This past week, the local grassroots “Bus Project” organization held another in a series of debates about issues relevant to our community.  The topic du jour happened to be the impact of gentrification on the city of Portland.  Use of the term, gentrification, is itself contentious, having evolved to absorb hints of racism mixed into the discussion of class upheaval within working class neighborhoods.  Residents of Northeast and North Portland can see how developers and the upper middle class are changing the face of their neighborhoods in rapid fashion.

The three panelists who debated current and future policy were Michelle Reeves of Windemere Real Estate, John Charles, Jr. from the Cascade Policy Institute and Rich Rodgers, a senior staffer for city commissioner Erik Sten.   Interestingly enough, among the hundred-plus people in attendance at the event, there were perhaps two people of color.  The one invited panelist who was to represent the neighborhood activist group was apparently unable to attend due to a family emergency.  So it’s no small irony then that the entire debate was taking place between, and in front of, a well meaning but over-represented faction of mostly white urban dwellers. 

The debate itself was interesting but too short to delve into substantive discussion.  Charles’ main assertion during the debate was that most governmental involvement (re: urban growth boundary, light rail, etc.) in the area’s development has had negative consequences in terms of the city’s affordability (due to rapidly increasing home prices) and livability.  Not surprisingly, the other panelists took an opposing view – with their viewpoints differing more in extent than substance.  Rodgers’ primary counterpoint (and I am paraphrasing here) was that increasing home values do benefit current homeowners and the proper mix of mandated affordable housing with urban renewal subsidies does make the city more livable.

Having lived in three rather diverse cities in the northeast, midwest and south, I have found Portland to be rather an odd duck - with its liberal populace bent on overcoming the city’s past history of redlining neighborhoods while building an eco-friendly community with an emphasis on bicycle use and mass transit.  I need to sidetrack here for a minute because I’m reminded how Portland’s urban planners want to use transportation patterns to help guide the city’s development.  I’m sure they understand that high density housing is not conducive to keeping middle class families within city limits – and as people age and marry and have kids, they tend to want to move somewhere with good schools, more affordable housing and open spaces.  

So who’s left in the city?  Lower middle class and poor families in non-gentrified areas of town, artists and young hipsters (sans kids) – who like being around artists – in the gentrified areas of town.  Then as these newly diverse areas become more homogenized, more expensive and less diverse, the creative class moves on and wealthy folks move in, and the cycle repeats in another part of town – at least until the city runs out of areas to gentrify.  Better that the city planners understand a vibrant community needs diversity – not just as a transition between phases, but as a requirement for sustainable growth.  Don’t just give subsidies to developers and tax abatements to new condo owners – actually develop plans that keep thirty, forty, fifty percent of the existing community in place.  And I don’t believe this is done with simply building a few affordable housing units – develop incentives for the existing residents to stay with more outreach through churches, mosques and at the individual level.  Most residents probably don’t feel as though upscale restaurants and trendy condominiums will benefit them as a group.  Investing in local schools and community centers may not be as lucrative as tending to the business class, but would serve the people better.

And despite its largely white population (some 70% according to the last census), much of Portland’s new growth is fueled by immigrants so further diversification of the area at large seems inevitable.  Unfortunately, most of these newcomers will live in the suburbs due to affordability issues - and so the question remains whether resulting demographic changes to Portland brought about by newcomers but offset by gentrification, will create a more – or less, segregated community and by correlation, a more – or less, vibrant community.

Up next month in this series of debates, I believe, is land use planning. 

That should be lively.

This entry was posted on Monday, August 27th, 2007 at 12:22 am and is filed under Livability. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.