* Core Sessions: An in-depth introduction to the principles that are the foundation for creating livable communities that respond to our economic, energy and environmental challenges.
* Livable Communities: Strategies for planning and financing livable communities in the next real estate cycle, with the goal of enhancing transit ridership and creating neighborhoods that meet the needs of today's changing society.
* Partnering for Sustainable Communities: A discussion of the power of partnerships to create and sustain economically vibrant, environmentally responsible, and socially diverse communities for future generations.

Sorry, Chris, I don't consider unlimited growth "sustainable." A little over a year ago at a special symposium designed for Metro area civic leaders, all were advised, by an urban growth "expert," that the US should prepare for a population level of 500 million by 2050 and one billion by 2100. Suffice it to say that, even among that crowd, this statement elicited more than a few snickers.

It doesn't matter how artfully this extra population could be fit into the urban areas. This growth would necessarily have an impact throughout the whole region-----or nation as it may be. In the time that Oregon's population has doubled----about forty years, I think,----- we have seen an even greater increase in red tape, fees and bureaucracy.

Since the natural replacement rate in civilized countries has either leveled off or been in decline, where would the new inhabitants of these "sustainable communities" come from? I think I know the answer. If the final, essential component to building this new "sustainable" America, is a huge influx of new inhabitants.....I say "Who needs it?" I don't see any tangible benefit to those of us already here. And there doesn't seem to be any general economic advantage to anyone, except to certain individuals who would stand to profit from it. Economic development is far less costly, in real dollars, overseas in developing countries, than it is here in the USA. If something is going to be considered "sustainable" (which is all well and good) it should also pencil out financially.

I'm so confused!

Ron,

Of the countries of the world--which do you consider "civilized", and which not?

I've been to Rail-Volution St Louis, Dallas, Denver and San Francisco. They were all pretty great. Their vendor display hall, open to the public at specific times, is worth a visit. Rail-Volution is likely to continue its annual outreach as the light rail movement is only beginning. Portland Transit should seriously consider hosting some formal event to Rail-Volution visitors. And Psst, Let's not leave them with the impression that Portland transit activists are either surrealist mud hut dwellers or tea baggers, tea baggists, tea baggerians, tea baggeranados....

Of the countries of the world--which do you consider "civilized", and which not?

I'd assume he meant what used to be called "first world" to mean civilized. That's how I read it. Their really hasn't been a good phrase to replace it since the concept of first/second/third world ended with the Cold War. (Sorry, it's one of the few lessons I remember from a very mediocre Political Science teacher I had in college.)

It's an interesting question though. Can cities like Detroit, Buffalo and St Louis turn the vacated housing in their city cores into something usable again? I've read articles recently promoting the idea of turning large swaths of urban prairies and feral houses in Detroit into local farms to help make the city more sustainable with more locally produced crops and other agriculture. It could also provide either jobs of a lower cost of living for populations that live on significantly less than most Portland families. That's a far cry from Portland's version of how to build a sustainable neighborhood, but is it a bad way to approach the situation?

All three cities I mentioned above have thousands upon thousands of houses that are abandoned, relatively high population densities in older neighborhoods that have survived the past 30 to 40 years of decline, and populations that want to do better with what they have. (That's a long read but quite interesting and inspiring.) Buffalo (the one I'm most familiar with) has a population density approximately three times that of Portland, yet has a lot of land that's less than desirable, and not brown fields. According to an article from the Buffalo News last fall there are at least 10,000 unoccupied and abandoned houses on a waiting list to be torn down in a city that's about 1/3 the square mileage of Portland.

Will the future of sustainability come in the form of building lots of neighborhoods like the Pearl, or from the slums of the rust belt in the form of urban farming among dense neighborhoods? A Sustainable neighborhood may be able to come in many forms. Maybe light rail smart growth will work best for us, and maybe community farms and such will work best for other areas. At this point it seems like a definition for a lot of unique solutions to a lot of unique problems.