Urban growth

Running header: Urban growth

Urban growth boundary of PortlandPositive and negative aspects of the urban growth boundary

Jenny Payne

Cleveland State UniversityDecember 12, 2008

1

Urban growth

Introduction “Urban sprawl is public enemy No. 1.” Suburban Milwaukee resident (Squires, 2002)

Urban sprawl is a growing problem in the United States, as cities continue to grow more

space is needed to accommodate the ever growing populace. Sprawl is best defined as urban

growth reflecting low density housing, car dependent societies, with new housing developments

growing on the fringe of a deteriorating city (Squires, 2002). Edge cities have also started

springing up as residents continue to migrate away from the central city. Residents who are left

behind in the central city are those who can not afford to move away, and are often located in

areas of the city perceived as being the most violent. There are many environmental impacts of

sprawl, such as carbon emissions, as residents commute between work and place of residence.

Urban sprawl is not a sustainable way of urban planning, as it consumes valuable land.

Oregon decided to combat urban sprawl by enacting legislation that required every major city in

the state to put an urban growth boundary around the city. Ideal each city would plan for urban

growth over a set period of time. This paper looks at urban growth boundaries, the effects, both

positive and negative, on residents living in Portland, Oregon. Lastly, some ideas are presented

on how to continue the urban growth boundaries, with resident support, so as to combat the

growing issue of urban sprawl.

Urban growth boundary

An urban growth boundary (UGB) is a boundary surrounding a city allowing for further

growth within a limited area. Metro, the organization in charge of regulating Portland’s UGB,

defines then as signifying “the separation of rural and urban land” (Metro, 2002). UGB’s

developed out of a philosophy that city’s needed to become more compact, intruding less out

onto the surrounding rural landscape of farmlands and forested areas. When planning an UGB

2

Urban growth

twenty years worth of urban growth must be allowed for inside the boundary line (Harvey,

2002).

The main idea behind UGB is to preserve rural land for farming, as well as forest and

other natural landscapes, located outside the city’s parameter, attempting to prevent further

sprawl from urban growth. Another aspect to come out of the UGB idea was the growth

concept, which had three alternatives, growing up, growing out or connecting neighboring cities.

This idea of growth came out of a need to make some decisions on how best to manage the cities

growth. Trends in the 1990’s showed that cities were growing at a fast pace, with a huge influx

of people migrating into urban areas (Metro, 2000). Growing up would mean a higher density of

residences located in smaller areas. Growing out means having low density residences with

more sprawl. Connecting neighboring cities includes building transit corridors to provide a

quick and easy transit between neighboring urban centers.

The issue of urban sprawl, as well as a lack of green spaces locate in cities, has increased

over the last 50 year becoming a major issue for cities. States attempting to combat the issue of

urban sprawl created an UGB to limit outward growth of cities located in state boundaries.

UGB’s are meant to improve the quality of life for urban dwellers by incorporating mixed land

use, allowing for residence to live close to shops and employment opportunities.

There are several components in how to apply UGB’s around an urban center. First,

there is compact development, which “requires some concentration of employment, some

clustering of housing and some mixing of land uses” (Yang, 2008). Compact development is a

high density development, with residents living in close proximity to each other. Compact

development limits urban sprawl, using land more efficiently in areas once considered to be

suburbs (Wheeler, 2003). Mixed land use, or diverse developments, includes commercial,

3

Urban growth

industrial, public lands and residential housing (Yang, 2004). Ideally mixed land use should

include a variety of building styles; otherwise urban areas lack character and become dreary

urbanized landscapes (Wheeler, 2003). Building nature into the urban landscape provides areas

for parks allowing the natural environment to remain in city limits. Rezoning areas around

wetlands can protect valuable ecosystems, creating floodplains around cities. Instead of

diverting streams allowing them to flow along natural stream beds prevents flooding of urban

areas increasing the value of living in urban areas near natural stream beds.

Beginning of the urban growth boundaries in Oregon

Oregon has a long history of legalizing UGB’s around major cities; these land use laws

protect rural areas. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s many environmentalists, as well as the

governor of Oregon, were concerned about urban sprawl (Abbott, 2002). These concerned

citizens wanted to find ways to prevent, or at least slow down, urban sprawl, as well as providing

easy access to nature. Governor Tom McCall was a major advocate for protecting the

environment and limiting urban sprawl from taking over cities in the state of Oregon.

In 1969 Senate Bill (SB) 10 required cities to prepare management plans for land use and

zoning ordinances which needed to meet certain criteria lead out by SB 10. Four years later in

1973 Oregon enacted the first major land use laws, SB 100, in the United States. Passage of SB

100 was lead by Governor McCall, to limit the amount of urban sprawl. Land use legislation

came about when Governor McCall challenged the lawmakers to come up with better land

management policies. McCall was quoted as saying, “there is a shameless threat to our

environment and to the whole quality of life – the unfettered despoiling of the land” (Abbott,

2002). The law stated that every major city in Oregon must have an urban growth boundary in

place. Fifty five percent of the voters in Oregon voted to support the SB 100 in a referendum

4

Urban growth

(Abbott, 2002). When cities were planning the urban growth boundary they had to plan for 20

years worth of urban growth. By 1979 twenty four cities were involved with the UGB, including

Portland, covering 240,000 acres worth of land (Metro, 2000). Oregon’s land planning laws was

one of the first such laws in the United States.

Portland’s urban growth boundaries

When Portland was founded city streets, and neighborhoods, were based on a grid

pattern, starting at a central point in the city. Surrounding the core of the city were mixed use

neighborhoods, small stores conveniently located near housing allowing families easy access to

goods and services. Portland covers a flat area east of the Willimette River, therefore Portland

could easily spread outward. A majority of the streets blocks were only 200 feet long, allowing

pedestrians easy access to different parts to the city. Towards the middle of the 19 th century

many cities, including Portland, were steadily growing outward. At the edge of the city was

farmland, which provided city residents with a ready source of food (Wheeler, 2003).

In 1972 Portland residents were calling for an innovative plan to reshape downtown

Portland. By 1974 Portland had created the Office of Neighborhood Association, as well as

demolishing a freeway in order to plant trees and grass (Abbott, 2002). In 1978 Portland voters

approved a measure creating a regional government which would regulate the state mandated

UGB; the regional government would be named Metro. Metro is responsible for planning land

usage in the Portland region (Harvey, 2002). The UGB surrounding Portland encompasses 24

cities, covering parts of three counties, and an area of 363 square miles (Harvey, 2002). As of

2002, 1.3 million residents are affected by an UGB surrounding greater Portland (Song, 2002)

Metro realized in 1988 that no procedures where in place to review, or make changes, to

Portland’s UGB as required by the state. Over the next three years Metro worked a plan as the

5

Urban growth

local economy was growing, and expansion was becoming necessary for the cities survival.

Finally, in 1991 Metro created a “Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives” (RUGGOs),

which provided for a wide variety of urban growth (Abbott, 2002). RUGGOs also had plans for

a reviewing process to ensure that objectives of urban growth were being met. Growth would

include having mixed neighborhoods, allowed for compact growth, preservation of existing

areas, and advocated mass transit (Abbott, 2002).

In 1994 Metro created a plan, “Region 2040 growth concept” to accommodate growth for

Portland, the plan allowed for up to one million additional residents to migrate into the area

(Abbott, 2002). “Region 2040” also provides plans for urban growth, and planning, for the next

50 years. The plan focuses on sustainable urban growth, including providing jobs, and housing

in downtown Portland. Region 2040 also identified transportation corridors surrounding

Portland, and identified areas that would permanently remain outside the UGB. Areas that

permanently would remain outside the UGB included forests, farm land and other critical natural

landscape features. The plan also lead to rezoning of many areas in Portland, especially in areas

previously zoned for single family housing, for apartment buildings in a rush to obtain higher

density populations in smaller spaces. By having higher density in urban areas the hope was to

have less traffic and more reliance on public transit.

With any new concept, such as urban growth boundaries, there are groups that are for the

UGB’s and others that are against UGB’s. Individuals who are for urban growth boundaries

point to the fact that valuable farm land provides a valuable food source for the city. Individuals

who are against urban growth boundaries cite the fact that families, or other individuals, will not

be able to effectively pursue the American dream as they might not be able to afford homes at

current asking price.

6

Urban growth

Negative effects of urban growth boundaries for Portland

Critics of the UGB have argued that UGB’s negatively impact residents living in

Portland. According to O’Toole (2004), Metro wanted to rezone areas of Portland, even when

residents spoke out against rezoning of areas in which they lived, Metro won the rezoning bid.

Neighborhoods with single family dwellings were being rezoned to allow apartment buildings to

be built. Rezoning these areas meant that now there was a higher density of people living in the

newly rezoned areas. Rezoning caused housing prices to sky rocket in certain areas around

Portland. Many families, and individuals, could not afford to buy homes in Portland. In many

cases zoning of these areas was so stringent that many homes destroyed by fire could not be

rebuilt as single family houses, instead apartment complexes had to replace single family

dwellings.

Another aspect of UGB was to cut down on traffic in urban centers, by creating a reliance

on mass transit versus cars. Putting in more mass transit lines does not always work either as

having access to mass transit does not necessarily increase ridership. What the UGB failed to

take into account was that many people enjoy driving. Along with the UGB creating higher

population density, roads were becoming narrower hence traffic congestion got worse instead of

improving. Many new rail lines were constructed, costing more then an eight land freeway,

throughout Portland in hopes that ridership would increase. Ridership of mass transit in fact did

not increase.

Another area which has been affected is business, as Metro wanted to decrease the

amount of parking spaces located outside different places of business. The city of Portland

wanted to increase ridership on the mass transit system. By decreasing the amount of parking

7

Urban growth

spaces the hope was more people would ride mass transit instead of driving. Many residents of

Portland did not agree with this idea, even voting against the funding for more transit lines.

In one mixed, high density, pedestrian friendly areas the only vacancies were store fronts,

as retail owners did not want to locate to areas where business was virtually nonexistent. In

some areas the center is not growing as well as it could be as many shops do not have enough

parking spaces. Many customers go to shopping centers which have plenty of parking spaces

surrounding stores (O’Toole, 2004). So in this instance having a UGB did not work as shop

owners do not locate in the urban center as customers tend to not shop in areas with scarce

parking spaces.

Positive effects of urban growth boundaries

The main aim of the UGB is to preserve farm land from the effects of urban sprawl so

prominent in society. During the mid 1990’s the amount of farms increased as well as the

amount of agricultural products. Having land for agriculture surrounding Portland provides

crops, nurseries and greenhouses. Green houses and nurseries have become profitable businesses

in the last decade, due in part to the UGB. An interest in farming as a hobby for urban dwellers

has also help the green house industry. Fruit farms, catering towards urbanites picking fruit for

themselves, have increased over the years (Harvey, 2002).

Despite concerns by several critics, many residents living in Portland do support

management of urban growth, containing urban expansion so as to prevent sprawl.

Neighborhoods near the UGB have stated that no new growth should take place; instead the

focus should be on maintaining current residential areas. Residents who support the UGB’s state

that no new land should be added to the UGB, proposing better management of urban growth so

as to not allow sprawl to continue unabated. Many residents believe that preservation of natural

8

Urban growth

resources is important, valuing rural area. Residents who lived near rural landscapes value the

characteristics that rural areas have to offer (Harvey, 2002).

Sustainability of urban center and surrounding area

Many areas in Portland can be considered a small part of the urban center. The idea is to

create areas within different neighborhoods around Portland into urban centers, which is

accessible for all residents in the area. The hope is to cut down on traffic by creating pedestrian

friendly areas with minimal parking spaces. In order for urban centers to become sustainable,

people must be brought on board, letting them know that in order to improve the lives of

residents, changes need to be made. UGB’s must also take into account the differing needs of

the residents living within the city. When cities are putting together a comprehensive plan for

UGB’s planners must insure varied amounts of options are available to meet the needs of

residents living in the city’s boundary.

Many people have moved outside of the city in order to get away from the center of the

city. Common perception states that suburbs are safer, quieter, and more family friendly then

neighborhoods located in the central part of the city. Another aspect of living in the suburbs is

the dependence on cars, instead of mass transit, for transportation needs. This does not help to

create a sustainable city, as when cars are needed parking spaces are also needed. Parking lots

take up a lot of space, especially when space is limited, like in the urban center. Mass transit in

this case would be more sustainable then driving.

Ideas to help with urban sustainability

While having higher density areas for living might be a great idea for sustainability, if

rezoning negatively impacts current residents in existing neighborhoods then other ideas must be

considered. One such idea would be to rezone areas that are already abandoned, and build

9

Urban growth

apartment complexes, and mixed use neighborhoods in these areas. Building in already

abandoned areas would not only increase the amount of housing, it would also allow for greater

choice. When given choices, people are more willing to expect having an UGB around their

city.

Having green spaces in the city boundaries is important, including have yards behind

single family dwellings. When there are no green spaces located in city centers people are not as

healthy. At this point in time there does not appear to be a comprehensive plan for retaining

green space within the city limits of Portland. This will negatively impact the lives of people

living the in the city as the connection to nature will be lost. Adding green spaces, such as parks,

is important in overall planning for building and maintaining urban areas. Green space, such as

parks, in city limits will cut down the amount of travel time residents need to take in order to

reach these spaces.

Mixed neighborhoods are great, provided there are enough parking spaces, as well as

sidewalks, to encourage shoppers to shop in those areas. Housing that is with in walking

distance to shopping centers, entertainment, libraries, restaurants, as well as other commodities,

is beneficial to everyone. Mixed neighborhoods could encourage small businesses to form,

which would employee local residents. With employment close by people could walk to work,

or take a short ride on public transit to get to their place of employment. Mixed neighborhoods

should be tailored to each neighborhoods needs, instead of attempting to mold the neighborhood

around a fixed model. What might work for one neighborhood in the central city would not

necessarily fit for a suburban neighborhood. There needs to be several different models for

mixed neighborhoods in place so as to accommodate the different areas within the city limits.

10

Urban growth

Working with residents of a city is the best alternative versus forcing them to accept

UGB’s. Explaining the benefit of having UGB, as well as allowing residents to voice opinions

regarding UGB’s, allowing residents and local governments a chance to work together (Metro,

2000). By allowing families to have affordable single family homes within the city of Portland,

as well as having smaller apartment building in the same neighborhood will help to provide a

selection of house that fits everyone’s needs.

Conclusion

While the idea of having an urban growth boundary is a great concept putting the plan

into practice is often harder to implant, especially when the boundary seems to negatively affect

residents of the city. Planning for urban growth must include residents and government alike in

order for the boundary to work effectively. Points of view vary among the different groups

involved in planning for the UGB, with the regional government seeming to have the final say in

how urban planning will work. From the research the regional government would exclude the

residents from attending city councils, opting for sessions where residents could listen but not

speak.

Building outwards does have many negative effects on the local ecosystem and

environment. Cities’ growing outward seriously impacts the land especially when city continue

to grow outwards. Having sustainable building practices would include land that has been

abandoned by prior the owners. Many neighborhoods in Cleveland have abandoned buildings

that could be demolished and redeveloping the sites with mixed neighborhoods. UGB’s help to

control outward growth, preserving the fragile ecosystem, and allowing for reuse of empty space

located in city limits.

11

Urban growth

As with any new concept having the support of the surrounding community is a huge

plus, since the residents living in the community are directly impacted. Allowing voters to vote

on several aspects of UGB’s would help considerably to increase the wiliness of the residents for

having an UGB around the city. Portland resident are willing to have UGB but want to be

included in major decision that affect neighborhoods surrounding the area where they live.

12

Urban growth

References

Abbott, Carl. (2002). Planning a sustainable city: the promise and performance of Portland’s

Urban growth boundary. Urban sprawl causes, consequences and policy responses, pp.

207 – 236. The Urban Institute Press. Washington D.C.

Harvey, Thomas, Works, Martha A. (2002). Urban sprawl and rural landscapes: perceptions of

landscapes as amenity in Portland, Oregon. Local Environment, volume 7, issue 4 pp.

381 – 396. Retrieved on October 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web:

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=26&hid=8&sid=34b96c20-1d9-4ed5-8ab9-

Metro. (2000). The nature of 2040: the region’s 50 year plan for managing growth. Retrieved on

October 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/files/ planning/

natureof 2040.pdf

O’Toole, Randal. (2004). A Portlander’s view of smart growth. The review of Austrian

Economics, Volume 17, issue 2-3, pp. 203-212. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Thoreau

Institute. Retrieved on October 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://journals.

ohiolink.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/OToole_Randal.pdf? issn= 08893047 &issue =v17i2-

3&article=203_apvosg

Song, Yan. (2005). Smart growth and urban development pattern: A comparative study.

International Regional Science Review, volume 28, issue 2, pp. 239-265. Sage

Publications. Retrieved on October 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://journals.

ohiolink.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Song_Yan.pdf?

issn=01600176&issue=v28i0002&article=239_sgaudpacs DOI:

10.1177/0160017604273854

13

Urban growth

Squires, Gregory D. (2002). Urban sprawl and the uneven development of metropolitan

America. Urban sprawl causes, consequences and policy responses, pp. 1 – 22. The

Urban Institute Press. Washington D.C.

Wheeler, Stephan M. (2003). The evolution of urban form in Portland and Toronto: implications

for sustainability planning. Local Environment, volume 8, issue 3 pp. 317-336. Carfax

Publishing. Retrieved on October 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://web.ebsco

host.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=104&sid=9b805bb1-2d16-4235-9de9-6539e22940a5%

40sessionmgr107

Song, Yan, Knaap, Gerrit-Jan. (2004). Measuring urban form. Journal of the American Planning

Association, volume 70, issue 2 pp. 210 – 225. Retrieved on October 3, 2008 from the

World Wide Web: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=116&sid=82277d4e-

59a6-46b5-963e-738fefe1a2de%40sessionmgr102

Yang, Yizhao. (2008). A tale of two cities: Physical form and neighborhood satisfaction in

metropolitan Portland and Charlotte. Journal of American Planning Association, Volume

74, Issue 3, pp. 307-323. Retrieved on October 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web:

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=116&sid=82277d4e-59a6-46b5-963e-

738fefe1a2de%40sessionmgr102 DOI: 10.1080/01944360802215546

14