Growth Planning

Portland is often cited as an example of a city with strong land use planning controls; This is largely the result of statewide land conservation policies adopted in 1973 under Governor Tom McCall, in particular the requirement for an urban growth boundary (UGB) for every city and metropolitan area.  The purpose was to limit urban sprawl and conserve the green beauty of the Metro area.

Oregon’s  “urban growth boundary” law limits the boundaries for large scale development in each metropolitan area in Oregon. This limits access to utilities such as sewage, water and telecommunications, as well as coverage by fire, police and schools. Originally this law mandated that the city must maintain enough land within the boundary to provide an estimated 20 years of growth, however in 2007 the legislature altered the law to require the maintenance of an estimated 50 years of growth within the boundary, as well as the protection of accompanying farm and rural lands.

The growth boundary, along with efforts of the  Portland Development Commission, a semi-public company, forced the cities to create economic development zones and has resulted in development of a large portion of downtown.  The result was tremendous.  The Pearl District was the offspring catapulting  a large number of mid- and high-rise developments, an overall increase in housing and business density, and an increase in average house prices.

Metro Housing Rule

Bucking national trends, Portland and its suburbs became more economically integrated during the 1990s, 2000 census figures show. Low-income families are less concentrated in the city of Portland and more likely to live in the suburbs — nearly all the suburbs — than a decade ago. Upper-income, middle-income and working-class people remain more likely to live near each other than in separate enclaves.

The residential mingling of haves and have-nots can be traced to a state land-use rule put in place nearly a quarter-century ago, local developers and planners say. Called the Metropolitan Housing Rule, it required every suburban city and county to zone for a large number of apartments. When those apartments went up fast in the 1990s, it enabled moderate- and low-income people to live practically all over, not only in Portland or the most bedraggled suburbs.

That sets Portland apart from most metropolitan areas, says Myron Orfield, author of American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality.

Think of San Francisco, Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia — all have sprouted exclusive suburbs where every home is an expensive single-family house on a large lot. The low-income are consigned to the inner city or to decaying suburbs on the other side of town, he says.

Smart Change

Oregon’s land-use planning laws are mostly known for promoting density and fighting sprawl, but they also were aimed at making sure that low-income people did not get shut out of any area, says Jack Orchard, a real estate and land-use attorney who has practiced in Oregon since 1972.

The fact that poor and working-class families are widely dispersed makes for a healthier metro area, say Bruce Katz, director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, because workers don’t have to live far from their jobs, social problems don’t get compounded by being concentrated, and the central city and aging suburbs don’t empty out and drag down the whole metro area.  In the Bay Area, high-tech employers including Intel and 3Com are hounding city councils to zone for more low- and moderate-income housing so their workers don’t have to live two hours from their jobs, Orfield said.

Put it all together and … The Result

In October, 2009, the Forbes magazine rated Portland as the 3rd safest city in America.

Challenges for the Future

The metro area faces many challenges in the next few years as the population is expected to double, to about 4 million, by 2060. Does that mean more Pearl like condominiums in Portland, neighborhoods sprung from farm fields, both? And if suburban communities want to expand, will that come at the expense of the region’s core?

In 2009, for possible expansion, Washington County officials have identified twice as much land as Multnomah and Clackamas counties combined. The discourse has been diplomatic, but behind every pitch, there are dollar signs, old wounds and the anticipation of horse-trading. Anti-annexation sentiment has burned Beaverton and Tigard, keeping more than one-third of county residents in urban neighborhoods outside of cities. In contrast to communities on the west end, larger cities along Interstate 5 and Oregon 217 are mostly developed, leaving few places to grow. Complicating matters, Washington County has some of the state’s highest-profile employers, and expansion for more industrial giants could eat away at highly valued agricultural lands