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.
Urban Growth Boundaries are the wave of the future or better yet, "Should be the wave of the future". I know Portland has urban growth boundaries and the DC/Baltimore area has "PLAN Maryland" which will legally restrict all growth in Maryland to the area between DC and Baltimore acting like urban growth boundaries. What other region's are passing urban growth boundaries? What region's are set up best to grow sustainably going forward through development restrictions?
That pretty sad. So you think Portland and the DC/Baltimore area are the only areas that will grow smartly through restrictions and legislation in the forseable future? I'm sure there are other cities that have the political will to pass similar legislation at the state level don't you?
That pretty sad. So you think Portland and the DC/Baltimore area are the only areas that will grow smartly through restrictions and legislation in the forseable future? I'm sure there are other cities that have the political will to pass similar legislation at the state level don't you?
Urban growth boundaries are present in a lot of states. Maryland was one of the first. However I prefer Oregon's application of the principle to Maryland's, which seems to centralized. It is a small state, but many outside the Baltimore-DC Metro feel they have no stake in it.
That pretty sad. So you think Portland and the DC/Baltimore area are the only areas that will grow smartly through restrictions and legislation in the forseable future? I'm sure there are other cities that have the political will to pass similar legislation at the state level don't you?
I'm curious why you think Portland is growing smartly when 98% of domestic (as in US migration) growth has been outside of the urban growth boundary with a net exodus from the core.
Knaap (2000) also argues that if
Portland is defined by the UGB, then it has
grown by only 1.2 per cent in the past 20
years. However, if all urban footprints are
included, then Portland has grown by about
29 per cent.
I'm curious why you think Portland is growing smartly when 98% of domestic (as in US migration) growth has been outside of the urban growth boundary with a net exodus from the core.
Well, I think the state has more power over development than region's, especially when it comes to grass field development. If the state withholds money for infrastructure like Maryland has done from all grass field developments forcing developers to build infill development, it successfully funnels growth to urban area's.
I'm curious why you think Portland is growing smartly when 98% of domestic (as in US migration) growth has been outside of the urban growth boundary with a net exodus from the core.
I'm curious why you think Portland is growing smartly when 98% of domestic (as in US migration) growth has been outside of the urban growth boundary with a net exodus from the core.
It's pretty surprising that there's such a huge difference between domestic migration patterns and overall growth though. The net growth inside the 3 urban growth boundary counties from 1990 to 2010 was 466,745 (+39.7%) compared to 235,523 (+67.4%) for the outer counties of the MSA.
Ontario's government created the Greenbelt a few years ago that acts as a growth boundary. It goes pretty far out, so there's little risk of leap frog development, other than a bit NW of Newmarket and around Cambridge and Guelph... but those areas are far from Toronto, so the increase in growth there is relatively small. It also covers nearby cities outside the MSA like Oshawa, Hamilton and St Catharines.
You can see that there is a fair bit of greenfield land inside the greenbelt (I think Portland is the same), but that doesn't mean it will be developed. A new policy asks Ontario's equivalent of counties to have at least 40% of their growth through intensification. However, if the City of Toronto continues to grow at it's current pace, because Toronto is like it's own county and has no greenfields left, that would amount to about 53% of growth in the MSA as intensification. In addition to that, greenfield development would have to have a density of 20 residents+jobs per acre.
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.
