One of these cities is the perennial Cinderella to urban planners; the other the ugly sister who always crashes the party. One is the well-planned "City of Roses" (no, not Pasadena), a bastion of mass-transit and controlled development along the Columbia River while its gargantuan sister to the south eschews all such enlightened principles.
That's the gist at least from this paean to Portland in the LA Times today about what the city could learn from its lithe Northern cousin.
A few key differences between these two:
• The vast majority (90%) of job growth in Portland has been in the suburbs
• Portland is actually far less dense than LA
• It has a tiny population of immigrants and poor vis-a-vis LA
• The city is losing families and children and rivals San Francisco for having the lowest percentage of its population under the age of 18 of any major U.S. city.
And he doesn't mention Portland's greatest comparative advantage to LA: amazing beer!
One thing both cities have in common right now: two of the most dynamic music scenes in the country.