The document discusses urban growth boundaries (UGBs) implemented in Portland, Oregon to combat urban sprawl. It provides background on the establishment of Portland's UGB in the 1970s and its goals of preserving farmland and concentrating development. Both positive and negative impacts of the UGB are examined. Positives include farmland preservation and some resident support, while negatives include increased housing costs and traffic congestion. The document concludes by offering suggestions to improve urban sustainability, such as building in abandoned areas, adding green spaces, and tailoring mixed-use neighborhoods to community needs.

1. Urban growth
Running header: Urban growth
Urban growth boundary of Portland
Positive and negative aspects of the urban growth boundary
Jenny Payne
Cleveland State University
December 12, 2008
1

2. Urban growth
Introduction “Urban sprawl is public enemy No. 1.” Suburban Milwaukee resident (Squires, 2002)
Urban sprawl is a growing problem in the United States, as cities continue to grow more
space is needed to accommodate the ever growing populace. Sprawl is best defined as urban
growth reflecting low density housing, car dependent societies, with new housing developments
growing on the fringe of a deteriorating city (Squires, 2002). Edge cities have also started
springing up as residents continue to migrate away from the central city. Residents who are left
behind in the central city are those who can not afford to move away, and are often located in
areas of the city perceived as being the most violent. There are many environmental impacts of
sprawl, such as carbon emissions, as residents commute between work and place of residence.
Urban sprawl is not a sustainable way of urban planning, as it consumes valuable land.
Oregon decided to combat urban sprawl by enacting legislation that required every major city in
the state to put an urban growth boundary around the city. Ideal each city would plan for urban
growth over a set period of time. This paper looks at urban growth boundaries, the effects, both
positive and negative, on residents living in Portland, Oregon. Lastly, some ideas are presented
on how to continue the urban growth boundaries, with resident support, so as to combat the
growing issue of urban sprawl.
Urban growth boundary
An urban growth boundary (UGB) is a boundary surrounding a city allowing for further
growth within a limited area. Metro, the organization in charge of regulating Portland’s UGB,
defines then as signifying “the separation of rural and urban land” (Metro, 2002). UGB’s
developed out of a philosophy that city’s needed to become more compact, intruding less out
onto the surrounding rural landscape of farmlands and forested areas. When planning an UGB
2

3. Urban growth
twenty years worth of urban growth must be allowed for inside the boundary line (Harvey,
2002).
The main idea behind UGB is to preserve rural land for farming, as well as forest and
other natural landscapes, located outside the city’s parameter, attempting to prevent further
sprawl from urban growth. Another aspect to come out of the UGB idea was the growth
concept, which had three alternatives, growing up, growing out or connecting neighboring cities.
This idea of growth came out of a need to make some decisions on how best to manage the cities
growth. Trends in the 1990’s showed that cities were growing at a fast pace, with a huge influx
of people migrating into urban areas (Metro, 2000). Growing up would mean a higher density of
residences located in smaller areas. Growing out means having low density residences with
more sprawl. Connecting neighboring cities includes building transit corridors to provide a
quick and easy transit between neighboring urban centers.
The issue of urban sprawl, as well as a lack of green spaces locate in cities, has increased
over the last 50 year becoming a major issue for cities. States attempting to combat the issue of
urban sprawl created an UGB to limit outward growth of cities located in state boundaries.
UGB’s are meant to improve the quality of life for urban dwellers by incorporating mixed land
use, allowing for residence to live close to shops and employment opportunities.
There are several components in how to apply UGB’s around an urban center. First,
there is compact development, which “requires some concentration of employment, some
clustering of housing and some mixing of land uses” (Yang, 2008). Compact development is a
high density development, with residents living in close proximity to each other. Compact
development limits urban sprawl, using land more efficiently in areas once considered to be
suburbs (Wheeler, 2003). Mixed land use, or diverse developments, includes commercial,
3

4. Urban growth
industrial, public lands and residential housing (Yang, 2004). Ideally mixed land use should
include a variety of building styles; otherwise urban areas lack character and become dreary
urbanized landscapes (Wheeler, 2003). Building nature into the urban landscape provides areas
for parks allowing the natural environment to remain in city limits. Rezoning areas around
wetlands can protect valuable ecosystems, creating floodplains around cities. Instead of
diverting streams allowing them to flow along natural stream beds prevents flooding of urban
areas increasing the value of living in urban areas near natural stream beds.
Beginning of the urban growth boundaries in Oregon
Oregon has a long history of legalizing UGB’s around major cities; these land use laws
protect rural areas. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s many environmentalists, as well as the
governor of Oregon, were concerned about urban sprawl (Abbott, 2002). These concerned
citizens wanted to find ways to prevent, or at least slow down, urban sprawl, as well as providing
easy access to nature. Governor Tom McCall was a major advocate for protecting the
environment and limiting urban sprawl from taking over cities in the state of Oregon.
In 1969 Senate Bill (SB) 10 required cities to prepare management plans for land use and
zoning ordinances which needed to meet certain criteria lead out by SB 10. Four years later in
1973 Oregon enacted the first major land use laws, SB 100, in the United States. Passage of SB
100 was lead by Governor McCall, to limit the amount of urban sprawl. Land use legislation
came about when Governor McCall challenged the lawmakers to come up with better land
management policies. McCall was quoted as saying, “there is a shameless threat to our
environment and to the whole quality of life – the unfettered despoiling of the land” (Abbott,
2002). The law stated that every major city in Oregon must have an urban growth boundary in
place. Fifty five percent of the voters in Oregon voted to support the SB 100 in a referendum
4

5. Urban growth
(Abbott, 2002). When cities were planning the urban growth boundary they had to plan for 20
years worth of urban growth. By 1979 twenty four cities were involved with the UGB, including
Portland, covering 240,000 acres worth of land (Metro, 2000). Oregon’s land planning laws was
one of the first such laws in the United States.
Portland’s urban growth boundaries
When Portland was founded city streets, and neighborhoods, were based on a grid
pattern, starting at a central point in the city. Surrounding the core of the city were mixed use
neighborhoods, small stores conveniently located near housing allowing families easy access to
goods and services. Portland covers a flat area east of the Willimette River, therefore Portland
could easily spread outward. A majority of the streets blocks were only 200 feet long, allowing
pedestrians easy access to different parts to the city. Towards the middle of the 19th
century
many cities, including Portland, were steadily growing outward. At the edge of the city was
farmland, which provided city residents with a ready source of food (Wheeler, 2003).
In 1972 Portland residents were calling for an innovative plan to reshape downtown
Portland. By 1974 Portland had created the Office of Neighborhood Association, as well as
demolishing a freeway in order to plant trees and grass (Abbott, 2002). In 1978 Portland voters
approved a measure creating a regional government which would regulate the state mandated
UGB; the regional government would be named Metro. Metro is responsible for planning land
usage in the Portland region (Harvey, 2002). The UGB surrounding Portland encompasses 24
cities, covering parts of three counties, and an area of 363 square miles (Harvey, 2002). As of
2002, 1.3 million residents are affected by an UGB surrounding greater Portland (Song, 2002)
Metro realized in 1988 that no procedures where in place to review, or make changes, to
Portland’s UGB as required by the state. Over the next three years Metro worked a plan as the
5

6. Urban growth
local economy was growing, and expansion was becoming necessary for the cities survival.
Finally, in 1991 Metro created a “Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives” (RUGGOs),
which provided for a wide variety of urban growth (Abbott, 2002). RUGGOs also had plans for
a reviewing process to ensure that objectives of urban growth were being met. Growth would
include having mixed neighborhoods, allowed for compact growth, preservation of existing
areas, and advocated mass transit (Abbott, 2002).
In 1994 Metro created a plan, “Region 2040 growth concept” to accommodate growth for
Portland, the plan allowed for up to one million additional residents to migrate into the area
(Abbott, 2002). “Region 2040” also provides plans for urban growth, and planning, for the next
50 years. The plan focuses on sustainable urban growth, including providing jobs, and housing
in downtown Portland. Region 2040 also identified transportation corridors surrounding
Portland, and identified areas that would permanently remain outside the UGB. Areas that
permanently would remain outside the UGB included forests, farm land and other critical natural
landscape features. The plan also lead to rezoning of many areas in Portland, especially in areas
previously zoned for single family housing, for apartment buildings in a rush to obtain higher
density populations in smaller spaces. By having higher density in urban areas the hope was to
have less traffic and more reliance on public transit.
With any new concept, such as urban growth boundaries, there are groups that are for the
UGB’s and others that are against UGB’s. Individuals who are for urban growth boundaries
point to the fact that valuable farm land provides a valuable food source for the city. Individuals
who are against urban growth boundaries cite the fact that families, or other individuals, will not
be able to effectively pursue the American dream as they might not be able to afford homes at
current asking price.
6

7. Urban growth
Negative effects of urban growth boundaries for Portland
Critics of the UGB have argued that UGB’s negatively impact residents living in
Portland. According to O’Toole (2004), Metro wanted to rezone areas of Portland, even when
residents spoke out against rezoning of areas in which they lived, Metro won the rezoning bid.
Neighborhoods with single family dwellings were being rezoned to allow apartment buildings to
be built. Rezoning these areas meant that now there was a higher density of people living in the
newly rezoned areas. Rezoning caused housing prices to sky rocket in certain areas around
Portland. Many families, and individuals, could not afford to buy homes in Portland. In many
cases zoning of these areas was so stringent that many homes destroyed by fire could not be
rebuilt as single family houses, instead apartment complexes had to replace single family
dwellings.
Another aspect of UGB was to cut down on traffic in urban centers, by creating a reliance
on mass transit versus cars. Putting in more mass transit lines does not always work either as
having access to mass transit does not necessarily increase ridership. What the UGB failed to
take into account was that many people enjoy driving. Along with the UGB creating higher
population density, roads were becoming narrower hence traffic congestion got worse instead of
improving. Many new rail lines were constructed, costing more then an eight land freeway,
throughout Portland in hopes that ridership would increase. Ridership of mass transit in fact did
not increase.
Another area which has been affected is business, as Metro wanted to decrease the
amount of parking spaces located outside different places of business. The city of Portland
wanted to increase ridership on the mass transit system. By decreasing the amount of parking
7

8. Urban growth
spaces the hope was more people would ride mass transit instead of driving. Many residents of
Portland did not agree with this idea, even voting against the funding for more transit lines.
In one mixed, high density, pedestrian friendly areas the only vacancies were store fronts,
as retail owners did not want to locate to areas where business was virtually nonexistent. In
some areas the center is not growing as well as it could be as many shops do not have enough
parking spaces. Many customers go to shopping centers which have plenty of parking spaces
surrounding stores (O’Toole, 2004). So in this instance having a UGB did not work as shop
owners do not locate in the urban center as customers tend to not shop in areas with scarce
parking spaces.
Positive effects of urban growth boundaries
The main aim of the UGB is to preserve farm land from the effects of urban sprawl so
prominent in society. During the mid 1990’s the amount of farms increased as well as the
amount of agricultural products. Having land for agriculture surrounding Portland provides
crops, nurseries and greenhouses. Green houses and nurseries have become profitable businesses
in the last decade, due in part to the UGB. An interest in farming as a hobby for urban dwellers
has also help the green house industry. Fruit farms, catering towards urbanites picking fruit for
themselves, have increased over the years (Harvey, 2002).
Despite concerns by several critics, many residents living in Portland do support
management of urban growth, containing urban expansion so as to prevent sprawl.
Neighborhoods near the UGB have stated that no new growth should take place; instead the
focus should be on maintaining current residential areas. Residents who support the UGB’s state
that no new land should be added to the UGB, proposing better management of urban growth so
as to not allow sprawl to continue unabated. Many residents believe that preservation of natural
8

9. Urban growth
resources is important, valuing rural area. Residents who lived near rural landscapes value the
characteristics that rural areas have to offer (Harvey, 2002).
Sustainability of urban center and surrounding area
Many areas in Portland can be considered a small part of the urban center. The idea is to
create areas within different neighborhoods around Portland into urban centers, which is
accessible for all residents in the area. The hope is to cut down on traffic by creating pedestrian
friendly areas with minimal parking spaces. In order for urban centers to become sustainable,
people must be brought on board, letting them know that in order to improve the lives of
residents, changes need to be made. UGB’s must also take into account the differing needs of
the residents living within the city. When cities are putting together a comprehensive plan for
UGB’s planners must insure varied amounts of options are available to meet the needs of
residents living in the city’s boundary.
Many people have moved outside of the city in order to get away from the center of the
city. Common perception states that suburbs are safer, quieter, and more family friendly then
neighborhoods located in the central part of the city. Another aspect of living in the suburbs is
the dependence on cars, instead of mass transit, for transportation needs. This does not help to
create a sustainable city, as when cars are needed parking spaces are also needed. Parking lots
take up a lot of space, especially when space is limited, like in the urban center. Mass transit in
this case would be more sustainable then driving.
Ideas to help with urban sustainability
While having higher density areas for living might be a great idea for sustainability, if
rezoning negatively impacts current residents in existing neighborhoods then other ideas must be
considered. One such idea would be to rezone areas that are already abandoned, and build
9

10. Urban growth
apartment complexes, and mixed use neighborhoods in these areas. Building in already
abandoned areas would not only increase the amount of housing, it would also allow for greater
choice. When given choices, people are more willing to expect having an UGB around their
city.
Having green spaces in the city boundaries is important, including have yards behind
single family dwellings. When there are no green spaces located in city centers people are not as
healthy. At this point in time there does not appear to be a comprehensive plan for retaining
green space within the city limits of Portland. This will negatively impact the lives of people
living the in the city as the connection to nature will be lost. Adding green spaces, such as parks,
is important in overall planning for building and maintaining urban areas. Green space, such as
parks, in city limits will cut down the amount of travel time residents need to take in order to
reach these spaces.
Mixed neighborhoods are great, provided there are enough parking spaces, as well as
sidewalks, to encourage shoppers to shop in those areas. Housing that is with in walking
distance to shopping centers, entertainment, libraries, restaurants, as well as other commodities,
is beneficial to everyone. Mixed neighborhoods could encourage small businesses to form,
which would employee local residents. With employment close by people could walk to work,
or take a short ride on public transit to get to their place of employment. Mixed neighborhoods
should be tailored to each neighborhoods needs, instead of attempting to mold the neighborhood
around a fixed model. What might work for one neighborhood in the central city would not
necessarily fit for a suburban neighborhood. There needs to be several different models for
mixed neighborhoods in place so as to accommodate the different areas within the city limits.
10

11. Urban growth
Working with residents of a city is the best alternative versus forcing them to accept
UGB’s. Explaining the benefit of having UGB, as well as allowing residents to voice opinions
regarding UGB’s, allowing residents and local governments a chance to work together (Metro,
2000). By allowing families to have affordable single family homes within the city of Portland,
as well as having smaller apartment building in the same neighborhood will help to provide a
selection of house that fits everyone’s needs.
Conclusion
While the idea of having an urban growth boundary is a great concept putting the plan
into practice is often harder to implant, especially when the boundary seems to negatively affect
residents of the city. Planning for urban growth must include residents and government alike in
order for the boundary to work effectively. Points of view vary among the different groups
involved in planning for the UGB, with the regional government seeming to have the final say in
how urban planning will work. From the research the regional government would exclude the
residents from attending city councils, opting for sessions where residents could listen but not
speak.
Building outwards does have many negative effects on the local ecosystem and
environment. Cities’ growing outward seriously impacts the land especially when city continue
to grow outwards. Having sustainable building practices would include land that has been
abandoned by prior the owners. Many neighborhoods in Cleveland have abandoned buildings
that could be demolished and redeveloping the sites with mixed neighborhoods. UGB’s help to
control outward growth, preserving the fragile ecosystem, and allowing for reuse of empty space
located in city limits.
11

12. Urban growth
As with any new concept having the support of the surrounding community is a huge
plus, since the residents living in the community are directly impacted. Allowing voters to vote
on several aspects of UGB’s would help considerably to increase the wiliness of the residents for
having an UGB around the city. Portland resident are willing to have UGB but want to be
included in major decision that affect neighborhoods surrounding the area where they live.
12

13. Urban growth
References
Abbott, Carl. (2002). Planning a sustainable city: the promise and performance of Portland’s
Urban growth boundary. Urban sprawl causes, consequences and policy responses, pp.
207 – 236. The Urban Institute Press. Washington D.C.
Harvey, Thomas, Works, Martha A. (2002). Urban sprawl and rural landscapes: perceptions of
landscapes as amenity in Portland, Oregon. Local Environment, volume 7, issue 4 pp.
381 – 396. Retrieved on October 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web:
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=26&hid=8&sid=34b96c20-1d9-4ed5-8ab9-
Metro. (2000). The nature of 2040: the region’s 50 year plan for managing growth. Retrieved on
October 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/files/ planning/
natureof 2040.pdf
O’Toole, Randal. (2004). A Portlander’s view of smart growth. The review of Austrian
Economics, Volume 17, issue 2-3, pp. 203-212. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Thoreau
Institute. Retrieved on October 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://journals.
ohiolink.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/OToole_Randal.pdf? issn= 08893047 &issue =v17i2-
3&article=203_apvosg
Song, Yan. (2005). Smart growth and urban development pattern: A comparative study.
International Regional Science Review, volume 28, issue 2, pp. 239-265. Sage
Publications. Retrieved on October 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://journals.
ohiolink.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Song_Yan.pdf?
issn=01600176&issue=v28i0002&article=239_sgaudpacs DOI:
10.1177/0160017604273854
13

14. Urban growth
Squires, Gregory D. (2002). Urban sprawl and the uneven development of metropolitan
America. Urban sprawl causes, consequences and policy responses, pp. 1 – 22. The
Urban Institute Press. Washington D.C.
Wheeler, Stephan M. (2003). The evolution of urban form in Portland and Toronto: implications
for sustainability planning. Local Environment, volume 8, issue 3 pp. 317-336. Carfax
Publishing. Retrieved on October 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://web.ebsco
host.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=104&sid=9b805bb1-2d16-4235-9de9-6539e22940a5%
40sessionmgr107
Song, Yan, Knaap, Gerrit-Jan. (2004). Measuring urban form. Journal of the American Planning
Association, volume 70, issue 2 pp. 210 – 225. Retrieved on October 3, 2008 from the
World Wide Web: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=116&sid=82277d4e-
59a6-46b5-963e-738fefe1a2de%40sessionmgr102
Yang, Yizhao. (2008). A tale of two cities: Physical form and neighborhood satisfaction in
metropolitan Portland and Charlotte. Journal of American Planning Association, Volume
74, Issue 3, pp. 307-323. Retrieved on October 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web:
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=116&sid=82277d4e-59a6-46b5-963e-
738fefe1a2de%40sessionmgr102 DOI: 10.1080/01944360802215546
14