A Changing Portland - Page 2

360Rich · #21 Posted **Sep 30, 2014, 12:28 AM**

Thanks. I've corrected the link in the original post.

llamaorama · #22 Posted **Oct 1, 2014, 4:33 AM**

I've made an observation while using Google Maps to look at Portland and Seattle and SF.

In the event the central city becomes excessively gentrified, by having an urban growth boundary, the greater Portland metropolitan area may ironically be more able to add affordable housing in the suburbs than the other west coast cities.

Seattle is surrounded by a sea of exurban sprawl. 10 acre lot type sprawl, where it looks almost rural from the road but then on a map you realize the land is highly fragmented and the population adds up. Because it's such a mess, it would be hard to plan new areas and mass produce housing.

The Bay Area outside the urban parts and LA just built out with sunbelt suburbia until it mountains and water...and now what? You can't densify a low density subdivision.

Portland still has a ton of flat, large tracts of empty land surrounding it. And by chipping pieces off responsibly and developing it at a more moderate density with a coherent street system, it means this resource will be there for a long time to come.

58rhodes · #23 Posted **May 14, 2015, 3:50 AM**

I wonder where most of you are at as for as Portland getting bigger and how it affects our quality of life?

PDXDENSITY · #24 Posted **May 14, 2015, 3:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

I wonder where most of you are at as for as Portland getting bigger and how it affects our quality of life?

More people are coming here whether we like it or not; we must build to accomodate. This will stabilize rents and prevent against sprawl.

You're framing the question assuming we can stop the demamd if we did something like stop building; SF has shown us that doesn't work.

soleri · #25 Posted **May 14, 2015, 4:18 AM**

There's one thing that should concern us: not another million people but another half-million cars. We can easily handle the people but not their cars. We're already getting close to max as it is. The last thing we should do is somehow meet them halfway. No. Portland's vaunted quality of life will be ruined by catering to drivers. We can't enlarge traffic capacity and somehow maintain the mystique that attracts people here in the first place. Portland's "20 minute neighborhoods" are the key to a car-free lifestyle that allows greater density without defeating Portland's livability.

PDXDENSITY · #26 Posted **May 14, 2015, 4:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by soleri

There's one thing that should concern us: not another million people but another half-million cars. We can easily handle the people but not their cars. We're already getting close to max as it is. The last thing we should do is somehow meet them halfway. No. Portland's vaunted quality of life will be ruined by catering to drivers. We can't enlarge traffic capacity and somehow maintain the mystique that attracts people here in the first place. Portland's "20 minute neighborhoods" are the key to a car-free lifestyle that allows greater density without defeating Portland's livability.

This!

Further, only maintain freeways, but let's add a subway and network of protected bike lanes. We should only be maintaining car infrastructure or constraining it for safety in parts. We should be beefing the hell out of transit yesterday.

58rhodes · #27 Posted **May 14, 2015, 4:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

This!

Further, only maintain freeways, but let's add a subway and network of protected bike lanes. We should only be maintaining car infrastructure or constraining it for safety in parts. We should be beefing the hell out of transit yesterday.

we DONT have the population to support this and probably wont for at least 50 years

58rhodes · #28 Posted **May 14, 2015, 4:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

More people are coming here whether we like it or not; we must build to accomodate. This will stabilize rents and prevent against sprawl.

You're framing the question assuming we can stop the demamd if we did something like stop building; SF has shown us that doesn't work.

our growth rate is just a tad better than average

PDXDENSITY · #29 Posted **May 14, 2015, 4:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

we DONT have the population to support this and probably wont for at least 50 years

SF has over 800K and we will probably be at least there by 2035, and SF has a SHORTAGE at their current population of housing. We will definitely be needing to become at least as dense as SF is now or we will face the consequences of spiraling rent.

58rhodes · #30 Posted **May 14, 2015, 4:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

SF has over 800K and we will probably be at least there by 2035, and SF has a SHORTAGE at their current population of housing. We will definitely be needing to become at least as dense as SF is now or we will face the consequences of spiraling rent.

sorry man but I just dont see it.

PDXDENSITY · #31 Posted **May 14, 2015, 4:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

sorry man but I just dont see it.

That's fine. Im glad youre not in power of any sort, I hope.

58rhodes · #32 Posted **May 14, 2015, 5:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

That's fine. Im glad youre not in power of any sort, I hope.

Boston is much more suited to your tastes, Portland is still podunk sorry man just reality

PDXDENSITY · #33 Posted **May 14, 2015, 5:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

Boston is much more suited to your tastes, Portland is still podunk sorry man just reality

Silly. I'm staying here, and more are coming.

2oh1 · #34 Posted **May 14, 2015, 8:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Silly. I'm staying here, and more are coming.

AND THAT'S A GUARANTEED INCREASE IN POPULATION DENSITY. Good grief.

PDXDENSITY · #35 Posted **May 14, 2015, 1:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2oh1

AND THAT'S A GUARANTEED INCREASE IN POPULATION DENSITY. Good grief.

Density does not "induce" population demand. Simply not true.

58rhodes · #36 Posted **May 14, 2015, 11:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

SF has over 800K and we will probably be at least there by 2035, and SF has a SHORTAGE at their current population of housing. We will definitely be needing to become at least as dense as SF is now or we will face the consequences of spiraling rent.

Big Difference, San Francisco has 49 sq miles to Portland's 136 sq miles. you're looking at 16000 per sq mile vs 5700 per sq mile

PDXDENSITY · #37 Posted **May 14, 2015, 11:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

Big Difference, San Francisco has 49 sq miles to Portland's 136 sq miles. you're looking at 16000 per sq mile vs 5700 per sq mile

I concede that, but we still need more density. And i didnt check your numbers.

We are still seeing housing rise faster than inflation which means we aren't building enough to accomodate the demand Portland has.

58rhodes · #38 Posted **May 14, 2015, 11:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

I concede that, but we still need more density. And i didnt check your numbers.

We are still seeing housing rise faster than inflation which means we aren't building enough to accomodate the demand Portland has.

and that is planned. Developers want the most dollar per sq foot they can get. When Portland's vacancy rate drops to 5% the developers will be on to greener pastures

PDXDENSITY · #39 Posted **May 14, 2015, 11:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

and that is planned. Developers want the most dollar per sq foot they can get. When Portland's vacancy rate drops to 5% the developers will be on to greener pastures

Drops? Dont you mean rise? We aren't going to rise to 5% vacancy in the next 20 years at our current rate of densification.

This means a likely spiral of rents toward bay area levels. Without the comparable wages. We need more housing to stem this shortage. The demand is there.

58rhodes · #40 Posted **May 15, 2015, 12:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Drops? Dont you mean rise? We aren't going to rise to 5% vacancy in the next 20 years at our current rate of densification.

This means a likely spiral of rents toward bay area levels. Without the comparable wages. We need more housing to stem this shortage. The demand is there.

this is Portland Oregon and if history repeats its self look for a downturn in the economy in the next 2 or so years. nothing like an 8% unemployment rate to spoil a party