[sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST (fwd)

[Wendell Cox]

>Eric, you are absolutely correct that 1990 census data is invalid when
>studying Portland.  

Do not believe there is later comparative data. 

>The late 1980's recession in this area slowed growth
>considerably.  

The Portland UA experienced healthy growth during the 1980s --- and
(numerically) virtually all of it occured outside the urbanized area of
1980. The recession argument may have reduced population growth, but it
surely did not keep Portland from sprawling at a faster rate than any other
western UA of more than a million.

Even in 1993, when I moved to Portland, homes were plentiful
>and affordable.  Things have changed considerably in five years.  In the
>first handbook I published for C-TRAN, I was hard pressed to find a
>substantial number of good infill projects that could be used as examples.
>Today, I cannot even keep track of them. There are apartment projects being
>built next to, on top of, and part of shopping centers in what until
>recently was a suburban strip environment.  It is very common to see
>rowhouses/townhouses being built on vacant lots in Portland.  I will be
>interesting to see a comparison of the 1990 and 2000 census.  The trend
>toward smaller households no doubt continues, although the rate of change
>has likely gone down.  But the total number of households in the City of
>Portland appears to be increasing dramatically in what is essentially a
>fixed area.

Hardly dramatic --- 1990 to 1996 population increase of the city proper was
less than four percent --- Denver --- starting from a higher density base
was six percent. Among the older western central cities, Portland has the
lowest population density (Denver, Seattle, LA, SF).

>As far as affordability, that is a raging debate here in Portland.  Home
>builders argueing that a lack of land is causing the problem do them selves
>a disservice when it is revealed that new housing on the fringe is all
>luxury, single-family housing built on very large lots.  Urban neighborhoods
>are gentrifying.  With household size decreasing, though, density is
>actually going down in established urban neighborhoods, making the delivery
>of services, including transit, less efficient. I feel a blanket acceptance
>of accessory dwelling units can be a big part of the solution.  People are
>generally afraid of density due to fears of depressed property values, and
>increased "urban problems" (percieved increase in crime, noise, traffic,
>etc).  The fact that there is excess capacity in our public systems is not
>seen clearly by most people.

All of this is anecdotal --- we won't know anything about trends in Portland
versus other UAs until the 2000 census.

I have raised these issues because of the misleading claims being made by
Portland and its advocates. It is one thing to claim success for things
already accomplished. It is another to claim credit for things that have not
yet happened. That is the situation in Portland.

The fact is that --- right now --- no one has any reliable comparative data
on which to declare Portland a success --- indeed it is very premature. What
comparative data we have does not support the rosy claims.

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."