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

[Wendell Cox]

>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. 
>
1. I am happy to wait to the 2000 census to find out if anything is really
happening. My basic point is that the Portland cheerleaders have been
claiming a whole lot of success that has not occured and is certainly not
attributable to the planning decisions they attribute them to. The latest
blurb from the Economist is typical of the kind of misleading assessment
that Portland folks have fostered. The fact is that the decline in urban
densities appears to have about ended, and the 1980s data shows that the
trend is in the opposite directioin in the west. Portland trailed all
western cities. I will not be surprised if Portland ranks no better than
average after the 2000 census numbers are out --- but we will have to wait
for that.

2. As for personal preferences --- I have lived in Portland and spent a good
deal of time in Seattle --- and I find Seattle a more delightful city. This
is not to argue with Eric's preference --- because it is just that --- a
preference --- a subjective judgement. I suspect that the number of people
who know both cities who favor one over the other is about equal.

>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.
>
Point has to do with the misleading publicity out of and about Portland.
Portland may stand on the threshhold of accomplishing something, but it has
not yet. The Portland hype is a hoax. Decreasing density, (forgive the
political incorrectness) is not necessarily bad. 

>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."
>> > >
>> > >
>> 
>
>
>
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."