Cascadia Report

Category: Portland

  • Maybe we’re not so ‘livable’

    Here in Cascadia we're used to hearing that this is among the world's most "livable" places.  It's a squishy, feel-good moniker that obscures our challenges.

    311-cruise-to-tokyo-yokohamaVancouver regularly tops international rankings and Portland is a media darling for its hipster qualities and great refreshments. One shared feature of supposedly "livable" cities is that not many people live in them, notes FT columnist Michael Skapinker.

    See also: Decisions that made a great city

    Less than 2 million people live within the city limits of Vancouver, Portland and Seattle combined (the city of Seattle just topped 600K) and none rank among the top cities based on global business. I'd prefer to encourage more economic and cultural growth within Cascadia's cities since without clear benchmarks it's unclear how much progress we're making.

    None of this takes away from the latest top-cities listings.  Monocle magazine's list of top 25 ranks Vancouver as 14 and includes just one U.S. city (Honolulu at 11). Tokyo (3), Fukuoka (16) and Kyoto (22) make the list — but there's no Osaka, Yokohama or Sendai, which are all just as comfortable. It's editorial whim.

     

  • Making room for people and vineyards

    Planners in the Portland area are divvying up land for long-term agricultural use and for development. The idea is to get beyond arguments over the region’s growth management boundaries.

    Farmers and developers — often at odds on land-use issues — say the change could provide long-term stability by preserving large blocks of the best farmland while making it clear where cities will grow.

    “Once Metro adopts urban reserves — boom — we know where growth is going to occur,” said Jim Johnson, land use and water planning coordinator for the state Agriculture Department.

    Gee, why don’t we trying something similar here? Instead the top story in today’s Seattle Times is about a sweetheart development deal in rural King County. It seems like forcing development — without local buy-in or a way to pay for infrastructure — is bound to backfire.

  • Death and life of great cities

    A few weeks ago, during a long weekend in New York, I found myself wandering Manhattan on a Monday. All the usual museums were closed so I tried a small gem of an exhibit on the life and accomplishments of Jane Jacobs.

    Lower East Side NYC; carsareevil.comJacobs is the activist who helped save swaths of Manhattan from freeways and urban renewal through the 1960s. She’s often credited with the basic idea that walkable neighborhoods inhabited by residents are healthier than impersonal housing projects on “super blocks.”

    It’s a great lesson that’s been internalized by planners worldwide. But I couldn’t help think the pendulum has swung too far. Instead of protesting for strong neighborhoods it seems neighborhood activism — often under the guise of Jacobs’ lessons — is simply against development, period.

    This describes Seattle, where investment in new buildings in a close-in neighborhood is scorned. The Seattle P-I wrote in sympathy of neighbors of a University District coffee shop who didn’t want a parking lot developed because a new building would cast shade on a patio! Never mind the benefit of more residents, workers or customers in the neighborhood. Of course, there’s also some backlash to development in Portland and Vancouver.

    Even in New York, the protest and NIMBY movement is strong. I choose to remember the row of old two-story buildings being torn down in favor of the Santiago Calatrava-designed transit hub. Instead of hand-wringing, the New York Post brushed off concerns of the tenants, calling the buildings “scuzzy.”

    So where’s the middle ground? I’d vote for transparent development rules and design review. But most important is leadership that can make a clear case for what the city gains from development.

  • Following the region’s skyscraper growth

    It’s old news that Portland’s skyline is growing. Here’s a cool tool to see it.

    Obviously Cascadia’s cities aren’t alone. Here’s a look at how some of it may be funnelled in downtown Seattle. And in Vancouver.

  • Don’t forget to vote

    Tuesday is the primary election in Washington. Since I’ve been asked, here’s how I voted.

    For Seattle-area races, take a look at the Municipal League’s ratings. I considered the League ratings (I participated in the final ratings), media reports and my own views:

    Seattle City Council — I’m looking for new ideas and signs that a candidate can actually build consensus and take action. Challenger Joe Szwaja in Position 1 and Venus Velazquez for the open seat in Position 3 seem most promising.

    Port of Seattle — The Port needs more stringent oversight, which led me to pick Gael Tarleton (who has a financial-management background) for Position 2 over incumbent Bob Edwards. In Position 5, incumbent Alec Fisken has been a tenacious agitator for transparency so deserves another term.

    King County Prop. 1 and Prop. 2 — I’m a huge fan of parks and zoos, which would benefit from these property tax measures. But I don’t support the mechanism behind them. Parks and zoos aren’t the lowest priority of county residents so shouldn’t be the also-ran issues that the government puts on the ballot almost as afterthought. I don’t want to be asked about funding every government priority — we elect representatives to weigh priorities and to make the case for more overall funding if that’s required. These levies continue a bad habit.

  • Shift freight to rail, cut traffic congestion

    Shifting freight traffic to rails would cut congestion and pollution, according to a study by Demographia:

    In the Seattle area alone, shifting 25 percent of freight from trucks to trains by 2025 would mean 43 fewer hours in commuting time every year, compared with what is likely to occur otherwise. That same shift also would decrease air-pollutant emissions in the Seattle area by as much as 11,635 tons and save thousands of gallons of fuel.

    The trick, of course, is making the change. Improving and expanding the Eastside rail line and also adding rail capacity throughout the Vancouver-to-Portland corridor could handle the traffic. Curbing the subsidy for cars and trucks on freeways would make the shift financially sensible.

  • Portland has land and plans to expand

    It must be nice to have abundant land. Consider Portland’s plans to expand its airport in anticipation of future traffic.

    The expansion would extend a runway on existing port property, in step with its master plan. It’s a contrast to Sea-Tac, which needs to become more efficient within its current footprint.

    Portland’s isn’t the only airport facing a bonanza. Oregon is considering a package of tax benefits for rural airports around the state.

  • France is more efficient than Cascadia

    Here’s an interesting take on the contrast in efficiency between Cascadia and France. Guess who comes out on top?

    Consider intercity trains:

    In fact, I had a bad case of high-speed train envy after taking the TGV from Paris to Marseilles. This trip, which is about the same as going from Portland to Vancouver, British Columbia, takes about 3 hours. The Portland-to-Vancouver trip takes 7 hours on our moribund Amtrak system (and you can’t even ride the train all the way there–instead, you have to get off the train in Seattle and ride a bus to Vancouver).

    I’m not sure if all the arguments about French households being more efficient translate to the Northwest. But there’s plenty to learn on transportation. For example, Seattle is building a proto-streetcar that may one day match what Paris launched months ago.

  • How Cascadia’s cities rank

    Since the question came up in comments, a list of the biggest cities in the U.S. and Canada seemed in order.

    It turns out to be a tricky question. For example, Seattle ranks as the 12th largest metropolitan area according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s list of combined statistical areas. But that definition counts people based on commuting patterns and doesn’t include places like Phoenix and Miami. Statistics Canada uses a different set of definitions. Then there’s the case of San Diego, which has either 2,941,454 or 4,804,806 depending on whether Tijuana is included.

    There are other complications. For example, the five-county Seattle area is 5,800 square miles while greater Houston is over 10,000. The city of Jacksonville (841 square miles) has about 200,000 more people than the city of Seattle (88 square miles). Unless otherwise mentioned, Cascadia Report generally conflates cities and metropolitan areas.

    So, just for the record, here’s the closest apples-to-apples comparison of the top U.S. metro areas (primary census statistical areas):

    1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport — 21,976,224
    2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside — 17,775,984
    3. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City — 9,725,317
    4. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia — 8,211,213
    5. Boston-Worcester-Manchester — 7,465,634
    6. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland — 7,228,948
    7. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland — 6,382,714
    8. Dallas-Fort Worth — 6,359,758
    9. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville — 5,641,077
    10. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville — 5,478,667
    11. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach — 5,463,857
    12. Detroit-Warren-Flint — 5,410,014
    13. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale — 4,039,182
    14. Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia — 3,991,911
    15. Minneapolis-St. Paul — 3,502,891

    Greater Vancouver clocks in at 2,170,976 and the Portland area at 2,137,565. Houston, Atlanta and Miami all passed Detroit in the last five years and Phoenix grew by more than 20%. For comparison, Toronto-Hamilton counted 5,555,912 and Greater Montreal 3,635,571

    Here’s a list, using a combination of counting methods, of largest population centers in the Americas.

  • Changing minds about light rail

    Residents fight the extension of light rail, claiming it will cost too much and bring changes that will ruin their neighborhoods. They even vote out representatives who favor the project.

    Sounds like Seattle during its glacially slow light rail project. But it’s what happened in the Portland area over plans to extend MAX southward.

    Now the area is coming around. Maybe Seattle-area neighborhoods will be next.