The article and discussion make me wonder about Portland, OR where I live. The city and metro area have become more population dense over time. In fact, the p

The article and discussion make me wonder about Portland, OR where I live. The city and metro area have become more population dense over time. In fact, the population of Portland per se has doubled since the 1970's while its boundaries haven't changed a bit. Cities in Oregon have been constrained by "urban growth boundaries" since 1973, the idea is preventing sprawl and encroachment on farm land. That guarantees population increases will require "infill" and that's exactly what's happening. This is a polar contrast to Phoenix, AZ, which happens to be the place I grew up in. Even as a kid it was easy to observe the immense sprawl associated with the region's inbred suburban culture. The article's commentary about the sharp edges of development in the Phoenix area points ironically to a similar-appearing phenomenon in the Portland area. There are a number of roads a few miles from the center of the city where one side is jam-packed with dense residential construction, and the other traditional farm land stretching to the horizon. It gives another meaning to the phrase, "keeping Portland weird".