BEECN Sites: Difference between revisions

From Portland NET Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 40: Line 40:
* Is not in the vicinity of tall trees, overhead power lines, or other utility hazards;
* Is not in the vicinity of tall trees, overhead power lines, or other utility hazards;
* Is familiar to the community and following a disaster might be intuited by neighbors as a community gathering point, and is geographically central to the immediate community.
* Is familiar to the community and following a disaster might be intuited by neighbors as a community gathering point, and is geographically central to the immediate community.
Bottom line, BEECN sites are intended to leverage the comfort and familiarity of known and existing community gathering points. An article examining what places became post-disaster community gathering points after Hurricane Helene hit Asheville, North Carolina illustrates this succinctly:
Bottom line, BEECN sites are intended to leverage the comfort and familiarity of known and existing community gathering points. An [https://www.pps.org/article/where-we-go-when-everything-breaks-placemaking-lessons-from-ashevilles-recovery article] examining what places became post-disaster community gathering points after Hurricane Helene hit Asheville, North Carolina illustrates this succinctly:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Walkable areas with human-scaled design and natural gathering points adapted quickly. Residents moved instinctively toward familiar places—churches, public markets, corner coffee shops, community centers—and those places transformed overnight into aid stations, supply depots, and hubs for checking in on neighbors. There was natural rhythm and flow as people knew where to go, who to seek, and how to help.
Walkable areas with human-scaled design and natural gathering points adapted quickly. Residents moved instinctively toward familiar places—churches, public markets, corner coffee shops, community centers—and those places transformed overnight into aid stations, supply depots, and hubs for checking in on neighbors. There was natural rhythm and flow as people knew where to go, who to seek, and how to help.


In contrast, where sprawl stretched across highways and disconnected lots, the story was different. With no clear civic heart or public square, people gathered wherever they could—behind warehouses, in the corners of big box parking lots. These makeshift aid sites worked for the most part, but they lacked comfort, coherence, and continuity. With no seating, shade, or sense of place, people came and went quickly, unsure of where to linger or who to follow.
In contrast, where sprawl stretched across highways and disconnected lots, the story was different. With no clear civic heart or public square, people gathered wherever they could—behind warehouses, in the corners of big box parking lots. These makeshift aid sites worked for the most part, but they lacked comfort, coherence, and continuity. With no seating, shade, or sense of place, people came and went quickly, unsure of where to linger or who to follow.
...
...
Place matters in crisis. What held together after the disaster were places built for people—spaces with visibility, orientation, and adaptability. Areas where people had to improvise and start from scratch faltered and took longer to recover.
Place matters in crisis. What held together after the disaster were places built for people—spaces with visibility, orientation, and adaptability. Areas where people had to improvise and start from scratch faltered and took longer to recover.<ref>''Where We Go When Everything Breaks: Placemaking Lessons from Asheville’s Recovery''. (n.d.). https://www.pps.org/article/where-we-go-when-everything-breaks-placemaking-lessons-from-ashevilles-recovery</ref>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />

Latest revision as of 05:28, 7 June 2025

BEECN Guidelines
Introduction
BEECN Program Organization
BEECN Sites
BEECN Volunteers
BEECN Caches
Operations at BEECN Sites
Operations at Fire Stations
Back to Main Guidelines ↱

The BEECN Site is the geographic location intended to serve as a gathering point for persons looking for help in the aftermath of an earthquake. A BEECN Site is public information, published on maps, and Portlanders are encouraged to know where their nearest BEECN Site is.


Location of BEECN Sites

This BEECN is deployed in an ideal site: flat, no power lines, not a lot of trees, broad uh...tract of land. Yes very nice.
  1. At minimum, there will be a total of 48 BEECN sites located throughout the City of Portland.
  2. BEECNs will be evenly distributed throughout the city and are generally sited with the goal of placing approximately two BEECNs within each of the Portland Plan’s neighborhood hub boundaries.[1]
  3. PBEM has complete discretion over the location of each BEECN site. However, PBEM will consider the input of property owners, community partners, city employees, and volunteers when deciding BEECN site locations.
  4. Though moving a BEECN site should be avoided, PBEM will consider moving a site if a more appropriate one is found in the immediate neighborhood of the BEECN. However, planning to move a BEECN site must consider whether doing so will change a BEECN's Primary and Backup relays (i.e. which fire station the BEECN calls in to) and if the new site keeps the BEECN in a "20 Minute Walkable Neighborhood".[1]

BEECN Site criteria

The ideal BEECN Site is:

  • An open area large enough to hold a crowd of at least 100 people;
  • A safe distance from unreinforced masonry structures (such as older brick structures);
  • Is not on a steep gradient or near landslide hazards, and not easily subject to flooding;
  • Is not in the vicinity of tall trees, overhead power lines, or other utility hazards;
  • Is familiar to the community and following a disaster might be intuited by neighbors as a community gathering point, and is geographically central to the immediate community.

Bottom line, BEECN sites are intended to leverage the comfort and familiarity of known and existing community gathering points. An article examining what places became post-disaster community gathering points after Hurricane Helene hit Asheville, North Carolina illustrates this succinctly:

Walkable areas with human-scaled design and natural gathering points adapted quickly. Residents moved instinctively toward familiar places—churches, public markets, corner coffee shops, community centers—and those places transformed overnight into aid stations, supply depots, and hubs for checking in on neighbors. There was natural rhythm and flow as people knew where to go, who to seek, and how to help.

In contrast, where sprawl stretched across highways and disconnected lots, the story was different. With no clear civic heart or public square, people gathered wherever they could—behind warehouses, in the corners of big box parking lots. These makeshift aid sites worked for the most part, but they lacked comfort, coherence, and continuity. With no seating, shade, or sense of place, people came and went quickly, unsure of where to linger or who to follow.

... Place matters in crisis. What held together after the disaster were places built for people—spaces with visibility, orientation, and adaptability. Areas where people had to improvise and start from scratch faltered and took longer to recover.[2]


BEECN Site Restrictions

What a BEECN Site is not

A BEECN Site is...

  • ...not necessarily the same location where the BEECN Cache is stored;
  • ...not a designated medical care point, though it is possible it may serve as one after the earthquake;
  • ...not a location designated for post-disaster supply distribution, though it may serve that purpose after an earthquake.

The question of adding new BEECN sites

Adding new BEECN sites can be done, but is not advised. Aside from the challenges of placing a new equipment cache, PBEM needs to consider radio traffic load capacity at fire stations and at the EOC. Emergency radio traffic from (prospectively) 48 to 50 different sites push the limits of what the system can handle. Adding more is probably untenable.

Notes and References

  1. 1.0 1.1 The Portland Plan (published in 2012) rested on a concept of "complete neighborhoods", and Portland was divided into 24 different hub areas. You can download and read that part of the Plan HERE.
  2. Where We Go When Everything Breaks: Placemaking Lessons from Asheville’s Recovery. (n.d.). https://www.pps.org/article/where-we-go-when-everything-breaks-placemaking-lessons-from-ashevilles-recovery