Portland get mentioned in one of Matt Yglesias’ recent posts, commenting on how many cities cited as models for urban planing have low African American populations.
if you take a place that’s under-invested for decades in walkable urbanism and then create a bit of walkable urbanism the tendency is for that bit to become very expensive. And since African-American households have lower incomes and substantially less wealth than white households, the tendency is for the walkable urban places to become white. But to raise this as an objection to building walkable urbanism is like saying that we shouldn’t try to have great public schools, because poor people might not be able to afford to live near them. That’s totally backwards—the inability of poor people to afford to live in good school districts highlights the need for more good educational opportunities not fewer. By the same token, if investments in walkable urbanism cause prices to shoot up and price people out of the area that shows that we need more walkable urbanism.
From my own personal experience, living in NE Portland, I think it is obvious that progressive urban planning can make it more difficult for low income families to live in gentrifying neighborhoods (Alberta). While I agree with Yglesias that investing in more walkable urbanism will help solve the problem of low income people being priced out, I think other policy solutions should also be used. Such as housing vouchers to help low income families afford living in gentrifying neighborhoods.