[MarkDaMan]

Revenge of the Small

Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver are creating strategies to encourage the development of modest, more affordable houses.
By Karrie Jacobs
Posted December 6, 2006
Metropolis Magazine

Portland, Oregon. Seattle, Washington. Vancouver, British Columbia. In these three Pacific North­west cities, the progressive power of urban planning is taken very seriously, and concepts like livability and sustainability dominate the local civic culture to such an extent that to visit all three in rapid succession, as I did in October, is to drop in on another country. It’s not the United States or Canada, but a more highly evolved combination of the two.

In each city I was impressed by major developments, dramatic projects that promised to refresh the urban landscape in conspicuous ways. In Seattle, where the OMA–designed library represents a watershed moment in public architecture, the new civic landmark nearing completion occupies a nine-acre multilevel site at the north end of the downtown waterfront. Designed by New York firm Weiss/Manfredi, the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Park opens in January. In Portland a massive mixed-use high-rise development is emerging on a brownfield site on the Wil-lamette River waterfront south of downtown. It’s linked to the rest of the city by a new streetcar line, and in January it will be connected by a spectacular aerial tramway designed by Angélil/Graham/Pfenninger/Scholl Architecture. Meanwhile, in Vancouver the megaproject that is lining the perimeter of the downtown peninsula with residential high-rises is nearly complete. And while I heard some grumbling about the faux town houses placed at the bases of many of the towers, I thought some of the newest high-rise areas—in particular, a spot along Coal Harbour where the northwest corner of downtown bumps into Stanley Park—provided as good a model of a twenty-first-century urban neighborhood as I’ve seen.

But what I found most interesting on this trip was not the landmark developments but smaller ­changes in the residential fabrics of the cities. All three are wrestling with the problem of affordable housing and have begun to encourage, or at least allow, the construction of well-designed small houses. While McMansion bans have been proposed in many cities—and have succeeded in a few—what Portland and Vancouver, and to some extent Seattle, are doing is more difficult and more interesting. They’re inventing mechanisms that say yes to small instead of no to big.

Recently Portland and Vancouver established zoning and design guidelines to encourage the development of smaller houses, as long as they meet exacting design criteria. A new program in Vancouver that falls under the mayor’s overall policy of “eco-density” encourages the reconfig­uration of lots in certain single-family districts. In Portland a new set of ordinances and guidelines seeks to promote “skinny houses,” intended to fit lots less than 36 feet wide.

It was in Seattle, however, where I saw the best small house. Dave Sarti, who co-taught a design-build studio at the University of Washington last year, had constructed an 800-square-foot house with a 160-square-foot double-height attached workshop. It’s a sweet fire-engine-red box planted in the backyard of a Central District home. I walked down the grassy driveway past an unremarkable blue traditional home and was surprised to see this Bauhaus cube where another yard might have a swing set. The red HardiPanel siding made it look very much of the moment, but the efficiency of design and small size were reminiscent of the workers’ houses that Gropius and his contemporaries built in Europe between the wars.

Although the Central District is dominated by old single-family homes on large lots, Sarti says that much of it is zoned for multifamily devel­opment. So as the traditionally low-income, once predominantly black area gentrifies, the single-family homes are often replaced with town houses. Sarti, however, bought someone’s backyard for $35,000 and built his house there for about $180,000. And this unorthodox maneuver was perfectly legal under existing zoning. Unlike accessory dwelling units (a.k.a. granny flats), which Seattle recently decided to allow to increase density in the far southeast corner of the city, Sarti’s home is ­completely independent from the house in front—he owns his small patch of land outright and can sell it separately.

In Vancouver, where home prices have skyrocketed 57 percent in the past three years (average home price: 652,448 CAD), a set of new guidelines is being implemented in selected neighborhoods to encourage the development of smaller 1,000–1,300-square-foot­­ single-family homes, duplexes, and town houses. This strategy of “neighborhood intensification” is the logical sequel to the program of high-rise building downtown.

Urban designer Patricia St. Michel says that homeowners in outlying ­single-family areas are now willing to “engage the topic” of higher density because they realize that their own children might be priced out of Vancouver. Working with community groups, the city came up with a series of plans for how two to four houses could be fit onto formerly single-family lots, “a new menu of housing variety” with the potential for creating 20,000 additional units. It also includes design guidelines for traditional houses, common in Vancouver, and contemporary ones. Neighborhood advisory groups, according to St. Michel, “felt strongly that we should allow contemporary styles, but felt that fitting in requires a pitched roof.”

Down in Portland, where narrow homes have emerged as an important and somewhat controversial form of entry-level housing, the city held a design competition for the “skinny house.” The competition represented the attempt of the city’s Bureau of Development Services to endorse the narrow house as an option while also creating a catalog of designs that would be acceptable to the famously persnickety city residents. (Remember, it was Portland that banned the “snout house”—with the garage out front.) The 2004 competition produced a catalog of 24 winners, most of them either cute traditional pitched-roof cottages or slim Modernist boxes. There were four People’s Choice ­winners, two modern and two traditional. The city anointed two “permit-ready designs,” which made them, in essence, Portland’s official skinny houses. One, a steeply gabled 1,779-square-foot existing house by local architect Bryan Higgins, is essentially a shotgun house that grew two extra stories. The other, designed by Berkeley, California, architect Roxana Vargas-Greenan with a side-facing gable and fussy detailing that would put it squarely in the tradition of Seaside, can be built at either 1,500 or 1,700 square feet. The plans for these two houses are available free of charge from the city once a developer has purchased building permits on a lot deemed appropriate for the skinny style. So far one developer is building four of the permit-ready ­houses.

Locally, there has been some grousing about how the first two permit-ready houses are traditional even though the catalog of winners contains a range of styles. Anne Hill, the project manager for what is now known as the Living Smart program, says the first two plans were chosen for “mass appeal.” She argues that the designs are more affordable and flexible than, say, the one specifying a glass garage. “One of the next two,” she promises, “will be contemporary.”

Putting aside the issue of style, what’s significant here is that cities which have been ahead of the curve in their civic-scaled gestures are now addressing the problem of affordable single-family homes in a way that could have an impact elsewhere. In an era when ever-bigger houses are the norm, Portland and Vancouver’s carefully vetted plans might help other North American cities and towns promote domestic downsizing. That would be no small accomplishment. Still, it’s revealing that the tiniest and flukiest house I saw on my swing through the Pacific Northwest—Sarti’s wonderful red box—would never have been permitted in the highly restrictive design environments of Vancouver or Portland. I take it as a reminder that while careful vetting may keep out the bad, it can also suppress the good.

http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=2409

[Rusty van Reddick]

Portland and Vancouver are both wonderful cities, but comparing their built forms is utterly preposterous. Portland looks NOTHING like Vancouver, and has NOTHING like Vancouver's challenges in providing affordable housing.

[DeadManWalking]

Its easy for a city to be progressive when money and growth are good. The cities listed in this article have strong economies. It is not my belief that these cities have strong economies due to their progressive nature. I believe they have a progressive nature due to their strong economies. It is a lot easier to be progressive when you don't have a deteriorating infrastructure and a rapidly declining population/tax base.

That is why I believe cities like St. Louis are far more progressive. They have to deal with a plethora of problems the Pacific Northwest cities couldn't even imagine, yet still push forward with massive urban renewal projects, light rail, etc.

[arbeiter]

Its easy for a city to be progressive when money and growth are good. The cities listed in this article have strong economies. It is not my belief that these cities have strong economies due to their progressive nature. I believe they have a progressive nature due to their strong economies. It is a lot easier to be progressive when you don't have a deteriorating infrastructure and a rapidly declining population/tax base.

That is why I believe cities like St. Louis are far more progressive. They have to deal with a plethora of problems the Pacific Northwest cities couldn't even imagine, yet still push forward with massive urban renewal projects, light rail, etc.

Actually Portland has one of the weakest economies outside of the rust belt. Oregon's unemployment rate is stubbornly high. You're somewhat incorrect. You should be thankful there are growth-positive cities somewhere not cowtowing to the suburban ethic.

[Touray]

Its easy for a city to be progressive when money and growth are good. The cities listed in this article have strong economies. It is not my belief that these cities have strong economies due to their progressive nature. I believe they have a progressive nature due to their strong economies. It is a lot easier to be progressive when you don't have a deteriorating infrastructure and a rapidly declining population/tax base.

That is why I believe cities like St. Louis are far more progressive. They have to deal with a plethora of problems the Pacific Northwest cities couldn't even imagine, yet still push forward with massive urban renewal projects, light rail, etc.

you do have a good point though. Vancouver, Seattle, an Portland do not have huge swaths of areas that are poor. That being said, I still think the Northwest is probably one of the best places to live in North America.

[cornholio]

you do have a good point though. Vancouver, Seattle, an Portland do not have huge swaths of areas that are poor. That being said, I still think the Northwest is probably one of the best places to live in North America.

Vancouver is only home to the poorest postal code in Canada and one of the poorest in NA(im talking about downtown east side). But I aslo disagree in lumping Portland, Seattle and Vancouver in the same pile since(not trying to be rude) transit or density wise Portalnd and Seattle are way way behind Vancouver metro and especialy downtown. Though they have been doing a much better job lately then most other cities in America there still is a huge difference between them and Vancouver, infact I would say all major Canadian cities(Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Winipeg(?), Ottawa, Montreal are doing better in the categories they mentioned.

By the way a strong economy and strong growth has its own chalenges believe it or not, infact growth is more chalenging to deal with then non growth, and a booming economy can be as chalenging as a stagnant one.

[MtnClimber]

Vancouver is only home to the poorest postal code in Canada and one of the poorest in NA(im talking about downtown east side). But I aslo disagree in lumping Portland, Seattle and Vancouver in the same pile since(not trying to be rude) transit or density wise Portalnd and Seattle are way way behind Vancouver metro and especialy downtown. Though they have been doing a much better job lately then most other cities in America there still is a huge difference between them and Vancouver, infact I would say all major Canadian cities(Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Winipeg(?), Ottawa, Montreal are doing better in the categories they mentioned.

By the way a strong economy and strong growth has its own chalenges believe it or not, infact growth is more chalenging to deal with then non growth, and a booming economy can be as chalenging as a stagnant one.


I think its a stretch to say that VAncouver is a head of Portland in terms of transit options. And your joking about calgary and edmenton right? Because I don't ever remeber these cities being nearly as dense as you claim. But as far as being poor goes, I Dont remeber the last time I felt in danger walking the streets of vancouver do you?

My point is that none of these cities have major parts of the city that would be considered "ghetto" Even in the most poor parts of vancouer do you ever feel your life is truly at risk. Whereas some places like philidelphia or detroit defintly feel threatening to the average person.

[SpongeG]

i think portland's transist system trounces vancouvers - its max train covers the city in all directions as well as provides free commuter parking garages - something vancouver really should be doing - especially at a station like braid and king george in surrey

but something popped into my head was that little cluster of houses on broadway next to the perto-canada at clark - there are 3 houses all sharing what would be one typical lot

and i know in coquitlam not far from where i live - there used to be one old ranch style house on a huge lot which they tore down and put 5 houses on - not too small not to big but they all work nicely together

[cornholio]

I think its a stretch to say that VAncouver is a head of Portland in terms of transit options. And your joking about calgary and edmenton right? Because I don't ever remeber these cities being nearly as dense as you claim. But as far as being poor goes, I Dont remeber the last time I felt in danger walking the streets of vancouver do you?

My point is that none of these cities have major parts of the city that would be considered "ghetto" Even in the most poor parts of vancouer do you ever feel your life is truly at risk. Whereas some places like philidelphia or detroit defintly feel threatening to the average person.

Im not trying to start a city vs city thing but yes Vancouver metro is ahead of Portland in terms of transit, and yes Edmonton and Calgary are denser then Portland, hard to believe but its true(ill post the stats once i find them all again). And yes downtown eastiside is very much a ghetto, most people do not venture down there because they feel afraid, I personaly dont because I know that half the people are so high of heroin and crack that their harmless, though meth users are a pain. But yeah its not the same like a Detroit or Philly ghetto thats true, you dont see the crack heads runing around shooting people.

[SpongeG]

this is a ghetto - st louis

http://www.american-pictures.com/gallery/usa/mediums/usa-00108.jpg

the downtown east side is actually quite a vibrant community albeit poor and full of drug addicts

[roner]

An interesting article, thanks for the post. It does seem the cities all share a common bond in terms of ideals, culture, weather, geography, history, and economies. Yet there are some MAJOR differences (of which will only strengthen our nation). I also believe that it's much more of a culture issue than economic for the areas belief in progessive land use policies. Portland had this apporoach in the 70s, long before the days of Intel, Nike, and Addidas. Furthermore, the sun belt has a booming economy and the region are vastly different.

Sorry guys, but Portland's transit easily trumps all cities in the PNW and has the finest women.:yes: Who has some clever names?

[mhays]

But somehow Portland still manages to have the lowest per capita transit ridership of the three, despite the trains being great to ride. This is probably due mostly to a lack of really dense neighborhoods (tracts top out at 30 something?) and a spread out workforce.

Don't worry, I love Portland like a sibling. (And I love Vancouver like the hot vixen that she is!)

[roner]

I agree mhays. It's still easy to drive around in Portland compared to the other cities, which only ecourages more driving. Also Portland is far less dense than Vancouver, and a little less than Seattle, but not for long. The system is going to be huge asset in twenty years.

[mhays]

Seattle is densifying at a fast pace also, with several thousand units underway at the moment.

Am I guessing right that we have the same population (city of) in 25 fewer square miles? Around 580,000 in 83.7 sm (?) in 2006. In fairness to Portland, you could probably deduct some park land to make the density numbers a bit closer.

[der Reisender]

taking a break from comparing the cities, if anyone is interested in seeing the many, many designs for Portland infill homes and the city program to make pre-approved plans easy to build, its at http://www.livingsmartpdx.com/home/. lots of interesting designs in there, kinda sad that some of the mediocre ones have won out (there are only two that are 'ready to build' so far)

[mhays]

The Higgins and Vargas ones look good -- i.e. the relatively traditional ones. Some of the modern stuff is astonishingly ugly.

I think some architects forgot that people other than architects live in Portland. There's a reason why modern design isn't popular in houses.

[Hoodrat]

I think that holding onto this detached single family home ideal is seriously outdated. If Rainier Valley is zoned multi family (as it should be) then townhouses and multi storey apts./condos should be built there. For chrissakes, the light rail line is going right through the neighborhood. This whole hippie utopian back to nature ideal of small detached cottages constructed in the middle of town (where far denser solutions would work more efficiently) might work in a moderate growth place like Portland, but it's unrealistic for the rest of us.

There is a serious affordability crisis out there, and it wont be solved by planners who still romanticize outdated ideals of detached single family homes.

[JMancuso]

if i were vancouver, i would correct anyone calling me 'northwest'

[mhays]

I think that holding onto this detached single family home ideal is seriously outdated. If Rainier Valley is zoned multi family (as it should be) then townhouses and multi storey apts./condos should be built there. For chrissakes, the light rail line is going right through the neighborhood. This whole hippie utopian back to nature ideal of small detached cottages constructed in the middle of town (where far denser solutions would work more efficiently) might work in a moderate growth place like Portland, but it's unrealistic for the rest of us.

There is a serious affordability crisis out there, and it wont be solved by planners who still romanticize outdated ideals of detached single family homes.

You're right. But I still like Seattle's recent trend of tearing a house down for 2 to 6 townhouses. That's pretty much like Portland's idea but on average less land per unit. Townhouses are the missing link in Seattle's traditional housing picture, which was comprised on houses and apartments only. I also like mother-in-law units, alley houses, etc.

I'm talking about neighborhoods that are currently houses. We should also keep growing neighborhoods that are primarily much higher density.

[MtnClimber]

if i were vancouver, i would correct anyone calling me 'northwest'

I'm not sure why you would say that. I believe it is generally accepted that the pacific northwest encompasses a geographic area spanning southeast alaska, including British columbia, Washington and southern oregon.

Even before Anglo-Saxons came, the cultures along the northwest coast had a similar language and tribal affilations. The Salish, Haida, and Tlingit tribes were all considered northwest coast culture centered around salmon.

I have to agree with one of the previous posters that all three cities are not identical, but they do share a similar climate, geography, ecology, history and ideology that goes beyond mere political boundaries. And the region has been intertwined because of its isolation more so then many other parts of North America.

[SpongeG]

seattle and vancouver are only about 140 miles apart

i think seattle and vancouver have much more in common with each other than Vancouver and most Canadian cities

i am going down tomorrow for christmas shopping :)

[roner]

Hey! What's wrong with calling Vancouver PNW? It only takes me about 5 hours (including border crossing) to get there as long as traffic in the Emerald city is not that bad.

Hoodrat, I'm not sure Seattle or Vancouver is growing any faster than Portland. The area added 26,000 last year and of those 9,000 in the city. By 2025 the area is set to add another million. I've seen a figure that sights Seattle with 1.6 million more by 2040, so it's conceivable that Portland would also add 1.6 by 2040. I thought the contest was a great idea that including some real misses, but also some great stuff.

A recent count by the city auditor found 4 percent of Portland residents get to work by bike; 9 percent in some neighborhoods

Mhays, this is quote from the Seattle Times I thought might be of interest. The next highest city is around 2.2 (Tucson) percent. With 160 miles of bike lanes it's conceivable that bicycling has taken some of Trimet's riders and revenue.

And you're right about the parks, Forest Park is 5,700 alone..

[WesTheAngelino]

So what is the transit share of the three metros? Anyone got numbers?

[Overground]

I think what some British Columbians mean when they say they're offended(not me) by being in the PNW is that Vancouver is technically in SW Canada. I don't think people from southwestern BC have a problem being with such fine company as Oregon and Washington, it's the terminology.

Hence, a term like Cascadia might be more appropriate for some people as it leaves geographical differences aside. My 2 cents.

[roner]

funny, I never really thought of it like that.

[MtnClimber]

I think what some British Columbians mean when they say they're offended(not me) by being in the PNW is that Vancouver is technically in SW Canada. I don't think people from southwestern BC have a problem being with such fine company as Oregon and Washington, it's the terminology.

Hence, a term like Cascadia might be more appropriate for some people as it leaves geographical differences aside. My 2 cents.

Good point....

I think Cascadia is a better term. But Pacific Northwest will due as well. Technically Vancouver is SW BC, yet the term pacific northwest can be used interchangably.

As a poster has already mentioned most vancouverites have more in common with Seattle and Portland then a place like Toronto, etc. etc. Even in a little run down place like Lilleot B.C. you get more seattle tv channels then anything else.

That being said, I love the idea of Cascadia.

[raggedy13]

When you put political boundaries aside and think of it in terms of settlement, Vancouver is in fact the most northwest metropolis on the continent (and is of course on the Pacific), hence it should see no shame in being called part of the Pacific Northwest.

[Steve de Ohio]

My deux cents:

I don't think it's out of line to refer to Vancouver as PNW as I don't think that term refers solely to US geography, as Vancouver, regardless of the existence of a national border, is still in NW North America, at least as far as the widely populated part of the continent is concerned. That is to say that even though NW North America could be only considered AK and Yukon, but since so few people live up there relative to elsewhere, the PNW is really considered by a lot to be the northwestern extent of settlement.

[Steve de Ohio]

double post

[Steve de Ohio]

Oops, someone beat me to it (o'.')b

[pdxtex]

hmm. from what i can see, there is alot of infill development going on in portland but its not single family detached homes. ive seen a few "skinny" houses in NE PDX but as far as i can tell, the majority of new residential infill stuff within the city (outside of downtown and the pearl district) is pretty much 3 to 5 story condo developments or rowhousing.

[Nutterbug]

Sorry guys, but Portland's transit easily trumps all cities in the PNW and has the finest women.:yes:

Read: whitest?

[J. Will]

"But somehow Portland still manages to have the lowest per capita transit ridership of the three"

IIRC, metro Seattle and metro Portland both do around 35 linked trips per capita per year, and Vancouver does somewhere around 90. I did a search though, and can't find a list.

A while ago someone posted percentage of commuters taking transit to work. I believe Vancouver was around 11% and Seattle around 6%. Don't remember Portland.

Vancouver has the advantage of frequent service. SkyTrain runs about every 90 seconds during peak times, and I believe their "B-line" buses run every 2-3 minutes during peak times. If Seattle and Portland had this kind of frequency they'd probably get a lot more ridership. Many people don't want to stand around waiting.

[Nutterbug]

seattle and vancouver are only about 140 miles apart

i think seattle and vancouver have much more in common with each other than Vancouver and most Canadian cities

I'm not sure about that.

There, they have Nordstroms, Macy's, JC Penneys, Target, etc. Here, we have The Bay and Zellers.

They have Jack in the Boxes. We've got Tim Hortons.

We don't get half the jokes on The Daily Show. They'll be dumbfounded if you quoted a line from Trailer Park Boys to them.

We actually know who The Tragically Hip is here, and are familiar with their songs.

To mention a few.

[Eagle rock]

Trimet (Portlands transit agency) carries 307,000 people a day and I think that’s in a service area of around 1.5 million people. Trimets fact sheet claims that more people ride trimet then the transit system in Seattle.
http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf

[mhays]

The 2000 census quoted per-capita ridership for Seattle, King County, etc., that were substantially higher than Portland's. It's a bitch to look up though.

Portland has added significant new rail since then, and might have caught up at least partially. Meanwhile Seattle is adding new transit now (rail, streetcar, and most importantly a 20% increase in bus service), which could facilitate a 30% increase in ridership or thereabouts from 2006-2010.

Numbers are also different if you're counting people or counting rides. A bus system where many riders go straight Downtown on one bus might require fewer "rides" per trip than a rail system that requires feeders.

Remember also that the Seattle area has numerous transit systems.

[MarkDaMan]

^Portland's rail actually has increased from 15 miles in 1997 to 44 miles today, with another major line to Clackamas scheduled to open in 2009 along with the Washington County Commuter Rail. There is also new streetcar lines being deliberated (Lake O, Eastside, Burnside-Sandy) as well as rail to Vancouver on the new I-5 bridge.

The Blue Line to Hillsboro opened in September 1998 which completed the cross metro LRT spine. In the 8 years since, density in the WashCo corridor has boomed, however, because the housing infrastructure (Orenco Station to name one) wasn't livable until 2000 to 2001, and since tens of thousands of new housing units have been built along the completed line, in addition to the more recent infill along the Interstate and Airport lines, a 2000 census ridership count would be inaccurate.

For better comparisons of actual people movement, moreso than passenger trips, a better indicator is passenger miles traveled. For TriMet in 2000 they completed 347,258,520 passenger miles, in 2006 (fy ended in September) that number had increased to 406,289,280 passenger miles.

[MarkDaMan]

^forgot the link http://trimet.org/pdfs/ridership/busmaxstat.pdf

[mhays]

So if the census did their number today, including the added population, it sounds like the per capita ridership numbers would be better but not by a large margin.

PS, using 2004 numbers, King County's Metro (pop 1.8m) did 500,000,000 passenger miles on buses, while Tri Met did 242,000,000. Portland's light rail figure was 181,000,000. http://www.apta.com/research/stats/bus/20largest.cfm

According to Tri-Met, total boardings went from 81.2m in 2000 to 95.7m in 2006. http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/ridership/busmaxstat.pdf

[J. Will]

"For better comparisons of actual people movement, moreso than passenger trips, a better indicator is passenger miles traveled."

I would disagree with that. More miles travelled on the average trip could just mean lower density and further distances between places. I wouldn't consider that a positive.

[roner]

Any thoughts on the effect of bike transit?

[Rusty van Reddick]

Calgary's light rail has more passengers than Portland's even though it serves a metro with less than half the population.

[mhays]

Portland might have the edge in bicycling though Seattle isn't a slacker. Portland is flatter, and I assume it has more trails/lanes.

This Census data paints a sizeable difference between Portland and Seattle in walking and using transit:

Census 2000, city of Seattle residents: 7.4% walked to work, 17.6% rode transit to work. From the 2005 American Community Survey (by the Census Dept.), 20,700 walked, and 51,300 used transit (why no percentages?).

In 2000, city of Portland residents: 5.3% walked, 12.2% rode transit. In 2005, 11,100 walked and 34,200 used transit.

Both ought to see large boosts in pedestrian commuting as we experience downtown housing booms, and housing booms in and near many other job centers.

[kool maudit]

Read: whitest?




it's incredibly unfair to allege something so culturally taboo as racial prejudice on so little evidence.

[WesTheAngelino]

Dude, the paler the better!!!

[Nutterbug]

it's incredibly unfair to allege something so culturally taboo as racial prejudice on so little evidence.

Sometimes, you have to poke and probe to find out what somebody really means when they say something. Otherwise, it's just mind boggling that a random selection of women would be so much better looking in one locale than in another.

Besides, it's good to put him on the spot for his shameless home town boosterism. :D

[Hoodrat]

Dude, the paler the better!!!

uhh...speak for yourself dude

[roner]

Sometimes, you have to poke and probe to find out what somebody really means when they say something. Otherwise, it's just mind boggling that a random selection of women would be so much better looking in one locale than in another.

Besides, it's good to put him on the spot for his shameless home town boosterism

You must be kidding yourself. Nice way to take a little "blazers are better than the sonics" poke into a statement about race. Keep reaching.....:koko:

[LeftCoaster]

I think of Seattle and Portland as being closer in my mind than Calgary or Edmonton... I feel much more sense of belonging with a "cascadia" culture, as opposed to a "western Canada" culture.

Its easy for a city to be progressive when money and growth are good. The cities listed in this article have strong economies. It is not my belief that these cities have strong economies due to their progressive nature. I believe they have a progressive nature due to their strong economies. It is a lot easier to be progressive when you don't have a deteriorating infrastructure and a rapidly declining population/tax base.

That is why I believe cities like St. Louis are far more progressive. They have to deal with a plethora of problems the Pacific Northwest cities couldn't even imagine, yet still push forward with massive urban renewal projects, light rail, etc.

Not quite, untill very recently Vancouver's economy was in the doldrums, like absolutely horrible, infact it was close to the worst in Canada, and yet it still was very progressive in its planning. And for the record Vancouver has some pretty serious slums, from the East side (poorest neighbourhood in canada, and worst AIDS rate in the entire western world), to Whalley they are most definetly unplesant neighbourhoods, which many feel unsafe in. The issue is that ghettos in Canada are inherantly much different than their American counterparts, simply due to the social welfare stucture in Canada.

And I wouldnt be so quick to dismiss the Vancouver transit system, just because much of the infrastructure is based on bus service, it is a very good bus system, and getting from one point in teh city to another is acually quite easy... if you can bear the same of riding the welfare wagon. It will also be substanitally more impressive with the completion of the Streetcar program and the Canada line in a few years... although im sure Seattle and Portland's systems will have been massively upgraded since then.

And in defence of Calgary and Edmonton, i think it would be difficult to find cities in the US of comprable size with as well developed transit infrastructure. In fact i cant think of a single example that is even close.

[Nutterbug]

Sometimes, you have to poke and probe to find out what somebody really means when they say something. Otherwise, it's just mind boggling that a random selection of women would be so much better looking in one locale than in another.

Besides, it's good to put him on the spot for his shameless home town boosterism

You must be kidding yourself. Nice way to take a little "blazers are better than the sonics" poke into a statement about race. Keep reaching.....:koko:

Sorry. Just a little Hongcouver sensitivity here, especially from one who is not of the traditional ruling majority race.

So maybe you can elaborate. What puts Portland women above the rest? Better style? Better dress? Better fitness?

[MolsonExport]

I'm not sure about that.

There, they have Nordstroms, Macy's, JC Penneys, Target, etc. Here, we have The Bay and Zellers.

They have Jack in the Boxes. We've got Tim Hortons.

We don't get half the jokes on The Daily Show. They'll be dumbfounded if you quoted a line from Trailer Park Boys to them.

We actually know who The Tragically Hip is here, and are familiar with their songs.

To mention a few.

I agree with you Nutterbug. Having lived in Quebec (Montreal), Alberta (Edmonton), Ontario (London) and British Columbia (Kelowna, and Vancouver; the latter for 4 years total), there is much commonality (and naturally, many differences as well) among Canadian cities that disappears once you cross the border into the US. I found Seattle and Vancouver to be very different, aside from the spectacular settings and Pac northwest climate.

[MtnClimber]

Sorry. Just a little Hongcouver sensitivity here, especially from one who is not of the traditional ruling majority race.

So maybe you can elaborate. What puts Portland women above the rest? Better style? Better dress? Better fitness?

Portland women may be nicer then seatle and vancouver, both of the other cities seem to be snobby lol

[nbrindley]

I think the modern desings in the competition are generally much better looking than the more 'traditional' styled ones. The proportions of the winners just look strange, like someone took a photo of a house and shrank the width. The modern designs don't have that problem because there is not set proportions for the style.

[Black Box]

Another episode of Battle of the Skyscraperpage Wonks.

[Doug]

Culturally, I found my 5 years in Seattle to be more similar to Calgary than to my 2 years in Vancouver. Calgary and Seattle are commercial centers, Vancouver is not.

[Nutterbug]

I agree with you Nutterbug. Having lived in Quebec (Montreal), Alberta (Edmonton), Ontario (London) and British Columbia (Kelowna, and Vancouver; the latter for 4 years total), there is much commonality (and naturally, many differences as well) among Canadian cities that disappears once you cross the border into the US. I found Seattle and Vancouver to be very different, aside from the spectacular settings and Pac northwest climate.

Thanks in large part to CRTC social engineering.

[PDXPaul]

Portland>Seattle

At least for getting around in. MAX doesn't get stuck in traffic. Metro buses do.