BLOG: "...Melbourne and Portland share a similar outlook on what should be city life..."
Sam Adams
Melbourne is a port city like Portland, big handles more freight. Its land mass is bigger than Portland’s but its population is only 57,000 compared to Portland’s 535,000. It is the center of a region with 3.3 million people; our region is about 2 million. More than 30 percent of Melbourne residents speak some other language than English, more than the percentage of Portlanders. Like, Portland Melbourne faces a growing problem of housing affordability. Melbourne and Portland (like most ‘developed’ cities) are trying to reposition themselves as knowledge based economies.
Victoria Frey of Portland Oregon Institute for Contemporary Arts and I met today Deputy Lord Mayor Gary Singer in his office in the Melbourne’s historic Town Hall.
I found that he and I share at least three attributes: (1) we were both elected last November to our 
citywide, non-partisan, four-year posts; (2) he is the first openly gay member of Melbourne’s City Council; and, (3) his City Council portfolio responsibilities include arts and culture.
Of course, I liked the fact Deputy Lord Singer was a bundle of crackling energy, too.
Just like Mr. Singer and I share some attributes, Melbourne and Portland share a similar outlook on what should be city life. The City has charted a future for themselves that could read a lot like ours.
The vision statement of the City is to be, “...a thriving and sustainable city.”
City Council in its City Plan 2010 states it work, “…with all who have a stake in the City of Melbourne’s future to realize this vision and will simultaneously pursue:
• Economic prosperity;
• Social equity; and,
• Environmental quality.
Four inter-related strategic directions seek to define and propel Melbourne towards their vision and goals:
• Connection and accessibility;
o “A 'connected city' has local and regional, national and global connections…'connection’ incorporates physical links through transport and communications…” “An accessible city' has easy access to and within the city…and provides a welcome and supportive environment for all citizens.”
• Innovation and business vitality;
o “An ‘innovative city’ means promoting Melbourne as a smart, creative and progressive city. Innovation is critical to the continued development and property of the City. “A ‘vital business city’ ensures business development, job growth and enhancement of gateway infrastructure.”
• Inclusiveness and engagement;
o “An ‘inclusive city’ welcomes and enables people to participate fully…” “an ‘engaging city’ is an attractive and stimulating place in which to live, work and visit with a high level of cultural vibrancy…”
• Environmental responsibility.
o “An ‘environmentally responsible’ city seeks to actively increase natural assets through the decisions its makes…and the benefits and impacts these have on the natural world.”
The City Council has committed itself to monitor progress based on a “triple bottom line.” This means, “taking responsibility for achieving social, environmental and economic improvements through all our endeavors and reporting them openly and transparently.”
Melbourne is divided up into 14 areas, much like Portland’s eight neighborhood coalition boundaries. Their city plan includes citywide issues as well as key strategic issues and objectives for each of the 14 local areas. This has not been contemplated for Portland’s visioning process but could be included, wrapping into it existing neighborhood plans.
Read more on the Melbourne City Plan 2010: http://203.26.235.226/cityplan/infopage.cfm
Posted by Sam Adams on October 12, 2005
(6) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Blog, Front Page, Jobs & Economy, Livability & Environment, Melbourne
Comments by site visitors
Sam,
It's interesting that Melbourne with a population of 57,000 is divided up into 14 areas whereas Portland of 535,000 is divided up into 8 areas. It it the entire region of 3.3 million that is divided up or the City itself? Is it obvious what kind of responsibilities go with the areas?
How are the educational opportunities in Melbourne? Have they also moved in the direction of students achieving to measurable standards? Are funding and closing achievement gaps highly visible concerns? And how many different higher education opportunities show up to the visitors' eyes?
Melbourne sounds like a beautiful and interesting city, with a lot of useful ideas to share.
Your trip sounds really interesting.
Posted by: Jane | Oct 13, 2005 7:08:51 AM
Having had the opportunity to meet Sam and the folks from PICA yesterday (in Melbourne), can I say that you Portlanders are lucky to have such a committed and capable group of people doing what they do ! In reading Sam's (very good) blog above, I just wanted to clarify that Melbourne CBD has 53,000 residents while greater Melbourne proper has around 2.3million and is 80 miles North-South and 50 miles East-West.
Cheers
Peter Lewis
Also - having been to Portland a number of times, I can see a lot of similarities between your own beautiful city and Perth the capital city on our far Western Shores - similar sized population, and look and feel.
Posted by: Peter Lewis | Oct 13, 2005 4:32:24 PM
Sam,
Prague, Amsterdam, Melbourne? Sounds like a really great trip. But who’s paying for this? If it's the tax payers we lose. If it's lobbyists we lose. In reading what you have learned it looks about 99% of thie information could be obtained from the Melbourne City website or even an encyclopeida for school childern. Is this the return on investment you hoped for?
And really how did you get the time off from Burgerville?
Posted by: Whose Money | Oct 15, 2005 3:23:32 PM
Whose Money,
Thanks for your email. My trip to Melbourne was paid for by the Portland Institute for Contempory Arts and the City of Melbourne. I guess we will have to disagree about doing a site visit verses surfing the web. Feel free to check out my work schedule for the past 10 months; its posted on this site.
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Oct 16, 2005 8:28:39 PM
Hang in there, Sam. The last thing we need on the City council is a group that learns everything through reading. Broader experiences on the part of council members will lead to a better City.
Posted by: Roman | Oct 27, 2005 4:08:35 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Sam:
Like, Portland Melbourne faces a growing problem of housing affordability.
JK:
Here are some credible reports on the connection between government regulation and housing affordability:
From the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, FRBNY Economic Policy Review / June 2003
The Impact of Building Restrictions on Housing Affordability
www.ny.frb.org/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
From the Harvard Institute of Economic Research:
The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability
http://econweb.fas.harvard.edu/hier/2002papers/HIER1948.pdf
From Reason Public Policy Institute
REPAIRING THE LADDER
http://rppi.org/ps207.pdf
Described on the HUD web site at:
http://www.huduser.org/rbc/search/rbcdetails.asp?DocId=865
From: Bright Ideas:
Regulatory Barriers
Download from:
http://www.portlanddocs.com/housing/brightideasSpring2004regbarriers.pdf
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Oct 13, 2005 3:15:55 AM