but every time I sit down to do it I get distracted by home-purchasing stuff. So for now, I'm going to recommend these three news stories that neatly summarize the type of attitude that I think is going to turn Portland into a smaller San Francisco: not enough housing, too expensive for middle class people, crazy sprawl.
Whenever I hear "we need to preserve the [neighborhood/district/city]'s character," I reflexively start grinding my teeth. This is a phrase people use to justify restrictions on building height and other attributes that will limit the amount of housing available in an area. It is the ultimate NIMBYism. I've been grinding my teeth a bunch over the past three or four years.
I didn't move to Portland for the same reasons many people have. Portland was never this fantasy utopia for me, and I didn't dream and plan and save for years to get here. I just ended up here. And while I'm very happy that I did , the city in its current state is not as precious to me as it is to many. I think this gives me a slightly more objective view of the city's shortcomings, even if it doesn't make me super popular at parties.
But so I try to appreciate the P-Town mythology that most Portlanders accept when I'm arguing with them about future development. This place is special and perfect to them, and a major change would be devastating.
But some major changes are almost certain. The city is growing, and growth is change. It doesn't have to be bad change, though; we just need to manage it properly.
Unfortunately, all change is bad change if you think you're living in utopia. A few years ago, the Mercury published a reader poll that had asked for the #1 thing we could do to improve the city. The overwhelming winner was: kick out everyone who moved here in the last 5 years. FOOTNOTE! And this attitude for sure persists to this day. Ask people on the street what we should do about future growth, and you will hear "STOP IT" rather than possible urban planning strategies.
You can't stop growth, of course; good cities attract people. Anyone looking for a city with a static population should consider Cleveland or Buffalo. My concern is that Portlanders are dealing with growth the same way Republicans deal with teenage sex: since they can't prevent it, they condemn it and refuse to deal with it on principle.
I suspect that people will wait until they see a big influx of development in their neighborhoods and then react with prohibitively restrictive zoning laws and converting all of the potential infill lots into parks: anything to preserve a "village" feel. Then property values in the city will increase exponentially, developers will focus on the hinterlands, and the growth boundary will continually have to be moved further and further out. Only wealthy people will be able to live in-town; middle-class people will have to drive everywhere in the suburbs. The city proper will preserve its aesthetic character at the expense of its cultural character. Voila: grayer San Francisco.
I wouldn't mind if Portland looked more like Philadelphia. Well, but like a cleaner version of Philadelphia. I like architecturally interesting skyscrapers. I like dense, affordable neighborhoods with shops and other businesses on every street instead of only on certain main thoroughfares. I would definitely rather Portland look like Philadelphia than Dallas or San Francisco. And I think if people quit asking "How do we keep Portland from changing?" and start asking "What do we want a bigger Portland to look like?" we can get to a new version of utopia.
Anyway, that was a really long and grumbly preface to these three stories about other cities that are exhibiting the same troubling attitudes I see in Portland. You might want to wear a mouth guard while reading.
Marketplace story about Google moving into Boulder. Discusses residents' anger about 4-story buildings on campus being too high (!) and Google salaries driving up home prices instead of providing a wage that will allow people to live in a town that's already absurdly expensive.
CityLab story about Palo Alto neighborhood passing ordinance banning structures higher than 1 story. I will say that the homes they're trying to preserve are my exact favorite style, but still.
Another CityLab article. (I fucking love CityLab). This one is about STEALTH DORMS! and Texans behaving exactly like you expect Texans to behave.
FOOTNOTE! About three days after reading that Mercury poll, I was flying home on Delta, and their in-flight mag had this big advertisement for Atlanta in which then-mayor Shirley Franklin is quoted as saying something to the effect of "You don't need to be from here to be great here."
If this were a high-school paper, I'd comment that the contrast is striking. I'm certainly not going to hold up Hotmess-lanta as an example of good urban planning, but I think it's cool that my hometown understands all of the good to economy and culture that fresh blood can do.
Whenever I hear "we need to preserve the [neighborhood/district/city]'s character," I reflexively start grinding my teeth. This is a phrase people use to justify restrictions on building height and other attributes that will limit the amount of housing available in an area. It is the ultimate NIMBYism. I've been grinding my teeth a bunch over the past three or four years.
I didn't move to Portland for the same reasons many people have. Portland was never this fantasy utopia for me, and I didn't dream and plan and save for years to get here. I just ended up here. And while I'm very happy that I did , the city in its current state is not as precious to me as it is to many. I think this gives me a slightly more objective view of the city's shortcomings, even if it doesn't make me super popular at parties.
But so I try to appreciate the P-Town mythology that most Portlanders accept when I'm arguing with them about future development. This place is special and perfect to them, and a major change would be devastating.
But some major changes are almost certain. The city is growing, and growth is change. It doesn't have to be bad change, though; we just need to manage it properly.
Unfortunately, all change is bad change if you think you're living in utopia. A few years ago, the Mercury published a reader poll that had asked for the #1 thing we could do to improve the city. The overwhelming winner was: kick out everyone who moved here in the last 5 years. FOOTNOTE! And this attitude for sure persists to this day. Ask people on the street what we should do about future growth, and you will hear "STOP IT" rather than possible urban planning strategies.
You can't stop growth, of course; good cities attract people. Anyone looking for a city with a static population should consider Cleveland or Buffalo. My concern is that Portlanders are dealing with growth the same way Republicans deal with teenage sex: since they can't prevent it, they condemn it and refuse to deal with it on principle.
I suspect that people will wait until they see a big influx of development in their neighborhoods and then react with prohibitively restrictive zoning laws and converting all of the potential infill lots into parks: anything to preserve a "village" feel. Then property values in the city will increase exponentially, developers will focus on the hinterlands, and the growth boundary will continually have to be moved further and further out. Only wealthy people will be able to live in-town; middle-class people will have to drive everywhere in the suburbs. The city proper will preserve its aesthetic character at the expense of its cultural character. Voila: grayer San Francisco.
I wouldn't mind if Portland looked more like Philadelphia. Well, but like a cleaner version of Philadelphia. I like architecturally interesting skyscrapers. I like dense, affordable neighborhoods with shops and other businesses on every street instead of only on certain main thoroughfares. I would definitely rather Portland look like Philadelphia than Dallas or San Francisco. And I think if people quit asking "How do we keep Portland from changing?" and start asking "What do we want a bigger Portland to look like?" we can get to a new version of utopia.
Anyway, that was a really long and grumbly preface to these three stories about other cities that are exhibiting the same troubling attitudes I see in Portland. You might want to wear a mouth guard while reading.
Marketplace story about Google moving into Boulder. Discusses residents' anger about 4-story buildings on campus being too high (!) and Google salaries driving up home prices instead of providing a wage that will allow people to live in a town that's already absurdly expensive.
CityLab story about Palo Alto neighborhood passing ordinance banning structures higher than 1 story. I will say that the homes they're trying to preserve are my exact favorite style, but still.
Another CityLab article. (I fucking love CityLab). This one is about STEALTH DORMS! and Texans behaving exactly like you expect Texans to behave.
FOOTNOTE! About three days after reading that Mercury poll, I was flying home on Delta, and their in-flight mag had this big advertisement for Atlanta in which then-mayor Shirley Franklin is quoted as saying something to the effect of "You don't need to be from here to be great here."
If this were a high-school paper, I'd comment that the contrast is striking. I'm certainly not going to hold up Hotmess-lanta as an example of good urban planning, but I think it's cool that my hometown understands all of the good to economy and culture that fresh blood can do.