NYT's Take on PDX


Fuck New York, moneyed douchebags seeking recognition.
Please leave us alone NYT.
"[Adjective], much?"

Don't do this, it's not a thing.
Why should the New York Times act as if there's more to Portland?

Portland doesn't.
At least they didn't mention the stupid doughnuts.
I've never seen a mushrooming food cart. Maybe if I took some mushrooms...
I hate it when people (especially lifestyle "journalists") use the word "funky" to describe neighborhoods and the like. It's like trying to say "trendy, a place to be seen" without saying that. If there are good things in the neighborhoods in question, just say what those things are, thanks.
I can relate to what you`re saying geyser, when they do that, it`s almost as if they already had placed some bad misconception of it that made me never read such articles when I visit the places "reviewed". Not always the case, but creates some sort of "screen" which I have to wipe off and see for myself and give it it`s values (esthetic, fun value, fun, etc). Not a biggie but it can be really annoying. Trendy sounds a little bit less "intimidating". Less of a "you must take the tour to the freak zone with the windows semi closed". Or something.
I'm impressed that they didn't mention Powell's, Voodoo Doughnuts, or food carts. And it is nice that they put in a word for the stretch of boutiques on E Burnside. But peppering the article with Portlandia references? "Beervana" and "Soccer City, USA"? No.
"Intimidating Reviews"...the places end up being wonderful, but that type of coverage is misleading. I always end up finding out for myself how areas or neighborhoods are, which is way better and more fun if I come across those reviews. Then I can enjoy with the locals without being bothered about that.
I'm okay with this article. It doesn't mention any of the places I go on a regular basis.
@Graham - Well, it would be pretty strange if they HAD mentioned your mother's basement, right?
Actually Reymont, most male tourists do make a stop by Graham's mom's house. Zing! Aaaaa-ooooo!

(Sorry Graham.)
Don't you people ever get sick and tired of the same old "Portland is like no other place on Earth, please leave us alone and don't move here and ruin it you silly people who are not nearly as cool and interesting as us" posturing? It seems like the default reaction of Portlanders to ANY kind of press Portland gets.

Yet, here you go complaining that NYT just doesn't "get it", or it's not quite "creative" enough with its explorations of Portland... meanwhile, the reactions and attitudes around here are just as fixated and predictable as the press we get. Maybe there's an as-yet unexplored correlation there?

Or, maybe NYT and other press outlets keep going to the same Portland "hot spots" either because they're really all that Portland has to offer to people who don't live here, or they're the only events/sites of interest to people who aren't doing their damnedest to shape themselves into a living and breathing Portland stereotype?
"...don't move here and ruin it you silly people who are not nearly as cool and interesting as us"

Maybe some people feel that way. As a native, I miss the Portland that was blue collar and dowdy. The problem with all the publicity isn't that it ruins it for the locals who think they're "cool and interesting." The problem is that it attracts MORE people who think they're "cool and interesting." And they're really really not.
@Blabby: We're doing everything we can to help the local economy.
This is a reprise of a 2007 "36 Hours in Portland" piece, which was equally breathless and vapid: http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/trave…

I responded: http://morehockeylesswar.org/blog/archive/…
I did a spit take when they described Portland as a "refreshingly unneurotic city."
Steve R. good call. Seems to be more of an Eastside jerk-fest this time.
Right on Snagglepuss
Soccer City, USA??
never heard that one before, and I hope it doesn't catch on.

That picture of the bluffs is quite overwhelmingly dreamy though, you got to admit.