New Census population estimates for Oregon counties/metro areas (Portland: low income, transplants)

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

These figures are fine. Nice growth, but not explosive.

Washington State is out performing Oregon in population in almost every arena, large, medium, and small. I could offer all the stats here, but they are available on line. The question becomes why Oregon is growing slower than Washington. Seriously, this is the main question.

If current trends continue Washington will be twice the population of Oregon by 2030.

Washington has several major cities. Oregon has only Portland. Salem is pretty much a sleepy government town that seems to be increasingly an immigrant city for people working in the surrounding low wage agricultural jobs in the Northern Willamette Valley. Eugene is not much more than a large college town and regional retail/medical hub for the southern Willamette Valley. So the only economic draw in Oregon is the greater Portland metro area. Central and Eastern Oregon has no water so has no real cities at all except for Bend.

Seattle is a much bigger international economic engine than Portland to start with. It's a major port so much more trade, and Seattle is also more of a gateway to Alaska and the rest of the Pacific Rim. Then you have other major cities like Tacoma and Spokane which may not be as economically vibrant than Seattle but they are a whole lot bigger than the secondary cities in Oregon. Spokane is the biggest city between Seattle and Minneapolis and that covers a whole lot of territory. Eastern Washington also has the Columbia which has always been an economic engine for agriculture and industry. Eastern Oregon has nothing but scattered dry land ranches and a whole lot of empty country. So the percentage of Washington land mass that is economically viable is much greater in Washington than in Oregon where there isn't much going on outside Portland and the Willamette Valley, Bend and Medford being the only exceptions.

And then there is Clark County (Vancouver) which is I think the fastest growing part of the Portland metro area and pushing 500,000 population. So approximately 20% of the Portland metro area is actually in Washington. Due to less restrictive land use regulations in Washington I would expect Clark County to continue to grow faster than the Portland metro area as a whole.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

......If current trends continue Washington will be twice the population of Oregon by 2030.

I certainly hope so. Some of us are actively encouraging everyone who thinks of moving to Oregon to move to Washington, instead. Go and over-crowd Washington instead of Oregon.

[dtuba]

Originally Posted by Heidi60

My concern is that the growth needs to managed to protect wetlands and eye sore high rises. Individual homeowners or condo owners may have on going water problems when construction is done next to wetland, but as always, buyer beware.


Renting is fine for those who are just getting started or can no longer take care of a home, but when the family begins to grow many want to have a yard and good schools for their children so I don't think that home ownership will go away. The new apartments or condos will be expensive with HOA fees on top of that so people. There is a lot to say for stable neighborhoods where you can get to know your neighbors, especially with the increasing crime in Medford.

Some senior housing may have a wait list, I really don't know, but I do know a lady who moved into the ones in SE Medford after just a short time. She gets many tax benefits and her rent is only a few hundred a month.

So you would rather see more low density, sprawling single family developments built? 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.

[oregon911]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

Washington has several major cities. Oregon has only Portland. Salem is pretty much a sleepy government town that seems to be increasingly an immigrant city for people working in the surrounding low wage agricultural jobs in the Northern Willamette Valley. Eugene is not much more than a large college town and regional retail/medical hub for the southern Willamette Valley. So the only economic draw in Oregon is the greater Portland metro area. Central and Eastern Oregon has no water so has no real cities at all except for Bend.

Seattle is a much bigger international economic engine than Portland to start with. It's a major port so much more trade, and Seattle is also more of a gateway to Alaska and the rest of the Pacific Rim. Then you have other major cities like Tacoma and Spokane which may not be as economically vibrant than Seattle but they are a whole lot bigger than the secondary cities in Oregon. Spokane is the biggest city between Seattle and Minneapolis and that covers a whole lot of territory. Eastern Washington also has the Columbia which has always been an economic engine for agriculture and industry. Eastern Oregon has nothing but scattered dry land ranches and a whole lot of empty country. So the percentage of Washington land mass that is economically viable is much greater in Washington than in Oregon where there isn't much going on outside Portland and the Willamette Valley, Bend and Medford being the only exceptions.

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.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by dtuba

So you would rather see more low density, sprawling single family developments built? 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.

Medford's traffic is "horrible"??? It's a town of what? - 80K
Best post of the week.

[PNW-type-gal]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

Medford's traffic is "horrible"??? It's a town of what? - 80K
Best post of the week.

And there are a few places that it is quite true. There are sections of Hwy 62 (particularly now that they are doing the bypass and have narrowed the lanes and put up concrete barriers) that are in gridlock during certain times of the day.

Many smaller cities have bottleneck areas where the traffic is terrible, particularly as new infrastructure construction hasn't happened in decades.

[dtuba]

Traffic is bad there. Especially the aforementioned Hwy 62 , and anywhere around the mall/ Trader Joes. No, it's not as bad as say 217 during rush hour, but for a town of 80k there are some really bad bottlenecks.

[pnwguy2]

Originally Posted by oregon911

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.

I realize this is a thread in the Oregon forum, but I feel the need to correct a common misconception about Tacoma, WA. It is not, or ever been a "suburb" of Seattle. These two cities have been competing for over 150 years. Any exploration of inner Tacoma will expose great old early 20th century architecture, such as Stadium High School. Tacoma is not a suburb or spillover, however, areas around it have become such, as in Puyallup, Federal Way, University Place. But even those are really not suburbs of Seattle, but suburbs of Tacoma.

[xPlorer48]

Originally Posted by oregon911

Building new houses just invites more people here and causes even more people to move here. I know this view is not very popular here but maybe we need to control our housing supply so that our population growth can be in check.

By the way, it's interesting how Columbia county grew the fastest in all of PDX area. The county used to be a bunch of small towns riddled with meth usage but it's been recovering nicely in the last 5 years or so.

Ditto for Washington. 5th generation here.

[xPlorer48]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

I certainly hope so. Some of us are actively encouraging everyone who thinks of moving to Oregon to move to Washington, instead. Go and over-crowd Washington instead of Oregon.

Oh no, I encourage them to move to California. It is sooooo depressing here with the grey gloomy drizzly weather. And, Washington is becoming way too liberal. A great example is Seattle's mayor who continues to invite the homeless and illegal aliens then raise taxes to support them all. Another Jerry Brown apprentice.