Skyscraper City Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 123 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
is it possilbe could it happen? and do u think if we start growing faster and faster and with the ugb we become denser and denser demanding building higher and higher and people becomeing more comfertable with this and more exspansion of our max and a high speed bullet train to seaside would seal the deal there once they follow our ways and soon they can become a gem city of our coast oh yeaS ONE DAY U WILL SEE HAHAHAHHA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,123 Posts
is it possilbe could it happen? and do u think if we start growing faster and faster and with the ugb we become denser and denser demanding building higher and higher and people becomeing more comfertable with this and more exspansion of our max and a high speed bullet train to seaside would seal the deal there once they follow our ways and soon they can become a gem city of our coast oh yeaS ONE DAY U WILL SEE HAHAHAHHA
I’m thinking of actually responding to this.......Mmmmmmm..........ok here goes :dunno:


I really dig your enthusiasm and spirit. Portland is a fantastic city. I really love the growth going on down there as well as the life style and general urban feeling. The pedestrian friendly streets and sidewalk cafes are top notch :eek:kay: There is a possibility your wish could happen some day but I wouldn’t count on it anytime this century, or the next one for that matter. Seattle is already much larger and just as dense and we are growing just as rapidly as Portland. This is really a great time to be in the Northwest and lets not leave Vancouver B.C. out in the cold either. Here is to dreaming though :cheers1:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
I certainly like Portland's south riverfront efforts, and there seems to be an effort to build up the Lloyd Center area, but to answer your question, no.

Seattle has been the regional capital of the Northwest for quite sometime, and is likely to stay in that position for many decades, or as Dancer put it, "centuries" to come. Not sure of the exact figures, but I believe office space is more than twice than that of Portland. Then, consider Bellevue, which probably is approaching Portland's office space, or will soon.

Hey, I have nothing against Portland. It's a great downtown that is no doubt more people-friendly than Seattle's, but I don't think many would predict it to over-take Seattle anytime soon. Besides, Portland would never approve any high-rise more than 700 feet, IMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
The funny thing is, from a historical perspective, Seattle and Portland were equal rivals a hundred years ago. There was no clear winner back then. Seattle became the eventual winner, mainly due to the deep water port, and some railroad decisions that favored Seattle. The Alaska Gold Rush didn't hurt either.

However, Portland's #2 position in the NW has actually benefited the city. It has allowed to the Rose City to concentrate on becoming livable, human, and much more of a "people" city. The corporate mentality, (while not completely missing), is much less, and there is a certain livability that Seattle seems to have lost, or is losing. So, Portland, I wouldn't fret about being the Northest's second city...it still has so much to offer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
It all depends on how or what you define the actual downtown is. In 10 or 15 years when South Waterfront is more connected to downtown as well as the Pearl and LLoyd district (hopefully), Portland will more than challenge Seattle from a Horizontal perspective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
It all depends on how or what you define the actual downtown is. In 10 or 15 years when South Waterfront is more connected to downtown as well as the Pearl and LLoyd district (hopefully), Portland will more than challenge Seattle from a Horizontal perspective.
Horizontal? Meaning more mid-size buildings across a larger landscape? OK, that may be possible.

But from a "vertical" standpoint, Seattle seems to be the leader here, and will be in the future. But kind of daft to compare vertical to horizontal...what really matters is neighborhoods that combine business, residential, and commercial. Seattle seems to be on the way to this goal, PDX is making a good effort, but the river might be a divide. The one thing that stands out is there is no strong edge city to Portland, like Bellevue is to Seattle. I truely believe development in a major metro area should be dispersed somewhat, to open up expanded housing and transportation options. I don't see Beaverton rising to the occasion, nor any other edge cities in the Portland metro.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
NOOO YOUR FORGETING VANCOUVER!!! have u heard there mayor latley and his plans on light rail extension, which could be the ticket to your idea of a great edge town. HEy its in washington so u got nothing to say bad about dat man now do ya! i would love to hear what u have to say! OH AND ALSO U FORGET THE MAJOR UBER DEVELOPMETN IN TANASBOURNE HELLAA with 2 [email protected]! OH NO ALMOST MORE THEN 2 MOERAIL STOPS UH OHHH lol and soon 2 once i become powerfull enough i will propose building an ariel tram yes then more more private money aAND MORE AND MORE!!!! YES!! WE ARE COMING CHARRRRRRGEEEEEE!!! THIS IS THEDAY WE FIGHT FOR ONE WE FIGHT FOR VICTORY!!! were coming seattle with alittle thing called the blazers awww yea connect the dots my friend! well i hope to see what u all have to say about that there. okay see ya laters
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
NOOO YOUR FORGETING VANCOUVER!!! have u heard there mayor latley and his plans on light rail extension, which could be the ticket to your idea of a great edge town. HEy its in washington so u got nothing to say bad about dat man now do ya! i would love to hear what u have to say! OH AND ALSO U FORGET THE MAJOR UBER DEVELOPMETN IN TANASBOURNE HELLAA with 2 [email protected]! OH NO ALMOST MORE THEN 2 MOERAIL STOPS UH OHHH lol and soon 2 once i become powerfull enough i will propose building an ariel tram yes then more more private money aAND MORE AND MORE!!!! YES!! WE ARE COMING CHARRRRRRGEEEEEE!!! THIS IS THEDAY WE FIGHT FOR ONE WE FIGHT FOR VICTORY!!! were coming seattle with alittle thing called the blazers awww yea connect the dots my friend! well i hope to see what u all have to say about that there. okay see ya laters
Well, you make it sound like a soccer match or something. It really isn't about all that. Development occurs when there is a need for more housing, office, and commercial, as well as a desire to make money. Yes, there is some competition involved, but any new development must back itself up with the ability to make the financials paper out. Investors must see a high potential of profits before building. Yes, Portland/Vancouver offers a nice risk, but it won't happen automatically.
Not sure of Vancouver as an edge city to Portland, but maybe. They are geographically seperated by a state line and limited transportation options. Portland is a great city with tons of potential, but Seattle is way ahead and will continue to be due to a world-wide reputation with companies like Boeing, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. Portland will continue to grow as the 2nd city of the Northwest, and that isn't a bad thing. It isn't really a competititon, more of a couple of metro areas that will together help create a great region.
 

·
BANGED
Joined
·
772 Posts
that's definitely a possibility.. yeah.. a POSSIBILITY. you know a possibility is a really a huge concept. right? and I'm a really optimistic person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Horizontal? Meaning more mid-size buildings across a larger landscape? OK, that may be possible.

But from a "vertical" standpoint, Seattle seems to be the leader here, and will be in the future. But kind of daft to compare vertical to horizontal...what really matters is neighborhoods that combine business, residential, and commercial. Seattle seems to be on the way to this goal, PDX is making a good effort, but the river might be a divide. The one thing that stands out is there is no strong edge city to Portland, like Bellevue is to Seattle. I truely believe development in a major metro area should be dispersed somewhat, to open up expanded housing and transportation options. I don't see Beaverton rising to the occasion, nor any other edge cities in the Portland metro.
I kind of dissagree about the edge city concept after living in DC for 3 years.It is very disconnected. People living in Reston very seldom go into dowtown DC,or Fairfax and likewise people in DC very seldom go into Tysons Corner.But, back to Portland and Seattle.Seatlle and Portland are two conceptually different cities and the only thing they have in common is their region and their weather.Portland has always been kind of provincial while Seattle has always been about "getting there" and therefore each city is going to attract a different type/style of development.:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
^^ I don't disagree with that.

I guess what I'm saying is unless you are Manhattan, or the Chicago loop, dispersity in population is a good thing. Not talking about sprawl, but using the land to maximize affordibility and allow effiecient movement via mass transportation or autos. I think Portland is headed toward anti-dispersation, which ultimately may increase the cost of living, just like in NY or San Francisco. A good balance might be to encourage in-city development and residential, without discouraging using the surrounding land to allow for efficiently priced housing, retail, and ease of getting around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
I would hate for Portland to become Seattle...HATE IT! I love me my Seattle but it isn't Portland...in good and bad ways. However, joeplayer91 (and let's hope 91 wasn't the year he was born...yikes!) is onto something. Metrowise, Seattle is almost twice the size of PDX, and will probably always be larger. However, Portland proper is not that much smaller, population wise, than Seattle and I believe it has more land size. It is possible, even within the next few decades, that Portland's population will grow larger than Seattle's, even though Seattle will hold the metro lead by substantial margins. I don't think it really matters in anything perse, but it is a possiblity.

One other little thing,

pwalker said:
Then, consider Bellevue, which probably is approaching Portland's office space, or will soon.
That isn't actually true, Portland's CBD total office square footage at the end of 2006 was 16,395,425. Bellevue's CBD was 5,832,438. Not really all that close. Portland also has a few office towers planned that should begin by the end of this year including Park Avenue West (410' mixed use) First and Main and a recently announced Lloyd tower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
Assuming those numbers are correct, I stand corrected. My bad. However, there is no denying Bellevue is growing at a phenomenal rate, not only office, but residential. If this keeps up, who knows where those numbers will be in another decade or two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
^I think it's great to see Bellevue's growth, it is a good suburban model, although it is more developer driven than actually planned out, which has ended up creating some terrible urban spaces along with some great ones. As Portland continues to add our million people by 2030, Vancouver, Hillsboro, Gresham, and the Gateway district will rise as our submarkets.

Even with the fast growth in outer regions, they can't compare to the explosive city center growth in either Seattle or Portland. Right now Portland has over 15 cranes in the air and adding significant square footage of office space, thousands of condos, and a couple hotels. Comparing Bellevue with Portland just doesn't work, Portland is a main market with 3 times the square footage of office space and several thousand additional housing units. Bellevue stands out as a hope that not all burbs have to be squat and sprawled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
Agreed. But I don't see that happening anywhere around Portland. Yes, Orenco is a beautiful, out of the box development, but it isn't a major office/residential center...yet. Does Gresham have a density-inspired high-rise plan? I frankly don't have any info on that. Vancouver is trying to build up, but I still think the river is a natural boundary that will prevent major development downtown until they completely replace the I-5 bridge. Meantime, California-style sprawl defines east Vancouver. :( In the Seattle metro, I know that both Lynnwood and Federal Way have higher desnity plans in place.

As far as the importance of metro areas compared to city populations, there are a few areas where it does count. Media, for one. Pro sports, for another. And congressional support in DC is another. If one doesn't deem those areas important, then so be it.
 
1 - 20 of 123 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top