Is Portland an "Ephemeral" City?

Recently I came across an essay by Joel Kotkin in the April issue of Metropolis magazine called “The Rise of the Ephemeral City” that seems very relevant to the changing face of Portland.

Kotkin describes a trend affecting cities around the world, a “new kind of urban place, populated largely by non-families and the nomadic rich…Unlike the imperial capital, which administered a vast empire and extracted riches from it, or the commercial city, which thrived by trading goods, the ephemeral city prospers by providing an alternative lifestyle to a small sector of society.”

In numerous fields, Kotin says, be it manufacturing, financial or business services, “employment and even headquarters functions have moved increasingly to the suburbs. The digital revolution has accelerated this process, allowing most of the primary centers for information industries to locate outside the metropolis, or even the country.”

Cities, he continues, have two alternatives: “They can work to become more competitive in terms of jobs, attracting skilled workers and middle-class families, or they can refocus their efforts on providing playpens for the idle rich, the restless young, and tourists. A number of cities now regard tourism, culture, and entertainment as "core" assets.”

The lofts, restaurants, clubs, and museums occupying central cities, Kotkin says, “have succeeded in creating at least a chimera of an urban renaissance. But over time this form of culturally based growth will do little to halt the slide of these cities toward greater irrelevance. History shows that even the most culturally rich cities cannot thrive long when deficient in families, a strong middle class, and upwardly mobile working people.”

Kotkin is a longtime business writer and thus you have to take into account his apparent conservative leanings. But I think his argument is worth considering because of its relevance to some continuing local debates.

Particularly, we have the issue of tax abatements for developers whose buildings include affordable housing and/or market rate apartments. On one hand, these developers are getting rich off condos and the idea of slashing their contributions to the tax base seems absurd. But the simple fact is that unless these tax breaks continue, affordable housing in the central city for working people will be in serious jeopardy. Do we want that?

Certainly Portland is not wrong when it comes to seeking members of the creative class. But as with all things, there must be a balance. We want the software and shoe designers here, and the painters and musicians too. But we also need the plumbers and mid-level managers, and the companies that employ them.

One thing that bothers me about Kotkin’s essay is what it neglects: Cities aren’t just about what people and shops are there, but literally how the urban fabric itself is designed and built. The migration of certain industries to the suburbs happens because it’s cheaper out there. Urbanistically, you get what you pay for.

I think more than a developing irrelevance of high-density urban areas, what we’re instead seeing is a kind of decades-long flip-flop. It used to the middle class lived in the suburbs and came to work in the central city. Now the reverse is increasingly true. People used to want to live in the suburbs for the extra space, the newness, the lessened traffic, and the greater perceived safety. Now the suburbs have comparable crime to the central city and arguably far worse traffic. And the central city has far less crime than it used to, and a pedestrian-friendly environment with more culture and individuality.

As we grapple with these issues in Portland, it’s instructive to know that basically the same thing is happening in every city. We should work hard to make sure downtown Portland is more than a yuppie playground, but to an extent we are witnessing long-term social, cultural and economic shifts that are much broader than just from Hillsboro to Portland to Gresham.

Comments

[Adventuregeek]

I think this article sums up the feeling that has been creeping over Portland in the last few years. Although Portland has become a successful "ephemeral city" in it's ability to maintain it's status in the "livability" war, I belive it is loosing the battle to stay a real place for real people.

The Pearl has become a yuppie Disneyland of wealthy empty nesters and equity refugees. The South Waterfront and rest of downtown will surely follow. Is it to late to become a real place, for working class people. I don't know, but unless we address the problem now, it soon will be.

Bringing dense affordable family housing and office space into the city should be taken up as one of our great challenges. Can middle class highrise housing be built for $200/Sq. Ft. instead of $500/Sq. Ft. for luxury lofts? Can inexpensive manufacturing facilities be built inside the city? These are the kind of questions that need to answered.

[Leslie Carlson]

As someone who is struggling to raise a family in the City of Portland, I'm glad to see this subject raised.

More and more of my friends and neighbors are packing it in for the suburbs or for other cities that are more family-friendly.

The result? Schools close, parks are full of dogs but no kids and the city loses not only economically, but in diversity. Yes, we will have great restaurants, theater, music and art, but will also have lost the middle class--something that will cost us more than just money in the long run.

[paul]

Brian,

Along with Leslie, I am suprised but also encouraged to see you post this on the blog. Here in Eastmoreland, a pretty elite area of the city, we're also losing families to the public schools and to the burbs at an increasing rate.

At times, I get very disheartened by the resolute focus on density and urban amenities and etc., without asking what sort of city we'll end up with in 20 years.

When I travel in the "felony flats" area, it is so apparent to me that this portion of the city is completely ignored. I am grateful for the advantages that I have, but if I'm struggling to make it, what is a family out at 82nd and Foster doing?

[Rich]

Leslie and Brian:
I don't understand what you think is happening in the city that makes it less attractive and the suburbs more attractive for families. What characterizes your "struggle," how is it exacerbated by "urban amenities" and a "focus on density," and why might life be better for your and other middle-class families in the suburbs? I also raised children within the city of Portland (Southeast Hawthorne area), and while I had my struggles doing so on a middle-class wage, I never saw the suburbs as being cheaper (having bought a home in 1990) or somehow better for families. Honestly, I'm not just arguing with you, I really want to know why you think life in the city is getting more challenging for families already living here. (Housing prices may be getting more expensive relative to the suburbs for those wanting to move here, but that seems like a separate matter.)

[Rich]

Meant to address my question to Leslie and Paul, not Brian.
--Rich

[Adventuregeek]

I think biggest issue is with housing prices. In order to maintain the stock of families you have to attract new ones due to normal attrition (job moves, kids grow up etc). When housing prices become high relative to income then the middle class doesn't move in.

However there's several factors at work here. Lack of family wage jobs, high housing prices (and property taxes to go with them) and lack of suitable new housing being built. Raising children in a open loft style appartment isn't considered an option by most Americans.

[djk]

Most of my 30-something friends have been buying homes in Vancouver or Hillsboro over the past few years. While they'd prefer to live in Portland, they just can't afford a decent-sized family home. Even if they have jobs in Portland, they'll take a ten- or twenty-mile commute to get a good-sized back yard.

As I read it, working families are being out-competed by wealthier buyers -- high-income professionals, investors and secure empty-nesters -- for a limited supply of housing close to the core.

According to the Oregonian (I forget the date; it was in the past few months), there are now only a handful of neighborhoods left in Portland where a median-income family can afford to buy a first home.

Given market conditions, I don't know how we can avoid a continuing flight of working class families to the suburbs.

[the crow]

i am surprised by the depth of this post. as portland is celebrated for all of it's urban amenities, it is too often made for only those that can afford it. the irony of course is that the equation has flipped, and in some cities such as St.Louis the city is still a wasteland. now the people with money have created a lifestyle and have made plenty of loot in making. condo's don't cost $500/sf to build they cost 1/2 that. lots and lots of people are getting rich, thus we see the cost of construction escalating, because those industries now see the opportunities for wealth. the clic of wealth, and inbreading investors has displaced the middle class that made downtown and inner city such a cool funky place to live. what now. funky tigard!! not for me. i think the only question is to subsidize development, to offset profit with tax options, or public development to maintain diversity.

[Gene]

I just visited Portland from Oklahoma City. The city is so far beyond anything most cities are it's unbelievable. If the middle-class gets kicked out of downtown you'll never forgive yourselves. OKC is right now trying to reverse decades of urban decline and just finished building a mini-Pearl type district, a canal, and some apartments. It's first multi-use building is breaking ground soon and there's talk of the first downtown grocier to help development. Don't let this happen to you...it's dreadful and mediocre. Tax incentives, development boundries...ramp it all up, you'll be thankful.

[justin]

You know everyone rips on all the condo development. But really, where are they building these condos? They're building them on empty city blocks or on brownfields. The SoWhat development is just making a good use of a Brownsfield.

Have any of you been to North Portland, not cool Alberta North Portland, but Columbia Park Nopo. Well, they are currently building hundreds of nice single family homes all throughout the area Columbia Villa Development. It looks pretty nice actually.

Should they continue to subsidize these condos through tax breaks? No. But should they continue to build them on busy city streets and industrial wastelands? Yes.

[Rich]

I think Justin is absolutely right. Condo development is not occuring at the expense of single-family housing. There's very little room to build single-family housing within the core area of Portland. One way to help keep the stock of existing single-family housing reasonably affordable is by offering alternatives to it. And almost all of the recent condominium development I've seen is a visual improvement on what it replaces and constitutes a responsible new use of under-used or unused land.

[paul]

Rich,

1) The suburbs are demonstrably cheaper on square footage. Many in city homes are being bid up by non-families. In my neighborhood (Eastmoreland) we are witnessing half million "knock downs".

2) Schools, schools, schools. The school funding situation is far worse than when you lived here. It is a real crisis. I don't know how long we can rely on the good will of singles/couples with no children to pay higher taxes for our schools.

3) The politics over things like parks (review the dog policy debate) or location of WalMarts and other big box retailers that many of rely upon to make ends meet. Essentially, those on a middle or lower income are just told to drive a bit farther, or share their parks with off leash dogs, because don't you know we all love small coffee shops and bookstores and walking our dogs off leash in Portland.

Rich and Justin,

It's all about where the City focuses it's resources. Condo developments take away property taxes and city money that might be used to pave streets in the SE, encourage the creation of middle class business development in the Gateway district, etc.

And you're wrong if you think all condos are appearing only on unused land. Go check out 20th and Division. Or better still, head out to 120th and Division and see what density really means, when a multiunit apartment complex is plopped down right in the midst of single family homes.

[Justin]

I don't think I would consider Portland an 'Ephemereal City' - as far as losing mfgr jobs and other industries, the US as a whole has lost millions and millions of jobs to overseas... this exodus speaks more to globalization than anything cities can do.

National and Global economic policies have more impact upon our lives than anything we can do locally, unfortunately. Cities, in this case, can only make the best out of a situation - and attracting people with money to live there is certainly one option.

Another thing I would like to point out is the position we are in right now - suburbs absorbing most of the jobs, land use patters in suburbanization, etc, is really only a result of the past 70 years of national programs and institutions focusing on promoting these kinds of growth patterns:

Freeways. Single-familiy home ownership mortgage systems. Massive infrastructure projects.

Comparatively, how much money in the US (%-wise) is spent on suburban projects vs inner city?

Just look at that, and you will see why things are happening: just follow the money!

=======

On that note, it doesn't matter how much cities try to play catch up to the investments suburbs receive - as long as the suburbs still receive the huge amount of subsidies, cities - which are inherintly more expensive to build (maintenance may be cheaper, however) for private developers - will not be able to catch up.

[pdxstreetcar]

I know this has been discusses ad nausium but Vancouver BC does a pretty good job of attracting families. Granted thats Canada but really is Canada all that different than the US especially cities like Portland? I think if you have good housing suitable for families (at a reasonable cost) in the inner city and good schools youll attract families and once you attract a few it will then become more attractive for others (afterall who wants to have their child be the only kid in a neighborhood).

[Adventuregeek]

Rich,

Sort of off topic, but I have to agree with your comments about dogs. Why does everyone seem to think that dogs running around loose in an urban enviornment is OK? I find it terrifying to have a loose German Sheppard run at me. I can't image what it would be like for a 6 year old kid.

[Leslie Carlson]

To answer Justin's question about what families need in cities in order to stay, one need only look at the Sellwood Community Center and other community centers that are slated for impending closure. These kinds of places are godsends to parents, providing affordable preschool, arts & crafts classes, sports programs and afterschool programs--almost none of which you can get through the public school system.

These are the kinds of amenities that are disappearing from Portland (in addition to the problems Paul mentions); not because of "density" but because of a lack of planning or though for the needs of middle class families.

And to echo what pdxstreetcar says about Vancouver BC, these are the kinds of amenities that Vancouver developers are building into their condo projects in order to attract and retain the middle class and their kids.

[cab]

The difference between the US and Canada are growing and they involve values. Canada Values cities and the idea of the public good. The US is going in the opposite direction. We no longer believe in providing for the public good, its all about staying out of each others business and limiting taxes. So when a community meeting place closes, one need only look at their tax returns to see why. We as a nation just don't care. Basically its give me my 3000sq ft home a 12 lane highway to wallmart and leave me alone. The pacific NW does have an independent streak and does try and fight the good fight, but we are still in the good ole US and will bend to the will of the nation. So get used to degraded public schools and closed community places...even in the suburbs.

[cab]

The difference between the US and Canada are growing and they involve values. Canada Values cities and the idea of the public good. The US is going in the opposite direction. We no longer believe in providing for the public good, its all about staying out of each others business and limiting taxes. So when a community meeting place closes, one need only look at their tax returns to see why. We as a nation just don't care. Basically its give me my 3000sq ft home a 12 lane highway to wallmart and leave me alone. The pacific NW does have an independent streak and does try and fight the good fight, but we are still in the good ole US and will bend to the will of the nation. So get used to degraded public schools and closed community places...even in the suburbs.

[paul]

pdxstreetcar,

Yes, things are substantially different in Vancouver BC. Besides what Leslie points out (which by the way requires a public sector that is dramatically larger than any American public, even in Blue Portland, woudl allow), there has been a huge influx of emigres from Hong Kong and China.

These individuals bring the economic resources to afford the expensive units in Vancouver, but perhaps more importantly, the cultural experience with living in highly dense settings.

I don't think the V.B.C. experience can be replicated in the US.

[The Maven]

We aren't losing people. There are plenty of Californians coming who are more than happy to pay cash for their bargain $500K two bedroom in NE.

Great discussion, all.

[paul]

The Oregon population report (here: https://stage.www.pdx.edu/media/p/r/prc_2004_Population_Report.pdf) is always useful to refer to.

Multnomah C. gained 3000 fewer residents than Clackamas and 5000 fewer than Washington in the last four years. I can't tell the net gain in Portland proper, but I suspect it's even smaller.

The image of Californians coming up to settle in Portland is popular, but the reality is that they are settling in the suburbs.

[Brian]

I think the phenomenon of more people settling in the suburbs is not necessarily telling. Urban life is an attraction to more and more people, but the land is scarce and it's costlier to build this way. You get what you pay for, I think. But pure market realities can be harsh, and I think taking steps to curb middle class exodus is definitely warranted.

[pdxstreetcar]

Just to briefly clarify what I said about the Portland and Canada comparison: Politically they are quite different (even the democratic bastion Portland) but I thought lifestyle-wise they potential could be quite similar. If a good product is offered Portlanders can and will warm to it. Especially with some good marketing showing families enjoying urban living.

[Justin]

Paul:

By the link you provided, Multnomah County increased in population by this amount:

25,464

from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004. This is a huge population growth in an area where there is no more open land to build on! It's pretty much all infill from here on out, and the density is clearly increasing. Considering Portland's population is around 500,000, this represents a 5% increase in population for Portland in only 4 years. I find that pretty darn significant...

Remember, the suburbs cover a vastly larger land area, and thus - even at lower densities - can absorb a much larger population increase than Portland can, and the impact will seem less, as much of it is in low-density developments and greenfield developments (converting once lush farmland/forests to sprawl).

[Justin]

Interestingly, Multnomah County gained over 25,000 residents, while Clackamas gained slightly less than 18,000 for the same time period. Granted, Multnomah County has around 300,000 more residents than does Clackamas, so the growth rate is lower, but it sounds like Portland IS rapidly increasing in population and adding more residents than any other part of the state (except for Washington county).

However, these differences are pretty small and I would argue the margin of error and how we are using them makes them useless to be of any real use to this discussion.