[sustran] Response to Cox on New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST

[Eric Bruun]

Look, it is just an assertion on Cox' part that nothing is happening
in Portland. He is right that not much changed by the 1990 Census,
but, I repeat, infill is occuring now, even if he wants to ignore
it. Portland is going to show an increase in density after the 2000
census instead of a decrease. It will at least be a step in the right
direction. Seattle, by contrast, which Cox thinks is equally good, is
gridlocked on a larger scale and far more often than Portland.
Furthermore, living without a car is very difficult due to sparser and
slower transit service than Portland.  I am a native of Seattle, and as
one who prefers to bicycle and use transit, I far prefer Portland. 

I would like to know what Cox' point is by this Portland bashing.
Tell us if your point is that land use planning as advertized by
Portland is a hoax, or if land use planning can not work anywhere,
or maybe your point is that decreasing density is not a bad thing.

I will be traveling for the next week, but I will certainly follow
this discussion if it is still going on when I get back. Eric


On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote:

> It is, however, the most recent available for urbanized areas. The issue
> is raised because Portland promoters routinely claim that their urban
> growth boundary (UGB) and planning policies have already accomplished
> much. The fact is that the UGB has been in effect for nearly 20 years
> --- and the one decade during that period for which we have data
> indicates that it had no impact whatever --- that all other US western
> urbanized areas densified at greater rates than Portland --- many
> significantly greater. The story in Portland is not what they have
> accomplished --- because they havn't accomplished anything --- it is
> rather what they intend to accomplish. The next data point will be the
> 2000 census, with urbanized area data due out in 2002 (or 2003).
> Meanwhile, it's a bit early to "break out the champaign." Seattle, which
> has only recently obtained an UGB, is every bit as delightful as
> Portland. And San Bernardino-Riverside, the data indicates, emerges as
> the new urbanist model for others to follow (at least in the 1980s).
> 
> Portland, like virtually all other US urbanized areas is becoming or
> seeks to become Los Angeles! (at least with respect to density). The
> 2040 plan could get them there, though I would bet against it, given
> recent political happenings there.
> 
> Best regards,
> Wendell Cox
> 
> Eric Bruun wrote:
> > 
> > The Census data up to 1990 that Cox cites below is very obsolete. The
> > infill craze, and there really is some infill going on, is over the last
> > few years. However, it is still limited and is causing a lot of hardship
> > for people of modest means as real estate values approach those of
> > San Francisco. Cox is right that the average density is lower
> > than Los Angeles, as LA does have some dense areas.  However, I think the
> > data will show that Portland is increasing in density, and not decreasing
> > like almost every other city. Eric Bruun
> > 
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote:
> > 
> > > Article in current issue of THE ECONOMIST suggests that Portland's 2 decade
> > > old urban growth boundary had forced infilling development. US Census Bureau
> > > data for the 1980-1990 period indicates no such trend (latest data
> > > available). Among 10 US urbanized areas with  more than 1 million
> > > population, Portland ranked last in percentage density increase. Ranked 7th
> > > in overall density --- barely half that of Los Angeles.
> > >
> > > Details at...
> > >
> > > http://www.publicpurpose.com/dm-uargn.htm
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Wendell Cox
> > > WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
> > > International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic Planning
> > > The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal
> > > http://www.publicpurpose.com
> > > Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax  +1 618 632 8538
> > > P.O. Box 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA
> > >
> > > "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant  of the people by
> > > identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost
> > > that is no higher than necessary."
> > >
> > >
>