More Reasons to Love the Sounders, Soccer
Seattlest Pix 09Nov20
Friendly Folk-Pop for the Kids: Hey Marseilles at Vera This Saturday
Excavator Rampage in Stanwood
Can't Miss It: Weekend Edition Nov 20-22
The past two days, contributors Jeremy "The Seattle Samurai" Barker and Katie "The Kalama Quickdraw" Tiehen debated the age-old question of whether Seattle or Portland is better.
Both Jeremy and Katie raised some excellent points, but that's what rebuttals are for.
Katie rebuts Jeremy:
[ED: Jeremy, writing for Seattle, alleged that Portland's ascension to Green-ness and "hipster paradise"-dom was not without social and economic cost--most notably, higher housing prices in the urban core, which pushed the poor folk out.]
I don't have a lot of money. I pay $1030 a month for a 600 square foot apartment on Queen Anne. Is that more than my parents' mortgage in Kalama, Washington? Yes. Cities are expensive! Portland chose clean air over cheap housing? At least they made a choice. Where are we on that viaduct, Seattle? If Seattle's high housing prices at least came with a little clean air and corporate responsibility, we'd have some room to talk. Did I mention it's still more expensive to live here?
In terms of the gentrification/loss of affordable housing/migration to the 'burbs/sustainability argument, I think you could replace "Portland" with any other major U.S. city and it would be just as relevant. We're going to fault Portland for that? Nah. That's a much bigger issue than I can wrap my Cowlitz-county-raised-brain around. So until the world determines these are problems worth fixing, if I'm going to sink, penniless, I'm going to sink in the arms of the good ship Portland, with her Kyoto-ed air and nudie bars and walkable streets. 'Cause at least she has some soul to lose.
Also, this: Portland is ranked #1 in urban sustainability in the nation.
Jeremy rebuts Katie:
[ED: Katie, writing for Portland, reminded us that Portland, unlike Seattle, has a direction, a distinct ambiance, and has avoided the temptation to try to become a corporatized international city (see Riots, W.T.O.).]
As someone born and raised in Portland, I love my hometown; it's a part of me, and I'll always be a Portlander over a Seattleite. My argument is that the changes that have affected Portland since 1990 are similar to the ones that have affected Seattle in the same period, and I think that in many ways Portland is an example of what not to do.
Portland regulated development exclusively to the favor of young professionals and hipsters, failing to provide both infrastructure and affordable housing to meet the needs of families in another ten years, and steering transit dollars towards making it easier to live in the city and commute to the 'burbs, even as congestion going the opposite way grew.
I don't deny that Portland's a more relaxed, cooler and in some ways more exciting city than Seattle is. But the Portland I grew up with is disappearing rapidly, and the independent, trailblazing spirit that made the city great is likewise evaporating, replaced by short-sighted policies that don't consider the needs of the next generation. When Stephen Malkmus, Isaac Brock and James Mercer are past their primes or move on to greener pastures, what will be left? A dynamic city that prepared for the future, or a city that's purged itself of most of its ethnic and economic diversity, failed to prepare infrastructure for the inevitable families the current downtown crowd will produce, and make the remarkable urban renewal that's occurred since 1990 permanent?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
So many good points have been made in the comments in the two original posts, it looks like people have got nothing further to say. Or perhaps the two bits of Photoshop magic above say all that can be said about this post.
I just can't believe I didn't use "trailblazing" ONCE in my argument. I'll give you a point for that.
I think maybe we just need a hug and a little reminiscing about the days of Clyde the Glide. *tear*
There were a lot of good points. But it's always, how it makes your hearts feel.
And both cities pale in comparison to Ogden UT
Sorry, Jeremy, but I award this one to Katie -- I don't think there's much about what you're decrying in Portland that can't be said equally about Seattle. Haven for upscale hipster? Check. Has promoted suburban sprawl though transpo choices? (Reverse commuting isn't new, either, not since Boeing plants in Renton and Everett.) Check. Purging of economic and ethnic diversity. Check and double check.
On the fighting-to-save-city-soul front, Portland has been working much harder. Seattle can't tear itself down and rebuild fast enough.
MvB--How wrong you are! Portland does nothing to preserve its historic character! The Pearl District, for instance, was almost completely and totally gutted, its most noted architecture and buildings levelled, before it was re-dubbed a healthy urban community. I assure you, in 1985 the buildings housing most of those "lofts" did not exist. It used to be an ugly warehouse district of mostly low-slung buildings. It only grew up when existing buildings were torn down.
Ditto for the historic "Alphabet District". Formerly known as "Northwest Portland" and prior to that simply as "Twenty-third" and "Twenty-first," after the original commercial strips along those streets were torn down piece by piece, moving from the south end northwards between 1990 and 2000, with faux-retro new boutiques put in their place, the neighborhood was re-dubbed the "Alphabet" district sometime around 2000, ostensibly in reference to NYC's Alphabet City.
Likewise, the development of Hawthorne and Belmont in Southeast, Mississippi and Albina in Northeast, all the way down to Woodstock district south of the Portland flats, all this development was characterized first by a rapacious destruction of historic existing architecture to be replaced by poor copies of what existed there first.
As for the issue of suburban sprawl, you miss the point: Portland has prevented sprawl; but that came at a price. My fundamental criticism of the high- v. low-density debate is that it misses the point about what makes a city livable by ignoring the fact that there's a difference between affordable and subsidized housing. Both being liberal cities, we try to tie new high-end development to housing subsidies, not realizing that this isn't creating options for middle income earners, particularly for people with families who are less able to afford to move or suck it up and pay 50% of their monthly income in rent.
Seattle is running out of areas for low density development within commute distance of the urban core, which means that it's slowly hitting the same tipping point that Portland did when the UGB finally constrained new development enough to force radical redevelopment of the urban core.
To claim that Portland has sought to save its urban soul is almost bigoted; Portland forced out its gays from the gay district, forced out the blacks from Northeast, is now redeveloping Chinatown for non-Asian businesses, and forced Hispanics to the peripheries in Southeast, the far west-side (Hillsboro) and north to Vancouver, Washington.
Jeremy, come on, I can't have a reasonable discussion with anyone who's so absolutist: e.g., Portland has done "nothing," the Pearl was "almost completely and totally gutted," and all new building is "faux-retro" or a "poor copy." Having walked around Portland's downtown and Seattle's downtown, I have no trouble arguing that however fondly you remember "old" Portland, it's still more active than Seattle when it comes to managing growth -- whether it gets the desired outcome or not.
As for the bulk of your post about Portland's failings, so what? We're making relative comparisons. I see none with Seattle, except for the issue of sprawl. If you're arguing, lastly, that minorities haven't been being priced out of Seattle, I can debate that. Portland's smaller, so the effects are perhaps more visible. But Pioneer Square used to be a low-rent artists district. That changed in a big hurry in the '90s. Things are tough all over. Hung out with any Ballard fisherfolk lately?
Katie, you're paying way too much for rent. I pay less than half of that to share a two-floor house with two others on the north end of Broadway(ish) in Capitol Hill. Before that I had a 500 sq ft studio in a beautiful old-charm building in the UD, for which I paid $635 a month. It's possible to find deals on rent, yo! Living in the city doesn't mean you have to give your landlord your right ovary in return for a place to stay.
Ohhhh I know I could find a cheaper apartment. Though in my apartment's defense, she WAS cheap(er) until my rent was bumped up last month. Unfortunately for my savings account, I HATE MOVING and hate roomies nearly as much. And it's really my washer and dryer, dishwasher, and the fact that I'm finally no longer living on capitol hill that I'm married to more than my landlord. I've officially tasted the modern-conveniences-Kool-Aid and can't. go. back. and she's just sooo pretty. I've dug my own grave.
Seattle wins because Seattle doesn't have floozy rattlesnakes.