Density isn't really the problem in Portland. There are a LOT of empty apartments in this city. There are also a LOT of "short term rentals" in the city that sit vacant.
Here are the concerns that I do not see addressed with this:
1. Will the City of Portland make the required infrastructure improvements to support more density? For example, will the storm sewers, which currently overflow poo into the river, support all the extra.. poo.
1a. Will the city invest in roads and public transit? Walking and biking are both great, but Portland is cold, dark and wet for 7 months a year. No matter how easy and safe you make it, people won't want to ride in those conditions.
1b. Portland 911 systems are currently stressed beyond reason. I waited on hold for 4 minutes on 911 (not non-emergency) a few weeks ago. This isn't a rare occurrence.
1c. Will Portland address the tent in the room? Homelessness is endemic in the city, and it isn't _only_ due to lack of housing. The city has very few options for mental health and drug treatment. Will the city invest in that? If not, livability will be negatively impacted by this.
1d. Assuming COVID ever ends, will Portland be business friendly enough to attract employers to employ the expected glut of people? Right now, large business are leaving Portland (Google has halted its expansion plans for example).
1e. Will Oregon fund schools in a way that can account for the new residents? Schools are already over-crowded and Oregon has one of the worst graduation rates in the country. Will the city/state commit to building schools to support new students? If so, where? They are in-filling in neighborhoods with few plots available
2. This will disadvantage low-income workers who won't be able to afford the new houses. Though more density does lower prices, it normally lowers prices in the less desirable neighborhoods. People of means buy the new condos/townhomes that are built, leaving the poor to take the less nice houses or continue to live further out.
2a. The Utopian dream of a urban playground where everyone is walking and birds are chirping and there is Trek in every garage doesn't play for a majority of people. People rarely live where they work. This is not normally a personal choice. Other factors play into it. Being around their family, kids' friends, better schools, new job on the other side of town etc. I understand the myopia of the crowd on this site is to picture everyone has a well-connected and well-heeled tech worker, but reality is far different.
3. Tongue in cheek-isg: this is all celebrated within the same week as another story claiming people are abandoned the density of SFO, NYC, SEA to work remotely in towns like BOI, AUS, Bend etc. There is obviously a _desire_ to have land and space and privacy. If we go to a remote-first work world, why do we think that anyone would want to live in this density?
On 3, as much as I hope the trend is true (I'd love more cheap apartments in the urban core) I'm not sure it is. People are moving and changing but I haven't seen any data that conclusively proves any narrative beyond 'people move houses even in a pandemic'.
FWIW I currently live in comparatively non-dense socal and I'm planning on moving to Portland this fall. I plan to move into the Pearl district and work remote. I walk all the time (even when the weather is bad, it doesn't bother me) so I think it will be nice to have more than two coffee shops within walking distance. For context, my current city is just big enough to support a niche ice cream shop and some weird restaurants, but not big enough for there to be enough competitive pressure to force them to actually be good. It is nice when a market can be robust enough to force out poor competitors.
A lot of folks moving from real cities to rural areas may be shocked to find how bad the food, coffee, shopping, and arts scenes can be. There's nothing wrong with Walmart+Target, Starbucks+Dunkin'Donuts, Olive Garden+Outback Steakhouse, but it is IMO worth it to have more options, even at the expense of a large lawn and privacy from neighbors.
The Pearl District isn't too bad, especially if you are not a fan of gardening and the such. However realtors tend to use a very liberal definition of what the Pearl District is, and the closer you get to the river, the sketchier it is. Open air drug use, visible domestic violence, car break ins, assaults etc.. But as long as you are above 10th and north of Davis you should be fine
Here are the concerns that I do not see addressed with this:
1. Will the City of Portland make the required infrastructure improvements to support more density? For example, will the storm sewers, which currently overflow poo into the river, support all the extra.. poo.
1a. Will the city invest in roads and public transit? Walking and biking are both great, but Portland is cold, dark and wet for 7 months a year. No matter how easy and safe you make it, people won't want to ride in those conditions.
1b. Portland 911 systems are currently stressed beyond reason. I waited on hold for 4 minutes on 911 (not non-emergency) a few weeks ago. This isn't a rare occurrence.
1c. Will Portland address the tent in the room? Homelessness is endemic in the city, and it isn't _only_ due to lack of housing. The city has very few options for mental health and drug treatment. Will the city invest in that? If not, livability will be negatively impacted by this.
1d. Assuming COVID ever ends, will Portland be business friendly enough to attract employers to employ the expected glut of people? Right now, large business are leaving Portland (Google has halted its expansion plans for example).
1e. Will Oregon fund schools in a way that can account for the new residents? Schools are already over-crowded and Oregon has one of the worst graduation rates in the country. Will the city/state commit to building schools to support new students? If so, where? They are in-filling in neighborhoods with few plots available
2. This will disadvantage low-income workers who won't be able to afford the new houses. Though more density does lower prices, it normally lowers prices in the less desirable neighborhoods. People of means buy the new condos/townhomes that are built, leaving the poor to take the less nice houses or continue to live further out.
2a. The Utopian dream of a urban playground where everyone is walking and birds are chirping and there is Trek in every garage doesn't play for a majority of people. People rarely live where they work. This is not normally a personal choice. Other factors play into it. Being around their family, kids' friends, better schools, new job on the other side of town etc. I understand the myopia of the crowd on this site is to picture everyone has a well-connected and well-heeled tech worker, but reality is far different.
3. Tongue in cheek-isg: this is all celebrated within the same week as another story claiming people are abandoned the density of SFO, NYC, SEA to work remotely in towns like BOI, AUS, Bend etc. There is obviously a _desire_ to have land and space and privacy. If we go to a remote-first work world, why do we think that anyone would want to live in this density?