Vancouver by EcstaticistWhich is the better place to live, Portland, OR, or Vancouver, BC?

Well, Vancouver keeps getting high marks in international surveys of urban livablity. Yet a few weeks back, the BC-based online magazine The Tyee ran a series of lively and well-written articles by Christine McLaren arguing Portland bests Vancouver on some key measures of quality of life.

Since I live in Seattle, I don’t really have a dog in this fight. And in principle I love this sort of inter-city cage match, since it focuses people’s attentions on what other cities are doing right, and how we can improve livability in our own backyard.

Still, after diving numbers a bit (I admit it, I can’t help myself) I feel like I just had to add my two cents to this debate—and point out a few places where I feel like those articles are off base.

  • Give today to help Sightline reach our goal of $100,000!

    Thanks to Brian Walker for supporting a sustainable Cascadia.


    $77,000

    Donate Today

    • Now, to be fair, I think that McLaren gets many things basically right. Take bicycling: McLaren argues that Portland has a much more bike-friendly culture and infrastructure than does Vancouver. And I can find at least some numbers that seem to back that up. For example, Portland has slightly higher rates of bike commuting than does Vancouver: within the Rose City itself, about 3.9 percent of commuters get to work on bike; the figure is just 3.1 percent (pdf link) in Vancouver. (Note, however, that Alan has a different take on bike-friendliness in Cascadia.)

    Vancouver Homelessness by Jackie KingsburyBut then there’s homelessness. McLaren points to Portland’s recent progress in tackling its own homeless problems as evidence that Vancouver’s homeless policies and funding sources simply aren’t up to snuff. Perhaps that’s right. But focusing on a few of Portland’s successes misses a huge and somewhat hidden blemish in the Rose City’s homeless record: Portland puts vastly more people in jail than Vancouver.

    The numbers on homelessness rates themselves are a bit dicey. Both cities do one-night counts of their homeless population (here’s Portland’s, and here’s Vancouver’s). But the counts are hard to compare directly, since they were done on different dates, used slightly different methods and definitions, use different geographic boundaries, and could have different error rates. Because of the methodological confusion, I’ll call the numbers on homeless rates a draw—while noting that the raw counts found that Multnomah County alone, with only 714 thousand residents, had slightly more unsheltered homeless folks than all of Metro Vancouver, which is three times Multnomah’s size.

    But the difference in prison and jail populations between BC and Oregon are simply staggering, and subject to the none of the data confusion that surrounds homeless counts. Oregon’s state prison system houses almost 14,000 inmates, and Portland’s jail population tops 1,300. In contrast, British Columbia has more total residents than Oregon, yet only about 2,700 total inmates in its jails and prisons. Apples to apples, Oregon imprisons more than 5 times as many people as BC. And, of course, many of Oregon’s prisoners are locked away for drug crimes—which is at the root of many of Vancouver’s most public homelessness struggles.

    The bottom line: including Portland’s large and growing prison population puts the city’s “success” in homeless policy in a different light. Portland’s homeless problem may seem less pressing, but that’s largely because—as is completely typical in the United States—Portland locks a large portion of its homeless problem in jail, where it’s harder to see.

    Then there’s the argument that Portland’s simply a better city if you’re young, creative, and underemployed. Compared with “Blandcouver,” McLaren argues, Portland is cheaper, more interesting, less obsessed with money, and has a better bar scene. And she suggests that Vancouver’s faults have driven young people out of the city.

    Perhaps she’s on to something—and having graduated from the “young, carefree” demographic myself (sigh), I’m perhaps not the best person to judge.

    But this is one of the first times I’ve run across a paean to high unemployment: “The city is full of semi to un-employed twenty-somethings happy to work casual hours carting coffee beans in exchange for an easy lifestyle.” By the official counts, she’s right—there really are a lot of Portland residents who can’t find work. Nearly one out of every eight Portlanders who want a job can’t find one right now. In Vancouver, it’s just one in fourteen. And while “funemployment” can be ok if you’re young and carefree, if you’re on the brink of homelessness, or have someone depending on you for financial support, there’s nothing fun about it. And that’s especially true if you get sick: every single resident of BC has health insurance, but one in six Oregonians has no protection against the financial risks of

    illness.

    Of course, unemployment trends can turn on a dime—and Vancouver’s current employment rates may owe more to the Olympics than to anything else; the city could be facing some severe aftershocks once the games are concluded. Regardless, while I have no problem with celebrating Portland’s mellow, laid-back vibe, I think there’s a danger in being complacent about unemployment; for a lot of folks, it’s not an opportunity to be enjoyed, but a pressing problem to be solved.

    Then there’s the contention that young people are hightailing it out of Vancouver—a claim that, as far as I can tell, occupies some sort of weird middle ground between deception and nonsense. Says McLaren: “Since 1996 the population of young people in Metro Vancouver has actually decreased by 10.1 percent.” Yet data on the website of BC’s statistical agency shows that the only absolute population declines have been among kids 10 years of age and under. And that’s entirely due to broader demographic trends that are prevalent throughout the province: starting in about 1995, British Columbia’s fertility rates started to fall. The steepest declines were among teenage girls: birth rates in the 15-19 age bracket fell by more than half over the period. Today, an Oregon teenager is more than three times as likely to have a baby as a BC teen. So to a large extent, the decline in “young people” that the article bemoans is largely the result of the rapid progress BC has made in reducing teen births—a trend that’s hardly worth criticizing, in my view.

    Besides, compared with the rest of the province, Vancouver’s a veritable magnet for the under-30 set. Between 1996 and 2008, the under-30 population in greater Vancouver increased by 54,000; in the rest of the province, under-30s declined by 40,000. The only thing that I can think here is that McLaren and I are looking at different numbers, since I just don’t see how it’s possible to argue that young people are abandoning the province’s largest metropolis.

    I don’t mean to be too harsh—McLaren’s articles are entertaining and well-written, and have stimulated a lot of worthwhile discussion. And there’s no question that there are things that Vancouver could be doing better, and some things at which Portland excels.

    But for any Vancouver doomsayers out there, I think a reality check is in order: by my count, the city’s doing better than some of its critics would have you believe.

    Vancouver photo courtesy of Flickr user Ecstaticist under a Creative Commons license.

    Vancouver homelessness photo courtesy of Flickr user Jackie Kingsbury under a Creative Commons license.