economic well-being
Healthy People,
our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well-being
Safe People,
Individuals and communities thriving with minimal risk and fear of danger, injury, and harm
Healthy, Natural Environment,
care of the resource base upon which all life depends
Arts, Culture and Creativity,
enjoying and interpreting the human experience
Access and Mobility,
real and virtual connections that help us success
Civic Engagement and Connections,
the social infrastructure that makes a community work and residents feel safe
Conversations
This framework can be used to seed many conversations by diverse Greater Portland-Vancouver stakeholders about which results are most important to measure and why. The conversations will occur in a series of events and inter-connected project teams.
Regional Indicators Kick-off
PSU and United Way of the Columbia and Willamette kicked this process off on January 14, 2010. More than sixty leaders from throughout Greater Portland and Vancouver shared ideas on how regional indicators would add value to their work.
Project Teams
Teams of users--stakeholders and content experts (guided by data specialists)--will decide together what the most important results to measure are and why. They will also gain an understanding from each others' knowledge and experience about how the indicators link together and nest geographically.
* Mockup of conceptual framework (.pdf, 11x17)
Four Examples of Regional Indicator Project Best Practices
The Boston Indicators Project reports on indicators for civic vitality, cultural life and the arts, economy, education, environment and energy, health, housing, public safety, technology and transportation. Supported by the Boston Community Foundation, it includes sector crosscuts for neighborhoods, children and youth, competitive edge, fiscal health, race and ethnicity and sustainable development.
Cascadia Scorecard offers basic scorecard trends for health, population, economy, sprawl, wildlife and energy and pollution. The scorecard is a product of Sightline Institute with support from the Boeing Company.
Silicon Valley Index is the principal analytical tool of the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network. Supported by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, this project holds an annual State of the Valley Conference where they release the Index every February. The index is a composite of 40 indicators for people, economy, society, place and governance.
http://www.jointventure.org/publications/silicon-valley-index
Twin Cities Compass promotes the region's well-being by measuring progress, reporting findings and providing strategies for action. It is led by Wilder Research in partnership with community-serving organizations, funders and volunteers. The project reports data for indicators in civic engagement, early childhood, economy and workforce, education, environment, health, housing, public safety and transportation.
Partners
- Portland State University
- Metro
- United Way of the Columbia-Willamette
- Contributing Partners
Contributing Partners
- Multnomah County
- Portland Development Commission
- Metro
- Portland State University
Consulting Partners
- Clackamas County
- Clark County
- Multnomah County
- Washington County
- The City of Portland
- POSI (Portland + Oregon Sustainability Institute)
- Portland Development Commission
- Greenlight Greater Portland
Measure 37 Impact Study
In the spring of 2005, the Institute began to document the impact of Oregon's Ballot Measure 37, a land-use proposition passed by the voters in November 2004. The measure requires that governments pay owners, or forgo enforcement by repealing, changing or not applying restrictions, when certain land use restrictions reduce owner's property value. As a result, policy makers are now faced with remapping the future path of land use planning in Oregon, and efforts are underway to pass similar measures in other states.
The objective of this project is to investigate, describe, and, where possible, quantify the impacts of a variety of Measure 37 claims and decisions on the following:
- residential neighbors of Measure 37 claimants;
- farms and farm-related businesses that may lose the critical mass required to continue farming in certain areas of Oregon;
- state and local governments attempting to implement sensible land-use policy under very tight budget conditions.
Documenting these impacts provides a clearer picture of how other states might be affected by the passage of similar takings or property rights legislation.
The Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies has been working to develop a complete database of Measure 37 claims and decisions. Using this database, we chose a variety of cases that represent a range of claimants, from small landowners seeking to build single dwellings on farm land to large landholders seeking to covert a large swath of farm or forest land to residential or commercial development. We are aware of claims all over the state and used the database to select case studies with geographic variety as well.
The final report, with the case studies, is now available as a .pdf file:
Documenting the Impact of Measure 37: Selected Case Studies (January 2006)
Measure 37 Database
In December 2005, the Institute received a grant from the Oregon Community Foundation to build a database of Measure 37 claims that is sufficiently accurate and comprehensive to enable citizens to understand the potential impact of these claims in their communities. We will also conduct a variety of analyses to inform policy makers and citizens about these claims and communicate the results of these analyses through a series of working papers and seminars.
As of March 2007, we have collected more than 7,500 Measure 37 claims for the state of Oregon, which we estimate to be approximately 95% of the total number of claims filed, and have begun analysis of the data.
Below is a map showing the status of our database claims entries (click on it for a larger view):
- Mapping Measure 37: This atlas is one of a series of publications produced by the
Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies (IMS) about the extent and potential impact of Measure 37. Its purpose is to offer a visual description of Measure 37 claims and their
potential impact on Oregon's landscape. These are large .pdf files of the atlas, split into two parts for faster downloading
- Part 1 (Statewide maps, Willamette Valley, Portland metro area
- Part 2 (Hood River Co., Oregon Coast, Central and Southern Oregon)
- "What is Driving Measure 37 Claims in Oregon?" This is a .pdf version of a paper presented by Sheila Martin to the Urban Affairs Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, April 26, 2007.
Tables last updated: December 12, 2007
Table 1: Summary of Claims by Current and Proposed Use
The IMS database uses its own zoning classification. This was done by aggregating the many and various county zoning designations into 11 basic zoning categories, which are listed below, to allow a common level of analysis between the counties.
EFU= Exclusive Farm Use
FF= Farm Forest Use
FU=Forest Use
OSC=Open Space Conservation Use
RR=Rural Residential Use
SFR=Single Family Residential Use
MFR=Multi-Family Residential Use
C=Commercial Use
I=Industrial Use
MU=Mixed Use
MUO=Multiple Use Other
| |
|
|
NUMBER OF CLAIMS BY PROPOSED USE |
| CURRENT ZONING |
TOTAL CLAIMS |
ACRES |
SUBDVSN |
PARTN |
NONE |
OTHER |
UNSPEC. |
| Unknown |
418 |
90,720 |
92 |
29 |
31 |
1 |
265 |
| EFU |
2,877 |
303,025 |
1,323 |
526 |
321 |
33 |
674 |
| EFU, C |
5 |
132 |
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
| EFU, FF |
96 |
18,234 |
50 |
25 |
2 |
1 |
18 |
| EFU, FF, I |
1 |
5 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
| EFU, FU |
68 |
19,639 |
31 |
7 |
1 |
|
29 |
|
EFU, FU,
RR, C
|
1 |
182 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
EFU, FU, FF
|
4 |
971 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
| EFU, FU, FF, I |
1 |
739 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| EFU, FU, MUO |
1 |
124 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| EFU, FU, OSC |
4 |
870 |
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
| EFU, FU, OSC, MUO |
1 |
202 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| EFU, FU, RR |
2 |
194 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
| EFU, I |
4 |
2,032 |
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
| EFU, I, MUO |
1 |
80 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| EFU, I, RR |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
| EFU, MFR |
1 |
156 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| EFU, MUO |
17 |
3,454 |
7 |
|
2 |
|
8 |
| EFU, MUO, FF |
1 |
80 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| EFU, OSC |
8 |
1601 |
5 |
|
|
|
3 |
| EFU, RR |
29 |
2,477 |
19 |
2 |
2 |
|
6 |
| EFU, RR, FF, MUO |
1 |
35 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| EFU, RR, I |
1 |
38 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| EFU,SFR |
7 |
570 |
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
| FF |
938 |
42,731 |
413 |
270 |
86 |
12 |
157 |
| FF, MUO |
9 |
329 |
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
| FF, C |
1 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| FF, OSC |
2 |
959 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
| FF, RR |
15 |
1,042 |
12 |
|
|
|
3 |
| FF, SFR |
1 |
42 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| FF, FU |
1 |
67 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| FU |
1,021 |
146,791 |
446 |
142 |
50 |
15 |
368 |
| FU, FF |
14 |
3,704 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
|
4Â |
| FU, FF, MUO |
1 |
123 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| FU, FF, OSC |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FU, MUO |
15 |
770 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
8 |
| FU, OSC |
7 |
603 |
4 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
| FU, RR |
20 |
1,863 |
9 |
1 |
|
|
10 |
| FU, RR, MUO |
1 |
1,526 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| FU, SFR |
1 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| OSC |
21 |
770 |
9 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
| OSC, I |
1 |
566 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| RR |
628 |
7,140 |
252 |
176 |
25 |
5 |
170 |
| RR, C |
1 |
15 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| RR, FF, OSC |
1 |
9 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| RR, I |
1 |
50 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
| RR, MFR |
1 |
46 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| RR, MUO |
10 |
643 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
4 |
| RR, OSC |
4 |
137 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
| RR, OSC, MUO |
2 |
72 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
| RR, MFR |
1 |
46 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| SFR |
90 |
747 |
25 |
8 |
3 |
|
41 |
| SFR, C |
1 |
7 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| SFR, MUO |
9 |
12 |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
| SFR, OSC |
3 |
158 |
|
|
1 |
|
2 |
| MFR |
18 |
55 |
|
|
3 |
|
15 |
| MFR, C |
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
| MFR, SFR |
1 |
9 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| C |
49 |
279 |
1 |
5 |
14 |
4 |
24 |
| I |
30 |
256 |
4 |
|
8 |
6 |
12 |
| MU |
9 |
80 |
|
|
2 |
|
7 |
| MUO |
39 |
1,776 |
14 |
6 |
6 |
1 |
12 |
| Not specified |
1,194 |
124,471 |
303 |
130 |
54 |
6 |
701 |
| Totals |
7,717 |
792,327 |
3,069 |
1,342 |
622 |
106 |
2,578 |
Table 2: Summary of Claims by Region and County
| REGION/COUNTY |
NUMBER OF CLAIMS |
NUMBER OF ACRES |
| NW/Willamette Valley |
4,867 |
295,344 |
| Benton |
140 |
11,765 |
| Clackamas |
1,082 |
33,885 |
| Columbia |
182 |
10,673 |
| Hood River |
234 |
13,794 |
| Lane |
414 |
35,525 |
| Linn |
496 |
40,107 |
| Marion |
489 |
24,836 |
| Multnomah |
189 |
4,065 |
| Polk |
275 |
18,966 |
| Washington |
908 |
64,466 |
| Yamhill |
458 |
37,263 |
| Coast |
749 |
122,508 |
| Clatsop |
112 |
5,186 |
| Coos |
232 |
38,185 |
| Curry |
117 |
22,873 |
| Lincoln |
200 |
43,555 |
| Tillamook |
88 |
12,710 |
| Southern |
1,327 |
152,128 |
| Douglas |
258 |
17,411 |
| Jackson |
578 |
59,548 |
| Josephine |
320 |
17,393 |
| Klamath |
171 |
57,776 |
| Central |
438 |
98,529 |
| Deschutes |
185 |
15,248 |
| Crook |
65 |
41,247 |
| Jefferson |
139 |
26,427 |
| Wasco |
49 |
15,608 |
| Eastern |
337 |
123,913 |
| Baker |
139 |
56,945 |
| Gilliam |
1 |
7 |
| Grant |
16 |
6,725 |
| Harney |
1 |
40 |
| Lake |
5 |
1,667 |
| Malheur |
25 |
2,195 |
| Morrow |
0 |
0 |
| Sherman |
0 |
0 |
| Umatilla |
48 |
29,369 |
| Union |
66 |
20,127 |
| Wallowa |
34 |
5,231 |
| Wheeler |
2 |
1,608 |
For more information about this project, contact Sheila Martin.
Measure 37 Database Maps
The maps below were generated from the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies Measure 37 claims database.
The maps are updated periodically we receive more data from each county. The current set of maps was generated in April 2007.
You can also download the maps as .pdf files.
1. Statewide Claims: Number per Township (with UGBs and public lands)
2. Statewide Claims: Percent Acreage per Township (with UGBs and public lands)
3. Willamette Valley: Claims on Resource Land
4. Willamette Valley: Claims by Desired Action
5. Hood River County: Claims on Resource Land
6. Hood River County: Claims by Desired Action
7. Washington County: Claims and Sale Dates
Regional Industrial Lands Study
The Institute provided staff support for Phase 3 of the Regional Industrial Lands Study (RILS). The study was sponsored by a diverse group of public and private organizations, with OTAK as the prime contractor. The two earlier phases of the Regional Industrial Lands Study initiated a public and private dialog about the need for and availability of industrial land in the Portland-Vancouver PMSA.
RILS Reports
Phase 1: The "Industrial Lands Focus Groups" report is available for downloading as a .pdf file at the Port of Portland website:
https://naioporegon.org/Regional_Industrial_Lands_Inventory___Site_Readiness_Project
Phase 2: The RILS Phase 2 report is available at Metro's website: http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/regionalindustriallandstudy.pdf
Phase 3 Report (.pdf files):
- Final Report Presentation, November 30, 2001
Project Description and Conclusions
The general purpose of Phase 3 is to identify and evaluate potential policy strategies and issues that can help increase the supply of industrial land that is ready for development. In particular, the study conducted case studies to better understand the issues associated with overcoming physical, infrastructure, and ownership constraints to industrial development and for ensuring an adequate supply of ready-to-develop industrial land to meet forecasted rates of growth. Case studies both inside and outside of the Metro Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Clark County Urban Growth Area (UGA) were assessed.
General conclusions from the six inside UGB/UGA case studies include:
- The largest re-occurring cost item is for transportation (e.g., provision of adequate roads, intersections, and traffic signals) which in the case studies represented about three-quarters of the conversion costs.
- The cost of property assembly is likely to exceed transportation costs for sites smaller than four net acres.
- Utility costs typically represent about 10 to 20 percent of the total land conversion costs and other miscellaneous costs account for 5 to 15 percent of the total land conversion costs
- The sites that are most developable are those that have fairly good highway access and have about 5 or more net acres of contiguous land area in a rectangular configuration.
- The constrained land supply can be developed with industrial uses as long as land use and environmental permitting allows that activity to occur, minimum site development factors are met (see finding no. 1), and conversion costs are less than $80,000 per net acre.
- Public land assembly is likely needed as a catalyst for smaller urbanized vacant or redevelopment parcels with separate ownership.
- The analysis indicates that costs are only one factor that can inhibit conversion. Local political and community preferences can also hinder industrial development (e.g., Glenn Oak case study) given growth pressure from non-industrial uses such as schools and "competing" interests.
Key conclusions from the analysis of outside UGB/UGA case studies include:
- The largest re-occurring cost item appears to be transportation (e.g., provision of adequate roads, intersections, and traffic signals) which for the case studies represent about 68 percent of the conversion costs.
- Utility costs represent about 30 percent of the conversion costs, and other costs less than 5 percent.
- Development phasing and cost-sharing agreements will likely be very important for areas outside the UGB/UGA given the large amounts of funding required to construct needed infrastructure.
- The amount of transportation investment needed in these case study areas is so large that new cost sharing methods (e.g., systems development charges, local improvement districts, and/or urban renewal districts) and/or new dedicated funding sources (e.g., serial bond levies) for roads would be needed.
- The cost per job and cost per net buildable acre are on par with the range of costs identified for case studies inside the UGB/UGA.
While transportation infrastructure is the largest cost factor for case studies near urban areas, the additional lack of basic (sewer and water) infrastructure in rural locations such as Scappoose will limit any significant industrial development from occurring there as well. In addition to specific recommendations for dealing with ownership, environmental and land use, and infrastructure constraints, the study found an immediate need for:
- Creation of a clear regional economic development strategy.
- Preservation of strategically located industrial sites for industrial development.
- Linking public investments with a clear economic development strategy.
The study concluded that the lack of attention to the state of the industrial land supply coupled with the lack of a clear regional economic development strategy is creating a potential crisis for economic development efforts in the metropolitan area.
Community Geography Past Projects
Community Geography Initiative Projects (2001-2003)
Read the final report on the Community Geography Initiative (.pdf file)!
The Institute for Portland Metropolitan Studies trained community-based organizations in GIS and asset mapping to help citizens use information more strategically. Funding for this training was provided by The Ford Foundation through a three-year grant.
Each year the Community Geography Project chose community partners to work with. Below are links to the groups we worked with during the term of the Ford grant. Integral to each project was the relationship between community-based organizations and local schools. This is in part an effort to imbed the technical skills needed to develop a GIS within the community fabric. By training kids in GIS and involving them in local projects, partners strive to create a community resource of technical expertise they will be able to draw on in the future.
2002-2003
The initial projects formulated by staff and volunteers included an interactive fish survey webpage with a GIS element, an investigation into stream bed changes due to WPA channeling during the 1930s and a look at local and watershed-wide demographics. The webpage project was concluded in early January, 2003, and the other two projects continue to be developed and have spawned a fourth poster project aimed at documenting the restoration efforts along a Johnson Creek tributary that holds the best promise for supporting native salmon populations in the watershed.
Trillium Charter School, in partnership with the Johnson Creek Watershed Council (JCWC), has used GIS to better understand the Johnson Creek watershed and the regional and local forces that affect its overall health. A group of twelve 6th graders participated in the GIS training program. Since the school did not have an operational computer lab, these students were transported to GIS lab facilities at Portland State University once a week for a two-hour GIS lesson during the 2002-2003 school year. Students also participated in field exercises during the week.
The goal for the first trimester (Fall, 2002) was to introduce students to GIS and the concept of a watershed. Students learned basic ArcView GIS skills using local datasets, such as a background hillshade, that helped them understand how a watershed is defined. Population and zoning datasets were used to highlight the unique pressures urban development places on this particular watershed. JCWC also provided their membership database. Lessons and exercises centered on "asking spatial questions" and producing maps that informed people about something in the watershed. Before the December break, the students produced a poster of their work including maps that defined a watershed, located the JCWC membership, analyzed potential point source pollution sites along the Johnson Creek corridor, highlighted aspects of their field experiences and identified the schools within the watershed for future outreach efforts.
In January, 2003, the focus moved into using GIS as a research tool. The Trillium students "adopted" a local park within the watershed (Tideman Johnson Park) and conducted field research identifying human activity in the park, animal and plant characteristics, and aquatic habitat. The data collected provided the material for the students' continuing lessons in GIS concepts and tools. In April, 2003, the students presented their field work at the GIS in Action conference. During this time, a JCWC AmeriCorps volunteer assisted in the field work, providing a valuable connection to the
Eight students from Portsmouth Middle School, located in the Portsmouth neighborhood of north Portland, were involved with the project. Students from Doug Saulter's seventh and eighth grade computer science class assisted Friends of Trees in collecting data about the health of trees planted in the neighborhood and assisted in the analysis of this data. Students received weekly instruction in GIS software and geospatial analysis techniques. They created several outstanding maps regarding the density and overall characteristics of the plantings and presented these finding to two civic organizations (Friends of Trees and the Columbia Slough Watershed Council). Their poster was also put on display at the GIS in Action Conference. One significant contribution of the students' work was the inspiration it provided Friends of Trees' staff and volunteers in visualizing information about their plantings in new and creative ways. FOT staff and volunteers who were involved with the students also were able to hone their own GIS skills through teaching.
Winterhaven Middle School is a special focus school with an emphasis on math, science and technology. A group of six middle school students (mostly 7th grade) participated in the partnership with Friends of Trees. CGP staff conducted lessons in ArcView GIS during a morning study hall session once a week during the 2002-2003 school year. A Friends of Trees AmeriCorps volunteer also participated in these training sessions, providing valuable information about FoT activities and the Access tree planting database under construction. The Winterhaven students monitored and collected data about the trees in the Brooklyn/Sellwood neighborhood. Using FoT's city-wide dataset and local data that they collected, the students applied GIS skills such as geocoding, querying and classification. Students were asked to develop questions and create maps that helped to answer those questions. The maps that some students produced addressed the issue of species diversity, prompting FoT to remove some species from their tree selection list. Additional tasks included developing methodologies for gauging and mapping tree coverage in the Portland Metropolitan area using high resolution aerial photography to assist FoT in planning future outreach activities. The students presented these methodologies and findings at the GIS in Action conference in April 2003.
2001-2002
Sherwood Institute for Sustainability/Sherwood Public Schools
As a first step toward realizing the goals of the partnership, SIS engaged the Sherwood School District in the development of a community-based youth job-training program called the Sherwood Youth Corp. Youth Corp students received CAM (certificate of advanced mastery) credit for their involvement in the various projects. The goal of the training was to assist in incorporating GIS into the design and implementation of several projects in partnership with community groups who needed volunteer assistance, technical expertise and useful outreach/analysis products. The projects were specifically designed to address issues relevant to the seven categories in the Vision plan.
Since neither the City of Sherwood nor the School District had access to GIS software, the initial task was to secure a license for ArcView GIS software through ESRI's Community Atlas program. During the summer of 2001, approximately 24 Youth Corp students learned about GIS and cartographic techniques using internet mapping sources and a GIS freeware program, ArcExplorer. They submitted a webpage describing their city through maps which resulted in the award of a site license for ArcView GIS. This license was installed in the Middle School (the High School's computer lab was under construction at the time). The submission of two more webpages secured an additional ArcView license and an extension package (3D Analyst) for the High School.
During this time, the CGP and SIS mentored the development of several ongoing projects involving cooperation between the Youth Corp students and community organizations. In addition, the CGP provided technical training and assistance to Middle School teachers interested in incorporating GIS analysis into the technical arts and science curriculum. Adult volunteers from the Sherwood Historical Society also participated in training sessions.
Open Meadow, located in the St. John's neighborhood of north Portland, worked with the Wetlands Conservancy to map the great wetlands of the region. Initially, they had hoped to inventory regional wetlands and include the results in a larger statewide map and database created by the Wetlands Conservancy. These products were to be presented on a web site to provide a statewide context for localized wetland projects, a tool and source of information for the prioritization of wetland restoration and conservation opportunities, a reference for case studies of a variety of restoration efforts, and an opportunity to network for groups and individuals interested in wetlands conservation.
Students from Open Meadow selected the wetlands that they proposed to investigate, with the guidance of the Wetlands Conservancy. They then worked together with local interest groups, watershed councils and public agencies to identify current and planned restoration activities for the selected wetlands. Once students collected information, the Wetlands Conservancy, PSU and other community groups plan to develop graphic digital materials that reflect restoration activities.
Lincoln High Project
Lincoln High School Report on the History of Vice in Old Town
Students from Lincoln High School are working on finding trends in data concerning the subject of vice for the Old Town History Project. The focus has been directed toward the location of vice and the neighborhood demographics over time. Combining data collected from maps produced in the 1913 Report of the Portland Vice Commission to original arrest records, Sanborn Maps, census data and city reverse directories, it is hoped that a more light can be shed on the historical vice activity in Old Town and how that activity effected the neighborhood as a whole.
Below are two examples of maps completed by the students. The first is the result of registering a scan of the original Vice Report Map of 1913 to current geography. Below that, point data abstracted from the original vice map is overlain on historical Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. This gave a sense of the distribution of vice activities in relation to landuses and property ownership.
Cleveland High Project
Oregon Child Development Coalition/Cleveland High School
Assessing the Accessibility of Services for Hispanic Populations
in Outer Washington & Multnomah Counties
by Jose Munoz & Maritza Gonzalez
OCDC Families Near to Services and Far from Services.
Through analyzing the data we determined that 30% of OCDC families are within .5-mile walking distance of Hispanic services. The remaining 70% are would have to walk more than .5 miles or use some other form of transportation.
After looking at the data provided and the maps made with that data, we see that the 40% of the OCDC clients are within in .25 miles from a bus line. To reach any of the services many families will have to walk for some distance and then take more than one bus. Another 10% of the OCDC clients are located between .25 miles and .5 miles of a bus line. The remaining 50% live outside the .5-mile. Most of these families live outside the urban metro area.
Proximity of OCDC Clients to Health Care Services.
When looking at the map it is clear that the health service centers are well located where clusters of OCDC clients live. This is especially true in areas like: Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Gresham, and Troutdale. However there are a number of OCDC clients that live outside of the urban metropolitan area. These families don't have as easy access to the Hispanic health services. An idea for helping these families might be to provide transportation to give them better access to health services.
Proximity of OCDC Clients to Support Services.
By examining the map you are able to appreciate that there are support services in the areas of: Forest Grove, Cornelius, and Hillsboro and a few in Portland where many OCDC families live. However there is a lack of services in Gresham where a large number of OCDC clients live. There are services in other places like Beaverton but there aren't any OCDC clients living near by. There are many families outside the urban area who don't have easy access to any of the support services.
K-12 GIS Project
Metropolitan Learning Center's Community
This page was submitted to ESRI's Community Atlas Project and represents the first exposure students had to GIS. The page describes their impressions and interests in the community surrounding their school.
Sherwood's Community
Also submitted to ESRI, these pages represent the first exposure of students to GIS and online mapping technology.
Sherwood Tree Inventory
At a more advanced stage, students in Bert Diamond's 7th grade used GIS to inventory trees in Sherwood's historic downtown.
Transportation in Sherwood
This page was generated by 6th, 7th and 8th graders taking part in Sherwood's Youth Corp. It represents some more advanced work in ArcView and their impressions of transportation in Sherwood.
Brooklyn Winterhaven
Here are some of the maps that Wendy Archibald's class put together during their involvement with the Community Geography Project. Bravo!
Silicon Forest Universe
Silicon Forest Universe 2.0
NOTE: The poster is no longer in print and physical posters are no longer available.
894 technology companies are showcased on the Silicon Forest Universe 2.0, a joint project of Virginia Tech University and Portland State University's Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies.
The poster is a result of research conducted in 2005 by Dr. Heike Mayer , now of the University of Bern's Institute of Geography in Switzerland. Dr. Mayer's research examined and visualized high-tech firms in the Willamette Valley region, using data gathered from an online survey of technology firms.
In contrast to the 2003 version, the new poster shows not only existing firms, but also firms that have ceased operations. It highlights the genealogy of 894 companies, venture capital firms, and other support organizations. The new poster was designed by Stuart Armstrong. The project was financially supported by sponsorships from OVP Venture Partners, the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, Co-operations, and Greenlight Greater Portland.
"Portland's Silicon Forest has grown and matured. Numerous firms emerged as spinoffs from Tektronix and Intel and the poster illustrates the evolution of the Forest. The updated poster shows that there are fewer startups from Tektronix and from Intel. It seems that these firms started the emergence of Portland as a high-tech region but that they are not the economic engines anymore," said Mayer, who has similar projects focusing on Boise, Phoenix, Kansas City and Washington's Puget Sound region.
2003 Silicon Forest Universe Poster
Based on data for more than 370 companies that was collected by Heike Mayer for her dissertation research, Kayoko Teramoto, a graduate of PSU's graphic design program, visualized the genealogy of the industry. A 27"x 39" full-color poster dramatically illustrates the evolution of the high tech industry in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan region. The poster shows the origins and interrelationships of more than 370 companies that have formed, grown and merged in the region over the past 60 years.
Origins of the Poster
Have you ever wondered why the Silicon Forest took root even though the region never had a Stanford or MIT? Heike Mayer's dissertation research concludes that the absence of a major research university did not deter the Forest from growing because the two mainstay Silicon Forest companies--Tektronix and Intel--filled this gap by functioning as surrogate universities. Both companies attracted and trained a qualified high-tech labor pool and conducted cutting-edge research and development. Furthermore, Tektronix and Intel are the main incubators for many Silicon Forest start-ups. The Silicon Forest Universe poster is a visual representation of the family relationships of start-up companies, tracing their roots back to the 1940s.
Beginning in October 2001, she collected information on the genealogy of Silicon Forest start-ups. 158 companies responded to a mail and online survey, which was supported by the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies and the help of the Software Association of Oregon, the American Electronics Association, and the Oregon Entrepreneurs Forum. Thanks to the respondents' willingness to share information about company origins, we are now able to graphically show the history of Silicon Forest start-ups. The "universe" design of the poster was the result of a competition among Portland State University graphic design students, who came up with many striking ways of organizing the information into a visually coherent poster.
The survey's key findings reveal interesting facts about the Silicon Forest:
- Tektronix and Intel are the main incubators for Silicon Forest start-ups: Tektronix and Intel have functioned as incubators for more than 95 Silicon Forest businesses. Their sons and daughters have given birth to more than 50 new businesses, the "grandchildren" of the two most important companies in the Forest.
- Tektronix and Intel start-ups specialize in different industry segments: Tektronix start-ups specialize in display technology, electronic design automation, semiconductors, test and measurement instruments, and software. Intel start-ups specialize mainly in Internet services, software, business services, and semiconductors. Smart people with good ideas found technological niches which oftentimes their ex-employers wouldn't support. By starting a business and applying their specialized knowledge, these entrepreneurs contributed to Portland's unique high-technology specialization.
- Silicon Forest start-ups are closely connected with venture capital investments: Silicon Forest entrepreneurship peaked in the first half of the 1980s and again in the second half of the 1990s, paralleling local venture capital investment patterns. In the future, the availability of venture capital money will be critical for new business ventures.
- Silicon Forest start-ups stay around: Today, 80 percent of the 300 companies represented on the Silicon Forest Family Tree poster are still in business. This suggests that Portland's high-tech start-ups can weather economic downturns.
- Entrepreneurs value quality of life: Quality of life is important to Silicon Forest entrepreneurs. The region's cultural and natural amenities, cost of living, and a supportive business environment are significant competitive advantages. Because the region is a pleasant place to live, many entrepreneurs stayed in the Portland metropolitan area to start their businesses.
- Availability of talented people is key to start-ups: Silicon Forest entrepreneurs perceive the region as a good business location because of the availability of talent. Also, the region's quality of life makes it easier to recruit new employees from outside the state.
- But the lack of a local research university is a major disadvantage: Even though many entrepreneurs think that Portland's labor market is good, they consider the lack of a major university a big disadvantage, especially with regards to being able to hire from a larger pool of engineering and computer science graduates. Better technology transfer and R&D partnerships with universities are of secondary concerns.
Heike Mayer received her Ph.D. in Urban Studies from Portland State in 2003. She is currently an assistant professor in Urban Studies and Planning at Virginia Tech, and a fellow of Virginia Tech's Metropolitan Institute.
Metropolitan Briefing Book
The Metropolitan Briefing Book is a biennial publication developed by the Institute to provide elected and appointed leaders in the six-county area with information about issues and trends common to all corners of the region. The Briefing Book will also be useful to citizens interested in understanding the economic and demographic context of the Portland region as well as the critical issues and challenges we face.
2005 Metropolitan Briefing Book
Below are links to articles from the 2005 Metropolitan Briefing Book, in the form of downloadable .pdf files. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to read the files; it can be downloaded free at www.adobe.com.
Introduction, by Sheila Martin and Craig Wollner
Critical Issues 2005, by Craig Wollner and Debra Elliott
Summarizes the results of the critical issues survey conducted by the institute.
Portland's Regional Economy: The Dynamics of Change, by Sheila Martin and Amy Vander Vliet Discusses the recession and recovery, and examines the structural changes taking place in the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan economy.
Population Outlook for the Portland Vancouver Metropolitan Area, by Barry Edmonston and Masud Hasan
Explores changes in the demographic characteristics of the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan region and their implications for the region's future.
Talent, Place, and Prosperity: Metro Portland's Changing Labor Market and Economic Outlook, by Joe Cortright
Examines changes in national and local labor markets and the role of migration in shaping Portland's economy opportunities
Environment, Economy, and Equity: Can We Find a Language for Fairness in
Regional Planning? by John Provo and Jill Fuglister
Looks at the role of equity in economic development decisions, particularly those that affect the location of different types of housing.
Trade, Transportation, and Freight Mobility: Invest Now or Pay Later? by Eric Jessup
Studies the importance of freight to the region's economy and discusses whether Portland's freight infrastructure is sufficient to capture the opportunities that will emerge as the recovery takes hold.
2007 Briefing Book
You can download the complete 2007 Metropolitan Briefing Book by clicking here.
Regional Assets
Welcome to Portland Regional Assets! We had designed this newsletter in conjunction with The Portland Regional Partners for Business, also known as the Regional Economic Development Partners, or the Regional Partners, as a service to those working to improve economic conditions in the Portland Vancouver Metropolitan region.
The newsletter focused on strategic regional economic issues. Each edition of the newsletter examined a different factor affecting competition for talent, innovation, and capital, and presented information about how the region compared with its competitor regions.
The Regional Partners had identified 13 areas as key competitor regions, as shown on the map: Albuquerque; Austin; Boise; Denver; East Bay area, CA; Las Vegas; Minneapolis-St. Paul; Phoenix; Sacramento; Salt Lake City; San Diego; Seattle; Upstate New York.
These areas competed with Portland for jobs, investment, and talent. The aim of the newsletter was to understand how our region compared with these regions in key competitive areas; to make our readers aware of changes that may affect our competitiveness relative to these regions; and to present research that spoke to the effectiveness of alternative competitive strategies.
Regional Assets Spring 2005
Regional Assets Summer 2005
Regional Assets Winter 2006
Workforce and Self-Sufficiency
In the summer of 2014, the IMS Board convened a group of workforce stakeholders to ask an important question about the region’s workforce:
To what extent is the region’s workforce system helping families gain self-sufficiency?
IMS convened a group of regional workforce stakeholders to guide the research.
These convening meetings, held in July and October of 2014, provided feedback on the preliminary results and assisted us in asking the right questions.
July 16 Convening Meeting
October 7 Convening Meeting
IMS conducted several projects in addressing different parts of this question. The first project examines the demographics of self-sufficiency in Oregon and in the Portland Metropolitan area. This project builds on the work of Dr. Diana Pearce from the University of Washington and describes the extent to which families in Oregon are earning enough money to make ends meet.
Community Geography Projects
The Community Geography Project of IMS augments its work for communities in the Portland region through an ongoing series of GIS and Asset Mapping (adapted from Kretzmann and McKnight) PSU Senior Capstone courses. Multi-disciplinary teams of students are introduced to issues that community partners bring to us that require a better understanding of community assets and the possible connections among them. Students do research, analyses (including GIS analysis), and develop presentations, reports, and GIS products that communicate their findings to the partners and community members at large.
Community partners have included: Neighborhood Pride Team; the Caring Community of North Portland; Southeast Portland Caring Community; Portland's Bureau of Parks and Recreation; the Regional Arts and Culture Council; the Portland Farmers Market; the Center for Public Participation (PSU); Southeast Uplift; and North Portland Neighborhood Services in partnership with Multnomah County Health Department and Kaiser Permanente's Healthy Eating/Active Living Initiative.
Examples of reports generated for these projects are available for download below.
Neighborhood Pulse
Neighborhood Pulse provides information about the Portland region’s neighborhoods: how they are changing, who lives there, and the issues of interest to the region’s leaders and residents.
Neighborhood Pulse includes three components:
• Neighborhood Profiles, which provide information about people and housing in each of Portland and Beaverton’s neighborhoods;
• Greater Portland 21, which provides a stories about how our region and its neighborhoods are is changing; and
• Neighborhood Pulse Map Viewer, which provides taxlot-level maps related to specific issues of interest to neighborhoods and advocacy groups.
Neighborhood Pulse complements Greater Portland Pulse by providing a neighborhood view of some of the data provided at the county and regional level on Greater Portland Pulse. We hope to add additional features and data to the site over time.
Creekside District Master Plan
In April 2011, the City of Beaverton adopted its Civic Plan Central City Strategy (“the Civic Plan”). The Civic Plan provides a new understanding of the Central City. One of the Civic Plan’s most important strategic goals is the transformation of the Creekside District (situated at the heart of the Central City) into a vibrant, sustainable, mixed-use community. The Creekside District master planning effort (that is supported by a HUD Community Challenge Grant) will produce a development program that integrates: suitable and affordable housing for existing and future populations; increased efficiency and connectivity of existing public infrastructure; new green infrastructure and amenities; and improved mobility and access to transit and employment.
One key component and outcome of Beaverton’s HUD Community Challenge Grant is increased and meaningful public involvement by populations that have historically been marginalized in public planning processes (including underserved populations) in the development and implementation of the Creekside District Master Plan. Public engagement best practices suggest that involving the public early in processes not only provides policymakers and planners with important information at the outset of projects but helps to build trust among community members as their input is considered before key decisions are made.
Given the goals of the Creekside District master planning project, eliciting observations, ideas, and opinions from local residents, including youth, and business owners (in other words, those who live, go to school, and/or work in the area) is crucial.
IMS and City of Beaverton Staff conducted two significant outreach efforts to gather critical information from the Creekside area’s residents. The first effort, that occurred in late fall of 2012, used Photovoice, an innovative method for collecting community input that asks community members to become the researchers rather than the researched.
Recognizing that a picture is worth a thousand words, participants were asked to explore these questions:
(1) From your perspective, how well does the Creekside District (or the immediately surrounding area) function now? and
(2) how would you like to see the District develop in the future; what improvements can be made?
Photovoice is a time-consuming process that could prevent small business owners from participating; therefore a new approach was developed to target these business owners. In July of 2013, minority business owners in the Creekside area were contacted by phone and, using a survey as a guide, were interviewed in-person at their place of business. The survey questions focused on why the business owners had chosen their locations, what they perceived as possible threats to their profitability, and what their aspirations were for the Creekside District area. The results indicate that these small business owners like the centrality of their locations and the relatively low rents available there. And while most would like to see improvements to the area, they are also concerned about the possible negative impacts, to their businesses, of road and sidewalk renovations as well as possible increasing rents as the area develops over time.