Why is Portland considered a model city?

[livincinco]

Ross, on 12 Jul 2013 - 22:55, said:

Because it has strict land use controls and zoning. There are those, I consider them borderline insane, who think every facet of land use has to be controlled, lest property owners get the idea they should have input into their own destiny.

Which results in the ability to pay more for an apartment in Portland than you would for a house in Charlotte while making less money. That's why I'm curious to hear from the people that have been touting Portland. The cities are very similar, but Portland has heavy controls, Charlotte doesn't, but is still a very livable city. Lots of parks and bike trails and generally scores very high on most lists of "the best places to live." A very lively and walkable downtown area, but almost no rail and limited density. That being said there are some areas close to downtown that most urbanists would love, but it's only one section of town. Most of the metro requires a car.

So basically, it's a city that's almost identical in size to Portland that is lacking the things that are commonly cited as the reasons that make Portland a great place to live. Yet still manages to be a great place to live and arguably, even a better place to live than Portland.

[Fringe]

Portland is the beer capital of the world

 

http://goseeportland.com/guides/36-beer-capital-of-the-world

[barracuda]

I think part of the reason is that positive press tens to snowball until every rag that publishes a "best cities for ___" list wants to include them. Portland has focused on things like green space and biking trails and received kudos for those. Of course, you probably won't see Portland on lists touting racial/ethic diversity or great places to find a job. Charlotte could have similar metrics and in fact be more practical and affordable, but it isn't considered cool and doesn't have the press mindshare that Portland has. 

 

[august948]

Extremes make good examples for extremists. Portland went over the deep end to cater to a certain mindset about use of land. That makes it more interesting to them and worthy of holding up as a shining example. If only everyone did things like Portland we'd all be better off, right? Right?

[RedScare]

What I find interesting about those who trumpet Portland and strict zoning laws as a path to Shangrila is that they almost universally despise suburbs. They hate master planned communities. Yet, what is Portland but a master planned city! 

[livincinco]

Those who were loudly touting the city seem to have disappeared. It really was a serious question.

[ToryGattis]

Those who were loudly touting the city seem to have disappeared. It really was a serious question.

 

"Smart Growth" is essentially a pseudo-religion, complete with dogma, and Portland is their mecca.  It is really that simple.

[luciaphile]

"Smart Growth" is essentially a pseudo-religion, complete with dogma, and Portland is their mecca.  It is really that simple.

 

In the WSJ profile of Annise Parker, you said: "I'd argue we may be the most libertarian city in America."

So Houston is Mecca for libertarians. It's really that simple. That's why a paleocon like me feels uncomfortable there. Fine.

But Portland: Portland is a product that people have proven they want to pay for. I'm not sure why it draws censure, since libertarians should seemingly be indifferent to what people desire, or the forms it takes. In a world of choice, it is unlikely everyone would want to live in a place like Houston.

Where you see hipsters, I suppose (sorry if I misuse the word "hipster" - it has no meaning for me) I see, beyond the gauzy progressivism, those drawn to Portland attempting to mimic what the very wealthy enjoy. This seems like very typical consumer behavior.

Please note, I said, "very wealthy."  So, the lifestyle I'm taking about, though it may be very expensive, has less to do with material excess, than with beautiful surroundings, orderliness, and above all, not too damn many people around.

So, for instance, the sort of place where uber-libertarian Steve Forbes lives: a charming, ultra-restrictive town in New Jersey, where the arrival of a Starbucks was considered an affront, where ag exemptions for pumpkin patches and Christmas tree farms preserve a nice buffer of open space.

Is this a case where libertarians feel people need correcting, because they are guilty of wanting the wrong thing?

[august948]

The beauty of America is that we can have different approaches in different cities. The problem comes when someone wants all the other places to be like his or her "favorite".

[ToryGattis]

In the WSJ profile of Annise Parker, you said: "I'd argue we may be the most libertarian city in America."

So Houston is Mecca for libertarians. It's really that simple. That's why a paleocon like me feels uncomfortable there. Fine.

But Portland: Portland is a product that people have proven they want to pay for. I'm not sure why it draws censure, since libertarians should seemingly be indifferent to what people desire, or the forms it takes. In a world of choice, it is unlikely everyone would want to live in a place like Houston.

Where you see hipsters, I suppose (sorry if I misuse the word "hipster" - it has no meaning for me) I see, beyond the gauzy progressivism, those drawn to Portland attempting to mimic what the very wealthy enjoy. This seems like very typical consumer behavior.

Please note, I said, "very wealthy."  So, the lifestyle I'm taking about, though it may be very expensive, has less to do with material excess, than with beautiful surroundings, orderliness, and above all, not too damn many people around.

So, for instance, the sort of place where uber-libertarian Steve Forbes lives: a charming, ultra-restrictive town in New Jersey, where the arrival of a Starbucks was considered an affront, where ag exemptions for pumpkin patches and Christmas tree farms preserve a nice buffer of open space.

Is this a case where libertarians feel people need correcting, because they are guilty of wanting the wrong thing?

 

The question was "why is Portland considered a model city".  The simple answer is that they are the mecca for Smart Growth.  I have my issues with smart growth, especially pointing out the downsides of what they consider utopia (mainly the high costs and government dictation of peoples' lives).  But if it's what the people of Portland choose to do, so be it.  I agree about a diversity of city types.  And I like that Houston is trying to offer many different neighborhood types within a larger metro, including dense urban neighborhoods and aesthetically controlled ones (like the small cities and The Woodlands).  I'm not a fan that Portland tries to dictate only one neighborhood model, but again, if that's how they democratically choose to do it, so be it.

[luciaphile]

Yes, "government dictation" of people's lives is bad! I know that because I watched hundreds of rowdy women, who did not look like they were in much danger of getting with child, screaming and cheering for killing babies the other week, and it was not a pretty sight, and I assume I would never have seen such a thing were it not for the uterus-tingling threat of "government dictation." 

Anyhoo, I wonder which model - or "no-model" - the libertarian or the Smart Growth (if that's all it really is, 'cuz there's not much there) - more fully bears all its costs locally. 

Which group more thoroughly pays for its principles, that is.

A number impossible to know, I guess.

 

[kylejack]

Is it possible that we could discuss civic planning without going on an abortion tangent?

 

To answer your questions about libertarians, they're generally not keen on imposing majority rule on to individuals, such as zoning regulations on individual property owners.

[RedScare]

Abortion tangents aside, it should be noted that most of our ire is not directed at Portland at all. It is directed at those who wish to impose Portland's rules on us here in Houston. There is a huge difference. I would likely love Portland (aside from the weather). Likewise, I do love Houston. I have no interest, however, in attempting to turn Houston into Portland, and will be happy to oppose those who wish to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and I'm pro-choice, too. So sue me.

[luciaphile]

Well, I don't know why you mention it, but I'll court the moderators' displeasure and admit I'm mildly pro-choice, too, RedScare; though, of course, it's a much braver stance in a man.

I'm unlikely to turn to litigation - ever, for any reason - but I'm not sure on what grounds I would sue you.

I don't know how truly horrible Portland is. I haven't been there! Have new friends that have lately moved from there. They are natives of the PNW, and claim the weather casts a pall over everyone; so much so, that if you are feeling really blue, you have to explain that no, it's more than the customary weather-related blahs.

I was pondering -- and I'm sorry, I'm no good at digging up city data, as y'all are -- if it were the case that far more per capita of the 70 or eighty million checks the federal government writes each month, flowed to Houston, rather than Portland, would that indicate that the amount of governmental assistance its citizenry receives is a metric of how "libertarian" a city is? Or would that just be coincidental?

 

[livincinco]

I actually really like Portland, but my point was to draw the comparison between Portland and Charlotte. Very similar cities in size with very different approaches to urban planning. By the numbers, Charlotte has arguably been more successful in creating a high standard of living at a low cost. It's a very livable city with lots of parks and a variety of different neighborhoods that would please most people. However, I don't think that anyone will question that Portland receives a considerable amount more press for its approach which has arguably been no more successful than Charlotte's approach.

It's really meant to be a serious question. Why is Portland considered so much more desirable, because the comparison between the two really doesn't draw a compelling case that Portland's tight regulation has created a better living environment than Charlotte's lighter hand.

This isn't meant to say that Portland is a bad place at all or that I'm saying that the citizens of Portland shouldn't have the right to make those choices. I just wonder whether those choices really are worth the credit they receive.

I absolutely agree that government's role is to facilitate the will of the people and that's what has happened in Portland, so more power to them. It also means that every city has the same right to make those choices and people have the right to congregate in cities that match their desires.

[RedScare]

It's really meant to be a serious question. Why is Portland considered so much more desirable, because the comparison between the two really doesn't draw a compelling case that Portland's tight regulation has created a better living environment than Charlotte's lighter hand.

 

 

Being a native of North Carolina, having grown up a mere 80 miles from Charlotte, I can safely say that North Carolina is not a bragging sort of state, so you would likely not hear too much horn tooting to begin with. However, it is worth noting that Portland IS the crown jewel of the Smart Growth approach to city planning. They started sooner and took it further than other cities. As such, anytime Smart Growth advocates wish to tout the successes of Smart Growth initiatives, Portland is where they begin...and often end.

 

Of course, you do not hear nearly as much about the failures of Portland's Smart Growth initiatives. It is easy to see why. Smart Growth proponents, like anyone else, are not fond of pointing out the flaws in their thinking. And, many of these proponents do not even live in Portland, so they do not see the flaws on a daily basis. They are tourists, and only see what they like. Just as Colorado never feels cold when I am there skiing in my warm ski gear, Portland seems perfect when you are on vacation there and do not have to fight the rush hour to work. You also do not have to fight the density requirements when you are staying in a B&B.

 

The gripe on Charlotte from a Smart Groeth proponent would be the same as Houston. It is too spread out. It needs more density. And, because the natural tendency of humans with means is to live in less crowded conditions (even Portland fans s3mh and mako live in the Heights and fight its densification), it takes government regs to make them live closer together. North Carolinians are not fond of government regs, either.

[livincinco]

The gripe on Charlotte from a Smart Groeth proponent would be the same as Houston. It is too spread out. It needs more density. And, because the natural tendency of humans with means is to live in less crowded conditions (even Portland fans s3mh and mako live in the Heights and fight its densification), it takes government regs to make them live closer together. North Carolinians are not fond of government regs, either.

Agreed and people frequently quote Richard Florida's claims that density drives innovation yet the GDPs of the Portland and Charlotte metros are pretty comparable in addition to residents of Charlotte having a higher income vs. a lower cost of living. It just seems like it boils down to personal preference on a way of life to me and, to your earlier point, one group being more vocal on their preferences than the other.

[KinkaidAlum]

I've taken two trips to Portland. It's a BEAUTIFUL place. That's why I loved it. Rivers, gorges, mountain views, trees to die for, and yes, the core of the city was a walkable paradise. Powell's Books is also one of the coolest places on the planet for a geek like me.

Also, the beer was good and the gay scene was uber friendly (mostly bears and wannabe lumberjacks). 

 

That said, the only thing I'd like to see Houston adopt is a greater sense of land preservation. Not all land, but some should be added to the public trust before it's all developed. We seem to be working that way with new parks and the bayou trails initiative, but it would be nice to see a coastal bend and a pine preserve added to our regional park system. While the population of the region has skyrocketed, we really haven't added much to the park system.

[august948]

I've taken two trips to Portland. It's a BEAUTIFUL place. That's why I loved it. Rivers, gorges, mountain views, trees to die for, and yes, the core of the city was a walkable paradise. Powell's Books is also one of the coolest places on the planet for a geek like me.

Also, the beer was good and the gay scene was uber friendly (mostly bears and wannabe lumberjacks). 

 

That said, the only thing I'd like to see Houston adopt is a greater sense of land preservation. Not all land, but some should be added to the public trust before it's all developed. We seem to be working that way with new parks and the bayou trails initiative, but it would be nice to see a coastal bend and a pine preserve added to our regional park system. While the population of the region has skyrocketed, we really haven't added much to the park system.

 

Actually, the main thing I'd like to bring here from Portland is Powell's.  That and the microbrewery/brewpub regulatory friendliness. 

 

For beer and books, I have to agree that Portland is a model city.  Otherwise, not so much.

[luciaphile]

This is some unfortunately-rather-dated information (c.2000? - it didn't say) from the Sierra Club website:

 

Oregon adopted several statewide planning statutes in 1973, including one requiring the adoption of plans which zone for affordable housing within urban growth boundaries and the creation of protective zones outside of them. The plan has meant the protection of 25 million acres worth of farm and forest lands. It has also allowed Portland's population to grow by 50 percent since the 1970s while its land area increased by a mere 2 percent.(18)

 

Not that I mind tangents, but maybe we can bypass a discussion of "Why do we need forest or farmland?" Perhaps we can at a minimum agree, that a certain demographic likes to know it's there, and leave it at that.

Of course, the Sierra Club has a vested interest in smart growth policies, having abandoned, in the 80s, in a rather messy internal fight, population control as one of its planks, as incompatible with the politics of its more vocal members.

 

In the absence of the goal of curbing sprawl, densification in a place like Houston, whether as a matter of ambience, or of replacing one population with another, does seem counterintuitive as a model. If the urban area will eventually encompass several counties, why punish the people most distant from the edge, by encouraging development that removes trees and private green space from the city? Why target single-family neighborhoods? No, there were no protections for anyone not in a deed-restricted subdivision, and no one had any "right" to expect them. But I gather, particularly from posters on Swamplot, that people did expect such protection for the simple reason that a metropolitan area with no limits to its expansion -- eager to grow outward, in fact -- would have no evident need to rebuild its urban core neighborhoods.

 

Smart growth seems like a good model for Portland, though, especially for those people who need people.

[RedScare]

Oregon adopted several statewide planning statutes in 1973, including one requiring the adoption of plans which zone for affordable housing within urban growth boundaries and the creation of protective zones outside of them. The plan has meant the protection of 25 million acres worth of farm and forest lands. It has also allowed Portland's population to grow by 50 percent since the 1970s while its land area increased by a mere 2 percent.(18)

 

Interestingly, Houston's population has nearly doubled since 1970, from 1.2 million to an estimated 2.25 million, while only increasing its land area by 19%. In real numbers, Houston has added over 1 million residents to Portland's 200,000. Realistically, it is foolish to compare the 4th largest city to the 28th or 29th largest city, but it is still interesting that 40 years of "Smart Growth" has not produced more than it appears. I suppose it is because Portland is simply a slow growth city. It is not too hard to add 5.000 residents per year to a city.

[luciaphile]

Perhaps less interestingly, the population of Houston's metropolitan area was just about that - 2.2 million - the year I was born in a box on the freeway.

No wonder it seems so much larger to me!

[Houston19514]

I've taken two trips to Portland. It's a BEAUTIFUL place. That's why I loved it. Rivers, gorges, mountain views, trees to die for, and yes, the core of the city was a walkable paradise. Powell's Books is also one of the coolest places on the planet for a geek like me.

Also, the beer was good and the gay scene was uber friendly (mostly bears and wannabe lumberjacks). 

 

That said, the only thing I'd like to see Houston adopt is a greater sense of land preservation. Not all land, but some should be added to the public trust before it's all developed. We seem to be working that way with new parks and the bayou trails initiative, but it would be nice to see a coastal bend and a pine preserve added to our regional park system. While the population of the region has skyrocketed, we really haven't added much to the park system.

 

Off the top of my head:

Lake Houston Park is pretty new:  almost 5,000 acres of parkland

Spring Creek Parkway is being developed:  15,000 acres of new parkland

Bayou Greenways will add another 1,500 acres of parkland

 

As to a pine preserve, we have Sam Houston National Forest.

[livincinco]

This is some unfortunately-rather-dated information (c.2000? - it didn't say) from the Sierra Club website:

 

Oregon adopted several statewide planning statutes in 1973, including one requiring the adoption of plans which zone for affordable housing within urban growth boundaries and the creation of protective zones outside of them. The plan has meant the protection of 25 million acres worth of farm and forest lands. It has also allowed Portland's population to grow by 50 percent since the 1970s while its land area increased by a mere 2 percent.(18)

 

Not that I mind tangents, but maybe we can bypass a discussion of "Why do we need forest or farmland?" Perhaps we can at a minimum agree, that a certain demographic likes to know it's there, and leave it at that.

Of course, the Sierra Club has a vested interest in smart growth policies, having abandoned, in the 80s, in a rather messy internal fight, population control as one of its planks, as incompatible with the politics of its more vocal members.

 

In the absence of the goal of curbing sprawl, densification in a place like Houston, whether as a matter of ambience, or of replacing one population with another, does seem counterintuitive as a model. If the urban area will eventually encompass several counties, why punish the people most distant from the edge, by encouraging development that removes trees and private green space from the city? Why target single-family neighborhoods? No, there were no protections for anyone not in a deed-restricted subdivision, and no one had any "right" to expect them. But I gather, particularly from posters on Swamplot, that people did expect such protection for the simple reason that a metropolitan area with no limits to its expansion -- eager to grow outward, in fact -- would have no evident need to rebuild its urban core neighborhoods.

 

Smart growth seems like a good model for Portland, though, especially for those people who need people.

 

I have no problem with Portland utilizing the model and I'm a big fan of forests and farmland, so you're not going to hear any complaints from me on either of those points.  My issues come when people start imply that Portland is a model city and that every city should be like Portland.  The concern with urban growth boundaries is that they start to inflate the costs of housing due to the scarcity of the land.  Cities that have natural constraints, such as New York, San Francisco and Hong Kong, have the same issue.  The result is that they start to price out the middle class and create a lower class that is essentially living to pay their rent.  The middle class family is pushed out into suburbs and you still end up with urban sprawl.

 

As a result, you get a city that is congratulating itself for minimizing growth, but has also created class division and just moved the people that they don't want to think about into the suburbs.  Portland is a good example of that.  The city and state have limited growth outside the urban boundary, but that's just driven the sprawl into Washington state with a bunch of people that then commute into the city of Portland.  It hasn't eliminated sprawl, it has just redirected it.  If Washington implemented the same urban growth boundaries that Portland has, I think that you would see a very different economic equation in Portland.

[luciaphile]

I have no problem with Portland utilizing the model and I'm a big fan of forests and farmland, so you're not going to hear any complaints from me on either of those points.  My issues come when people start imply that Portland is a model city and that every city should be like Portland.  The concern with urban growth boundaries is that they start to inflate the costs of housing due to the scarcity of the land.  Cities that have natural constraints, such as New York, San Francisco and Hong Kong, have the same issue.  The result is that they start to price out the middle class and create a lower class that is essentially living to pay their rent.  The middle class family is pushed out into suburbs and you still end up with urban sprawl.

 

As a result, you get a city that is congratulating itself for minimizing growth, but has also created class division and just moved the people that they don't want to think about into the suburbs.  Portland is a good example of that.  The city and state have limited growth outside the urban boundary, but that's just driven the sprawl into Washington state with a bunch of people that then commute into the city of Portland.  It hasn't eliminated sprawl, it has just redirected it.  If Washington implemented the same urban growth boundaries that Portland has, I think that you would see a very different economic equation in Portland.

 

I think redirecting sprawl may be all a city can hope for, given the population growth this country looks forward to. Every city for itself.

I didn't know about this daily in-migration into Portland. That's good to know. As some sort of economic justice issue, it does not particularly move me, though.

Someone who has never, to the best of my knowledge, given ten minutes' thought to urban issues --  (that's why y'all are so fun!) --

was reading the Sunday paper, which was bemoaning, in a Lengthy, Hard-hitting Feature, the fact that x % of our firefighters and schoolteachers live outside the city limits of our town, and the wrong people live in the areas where they should be living.

(He would know, if he paid any attention, that this is a regular drumbeat with them.)

"Why the ----- should I care where firefighters choose to live? Why is that a legitimate concern of government?"

He's no libertarian, but it is hard for me to see how that's not a libertarian sentiment.

[RedScare]

Houston went through this discussion 30 years ago. At the time, White Flight was still in full flight. The City was becoming "darker", but the police and fire departments clung to their largely white historical membership. There was also the belief that it was more expensive to live in the City. The thought process was that if police and fire fighters were required to live in the City, the neighborhoods would have a more stable presence, and the City would be safer. There was also the belief that City employees should live in the City.

 

It didn't turn into anything, and the issue died out. But, variations on this theme play out in every high priced dense city in the country. We pay our government employees lower wages, institute rules that drive up housing costs, then wonder why all of our employees live in the boonies.Typical thoughtless Smart Growth pattern.

[livincinco]

I think redirecting sprawl may be all a city can hope for, given the population growth this country looks forward to. Every city for itself.

I didn't know about this daily in-migration into Portland. That's good to know. As some sort of economic justice issue, it does not particularly move me, though.

Someone who has never, to the best of my knowledge, given ten minutes' thought to urban issues --  (that's why y'all are so fun!) --

was reading the Sunday paper, which was bemoaning, in a Lengthy, Hard-hitting Feature, the fact that x % of our firefighters and schoolteachers live outside the city limits of our town, and the wrong people live in the areas where they should be living.

(He would know, if he paid any attention, that this is a regular drumbeat with them.)

"Why the ----- should I care where firefighters choose to live? Why is that a legitimate concern of government?"

He's no libertarian, but it is hard for me to see how that's not a libertarian sentiment.

 

Fair enough, but let's go back to the Charlotte/Portland comparison.  If you're looking at preserving forests and farmland, the area of the Portland MSA is 6,684 sq miles and the area of the Charlotte MSA is 3,198 sq miles.  I understand that there is a segment of that area that is preserved, but even if 50% of the land inside the Portland MSA is preserved for farms and forests (and I'm not understanding why it's considered part of the MSA if it is), then the urban footprint is still larger than Charlotte for a comparable population and Charlotte has done very little to regulate growth.

[Houston19514]

Fair enough, but let's go back to the Charlotte/Portland comparison.  If you're looking at preserving forests and farmland, the area of the Portland MSA is 6,684 sq miles and the area of the Charlotte MSA is 3,198 sq miles.  I understand that there is a segment of that area that is preserved, but even if 50% of the land inside the Portland MSA is preserved for farms and forests (and I'm not understanding why it's considered part of the MSA if it is), then the urban footprint is still larger than Charlotte for a comparable population and Charlotte has done very little to regulate growth.

 

MSAs are based on county lines.  So the square miles included in an MSA does not necessarily tell us much.  It would indeed include preserved green space areas.

[luciaphile]

I would be interested in total conservation land. livincinco, I am a bear of too little brain to know whether msa's are too blunt an instrument to measure sprawl. I am under no illusion that sprawl could be averted in the current climate. Perhaps Portland's goal, which was later subsumed under the rubric of smart growth, was to preserve open space, ag and forest, in its immediate vicinity. Anything more than that, beyond state lines especially, might have smacked of overreach?

Anyway, I was trying to interpret this map, which needs updating obviously, but I'm not sure anyone cares about this stuff anymore:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=2831069_pone.0009509.g002.jpg

 

Whatever their methodology, it resulted in the same size green dot at Portland as at Charlotte, and a second threatening green dot closer, seemingly, to Charlotte than to Portland.

No time for further googling, sadly!

 

ETA: I am having misgivings that I interpreted that correctly. It is hard to believe that Charlotte lost a similar amount of open space as Portland did in the niineties, when Charlotte's msa was a good deal smaller than it is now. Go ahead, rip it to shreds!

[Slick Vik]

Because of the green and planning initiatives they are taking in their city. It says a lot about your city if people are willing to move there whether they have employment or not just because they love living there. I know a few people that have done this.