Downtown Portland News

[sopdx]

Originally Posted by PhillyPDX

Like everything, it's likely partly everything. I wouldn't call it poor business decisions to have to deal with crime, hire extra security, pay union wages could be part, etc. Most of life is in the middle, people need to realize this. NLRB has a singular focus, likely prompted by a union complaint, so that's also extremely biased. This was my starbucks in SW (not that I went often), and it was gross. So there's that. And no data I've seen so far presents the NLRB case outside people just assuming corporations are pure evil (not sure that's a legal consideration, but maybe?). So I can't say either way, but I do know that area sucks, and find it not at all surprising it closed.

The CNBC article is bogus (but it reads covincingly, so there's that) because it misses half of the equation. You can't just compare crime calls, you have to compare versus sales/bottom line, and that critical data isn't presented. Some stores/locations can likely handle more crime if they also turn over higher revenue. It's completely relative, and absent those numbers it's entirely moot, fancy charts and all.

Another key factor is CNBC article even states it excludes crime data for "Mental health crises, overdoses, vehicle thefts, vehicle burglaries and other events that weren’t directly related to Target or appeared to happen outside the confines of the store were also not included." How much did the neighborhood cause lower store traffic, thus less revenue, before store theft even comes into play? I live much closer to the downtown store, but I'm much more likely to go the Cascades or Hayden Island store. If downtown was nice? I'd prob go there, walk around, etc. instead its in/out to Target in a suburban fashion. So many variables at play here, and CNBC is focused on a single initiative in their article.

What I cited was theft and that is what the article stated. Bad business decisions relate to Target's retail mistakes in the past few years. Target also closed their store at University Village in Seattle citing similar reasons. A few days later Bloomingdales opened up in the same complex.

By the way, many parts of downtown are 'nice'.

[uncommon.name]

Originally Posted by sopdx

I'm not sure how many of you saw that several Portland Starbucks, including the one on NW 10th and Lovejoy, that were closed because of 'unsafe working conditions' were actually closed because of union activity - according to NLRB -and will be forced to reopen and rehire.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/loc...8-505199c1c19c

CNBC has reported that several Target store closures including SW Morrison had less theft than most other area Target stores.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/targ...er-nearby.html

Crime and drugs are prevalent downtown, but it also makes a great excuse to crush workers' rights and cover up poor business decisions.

Key thing here is that they are "accused" of this and a complaint was filed by the NLRB, which is the NLRB's job to do, but it has not been ruled on at this time. The key sentence in the entire article is "An administrative law judge has yet to issue a decision on this specific matter."

You continue to call it "poor business" decisions, without any real knowledge of why those businesses decided it was in the best interest of their company to close those locations. All you have to base your opinions on are speculation and bias. It really makes me wonder if you know anything about how a business operates?

[sopdx]

Originally Posted by uncommon.name

Key thing here is that they are "accused" of this and a complaint was filed by the NLRB, which is the NLRB's job to do, but it has not been ruled on at this time. The key sentence in the entire article is "An administrative law judge has yet to issue a decision on this specific matter."

You continue to call it "poor business" decisions, without any real knowledge of why those businesses decided it was in the best interest of their company to close those locations. All you have to base your opinions on are speculation and bias. It really makes me wonder if you know anything about how a business operates?

I suggest you stop wondering and educate yourself. There was a ruling. No speculation, no bias.

https://thehill.com/business/4231618...onized%20staff.

Regarding poor business decisions on the part of Target.

https://www.retailbrew.com/stories/2...l-format-model
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/13/targ...retail%20crime.

My statements don't illustrate my lack of knowledge of how a business operates as much as your seeming ignorance of what has occurred.
Key statements are "poor marketing decisions, the debacle over pride merchandise, etc..." crime was a factor but not the only one and the Target stores
closed were not the top for theft. They made some poor decisions and it hurt them financially.

Since this is about downtown my statements are about downtown. Starbucks closed the shops due to union activity and although there is crime and drug use in the area management used that as the primary reason - not their unwillingness to allow a union. Target, same reason - losing money through their pride mess and poor retail decisions, and again blame it on theft.

Parts of downtown are a mess and the open use of drugs is horrific. However, to blame the issues downtown for everything - continually perpetuating an image that isn't always fair - is just an easy excuse.

[uncommon.name]

Originally Posted by sopdx

I suggest you stop wondering and educate yourself. There was a ruling. No speculation, no bias.

https://thehill.com/business/4231618...onized%20staff.

Regarding poor business decisions on the part of Target.

https://www.retailbrew.com/stories/2...l-format-model
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/13/targ...retail%20crime.

My statements don't illustrate my lack of knowledge of how a business operates as much as your seeming ignorance of what has occurred.
Key statements are "poor marketing decisions, the debacle over pride merchandise, etc..." crime was a factor but not the only one and the Target stores
closed were not the top for theft. They made some poor decisions and it hurt them financially.

Since this is about downtown my statements are about downtown. Starbucks closed the shops due to union activity and although there is crime and drug use in the area management used that as the primary reason - not their unwillingness to allow a union. Target, same reason - losing money through their pride mess and poor retail decisions, and again blame it on theft.

Parts of downtown are a mess and the open use of drugs is horrific. However, to blame the issues downtown for everything - continually perpetuating an image that isn't always fair - is just an easy excuse.

The Hill article has nothing to do with your original statements about Starbucks closing the downtown locations due to Unionization. Yes, Starbucks got in trouble for giving raises to non-union employees in other districts this last summer, but that isn't mentioned anywhere in the original KGW article, or The Hill article as directly related to them closing those locations. Again, there has been NO JUDGEMENT regarding the current claim. The judgement from a completely seperate claim =/= a judgement has been reached for these closures.

As for Target, the articles you posted are highlighting that the small format stores aren't performing as well as Target had hoped when they opened them. That doesn't mean a bad business decision was made to close them. That means they realized that they weren't going to be as profitable as they originally hoped and are moving toward more suburban locations and formats. People see that the increase of "shrink" losses (incompassing theft) were only .2% increase year-over-year, but don't look at the bigger picture. Those equate to $219.5 million higher, as a percentage of sales over the same quarter a year prior. "For comparison, the company lost ~$3.7 billion just from merchandising in 2022." So yes, theft was still a major factor in their decision to close those stores.

[sopdx]

Originally Posted by uncommon.name

The Hill article has nothing to do with your original statements about Starbucks closing the downtown locations due to Unionization. Yes, Starbucks got in trouble for giving raises to non-union employees in other districts this last summer, but that isn't mentioned anywhere in the original KGW article, or The Hill article as directly related to them closing those locations. Again, there has been NO JUDGEMENT regarding the current claim. The judgement from a completely seperate claim =/= a judgement has been reached for these closures.

As for Target, the articles you posted are highlighting that the small format stores aren't performing as well as Target had hoped when they opened them. That doesn't mean a bad business decision was made to close them. That means they realized that they weren't going to be as profitable as they originally hoped and are moving toward more suburban locations and formats. People see that the increase of "shrink" losses (incompassing theft) were only .2% increase year-over-year, but don't look at the bigger picture. Those equate to $219.5 million higher, as a percentage of sales over the same quarter a year prior. "For comparison, the company lost ~$3.7 billion just from merchandising in 2022." So yes, theft was still a major factor in their decision to close those stores.

Perhaps, you can read and listen to this and it will help. You seem intent on defending Starbucks. The fact that they have been cited and ruled against does not bode well for upcoming challenges. They want to crush unions and in the case of many stores are blaming crime for the store closures.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/loc...8-505199c1c19c

https://www.reuters.com/legal/govern...es-2023-10-09/

Regarding Target, I didn't say it was a bad decision to close the small format stores. It was not necessarily a good decision to go full bore into developing them. If I choose to use the phrase 'bad decision' I'm entitled to do so regardless of your thoughts or attempts to change my mind. You aren't a professor at Wharton unless there is a campus in Hillsboro. I'm beginning to feel like this is a semantic circle jerk.

If you read the end of my entry it is about blaming crime at their locations, which is a problem, that I have stated ad nauseam - but is not the primary reason for Starbucks's closure and Target's closure.

Let's let this go. I'm beginning to feel like Jordan Klepper at a Trump rally.

[downtownpdx]

Interesting read -- there is much talk about converting office to residential as the primary way to revitalize Portland's city center, and dense housing should obviously to be part of the solution. But Seattle's rapid growth in the form of tall condo skyscrapers seems, so far, to have had little impact in bringing the foot traffic that came with lots of office workers.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...up-in-the-sky/

Seattle continues to defy gravity, at least up in the sky
Dec. 20, 2023 at 6:00 am Updated Dec. 20, 2023 at 6:00 am
Danny Westneat By Danny Westneat
Seattle Times columnist

Which way, Seattle?

Maybe no city block displays how difficult it is to answer the Emerald City’s perennially nagging question than the area around Fourth and Union downtown.

Here, on the street, is where one of downtown’s only grocery stores is about to close. That’s the new PCC Community Market in the newish Rainier Square building, the glittering 58-story high-rise that looks like a glam fashion boot.

Up and down Union, across from Rainier Square, almost every storefront is shuttered, with tents and scattered pockets of drug activity filling some of the doorways. Even inside the Rainier Square complex, which on a recent day felt fancy, fresh and very well-guarded, most of the street front retail spaces are empty. PCC will open another hole when it gives up after two years downtown in January.

But up above, it’s another atmosphere. Same city. Same block. Much different story.

On the top floor, three out of the four penthouse suites are rented, while the fourth is currently available. “Starting at $19,999” per month, the ad says. Starting? That’s $239,988 a year in rent — the price to gain entry to a three-bedroom with 12-foot ceilings in the tallest residential tower on the West Coast.

...

The street is ailing; Seattle’s action is up above.
PCC tried to tap into this, siting a grocery store in the base of Rainier Square to capitalize on downtown’s residential growth surge. But people apparently don’t come out of those towers as much as expected, because it didn’t trickle down. The PCC had scant customers and high security costs, even as downtown soared past 106,000 in residential population.

[PhillyPDX]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

Interesting read -- there is much talk about converting office to residential as the primary way to revitalize Portland's city center, and dense housing should obviously to be part of the solution. But Seattle's rapid growth in the form of tall condo skyscrapers seems, so far, to have had little impact in bringing the foot traffic that came with lots of office workers.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...up-in-the-sky/

Seattle continues to defy gravity, at least up in the sky
Dec. 20, 2023 at 6:00 am Updated Dec. 20, 2023 at 6:00 am
Danny Westneat By Danny Westneat
Seattle Times columnist


...

We just spent the weekend in Seattle with the kids. My god, that town is thriving. Even though it'll be touristy, burying the Alaska Way Viaduct was such a brilliant move. Once all the construction there is done, it's going to be really nice in that whole section, active piers, full of people walking around. Felt like Baltimore inner harbor.

My wife's comment after being there and driving around Belltown and Capitol Hill to meet friends, "Portland feels like a dying city". I looked it up, sure enough, Seattle is back to being the fastest growing large city post-pandemic. Night and day to what I see here. Growth inundates itself into the general sense of the city, beyond the myriad towers cranes and active construction all over. You can feel it walking around. If you aren't growing you're dying.

Numbers released this week have Oregon losing population, again, and likely to be heavy MultCo centric once those numbers are split out. Meanwhile Seattle grew by 2.2% last year. (Yes PSU says something else, but that's pointless unless they also provide numbers for other cities, otherwise Census is the only way to compare on a level playing field).

We blame lack of affordable housing here, but Seattle is way more expensive, so what gives? Something needs to change, I'm not sure what it is, but clearly something isn't working.

[FiveOverPun]

I was there last month staying in Ballard which doesn't feel too different from NW 23rd or the Pearl. At times the sidewalks were straight-up CROWDED there were so many people walking around.

I've experienced that here on a nice summer day, but definitely not in the winter. I wonder if Portlanders are just psychologically more likely to go hermit mode in colder months?

[colossalorder]

One massive difference between Portland and Seattle is tax rates. I know for some people that fact is uncomfortable for their politics ... but it is a simple truth. Companies and high earners, who are big drivers of economic growth, have the ability to locate where want. Oregon, and Portland in particular, is extremely unattractive on this front. For some, that may be an acceptable political trade-off, but it certainly extracts a high cost on our city's ability to grow and recover.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/s...n-change-2022/

[FiveOverPun]

Originally Posted by colossalorder

One massive difference between Portland and Seattle is tax rates. I know for some people that fact is uncomfortable for their politics ... but it is a simple truth. Companies and high earners, who are big drivers of economic growth, have the ability to locate where want. Oregon, and Portland in particular, is extremely unattractive on this front. For some, that may be an acceptable political trade-off, but it certainly extracts a high cost on our city's ability to grow and recover.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/s...n-change-2022/

I'm a reasonably high earner and moved here from across the country in 2022. The taxes are higher, but the COL is much, much lower than Seattle, especially when it comes to housing. Same thing compared to SFO. Now, if you are willing to live in Vancouver or something, I think there's an argument, but anybody wanting to live in a west coast CITY will probably find Portland attractive (if they don't mind the weather).

[colossalorder]

I get it. I'm still here too. However, I think statistics are probably more helpful than anecdotes here. Oregon was one of 8 states that lost population in 2023. Meanwhile Washington, with same or worse weather and many of the same social ills, is still attracting new residents. That delta may exist for many reasons, but I've got to believe that taxes are at least part of the story. There is definitely population shift across the country from high tax to low tax locations.

[Jakz]

Originally Posted by colossalorder

I get it. I'm still here too. However, I think statistics are probably more helpful than anecdotes here. Oregon was one of 8 states that lost population in 2023. Meanwhile Washington, with same or worse weather and many of the same social ills, is still attracting new residents. That delta may exist for many reasons, but I've got to believe that taxes are at least part of the story. There is definitely population shift across the country from high tax to low tax locations.

Keep in mind that there's a feedback loop in housing costs. With supply constrained, home prices balloon upwards to absorb any surplus income in a community (it's a truly broken market). I suspect all of WA residents' additional take-home pay goes straight to higher housing costs. And that this outcome is a direct result of tax policy. A brief google search shows median household income is 20 percent higher in Seattle but housing costs are 30-50 percent higher.

I agree there's definitely things to learn from WA and Seattle, but I don't think tax policy makes a difference.

[downtownpdx]

Seattle is a much higher density city as well, so more foot traffic is definitely going to result from that. As others have mentioned, there are the same social ills as here, but it's a much larger city that is home to Amazon, Starbucks, etc etc and as long as they keep churning out high paying jobs there will be population growth.

I love Portland and I certainly don't see it as a "dying city", especially cruising around the Pearl, nw 23rd etc last weekend. It was bustling. And Hawthorne and many other neighborhoods are thriving as well. That being said, we desperately need a bold vision for the city center/ waterfront area. I know it's a park and we can't just bulldoze and magically create something new... but I'm holding out hope that a public market is somehow incorporated, a pier, some riverside activity that's year round...

[CorbinWarrick]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

Seattle is a much higher density city as well, so more foot traffic is definitely going to result from that. As others have mentioned, there are the same social ills as here, but it's a much larger city that is home to Amazon, Starbucks, etc etc and as long as they keep churning out high paying jobs there will be population growth.

I love Portland and I certainly don't see it as a "dying city", especially cruising around the Pearl, nw 23rd etc last weekend. It was bustling. And Hawthorne and many other neighborhoods are thriving as well. That being said, we desperately need a bold vision for the city center/ waterfront area. I know it's a park and we can't just bulldoze and magically create something new... but I'm holding out hope that a public market is somehow incorporated, a pier, some riverside activity that's year round...

Dennis seems to think the waterfront as a park is just fine tho lol

[PhillyPDX]

Obviously Seattle has Amazon and its contractors. That's all Belltown is, and why the area is booming. And now Belltown is so big it meshes seamlessly with proper "downtown" Seattle so it makes Seattle downtown seem to be thriving (I'm assuming proper downtown there is hurting, like most downtowns).

A big issue (re: downtown) and not one that likely will ever change is Portland's BIG companies are in Beaverton/Hillboro in Nike/Intel. And Intel isn't even technically HQ there. So as far as the dowtown goes there is no HQ spinoff/connection to major high revenue international companies. As big as Intel is, in my 6 years here I've only met 1 person living in NE Portland that works there. Kind of crazy given how big Intel is, but anecdotally that shows the connection between Portland (downtown) and Intel.

Portland only has 1 Fortune 500 company (Nike). Precision Castparts would be were it not owned by Buffet now. Intel is so big here you could throw them in the mix. So call it 3, in effect. That's not a lot of large anchor corporations that bring money in to the region. Seattle has 10, 11 if you want to count Boeing same as Intel. Those firms, and a few are huge, bring in lots of people and money, directly and indirectly. There is likely a direction relationship between those firms and the seemingly endless growth in Seattle.

And then in addition Seattle has UW, one of the major research players in the entire world. My friend lives in Capitol Hill and takes the new subway line directly to UW where he works (in research). With that new rail line he gets to campus in 10 minutes, so he now adds to population growth closer into to downtown (he wouldn't be there absent that train line). UW did almost $2 billion in direct research alone last year, even before you consider startups from that research, and before you consider it's a school with 50,000 students and all the job requirements for teaching/supporting that. Juggernaut that also helps to sustain Seattle in a big way. Portland has nothing remotely comparable to that.

Apologize, I'm not trying to turn into a Portland vs Seattle thread, just laying out facts to encourage conversation to see what Portland can do moving forward.

[sopdx]

Originally Posted by PhillyPDX

Obviously Seattle has Amazon and its contractors. That's all Belltown is, and why the area is booming. And now Belltown is so big it meshes seamlessly with proper "downtown" Seattle so it makes Seattle downtown seem to be thriving (I'm assuming proper downtown there is hurting, like most downtowns).

A big issue (re: downtown) and not one that likely will ever change is Portland's BIG companies are in Beaverton/Hillboro in Nike/Intel. And Intel isn't even technically HQ there. So as far as the dowtown goes there is no HQ spinoff/connection to major high revenue international companies. As big as Intel is, in my 6 years here I've only met 1 person living in NE Portland that works there. Kind of crazy given how big Intel is, but anecdotally that shows the connection between Portland (downtown) and Intel.

Portland only has 1 Fortune 500 company (Nike). Precision Castparts would be were it not owned by Buffet now. Intel is so big here you could throw them in the mix. So call it 3, in effect. That's not a lot of large anchor corporations that bring money in to the region. Seattle has 10, 11 if you want to count Boeing same as Intel. Those firms, and a few are huge, bring in lots of people and money, directly and indirectly. There is likely a direction relationship between those firms and the seemingly endless growth in Seattle.

And then in addition Seattle has UW, one of the major research players in the entire world. My friend lives in Capitol Hill and takes the new subway line directly to UW where he works (in research). With that new rail line he gets to campus in 10 minutes, so he now adds to population growth closer into to downtown (he wouldn't be there absent that train line). UW did almost $2 billion in direct research alone last year, even before you consider startups from that research, and before you consider it's a school with 50,000 students and all the job requirements for teaching/supporting that. Juggernaut that also helps to sustain Seattle in a big way. Portland has nothing remotely comparable to that.

Apologize, I'm not trying to turn into a Portland vs Seattle thread, just laying out facts to encourage conversation to see what Portland can do moving forward.

Amazon is more in the Denny Triangle, not in Belltown as I remember, and that area as well as south Lake Union - where the Gates Foundation (to add to your list) is located as well as denizens of others. It has exploded.

Portland has never been as vibrant as Seattle. It has always had a different vibe. I went to UW and worked at Microsoft ( a long time ago) but even then Seattle was much larger and much more exciting. Much more touristy etc...

To say Portland is dying is way off the mark. Downtown is suffering, but so is downtown Seattle. We are just on a different scale. I live in NW and it's pretty vibrant for our size. So are other areas of town.

When I lived in Seattle it was crazy fun and so many artists, just at the crest of the grunge movement. That's all changed. Even Kurt Cobain said he was sorry for Seattle.

My friends say that the authenticity has been sucked out of Seattle. It's super corporate now and that is cool if that is what folks like.

I have close friends who live in the central district and they tore down a neighboring house and built a horrific building with units pushing a mil. They can't wait to leave. The transit lines are lined with slipshod expensive apartment buildings.

Portland has arguably a better food scene and a much more accessible creative scene - not to the level of Seattle - but pretty impressive. In my opinion, it's a friendlier town and I think that's a good thing

Again, it's a tough time - bad leadership, etc... but I feel it's coming back and the initiatives and plans recently laid out are pretty impressive. I think Portland will be a much better city in the future than it has been in the past. We'll never be Seattle but who wants that - and if you do, it's not far and if you live out of the center a bit it's more affordable.

[DMH]

Originally Posted by sopdx

Amazon is more in the Denny Triangle, not in Belltown as I remember, and that area as well as south Lake Union - where the Gates Foundation (to add to your list) is located as well as denizens of others. It has exploded.

Portland has never been as vibrant as Seattle. It has always had a different vibe. I went to UW and worked at Microsoft ( a long time ago) but even then Seattle was much larger and much more exciting. Much more touristy etc...

To say Portland is dying is way off the mark. Downtown is suffering, but so is downtown Seattle. We are just on a different scale. I live in NW and it's pretty vibrant for our size. So are other areas of town.

When I lived in Seattle it was crazy fun and so many artists, just at the crest of the grunge movement. That's all changed. Even Kurt Cobain said he was sorry for Seattle.

My friends say that the authenticity has been sucked out of Seattle. It's super corporate
now and that is cool if that is what folks like.


I have close friends who live in the central district and they tore down a neighboring house and built a horrific building with units pushing a mil. They can't wait to leave. The transit lines are lined with slipshod expensive apartment buildings.

Portland has arguably a better food scene and a much more accessible creative scene - not to the level of Seattle - but pretty impressive. In my opinion, it's a friendlier town and I think that's a good thing

Again, it's a tough time - bad leadership, etc... but I feel it's coming back and the initiatives and plans recently laid out are pretty impressive. I think Portland will be a much better city in the future than it has been in the past. We'll never be Seattle but who wants that - and if you do, it's not far and if you live out of the center a bit it's more affordable.

I have been reading and sometimes adding comments to this thread. Your observations and opinion come the closest to mine. Lord knows that over the decades after my occasional trips north to Seattle (and Vancouver), I have felt pangs of urban envy. But Portland has, in its own individual way, implemented big positive urban improvements that have been the envy of our two northern neighbors. Portland continues to be a very comfortable and livable city compared to our two sister cities. With new city government coming after the 2024 election, I am hopeful that new visionary leaders will move the city forward.

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by DMH

I have been reading and sometimes adding comments to this thread. Your observations and opinion come the closest to mine. Lord knows that over the decades after my occasional trips north to Seattle (and Vancouver), I have felt pangs of urban envy. But Portland has, in its own individual way, implemented big positive urban improvements that have been the envy of our two northern neighbors. Portland continues to be a very comfortable and livable city compared to our two sister cities. With new city government coming after the 2024 election, I am hopeful that new visionary leaders will move the city forward.

I remember reading a travel book, back in the 90s, discussing the 2 cities and this quote has always stuck with me. "Seattle has more energy and economic muscle, but Portland has a charm and ambiance Seattle will never attain." (Sorry i have no reference but I do remember this Portland has obviously stumbled post covid, but generally this viewpoint hits the mark for me. I think a lot of it has to do with scale - the shorter blocks and buildings here create a more open, intimate feel to the city. And we have to remember we don't have the dramatic hills next to a seascape that define our northern neighbors - a river city is just a different vibe. But we could do much, much more to enliven our riverfront. Cities like London and Paris show it can be done.

[DMH]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

I remember reading a travel book, back in the 90s, discussing the 2 cities and this quote has always stuck with me. "Seattle has more energy and economic muscle, but Portland has a charm and ambiance Seattle will never attain." (Sorry i have no reference but I do remember this Portland has obviously stumbled post covid, but generally this viewpoint hits the mark for me. I think a lot of it has to do with scale - the shorter blocks and buildings here create a more open, intimate feel to the city. And we have to remember we don't have the dramatic hills next to a seascape that define our northern neighbors - a river city is just a different vibe. But we could do much, much more to enliven our riverfront. Cities like London and Paris show it can be done.

I believe that the travel book that you are referencing is David Brewster's Northwest Best Places.

[Bigtimecharlie]

I suspect the biggest difference between Portland and Seattle right now is money. Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Boeing, etc., etc. create lots of well paying jobs - and many investment millionaires- who can afford to buy what are undoubtedly insanely priced condos in downtown Seattle.

Still, it beggars the imagination that there’s sufficient demand to fill the scores of 40 story condo towers being built right now. It makes me wonder how much of that construction is speculation.

I also agree that Portland suffers from not having any headquarters of any larger company. US Bank, Fred Meyers, Georgia Pacific, you name it. All of these businesses have moved their headquarters. Portland suffers from being, essentially, a branch office city. For this city’s size, we really punch under our weight.

Portland’s old “super power” was being a more “human scale” large city. A downtown that was more walkable and less like a “concrete jungle,” etc. Post-Covid, downtown has lost that vibe, which is a shame.

More alarming to me is that what the city needs right now is visionary leadership to get us into recovery mode. The city leadership seems more like administrators/care takers who don’t have what it takes to get things back on track. I fear we’re looking at a years-long, if not decades long recovery.