Portland should change its motto from “the city that works” to “the city that’s white.” Already the whitest big city in America in 2000, the city has gotten whiter still as poor people have been pushed from the inner city into the suburbs, as shown in this stunning series of maps.
The Antiplanner has covered this issue before, but it is worth repeating, partly because of The Oregonian‘s excellent coverage yesterday and partly because of what The Oregonian didn’t say. As Portland’s only daily paper pointed out, the city did little to help low-income minorities and did many things that hurt.
When planning urban renewal in the heart of the city’s one-time black ghetto, the Portland Development Commission wrote a plan to maintain affordable housing and to help renters become homeowners. In its zeal to promote light rail and transit-oriented development, however, the city jettisoned this plan.
What the article barely mentions is that Portland has neglected its schools. While elite Benson, Lincoln, and Wilson high schools graduate 75 to 80 percent of their students in four years, Jefferson and Roosevelt–which serve the heart of the ghetto area–are 50 percent or less. If Portland weren’t diverting so much of the region’s property taxes to urban renewal, maybe the schools wouldn’t have to be asking voters to approve the largest bond measure in state history that, if approved, would make Portland property taxes 20 percent higher than any other community in the state.
purchase viagra online Don’t forget to check the reviews and feedbacks of the store, one chose to buy kamagra. It is also reported to improve buy cheap cialis blood circulation and stamina. Common Erectile Dysfunction Symptoms It is simple; being unable to keep up the erection long enough for the duration of sexual on line levitra heritageihc.com intercourse. For over 10 years, this naturally formulated male enhancement supplement has been a first choice of men seeking sexual enhancement. cheapest price for tadalafil Nor does the pro-smart-growth Oregonian mention that the region’s urban-growth boundary, which made most of the region’s single-family homes expensive, is the real cause of the gentrification that forced the diaspora of low-income minorities. While the resulting integration sounds good, what is going on here is that low-income people have been forced out of neighborhoods they can afford and that provide them a sense of community into more-expensive neighborhoods with few available social services.
The Oregonian views it, of course, through a new-urbanist lens: “Pushed out by gentrification, most settled on the city’s eastern edges, according to the census data, where the sidewalks, grocery stores and parks grow sparse, and access to public transit is limited.” In truth, many have access to public transit, since they moved into the eastside light-rail corridor, but that access is probably far less important to them than access to jobs.
Coincidentally, an urban planning professor just published a lament about the “trivialization” of his profession. How is it that planning, which once had lofty goals for equity and social justice, has lost its way? As the professor tells the tale, planners in the 1950s were seduced by federal dollars into supporting destructive urban-renewal projects. When Jane Jacobs exposed the harm their plans did to cities, the profession fell into disarray.
The professor blames “the Jacobsian revolution and its elimination of a robust physical-planning focus” for the profession’s problems. What he failed to see is that planners are just as focused on physical planning as ever, but instead of using federal urban-renewal funds to destroy Jacobs’ dense, inner-city neighborhoods, they are just as mindlessly using local urban-renewal (TIF) funds to try to recreate those very same neighborhoods everywhere.
The real problem with planning is that its focus on physical planning–the “built environment”–leads it to overstate the benefits of such planning and ignore the real costs. People who really want to improve our cities should join some other profession that can make a real improvement in people’s lives, not one that simply imposes high-cost fantasies on urban residents.
People who really want to improve our cities should join some other profession that can make a real improvement in people’s lives, not one that simply imposes high-cost fantasies on urban residents.
Amen. Now let’s wait, wait, wait for it, the explosion from the libs. “The urban growth boundary has not contributed a single penny to housing prices!” “The sockpuppets are making up lies to divert attention from the real issues!” “Why all the hating on DS?”
The urban growth boundary
I suggest we start calling it Portland’s little Berlin Wall. (Designed to keep people in just like its namesake.)
Thanks
JK
So many errors and mischaracterizations, so little time.
o The Oregonian views it, of course, through a new-urbanist lens: “Pushed out by gentrification, most settled on the city’s eastern edges, according to the census data, where the sidewalks, grocery stores and parks grow sparse, and access to public transit is limited.â€
This is the ‘public health lens’ as well. And the sociologist’s lens. And the planning lens. And the psychosocial lens. And and and. The public health profession decries auto-dependency, as it degrades many things important to public health.
o Nor does the pro-smart-growth Oregonian mention that the region’s urban-growth boundary, which made most of the region’s single-family homes expensive, is the real cause of the gentrification that forced the diaspora of low-income minorities.
As several have pointed out many times, the UGB is only a partial cause. The knee-jerk ‘da urbin groat bowndry did it!!’ is an error.
The literature (that is: the evidence) disagrees with the assertion. As has been stated numerous times. This basic fact has been mentioned many times here. But the fact is inconvenient to a small-minority ideology, so is ignored.
o The real problem with planning is that its focus on physical planning–the “built environmentâ€â€“leads it to overstate the benefits of such planning and ignore the real costs.
Randal tries the old tactic of guilt by association.
He mentions that politicians have neglected schools at great cost, gentrification is occurring (a generally market force), etc., then gently places the word ‘planner’ near the word ‘cost’ as implicit blame. I’m not sure if this is purposely dishonest or just a standard ideological tic.
o Coincidentally, an urban planning professor just published a lament about the “trivialization†of his profession. How is it that planning, which once had lofty goals for equity and social justice, has lost its way? [emphasis added, link omitted]
I encourage thinking people to read the comments of the very good and interesting opinion piece. While the piece raises important and interesting issues, it forgets (or doesn’t know about) several key issues. The essay cannot be fully understood without reading the comments, which contextualize the argument. Specifically wrt Randal’s implied mischaracterization:
The comment at 04.25.11 at 05:21 states:
and another states:
and another:
These basic facts have been mentioned innumerable times here. But the fact pattern is inconvenient to a small-minority ideology, so is ignored.
DS
To summarize Danny Boy’s elongated wandering posting:
SMART Growth = Sends Mexicans Across the River Tomorrow
Dan’s astute point about blaming planners for things outside their control aside, Mr. O’Toole brings up some interesting points about gentrification. Gentrification is a double edged sword. On one hand, we have areas that are devoid of investment (private or public) and in many cases efforts to attract investment to these areas are led by the local residents. On the other had, the way property tax valuation is done, as investment comes to the area the same local residents can no longer afford their increasing property taxes/rents.
Also, while Portland is super white, Austin is well on it’s way to becoming a majority minority city, and on the east side gentrification is ramped. I’m not familiar with the situation in Portland, but while race and socioeconomic status are not mutually exclusive, in Austin economic equity is the issue of the day.
“What the article barely mentions is that Portland has neglected its schools. While elite Benson, Lincoln, and Wilson high schools graduate 75 to 80 percent of their students in four years, Jefferson and Roosevelt–which serve the heart of the ghetto area–are 50 percent or less. If Portland weren’t diverting so much of the region’s property taxes to urban renewal, maybe the schools wouldn’t have to be asking voters to approve the largest bond measure in state history that, if approved, would make Portland property taxes 20 percent higher than any other community in the state.”
The issue with Portland schools is complex. One of the biggest issues is the massive entrenched bureaucracy and teachers who keep on teaching in the words of my cooperating teacher during grad school just so they can retire with full benefits.
Public education, including PPS, fails basic cost/benefit analysis. Money might be an issue, but it’s not the only one, and throwing more money at public education won’t “fix” it. That’s evidenced by my current school that spends an additional $3k per student to help low-SES and minority students graduate. Our numbers are abysmally low, too. It’s more about the population served and the quality of their teachers than funding.
“Nor does the pro-smart-growth Oregonian mention that the region’s urban-growth boundary, which made most of the region’s single-family homes expensive, is the real cause of the gentrification that forced the diaspora of low-income minorities.”
I can find no empirical evidence showing a direct causal relationship between UGB and gentrification.
I think gentrification has more to do with an influx of white transplants who want to own vintage houses in walkable neighborhoods, so they buy cheaper fixer-uppers and renovate. When neighborhoods look new and clean, and demand increases as a result, prices increase. Please feel free to verify or disprove my claim with empirical evidence.
The racism and segregation of Professional Planners in Portland would make a good skit for Portlandia now that it has been picked up for a second season.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/portlandia-renewed-for-se_n_822887.html
Boo, freaking hoo. Are you kidding me? Crying about the slums being fixed up and cleaned up by people moving in who have a bit of money? Neighborhoods do not “belong” to any group, and the only people “entitled” to live in them are those willing to pay the market rate for real estate and rents.
The so-called segregation and the like that results from people of one race or another moving in and out of neighborhoods (or cities) has been shown repeatedly to be the natural outcome even of choices made by basically non-discriminatory people just looking to live near a few people they share things in common with since the concept was first postulated:
Schelling, Thomas C. 1971. “Dynamic Models of Segregation.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1:143-186
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/04/rauch.htm
“schools wouldn’t have to be asking voters”
Schools are not people and aren’t asking for anything. They are just a pile of bricks and stone and concrete and plaster and drywall. Its funny how things are anthropomorphized. The schools (and teachers) aren’t “failing” the children. Children who drop out generally are dumb and chose not to study, and they have lazy and shiftless parents who apparently could give a rats ass about what their little precious’ actually do. Its not like the school building or district or teachers refused to provide them an education and kicked them to the curb and locked the door. Its similar to the famous Mayor Rizzo quote about people asking for safe streets: “The streets are safe in Philadelphia, it’s only the people who make them unsafe.” Streets don’t kill, rape, mug, and rob.
A couple of the comments here have clarified something for me that I couldn’t put my finger on:
the city has gotten whiter still as poor people have been pushed from the inner city into the suburbs, …[a]s Portland’s only daily paper pointed out, the city did little to help low-income minorities
So Randal is complaining about markets working, the suburbs growing, and government not intervening in the housing market?!
Strange days indeed.
DS
Dan says: “So Randal is complaining about markets working, the suburbs growing, and government not intervening in the housing market?”
Remember, it’s not antiplanner per se,it’s antiplanning that results in things we don’t like. Maybe Mr. O’Toole is worried about “those people” moving to his neighborhood (low blow, sorry).
Maybe [the usual suspects are] worried about “those people†moving to [their] neighborhood [and decreasing property values].
Ahhhhh…¡comprendo!
The comments are most enlightening today!
DS
Our textbooks often use Portland as an illustration, but they do not say anything about Portland and segregation impacts. Is this just a city border issue, or is it an issue in the the Metropolitan Area too?
“Children who drop out generally are dumb and chose not to study, and they have lazy and shiftless parents who apparently could give a rats ass about what their little precious’ actually do.”
Your generalization is too general and ignores MANY other factors.
Other risk factors for dropping out include race/ethnicity, immigration status, LEP, disability, early adult responsibilities, family background, and school environment (to name just a few) in addition to limited cognitive abilities (in your words, “dumb”). While “parents who apparently could give a rats [sic] ass” about what their children do is a factor for dropping out, students that have “a high degree of regulation” by their parents are also at risk of dropping out.
Be careful not to oversimplify complex situations.
I’m too new to this site to totally understand some of the dynamics playing out here, but I would like to offer a couple of observations from personal experience:
1. Physical Planning CAN improve the lives of folks. Happens less than it did, but that is not just solely the profesion’s fault. As stated earlier there are a lot of people that affect the design and form of the city, incl. politicians, developers, financiers, etc. However, I’ve seen on many occasions well-done and thoughtful plans get implemented that did improve the quality of life of people and the city as a whole.
2. I’m distressed over the past few years that the profession seems to have fallen into the trap of wanting design everything to the last square inch. Go look at a Zoning Code from the late 1920s and ’30s. They tended to be remarkably brief documents, yet many of the neighborhoods that came out of those codes are ones that are imminently walkable and lovable. Fast forward to today and look at new Zoning Codes…incredibly complex, detailed, and long….has the world really gotten that more complicated since the introduction of Euclidean zoning that we can’t trust anyone to build a building or develop a neighborhood without express written instructions from the Zoning Code? I would argue that the planners’ over-reliance on zoning is one of our biggest challenges, actually.
3. As a child of the industrial Midwest I grew up during the age of extreme social dislocation in the 1960s and early 1970s. There were a lot of “push” and “pull” factors during those days but IMHO the “Pushes” far out-paced the “Pulls.” Race, crime, collapsing education systems all play a part in shaping the city. As a result, the return of households with income to neighborhoods that are in dire need of investment is not a bad thing…the idea that we’re shoving all of the poor folks to the fringes to accommodate the renewal of an area is not always/sometimes true. More generally, a neighborhood is pretty close to total collapse before the renewal (and often, the private financing attached to it) begins.
As someone said, cities are complex entities…we need nuance and skill to understand how to keep them vital and attractive places to live.
At least that’s my hope.
I would like to add a bit to cincygrad’s point number 2. Most cities that are considered “walkable and lovable” became so in the complete absence of zoning. Even New York City’s urban grid was completely carved out before its first zoning ordinance was enacted in the twenties. Density and walkability occurred in New York and San Francisco and Boston and Paris and Florence because their walkable parts were developed when all you could do was walk or ride a horse to where you wanted to go. Market forces, not planners, demanded that those cities be dense and walkable.
Now you’ve done it, saying planning had nothing to do with a good thing. Now you’ve done it.
Jardinero actually restates what every single planner on this site has said – and I have numerous times: get rid of Euclidean zoning and you’ll get the places Jardinero mentions (I won’t call them SG developments, to save the fragile flowers here).
Without Euclidean zoning, The Market will start immediately creating dreaded density and eschew much of the American Dreamscapes that are built now. IMHO the reason development is Design Standarded to death is largely due to the cr*ptacular results of Euclidean single-use zoning. I’m quite sure the planners here would applaud and say good riddance to Euclidan zoning the second it was eliminated.
Further, Chuck Nelson just expanded on this idea at a recent LILP conf and concluded
That’s how I see it as well. Lots more rentals in the coming future, as people must be mobile to get work and a house will reduce your mobility.
DS
Dan,
I’m willing to get rid of Euclidean zoning. Just give people the option of forming homeowner associations (as residents can do in Houston) and write their own rules for their own neighborhoods. Not every neighborhood will do it (only about half the neighborhoods in the city of Houston actually have such associations), and those that don’t will be available for any densification the market calls for.
Yes, yes. And stop all the subsidies and toll all the roads. Density will occur naturally. So will private mass transit.
I have to concur with Dan that much of bile directed at planners is wrongly directed. Most of what passes for planning in Portland and Austin and New York City and other heavily zoned and regulated cities is the result of the political process not a methodical plannning process or market forces. What the anti-planner calls government planning is really political planning.
Frank:
Other risk factors for dropping out include race/ethnicity,
Honestly, Frank that is one of the most racist things I have ever read. There is nothing in the human genetic code that causes some people to have dark colored skin AND that also inherently forces them to disproportionately drop out of school. Those genes just give them darker skin than Europeans have that lets them stay out in the tropical sun longer. That’s it.
This is old style Confederate Racism of dark race inferiority repackaged into the new wineskin of modern liberalism.
immigration status
Being an immigrant doesn’t force you to stop going to school. It just means you moved from another country. Since public schools are free, and include two free meals a day and a chance at an education to enable the child to move up the economic ladder, its ridiculous to suggest that because someone came over from Mexico or Ukraine or Vietnam that they are inherently at risk of just stopping attendance one day. What in the world does being an immigrant have to do with playing permanent hooky? There is no connection here at all.
school environment
The little precious’ and their enablers create the school environment. The school is an inanimate object. When no one is in it, it is a peaceful and serene building, just like an empty Church. So if problems occur in the school building, its because of the kids attending the school and what they are allowed to do by the administration, district, parents, and peers. The School Board doesn’t sit down and say, for example – gosh, this is a school with 75% black students – lets bring in a gang of criminals to disrupt the school and spread drugs, fear and terror among the students. If that environment exists, its because the kids in the school behave that way.
limited cognitive abilities
Some people are just plain dumb. There I said it. Those who quit on schooling tend disproportionately to be at the bottom end of the IQ distribution.
While “parents who apparently could give a rats [sic] ass†about what their children do is a factor for dropping out
If a student drops out and the parent shows no concern about it, does nothing about it, and has no control over their own child, obviously they and the upbringing they gave the child are a huge part of the problem. They’ve clearly given up on the child and are actively demonstrating no interest or concern in their child’s actions.
students that have “a high degree of regulation†by their parents are also at risk of dropping out
Students who are highly controlled are generally in such a life situation because of the way they act and have been permitted to behave.
I get a strong sense of confusion of correlation with causation in your remarks.
Antiplanner:
Just give people the option of forming homeowner associations (as residents can do in Houston) and write their own rules for their own neighborhoods.
How is that any different than the tiny political subdivisions of boroughs, towns, villages, and townships we find in the states from New England, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania out through the midwest, combined with chaoticly large state legislatures? In those areas, the little neighborhoods around each city form “homeowners associations” called, wait for it, “elected municipal governments” and “school districts”. We then elect people on a very local level to represent our interests and make rules about how people will live in our little area of the world. And of course, if you don’t like one particular area, there are thousands of others that have different rules and could be more conducive to the lifestyle you want to live. Its democratic libertarian anarchy at work.
Perhaps the problem is that down South and out through the southern settled parts of the southern highlands, plains and southwest, because of the initial model set in Virginia and Maryland and the backcountry in colonial times of elite control of the masses through the mechanism of strong state and county governments and the county courthouse system. In this effort to recreate the semi-fuedal situation of southern and western England there is no local control of anything, causing people to seek what we up in this part of the country frankly view as bizzarre solutions like developer controlled homeowners associations that dictate minutiae like what plants you can put around your house, how much grass you must have, and if and when you can fly an American flag.
You GOTTA LOVE the Professional Planners not wanting to be held responsible for the results of the their work.
After all, they have to work in a democracy which doesn’t let them spend billions of tax payers dollars on their whims and socialist dreams without those darn “politicians” and that darn “democratic process.” Just think of what wonderful utopias those Professional Planners could have designed if they just had control of all the public spending — monorails, designed cities, everyone forced to take public transit, no trans fat, no smoking except free Mary Jane, no cars, no churches, no big box stores, people having to live on top of each other, schools that teach to the lowest common denominator, etc.
Just think of what could be accomplished if the all-knowing Professional Planners didn’t have to deal with “democracy” … kind of makes you understand what Dan looks at on his computer while flapping his left hand.
Andrew,
I live in a deed restricted community in the Houston area. Deed restrictions are typically drafted by an attorney at the behest of a developer with the consult of a land use planner. Deed restrictions, once in place, are in place before construction begins and are difficult if not impossible to change in Texas. They are not subject to the political chicanery that the “planning process” in municipalities, like Austin, is subject to.
Jardinero1:
Deed restrictions, once in place, are in place before construction begins and are difficult if not impossible to change in Texas.
Exactly why I say they are an anti-democratic method of control of the masses. What happens when the initial circumstances change?
Up north, if we change our minds about how we want to regulate our community because of shifts in the economy and how people want to live, we can just vote to make the change if it is somehting regulated by law, either by persuading current politicans who agree, or by getting new ones if the current ones resist.
The fact that landuse restrictions are not subject to renewed vetting every election cycle is considered a feature not a bug. Leaving landuse to the mercurial whim of the majority, instead of to property owners and market forces, is not always the best economic policy.
Yet HOAs are almost always managed by untrained amateurs volunteering their time. Some may pay a company to help them. And they don’t have the luxury of pricing at scale. Everyone has a story about ridiculous HOA actions.
DS
Andrew, read the report. Seriously. Read it. Stop pontificating. Your comments to this blog are generally spam. I’m not going to sit here and debunk your ludicrous statements, especially those the correlation of race and ethnicity to dropping out. (The fact is that there is an achievement gap between white and non-white students; it’s an observable, empirical fact; your attribution of race as the causal factor shows your lack of ability to process information.) And your inability to see the connection of immigration status (and that connection to fluency in English) again shows that you lack sufficient brainpower to think. Do me a favor. Go to a country where you don’t speak the language and show up to high school. Tell me how long you stick it out.
Better yet, take your claims to the authors of the multitudinous studies. Show them your cognitive deficiencies.
/ignore
Frank:
your attribution of race as the causal factor
No, no, no! YOU are the one who made that attribution. You said: “Other risk factors for dropping out include race/ethnicity”
There is nothing about skin color that predetermines anything about dropping out or staying in school. You claimed it is a causal risk factor! Its right up above on this thread.
I claim that is a mere correlation, and that the real cause of becoming a drop out is personal and family behavior and life decisions – i.e. free will decisions made by individuals. Please, don’t try to confuse everyone by backing away from your blatant racism.
The fact is that there is an achievement gap between white and non-white students
That is not true. There is an achievement gap between the aggregate of white and aggregate of non-white students – the average black student doesn’t do as well as the average white student. But when it comes down to individuals, there are plenty of achievers and non-achievers, geniuses and dolts, to go around in every racial and ethnic group. Some whites are smarter than some blacks, and some blacks are smarter than some whites, etc. That implies to me that if we stop focusing on groups and focus instead on individuals and solving problems individuals have that are preventing them from achieving their potential in the educational system, we can eliminate some or all of this gap by that effort. After all, the average kid doesn’t actually go to school, because he doesn’t actually exist, and “groups” certainly do not go to school, because they are just mental aggregations.
I laughed nigh uncontrollably when I read this article. Well, not true because it’s all so nauseating. But the “news” that Portland’s young, affluent and white urban core “craves” diversity yet not enough to stop itself from pushing said diversity to the fringes of society is information many of us were already privy to.
Naturally, the mayor is horrified and alarmed. He should be; he’s one of the architects of all this.
But look on the bright side — these gentrified neighborhoods now have delightful microbreweries, yoga parlors and anarchist bistros. A thrill just crawled up my leg.
Again on the bright side: We still have a dreamy, dreamboat hunk of a mayor who hates plastic bags and rides his bike to work.
Ooh, but not really! I saw our esteemed mayor plugging a Smart Meter the other night while parking on 4th Avenue. Oops!
Amazing pattern of sockpuppetry around here.
DS
Here’s your sockpuppet!
Frank,
Thanks for the link! I needed that!
Zackly whut I’m sayin’.
Let’s recap so the cheap, low-end spam doesn’t lose the message:
Let us all endeavor to ensure cheap spam doesn’t lose the message.
DS
The Cheap Spam (me, apparently?) never pointed to planners as the sole cause of Portland’s sh#t sandwich. Never!
Perish the thought. I’m bringing nuance to the table. What we have here in Portland is a rich tapestry of horsesh#t, weaved together by the diseased magic of planners; further enabled and facilitated by the moral cowardice and stupidity of local politicians; and promulgated into its current state of super-manure by the buzzword-spouting populace.
Basically, there’s only so many times you can rub my nose in a turd and tell me the turd is actually awesome and good for me before I lose my temper and grow further agitated.
Anyway, Dan — I got the vole-skinned Smart Pants you sent to my P.O. Box. They fit great, and I really appreciate the gesture.