It's lowered at sunset.

The sign has shrunk because Ikea has become insecure now that Randy Leonard has shown that he is the more alpha and bigger male when it comes to Portland business building permits...

A good dose of Portland Business Alliance brand viagra will perk it right back up...

Huffing and puffing is much more influential than I thought. Good fodder for the next voting brochure.

Looks the same to me (not lower).

It's an optical illusion. The IKEA store was just painted blue so it looks connected to the sign.
It's a big blue store, in a blue city, in a blue state.
No problem there!

Yes,IKEA, the Wal- Mart of Sweden!

Anne K.

You hit it. It's a Portland tradition. I've lived here all my life... born in 1954. Things from Europe have always been cool in Portland, while their exact American counterparts were held in ridicule.

In 1971, Schwinn Varsity 10 speeds were held in disdain, Peugeot 10 speeds (like I had) were cool. The environmental movement was just heating up (the Vietnam protests had wound down and we needed a new cause), so a VW Kharmann Ghia was way cool, a Ford Mustang was a gas guzzling abomonition.

IKEA is cool. Wal-Mart is evil. Tom Peterson's is stupid, Dania is awesome.

So it goes in Portland.

Actually, Anne and Dave, the IKEA vs. Wal-Mart comparison has been done - and, well, there's no comparison.

Cambridge University's Centre for Business Research produced a working paper called 'The Export of National Varieties of Capitalism: the Cases of Wal-Mart and Ikea'.

From a summary article:

They contrast the approach of Wal-Mart, which they say "uses its market power to squeeze suppliers in order to minimise cost and price, with adverse effects on the socio-economic conditions in localities in which they trade", with that of IKEA. "IKEA’s power is used in a constructive way, to work with suppliers in order to help them deliver low prices without compromising product quality or social and environmental standards," says the report.

Co-authors Suzanne J Konzelmann, Frank Wilkinson, Charles Craypo and Rabih Aridi add: "In so doing, IKEA exports the high quality of customer/supplier and employee relationships expected of Swedish companies to its third world suppliers and its retail outlet employees and customers, to the mutual benefit of these stakeholder groups, host localities and IKEA itself."

And further:

Though most of IKEA’s production takes place in lower-cost countries such as China and Poland, it nonetheless expects suppliers to conform to certain criteria regarding their legal, employment, social and environmental responsibilities. These include not using child labour and providing safe working environments. ...

The researchers contrast this with Wal-Mart’s relationships with its suppliers, reporting that Wal-Mart’s global supply chain "is another source of cost-saving for the company, with devastating effects on the trade balances of third world countries whose export sectors are vulnerable to Wal-Mart’s supply chain relations." ...

The researchers conclude, "As evident in these cases, corporate concentration in retailing has directly affected the trade fortunes of third world countries. Whereas the Wal-Mart case illustrates the potential costs of a market-based, ‘low road’ approach to global sourcing, the IKEA case demonstrates the potential benefits of an organisation-oriented, ‘high road’ strategy to long-term system performance for the corporate, national and global productive systems of which it forms a part."

Particle board is not cool.

Dave, Costco is also cool, if you think the only difference between Walmart and Ikea is that one is European I want some of what your smokin'

Hmmm... maybe it's because Jack's outta town, but my comment never got approved.

Comparing IKEA vs. Wal-Mart.

when confused, follow this simple rule:

any product traveling thousands of miles to get to you is never "sustainable".

Ikea's no better than Costco which is no better than WalMart. any claim otherwise is the retail equivalent of a 600-pound guy trying to convince you he eats a balanced diet.

There seems to be a pattern here. If any company in this country has the misfortune of too much success, they then become the target du jour for groups that see that success as a bad thing.
McDonalds, Nike, Microsoft and others have all been vilified as evil corporate citizens and now it's Wal Mart's turn.
All these companies are market leaders because they give people what they want at the best value.
I'm sure IKEA will find success selling their furniture that's made in China and Poland just as I'm sure that furniture makers in North Carolina will argue that they make a superior product without outsourcing jobs.
What it all boils down to is the consumer making a choice between quality and price.
Even particle board is cool when it is what you can afford.

There seems to be a pattern here. If any company in this country has the misfortune of too much success, they then become the target du jour for groups that see that success as a bad thing.

no, James, it's not the "success". it's what's done to achieve it. i don't criticize WalMart for making money--i criticize them for *how they make it.*

McDonalds, Nike, Microsoft and others have all been vilified as evil corporate citizens and now it's Wal Mart's turn.

that's the first mistake--thinking of corporations as "citizens." they never should be. no corporation is a "good citizen".

All these companies are market leaders because they give people what they want at the best value.

no, they're "market leaders" because they manufacture and import goods at the expense of poor in other countries, the environment and small business. they exploit labor and extract resources abroad. they lobby government with millions so they can continue to do business as usual. this isn't a fantasy--it's been proven repeatedly and at length. for starters, Ikea and WalMart have been caught repeatedly running and buying from factories using children as laborers.

you *do* understand how Americans get cheap prices, right?

What it all boils down to is the consumer making a choice between quality and price.

no. it all boils down to the consumer making a choice between ridiculous levels of consumption without any consideration of the consequences and a lifestyle that's actually sustainable.

but don't worry. sooner or later, we'll only have one of those two options left.

I'm won't worry. I have consumption credits.