Portland has no idea how to deal with the growth we get now, much less anything that would qualify as a 'boom'. Traffic is frequently terrible with no real plan in place on how to deal with it. The canned answer is 'more bikes and light rail' but that's clearly not going to cut it.

Plus, houses are already getting quite expensive here, largely due to that UGB you mention. Unless we're willing to compromise on that (and as a long-time resident who appreciates being able to reach something like wilderness pretty easily, I hope we do not) then pretty quickly we are going to have SF-level housing problems.

Portland; home of impractical solutions, for anti-problems.

I honestly love portland, but it doesnt want to be an urban area.

"due to that UGB" ...

Man, developers always say that, and it's simply never been true. There's so much undeveloped land still within the UGB, and so many opportunities to build densely close into city limits--a lot of which is happening, but a lot more of which could still happen.

Portland does have a big housing problem, it's true, but the solution isn't in opening up the UGB--it's in getting more good jobs, and encouraging more entrepreneurship, so that folks can actually afford to buy the condos going up all over that city.

Maybe I wasn't totally clear on my point about the UGB. I believe it to be the primary reason houses are as expensive here as they are. Sure, there are still some places to build within the UGB, but if you want your little slice of suburbia (single family home, a bit of grass around it) then space is tight enough to drive up the price quite a bit.

Housing is expensive in inner Portland. In the suburbs, prices are still quite reasonable. My house, a mile from MAX and 4 miles from "large tech employer" would cost 2x-3x in SE Portland. We love our 10 minute commute and still take advantage of Portland's foodie scene pretty much every weekend.

Dang sorry man that wasn't what I meant. The Ugb encourages density as you said, which is quite good if you want a comprehensive transit system.

When density is high enough, and public transit decent enough, people don't need to own cars. In Manhattan, 85% of residents do not own cars. And that's with a terrible subway!

Portland's urban growth boundary doesn't seem terribly effective. Most of the land inside the boundary is a fractal sprawlscape of dead-end streets lined with single-family homes and 3-car garages. Most of the region's population growth is happening outside the boundary, in places like Vancouver (Washington) and Salem. Because Portland has failed to really urbanize and build sufficient housing, while having a strong economy and plenty of jobs, people are simply driving further to work and living in places outside the UGB.

This can't be overstated. Anecdotally, you can feel it just by looking at the city. Downtown Portland isn't really growing in the same way that cities like Austin are (which isn't to say Austin is the poster child for urban growth either).

The suburbs also have urban growth boundaries (parents live next to one) and it's easy to build over single family homes. The people and the city don't seem very interested however. The whole state is really antigrowth and it has been for a century.

My concern with Portland is that it can be washed away by a massive tsunami any day now. Reference: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big...

The likelihood that Portland will be washed away by a tsunami is basically nil.

Portland is ~80 miles inland from the pacific ocean - and the odds of a tsunami coming up the columbia river from the pacific, and still having much destructive power to do more than just flood, is again, basically nil - it would literally need to be a perfect storm for it to work.

I thought you were wrong based on my memory of the 2011 Japan tsunami and the images we all watched as it raced inland for what seemed like forever, but according to wikipedia it only traveled up to 10 km (6 miles) inland.

So even the biggest tsunami the world has witnessed wouldn't come close.

there is also a mountain range in the way.

Considering Portland is about 80 miles inland, earthquake is the major risk... But that's no different than the other major cities on the Pacific Rim.

Meh, New York could be wiped out by a moderate-sized earthquake (that we're supposedly overdue for and definitely unprepared for) any day now.

I'm not sure there's such a thing as a city that's not vulnerable to at least one climate change or natural disaster threat.

> I'm not sure there's such a thing as a city that's not vulnerable to at least one climate change or natural disaster threat.

Denver seems pretty safe. No earthquakes, safe from rising seas, no hurricanes or tsunamis.

True, except for freshwater availability. Denver already has to pipe water in and hope for plenty of snowmelt. Climate changes could impact that.

Yellowstone supervolcano.

Tornados? Drought?

Driving in snow.

Northern cities that are more inland seem to avoid them. Maybe they have the same earthquake vulnerability you mentioned, but I think it's extremely unlikely, but there's Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, even Montreal that are able to deal with the large snowfalls they get, and in general don't seem like they'll be hit as hard by climate change-caused extreme weather as other areas.

An even worse version of the 1998 ice storm could really cripple the northern cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_1998_North_American_ic...

>maybe if they weren't so vulnerable to climate change

Of the unpredictable and rapid vertical and horizontal kind?

What do you mean "if the state ever figures its shit out"?