Very informative article. Looks like there will be much more of what some Portlanders have been complaining about, i.e., demolitions, multi-story mixed-use complexes, etc. Regardless of naysayers, this is the type of growth that must happen to make the city more sustainable and is one part of an intelligent response to Climate Change. On a related note, see this article, also published in the last 24 hours (which I wrote): http://macskamoksha.com/2015/10/bring-on-the-density-portlands-neighborhoods-were-never-sustainable-in-the-first-place

That's such a long ways off, why worry about it?

I grew up on Portland television and I have never stopped wondering at Portlanders' need to stand on their tippie-toes and compare themselves to Seattle. I just don't get it. The two cities may have some similarities, but they are vastly different overall, and sorry, but Seattle is a far, far more substantial city and likely will remain that way for the rest of our lifetimes and beyond.

First of all, Seattle hasn't had a major annexation to the city in 60 years. It is the same size geographically now as it was at the 1960 census. It is locked in by water on the east and the west, and other cities to the north and south. Seattle's growth has all occurred within those 83 square miles. Portland, on the other hand, has nearly doubled its geographic size since 1980 through annexations, not to mention adding well over 100,000 people to its population. That means much of Portland's "growth" over the past two or three decades has been artificial. Thanks to annexations, Portland already is much larger than Seattle by sheer area, by 50 square miles....133 square miles to 83 square miles. Seattle is a much denser city, where Portland sprawls by comparison, over 8000 people per square mile in Seattle to about 4300 for Portland.

The metro areas for sheer population don't compare well either, 2.3 million for Portland to Seattle's 3.6 million for Metropolitan Statistical Area. Only when Portland's Combined Statistical Metro area is weighed, which ridiculously and generously includes all of Marion County in that population, is the Portland area considered over 3 million. I say ridiculously because anyone who has driven from Portland to Salem knows all-too-well how many miles of nearly empty farm land there is between Wilsonville and Keizer. The only reason the inclusion occurs is because Marion county juts north so far from Salem that towns like St. Paul or Aurora are close enough to legitimate Portland metro towns like Newberg or Canby that they are included, and for most measures of metro areas, if a part of a county is a part of a metro area, the entire county's population is counted. But, when that 3 million CSA figure is compared to Seattle's CSA, the difference is even larger, with Seattle weighing in at just under 4.5 million, with far less ridiculous inclusions that compare to Salem.

On top of that, Seattle proper and Seattle metro is growing at a faster rate than Portland, so unless Portland has more unincorporated neighborhoods to annex in the near future, it isn't likely to surpass Seattle for population within the city limits any time soon.

Consider the number of large companies in each city, consider the amount of high-rise office space, the gross city product. There is no comparison. Portland should stop trying to be "bigger" in any sense of the word. The two cities are different, and if anything, Portland should revel in that difference and stop trying to measure up to unimportant yardsticks. Portland is different, and in many ways better than a number of cities throughout the U.S., Seattle included. That should be the focus.

Unlike SFO or Seattle, the Portland area has no limit on available land for expansion, except Metro's little Berlin wall that rises housing costs to at least double what they otherwise would be.

all we need for affordable housing is for Metro to stop restricting the supply of buildable land.

David - you really think that all of these people clamoring to live in what they view as the "only" place to be in Portland - which is the hip close in neighborhoods - are going to jump at the chance to live way out in the burbs? I don't think so. Even if there were no UGB, people want to live where they want to live, and the popularity of wanting to live close to the action wouldn't change if we all of a sudden started building boring tract home neighborhoods and apartment buildings out in what most close in Portland residents or newcomers consider to be the middle of nowhere. From a home purchase perspective, there already are vast numbers of burbs in all directions for people to look in, not to mention Vancouver, but we are still seeing the most interest in the same close in NE, SE and N neighborhoods.

I understand the "Stop Demolishing Portland" mentality. But Portlanders always seem to want the Best of All Possible Worlds. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, just kind of a head-up-your-ass thing. You can not keep Portland the way it was. People will not stop moving here, and they need places to live. One thing that makes Portland great, and desirable, is our location to unparalleled natural beauty. This beauty would not exist without land use planning laws that were enacted in the 70's, which define our urban growth boundaries, and preserve the Columbia River Gorge as a national scenic area. These boundaries force urban areas like Portland to grow "up", not "out". If you want to keep Portland the way it is, work to abolish the urban growth boundary, so that people can build their new homes and apartment complexes outside the boundaries, thereby possibly preserving some of the older homes and businesses in the city. But of course we don't want that, either. It's time for Portland to grow up.

Id like to see more rowhomes and owner occupied development taking place also. Those are glaringly absent from the current mix. If we follow the current trajectory, your only home choice within the city proper will either be an overpriced bungalow or an apartment. No third option. Rowhomes and condos support density and retain the exact type of people you want in your city. Long term residents. Living in a rental is fine but it should be seen as a temporary time in ones life. At this point the city is leaving newcomers who want to buy with few options. Either purchase a overpriced, detached home or rent a shoebox. That's one area Seattle is light-years ahead of Portland in. Their housing mix is far more diverse and actually not nearly so far off from Portland pricing. And what do you get? A city with far more urban options and more robust economy. Portland is going to have to step up if it wants to remain competitive. It cant rely on its pretty location and freewheeling social values. All of which are a blessing but don't address some tough financial and housing problems this region is experiencing....

My granddaddy plans to make McMinnville the next Portland, and Newberg the next Multnomah Villahhhge'. Salem will be like Tigard in comparison.

For real, you could just grow McVinnville right to the edge of both Metro and Salem, and make it as hip as you want. I'd leave lots of green spaces for community gardens, especially now that weed is legal. If everybody grows it, the price will drop to nothing, so nobody will bother to steal your crops. Plant it everywhere like Johnny Appleseed. McVinnville could be the first city to okay Amsterdam type coffee shops and leave Portland like Squaresville, man.

Marry you and your "granddaddy" are about as educated as everybody moving into the city. Die and become fertilizer for someone else's marijuana crop and stop blabbering nonsense, you bloated country sow.

Composed this short photo documentary over the last 4 months documenting the changes in our north Portland neighborhood. Growth neeeds to take place responsibly and reasonably.

https://youtu.be/hYZ_usnoPsU

Tear down Ladd's addition and turn it into multi-family units and affordable housing. It's probably the most naked isolationist community there is in the city.

Time to buy property in John Day.

you'd think of all places, people of portland, oregon would champion personal choice and the ability to do as one legally pleases. while many of these homes are indeed old, and perhaps "historic", which even that is subjective, more than anything they are property. a portion of a neighborhood fabric yes, but still tangible, legally owned and deeded property none the less. is it your property? no. is it someone else's property? yes. did they willingly sell it to the developer tearing down the structure? most likely. while i can sympathize with the desire to keep things as they were, you must remind yourself that even if you think the new home is ugly, or enormous, or even out of character with the neighborhood, its not yours. this isn't some commune or collective ownership. its someone elses and in that instance, they have the right within the law to do as they please. id love to see old homes get restored and in fact not torn down, but protesting what someone else does with their own goods is like telling someone not to wear green jeans or dye their hair purple because you think they are ugly. how does that not register with some of you?

In 1900 Seattle only had a population of 80,671, compared to Portland's whopping 413,536 residents. Portland and San Francisco were the only two real cities on the west coast. If it weren't for World War II Seattle wouldn't ever have gotten on the map; in the case of Los Angeles, both WWII and Hollywood.

Honestly, though, unless over half of Silicon Valley moves up here, I don't see this growth being sustainable. Already we're having problems with a handful of Bay Area and New York architects and techies being the only ones who can afford to live decently here, while the rest of us end up out in Lents and Rockwood, or sleeping by the freeway.

It's not progress when it leaves an increasingly large section of the population behind to wallow in Mad Headroom hard-scrabble. Architects can't work without coffee and panini sandwiches, buildings don't go up without construction laborers, and they turn into squats without janitors. Let's try not to become Sao Paulo, please.

Gustation, according to Census data the population of Portland in 1900 was 90,426 while Seattle was 80,671, though Seattle passed Portland in population by 1910. The total population of the entire state of Oregon was 413,536. Portland was really only ever very much larger than Seattle prior to the 1890s.

There used to be millions and millions of buffalo. People need to lower their expectations, learn to live in teepees and stop mixing water with human waste.

If you think the traffic is bad now,just keep growing portland. You haven't seen nothing yet baby. In ten years your commute time will increase by 50%. But then again your smart phones will be much more advanced that our family structure will grow further apart. Give me another Tom Mc Call come visit,spend your money enjoy the beautiful city but please then go home. The outside greed is taking over our city. Just ask the hundreds of residents that are being forced out of their rentals. For what but to line the pockets of the fat cats. The only silver lining to that thought is we all eventually die and have to answer to our maker. God bless america.

Us Portlanders are a tad bit provincial. Have a look around at cities much older than us to see our future. The City and Metro have done a terrific job of containing sprawl. While it is an artificial boundary, we know the economics of low density tract housing and commercial centers make for very expensive infrastructure and more congestion. And such communities require a lot more to maintain and typically fall into disrepair more quickly. Look at outer Portland compared to inner city neighborhoods. Inner city neighborhoods rebound faster and can handle much more density (at least in the beginning) because the infrastructure and transportation infrastructure can handle it. Rebuilding neighborhood parks and schools is easier with more people and more tax base filling in the low density stuff that is outdated. The suburbs is a whole other beast - it will take tons more resources to make those communities walkable and more vibrant. History tells us so.

So what's it going to be Portland - go the way of Denver, Phoenix and Albuquerque where the car rules or more like Boston and older cities that grew up before the car - where density gives folks a wonderful mix of housing types, urbanity and transportation options today and into the future. The most loved cities on the planet are the vibrant and congested ones. The least loved are those where parking is cheap and plentiful. Get over 4 story apartments coming to Division - the real challenge isn't parking but carving off more money for affordable housing, which because of the real estate lobby - made sure we couldn't do with making inclusionary zoning illegal. Perhaps rent control? It isn't about cars, its about creating a city for all kinds of people.