Matt, I say this with the utmost respect.

Have you lost your fucking mind?

If you really consider tract homes and strip malls to be signs of "evolution", then more power to ya.

(Seriously, I don't understand this at all. Is this one of those hipster ironic things I don't get anymore since I turned 30? Is this the journalistic equivalent of wearing a mesh-back cap and pretending to like PBR?)

you're just running from the problem. if you move to beaverton, the terrorists have already won.

I could not care less whether Portland is "monochromatic" or not. It is my choice to live here, and I have no influence over other's choices. Let them live where they want. If it's here, fine. If not, fine. Diversity isn't some magic number that makes a place alright.

Non-connective streets, big blocks, giant roads, land-use/transportation patterns that force everyone to drive everywhere, even just 1/4 mile for some milk, transit that doesn't work because everything is too damn spread out, drivers who hate bicyclists, strip malls, giant parking lots, ugly ugly ugly tract homes and low-density office parks, chain stores everywhere....

Other than that, sounds GREAT!!!!!

The take-away I get from the article is:

Beaverton is 20 percent denser than Portland

It's a nice place...I just don't feel comfortable there. Portland is plenty diverse for me (tho I live in Baja Gresham (near Mall 205, that is)), and it's home.

I'm a heavy eastsider, in other words...and if I can get on my bike (which even this area of Portland gives me opportunities to do) I'll be less heavy maybe.

While I am prolly not your target demographic, I gotta throw my 2 cents in.

I am a 30 something white guy who has lived here for just over 5 years. Until I moved here I spent all my time in the inner-city neighborhoods of cities like Minneapolis and Atlanta. When I moved to Portland I took a job in Beaverton. I decided to live near my work so as to avoid a commute, spend less time in the car, find a house that I could afford AND let my (formerly apartment dwelling) sons have a yard to roam in.

Would I live out here if I didn't work out here? No.
Would I live out here if I was still single or had no kids? No.
Am I typical SUV driving-suburban-soccer dad? No.
I'm not alone, either.

I am teaching my sons to tread lightly on the earth, eat from our garden, care for our (Hispanic) neighbors, and love life where ever they find it. Even if that means living West of the tunnel.

Over the past couple of years we have invited lots of our inner-city friends to come out and have dinner with us in our yard. Without exception the response we get is akin to... "I'll never slag living in the suburbs again. This is great out here."

I agree.

Really? This is how you're trolling for comments now?

Really? This is how you're trolling for comments now?

So...if I'm reading you correctly, your solution to gentrification in Portland is to incite a mass exodus to the suburbs which would drive up property values and push people farther from anything worth a damn. How long do you think Beaverton's diversity would last?

Not to mention the suburb's reliance on big business for the vast majority of their goods. Or the increase fuel consumption 'cause nobody can fucking walk/bike/bus anywhere.

Whose side are you on anyway???

One little correction: Beaverton is NOT more densely populated than Portland.

Stadler included 5,000 acre Forest Park, and the approximately 5,000 additional acres of Portland Parks in his density calculation. Naturally, nobody can legally live in a park. Additionally, roughly 8% of Portland is water.

Subtract both Beaverton's and Portland's park acreage, recalculate the densities of livable land and you will find that Portland was, is, and probably always will be denser than the burb to the west.

"Subtract both Beaverton's and Portland's park acreage, recalculate the densities of livable land and you will find that Portland was, is, and probably always will be denser than the burb to the west."

PWN3D!

The diversity thing is totally true-in one strip mall you can find a Chili's, an Olive Garden, a T.G.I.Friday's, AND a Red Robin! Although I don't usually go to Chili's since I don't like "ethnic" food.

So many neighborhoods in portland are like their own little suburbs anyway, all being afraid of the brown man and what not.

Matt, you seem to have gotten the same reaction I got when I told some people that I'd spent the day in Vancouver and enjoyed it. The general reaction was that I was trying to be deliberately provocative, or else it was a campy, ironic lark. Nope - it was just nice to walk around downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods (there are some beautiful houses out there), stroll on the river, have dinner at Fort Vancouver and watch the bikers and the sunset.

Same with Beaverton and Hillsboro. I'm not sure I'd want to live there (although downtown Hillsboro appeals to me), but I have a good time when I visit

I don't think I'd like to live in Beaverton or Hillsboro, but it's not all "tract homes and strip malls," any more than Portland is the lack thereof. (What are The Gregory, The Eliot, etc. if not stacked tract houses?)

One thing that struck me when I moved here was that Portland and its suburbs and neighboring cities reversed the traditional notion of city/suburb: here it's the central core that's filled with the upper-middle-class white families.

It was only later that I realized all the jokes about Hillsburrito, Beavertron, etc. weren't delivered with some affection. The venom on the surface was the same as the venom beneath. A lot of people who would recoil in horror if someone was to be judged by his/her ancestry or sexual orientation have no problem painting their neighbors with the same dumb brush.

I'll take issue with the statement "you can't ride a fixie around." It's a myth that the west side isn't bike-friendly.

While I technically live in unincorporated Washington County (just north of Beaverton proper) and ride an 8-speed folder, not a fixie, you can, in fact, ride almost anywhere on the west side.

From my house, it's a 2 minute walk to the grocery store, a 10 minute ride to Trader Joe's, 5 minutes to the library, 15 minutes to "downtown" Beaverton (such as it is), and 10-15 minutes to the MAX line to get into downtown. I can walk to great locally-owned sushi and ride to better indian food than anything in the city. (Curry Leaf at Bethany Village -- it's that good.)

There are wide bike lanes on almost every major road. I feel far safer riding on the west side than I do in Portland (and I have a multi-modal commute home at midnight).

Beaton, I'm 24 and I still don't get it.

I actually think Beaverton is pretty awesome. But instead of all of Portland moving there, I think we should annex it. What's with the artificial division, anyway? Without Portland, there would be no Beaverton. Plenty of Beavertonians take advantage of what Portland has to offer (and vice versa) so why not join together in one big happy metropolitan super-city? Works for London.

Beaverton, more like Queeferton

I think we all should just understand that both suburbs and cities have a function to play in any given metro area.

Suburbs... cities... why can't we all just come together and hate on the rural towns?

Kevin puts it better than I can: "A lot of people who would recoil in horror if someone was to be judged by his/her ancestry or sexual orientation have no problem painting their neighbors with the same dumb brush."

density is *horrible*. i understand the theory of not making people drive so far, but in practice? density is THE SUCK. i lived in koreatown in l.a. for a year. awful. car alarms every 5 minutes. constant noise from other sources. your neighbors got cockroaches? guess what? you got cockroaches. you were leered at by five to ten people every block you walked. but what was the point of walking? all the fun businesses were in the neighborhoods with *houses*, where the rich people lived. in portland, i can split the rent four ways, and live within walking or biking distance of everything i want. anyone who advocates high-density living should have to spend a year in koreatown. it's awful.

I would love to see some sources on the diversity of each Portland and Beaverton. Portland may be more diverse because there is Eastern Euros, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Whites, but my feeling of Beaverton is that it's mostly Whites and Latinos. But I would love to learn some concrete numbers if someone has them. It helps to remeber Matt, if you want a more diverse neighborhood you can move to 122 and woodstock and live among many immigrants and you're still in Portland. It seems, along with most other Portlanders, you believe Portland stops at 82nd. The last numbers I saw pointed out that Portland's diversity was growing not shrinking.

The road to Damascus? Do you mean Foster?

Sorry but I can't help but ask you
Matt. Since England is nearly 90 percent white and Portland is just over 70 percent, is this not the most diverse place you haved lived?

Spent much time in South London, Tmose?

Tmose, that's easy. Go to www.census.gov where you can look up 1990 or 2000 census stats for any city, or by zip code, etc. or you can use the 5 year American Community surveys from 1995 or 2005 for sample data for same geographies and data sets. I'll go look up some stats (I'm a stats geek) and get back to you.

Beaverton, Hillsboro and the like are becoming more diverse ethnically and in economic demographics while Portland is becoming more homogeneous.

That said, commenter above is correct on the density issue. Stadler did include Forest Park which whacks out the density numbers and should be discluded.

Land Use aside, however I like Beaverton for its ethnic enclaves (good eats). Jin Wah's dim sum sure kicks ass over anything in Portland or the Eastside. I even the Dutch store. Mmmm. Dutch chocolate soft drink and salty licorice anyone? Also, Uwajimaya, the 5 good Korean restaurants out there, Channa Masala in Hillsboro has best Indian Food around, etc. etc.

Like it or not and lifestyle and values aside, the suburbs are a reality in the region and the rest of the U.S. They help support the economy as much as areas in the Central City.

Finally, London is one of the most diverse cities in Europe, so wtf?

You're just getting older. It's perfectly natural to begin to enjoy and want the life your parents live. You should move there, you would like it.

BRAINS...BRAINS...UNGH (ambles off)

Actually London is 70 percent white which happens to be about the same as Portland according to wiki, but if you think it's more diverse than so be it.

I just think it's funny that a limey is lecturing Americans about diveristy on a regular basis but he comes from a country that's 90 percent white and its major city is 70 percent white (like Portland).
Sounds like you've got your work cut for yourself back home Davis.

Thanks for the heads up on the census. I checked it out and Portland, Hillsboro, Beaverton are 75, 70, and 73 percent white respectively. So, I still don't see what you guys are on about. Yeah it's like NYC out there in Beaverton, that 2 percent is HUGE!

I used to live in the city and loved it but when I decided to get married and have children it was a no brainer. How often do you hear stories of funding crises in the Beaverton School District? How often do you see anything on the news about consolidating schools in Beaverton? There's no chance in Hell that I would send my kid to a Portland Public School.

Tmose, as a professional stats type, the best way to look at both Portland and Beaverton is to compare the larger counties. Why? Portland has a huge population (and larger geography)than Beaverton proper (which is used in the Census) is less than 70,000 people. That's like trying to compare the Irvington Neighborhood or St. Johns with Southeast Portland. Dig? A better comparison would be to look at Multnomah County vs. Washington County and then look at the State as a whole.

Sorry to get all techno-geek on you, but census stuff is tricky like that.

Also, same with London. Look at Greater London (as most of the diversity is in outlying areas just like it is here). So Pick the London Metropolitan Statistical Area and compare to another Metropolitan Stat Area in England...

Ah, you get it. And PS We all know Wikipedia is a well verified source of information...right?

@10, @11, and @26, I do NOT include Forest Park, other parks, or waterways in the density measurements I cite. Beaverton has 20% more people per square mile of "inhabitable land" than does Portland. This statistic is less surprising when you consider the single-family home fabric that dominates Portland's neighborhoods. By contrast, Beaverton has many more two- and three-story multi-dwelling buildings and more closely-packed homes.

According to the US Census (my source), which measures each city's geographical size by adding up its "inhabitable land," Beaverton has 4,830 people/square mile and Portland has 3,939 people/square mile.

What is shocking is how low both figures are (compare, for example, Vancouver, B.C., at 12,800/square mile). But my point is simply that any arguments against "sprawl" must be levied against Portland as much or more so than against Beaverton. Apparently, we sometimes like sprawl, if it is organized the way it is in Portland.

More important, to me anyway, is the chance that we might look at Beaverton, North Portland, The Pearl, Gresham -- at all parts of this urban environment -- without the blinding prejudices and hostility generated by false distinctions, such as "center" and "suburb." Who drew those lines? And isn't it regrettable that they divide this urban area so strangely and divisively?

By the way, @10, @11, and @26, could you let me know where you got the idea that I included Forest Park, etc. in my calculations. I've been frustrated by the lack of substantive response on the research I'm doing, and I wonder where these assumptions about my research come from. They certainly get in the way of the more useful discussions I'm hoping to help provoke.

email me, if you like: businessofutopia@gmail.com

Organization of that density, as Matthew said, EXACTLY. The commenter who ran screaming from Koreatown was in a city where everyone (effectively) drives a car and everyone (nearly) coming to any given neighborhood from outside it does so by car. Portland contains vast tracts of barely-inhabited industrial land, as well as of houses with big lawns. Though one of those drive-in suburban style apartment complexes with a parking shelter for every car and a sidewalk-less entry might be more dense, I wouldn't prefer to live there than in my medium-density, in-city, pedestrian and bike-oriented neighborhood. Honestly, I've never really been to Beaverton: I took the MAX out there once to check it out, saw a lot of long, inaccessible blocks, got off the train and saw no obvious mode of egress to anything inhabited-looking, and got on the other train and headed back in. Matthew says my favorite city, Mexico City, is the ultimate Zweichenstadt (check out his writing on this perfect-scatter type of urban geography) but the difference is Mexico City has only 2 million vehicles for 18 million people, and many of those are buses. A good host can make a suburban home an island of bliss, crafted in the bosom of their warm personality. But I like people walking on the street, and the charm of those city patterns which (until recently interrupted) served humanity very well for 10,000 years.

you are an idiot. This is the most sickening logic Ive heard from a white person in a long time. BTW "spades" is the new N word thanks to you. Lets celebrate diversity by flooding it with white people. Those asians and mexicans wont know what hit them...oh yeah can you leave the dim sum and lemon grass on your way out...thhhaaannkkks

you are an idiot. This is the most sickening logic Ive heard from a white person in a long time. BTW "spades" is the new N word thanks to you. Lets celebrate diversity by flooding it with white people. Those asians and mexicans wont know what hit them...oh yeah can you leave the dim sum and lemon grass on your way out?...thhhaaannkkks

you are an idiot. This is the most sickening logic Ive heard from a white person in a long time. BTW "spades" is the new N word thanks to you. Lets celebrate diversity by flooding it with white people. Those asians and mexicans wont know what hit them...oh yeah can you leave the dim sum and lemon grass on your way out?...thhhaaannkkks

I'm with Oakey: you're an idiot to the third power.

Yup; our suburbs are nowhere near as bad as people paint them to be...So let's move there! They got the good food! Those who say otherwise are snobs!

This fine, nuanced approach is made even more attractive by how whiningly self-righteous your tone is. 'Diversity', by its very nature is lots of things, not necessarily limited to wonderful food. It's a fine term to throw around while shaming the easily-shamed, though.

I've lived out there, I've worked out there. I'd rather live in North Portland (surrounded by 'diversity' in all its forms) where yes-I can walk around, and can keep my damn dollar local.

But I would like to see more Democrats move to Washington County, yes. And for that matter, if anyone who constantly agonizes in public about whether or not Portland is worth living in wants to move there too, who am I to say no?

Someone please buy my house. It's in North Portland.

Cuisine,

American cities are, collectively, the most diverse cities on the planet. Although Portland ranks dead last on this list, by world standards it's still a very diverse city. Take for instance Asia, Africa, Australia, Russia, Eastern Europe (and most of Western) the Middle East, all of these places are very monochromatic and bleached (or tanned) as Matt would say, yet I would hardly hear anyone make that claim against them.

Amsterdam is 90 percent white, German cities are all above 90 percent, same with Italy. Japanese cities are some of most monochromatic in the world. So why is Portland treated so differently? Certainly you wouldn’t go to Tokyo and demand that some more whites move there right? Does Amsterdam suck because it's all white? Is Rome a total drag because it's full of Italians? Too many Portland is cool, but will never be a “real” city because it’s 70 percent white. Yet countless real cities are far more homogenous, what gives?

Matthew Stadler says: "the blinding prejudices and hostility generated by false distinctions, such as "center" and "suburb." Who drew those lines? And isn't it regrettable that they divide this urban area so strangely and divisively?"

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Tmose: Grow up. You are arguing like a third-grader, and seem to be using research skills of an equivalent level.

I live out in Beaverton with my family and though at times we feel isolated from the community of the like-minded we would have lived next door to and had lifelong friendships with in Portland, we are mostly happy with the neighborhood we live in.

We're a few blocks from the rec center where my son walks to his swimming classes. He can also walk to his elementary, middle and high school, all of which are rated well above average. A New Seasons Market is set to open a few blocks away but there's also a Haggen and a Lamb's Thriftway, both of which are local chains that highlight local products on their shelves. In addition, the new Max line down 217 will allow us an easy bike ride to come into Portland on the train next year. We're a five-minute drive to local farmers where we often buy our produce in the summertime and driving into Portland takes all of 15 minutes where we get to see those friends we've met despite our address.

My son is forming friendships with children who come from families that are completely different from our own and standing up for his beliefs in the face of those values, which we think is pretty important. He regularly debates with the Baptist kid across the street about religion. According to her he's going to hell. According to him he believes in Buddha (we're not sure why as we're atheists). He also plays with an FBI agent's son who likes to wear dresses and takes tap dancing lessons. Our choice to move to the suburbs was political and personal. I don’t think isolating oneself according to political ideology is an answer I’m comfortable with anymore but I only realized that while we were looking for housing in Portland. I grew up in Madison, WI, an ultra-liberal, politically correct hub in the Midwest but moved here from one of the most racist cities in the US: Chicago.

It’s not perfect here (but where is it?). It’s harder to bike but incredibly easy to walk. Cars are a necessity but we’re thinking of ways to curb its use. The businesses lack the spirit of those in Portland. But there are some things here that are worth it. The library is amazing. The trees are gorgeous. It’s quiet and dark at night. The local Powell’s has the largest Children’s section on the west coast. And the last time there was a crime in the neighborhood was about 6 years ago when someone took the mail out of a mailbox down the street. That prompted our neighbor, who has lived here since the development popped up in the early 80’s, into changing his mailbox this summer to one that has a key. Every time I get twisted about where we live and vow to move into the city those things that mark this place as different pull me back. I can’t give them up anymore.

"My son is forming friendships with children who come from families that are completely different from our own and standing up for his beliefs in the face of those values, which we think is pretty important. He regularly debates with the Baptist kid across the street about religion. According to her he's going to hell. According to him he believes in Buddha (we're not sure why as we're atheists). He also plays with an FBI agent's son who likes to wear dresses and takes tap dancing lessons."

Lucky kid. And he should start writing stuff down about the FBI kid now. That's gonna make a great memoir some day!

Exactly @42. And my point -- contrary to the polarized message of Matt's post -- is that my family has a very similar experience here in North Portland. If you take time to actually live in and explore the whole urban region, the division of "city" and "suburb" makes less and less sense. So, why is does it persist and why does it trigger such passionate, divisive opinions? (Opinions that are confidently held, even by people who, @34, have "never really been to" the places they dislike.)

The post is divisive, Matthew, because I was hoping to draw out people's anti-suburban prejudice.

It seems to me that you think Portland's discourse is laden with prejudice about the suburbs, but honestly, I don't think that discourse even exists. People are so prejudiced, they don't even think of Beaverton as a part of this City.

But I'm aware that you want to create an open dialog on these issues, using some form of discourse that doesn't just get people to fight each other, and I approve. (Although it's not my style, of course). Perhaps you'd like to speak at one of the Mercury's upcoming debate clubs? I promise not to wade in and poke you with a stick!

Incidentally I didn't know you lived in North Portland. You're not selling your house, are you?

The numbers are from censuses peformed by the coutries mentioned, and thanks for the thoughtful response.

Beaverton Schools are not going through the pains of Portland Public Schools because of Portland people having kids and moving to Beaverton. By leaving Portland, with your socio-economic status, college degree, and desire for your child to succeed, you cause the problem of decreasing enrollment, which decreases the flow of money from Salem back to Portland. Research has shown that the socio-economic status of a student's family is less important to the academic success of that student than the socio-economic status of the majority of his or her student body. The young, successful, educated new parents of this city could improve our public schools just by sticking around...Imagine if just a quarter of those that stuck around volunteered once a week in the classroom, joined the PTA and Stand for Children, and worked with teachers to demand more electives and better class choices? That is why every time I hear of a friend moving to the 'burbs for better schools (or sending their kids to private schools or even participating in the transfer program), I feel kicked in the stomach...

Matt, although I think you have a great last name, I disagree with you on density. I just looked up the census data you refer to, and followed the link at the top where it says "For information on ... definitions", which led me to this PDF. If you go to page A-19 (page 512 of 637) in that PDF (in Appendix A, Census 2000 Geographic Terms and Concepts), you can read this definition of density:

Population and housing unit density are computed by dividing the total population or number of housing units within a geographic entity ... by the land area of that entity measured in square kilometers or square miles. Density is expressed as ... "people (or housing units) per square mile" of land area.

Nothing about "inhabitable" there. Can you say where you found that qualifier?

Regardless, I think the argument about density can be misleading. Using Matt's methodology, here are cities that are denser even than Beaverton: Johnson City, Gervais, and Cornelius. And these cities are also denser than Portland: King City, Gladstone, Maywood Park, Keizer, Talent, Milwaukie, Central Point, Gresham, Monmouth, and Hubbard.

Density is one metric, but it doesn't tell you about seemingly related metrics or concepts like walkability, sustainability, or livability, whatever that last one is. I know WalkScore.com is a bit gimmicky, but as some kind of metric, my house in SE Portland got a score of 80, which confirms what I know -- that I can walk to all sorts of bars, coffee shops, and restaurants in a few minutes. Most addresses I tried in Beaverton got a 50 or below. Sure, if you live near one of the shopping areas, there are lots of options, but it's not comparable to the parts of Portland where I live and play.

I'm not trying to denigrate the suburbs -- in particular, I love downtown Hillsboro, which is walkable and full of tasty Mexican food (Taqueria Ochoa!). Beaverton has its moments, as well. And sure, the distinction between suburb and city is somewhat strange -- downtown Hillsboro has more in common with downtown Portland, while much of Portland's fringe is every bit as sparse and strip-mall-y as Hillsboro's fringe.

Just sayin'.

It seems there's some dispute as to whether Stadler's research on density makes sense, after all...

tODD, really well spoken. I second your assessment.

Matt, that is the question. That is the point. It's not so much about density as density and a whole bunch of other issues including perception (where the "livability" issue comes up).

There has always been a struggle in the U.S. (yo -check out Thomas Jefferson's view of cities) between the notion of cities as bad places filled with over crowding, crime, and disease or vibrant cultural and economic centers and the idea of "Cities on a Hill" (Jefferson) to escape urban problems which in essence the suburbs can be seen as a modern version of. And think, where were the first suburbs and when were they built? Why were they created in the first place.

The lines between the two are often distinct historically, culturally and physically. I think this explains the whole divide on this blog post.

@48, you got part way down the same path I took when I researched this. No, the census does not specify clearly what they have included or excluded from the city's land area. So, last year, I followed up by calling the city's planning department and asking what the total square miles of inhabitable land are in Portland (specifically excluding parks, waterways, and industrial land). The figure they gave is the same as the census's total square miles for Portland. That cleared up the ambiguity that threw you off in the PDF.

The point of these numbers is to shift the debate away from misleading divisions, such as "suburb" or "sprawl" and "city," because the urban fabric we actually live in doesn't sort out that way. I'm enjoying low-density North Portland very much. It has more in common with Melia Donovan's Beaverton than it does with The Pearl. The Round, in Beaverton, is completely unlike North Portland or the Beaverton Melia lives in. Yet all of these are interconnected nodes in an urban fabric that does not sort out as a dense center surrounded by sprawl.

We would be well served by descriptions that acknowledge this de-centered urbanism, and helped us live in it fully and well. I think the dialog about Portland's livability often buys into old myths of the concentric city, at the great expense of those living here (by which I mean all of "here").

@48 and @50, you are right that density is not the issue, but, rather, some broader mix of qualities that are hard to measure or describe. That is why I have insisted on presenting the surprising numbers on density and also on the urban mix. Beaverton has those things; but something keeps us from loving a place that displays all the classic tropes of urbanism. Why is it so hard to love Beaverton as a city?

My hunch is that we are blinded by old presumptions about what cities look like, what they feel like, how they sort themselves out in time and space. We look for pedestrian squares or narrow streets with continuous facades pressing close on to them, and miss the incredible vitality of a dozen strip malls.

I think our imaginations are capable of doing much better than that. I've presented a more complete argument about this in my lecture online at the Town Hall site.

And @45, yes I would be happy to join any public discussion about these issues, especially if it considered the possibility of new descriptions that do not divide the urban region up into "city" and "suburbs."

Matthew wrote: "and miss the incredible vitality of a dozen strip malls."

Well, now you're gonna get it for sure. But I think I understand what you mean.

Many recent immigrants and other traditionally poor folks who want to start their own businesses are, today, often relegated to strip malls, because they can't afford the prices in the urban core. Is that it?

Matthew (#52), I understand and applaud your desire to help urban snobs (for lack of a better term) appreciate the world outside their central city core.

But I wonder if you're willfully ignoring culture in all this. A city isn't just a collection of statistics or even buildings, but people, who of course shape and are shaped by those other qualities. And while, yes, Beaverton excels in two measurements that seem to inform the Portland city culture in general -- density and diversity -- that doesn't mean that Beaverton's culture is all that close to Portland's.

(Yes, some people will use "culture" as justification for their own ignorance and biases against suburbs, but in the end those people are being honest about their culture (one of provincial superiority), even if it's not what they want it to be.)

But even for people who can appreciate "the incredible vitality of a dozen strip malls", that doesn't mean they want to live in Beaverton. I, for one, am tempted by Beaverton's seemingly better schools and cheaper housing prices.

But I treasure Portland's walkability, for one thing. And its environmentally-minded people. (Are there similarly environmental people in the suburbs? Sure. Is everyone in Portland "green"? No. But in the circles I run in -- that is, the culture I see, whether or not it's the same as other people's experience -- Portland culture is more environmental.) Portland architecture is more interesting to me, both old and new. Portland's quirky touches -- from sidewalk horses to inner-SE stencils -- are more prevalent. Portland front yards seem to be less about (the nightmare that is) grass and more about gardens. Portland seems to have fewer national chains and more local shops that are geared towards the culture I associate myself with. And, yes, Portland has Pioneer Square, which I enjoy for all sorts of reasons.

Calling such predilections "old" seems to miss the, if not universal resonance, then at least strong cultural resonance of things like plazas and main streets lined with stores. Where do you go in Beaverton to hang out for free or people-watch? Or are those similarly "old" notions? And it ignores the effects on a populace that, for example, Beaverton's car culture has, in which people are (even) more able to live in a bubble, not having to interact with people. On this latter point, Portland culture considers closely mingling with all manner of people on the bus to be a good thing, while it does not seem so in Beaverton.

Finally, as to "city" vs. "suburb", it's my experience that people don't really use those terms to refer to the actual municipal entities. I hope no one here is offended, but I'd bet that, when most people here talk about "Portland" or the "city", they mean a relatively small area of Portland proper, including downtown and the inner parts of NW, N, NE, and SE. They aren't imagining Linnton, Lents, etc. Similarly, I think that "suburb" doesn't refer to a suburb's downtown core so much as the area around it.

tODD: If your definition of culture means "things enjoyed by and created for rich, insular white people," then I see your point. Rembrandt exhibitions. Nordstrom Rack. (just kidding, I meant Brooks Brothers...)

But I have a different definition, and I felt there was a hell of a lot more culture and class in the Jin Wah restaurant in Beaverton than you'll find in most of the hipster lunch cafes downtown on a Wednesday lunchtime. Indeed, I think a true snob would move to Beaverton any day. Culture wise, Portland is somewhat "nouveau riche."

Matt, I feel like you're intentionally comparing apples to oranges. You're picking all the things you like about Beaverton and comparing them to what you hate about Portland. I mean seriously, you're comparing Jin Wah to "hipster lunch cafes"? Why not compare it to Wong's King or whatever that Vietnamese place is in the FuBonn megaplex (which compares favorably to Uwajimaya in my apparently rich, white, insular opinion).

And am I to understand that no rich, white, insular people are to be found in Beaverton? Then why does Beaverton also have a Nordstrom Rack? Is it something for all the Portland people who hate Beaverton to do while they're out there for some reason?

Sure, I also am no fan of the Portland Art Museum, which is why if I want to see art, I'll visit one of Portland's smaller galleries, or go to something at TBA. But what are you going to compare that with in Beaverton? I'm seriously asking -- I don't know.

I think it's great that you like Beaverton, but I don't understand your antipathy towards Portland. You seem to be taking an intentionally reactionary stance that is no different from the one you're complaining about. Beaverton has lots to recommend it. So does Portland. And Astoria, and Florence, and Ashland, and Pendleton.

tODD @56 and @54, I am also puzzled by Matt's predilection for polarizing the discussion. When I complained about that in an email he replied that he is "drawing people's prejudices out in order to challenge them." Later, when I asked him to please not try to polarize my comments, he said he was "not polarizing...just trying to piss you off.",br>

To be fair, this is standard operating procedure at The Mercury, and I'm sure Matt's approach is supported and appreciated there. Still, it's a little weird to keep "drawing out people's prejudices" in the midst of a discussion that has actually gotten to be interesting. In any case, as I said in my email to him, thanks to Matt for getting the whole discussion started.

Regarding "old" habits, I share most of yours, so I have the same difficulties in Beaverton. But I think that's my problem, not something that should be addressed by, say, New Urbanism, or other attempts to replicate older models of urbanism. I don't own a car, but that hasn't made Beaverton any more difficult than, say, SE Portland. Since I'm on a MAX line, Beaverton is actually considerably easier for car-less me than is SE Portland. Ditto free hanging out and people watching. It's as easy there as downtown. At least there's no sit-lie ordinance in Beaverton to make hanging out illegal.

In any case, I'm glad the fine grain of the urban terrain is becoming visible here, not masked behind incendiary dismissals of either the downtown or the rest.

Oh geez, @57, I just read my own last post and really I need to apologize to you Matt. Honestly, I'm sorry for being such a humorless bastard. Time to go do something more productive.

there's a nordstrom rack out here? damn! where!?!?

#50 regarding your question "And think, where were the first suburbs and when were they built?Why were they created in the first place."

Rome,"...at the beginning of the Christian era", according to Robert Bruegmann in his book Sprawl: a compact history. Though he cites earlier examples in Babylon and Ur, Romes seems to win as the best example of what we think of as suburban. With densities up to 150,000 people per square mile (or 200 people per acre) within the city walls, "industrial facilities, cemeteries(,)... businesses catering to travelers entering and leaving the city" and the poor dwelt outside the protection of the city walls in what the citizens of Rome called suburbium.

It seems there was no room and the poor could not afford to live in the core.

@47
The problems of Portland Public Schools cannot be laid at the feet of people moving to the suburbs. Many 'educated' families cannot afford to live in Portland.

Although my family still lives in Portland, we took our child out of PPS because of the abominable way the administration treated a very serious incident regarding our daughter's safety.

And, although I'm 'educated', it still takes two jobs to keep my daughter in private school.

Melia, genius. I wasn't even think that far back in history. I was thinking more about the turn of the century streetcar suburbs that were located, built, designed, and zoned to keep poor folks out.

I had no idea about Rome. Thanks.

To be fair, Matthew Stadler, I also said you should lighten up and learn to take a joke. Which is also standard practice at the Merc'.

It took you forty-five minutes to calm down and post another response on here. Heh-heh. Relax, mate. That's my advice. Nobody's trying to make a fool out of you!

i'm not sure anyone is still interested but i've been giving this some thought and wanted to add a couple of things before this turns the page.

i found the nordstrom rack and now understand the disdain for beaverton. somehow, in my time spent here i never knew of it or felt a need to find my way to tanasbourne (but i do like my new skirts).

there are some actually pretty interesting businesses, buildings and parks in beaverton but i don't believe they are anywhere near tanasbourne. what could be a rockin' downtown with a lot of midcentury architecture is unfortunately bound by badly laid out traffic that kills the desire to walk. i have read that these issues are to be addressed to help revitalize that area near the library. a lot of the houses near the "core" of the city are mid-century as well with awesome california-style stucco cottages in the mix.

in post 44 matthew wrote: " If you take time to actually live in and explore the whole urban region, the division of "city" and "suburb" makes less and less sense. So, why...does it persist and why does it trigger such passionate, divisive opinions?"

i feel the easiest way to answer that is the obvious: seperate governing bodies. beaverton has it's own government, hilsboro, gresham and milwaukee too. and as i've been told by a staff member of the city council people live in beaverton because it's not portland (and that's why i can't have chickens). so whether you're aware of it or not lines are being drawn quite formally.

so portland is fine. not much really to fight there. everybody sits in a circle and sings kum ba yah and gets to eat fresh eggs everyday....why not move out here and help change beaverton into a pedestrian friendly, chicken-loving haven for hipsters. let me know if you want to know where the eichlers are....they're really cool.