Why is Oregon so much less populated than washington? (Portland: gated, military)

[CanuckInPortland]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

What major towns and cities are along the coastal range are you talking about?

Just about every city or town on the West Coast or just inland had to deal with building roads over the Coast Range at some point or building over hilly terrain. Granted Astoria doesn't have a broad coastal plain like Los Angeles(which is the only coastal plain that size on the whole West Coast) or the larger harbours of San Francisco or Vancouver or San Diego. Though the terrain does remind me of a place like the Eureka-Arcata area in Northern California which is similarly very isolated from major cities(even more so than most of the Oregon Coast), has had a similar fishing and lumber economy and is basically some larger towns---yet that area is still more populated than anywhere on the Oregon Coast.

And yes, the reasons why many places in Oregon are less populated have been mentioned already in this thread, but beyond the topography or locations or weather or state owned lands, it seems like there's a historical basis in Oregon for being a less growth friendly state and a more risk-averse place for much of it's existence. That's just what I've taken away reading about some of the history of Oregon.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by CanuckInPortland

Just about every city or town on the West Coast or just inland had to deal with building roads over the Coast Range at some point or building over hilly terrain. Granted Astoria doesn't have a broad coastal plain like Los Angeles(which is the only coastal plain that size on the whole West Coast) or the larger harbours of San Francisco or Vancouver or San Diego. Though the terrain does remind me of a place like the Eureka-Arcata area in Northern California which is similarly very isolated from major cities(even more so than most of the Oregon Coast), has had a similar fishing and lumber economy and is basically some larger towns---yet that area is still more populated than anywhere on the Oregon Coast.

And yes, the reasons why many places in Oregon are less populated have been mentioned already in this thread, but beyond the topography or locations or weather or state owned lands, it seems like there's a historical basis in Oregon for being a less growth friendly state and a more risk-averse place for much of it's existence. That's just what I've taken away reading about some of the history of Oregon.

Eureka is 26,000 people and Arcata is about 18,000. I wouldn't call that a major city AND there are two bays there. Coos Bay is about 16k in population so it is about the same size as Arcata. I am guessing that you have not driven up and down the coast of Oregon? Forget the urban growth boundaries for a minute. I think it will be apparent why the cities aren't large if you do.

Senate Bill 100 wasn't passed until the mid 1970's limiting growth. Oregon's geology limited its growth which drew people seeking to live in nature/off the land, creating a culture of limiting growth to preserve the natural beauty of the state. That is a pretty recent development though. If Oregon was going to grow, it was going to happen during the industrial revolution.

[CanuckInPortland]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

Eureka is 26,000 people and Arcata is about 18,000. I wouldn't call that a major city AND there are two bays there. Coos Bay is about 16k in population so it is about the same size as Arcata. I am guessing that you have not driven up and down the coast of Oregon? Forget the urban growth boundaries for a minute. I think it will be apparent why the cities aren't large if you do.

I didn't say it was a major city, but I wasn't really talking about major cities on this thread. But the Eureka-Arcata metro area which is basically the area around Humboldt Bay has 134,000 people. Coos Bay which is the largest urban center on the Oregon Coast has about 63,000. I've driven down the entire West Coast from BC to Mexico probably seven to eight times in my life. I obviously understand that topography/geography plays a role in the size of populations...though investment in infrastructure and the economy are going to influence this as well.

Senate Bill 100 wasn't passed until the mid 1970's limiting growth. Oregon's geology limited its growth which drew people seeking to live in nature/off the land, creating a culture of limiting growth to preserve the natural beauty of the state. That is a pretty recent development though. If Oregon was going to grow, it was going to happen during the industrial revolution.

It's interesting that Oregon and Washington had close population figures until after the turn of the 20th Century--than starting in the early 1900s, Washington grew much faster. When did construction on the Great Northern Railroad finish?

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by CanuckInPortland

though rough terrain of the Coast Ranges didn't stop the settlement of a lot of other major cities and towns on the West Coast.

You said major cities here which is what I was responding too. I don't think there are any major cities in areas along the coast that don't have a big bay and easier topography for growth.

Originally Posted by CanuckInPortland

I didn't say it was a major city, but I wasn't really talking about major cities on this thread. But the Eureka-Arcata metro area which is basically the area around Humboldt Bay has 134,000 people. Coos Bay which is the largest urban center on the Oregon Coast has about 63,000. I've driven down the entire West Coast from BC to Mexico probably seven to eight times in my life. I obviously understand that topography/geography plays a role in the size of populations...though investment in infrastructure and the economy are going to influence this as well.

You need money for infrastructure which is driven by the economy. Since we don't have large ports here that won't drive the economy or generate enough dollars for better infrastructure which draws other industries.

Originally Posted by CanuckInPortland

It interesting that Oregon and Washington had close population figures until after the turn of the 20th Century--than starting in the early 1900s, Washington grew much faster. When did construction on the Great Northern Railroad finish?

It was completed in 1888, according to Google, when the first train went all the way to Tacoma.

[Terryj]

I think Coos Bay would have been a viable port city if Oregon had the infrastructure to support it. With very little rail access and no major hiways it has just died on the vine.

[V8 Vega]

This whole thread is closely related to and helps answer the thread Why is Oregons Ecomony so Bad.

[beenhereandthere]

Also, even though it's still not a lot of people, Southeastern WA, has a few towns, like the Tri Cities, Walla Walla, Pullman and a few others that are between 2k and 5k.
In Oregon, in the same quadrant, you only have Burns and Ontario. That quadrant is one of the most desolate in the USA.

[bler144]

If we're down to comparing Arcata/Eureka vs. Coos Bay, I think climate and agriculture are also factors. Plus the university.

Arcata gets about 20 inches more in rainfall per year, and is slightly warmer (and more windy? though that's a guess from spending time in both places - I haven't seen data).

Not to mention, a fair amount of the "economy" in Humboldt County derives from either the university and/or the marijuana business. Coos Bay had most of its growth in the 1960s but has been flat since. Arcata has doubled since 1970 - almost certainly some mix of tourism (coast & Redwoods) + university + mj. Coos Bay really only has tourism.

Arcata, at least officially, has higher rates of poverty, though how much of that is real vs. how much of the economy in Humboldt Co. is black market (not to mention non-traditional students who may not have "income" whilst attending school on some mix of grants and loans), I can't say. Both areas have issues with both long-term and transient population poverty.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by beenhereandthere

Also, even though it's still not a lot of people, Southeastern WA, has a few towns, like the Tri Cities, Walla Walla, Pullman and a few others that are between 2k and 5k.
In Oregon, in the same quadrant, you only have Burns and Ontario. That quadrant is one of the most desolate in the USA.

Most of the land there is owned by the federal government. You can't build cities on federal land.

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

Most of the land there is owned by the federal government. You can't build cities on federal land.

Thank god for that, or Oregon would be just as overgrown as California.