Cited by 182Urban Planning and GovernanceEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesUrbanization and City Planning

Uneven development of the sustainable city: shifting capital in Portland, Oregon

Goodling, Erin, Green, Jamaal, McClintock, Nathan·2015·Urban Geography

Abstract

Portland, Oregon, is renowned as a paradigmatic “sustainable city.” Yet, despite popular conceptions of the city as a progressive ecotopia and the accolades of planners seeking to emulate its innovations, Portland’s sustainability successes are inequitably distributed. Drawing on census data, popular media, newspaper archives, city planning documents, and secondary source histories, we attempt to elucidate the structural origins of Portland’s “uneven development,” exploring how and why the urban core of this paragon of sustainability has become more White and affluent while its outer eastside has become more diverse and poor. We explain how a “sustainability fix”—in this case, green investment in the city’s core—ultimately contributed to the demarcation of racialized poverty along 82nd Avenue, a major north–south arterial marking the boundary of East Portland. Our account of structural processes taking place at multiple scales contributes to a growing body of literature on eco-gentrification and displacement and inner-ring suburban change while empirically demonstrating how Portland’s advances in sustainability have come at the cost of East Portland’s devaluation. Our “30,000 foot” perspective reveals systemic patterns that might then guide more fine-grained analyses of particular political-socio-cultural processes, while providing cautionary insights into current efforts to extend the city’s sustainability initiatives using the same green development model.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02723638.2015.1010791

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Portland launched in 2017 a Five-Year Racial Equity Plan to address historical and current disparities in parks distribution, access and quality, as an attempt to reveal the city's history of urban racial exclusion and become a leader in equitable greening and sustainable urban living in North America.

    “To counter that trend, Portland launched in 2017 a Five-Year Racial Equity Plan to address historical and current disparities in parks distribution, access and quality, as an attempt to reveal the city's history of urban racial exclusion and become a leader in equitable greening and sustainable urban living in North America (BCNUEJ, 2018;Goodling et al., 2015;Portland Parks and Recreations, 2017).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goodling, E., Green, J., & McClintock, N.
Affiliations
Portland State University (US)
Corresponding author
McClintock, Nathan
Venue
Urban Geography
Published
2015-03-10
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
504-527
ISSN
  • 0272-3638 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-2847
OpenAlex
W1999551682
Cited by
182
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
FWCI
47.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Urban Geography (publishedVersion)
  • PDXScholar (Portland State University) (submittedVersion)
  • EspaceINRS (National Institute for Scientific Research (Canada)) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Planning and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urbanization and City Planning
Keywords
sustainable cities, uneven development, displacement, racialized poverty, green investment, urban capital, urban inequality, Portland, Oregon

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review