Does Northern New England have something against density and height? It just seems that Portland tries to avoid high density projects that would enhance the skyline...the recent development in Manchester got me thinking that New England north might have more success if it invested in height and desnity in their downtowns. It would make more sense economically.
Todd, I think it is the new American way to have "something against density and height." Ever since the country abandoned passenger rail and switched to private automobiles, sprawl has been the "in" thing to do.
Northern new england varies a lot in its attitudes. Burlington, Portsmouth, Portland...and Lewiston even...all of these cities are dense, but not necessarily tall. Manchester on the other hand is tall but not too dense. In fact, I believe the tallest building north of Boston is in Manchester (although I could be wrong because I think there is a building for the University in Lowell that comes close).
At one time, Portland had the tallest building in New England, if you can believe it. It was in the early 20th century, the Maine Bank and Trust building, which outranked anything in Boston (although admittedly many in Boston were very close, and there were more of them).
Also, Maine is very pro density. We currently have a bond measure that will be floated to voters in November to enhance downtowns; we have the Maine Development Foundation, GrowSmart Maine, and state legislation that promotes wise planning in land use. However, that said, it takes more than these preliminary steps to actually achieve density, even once you have claimed to be "for it."
Developers still realize that they will have less opposition if they build a low density and therefore low impact project, and for this reason the trend continues to be sprawl. I was reading the Portland comprehensive plan last night (because, as an urban planning nerd, that's what I do) and I came across an interesting statistic. The population of Portland changes .01% between 1990 and 2000, yet the population of the surrounding county increased by tense of thousands (I think it was at least 22,000 people). Moreover, with only something like a 15-25% increase in population, the built environment more than doubled (it grew by 108%). Yet we still have a housing shortage in Portland. Big time. Its not that people don't realize what's going on, its the coordination that is lacking. A state level policy is meaningless unless grasped in its entirety by local land use and permitting officials. However, those officials also respond to the electorate, who are stuck in their ways. The same thing happens in Boston, for example when there was an uproar about building tall in Back bay, but fortunately for Boston it built up tall before NIMBYism really became the American way. Boston, due to its larger role and importance, HAD TO build up early on, and so now people think a 25 story building is low impact in Boston, and they are just glad its not a 50 story building, but in Portland and the rest of NNE everything is scaled down. There is more land, fewer people, fewer major corporations, and fewer large developers. So people see 8 stories as too tall. and developers don't fight this because (a.) they don't have many projects that require that height anyway, and (b.) it wouldn't be worth the stress when they could just build a mile outside of town in a greenfield development site. Greenfields don't exist in southern new england like they don in NNE.
Moreover, a lot of the land in cities in NNE is owned by private citizens, not the cities, so even if the city wanted to build up (as Portland stated it wanted to do in response to a 1990 downtown height study) they only have a few areas to do it in. They can't do it along the water because officials realize that quality of life and tourism are two of the major reasons people come to Maine, and they perceive skyscrapers as threatening both. I think in terms of places to watch for high density, Portland, Manchester, and Burlington are your best bets. The rest of these towns are stuck in their ways. If they wanted density, they'll tell you, they'd live an hour or two south.
It can be frustrating, but many times they have a good point.
However, I think the better point is that building up rather than out preserves more of what both sides want -- more city, more country, less sprawl. But many people believe it or not like sprawl. Malls and shopping plazas are convenient if ugly.
