1 / 56

Urban Containment – American Style(s)

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?.

toki
Download Presentation

Urban Containment – American Style(s)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. “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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Different Flavors of Urban Containment • Urban Services & Facilities • Urban Growth Phasing • Rural Growth Management • Rural/Open Space Preservation • Intergovernmental Agreements

  8. Urban Services & Facilities • Urban Service Area • Infrastructure Phasing • Municipal Boundary • Level of Service Standards • Spatial Capital Investment • Special Service Districts • State Priority Funding Areas

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

  10. InfrastructurePhasing • 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.

  11. Municipal Boundary • Key facilities and services provided only by municipality. • Access to key facilities and services attained only through annexation. • Example is Lincoln, Nebraska.

  12. Level 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.

  13. Spatial Capital Investment • Focuses new infrastructure investments in existing or planned urban areas. • Example: Maryland’s “priority” investment areas. • Example: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.

  14. Special 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.

  15. 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.

  16. Urban Growth Phasing • Tiered Growth Strategy • Urban Reserve District • Public Land Management

  17. Tiered 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.

  18. Urban 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.

  19. Public 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.

  20. Rural Growth Management • Agriculture/Open Space District • Urban Fringe Resource Management • Rural Growth Monitoring

  21. Agriculture/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.

  22. Urban Fringe Resource Management • 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.

  23. Rural 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.

  24. Rural/Open Space Preservation • Transfer of Development Rights • Purchase of Development Rights • Urban Fringe Land Acquisition • Urban/Rural Buffer • Community Separator

  25. Transfer 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.

  26. Purchase 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.

  27. Urban 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.

  28. Urban/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.

  29. Community 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.

  30. Intergovernmental Agreements • Joint Planning Areas • Spheres of Influence • Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

More Related