Smart Growth”

PROPERTY Oregon’s experience suggests “anti-sprawl” strategies worsen the problems they are intended to solve. The Folly of “Smart Growth” By Randal O’Toole Thoreau Institute hroughout the united states, play areas, less congested roads, proximity to recreation city and state governments are turn- areas, and access to a wide variety of low-cost consumer ing to “smart growth” urban planning goods and services. What is more, as people moved to the strategies to slow suburban “sprawl.” suburbs, employers followed them; commute times have T Spurred by concerns over traffic con- remained relatively constant despite the growth of subur- gestion, air pollution, and loss of open ban areas. space, the plans are intended to improve urban livability. Despite the benefits of suburban living, some political The strategies include purposeful efforts to increase urban leaders and social activists in the early 1970s began to vil- population densities, boost mass transit ridership, and ify low-density suburbs as “sprawl.” The anti-sprawl move- decrease auto driving. ment came into prominence in 1973 when George Dantzig In order to achieve those goals, “smart growth” gov- and Thomas Saaty published their book Compact City: A ernments nationwide are implementing a degree of land-use Plan for a Livable Urban Environment. The book unleashed a regulation that is unprecedented in the United States prior large movement of planners and architects who endorsed to 1990. Unfortunately, as we will see from the experiences government efforts to mandate much higher population of the Portland, Ore., area, such regulation can produce an densities, more multi-family dwellings, and severe limits on even worse quality of life for residents. The policies’ real auto driving. effects appear to be increases in traffic congestion, air pol- However, the movement has met considerable opposi- lution, consumer costs, taxes, and just about every other tion from the public. Few Americans are willing to give up impediment to urban livability. their automobiles, single-family homes, and large back- yards. As smart growth advocate Douglas Porter of the TROUBLE IN THE SUBURBS Urban Land Institute has lamented, there is a “gap between In the late nineteenth century, transportation was slow and the daily mode of living desired by most Americans and the expensive. As a result, many people chose to live in dense mode that most city planners believe is most appropriate. cities so they could be near workplaces and retail shops. But Americans generally want a house on a large lot and three that situation began to change in the 1890s with the intro- cars in every garage…. Yet that dream translates into low- duction of the streetcar and automobile. Suddenly, large density sprawl and dependence on roads and highways.” numbers of Americans were able to move to lower density areas outside the cities. Today, about half of all Americans Regional governments To the disappointment of smart live in low-density suburbs, and half of the remainder live growth proponents, many locally elected officials are in very-low-density rural areas. Only about a quarter live in unwilling to enact smart growth policies for fear of the relatively dense central cities. wrath of voters in subsequent elections. Porter and others Low densities provide many benefits that people value, have suggested a way around that problem: endowing including lower land costs, private yards with gardens and regional governments with the “powers to require local plans to conform to regional or state goals.” As Brookings Randal O’Toole is senior economist for the Oregon-based Thoreau Institute, an Institution economist Anthony Downs notes, such a region- organization that advocates environmental protection through incentives rather than government regulation. O’Toole recently completed work on his new book, al government “can take controversial stands without mak- The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban Myths: How Smart Growth Will ing its individual members commit themselves to those Harm American Cities. He can be contacted by E-mail at [email protected]. stands. Each member can claim that ‘the organization’ did Regulation 20 Fall 2001 PORTLAND’S TRAFFIC PLIGHT: Afternoon rush hour on Interstate 5. JOHN KLICKER/AP it or blame all the other members.” the number and location of parking spaces that retailers can The nuclei of such regional governments were first cre- provide their customers to the number of people who can ated in the 1960s when the federal departments of Trans- attend church services on Sundays. portation and Housing and Urban Development required Central to Oregon’s planning system are the urban- all major urban areas to form “metropolitan planning growth boundaries that were drawn around every city and organizations” (mpos). The organizations’ original pur- town in the state in the late 1970s. On most of the land pose was to apply for and distribute federal funds, not dic- outside of the urban-growth boundaries, the state allows tate to local governments. But they now provide a conven- people to build new homes only if they own at least 160 acres ient framework for establishing the regional authorities that they actually farm, and the land generated $40,000 to that smart growth proponents want. $80,000 per year in agriculture revenues in two of the last three years. (Ironically, less than one-fifth of existing farms OREGON: A CASE STUDY meet that income test). The Oregon regulations have suc- One of the nation’s most aggressive smart growth efforts has cessfully slowed development in non-urban areas; only been undertaken in Oregon. There, state and local officials, about 100 landowners per year have been allowed to build along with the Portland mpo, regulate everything from homes on their farms. Regulation 21 Fall 2001 PROPERTY The urban-growth boundaries were originally sup- Metro wrote a plan that called for expanding the urban- posed to be flexible planning tools. Much of the land inside growth boundary by no more than six percent over the the boundaries was vacant at the time the lines were drawn, fifty-year period. That meant that the population density and planners promised to expand the boundaries as the inside the boundary would increase by 70 percent. vacant land was used. However, soon after the boundaries were created, they became sacred lines. People who lived Density targets To achieve that increase, Metro gave pop- just inside wanted to preserve their scenic views and open ulation targets to each of the 24 cities and three counties space, so they fought any expansion of the boundaries. inside the boundary. To meet the targets, municipalities In the late 1980s, the Portland area was growing rapid- were required to rezone existing neighborhoods or vacant ly and realtors and homebuilders began to worry that the lands to higher densities. The new minimum density zon- region was running out of land. A self-styled land-use plan- ing codes specified, for example, that the owner of a vacant ning watchdog group called “1000 Friends of Oregon” pro- quarter-acre lot in an area zoned for 24-unit-per-acre apart- posed an alternative to boundary expansion: increased ments could not build a single home — or even a duplex — population densities within the boundary. In a major study on the lot. Instead, the owner would be required to build at begun in 1989 known as the “land use, transportation, and least a six-unit complex, or else nothing could be built on air quality” study (lutraq), the group reasoned that high- the land at all. er densities would make transit service a feasible alternative The region’s cities and counties encountered major to driving. Mixed-use developments that combined hous- opposition when they tried to rezone existing neighbor- ing with offices and retail shops would allow people to hoods to higher densities. One Portland suburb recalled walk to the store and work instead of driving. Thus, 1000 its mayor and two members of its city council from office Friends promised, increased densities and land-use con- after they endorsed higher densities over local opposition. trols would allow the region to grow while maintaining its To meet their targets, planners turned to rezoning farms and livability and minimizing congestion. other open spaces as high-density areas. One suburban In 1991, Richard Benner, an attorney with 1000 Friends, county rezoned a golf course for 1,100 new housing units became director of the state Department of Land Conser- and 200,000 square feet of office space. Ten thousand acres vation and Development, the agency that oversees land-use of prime farmland inside the urban-growth boundary were planning. That same year, the Land Conservation and Devel- also targeted for development. opment Commission (lcdc) — which oversees the department — issued rules requiring all major cities in the state Light rail Planners were especially aggressive about rezon- to reduce the amount of per capita by 20 percent (later ing neighborhoods near Portland’s light-rail line, which modified to 10 percent). To achieve that reduction, the rules opened in 1986. They believed that higher densities along directed the cities to increase densities, promote mixed- the light rail would promote light-rail ridership. However, use developments, reduce parking and discourage auto- time has shown that few people want to live in such high- oriented shopping areas, and emphasize transit instead of density communities and few developers want to con- highways. struct them, even if there is convenient access to mass Portland’s mpo, known as “Metro,” projected that the transit. As city planner Mike Saba told the Portland city population of the Portland area would grow by 80 percent council in 1996, “We have not seen any of the kind of over the next fifty years.

Load more