Although Portland, Oregon is widely regarded as a "bike friendly" city, its bike equity remains in question. This thesis explores the barriers to biking that women and people of color face in Portland. This research uses feminist geography scholarship to understand how cycling spaces are unequal for marginalized cyclists. Using data from 28 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with infrequent and marginalized cyclists, I found that gender and race inequalities shape their barriers to biking. A hegemonic white, elite, and masculine bike culture controls the domination of cycling spaces. Women's gendered spatial inequalities are shaped by their childrearing demands, geography of fear, and street harassment. Cyclists of color experience a fear of public space due to racial profiling and police violence, and racial spatial inequalities are shaped by Portland's historic and racist city planning that gentrifies and displaces residents of color. Furthermore, intersectional inequalities of gender, race, and class, emerge and illustrate how cycling spaces are built to be unequal. These findings suggest that spatial inequalities in the urban landscape are pervasive in multiple spaces such as bike lanes, and that more research and policy is needed to increase ridership among women and people of color.

The Urban Center Plaza at Portland State University is a high profile place situated in downtown Portland, Oregon. In some ways it is the ideal university plaza providing space for eating, conversing, or limited recreational activity. It is a place that has been studied before, but not in a more in-depth method incorporating quantitative and qualitative analyses. It is also a place that has gone through several stages of development and is the target of many opinions based on casual observations, at times due to these changes. This thesis focuses on an ethnography of place in this particular plaza in an effort to more thoroughly analyze how people use the space and how it came together to become the plaza known by Portlanders today. This is done through the use of random video observations, direct observations, and in-depth interviews with those who were involved in the creation of the plaza. Analysis of the video recordings includes pedestrian counts, behavioral maps, and common routes taken through the plaza. Direct observations provide more insight into the day-to-day activities of the plaza and the phenomenological perspective of the design elements. Interviews allow for a more complete timeline of events in order to assess the plaza properly. By combining these methods based on other plaza-based ethnographies, it is concluded that the plaza is a well-used and successful space and even suggest possible areas of improvement. Methods are also assessed for future use on other city parks and plazas, possibly in a comparative context.

Many researchers argue the increasing reliance on sit/lie ordinances to regulate homeless people's use of public space is one in a suite of neoliberal policies that shape the geographies of public space in cities to serve the needs of global capital. However, these policies are developed at the local, not global, level as specific actors make claims in the public sphere that communicatively shape policy formation. Through comparative case study, this research asks, how do different actors, situated in specific local and global contexts, influence the adoption of sit/lie ordinances? I examine two cases of policymaking in Portland and San Francisco. I use discourse analytic strategies and thematic coding of newspapers, archival documents, and key informant interviews to look at policy-making processes as they occur in their political, social, and economic contexts. I focus especially on the role of language in policy-making, policy-making arenas, and actions of grassroots actors, drawing from three interdisciplinary literatures to develop an explanatory theory of policy-making. I find the four interrelated explanatory factors in policy-making were: the actors (neoliberal and right-to-the-city); the tactics they use; the policy talk they use; and the policy arenas. First, political processes provide windows of opportunity and determine arenas for political activities. The different policy arenas (citizen election, committee, council led, litigation, etc.) influence the audience that the actors care about, and thus the policy talk. Additionally, elected officials have a determining effect on which arenas they use, which in turns structures the opportunities for policy talk. Second, the arena influences the depth to which resisters can discuss the issues with the wider public and decision-makers. This may explain why the right-to-the-city frame may not have been used as much as the academic literature might suggest. Resisters find it much harder to use this framing with the general public or elected officials because it takes too much time to explain to those unfamiliar. Instead, they rely more on concepts that may be more familiar like the dependent poor and unequal impact of the law on minority groups. Third, I find local actors have different positions in the global economy, however on the local level their different avenues and strategies of involvement are due to local conditions rather than global ones. The location in the global political economy seems to be less important than local political decision making contexts and the actions of individuals who are locally powerful due to their economic status and political connections. This suggests room for resisters to use local politics to resist these ordinances, without having to take on the entire global economy. Finally, actors use different narratives to influence decision makers and each other, responding and shifting to competing frames over time. The change over time is important, as it shows how policy debates change based on influences from different actors. My findings suggest the framing of the original necessity for the policy can influence the policy trajectory, but actors can and do respond and successfully shift policy talks over time. The dissertation concludes with additional implications for grassroots practice based on these theoretical findings.