Is Portland more hip than SF? (Tigard, Tualatin: job market, neighborhood, living)

[watchmanonthewall]

I have never been to either city. After trolling these boards for a long time, this is the impression I get. It seems that the whole city of Portland is into the hip, artsy, counterculture (Busch is an idiot), green thing. On the other hand SF seems like a very large, very wealthy, commercial city with large pockets of the hip, artsy, counterculture (Busch is an idiot), green thing. So if I was a bicycling, Kyoto, drum circle type, where would I be the happiest? (emphasis on the stereotypes is done to make my point, not to insult anyone) This is also posted on the SF board.

[oldtintype]

Well, 10-15 years ago I'd say SF or Berkeley. But things got so expensive and insane with the dot come stuff that things really changed. So many people left and while SF is still a liberal, creative and pretty amazing place, it costs so much to live there that it's not possible the way it was in the mid 90s or earlier to share a place and have cheap rent, allowing you to have time/money for the pursuit of creative (non paying)things. Portland on the other hand is still cheap enough that there's lots of that and you can live pretty hand to mouth with roommates, etc. Portland does not have the sophistication that SF has, but it has a more underground and low budget art, cycling, music and political scene that SF lost a lot of (i.e. the really cool stuff). People in SF might say otherwise but don't listen to comparisons from anyone who hasn't been to Portland within the last 2 years or so as things have changed a lot here in the last five years.

[argo69]

Oldtintype is right on the money.

[nancy thereader]

I've been hearing that a lot, ott. How would you say that they have changed? For the better? For the worse?

[oldtintype]

Depends on who you talk to. It's grown in terms of urban fill in, making the city more dense, it's grown in terms of level of sophistication, art/music, etc. It's turning into a "real" city in terms of comparisons to larger cities such as SF. But it's also gotten more expensive, more urban and more crowded. Some people are bothered by that, some are happy. I just point out don't listen to people who haven't been to Portland in the last few years because things have changed so much that it's not the same. People who lived here 5-10 years ago don't really know what it's like anymore. I mean, as an example, the Pearl is a really new neighborhood, yet it's one of the most sophisticated areas in Portland. 5 years ago it was an industrial warehouse district.

If you like urban, sophisticated, but lots of underground/alternative music and art, green politics and a more big city feel the changes are great. If you like that Portland was a small town more than a big city and the sidewalks would roll up at 9PM, it wasn't very crowded, etc. you're not happy. Especially with traffic and urban sprawl. There's the urban growth boundary and that's helped keep things from becoming complete sprawl but it's grown enormously just the same. I also think some people have had a hard time with the growth in diversity. Not all, but some. Things are just moving too fast for some people in many ways.

Just depends on where you're coming from. I moved here knowing all of this would happen, so I like it.

[babycoleslaw]

Originally Posted by watchmanonthewall

I have never been to either city. After trolling these boards for a long time, this is the impression I get. It seems that the whole city of Portland is into the hip, artsy, counterculture (Busch is an idiot), green thing. On the other hand SF seems like a very large, very wealthy, commercial city with large pockets of the hip, artsy, counterculture (Busch is an idiot), green thing. So if I was a bicycling, Kyoto, drum circle type, where would I be the happiest? (emphasis on the stereotypes is done to make my point, not to insult anyone) This is also posted on the SF board.

I agree on what others have said but when I think of you on your bike in either city, the hills of SF are ghastly!
I had trouble walking up them, can't imagine biking them!
Bikes are everywhere in PDX, just please make sure you don't wear all black at night! So many do that here while walking/biking and it drives me insane~ they're SO hard to see!!

[roneb]

Originally Posted by watchmanonthewall

counterculture (Busch is an idiot),

Given his approval rating over the past couple of years, calling Bush an idiot is hardly counter-cultural!

That said, oldtintype's assessment is pretty good. I come to it from a "small Portland" perspective, so have been less happy. I do believe Portland is largely doing things right (though they could do things to make themselves more attractive to new business and improve the local job market).

Of any large city, I'd choose Portland. But I'm a "small town guy" who hates traffic and likes the outdoors, so the "trendy things" like the Pearl District or the Bridgetown shopping complex near Tigard/Tualatin don't do a thing for me other than represent increased traffic and congestion. It's all relative of course. Just think of what I'd be like in LA!

[oldtintype]

You'd be miserable! I do understand that the changes have been detrimental for many people but change is more or less unavoidable. I feel the same way about SF--I left because things just got insane there, and I'm sorry that it came to that!

[watchmanonthewall]

The responses I got to this question have been excellent. Thanks to all for understanding the point I was trying to get at and giving insightful answers. I now have a spin off question and I am curious what everyone thinks. Is it better to live in a community with real starving artists and honest to goodness struggling bohemians OR the next generation of copycats so to speak. I'm talking about the people who move in when the city gets gentrified. This includes the yuppies, the young people who think it's cool to be different but who will ultimately grow up to raise a family and vote straight republican in 20 years, etc... . The people I'm talking about are wearing designer grunge, jog with a double stroller, and order a skinny venti latte, no whip. They think they are really making a difference in the world because they drive a Prius that has a bumper sticker on it that says something like, "we are all one family." Sounds like Portland is already there. I wonder where all the starving artists moved to?

[oldtintype]

Portland has been "there" to a degree for a long time, as have been most places that people hear about. But there are plenty of "real" artists and other types in Portland and other communities in Oregon, more so than the Bay Area at this point due to cost of living. Or at least a younger up and coming generation. There are TONS of creative and really interesting people in the Bay Area who are "real," but most of them are a lot older at this point and the Bay Area was not the expensive place it is today when they were new. You can't possibly compete with SF anywhere except maybe the Village in NYC in terms of an amazing creative history. Portland does not have the history SF has but it has a younger creative generation that can work part time and not struggle to survive. If you want a place with real "starving" artists you can't read up about a place and decide to move there. You need to just find a community you like that's affordable and go for it--not one with a reputation. Exciting creative communities tend to happen in a spontanious nature--you are either in the right place when it happens or you're not. By the time it's popular it's not the same anymore anyway. I was lucky to be around a lot of creative people involved in music, politics and art in the late 80s/early 90s in the Bay Area. It was luck and it was great. But by the mid 90s SF and the Bay Area started to change drastically and there went that.