Post on 22-Dec-2015
10/16/2007 1
Smart Growth, WA State Growth Management Act,
Urban Growth Boundaries
UDP 450
Oct 16, 2007
10/16/2007 2
10 Principles of SG
1) mixed land uses; 2) take advantage of compact building
design; 3) create housing opportunities and choices; 4) create walkable communities; 5) foster distinctive, attractive communities
with a strong sense of place;6) preserve open space, farmland, natural
beauty and critical environmental areas;
10/16/2007 3
10 Principles of SG (cont)
7) strengthen and direct development towards existing communities
8) provide a variety of transportation choices
9) make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective
10) encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions
10/16/2007 4
SG: Bottom-up approach
Smart Growth (SG) approach began as a bottom-up measure based on market incentives (partnerships, education, priority funding), and became a nation-wide movement
• GMA is a top-down, command and control approach. It depends on locality, or state.
10/16/2007 5
SG vs GMAa tool box approach: Localities can pick and choose
Comp plans mandate
Plain English Planning Terminology;
Legalistic Language
community building: compact, community needs, clean air, water, benefits for all income groups.
Same as SG
10/16/2007 6
SG vs GMA
“Energy”
“Health and safety” “Livable Communities” “Regional and state coordination”
“Urban growth area” “Reduce sprawl” “Property rights” “Permits” citizen participation and coordination”
10/16/2007 7
SG elements vs. GMA goals: WA
1) Housing2) Transportation and Land Use3) Natural resources4) Energy5) Health and safety6) Historic preservation7) Infrastructure8) Salmon-friendly land uses9) Economic vitality10) Livable communities11) Regional and state
coordination12) Open space and greenbelts
How do Washington’s SG elements differ from GMA goals?
10/16/2007 8
14 Goals of GMA Planning Goals (RCW 36.70A.020)
1. Encourage urban development in urban areas
2. Reduce sprawl, reduce low-density development
3. Encourage multimodal transportation systems
4. Encourage affordable housing
5. Encourage economic development
6. Provide just compensation for private property
7. Process permit applications timely and fairly
10/16/2007 9
14 Goals of GMA Planning Goals (RCW 36.70A.020)
8. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries9. Encourage the retention of open space & development of
recreational opportunities10. Protect the environment and enhance the state’s quality
of life11. Encourage citizen participation in planning process12. Encourage the availability of public facilities & services13. Identify and encourage historic preservation14. Shoreline management act
10/16/2007 10
Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs)
10/16/2007 11
Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs)
• Draws lines/areas around the city to promote development inside the boundary
• Most rigid form of growth management1. Limits long-term urban land consumption (20+
years)
2. Politically difficult to change the boundary
10/16/2007 12
UGBs (cont.)
• “Blue Line” (elevation: 5,750 ft): the earliest form of GM in Boulder– created Greenbelt in 1992 via land acquisition
(from sales tax revenues)
• Hawaii– stringent state regulations about zoning: urban,
rural, conservation and agricultural districts
10/16/2007 13
Merits of UGB
• Sets a limit to continuous sprawl • Promotes densification and in-fill
development
• Facilitates mixed-use projects
• May help to promote more transit use
10/16/2007 14
Merits of UGB
• Influences consumer choice: – Facilitates some higher density development
(“higher density” is a relative term by international standards)
– Fosters variety of housing types
10/16/2007 15
Merits of UGB (cont.)
• Changes Developers’ Attitudes– Cannot go anywhere else within a metropolitan
region, if all cities have similar restrictions– More effective with Statewide GM rather than
city-by-city cases (e.g. CA), where developers can find pro-growth communities
10/16/2007 16
Drawbacks of UGB
• Leapfrog development beyond the boundary, adding to commuting times
• UGBs alone do not address the issue of adequate public facility provision (heavy traffic, school overcrowding, overloaded public services, etc) within the boundary
10/16/2007 17
Drawbacks of UGB (cont.)
• Inequity among property rights holders inside and out
• Knaap argues that UGBs can never constrain development because of the 20-year land requirement
10/16/2007 18
BOUNDARY TYPES
• Types – UGB (Urban Growth Boundary): Oregon (1973/1979)
– UGA (Urban Growth Area): Washington (1990)
– Urban District: Hawaii• 3 Districts: Urban/agricultural/conservation
– Greenbelt: Boulder, CO (1992) • Land acquisition via sales tax increase
• cf. London , since 1947; Seoul, Korea, since 1971)
10/16/2007 19
• Washington State • Puget Sound Region
10/16/2007 20• London
10/16/2007 21
Greenbelt City of Seoul
Incheon
CBD
• Seoul, Korea
10/16/2007 22
UGBs vs. GREENBELTS
• Greenbelts preserve huge land areas against development; GBs are more conducive to leapfrog development
• UGB is more likely to result in densification in the U.S. because in Seoul and London densities are already very high
• Greenbelts have been less flexible in terms of boundary changes (Korean changed in 2002 after 31 years of adoption)
10/16/2007 23
Critique of UGB
• UGBs may bring “undesirably draconian outcomes because they are not directly linked to the underlying market failures responsible for sprawl.” – Brueckner, Jan, Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and
Remedies, p. 14, Urbana, IL: Institute for Government and Public Affairs
10/16/2007 24
Defenders of UGB
• UGB is one of the most effective growth management technique
• “…a clean break between potentially inconsistent urban and rural land uses, thereby protecting rural land from urban spillovers while also providing important environmental and economic benefits to urban development.” – [quoted by Knaap, p. 3 in Nelson and Duncan, Growth
Management: Principles and Practices. Chicago, IL: APA Press, p.147]
10/16/2007 25
Defenders of UGB (cont)
• Farm and forest land protection outside UGB:
[Knapp, Gerrit J. and Arthur C. Nelson (1992), The Regulated Landscape, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.]
10/16/2007 26
UGB and Land Prices
• GB designation reduced land values• land within the GB: 26 percent less than in the
excepted areas
[Nelson, Arthur (1988), “An Empirical Note on How Regional Urban Containment Policy Influences an Interaction Between Greenbelt and Exurban Land Markets,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring: 178-84.]
10/16/2007 27
UGB and Housing Prices
• UGB’s effects on housing prices are not statistically significant (although they could be as high as $15-21K)– Phillips, Justin and Eban Goodstein (1998),
“Growth Management and Housing Prices: the Case of Portland, OR,” unpublished draft, Portland, OR: Lewis and Clark College, Forthcoming, Contemporary Economics Policy) -
10/16/2007 28
UGB and Housing Prices
• “Thus, they conclude, Portland’s relatively large price increases over the last decade reflect a “conventional housing market dynamic—a speculative bull market riding on the back of an initial demand surge.” ” (Knaap, 2000, p.10)
10/16/2007 29
Inventory Approaches
• Knaap and Hopkin’s suggested new approach to deal with housing/land prices with UGB via an “inventory” approach
• Release an appropriate amount of land gradually depending upon market conditions
• Knaap & Hopkins (2001) “The Inventory Approach to Urban Growth Boundaries,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(3), p.314-26.