urban containment – american style(s)

56
Urban Containment – American Style(s) Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, FAICP Professor & Director, Urban Affairs & Planning Virginia Tech – Alexandria Center Regional Leadership Institute

Upload: toki

Post on 21-Mar-2016

35 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Urban Containment – American Style(s). Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, FAICP Professor & Director, Urban Affairs & Planning Virginia Tech – Alexandria Center Regional Leadership Institute. Urban Containment – God’s Will?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Urban Containment – American Style(s)

Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, FAICPProfessor & Director, Urban Affairs & Planning

Virginia Tech – Alexandria CenterRegional Leadership Institute

Page 2: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 3: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Urban Containment – God’s Will?

“The Lord said to Moses . . . Command the people of Israel, that they give to the Levites

. . . cities to dwell in; and pasture lands round about the cities . . . The pasture lands of the cities . . . shall

reach from the wall of the city outward . . . all around.

“The city shall be in the middle…”

Numbers 35: 1-5.

Page 4: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Goals of Urban Containment

• Preserve public goods.• Minimize adverse land use interactions and

maximize positive ones.• Minimize taxpayer exposure.

• Distribute benefits & burdens equitably.• Improve overall quality of life.

Page 5: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

“Best” Containment Practices

• Urban Growth Containment Boundary• Resource land preservation

• Infill, redevelopment, aka “refill”• Inclusionary housing

• Regional asset sharing• Multi-modal accessibility• Responsiveness to change

Page 6: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Emerging Empirical Evidence

• Containment/growth management improves economic development.

• Containment prevents beltways & increases retail/service trade.

• Containment increases farming.• Containment reduces racial segregation.

• Containment makes jobs more accessible to low/mod-incomes.

• Containment eliminates blight.

Page 7: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Downsides

• Threatens existing neighborhoods.• Raises housing prices by making area more

attractive & economically efficient.• Can decrease homeownership (though just

the opposite can also happen).• Increases infrastructure costs in near-term.

• Pushes some economic activities out.• Reduces opportunity to live on large lots.

Page 8: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Different Flavors of Urban Containment

• Urban Services & Facilities• Urban Growth Phasing

• Rural Growth Management• Rural/Open Space Preservation• Intergovernmental Agreements

Page 9: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Urban Services & Facilities

• Urban Service Area• Infrastructure Phasing

• Municipal Boundary• Level of Service Standards• Spatial Capital Investment

• Special Service Districts• State Priority Funding Areas

Page 10: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Urban Service AreaUrban Service Area

• Limits geographic extent of service.• Rural areas denied urban services.• Typical of water and wastewater.

Page 11: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 12: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

InfrastructureInfrastructure PhasingPhasing

• Plans for location and timing of future urban service extensions.

• Plan is basis for capital improvement investments.

• Example: Sioux Falls, SD, 2015 Growth Management Plan.

Page 13: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 14: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Municipal BoundaryMunicipal Boundary

• Key facilities and services provided only by municipality.

• Access to key facilities and services attained only through annexation.• Example is Lincoln, Nebraska.

Page 15: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 16: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Level of Service StandardsLevel of Service Standards

• Performance standards for urban services vary spatially between “urban” and “rural”

land uses.• Example: Palm Beach County, Florida, where rural areas are not allowed to have

public/community water and sewer.

Page 17: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 18: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Spatial Capital InvestmentSpatial Capital Investment

• Focuses new infrastructure investments in existing or planned urban areas.

• Example: Maryland’s “priority” investment areas.

• Example: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.

Page 19: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 20: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Special Service DistrictsSpecial Service Districts

• Sole provider of key public facilities and services.

• Adopts policy of limiting infrastructure extensions to areas targeted for urban

development.• De factor urban service limits.

• Example: Baltimore County, Maryland.

Page 21: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 22: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

State Priority Funding Areas

• State infrastructure investments targeted to urban and urbanizing areas based on state

criteria.• Local governments may invest in other

areas but at their own expense.• Maryland statewide for roads, water, sewer

and schools.• Colorado in metropolitan areas for

transportation.

Page 23: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 24: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Urban Growth Phasing

• Tiered Growth Strategy• Urban Reserve District

• Public Land Management

Page 25: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Tiered Growth StrategyTiered Growth Strategy

• “Rings” of development intensity and infrastructure provision.

• Pricing strategies often used.• Example: Tucson’s “central core”, “mid-

city”, “evolving city” and “future city” tiers each with different planning and design

standards.

Page 26: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 27: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Urban Reserve DistrictUrban Reserve District

• Special areas reserved for future urban-scale development at the urban fringe.

• Usually reserved through large lot zoning, nonurban infrastructure, and “shadow”

platting.• At appropriate time, urban infrastructure

installed and urban scale development allowed.• Example: San Luis Obispo.

Page 28: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 29: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Public Land ManagementPublic Land Management

• Preserve publicly-owned land from development.

• Potentially “trading” some publicly-owned land where development should occur with

owners of rural land where development should not.

• Example: Pima County, Arizona.

Page 30: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 31: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Rural Growth Management

• Agriculture/Open Space District• Urban Fringe Resource Management

• Rural Growth Monitoring

Page 32: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Agriculture/Open Space DistrictAgriculture/Open Space District

• Exclusive farm, forest, and other open space uses allowed.

• Very large minimum lot sizes.• No or few “urban” residences allowed.

• Example: Wicomico County, Maryland.

Page 33: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 34: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Urban Fringe Resource Urban Fringe Resource ManagementManagement

• Overlay district in rural areas where new development reviewed under stringent

standards to protect habitat, sensitive landscapes, etc.

• Resource management plans required.• Example: Chico, California.

Page 35: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 36: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Rural Growth MonitoringRural Growth Monitoring

• Projected demand for legitimate development of rural lands undertaken.• Selected rural lands allocated for low

density urban development not using key urban facilities and services.

• Example: King County, Washington.

Page 37: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 38: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Rural/Open Space Preservation

• Transfer of Development Rights• Purchase of Development Rights

• Urban Fringe Land Acquisition• Urban/Rural Buffer

• Community Separator

Page 39: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Transfer of Development RightsTransfer of Development Rights

• Development rights are assigned to rural “sending” areas but cannot be exercised

unless purchased by developer and transferred to urban “receiving” areas.

• Example: Pinelands, New Jersey.

Page 40: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 41: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Purchase of Development RightsPurchase of Development Rights

• Development rights assigned through a planning process based on reasonable

factors are purchased by local government through a voluntary purchase program.

• Can also include privately donated conservation easements.

• Example: King County, Washington.

Page 42: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 43: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Urban Fringe Land AcquisitionUrban Fringe Land Acquisition

• Urban fringe land identified and targeted for acquisition in conscientious effort to contain urban development.

• Special state and regional funds typically used, but sometimes done by local government.

• Examples: Boulder, Colorado; Maryland.

Page 44: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 45: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 46: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Urban/Rural BufferUrban/Rural Buffer

• Small scale greenbelt edge around city.• Land acquired through combination of

acquisition and donation with conservation easement.

• Privately owned land not provided with key urban services and limited to open space

uses.• Example: Davis, California.

Page 47: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 48: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Community SeparatorCommunity Separator

• Narrow band of open space separating one community from another.

• Land uses restricted to nonurban activities; no urban services allowed. Essentially

large lot residential zoning but with some land acquisition.

• Example: Sonoma County, California.

Page 49: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 50: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Intergovernmental Agreements

• Joint Planning Areas• Spheres of Influence

• Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Page 51: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Joint Planning AreasJoint Planning Areas

• Municipalities agree on land use development affecting unincorporated

areas.• Agreements implemented through inter-local agreement enforceable by any party.

Page 52: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Spheres of InfluenceSpheres of Influence

• State designates future annexations areas of municipalities and creates independent board

to assure that development in affected unincorporated areas are consistent with

overall development plans of the relevant municipalities.

• Example: California, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).

Page 53: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 54: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

Extraterritorial JurisdictionExtraterritorial Jurisdiction

• Legislature authorizes municipalities to review and approve subdivisions,

rezoning requests, and other land use actions in unincorporated areas within 1-

5 miles typically.• Example: Eau Claire, Wisconsin.

Page 55: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)
Page 56: Urban Containment –  American Style(s)

American-Style Urban Containment

Is Creative & FlexibleBut what Really Works?