Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,476,450 times
Reputation: 12187
Advertisements
Do you think u-g-b's are a great way to preserve rural land and make cities denser, or do you think that they just increase home prices and make traffic worse?
On one hand, out of control growth is not a good thing and counties should definitely set limits to preserve land and prevent overcrowding. But, at the same time, limits that are too strict could end up hurting the local economies, as businesses and perspective buyers could be lured to cities with less restriction.
So I'd say that some level of restriction is good, but not too much.
The housetops at the top right are the edge of a dense subdivision where 5,000 people live. The farm in the left center is protected from development forever - it's on a non expanding part of our ugb. Northern & Eastern edges of the boundary can be expanded during the 20 yr review
I lived in Lexington while in college, and it seemed to me you had fairly typical sprawl within the urban growth area. It was somewhat denser, with more apartment and condo developments, but the urban form was pretty much like suburbia anywhere.
The other effect was to spin off growth to the surrounding county seats, like Georgetown, Nicholasville and Winchester.
I have to say, having grown up in Portland, I don't think it made much of a difference there either. A lot of people talk about how wonderful having one is, but it inevitably gets pushed back from time to time (like Portland), and the end result is pretty much the same. To be frank, anyone who who thinks Portland is really doing something to quell urban growth can't have lived there for very long. I mean, three years ago I lived in an apartment on land that was forest in the middle of nowhere 15 years ago.
It is a nice idea in theory, but does not work in practice if you are trying to implement it in an area with a very high rate of growth, like Portland. I know because over the years, I watched it not work. Portland more than doubled in population while I lived there, and I think areas of growth expanded accordingly. What else can happen? Do people honestly believe when Portland adds another million people in the next 10 years that they won't push the urban growth boundary back again (and again)?
It may not have completely contained the city's sprawl, but it might have slowed it down to some extent. So yea, I think an urban growth boundary with some kind of intelligent plan is a good idea. If developers know they MIGHT run out of land to build upon, then they MIGHT invest in higher density development before they find themselves against the wall.
It may not have completely contained the city's sprawl, but it might have slowed it down to some extent. So yea, I think an urban growth boundary with some kind of intelligent plan is a good idea. If developers know they MIGHT run out of land to build upon, then they MIGHT invest in higher density development before they find themselves against the wall.
Agreed. A boundary is not going to stop expansion in times of growth, but it will keep expansion orderly and more efficient. It would also prevent the draining of resources from established areas during no-growth periods.
Every city does have a boundary like that. When you cross into a different county or municipality, you run into different zoning regulations, which can have the effect of stopping the sprawl, or not, depending on the specific regulations. Portland and Lexington had nothing to say about it, and no city can "declare" that there is a sprawl boundary, because they have no power to dictate what happens across the border.
When you say "every city", it makes we wonder about federal government control. This should always be a local or state issue. Keep the feds out of this.
I have to say, having grown up in Portland, I don't think it made much of a difference there either. A lot of people talk about how wonderful having one is, but it inevitably gets pushed back from time to time (like Portland), and the end result is pretty much the same. To be frank, anyone who who thinks Portland is really doing something to quell urban growth can't have lived there for very long. I mean, three years ago I lived in an apartment on land that was forest in the middle of nowhere 15 years ago.
It is a nice idea in theory, but does not work in practice if you are trying to implement it in an area with a very high rate of growth, like Portland. I know because over the years, I watched it not work. Portland more than doubled in population while I lived there, and I think areas of growth expanded accordingly. What else can happen? Do people honestly believe when Portland adds another million people in the next 10 years that they won't push the urban growth boundary back again (and again)?
It's not to stop expansion, but to keep expansion proportional to the need for expansion. It's inevitable growth nontheless, but it's slow growth, rather than boom growth.
But if there isn't coordination with municipalities across the state, it won't help.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
