Portland's Urban Growth Boundary: A Driver of Suburban Sprawl

[mhays]

Charger, you're incorrect that density doesn't result. Of course it does. Development patterns are much denser in places with growth management or natural boundaries plus high demand, including Portland as well as the rest of the West Coast. Portland's not dense, but it's land efficient on a per-type basis, like smaller lots for houses. Some leapfrogging does happen, but that's only one factor.

You act like this is only theory.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by mhays

Charger, you're incorrect that density doesn't result. Of course it does. Development patterns are much denser in places with growth management or natural boundaries plus high demand, including Portland as well as the rest of the West Coast. Portland's not dense, but it's land efficient on a per-type basis, like smaller lots for houses. Some leapfrogging does happen, but that's only one factor.

You act like this is only theory.

At the expense of affordability. Read my post again.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

Yikes. "Price signals" for a fixed asset like land decompose things into a moment-in-time economic value based on factors like anticipated rents.

Yikes. Markets are forward looking and incorporate all available public information into prices.

I don't particularly care about those. I am saying that this farmland is of sufficient quality and sufficient rarity that I really don't care if its GDP value AS FARMLAND is lower than it would be as housing, because there are concerns beyond that.

Central Park would be more valuable as skyscrapers than a park, at least to a point - should Central Park be built up?

Most people would violently reject that idea. Because the economic value of the land is only part of its overall value, part (perhaps most) of which is not monetarily-denominated.

Fine, but this isn't the original argument you made.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

At the expense of affordability. Read my post again.

Which can be solved as I described. Now we're going around in circles. But at least you agree that sprawl can be reduced.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by mhays

Which can be solved as I described. Now we're going around in circles. But at least you agree that sprawl can be reduced.

No it can't, go back and read my post. High density housing will never be as affordable as low density because, ceteris paribus, construction costs are higher.

---> People get priced out ---> They move elsewhere ---> Zero-sum game.

[ChargerCarl]

Even cities like Tokyo, where housing density is virtually unlimited within the 23 wards, had to sprawl in order to preserve some of its affordability.

You're right that allowing higher density reduces sprawl since not everyone desires to live in a detached single family home, but you still need to allow them to be built in some quantity on the periphery to provide an option for families.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

No it can't, go back and read my post. High density housing will never be as affordable as low density because, ceteris paribus, construction costs are higher.

---> People get priced out ---> They move elsewhere ---> Zero-sum game.

Incorrect.

Multifamily is more expensive per square foot. But you can choose smaller units, and even prefer smaller spaces because there are free common areas onsite as well as restuarants, hotels, and parks nearby.

And density can mean the same house on a smaller lot, with zero added cost.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by mhays

No, one major outcome is that people live on smaller lots or in multifamily.

Yeah, ideally that's the plan. On the other hand, just look a few hundred kilometers north to Vancouver, B.C. Didn't work there and now, in fact, it has some of the highest property values in North America if not the world.

That's not to say that it wasn't a good idea to limit growth in Vancouver. In fact, it pretty much has to be that way. Nevertheless, complications will arise and there has to be some better way to deal with it than wait until they become problems.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by mhays

Incorrect.

Multifamily is more expensive per square foot. But you can choose smaller units, and even prefer smaller spaces because there are free common areas onsite as well as restuarants, hotels, and parks nearby.

And density can mean the same house on a smaller lot, with zero added cost.

But not everyone will choose this. Many, especially those with kids, will prefer to commute from farther out for more square footage.

All you've done is lengthen their commute time and worsen pollution.

[mhays]

My last sentence already covered that. "And density can mean the same house on a smaller lot, with zero added cost."

Not to mention isn't not a hardship if the family room is also the kids' playroom. Or god forbid today's four-person family has to wedge themselves into a house that was built for six in 1920.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Yeah, ideally that's the plan. On the other hand, just look a few hundred kilometers north to Vancouver, B.C. Didn't work there and now, in fact, it has some of the highest property values in North America if not the world.

That's not to say that it wasn't a good idea to limit growth in Vancouver. In fact, it pretty much has to be that way. Nevertheless, complications will arise and there has to be some better way to deal with it than wait until they become problems.

thats because ottawa hoe-d out their own provinces to the highest bidder. after hong kong was renuified, all the rich chinese people split town and bought condos in vancouver when the foreign investor program was initiated. well it worked! thousands of foreign real estate speculators purchased property in bc and tah dah, expensive housing.

[Hamilton]

Originally Posted by mhays

They could do the same thing by allowing more density. And save that natural land and farmland while they're at it...a huge priority. And encourage transit use.

There is NOTHING expensive about a small townhouse or apartment on a small lot that's cheap because development sites are plentiful. All it takes is zoning and a streamlined process. (Labor etc. is also a factor, but your idea doesn't help that.)

Well said. Was waiting for the author to just come out and say this.

[lrt's friend]

The reality is that people want choice. You cannot impose dense living on everybody. Yes, you can zone and limit growth all you want (which in itself will increase land costs), but some people do not want to live in row housing (I watched a brand new stacked town house burn near me, which had to be demolished and rebuilt and left at least a dozen families homeless for over a year) so they can have a bit more privacy or if they want to have a garden or whatever else.

So impose all the limits you want and force density, but the outcome inevitably will be the sudden growth of exurb communities that lie outside the controlled area. I see that in my own city that has increasingly restricted urban growth, while outside communities are booming. These booming areas have little or no transit, which puts pressure on the road network.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The reality is that people want choice. You cannot impose dense living on everybody. Yes, you can zone and limit growth all you want (which in itself will increase land costs), but some people do not want to live in row housing (I watched a brand new stacked town house burn near me, which had to be demolished and rebuilt and left at least a dozen families homeless for over a year) so they can have a bit more privacy or if they want to have a garden or whatever else.

So impose all the limits you want and force density, but the outcome inevitably will be the sudden growth of exurb communities that lie outside the controlled area. I see that in my own city that has increasingly restricted urban growth, while outside communities are booming. These booming areas have little or no transit, which puts pressure on the road network.

This

When you impose urban growth boundaries all you're doing is redistributing where virgin land will be used for development.

[mhays]

"All you're doing"? You admit that higher density is one outcome in some posts and then pretend it's not true in other posts.

Some people drive an hour. Others live more densely without causing sprawl. Some leave the region (and the reverse...some are attracted by the urbanity and lack of sprawl).

And we don't have to make it easy to drive an hour. Let them sit in traffic.

[ChargerCarl]

Or we could let those people live closer to the city instead of taking up land farther away...

You can have both high density and low density areas. In fact you need them both in order to maintain affordability in the long run.

[mhays]

Your idea results in net additional sprawl, because you haven't encouraged density.

And you've failed to protect natural and farm land.

Basically you're calling for the shit that dominates most US urban fringes, the worst conceivable outcome.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by mhays

Your idea results in net additional sprawl, because you haven't encouraged density.

And you've failed to protect natural and farm land.

Basically you're calling for the shit that dominates most US urban fringes, the worst conceivable outcome.

The best way to encourage density is to stop subsidizing auto transit, not by blocking development.

Doing the latter will drive up prices.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by mhays

"All you're doing"? You admit that higher density is one outcome in some posts and then pretend it's not true in other posts.

Some people drive an hour. Others live more densely without causing sprawl. Some leave the region (and the reverse...some are attracted by the urbanity and lack of sprawl).

And we don't have to make it easy to drive an hour. Let them sit in traffic.

That is fine, but those traffic sewers that we create feed into the city and all those people need to park as well. I see it here and it also damages urban areas as well.

Poor mobility affects the quality of life of all citizens in the city.

So, don't look down your nose at those who choose to live on the periphery where there are different qualities of life than what you consider a priority.

Remember, the traffic sewers that you think they deserve also impact you if you wish to enjoy the countryside outside your city.

Be careful for what wish you.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

The best way to encourage density is to stop subsidizing auto transit, not by blocking development.

Doing the latter will drive up prices.

Auto transit can only be controlled by pricing it and by providing a viable alternative. Pricing auto transit can be most easily done by limiting and pricing parking. Pricing auto transit alone without providing an alternative is just a tax grab.