Seattlest: Seattle vs. Portland: Our Contributors Debate to the Death

guest

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:17:29 -0800

Seattle wins because Seattle doesn't have floozy rattlesnakes.

katiet

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:25:49 -0800

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.

Katelyn

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:35:53 -0800

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.

Michael van Baker

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:39:50 -0800

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?

Jeremy M. Barker

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:39:29 -0800

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.

Michael van Baker

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:45:31 -0800

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.

TroyJMorris

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:39:25 -0800

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

katiet

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:24:03 -0800

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*

Jeremy M. Barker

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:16:39 -0800

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.