I haven't gone through the methodology, but I'm pretty familiar with growth patterns in the two cities. The short version is that they're much more similar than different. My guess is that "the suburbs" includes other cities like Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett, and maybe Bremerton. Unlike Seattle, Portland doesn't really have any satellite cities (except for Vancouver, WA, which sometimes doesn't get counted for Pdx). So Seattle's "suburban" growth may actually be urban growth in small cities near Seattle. Portland's "suburban" growth is probably more genuinely suburban.

There's also this: Portland's city limits are gigantic and include a huge swath of very low density land, especially to the northwest. It has a much bigger land base than Seattle. New growth there ought to be counted as suburban, but because it's within city limits, it's often treated as urban.

Nice excuses, Eric.

Uh what really happened was a building growth cap put in place in the 1980s that made it unprofitable to build tall builds anywhere in the city and a neighborhood movement that is strong enough to get so projects and zoning shut down.

I also love the part about Portland adding so many transit riders -- even though transit actually lost market share among commuters.

Portland’s grown faster, but they do have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to density:

Seattle = 84 square miles
Population = 582,000
Density per square mile = 6866

Portland = 134 square miles
Population = 537,000
Density per square mile = 3972

Then there’s Vancouver, Washington, just across the river. It is most definitely a suburb of Portland. From 1980 to 2000, it grew by over 350%.

Does the 43% figure count Oregon suburbs only? The debunking report doesn’t specify exactly what a “suburb” or Portland is. Can’t blame them if they only count Oregon, since they have no control over Washington State/Clark County...but fudged numbers are still fudged numbers.

Oops, that’s “what a “suburb” ***of*** Portland is…”

has some disturbing, but not surprising news about Seattle.

It's only "disturbing" if you inherently find suburbs disturbing, as the Stranger does but apparently all the people living in the suburbs do not.

If you look at a map of Portland, it dominates its neighborhood with a few smallish suburbs surrounding it.

A similar map of Seattle points out it has many more and much larger suburbs - Bellevue being the most notable. Bellevue would be the largest city in the state if you moved it to Wyoming or Montana or several other states.

So this statistic is unsurprising and not very disturbing.

People move from other places to Seattle only in theory. They think they're moving to Seattle when they're actually moving to Lynnwood, Bothell, Kent, Renton etc.

And then, of course, those who get displaced from the city by rising housing costs.

I admit that if living in Seattle became infeasible, I would just pack my bags and leave the city before I'd ever live in Renton or Lynnwood. I live in the city to live IN the city, not near it.

Andrew,
Portland has much stricter limits on building heights and downtown development than Seattle has ever had. That's why downtown Pdx feels and looks like a small town.
Also, their SF neighborhood movement is very comparable to Seattle's.

Eric's comment is right on. While Portland has done some things better than Seattle, this difference is an artifact of how Portland is incorporated compared to Seattle. Many of the Eastside suburbs are urbanizing quickly, and are similar to areas that in Portland are within the city limits. The real problem with sprawl is in the more eastern and southern suburbs. For Seattle, that's places like Monroe, Sammamish, Issaquah, Kent, and Auburn.

@2 is right - this was intentional.

And a bad idea.

This is why we need to build 100-story tall inexpensive rental apartment building surrounded by green space near major intersections outside of the downtown core.

Will in Seattle @ 11 says:

This is why we need to build 100-story tall inexpensive rental apartment building surrounded by green space near major intersections outside of the downtown core.

WE need to? Will, please tell me: Who is "we?"

Do you honestly believe there is a viable political constituency in Seattle for such a "vision?"

I don't. And if it ever came to pass, I'd live in a soddy on the Nebraska prairie before I'd ever live in a Seattle like that.

@6: It's only "disturbing" if you inherently find suburbs disturbing, as the Stranger does but apparently all the people living in the suburbs do not.

subrubs are not distrubing to live in. if there were no negatives, many people would like to live there. they may seem very nice indeed. just like driving a new SUV might seem very nice indeed.

suburbs (and suburbs expanding) are disturbing because the other costs of a suburb. and the new huge house neighborhoods do not cost what they should cost given the impact they have on the environment, and the quality of life they impose on those not living in the suburbs.

Andrew @2. Totally wrong on your first point. Seattle's CAP initiative, approved by 62% of voters about 20 years ago, applied only to the downtown office core. It reduced the height limit somewhat on office buildings. That's all it did.

At that time, the City had no Comprehensive Plan and no Neighborhood Planning services. The state's Growth Management Act had not been implemented. Voters approved it after a spate of single-use office buildings were built downtown in what appeared to be (and was) a totally unplanned development wave.

It's approval was a good thing (Peter Steinbrueck was a leader on the campaign steering committee), and it's repeal this year -- with sound city and regional planning programs now in place -- was also a good thing.

No need to create myths about the past, please, Andrew.

13, Suburban living does impose cost on suburbanites. People who drive more are generally less fit. The time spent driving represents a decline in quality of life. It's easier to opt out of community activities. But these costs are subtle to those who pay them, and deferred in time just as other costs of suburbia are deferred in space. There's also some pretty strong American cultural programming that values private space for solitude over shared space for community. Asking people to give up suburbia means asking them to confront this mythology and the comfortable assumptions it's based on.

The key to good long-term development is to change attitudes and development slowly. Rather than create a sharp urban-suburban divide, we need to create patterns of regional development based on increasing density, preserving natural and rural areas between metro areas, sensibly connecting people within and between regions, and building toward a sustainable future.

One thing I see about a certain faction of no-compromise urbanites is a false view of the suburbs. The reality is that the close-in suburbs of Seattle are planning for density and transit, and most residents in those suburbs are on the right side of policy issues from the local to the national level. Suburbanites also play in to this false division, acting as if the Eastside is separate from what they disparagingly and annoyingly call the "West side." The reality is that economically, culturally, and socially, we're one metropolitan area and our problems need to be approached regionally, and not from an "urban" or "suburban" point of view.

Cascadian is right, though they exaggerate the attitude of east siders to the city- I've lived in Issaquah for four years, and never, ever heard anyone use the term "west side" to refer to anything in Washington.

Most of Issaquah has lot sizes as small or smaller than Seattle. My wife works in an east side city. I work in an east side city. We come into Seattle to go to shows recommended by the Stranger, to see regional draws like art museums, or to take the ferry out to the Olympics. I pay my higher taxes, most of which go into the city, cheerfully and without complaint. What negative impact am I having on Seattle folks?

ps- just for reference, I live in Issaquah because it was the least expensive market where I could get a high quality public education for my kids. We initially looked at West Seattle but couldn't do it because (a) we'd have long commutes to our jobs, and (b) the way Seattle does their school assignments, we couldn't guarantee that our kids would get into schools with demonstrably high academic standards.

Suburban living does impose cost on suburbanites... It's easier to opt out of community activities... There's also some pretty strong American cultural programming that values private space for solitude over shared space for community.

These are not "costs", these are differences in values between you and the suburbanites that you don't like so you call them "costs" and start cooking up ways to "change their attitude."

Gomez #8: I'm the same way about San Francisco. I moved here to be HERE, and I love it. So many of my friends have succumbed to the prevailing "buy-the-most-house-you-can-closest-you-can" wisdom... "you should really check out lofts in Emeryville!"... "Why? I'd rather just move to Portland."

#15, those are interesting points.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me - my parents were the first in my family to live outside the big city and in the 'burbs, so I got no right callin' it crazy. Just not for me.

Big Sven, last I checked the city's taxes subsidized the suburbs, and King County as a whole subsidized the rest of the state. I think most of the disparity is highway funding, but I can't remember where I got the numbers so I might be misremembering.

Be glad you've never heard the term "West Side." It just perfectly encapsulates the attitude among some that the city is an irrelevent footnote to the real action on the Eastside. There are people that actually believe this, and make a point of never coming to Seattle.

I live in Issaquah because it was the least expensive market where I could get a high quality public education for my kids.

doesn't everyone deserve this? don't we all want a house and a good school?

what i'm getting at is that people keep moving farther out for cheaper and better resources. once they are used up, then those areas are abandoned (so to speak) and become exurbs.

if life cost more in the suburbs (or less in the cities) we could control our use of resources better. we would use up less space, and care about all schools.

this is not me pushing my agenda on anyone, or telling them how to live. it is simply recognizing that there should be a higher price appropriate to using up resources as suburbs do.

Cascadian, I will take your word for it re: "
west side". East Siders who think Seattle is irrelevant should just move the fuck out to Spokane or Boise.

infrequent, if I had my druthers Seattle schools would be as good as the burbs and the jobs would be there and not disbursed out. But until that day, some folks are going to legitimately live on the east side. I'm cool with paying for my infrastructure with higher property tax rates and gas/carbon taxes.

ps- infrequent, I totally agree that many burbs get into a boom and bust cycle that benefits no one and just promotes sprawl. But it's been my experience that (1) geographically constrained areas (SF, Seattle) and (2) burbs with commercial tax bases (I'm thinking of Bellevue and Eden Prairie, MN) are more stable and less prone to burning out.