It really does. I can't imagine the spillover effect from one good neighborhood into a not-so-great one being unaffected by the geographical barriers over there. At the same time, Columbusites like to use a street as a stigmatic definitive dividing line to a ridiculous degree where two areas are totally connected together in an urban grid. Of course, sticking with the good side all the time means no change will spread in the other direction. The most striking is the east-west divide of Parsons where on the west you have German Village and other much improved neighborhoods, while just a few blocks east it's much more hit or miss with nice blocks next to burnt out ones (literally in some cases due to arson of abandoned buildings). If locals were more open minded to easing their way onto and east of Parsons it would be a much, much more interesting place today (only one gallery-shop has opened on Parsons since Hal & Al's provided a high quality establishment in 2009). This goes back to Columbus being too conservative in its thinking on urban matters which goes much deeper than just the poo-pooing of starting a new streetcar system, which of course, would do wonders for the numerous urban business corridors that go on for a mile or so from Downtown.

Revitalization of Portland's most dangerous street: no streetcar required.

 

Alberta Street History

 

1970’s:  The area continued to decline into the 1970ʼs as gang violence and drug use on the street increased. Between the 1970ʼs and 1990ʼs, despite the presence of the old commercial buildings, very few retail business on Alberta Street were open for business. It went from a prosperous business district with a streetcar line to mostly light industrial with no public transit. Absentee landowners scooped up properties and held them during this period, leaving them mostly unkempt and in varying states of disrepair.

 

1990’s – Present: Becoming the Alberta Arts District, by Donna Guardino

 

On a clear day on Alberta Street you’ll see people gathering in front of coffee houses taking in sun, coffee and companionship.  Couples are walking their dogs, young mothers are pushing their baby carriages and groups of shoppers walk the street going from shops to galleries, the air of commerce strong.  With a wealth of eateries, diners have endless choices – Thai, Mexican, Southern, Italian, Indian, Vegetarian and American.  There’s an energy here, a special something, one brimming with activity and creativity. The story is of the evolution of a street that has kept its focus on art.

 

It hasn’t always been this way.  Thirteen years ago what you would have seen on Alberta Street was boarded up buildings and alleyway drug deals.  Alberta had a reputation for gang violence, disinvestment and crumbling infrastructure.  From a working class commercial street, it had become, as one television reporter stated, “the most killing street in Portland.” (Spring 1997)

 

Reversing the trend didn’t happen overnight and it didn’t happen by accident.  A dedicated group of Alberta residents and merchants have worked hard to bring it to where it is today. To put the emergence of Alberta Street as an Art District in context, a little history is in order.  As far back as 1989, the eyes of the community were focused on Alberta Street.  Neighborhood residents and businesses asked the city how to improve the street and fulfill the vision of the neighborhood.  In 1996 the city’s Bureau of Housing and Community Development, along with the Portland Development Commission made Alberta Street part of the Corridor Target Area Program to help neighborhood commercial corridors revitalize.  Funds were provided to Sabin Community Development Corporation to hire a coordinator and start organizing community members for action.

 

In June 1996, over 100 community members attended a meeting organized by Sabin CDC. A session on creating a new vision for Alberta Street was coupled with identifying weaknesses and opportunities that existed on the street at the time. Out of that meeting, three citizen committees formed – Commercial Revitalization, Street Beautification and Streetscape.  Each took on tasks to clean up the street, make it look better and attract business and investment.  A number of design workshops were put on by the committees before the city became involved.

 

The Streetscape Committee wrote a grant for Transportation Growth Management funds to plan infrastructure improvements.  After submitting it to the city and the Oregon Dept. of Transportation, the Alberta Streetscape Project was born.  Planning began in 1998 with the Streetscape Advisory Committee, made up of concerned local residents and business owners. Even in those early stages the community said loud and clear that they wanted art to play a central role on the street through murals, public art and beautification projects. The Streetscape Project was officially adopted by the city in 2000.

 

Alberta Street was poised for a change.  More and more artists were finding studios in the area and small first time businesses opened up in storefronts that had been boarded up.  Cheap rents and a feeling of new opportunities spurred on commercial growth. In terms of the focus on art, 1997 was a pivotal year in Alberta Street’s history. The story goes that a local developer encouraged several businesses that were showing art to open their doors on First Thursday for the traditional Art Walk usually held on the west side of town.  Those businesses discussed the possibility and decided that since the action was on the west side of the river on that night, it was unlikely that people would come all the way over to Alberta Street. But the idea grew and the group decided that they should limit the art walk to just Alberta Street and pick a different night.  Last Thursday was jokingly referred to as more appropriate for the street and “Last Thursday” was born.

 

The first Art Walk, held in May of 1997, was off to a shaky start. That first year less than ten destinations were added to the monthly-published art map.  As the years passed the number of participating art venues fluctuated, but the event grew in participation and attendance. Street vendors, musicians and street theatre have added a unique element to the atmosphere of Last Thursdays.

 

From the very beginning of the Art Walk the phrase Art on Alberta” was coined to identify the street and the Last Thursday function.  The “buzz” that Alberta Street was a place where things were happening was fueled by the monthly art walks, the first Street Fair in 1997 and by media attention.  Old buildings were slowly being renovated and converted and more and more businesses and art studios were locating on the street. Small independent and first time businesses set the tone and art galleries began opening their doors.

 

In this mix, art and artists are featured prominently.  There are studios on both the street and the surrounding neighborhood and art is displayed prominently in various venues (from galleries and coffee houses to a wine shop and a shoe store).  Public sculptures range from a large-scale mosaic sculpture to smaller funky scrap metal constructions; with an abundance of murals. Colorful metal banners line the street.  Art is everywhere.

 

The make-up of the street is varied – from hipsters and punks to African Americans and Hispanics, from struggling artists to solid businesses.  Alberta Street is also unique in the number of shop owners who live in the neighborhood, as well as women owned businesses. Alberta revels in the mix and, although gentrification issues often come up, the people on the street have worked together to pull the street out of its economic decline.  “Grass roots” is an appellation that truly applies to the Alberta Street phenomenon.

 

Read the whole thing here.

 

http://www.albertamainst.org/about/history/

Here's where Columbus is at 2010 (note that 10 of the city's major urban business corridors are located in red areas and are largely untouched). Feel more than free to add other cities.

 

Columbus' Revitalization Progress

 

Green - Revitalized/No Decline

Orange - Some Improvement

Red - Little Improvement/No Improvement/Declining

Blue - Not in City of Columbus Boundaries

Here's where Columbus is at 2010 (note that 10 of the city's major urban business corridors are located in red areas and are largely untouched). Feel more than free to add other cities.

 

Columbus' Revitalization Progress

 

Green - Revitalized/No Decline

Orange - Some Improvement

Red - Little Improvement/No Improvement/Declining

Blue - Not in City of Columbus Boundaries

 

Maybe it's just me, but none of the color codings are showing up on that map.

It really does. I can't imagine the spillover effect from one good neighborhood into a not-so-great one being unaffected by the geographical barriers over there. At the same time, Columbusites like to use a street as a stigmatic definitive dividing line to a ridiculous degree where two areas are totally connected together in an urban grid. Of course, sticking with the good side all the time means no change will spread in the other direction. The most striking is the east-west divide of Parsons where on the west you have German Village and other much improved neighborhoods, while just a few blocks east it's much more hit or miss with nice blocks next to burnt out ones (literally in some cases due to arson of abandoned buildings). If locals were more open minded to easing their way onto and east of Parsons it would be a much, much more interesting place today (only one gallery-shop has opened on Parsons since Hal & Al's provided a high quality establishment in 2009). This goes back to Columbus being too conservative in its thinking on urban matters which goes much deeper than just the poo-pooing of starting a new streetcar system, which of course, would do wonders for the numerous urban business corridors that go on for a mile or so from Downtown.

 

I disagree.  I don't think it has anything to do with being too conservative in urban thinking.  There clearly has been spillover in neighborhoods.  GV to Merion Village is an example.  Weinland Park is another as development along High continues.  I really don't think it has anything to do with physical boundaries.  If a neighborhood begins to become "hot" it will obviously be the first to see revitalization.  Once that area is priced out, people move to the adjacent areas.  You see that as an example of development following a physical path, but is it not logical that connected neighborhoods see development, particularly along major thoroughfares?  There are exceptions to this, of course, as there are in all cities.  Bexley/Whitehall being one of them.  Then again, Bexley is not typical in that it never really declined to begin with.  Also, I don't really see the benefit of having revitalization spread out in many different pockets of the city, as no particular area really thrives to its full potential, making it easier down the road to lose momentum. 

 

I do agree with you, however, that some areas are or have been ignored.  Broad is the biggest problem, but I do think that this is the next "hot" area, as High has the kind of momentum to keep going on its own.   

Continuing development all along one thoroughfare is anti-urban in the sense it is anti-walkability. So it's driven by a car mentality, which might be the conservatism Keith M. was addressing. Making a line of development is much worse for accessibility than making the same amount of development in a more square (or circle or whatever) shape. It also is bad for neighborhood identity and place-making: having different streets for business districts in different neighborhoods creates variety and distinction.

 

High Street is pretty awesome, but when its creation is at the expense of more livable (less linear) development, it displays a lack of "getting it" in terms of quality urbanism. There needs to be some east-west momentum, at some point. BRT or streetcars running perpendicularly through High, perhaps? Git 'er done. :)

Continuing development all along one thoroughfare is anti-urban in the sense it is anti-walkability. So it's driven by a car mentality, which might be the conservatism Keith M. was addressing. Making a line of development is much worse for accessibility than making the same amount of development in a more square (or circle or whatever) shape. It also is bad for neighborhood identity and place-making: having different streets for business districts in different neighborhoods creates variety and distinction.

 

High Street is pretty awesome, but when its creation is at the expense of more livable (less linear) development, it displays a lack of "getting it" in terms of quality urbanism. There needs to be some east-west momentum, at some point. BRT or streetcars running perpendicularly through High, perhaps? Git 'er done. :)

 

I guess my point is that I don't see this as intentional or an issue with how people think here in terms of development.  High Street through the early to mid 1990s was not a nice place.  Look at the Campus area even up through 2002, especially south.  The Short North area was slowly coming around, but still nothing like it is today.  The path of revitalization has happened along High, imo, mostly because it's a central corridor that completely sucked.  It was basically like Broad is now.  The reason development has continued along High instead of moving out is because it's a prime location between Downtown and OSU that seriously needed help, period, not because the city doesn't believe in revitalizing areas away from it.  Yes, there needs to be momentum further out, but you need core areas as well.  Also, it's not like other areas of the city are not experiencing or haven't seen improvements in the last decade.  MV, Northland, Grandview, Easton, King-Lincoln, Franklinton is finally seeing some attention, and soon the West Side, etc.  Not all of these areas are strictly defined by central roadways.  I mean, come on, could you honestly say that a bit of development here or there would have had the same impact as High does now?  No way, but again that's not the only thing going on.         

The linear model is ideal for transit usage.  High Street-- plus a trolley-- could compete with nearly anywhere.  Sans transit it doesn't work so well.

^^ I don't claim enough expertise on the city to judge which one of you is right. I was just trying to parse what Keith M. meant when he said conservatism is holding the city back.

 

Hopefully, once High between Downtown and OSU is saturated, development will branch outward. "Development here or there" vs. development along High weren't the only competing models I was talking about. I was also talking about branching the High St. development out to the east and west (thereby making walkable neighborhoods). Maybe connecting the two points, then branching, is the best strategy. But with the seemingly submissive nature of transit advocates (judging by the streetcar's easy death), the current linear development strategy is a tacit submission to auto-dominance. At least for the city's flagship developments -- the ones along High (I'm not commenting on the other areas you mentioned).