Are smart-growth policies the best solution for suburban sprawl?

 Smart growth means essentially planned growth, especially planning initiatives to limit sprawl at the edge of a region and preserve open space. At least 20 states have passed statutes to discourage sprawl and promote smart growth, and many of them are now seeking additional reforms. Fifteen states currently have efforts under way to enact their first anti-sprawl laws.

This paper’s discussion is mainly based on Oregon. The program required Portland and every other Oregon city to draw up and urban growth boundary (UGB), often with density bonuses or minimum density requirements, to accommodate 20 years of development. Portland, largest city in Oregon, with the combination of limits on sprawl and investment in the downtown produced dramatic results: few American cities that can claim a vibrant 24 hour downtown; CBD has drawn 30,000 new jobs, and over 40% of downtown workers commute by mass transit.

Urban growth boundaries (UGB)

In the case of Oregon, It’s a line drawn on a map, basically. The line represents the limit of urban growth for the city inside. Inside the line are the subdivisions, the office space, the hospitals, manufacturing facilities, colleges, etc. Also inside the boundary are farmland, forest land, fallow lands which are currently open space and which are designated for development over the next 13 to 20 years, in some cases longer than 20 years. In all, within the line, all the land will develop. The growth boundary has largely succeeded in fostering the kind of smaller houses with smaller yard, mixed-use neighborhoods, a well-utilized transit and bike-lane system, a thriving down town  with open space outside the city. Critics see this boundary have conflicts with the American dream, form stopping people to choose what ever they want to live.

In contrary, outside the boundary, are the private and public lands which have been designated for exclusive farm use or for forest conservation zoning, or a few other different kinds of designations. The regulation lowered farmer’s land values by raise the minimum lot size per house. And new policy denied them the right to sell off a few small parcels to pay rising property taxes-thus driving them off their farms.

These boundaries may have totally contrary effect than what planner’s initials on traffic congestions. The boundary forbid the continuously sprawl. Some of the commuter had to travel longer between cities driving through areas being preserved, in order to find their beds, rather than just living in the sprawl area of the city which their job exists. At this point of view, smart-growth have been less successful in reducing the traffic congestion.

Another problem will be the line itself. Some local web site joking UGB as “Imagine that your mom gives you a pair of pants with an inelastic waistband. She tells you that you must be able to fit inside them for about 20 years, at which point she will reassess your growth and issue you a new pair of pants. The purpose: weight control.”

Perfect metaphor! How could you set a goal or a limitation for the future 20 years? What if your daughter turns to be a bony girl?

Growths around transit lines

A mix of apartments, condominiums, town houses and single-family homes in most new developments, attempt to end the economic segregation of neighborhoods between wealthy suburbs and poor down towns.

Arlington county, VA, set their growth policy around the new build subway system. They want stimulate the the former decaying thoroughfare and focus new development along the transit lines and the stops. Actually they did more then that. In order to preserve the single-family suburban neighborhoods that lay close to the proposed development area, county planners designated areas within a quarter-mile of each of the five Metro stations for high-rise office, apartment and condominium buildings. Outside those areas, density and building height were reduced, providing a transition to the single-family neighborhoods.

Today the corridor, along the transit line, is a bustling community whose eclectic mix of housing, shops, restaurants and county offices make a vibrant neighborhood.

But the success of smart-growth case is succeed in different ways than their planner thought. The good design for the people who need public transit deserves to live near transit stops changed, instead, the people moving here have their own cars and living near the Metro.

A success story of smart growth always accompanied with the lack of affordable housing and segregation. At this point, I think what Portland did can set a good example.

Indeed a new study by Arthur C. Nelson, a professor of city planning at the Georgia Institute of Technology, found that Portland’s housing prices increased 60 percent in the 1990s compared to 20 percent in fast-growing Atlanta. The major reason, though, was not because Portland’s urban growth boundary limited the availability of land, said Mr. Nelson. Similarly, or on the contrary, Portland’s average family income increased 72 percent from the mid-1980s to the 1990s compared to 60 percent in Atlanta. And the growth in jobs was six percent higher than Atlanta’s. Meanwhile, property taxes reduced 29 percent, commute times lowered nine percent, and energy consumption reduced by eight percent as a bonus.

Infilling

Infillings in older neighborhoods can help residents avoid driving to work and create people-friendly shopping, dining and entertainment. But infilling has its downsides also. Some longtime residents complain that the high-rises dramatically change the niche of the neighborhood. The new commercial areas can become victims of their own popularity if the resultant crowds, traffic congestion and parking problems end up producing more hassle and hustle than enjoyment.

New Urbanism

“New Urbanism is the design part of the overall smart-growth movement.”

1 Grid street layout, with wide sidewalks, bike lanes and, where feasible, public transit;

2 Mixed-use development, including shops, offices and residential units of all types, including single-family houses, town houses, condominiums and rental apartments;

3 Buildings close to the street, with windows and porches facing sidewalks to foster communication;

4 Parking lots and garages behind buildings;

5 Placement of schools, stores, libraries and other public facilities within safe walking distance;

6 Community center, like post office or town squares within safe walking distance;

7 Clear boundaries around communities using open spaces;

Some of them fall in the rich only neighborhood, like seaside FL.  That kind of built on previously undeveloped sites case will cost another kind of segregation and sprawl.

Another obstacle is zoning ordinance. Zoning created and enforced by local city and county governments have produced communities separated from industrial parks and commercial malls. The minimum lot sizes and separated residential neighborhoods form commercial and retail areas.

In 1973, Oregon required all local governments to develop land-use and zoning plans to curb sprawl. Although critics complained this violated property owners’ rights and reduced consumers’ residential options.

The regional planning approach

The impacts of growth and sprawl do not limited in the boundaries of a single community or town, so we cannot realistically address sprawl if we fail to engage in a greater level of regional planning. As the Portland model indicates, good working relationships between the central city and its suburbs, and between urban and rural areas. It also requires good working relationships among the different levels of government: municipal, county, state, and federal.

In the case of Eugene and Springfield, Oregon, the two cities adopt a joint metropolitan UGB, they now under a joint administration of the common plan for the both. The also have joint service such like police and fire.

Case like this is hardly met in American (I think china neither). Prior to the adoption of growth management plans, many of the surrounding suburbs were competing with the central city or there neighbor townships for residential, commercial and industrial development without regard for the cost. As a local official in Kansas City said: “I know it is wrong, but I’ll stop when they stop.”

Take city of East Lansing as an example, which half of the city is dominated by MSU, the city planning board should have more connections with the University authority, but the reality is the board members complaining the university’s on-build parking ramp and self-centered planning meeting on their commission meeting.

Conclusion:

In Portland, and even in the whole state of Oregon, using the smart growth approach to cure the sprawl had been proven to be an effected way. But the shortcoming behind the huge success could be expands on different situation.

Reference:

Edited by Gregory D. Squires, Urban Sprawl, causes, consequences & Policy responses, the Urban Institute Press

Elm Street Writers Group, Collected essays on Smart Growth, Michigan Land Use Institute

Molly O’meara Sheehan, City Limits: Putting the Brakes on Sprawl, World Watch Paper

拿到了一个planner
看着这学期的你计划要做 和现在的对比 汗颜！！

写最后一个paper
把照考了
翻译一篇文章
圣诞购物
温习下小波同志
去pisburger

不要为了无味的事情而烦恼
做个三联的男人！！！

开始了