Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-31-2017, 11:36 PM
 
3,928 posts, read 4,891,847 times
Reputation: 3073

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by oregon911 View Post
Simply not true except for Seattle being bigger than Portland. All the differences between Oregon and Washington stem from that fact alone. Tacoma is just a suburb/spillover of Seattle. If we are going to consider it as a separate city, we might as well consider Hillsboro and Beaverton as separate cities from Portland. Spokane has as much economic activity as Salem, Eugene or Albany areas, not more. Outside of Seattle area, Washington doesn't really have anything Oregon doesn't.

Also I'd prefer that WA has higher growth rate than Oregon. We are overpopulated as it is already.
Beaverton and Hillsboro ARE indeed separate cities though YES, they are suburbs of Portland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-01-2017, 07:40 AM
 
Location: North Idaho
32,559 posts, read 47,729,085 times
Reputation: 78076
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccjarider View Post
Medford's traffic is "horrible"??? It's a town of what? - 80K
Best post of the week.
Bend has a population of about 80,000 and traffic is horrible. That's because the road system was built to support a town of 5,000 and as the town has grown, narrow roads have been fed into the main streets without every doing any development of the main streets. There is one street that goes non-stop north to south and that happens to be the highway. There are no streets that go all the way east to west.

During commuting hours, there are stop lights where you have to wait for three cycles of the lights to get through the stop light.

There is massive use of the highways and those are two lane for most of the distance, border to border. Far too many cars and trucks trying to drive on far too little road availability.

Even smaller towns can have their road system overwhelmed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2017, 10:37 AM
 
Location: California
6,420 posts, read 7,637,828 times
Reputation: 13964
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtuba View Post
So you would rather see more low density, sprawling single family developments built?

NO, but I do wish the Planning Dept. would consider an overall building plan and not build where flooding is a problem. I'm not sure you read what I wrote.

I'm sorry, but Medford's traffic is already horrible enough. With a sub par public transit system, this will just mean cars, cars, and more cars on the road. Not all dense housing has to be low-rent, shoddily built apartment buildings.
I have to wonder whether the new massive complexes will be affordable as builders will want to make a profit. Stewart Meadows is pushing the occupancy to the max by increasing the original plans and wanting more building height. This will impact traffic, especially when combined with other nearby planned and existing high density housing. The area has so much potential but needs to be managed well to keep from becoming an eye sore and traffic nightmare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2017, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
15,293 posts, read 17,624,485 times
Reputation: 25231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidi60 View Post
I have to wonder whether the new massive complexes will be affordable as builders will want to make a profit. Stewart Meadows is pushing the occupancy to the max by increasing the original plans and wanting more building height. This will impact traffic, especially when combined with other nearby planned and existing high density housing. The area has so much potential but needs to be managed well to keep from becoming an eye sore and traffic nightmare.
New housing is not for the low income market. You free up low income housing by making high income housing available. People with a decent income will move up, leaving the older units for the low income crowd. Older units don't have amenities like FIOS, modern kitchens and climate control. Really old housing doesn't have amenities like adequate insulation, a dishwasher or air conditioning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2017, 07:26 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
545 posts, read 409,574 times
Reputation: 1070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidi60 View Post
I have to wonder whether the new massive complexes will be affordable as builders will want to make a profit. Stewart Meadows is pushing the occupancy to the max by increasing the original plans and wanting more building height. This will impact traffic, especially when combined with other nearby planned and existing high density housing. The area has so much potential but needs to be managed well to keep from becoming an eye sore and traffic nightmare.
I agree with you about the sub-par planning especially near the wetlands. Than again I've seen 40+ years of lousy urban planning in Medford. Hopefully things can change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2017, 05:38 PM
 
198 posts, read 342,904 times
Reputation: 234
After reading this thread, I am curious what the people who don't want people moving to Oregon are doing on an an Oregon Relocation forum? Practicing asshattery? Sorry, but as a newcomer, I'm really glad that I moved to a place where people are nice and have been really helpful with housing, services, etc. Not stuff like, "well, if we don't have enough housing, people like you won't move here."

I grew up in Pennsylvania, which is ALSO a beautiful state with trees and mountains and open space. And a lousy economy in most places, shedding jobs and people, which is why my generation had to move away to find work. People bring jobs by creating them directly or through a need for goods and services. Jobs pay for things. States/cities need money and infrastructure to function. My PA hometown went bankrupt and fell under state control. Count your blessings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2017, 10:56 PM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
15,311 posts, read 8,918,272 times
Reputation: 20343
Quote:
Originally Posted by peaceloveandjulie View Post
After reading this thread, I am curious what the people who don't want people moving to Oregon are doing on an an Oregon Relocation forum? Practicing asshattery? Sorry, but as a newcomer, I'm really glad that I moved to a place where people are nice and have been really helpful with housing, services, etc. Not stuff like, "well, if we don't have enough housing, people like you won't move here."

I grew up in Pennsylvania, which is ALSO a beautiful state with trees and mountains and open space. And a lousy economy in most places, shedding jobs and people, which is why my generation had to move away to find work. People bring jobs by creating them directly or through a need for goods and services. Jobs pay for things. States/cities need money and infrastructure to function. My PA hometown went bankrupt and fell under state control. Count your blessings.
It's a free country. Everybody should move to where they are happy. But that doesn't mean I like seeing the state get wrecked with population growth. Which overwhelms the infrastructure, causing congestion, and forcing people to pay thousands of dollars a month in rent, for slum apartments. What I love about Oregon is that most of it has not yet been wrecked with population growth. If you love big crowded cities, LA is just a few hours south. Lots of great paying jobs there. Enjoy your $3,000 a month rent for a small apartment and a 2.5 hour commute to your job. We probably can't stop the same thing from happening in Oregon, but we shouldn't do anything to encourage it. I would be very happy to see Oregon stop growing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2017, 12:51 AM
 
3,928 posts, read 4,891,847 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
It's a free country. Everybody should move to where they are happy. But that doesn't mean I like seeing the state get wrecked with population growth. Which overwhelms the infrastructure, causing congestion, and forcing people to pay thousands of dollars a month in rent, for slum apartments. What I love about Oregon is that most of it has not yet been wrecked with population growth. If you love big crowded cities, LA is just a few hours south. Lots of great paying jobs there. Enjoy your $3,000 a month rent for a small apartment and a 2.5 hour commute to your job. We probably can't stop the same thing from happening in Oregon, but we shouldn't do anything to encourage it. I would be very happy to see Oregon stop growing.
Most people on this forum that are against growth are not from Oregon so after seven and a half years here I can pick out transplants because they are always the ones that don't want other transplants. And most of these transplants who want to ban other transplants often do nothing in the broader community. I have volunteered in several schools here over the years and I notice that teachers and principals don't mind the free work. Just saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2017, 01:22 PM
 
26,586 posts, read 36,518,253 times
Reputation: 29808
^True. Pretty sure Cloudy moved here from California. On the other hand, I'm a native Oregonian and a farmer's granddaughter, and I strongly want to see the UGB maintained. Nothing against people who want to move here, but high rises in farmers' fields to accommodate growth isn't something I can get behind.

Last edited by Metlakatla; 04-07-2017 at 01:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2017, 02:55 PM
 
3,928 posts, read 4,891,847 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
^True. Pretty sure Cloudy moved here from California. On the other hand, I'm a native Oregonian and a farmer's granddaughter, and I strongly want to see the UGB maintained. Nothing against people who want to move here, but high rises in farmers' fields to accommodate growth isn't something I can get behind.
High rises are going up in Portland but where else? Hillsboro? I usually am on top of this stuff. Tigard and Hillsboro have busing developments but not high rises.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:01 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top