Back from a week in Portland – but didn’t have much time to take any photos.
Fortunately, Sam Newberg (“Joe Urban”) has done my job for me. In this piece , he does a smackdown comparing the ‘Pearl District’ (Portland’s Yaletown, sort of) with the North Loop (Minneapolis’s Pearl District) – “highlighting why I think Portland outshines so many cities with regard to urbanism. Attention to detail and money are a huge part of the equation.”
Be sure to click on the photo essay – it says so much so well.
The North Loop:
The Pearl District – at, as Sam Says, one of the most recognizable intersections in America:
What struck me the most about the photo essay was how absolutely empty both of these cities seemed in the photos. Where are all the people? Maybe it had to do with the time of day the photos were taken? Or perhaps I’ve become accustomed to much higher density in Vancouver.
The North Loop district looks much more “big city” than the Portland shots. You can imagine the area being a gritty district on the other side of town. The scale of the older warehouses contributes to that feel. Maybe they wanted to preserve the industrial feel of the area – which would be destroyed by the “softness” of planting trees (or maybe it has something to do with snowplowing?)
i.e. It’s like (for the most part) there are no trees planted on the loading docks in Yaletown. There are some in planters and a few in front of the former Brown’s Social House (across from the park)- but otherwise, there’s no big leafy foliage other than the park itself.
Even the heritage side of Homer Street in Yaletown (south side) only got trees a few years ago, and then they’re small compact trees so as not to detract from the industrial urban character of the streetscape.
It used to be that walking down that side of Homer on a hot summer day reminded you of walking down a sidewalk in a town on the prairies or Nevada or Arizona – for Vancouver, a pretty unique experience.
There might be something to keeping districts historically unique rather than genericizing them according to a planning rulebook.
I find the photo essay well done and it provides an interesting series of photos, but I’d have to admit that in general I don’t find either neighbourhood very appealing. In comparing two neighbourhoods that, in many ways are very similar we are able to notice some important differences (i.e. the streetcar and more trees in Portland). However, when the last photo looking down a Portland street asked “how could you beat this?”, I can think of countless places in the world that could. The modern buildings in these photos are most definitely better than some out there, but they are boring repetitions of what is frequently built across North America.
Looking down the street where I am now I could probably answer the last photo’s caption in a heartbeat. Although I am somewhat spoiled as I am currently living in Amsterdam (where I am studying urban planning).
I know it’s a difficult comparison to make, but here there are beautiful and unique buildings (most hundreds of years old and steeped in history but new ones too that fit in quite well), canals, trees, amazing bicycle infrastructure, small unique stores everywhere (not just safeways), cozy cafes, lively bars, lots of people out on the street – and, yes, even streetcars.
As I said, it is by no means a fair comparison, but I just think that while we’re criticizing poor city infrastructure, architecture and planning, let’s set the bar a little higher… It’s important to point out what was executed better under similar conditions, but we can’t then assume that being somewhat better, makes it flawless.
Thank you for the series of photos and something to think about..
don’t be too envious of Portland:
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001826-portlands-runaway-debt-train
@Oscar, while trying not to delve too much into personal attacks, we should be wary of what the author of that article has written, given his previous book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0595399487?ie=UTF8&tag=newgeogrcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0595399487
I wouldn’t exactly trust the author of an anti-transit, anti-density, pro-sprawl and pro-unsustainable freeway building book to pen an objective article on the finances of any transit agency, let alone in Portland, a city that has become a successful model for a mode of development he so adamently opposes
hmm did not know that..thanks for the heads up
however, the financial picture he outlines does seem to have some sound basis, and is something we all should be mindful of. these things aren’t cheap to build, maintain or operate and so without a strong economy to justify the investment, you can be left with crippling debt, regardless of how awesome your streetcar/lightrail system is
but i think i’m straying from the topic of this post a bit
I imagine Minneapolis is much nicer than here in Portland. but I’ve been wrong about such things before.