EX-BLAZERS' HOME COURT: PORTLAND

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

And yet, Portland is a boring place players don't like frequent.

I'm getting mixed signals. :dunno:
 
Traffic sucks, but thats about it. and the rain has been a bit excessive this year, but thats the NW.
 
And yet, Portland is a boring place players don't like frequent.

I'm getting mixed signals. :dunno:

Visiting and living are two different things. When visiting, they are looking for entertainment, and that we dont have much of.
For living they are looking for peaceful serene environment and we have plenty of that.
 
Traffic sucks, but thats about it. and the rain has been a bit excessive this year, but thats the NW.

The traffic is getting worse and more and more idiots are using the side of the road as a dumpster. Portland used to be a nice clean city. Not so much anymore.
 
Traffic sucks, but thats about it. and the rain has been a bit excessive this year, but thats the NW.

Hah, if you think Portland traffic is bad, I'm guessing you've never lived in Seattle or Southern California.

The rain keeps things lush and green, and it beats shoveling snow (other Northern cities) or wildfires (Southern California). Plus, we have the most perfect summers I have ever seen.

BNM
 
Hah, if you think Portland traffic is bad, I'm guessing you've never lived in Seattle or Southern California.

The rain keeps things lush and green, and it beats shoveling snow (other Northern cities) or wildfires (Southern California). Plus, we have the most perfect summers I have ever seen.

BNM

Both, but Portland is now ranked at 7th worst and Seattle 5th worse. Per capita, we suck big time.

The rain is a compromise to the beauty.
 
And yet, Portland is a boring place players don't like frequent.

I'm getting mixed signals. :dunno:

Almost like you can't generalize about people, and each one is an entity deserving of their own opinions and respect?
 
I thought Scottie Pippen had a house in Portland as well? Rasheed? Damon?
 
Per capita is like per 36 min.....useless stat. I wait in traffic longer in the above mentioned cities than I do in P-Town. That's all I know.

Well duh. Portland is a quarter the size of Seattle and an 8th the size of LA. Those cities stretch out 3 times as far so it will take 3 times as long to get around

Per capita is not like a per 36. Its a real stat based on population. If you have 1 million people trying to drive on 1000 miles of road, that is different than 100,000 trying to drive on the same amount of road.
Or better yet, whats a better situation? 100 cars on the road at once with 25 miles to drive on one road, or 1000 cars on the road with 250 miles to drive on one road?

Per capita is an absolute valid stat for traffic.

Plus the article that I linked(which based on your response I can only assume you didn't open) has us ranked 7th worst, two spots better than Seattle. So why are we trying to even bring their traffic up? Me saying it sucks here is valid and it does. I'm sure some places might be worse... well 6 of them to be exact.....
 

Per capita traffic? What's that? Those cities have worse traffic precisely because they have more people.

I lived in Seattle before I moved to Portland. Both cities have grown considerably in the time I've been here, but Seattle rush hour traffic was worse 28 years ago than Portland's is today. Seattle has no urban growth boundary and poor planning that has led to horrible sprawl. The average lot size up there is much bigger than it is in Portland, and while that sounds nice at first, it creates a transportation nightmare in a large urban area. With everyone so spread out, you can't effectively address your traffic problem through the use of efficient public transportation. Throw in the bottlenecks caused by all the large bodies of water that commuters have to either drive across or around and traffic is an absolute nightmare. Beautiful city, but traffic flat out sucks.

And don't get me started on parking in downtown Seattle...

When we lived in Seattle, we were in the 'burbs and my wife worked in downtown Seattle. On a good day, her commute was 45 minutes each way (on a bad day, an hour and 15 minutes each way). When we moved to Portland, we also lived in the 'burbs and she worked in downtown Portland. On a bad day, her commute was 20 minutes. Of course, being in the 'burbs in Portland means you are physically closer to downtown, but that's the point. In Seattle, everything is so spread out, going into the city from the suburbs is a major undertaking (be sure you have a full tank of gas and the kids have used the restroom). Part of that is geography, but a large part of it is poor urban planning.

About six years after we moved here, we had an opportunity to move back to Seattle (we both had job offers up there). One weekend visit was all it took to convince us it would be a move backwards. Traffic was horrible, and at the time, the cost of a house in the Seattle area was about 50% more than a comparable house in Portland. The difference in housing costs isn't as great as it was then, and Portland traffic has gotten worse than it was 20 years ago, but it's not like Seattle traffic has gotten any better.

I will probably move someplace warm and sunny when I retire, but as far as a place to live from my mid-20s through my mid-50s, and a place to raise my kids, I can't think of a better place than Portland, OR.

BNM
 
And yet, Portland is a boring place players don't like frequent.

I'm getting mixed signals. :dunno:

Most of them probably wifey'd up local girls or settled down. It's terrible if you are single and wealthy.
 
Per capita traffic? What's that? Those cities have worse traffic precisely because they have more people.

I lived in Seattle before I moved to Portland. Both cities have grown considerably in the time I've been here, but Seattle rush hour traffic was worse 28 years ago than Portland's is today. Seattle has no urban growth boundary and poor planning that has led to horrible sprawl. The average lot size up there is much bigger than it is in Portland, and while that sounds nice at first, it creates a transportation nightmare in a large urban area. With everyone so spread out, you can't effectively address your traffic problem through the use of efficient public transportation. Throw in the bottlenecks caused by all the large bodies of water that commuters have to either drive across or around and traffic is an absolute nightmare. Beautiful city, but traffic flat out sucks.

And don't get me started on parking in downtown Seattle...

When we lived in Seattle, we were in the 'burbs and my wife worked in downtown Seattle. On a good day, her commute was 45 minutes each way (on a bad day, an hour and 15 minutes each way). When we moved to Portland, we also lived in the 'burbs and she worked in downtown Portland. On a bad day, her commute was 20 minutes. Of course, being in the 'burbs in Portland means you are physically closer to downtown, but that's the point. In Seattle, everything is so spread out, going into the city from the suburbs is a major undertaking (be sure you have a full tank of gas and the kids have used the restroom). Part of that is geography, but a large part of it is poor urban planning.

About six years after we moved here, we had an opportunity to move back to Seattle (we both had job offers up there). One weekend visit was all it took to convince us it would be a move backwards. Traffic was horrible, and at the time, the cost of a house in the Seattle area was about 50% more than a comparable house in Portland. The difference in housing costs isn't as great as it was then, and Portland traffic has gotten worse than it was 20 years ago, but it's not like Seattle traffic has gotten any better.

I will probably move someplace warm and sunny when I retire, but as far as a place to live from my mid-20s through my mid-50s, and a place to raise my kids, I can't think of a better place than Portland, OR.

BNM

OKay, so you guys do understand that not all cities have the same amount of roads and square mileage within the borders right?

So cities that have more people living within the same space than a city with less people in the same space would mean worst traffic right?
My point is the city limits of Portland is dwarfed by the size of Seattle and LA metro. The amount of people per square mile is much more in both of those cities. There are less people per square mile in Portland. Like ALOT less, yet we are right behind those cities in traffic. Does that make more sense?
 
Per capita is not like a per 36. Its a real stat based on population. If you have 1 million people trying to drive on 1000 miles of road, that is different than 100,000 trying to drive on the same amount of road. Or better yet, whats a better situation? 100 cars on the road at once with 25 miles to drive on one road, or 1000 cars on the road with 250 miles to drive on one road?

Per capita is an absolute valid stat for traffic.

I was typing my response when you posted this. It's not just about population. It's about housing density and urban planning. Portland was at the forefront of the New Urban Planning movement. Seattle was a joke. They let the developers do whatever they wanted. That's what led to ridiculous, out of control, urban sprawl, which has made traffic a mess and efficient public transportation all but impossible.

BNM
 
I was typing my response when you posted this. It's not just about population. It's about housing density and urban planning. Portland was at the forefront of the New Urban Planning movement. Seattle was a joke. They let the developers do whatever they wanted. That's what led to ridiculous, out of control, urban sprawl, which has made traffic a mess and efficient public transportation all but impossible.

BNM

Exactly.
I think I explained it better in my next post.

Per capita based on the city limit square mileage.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top