The Economist Takes on Portland

Well, Portland, you know we've hit the big time when The Economist decides to write us up. This week's paper (yes, they call it a "paper") has a profile on our fair city entitled, "The New Model: Is Oregon's metropolis a leader among American cities or just strange?" And while the title rivals the word count of the article, it's pretty interesting to see all of this national and international buzz that Portland has received for being green, bike-friendly, and sustainable (whatever that means).

I thought I would share some of my favorite quotes:

"But on the whole, Portlanders not only love their city but believe that it is, and ought to be, a model for the rest of America."

"Mr Adams has a vision of progressive urbanism: a city where most people cycle or ride the streetcar, recycle what they consume, exist in harmony with nature and live in communities rather than the suburban sprawl of cities like Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix or Atlanta."

"In Portland, 'business casual' means wearing a fleece. The area’s main industrial cluster is 'activewear', led by Nike and Columbia Sportswear and including thousands of smaller companies."

"Mr Adams says Portland’s success is 'totally replicable'."

"Joel Kotkin, a Los Angeles-based demographer and author, thinks that places like Portland, San Francisco and Boston have become 'elite cities', attractive to the young and single, especially those with trust funds, but beyond the reach of middle-class families who want a house with a lawn. Indeed Portland, for all its history of Western grit, is remarkably white, young and childless. Most Americans will therefore continue to migrate to the more affordable 'cities of aspiration' such as Houston, Atlanta or Phoenix, thinks Mr Kotkin. As they do so, they may turn decentralised sprawl into quilts of energetic suburbs with a community feeling."

"Adam Davis of Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, a Portland polling firm, says that Oregonians like to consider themselves leaders but also exceptions. They are likely to remain both."

I hope The Economist realizes that, according to their reading of Portland, we hate this article. The most pointed Portland-y distinction brought up is our generational legacy. The big question for Portland's culture and economy is, will all the young people stay and plant families in the city? The article somewhat argues that we won't be able to keep our young people because it's just not a city for families. The reporter obviously didn't go to Eastmoreland, Alberta, or any of our suburbs. I know we have more dogs than children in the urban core, but I think that after you live in Portland for a year, you realize it really ain't a bad place to raise your tots.