Raising Sights

Losing OSCON: why it matters

The Oregonian reported on Thursday that the O'Reilly Open Source Convention (OSCON) has decided to leave Portland after six years in favor of the Bay Area. While not entirely surprising, this news is concerning for at least two reasons.

First, it very visibly announces to the world that Portland is no longer the hub of open-source software activity that it claimed to be a few years ago. For all the talk of "industry clusters" in economic development circles, Portland needs to become more effective at growing them into sustainable clusters. Too often, they burn brightly, get hyped, and then move out of the region or fade away (Vera Katz' failed creative services building--now home to the PDC--and the fading display cluster of InFocus, Pixelworks and others come to mind).

Second, this represents the loss of the largest conference held annually in Portland (with approximately 2,000 attendees, according to The Oregonian) at a time when this market badly needs to gain some traction, not lose the little bit it has. The Oregon Convention Center can accomodate events of 10,000.
I've heard that the only has a 30% utlization rate, but have not been able to confirm this in print. What I can confirm, however is the following, from the Oregon Convention Center 2005-2006 Annual Report (the most recent online):

In 2006, 87 percent of all events at the OCC were comprised of smaller-sized meetings and state and local groups. Only by attracting larger national and regional conventions – whose attendees spend money on hotel rooms, transportation, food and beverage, hospitality, and other event-related services – will the region enjoy the full economic benefit generated by the convention center. The total economic impact of the center’s operations in 2006 was 32 percent lower than in 2005. This lower return on investment is due to the decline in the total attendee days and overnight stays normally brought by national and regional convention business. (emphasis added)

Unless Portland wants to continue to recede into the ranks of tertiary markets (and be grouped with markets like Boise and Sacramento), we need to go on the offensive, build the convention center hotel as soon as possible, grow our existing industry clusters and court new ones.

Infrastructure: $10 billion is needed, let's get working...

Friday's Oregonian notes in the fifth paragraph of a story titled "Sewage backup: Would you like one?" that, "According to an analysis by Metro, the regional government, meeting the population and job growth in Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington counties will require infrastructure improvements of $27 billion to $41 billion. Even if that growth doesn't occur, the region's infrastructure needs $10 billion worth of repair..."

Malu Wilkinson, a Metro planner, is quoted as saying, "We're trying to emphasize that this is not just a problem of growth. It's also a problem of living off investments made 30, 40, 50, or 100 years ago--without reinvesting (emphasis added)."

We need to aggressively re-evaluate our collective priorities. Infrastructure isn't exciting, but it is essential. Much like Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I would argue that having sound infrastructure with sufficient capacity is foundational and a prerequisite to more exciting projects (arts and culture funding, parks, social and community programs, etc.). For too long, we have lived off the courageous leadership and ambitious infrastructure investments of previous generations. It's time to start thinking big again.

At the ULI Central City symposium on Thursday, someone mentioned the 200+ mph MagLev trains that China now has in some of its cities. I'm sorry, the Portland Streetcar and MAX are nice, but not in the same league at all. We need to invest in (among other things) high-speed, high-capacity transit along the I-5 corridor as soon as possible. While we continue to drink the Kool-Aid about how cool Portland is (most recently from the NYTimes), we have lost our edge. Together, we can do this, but the time is now.