No Special Sauce or Secret Recipe: The Portland Way
/We see it regularly in the Facebook forwards and Twitter links from fellow Oregonians. The utopia we call Portland is one of the most livable cities in the United States[1] – an attribute affirmed by proud Rose City inhabitants and captivated visitors to our city alike. According to the Portland Plan, 80 percent of us are satisfied living in the city[2] - an astounding statistic seemingly at odds with the perceptions many of us often have of our hometowns elsewhere. Despite increasing local commentary that Portland is resting on its laurels, other U.S. cities still want to be like Portland and are seething Timbers green with envy at its successes.
Still, and despite Portland’s passionate courtship by the New York Times and other national publications boasting of the influence that the “Portland way” is having on other American cities, a stark reality exists across America’s urban spectrum: the built environments in much of the U.S. are failing to keep its inhabitants healthy. Obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and other inactivity-related indicators persist, begging the question: Why IS there still so little export of Portland’s health-oriented planning to other U.S. cities?
Sadly, there’s no special sauce or secret recipe for other U.S. cities to easily replicate. The complexity of Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals, the region’s urban growth boundary and other tools employed by the City of Portland to manage future growth and in response to federal and state environmental mandates are deeply ingrained, going back decades and generations. The ongoing co-evolution of these approaches, manifesting in the unique qualities associated with Portland today, arose from a unique ‘perfect storm’ of statewide conditions beginning well over forty years ago, through predicated actions by Oregon’s state, regional and local governments. Through past decades, these actions steadily inspired more civic improvements to Portland’s parks, streetscapes and neighborhoods as the quality of central city areas elsewhere in the U.S. largely declined.
Senate Bill 100, passed in 1973, is most notably recognized as the foundation to Oregon’s progressive land use laws. It was actually crafted not by planners to aid urban regions, but by rural proponents aiming to protect Oregon’s valuable farms, forests and rangelands from increasing sprawl. It’s overarching implication – mandating that the state’s metropolitan areas manage future growth through integrated land use and transportation planning – catalyzed the creation of the Portland region’s urban growth boundary while also demanding “wise use” of Oregon’s urban land in places like Portland.[3]
In the 1960s and 1970s, new federal environmental mandates, a national energy crisis and – perhaps most influential – declining economic vitality in downtown Portland from competition by car-friendly destinations in the Lloyd District and surrounding suburbs, gave rise to the city’s renowned innovative planning approach. The 1972 Portland Downtown Plan codified a new civic focus on public spaces and transit, leading to signature decisions like removing the Harbor Drive along Portland’s waterfront, defeating a brutal the Mount Hood Freeway proposal and completing Pioneer Courthouse Square’s transformation from a barren surface parking lot in the heart of downtown.
More recently, environmental mandates to limit sewage overflow into the Willamette River and protect federally endangered salmon species catalyzed proactive planning decisions that since established Portland as a national leader in urban stormwater management.[4] The results: green roofs are commonplace; stormwater gardens beautify city sidewalks and parks; and the Willamette River and its banks are increasingly becoming embraced by swimmers, kayakers, sunbathers and curious urban explorers.
Portland’s current stature as one of America’s ‘greenest’ cities is largely attributable to its inventive response to strict mandates and successfully capitalizing on its overcoming them through innovative planning solutions and collaborative partnerships. Conveniently, these directives continue to provide a strong defense for urban planners against naysayers who critique the city’s emphasis on creating highly compact neighborhoods connected by dense transit, cycling and walking networks.
The results? Portlanders are generally healthier than people in other U.S. cities. A recent Oregon Public Broadcasting story highlights that only “26 percent of Portlanders are considered obese, compared to 70 percent nationwide,” and that our city is “the third fittest city in the nation” – a characteristic seemingly largely attributable to Portlander’s increased preferences for walking and biking to work.[5]
‘The Portland way’ does not lend itself as a replicable road map with prescribed solutions. Instead, it represents the notion that a city can capitalize on unique challenges presented to it and reap long-term rewards by doing so. Portland has since realized far greater benefits to health, livability and economy than the crafters of Oregon’s SB100 could have ever imagined. Decades after Portland’s transformative change in trajectory, its continued evolution still sets the threshold for other U.S. cities to surpass.
[1] In 2014, British magazine Monocle ranked Portland 23rd out of 25 world cities (and the only U.S. city) in its Quality of Life Index measuring “crime rates, healthcare, state-funded education, and business climate, along with a livability assessment that considers green space, culture, sunshine, and local businesses, among other factors.” http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2014/08/04/13334086/
[2] Based on survey results from the Portland Plan (adopted by Portland City Council in April 2012): http://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm?c=56527
[3] http://www.oregonmetro.gov/urban-growth-boundary
[4] http://www.werf.org/liveablecommunities/studies_port_or.htm
[5] http://www.opb.org/news/blog/newsblog/portland-among-americas-top-5-healthiest-us-cities/