Urban Growth Boundaries: Effective or Worthless?

[@Jarekthegamingdragon]

As a Portland resident, so many of these youtube comments have no clue what they're talking about. Having nature so close, not having urban sprawl, it's a really damn good thing for someone that lives here.

[@AFAndersen]

The only bad thing about it is how unnatural the line between Urban and Rural is..

[@TheRCish]

It's great! I just visited Portland last week on a day trip from Seaside, and it's really cool how close to the city you get proper farmland, definitely something you don't get in the Seattle area where I'm from.

[@dtrahn1218]

@@AFAndersen How is it unnatural? Cities had these types of lines for centuries. They're called the defense walls and gates.

[@AFAndersen]

@@dtrahn1218 Funny how you think a "wall" of concrete and asphalt is comparable to a fortification. I might be wrong, but I don't think stroads will be tourist traps of the 3000s...

[@markmartindale7215]

That should be "to a Portland resident", not "as a Portland resident".

[@alibrown172]

I'd love to see you dig into UK greenbelts. Us Brits have had Greenbelts around all major cities since I think the 1940s. They've mostly stopped sprawl but everybody thinks they've caused house prices to rise. I'd love to know how true it is.

[@jamesbowes4893]

It has definitely caused a large amount of house building just outside of the greenbelt boundary. E.g. Coventry, where I live, has extensive greenbelt but some of the neighbouring towns (Nuneaton, Rugby, Warwick and Leamington) have a huge amount of house building, but only in the direction facing away from Coventry. There has definitely been a very noticeable increase in urban density in Coventry as well though.

[@ListerTunes]

Yeah, I immediately thought of London when I saw the video title. There are a LOT of factors pushing home costs up in London, and I'd love to see a deep dive on how the city has grown over time, the transit system, the green belt, the exclusion zone, and basically everything else that combines to make it what it is.

[@ChasmChaos]

@@ListerTunes To be fair, the comparison is superficial against any North American city. London's density and public transport are on another level, while still retaining green-spaces throughout the city and beyond. Get on any national train in central London and you hit the verdant country-side in 20-30 minutes. I know VP-level folks from places as far-flung as Surrey who use the public transit to commute to/from central London since it's comfortable and more user-friendly than driving. Not to mention the pollution and congestion fees in central London further dissuades everyone from driving, other than the filthy rich and the career Uber drivers. And guess what, Surrey doesn't have cheap houses either, primarily because it's such a beautiful, green place.

[@mytimetravellingdog]

@@ListerTunes for it's population London is shocking low density, and that has massively driven up housing costs. If the parts of London currently build on were built at Paris' density levels it could comfortably house 38 million I think it's mostly fine in the historic parts of the inner boroughs. But so much of london is 1930-1980s semi detatched sprawl. Particularly in the outer boroughs. And they are that are fighting hardest against any sort of densification around train stations and the like. Planning has been fought tooth and nail against development on supermaket carparks (and won). So it's good that stuff isn't constantly expanding but And one of the worst thing about Green Belt policies are just how arbitrary they are and what counts.. I was reading an arictle the pointed out a bit of rocky waste land with no real left growing in it next to the M25 surrounded by an gated iron fence that had clearly been some exist And nothing in London that could get build on out be built low density in the current environment. Really I think there should be some sort or measure on house prices vs national average wage (or maybe average rent vs minimum wage) and as soon as an city hits a ratio it then anything post 1930 (with exceptions for listed and conservation stuff) can be densified.

[@mytimetravellingdog]

@@jamesbowes4893 that's the problem. Instead of building density (and coventry is in no way dense) it's pushed building out to cheaper satellite towns making everything worse. Oxford instead of densifying it's poor post 1930s housing stock or building even a bit outwards onto generic farming fields now has the worst housing crisis outside of London and 40,000 inward car journeys each day.

[@todddammit4628]

Did you see what's happening in Redlands California? They're putting back in a train that hasn't run for 80 years, and a new train station to go with it. And last week they approved a final plan to replace an old mall with a walkable mixed-use development. You should do a video on the changes!

[@Geotpf]

I personally think the ARROW train is kind of dumb. It would have made more sense to extend the San Bernardino Metrolink line to those stops and increase frequency on the entire line. They are doing this on a few peak hour trains. No need to have a separate DMU train and transfer for other times if you did it my way.

[@Tyurannical]

Urban planning channels are slowly turning me into the guy who's like UPZONE UPZONE UPZONE in every discussion about related topics,,, no regrets tho

[@SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

Right? If you asked me about urban planning a year ago I wouldn’t have cared less. Now I’m obsessed!

[@jeffreyhill1589]

I just get yelled at for bringing up Upzoning....to be fair I'm usually ordering food or picking my dog up from the groomer but fuck that, it's an everyone issue damn it

[@urbanistgod]

Not everyone wants to live in a high density environment

[@brianstevens5547]

@@urbanistgod they can move to the country and drive to work it's NBD

[@riku3716]

@@urbanistgod The more reason to not have US like very low density suburban sprawl taking all the space and forcing rest to be very dense and high.

[@kueller917]

Portland is sort of the "not enough" example because it's so sprawl-y already within the boundary. As you said if you don't allow density to increase inside the boundary it's just locking in housing supply. I like how a number of Spanish cities I've seen have apartments right up to their city borders and then it just ends. I don't know if it's UGB or not but it feels more natural of a way to contain a population while keeping the environment. At that point it's more of a green belt.

[@RyanRuark]

This soon-to-be former Portlander is leaving because my neighbors think the way to fix the cost of housing is to bulldoze houses to let Texan private equity investors collect rent. Sharing an actual structure with these people is a bridge way too far. Bye.

[@elizabethhenning778]

@@RyanRuark oookay, so can you explain why it's better to use high-demand land for dilapidated single-family houses instead of new multifamily buildings?

[@Jarekthegamingdragon]

Portland sprawly? Man, you should visit texas, the midwest, or another region with actual sprawl. Portland metro does not have sprawl.

[@johnsamuel1999]

@@elizabethhenning778 it should be a chice by the consumer or realtor

[@kueller917]

@@Jarekthegamingdragon I know it's nothing like Texas but I'm in Europe so it's all a bit sprawly to me.

[@SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

I had a great comment planned about how higher house prices within a UGB doesn’t necessarily mean that you pay more in total because you have access to better public transit and you pollute less…..and then you went ahead and mentioned it yourself! Awesome high level summary!

[@TheCriminalViolin]

"Better public transit" HA. What the hell does one even begin to use to claim transit in the bigger metros is any good? TriMet is ranked by most the best public transit in the US, at least among the major metros, yet it is complete shit to use, and infuriatingly inconsistent and unreliable. Hell, Wilsonville has a far superior transit system than we have with TriMet. Eugene and Springfield has a far better system than TriMet has ever been. The Vancouver region with CTRAN has a superior system to TriMet. I could go on. And they all have one thing in common - they're all "Small" metro areas, or in the case of Wilsonville, it's a city of about 25k people. Thus, they all completely make your thought line there null and void.

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

0:10 I was on a trip through Spain driving to a few cities. I was shocked how most of the towns / cities seem to end abruptly and had dense housing similar to what you showed here. I thought it was great because it made more land available for farming and it kept even decent size towns mostly walkable. Seville and Granada were exactly like that.

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

@@donnerwetter1905 saw same in Italy so probably common through most of Europe. In Italy visited a town (for work) or maybe 5,000 people and it had an abrupt end where it quickly turned to farmland. I haven’t driven through England but from maps and movies, it seems the same.

[@spicychad55]

What's great about Spain is they have "bloques" areas of the cities with no cars and with more people oriented environment. Netherlands has dedicated biking lanes and similar concept to rest of Europe. Europe has mixed used buildings and good public transport.

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

@@spicychad55 yeah, I loved that about seville and Granada. Area with with no or very limited cars. Almost no traffic in the historic center of Seville

[@johndododoe1411]

I live in Denmark, Europe; and our urban growth boundaries are simply part of zoning, specifically the top zoning categories are rural and city, with additional requirements in planning directives for individual areas sometimes as small as single lots. So a nature reserve would usually be a sub area within a rural zone, while a shopping mall would be a sub area in a city zone.

[@kirkrotger9208]

That's most of Europe. And they're all connected by train. It's very easy for the vast majority of people to live car-free.

[@namenamename390]

It always brings me joy when I hear of a city that removes exclusive single family zoning. Good job with that, Portland!

[@jasonreed7522]

Especially because the easy first step is allowing duplex and similar into the low density mix creating a lowish density that doesn't immediately clash with the ultra low density single family zoning. (Basically its a good weapon against NIMBYs) and once the density starts to rise you can move on up to more dense housing forms with an ideal higher end being "respectful apartments". (Basically have them well maintained and have thick enough walls to not hear your neighbors 99% of the time) Single family homes should be kept to areas that are still walking range to a denser "Mainstreet" feeling area like in small towns. (Basically keep them in small pockets no bigger than 10min walking time to the closest dense edge, and have actual sidewalks + bike infrastructure throughout)

[@vilitspiipol]

@@jasonreed7522 you think developers' lobbyists won't make that impossible? If and when minimum apartment policy dont happen, you'll get shitty cheaply built houses that cost small fortune. Thats whats happening all over the world right now. Being an idealist must be nice but it's not making housing any better. You're just forcing people to live on shitty houses.

[@benhanpeter4790]

@@jasonreed7522 Amen to thick walls. Apartments are great but I don't want to have to hear anyone, or worry about anyone hearing me.

[@RyanRuark]

And replaced it with… Private equity slums. Nick Fish really screwed this city.

[@TheCriminalViolin]

@@jasonreed7522 I'm not agreeing with your last bit at all. That's still too close most of the time in my opinion. Keep that high density to the urban core of the main cities of the metro areas, medium density (max 5 stories) though can be allowed to be within 10-15 minutes from the low density single family homes. Single family homes need to be maintained and kept. There is far too strong of a hatred and push to eventually completely rid ourselves of single family homes. They must stay. It's arrogant people who demand they should be gone or only make up what would amount to no more than 2-5% of a metro area's housing. High density should never be that close nor seen from single family housing. Density is essential to keep in a circular or semi circular development pattern that radiates out through the suburbs and portions outside of the main cities of the metro area. It's a step by step kind of gradual wind down of density like that. Cores have high density, inner rings/areas have medium (namely townhomes and apartments), outer rings have low density (namely single family housing/divided two story units like old school duplexes, being one building, split in two by a dividing internal middle wall).

[@NoJusticeNoPeace]

Ottawa, where I live, established a Greenbelt zoned against development in a fit of idealistic fervor many decades ago. The suburbs just skipped right over it and kept going -- and now it's made the Greenbelt so valuable as real estate that the city keeps selling pieces of it off to developers every time it needs money.

[@jordanjackson410]

And now those suburbs are considered the City of Ottawa lol

[@lik7953]

London is similar. There is a green belt, but now a lot of people just live outside it. Luckily, most people use the trains to get into London, not their cars

[@cloudyskies5497]

Oh man that's such a sad story, and I bet all those suburbs need huge highways and parking lots everywhere. Just pave over everything, we don't need nature!

[@enjoyslearningandtravel7957]

@@lik7953 but at least the people in London and surrounding areas have big parks to break up the sprawling London metropolis. So the green areas at least give some nature and possibility for picnics and hikes.

[@enjoyslearningandtravel7957]

Well what a pity !!! that the city of Ottawa decided to sell off the Greenbelt for money instead of keeping the Greenbelt green. Often not developing it is more valuable than money such as having an area for picnics and for hiking and just for a peaceful area instead of just suburbs and streets.

[@toddgreener]

When I lived in Ukraine, the cities looked pretty much exactly like that first shot. Density on one side of the street and open farm/forest on the other side. I like it a lot more that suburbia.

[@SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

I’m assuming that’s what a city would look like if it just naturally expands with public transit being the main method of travel. Housing would naturally stay very dense around the various stations since people don’t want to walk to far in order to get on their train…and once it become too dense, they start building another cluster further down the tracks with its own station!

[@ten_tego_teges]

@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet Well, I suspect it was pretty similar to what we have here in Poland where they'd just copy&paste the same houses everywhere, most commonly blocs of flats, cause they're cheaper per unit. We have villages that for no good reason have 4-story blocs of flats that replaced wooden houses in the 60's. It might be better than single family homes in some cases, but let's not get ahead of ourselves with the enthusiasm, much of that wasn't exactly peak urbanism XD

[@trainsandmore2319]

rip ukraine

[@Weissenschenkel]

There's already a video posted in this channel about Soviet cities and how they were drawn to accomodate a lot of people keeping car/bus traffic at minimum with shorter commuting distances, keeping local grocery shops and such always alive. Developments pre-1922 probably hadn't these ideas in mind. To be honest I'd say pre-WWII because these Soviet cities started to be planned after 1945 due to the rapid economical growth from post-war period. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gHi5c6ltqNt-gtE (video about Soviet Cities mentioned above)

[@FrozenBusChannel]

@@trainsandmore2319 they're not dead yet, still fighting on 🇺🇦

[@katebentz9683]

Great video, a few thoughts as someone who works in the planning department in a small city in Oregon. First, it's significant to note that all incorporated cities regardless of size, not just major metro areas, are required to have UGBs. So even extremely rural towns with less than 500 residents must abide by the statewide urban growth management rules. In a lot of cases, it seems ultra effective in preventing natural and agricultural areas from being encroached by mismatched, spattered development. Unlike many other places in the country, towns have a distinct break between each other with great green Oregon scenery. However, there are plenty of drawbacks that I have run into in reviewing my own town's UGB. State laws about UGBs are particularly rigid which can cause issues in practice. For one, every city had to establish their UGB back in the late 70s / early 80s, and often times the people in charge of doing that didn't have particularly great forethought in predicting what land might be practically urbanizable- lots of limiting factors like topography, ability to extend public water and sewer, and wetlands prevent development from occurring yet the city is still stuck with these areas as part of their land supply. Many areas are just better suited to be rural, but there's no easy way to outright remove land from a UGB even if it's undeveloped. Then when you go to assess expanding the UGB, you're told there is a surplus of land supply when in fact no developer wants to touch those areas, or they're only willing to build low density, luxury homes on large plots of land. This just exaggerates the housing problem. Thankfully, the state has started working with cities to find a way to swap lands within the UGB, but it's a very cumbersome process that small cities can't often afford to devote staff time to. So it's interesting to see how Oregon's top-down approach affects communities at different levels, I often say it's like trying to fit a square peg through a round hole. Still, I think overall that Oregon's landscape would have developed drastically different without UGBs, and I'm not confident that it would've been better. The untouched rural Oregon landscape has turned into one of the state's biggest selling points, especially with tourism and recreation.

[@rabbit251]

Good points Kate! States / cities shouldn't make a one size fits all. I also wonder what is the cost of "studies" to see if they need to expand growth. I like to trust experts, but urban planning is not exactly a stable science I learned at university. I previously lived in Portland back in the 90s. I thought the UGB was a great idea. Anyone who has lived there knows that the Willamette River Valley has some of the richest soil in the US, probably second to California's. It would have been a shame to allow urban sprawl to literally eat it all up. Of course I also liked it when I bought a house for $70,000 (an older house that had a pretty big yard) and after 2 years we were able to refinance and the value had increased $120,000 and we used the extra money to pay off our student loans. I haven't been back in 20 years but son is still there forced to live in Vancouver he says because Portland is now a horrible city and housing costs have skyrocketed. (Checking on the internet it seems to be true. City planners seem to be doing a horrible job with many parks turned into tent cities to support those who can't afford the housing. Sad.) For the last 20 years I've been living in Tokyo. If you want to see a well managed city (mostly), you should visit here. Tokyo didn't need a UGB as to the west there is a mountain range that blocks further growth. To the east housing costs are easier, but so is the risk of getting hit by a typhoon and getting flooded as it is near the ocean. But there are people, usually richer, who live beyond the mountains or in other areas outside and the metro area has built express trains which travel to those parts every hour. Or the build the train lines knowing people will move to more remote areas alleviating some of the higher costs in Tokyo. It's really sad that the US never developed a mass transportation system. The east coast is very dense and could easily support such a system, if only people were willing to give up their cars. (I've never owned a car since I left the US).

[@1978Prime]

I wish my city had an urban growth boundary. Its Perth western Australia and its 130 km long with a population of 2 million. The sprawl has swallowed up coastal holiday towns as far as 70 kms from the CBD. People moved there in the first place to live away from the city and because of the cheap land prices, but they soon become apart of the problem and they are now apart of the Perth metropolitan area. We still have a housing crisis and land prices are still high. Since land is expensive in the inner suburbs, first time home buyers build on the outskirts. Government policies encourage this more by subsidizing first time home buyers who build a new home rather than an established home. The government is always expanding freeway out into the undeveloped countryside to open up the area for development. Sure they are expanding the rail network too, but its mostly extensions to cater for the urban sprawl rather than to improve the network within the city. There is often rest resistance to increasing density in the inner suburbs too.

[@jackstrawful]

I remember the first time I encountered a UGB when I was living in Salem, Oregon. It was really nice to be able to drive for just a few minutes and be out in the country. Even though I lived within 3 miles of the capitol building, and thus had access the great medical and other social services, I felt like I could escape the hustle and bustle any time I wanted without breaking the bank on gas money.

[@rabbit251]

I used to live in Portland and I remember that also. Although it was a little creepy because 30 minutes outside the city and there was no one. I once got two flat tires (someone put a 4x4 board in the road) and I had a to wait hours before a good Samaritan stopped to help. I also remember that if you driving north to Seattle, there is about a 2 hour stretch where there is nothing, no one. I grew up in Wisconsin and except for the far north, there isn't any place that has empty places. People have little idea how empty the American west actually is.

[@BeaverGeography]

Stole my upload time and uploaded a great video. Not fair!

[@DeyvsonMoutinhoCaliman]

Where I live in Brazil houses in the countryside are much cheaper than inside the city, but legally they have to be bought with a lot of land (20 thousand square meters at least). Although people make private arrangements, where someone sell the house, because they have another one, and keep using the land around it, while also using the money from the sale to buy even more land elsewhere. My house is one of those private arrangements, I couldn't afford a house inside the city, so I bought an old and simple house in the countryside. They even gave me 3 thousand square meters of land, where I'm learning to grow crops for personal consumption and planted many trees that give fruits, although my real profession is teaching. I'm very happy here, they grow crops around my house and don't bother me at all, it's a very silent place. I have a much better quality of life than I had in the city.

[@VinceroAlpha]

Blown away by Republican HATED suburban sprawl in the 70s no less!

[@kevbarnes8459]

Put politics aside and did what had to be done. 👏

[@machtmann2881]

At one point, Republicans had sane ideas. Hell, Nixon was the one who created the EPA in the 70s

[@jasonreed7522]

I think anyone not born into suburbia hates it for the blight it is, its like trying to live in a city and small town at the same time but only getting the worst of both. Cities generally have lots of amenities and density, small towns generally have a close knit community, nature, and historical character with varried house styles and a classic mainstreet that still resembles photos from the 1800s. Suburbia only has cars and cookie cutter homes, of course everyone hates it.

[@laurencefraser]

Also worth remembering that A: The ideologies of the parties have shifted quite a bit over the decades and B: state and party politics are such that, in many states, only one party is really Relevant, so they collect up all but the most extreme of what you'd naturally expect to be the other party's supporters and issues within the state, because that's the only way to actually get anything done on matters that are actually important (and you instead end up with the factions within that party forming the de facto Actual party-equivalents in that state).

[@RyanRuark]

Republicans have been and are decent people, I’m sorry every Dem thinks every capitalist who doesn’t like squandering wealth is an evil fascist who wants to eat you.

[@OleOlson]

Urban sprawl is the problem, not city boundaries. The Netherlands has 17 million people in a tiny amount of space, but most of the country is countryside because of their forward thinking urban design. That also helps because almost everyone can walk or bike wherever they need to go. There are more miles of walking and bicycle trails than car roads!

[@Sacto1654]

It helps that the Netherlands has one of the best communter train systems in the world.

[@behindyou666]

Good urban design certainly helps prevent sprawl, but not matter how good it is, untouched nature near cities will always have a high property value that developers will gladly tear down to build housing.

[@OleOlson]

@@Sacto1654 The two go together IMHO. It's much easier to have good public transportation when cities are compactly designed and people can just walk to stations.

[@taxthesocialist2602]

@@behindyou666 Ending mass immigration will ease that burden. They can't build if the population doesn't grow beyond the current number.

[@behindyou666]

@@taxthesocialist2602 It can help, but the American popoulation is still growing, demanding housing. The culture of outward growth will take so much pressure nature with it, laso destroy rural communities and farm land.

[@coreymichaels9452]

How about: urban growth boundaries cannot expand until a certain population total is met within the boundary (one sufficient to support quality transit)

[@JBthePAdashC]

Response to your Nebula exclusive (can’t comment on nebula): Jeff Speck is releasing a 10th anniversary to Walkable City in November. Same book but with 100 pages of updates at the end. Nothing is changed in the normal chapters.

[@empirestate8791]

Urban growth boundaries need to be expanded as the population grows and should be combined with liberal zoning to allow high-density development. When you prevent both sprawl AND density, you end up with horrendously high housing costs.

[@SquidCena]

Liberal? L

[@sebastianm8465]

Haha liberal zoning

[@NoJusticeNoPeace]

The problem with that is humans. In Ottawa, where I live, there was an experimental project started by one of our mayors, Lorry Greenberg about 50 years ago. The idea was to create a neighbourhood from scratch and design it to create affordable housing without a lot of money by growing it organically. Developers were given a sweetheart deal on infrastructure and property taxes to allow them to build widely-separated high-end housing and sell it at a huge profit. The money they made from this would be used to build middle class housing in the spaces in between. This meant the area would have lots of green space, good infrastructure, well-supplied schools, supermarkets, transit, and all the other benefits of a well-heeled community. Finally, after all this was established, the profits from all of this would go into in-filling the remaining spaces with affordable housing at the lowest end of the market without creating slums. The problem is, after the first two stages were completed successfully over the course of 30 or 40 years, the people living there then began signing petitions and lobbying city councillors to keep the smelly poors out, and the rest of the project was scrapped. Lorry Greenberg said he was so ashamed of what happened that he was embarrassed to have his name attached to Lorry Greenberg Drive, named in his honour, which goes right through the middle of the area.

[@abufarsakh9919]

@@SquidCena liberal means loose in this comment 🙄

[@cloudyskies5497]

@@NoJusticeNoPeace Oh man, isn't that the picture! I was raised in a suburb and all the parents made it clear to their kids that the people living in apartments were bad parents and we shouldn't be friends with those kids at school. It wasn't until I became an adult that I realized hey, that was some pretty severe classism. (In our case, everyone was white, so it was only classism, not also racism.)

[@ethanbrown4167]

ive loved your content and as a portland resident my whole life i was super suprised and excited to see you come here to explain our unqiue city.

[@squelchedotter]

My first thought is, isn't this kind of a backwards way to go about things? If car-centric policies created urban sprawl, shouldn't it be enough to get rid of those policies to stop the harmful effects? Sprawl is really a symptom, not a cause. I guess the benefit would be it's more easy to pass politically?

[@tonysoviet3692]

Exactly as you said, Alain Bertaud, the only urban planner who understands economics, clearly demonstrated that UGB is futile because it tries to solve a symptom, not the cause. Urban planners, at least in the US, feel like a confused bunch because they're trying to design the ENTIRE city, which in itself is another futile attempt because cities are always changing and evolving, not like an Iphone where you simply can design the next iteration. Look at urban planning in Asia, especially in China and Japan, where planners are economists and engineers, who actually target at externalities and public goods issue like roads and parks.

[@eddielopez2373]

Sprawl is a result, not a symptom, of car-centric policies. Symptoms can clear up. Results are concrete. In medium-sized/growing cities, those concrete results look like 500k-1 million people + industries living and operating in real homes and real buildings on paved roads that are car-centric by design. Changing policy does not magically realign existing infrastructure to fit a walkable model of urban design. Radical shifts in policy-even toward better policies-leads to instability and suffering.

[@SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

I run trainings at work which talk about (amongst other things) space usage. When I can, I like to sit two people at every table except for one table where I only seat one. Without fail, by the end of the second day, that one person has covered the table with all their stuff, while every pair of people is successfully only using half as much space. It may sound weird, but putting a self imposed restriction like this on ourselves actually can help a lot! Like he said in the video though, it needs to be paired with other successful urban development actions and it won’t be a silver bullet all by itself.

[@AnonUnited]

UDB's are an easy way out for counties to say they are doing something while actually not doing anything. The real solution is to revamp the zoning code, but nobody wants to spend the time or money fighting developers who will flood their buddies with cash so creating an UDB is the best we get.

[@squelchedotter]

@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet The thing is though, that those constraints are usually automatic and natural. People want to have good infrastructure, they want to live near shops and businesses. That worked well all over the world for centuries, until cars and white flight caused unsustainable development of car infrastructure in North America. I don't see why we need to add new, experimental constraints when perfectly good and proven ones already exist in almost every city.

[@bos2pdx2yvr]

As and ex-Portlandian, I have really enjoyed your Oregon series. I'm sad to see it come to an end, hopefully there will be occasional future videos on their great urban land use policies.

[@Lumberjack_king]

I honestly think there should be a gradient between rural and suburb but definitely there needs to be laws preventing zone1 cancer(suburban sprawl)

[@benhanpeter4790]

I really appreciated the UGB in Boulder when I went to school there. The city is surrounded by so much gorgeous natural space that would be instantly overrun if it weren't protected, which is exactly what happened in communities to the southeast (Louisville, Westminster, Broomfield, etc.) The flip side is that housing in Boulder is crazy expensive. They really ought to follow Portland's zoning example to get it under control.

[@johncaswell2648]

Boulder's just exporting the growth to Longmont up 119 or the tri-city (Firestone/Frederick/Dacono) along hwy 52. The amount of farmland on the west side of the tri-city area that has been converted to the worst kind of single family housing is crazy.

[@matthewlantigua4181]

@@johncaswell2648 Wouldn't that be the fault of those communities also not having any zoning restrictions themselves?

[@johncaswell2648]

@@matthewlantigua4181 Isn't that kind of one of the points from the video? But, Boulder being Boulder, they probably don't care to coordinate with other cities anyway. It's very much a "fix our interests and who cares what happens outside city limits" type of city.

[@Alessandro-vl8bu]

When I went to Athens one of the coolest things about it was watching over the entire city from the Acropolis and seeing the distinct city boundaries immediately bordering beautiful open mountains.

[@IceSpoon]

Even if you have a spillover effect, you still have a green belt within the city. We can have long discussions about green corridors and biodiversity fragmentation, but a green belt is by no means a bad thing.

[@HelloWorld-yq9yy]

It’s nice to have a green belt but now the city is even more car dependent

[@MDP1702]

@@HelloWorld-yq9yy Not really, you just need to ensure proper public transport within the city (as sshould always be the case) and a could public transport connection with these spillover area's. Also if you just let the city sprawl, you still would increase the car dependency without a large extention of the public transport.

[@bobbyswanson3498]

UGB’s we’re basically universal way back in the days. City states and cities in general were basically walled in to prevent foreign attackers while the outside of the walls remained farmland that worked to feed the city.

[@SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

And even after the walls disappeared you still were only as far from the city as the public transit and a horse ride would allow.

[@smnbrgss]

Could a solution be for states to invest in growing smaller towns, possibly evening the spread of the population, and give incentives for more people to learn agriculture standards?

[@RyanRuark]

Stop, you’re making too much sense.

[@shanekeenaNYC]

And building some more large capital cities to compete with NYC and Chicago. Like, I would even try and purchase the trademarks to Gotham City and Metropolis from DC comics and literally build those cities IRL.

[@Habiyeru]

It’s a good thing those mayors don’t use the ‘unlock all 81 tiles mod’ to circumvent Urban Growth Boundaries.

[@planefan082]

City I'm in right now halted all new sprawl a couple of years ago. The last 'typical suburb' is under construction, but elsewhere I'm seeing suburbs being transformed really quickly already. Nicer infrastructure, apartment buildings, and TONS more people taking public transit already! Prices are super high but apartments are filling the gap for demand as fast as they can be built

[@HelloWorld-yq9yy]

If I can ask, what city?

[@planefan082]

@@HelloWorld-yq9yy Calgary, Canada

[@rothn2]

I agree that we need to limit suburban development in urban areas, and I think we can do this without banning suburbs -- some people like having a plot of land that they largely control. There's a place for everything-- let's make single-family housing optional and not a requirement per zoning codes. With that price model, we'll naturally see denser housing next to city centers and more single-family as we go out, while leaving room for anomalies where people are willing and able to pay the full price of putting a single-family home on urban land.

[@SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

California got rid of all single family zoning this past year. I’m actually really curious what effect it will have over the next 5-10 years. Hoping to see lots of subdividing take place!

[@rothn2]

@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet It would be so awesome to see VTA get good in San Jose and for the city to get more interesting and walkable via infill. Then some neighborhood shops! I might move back someday if that happens…

[@milliedragon4418]

Your right thank you, as a person (myself) who often criticizes suburbia. I am kind of annoyed at the misrepresentation of suburbia. I have lived and grown up in suburbia and not all homes look like what's represented. Especially older homes pre 90s and 2000s. Could go into the reasons why but basically it has with HOA. Most older homes don't have perfect lawns. Also there's a stereotype that everyone in the suburbs is well off which isn't true. There's a lot of poverty in subs too. But that's even mentioned then it's of failure subs but it's not you just can't all the fast food, restaurants and retail without low income workers. People who are poor tend to live near where they work. There are some single homes that are actually multiple generations especially in older neighborhoods. There are people with chicken coops and grow their own food granted not to many of those. There are a lot of mature trees in older homes too. Some people live in trailer parks, apartments, and townhouses in suburbia. But getting kind of Fed up with this. A few stock photos and old brochures from the 1950s and '60s. Lawns aren't necessary to maintain as wild life can maintain yards so wild grasses don't get long. (At least where I hail from)

[@urbanistgod]

@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet Many neighborhoods will be destroyed. The character of these neighborhoods will lack authenticity

[@madsmile777]

Just build mid hight houses, god damn it guys.

[@taxthesocialist2602]

In the cities, not in my neighborhood.

[@faridjafari6356]

UGB's only function correctly if the zoning inside their borders are adjusted to incorporate more population density.

[@SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

Exactly, it’s just one variable in a larger equation

[@RyanRuark]

Why? Why do Democrats want to build more apartments instead of, gee I don’t know, affordable places to BUY? You people are so happy paying a Texas billionaire rent. You deserve this slum.

[@marsgal42]

The Agricultural Land Reserve here in British Columbia is supposed to protect farmland from development. In practice, farmland in desirable locations (Lower Mainland, Okanagan) is worth far more if you build condos on it, developers know this, and with enough money deals can be done.

[@NoJusticeNoPeace]

Less than 2% of the land in Canada is arable, which makes it insanely valuable. Land speculators snap it up and sell it back and forth to each other until it's so expensive the only thing _possible_ to do with it is build condos on it. As a result of this, more than 90% of the Niagara Escarpment -- the most arable land in the country -- is now under concrete.

[@marsgal42]

@@NoJusticeNoPeace The local tragedy is the lower Fraser Valley. When I was little (late 1960s) most of Richmond (a suburb of Vancouver) was farmland. Rich soil, excellent climate, grow anything. Now the western half of Lulu Island is solid city, with development pressure on the rest. I won't go there. It makes me sad.

[@NoJusticeNoPeace]

@@marsgal42 I took the Skytrain when I was in Vancouver and all I could see all the way to the horizon was a solid carpet of cul-de-sacs and single-storey suburbs; Malvina Reynolds' _Little Boxes_ played in my head.

[@jameshansenbc]

In my experience it's actually extremely rare land is removed from the ALR for development, I'd appreciate it if you could share an example. I'd argue the opposite, the ALR is actually so inflexible that becomes a problem the other way, when land that isn't even farmable becomes locked away from areas housing is desperately needed and divides up communities, or when ALR land that could be used for housing instead remains in the ALR but is misused for some other non-farming purpose, such as Car Scrap Yards, rendering the land too contaminated for farming.

[@fernbedek6302]

I think most Canadian cities have something along these lines.

[@fernbedek6302]

@Abdullah Z I think the bigger issues are housing being seen as an investment rather than a product, excessive amounts of single family homes, and an oversized construction sector meaning anything to cool the market down could collapse the whole economy.

[@HelloWorld-yq9yy]

this law should be everywhere. As a Toronto resident I am so sick of the endless big box stores and copy paste suburban homes littering the countryside. There are just too many oversized Homes and EMPTY parking lots to have to go all the way there and destroy nature, often just to build more empty parking and Shiity suburbia

[@johnkirstein333]

Toronto already has a UGB. It's called the Greenbelt. Vancouver has something similar. Both cities were affordable prior to these boundaries but that's no longer the case. UGBs are a lazy "solution" so policy makers can say that they're "doing something". The reality is that they built shitty infrastructure and had shitty zoning laws for 70 years. Now they think that through further government intervention they're going to "fix the problem". The only way that North American cities, including those with growth boundaries, are going to be sustainable is if the build a proper network fo trains and bike paths. Get the infrastructure right, remove stupid zoning rules, and let the free market take care of the rest.

[@HelloWorld-yq9yy]

@@johnkirstein333 I kind of agree? I think we need the Ugb but should also consider building proper transit and mixed use development inside the city. Less incentive to do this if sprawl can just keep growing…

[@KevinMButler]

City Beautiful mentioning my city, Vancouver WA, is not something I expected today.

[@tonysoviet3692]

I highly recommend the book Planning Paradise for those interested in UGBs and the INTENSE history of urban planning in Oregon. Long story short, UGBs were created through compromises by politicians during the 1970s, but because of compromising, the other KEY component to make UGB works, that was upzoning and relaxing land use regulations, were scrapped since pensioners were suing the state for lowering their property values. Statistically UGB effectiveness is mixed, works for Corvallis, not so much for Portland. (Median household income in Portland is $76,231, median house value is $550,000, DOUBLED the amount affordable for those with median HOUSEHOLD income, if you're single - good luck).

[@rogerwilco2]

I am always surprised how many things are not coordinated at the national level in the USA. This sounds like exactly the kind of thing where you don't want large differences between states.

[@BonaparteBardithion]

Given the size of the nations in North America, I think it'd be better to leave it at the state level. Sure, set some basic standards as a framework. But the environments and economies across the states are too widely varied to standardize everything. Washington and Oregon have complaints about internal west-side favoritism as it is because of a geographical divide.

[@antonisautos8704]

More housing could be fit in the specified area if the majority of that land wasn't zoned for single family detached home.

[@thebravesirrobin.]

Urban growth boundaries are not worth much. In practice, they'll merely express the existing land use goals of the implementer. Case in point, my county's urban growth boundary (King County) has done nothing to increase housing density. It's periodically revised and every time expanded to allow more suburban sprawl. We've managed to keep some farmland and parks preserved near the suburb cities which is cool, but I think those areas would be off limits for development regardless.

[@kailahmann1823]

With those "40 years in advance" it doesn't create any limitation on the availability of land for development. You could even waste all those space in just 6 years and then get the same area added back. I think, a better option would be to make new low density development far more expensive.

[@jeandanielodonnncada]

One thing I love about Montréal, versus other northeastern North American cities, is how quickly you get from downtown to rural. Much smaller cities all over New York and New England have such long drives to "get out of the city" despite being lower population cities than Montréal. A huge natural advantage in zoning for this though is Montréal is on an island!

[@RyanRuark]

Tom McCall was worth a damn here because he put Oregon and Oregonians first without being trapped in national political narratives.

[@judethaddaeus9742]

I thought I’d add 2 points to your video, since I’m a Portland Metro Area planner: 1. Criticisms of the UGB’s potential effect on housing prices in Portland’s case ring a little hollow when the land area within the Metro UGB is greater than the 5 combined boroughs of NYC, while the area within the UGB houses about 1/5th the population of NYC. You were absolutely right to point out the urban reserves rule and the 6-year re-examinations (which can actually happen more frequently than that). Density is key and higher land values should drive greater density… IF housing codes are reasonable to entice developers. But until very recently, Portland’s laws and codes actively resisted and banned middle housing and still remain more restrictive for dense housing in certain aspects than they need to be, relative to other comparable cities. 2. Metro isn’t the only area that has to submit UGB plans to the state in accordance with Oregon’s Goals. Those surrounding cities of Newberg, Canby, and Sandy that you noted as possible sprawl relief valves all have UGB’s and land use plans subject to the same goal, laws, and standards. So do their counties, which oversee development in unincorporated areas. And while policies can indeed improve and implementation could be much more closely managed and overseen, the general framework is still pretty decent for minimizing release valves for urban sprawl… within Oregon. You’re 100% correct in observing that Vancouver, WA and unincorporated Clark County have served as sprawl relief valves for the Portland Metro region, for years. Vancouver’s attitudes toward that have changed only in the last decade or so, while Clark County has been much slower. However, even with all the sprawl in Clark County/Vancouver, home values and rents are not significantly cheaper than they are in the Portland Metro UGB.

[@harlanerskine]

As a Brooklyn resident, I snicker at 6 units being considered high density.

[@HardShooter76]

London's UGB is called the green belt and it definitely hasn't help with either cost of housing or sprawl.

[@Neuzahnstein]

i think that help to create a large park?

[@LightbulbTedbear2]

It definitely has helped with sprawl. Without the green belt, London's endless suburbia would have never stopped growing. The actual problem is density. The vast majority of London is still semi-detached houses. There are even low density residential cul-de-sacs and detached suburban homes with driveways within walking distance of the financial district, it's insane.

[@HardShooter76]

@@LightbulbTedbear2 It moved the sprawl further away and increased CO2 emissions in the process.

[@bluemountain4181]

@@Neuzahnstein No, most of the green belt is farmland rather than parks or natural areas. There isn't even public access across much of the land because it's privately owned. London's problem is also the zoning laws which limit density, so developers can't build upwards in many neighbourhoods due to zoning laws and can't build outwards because of the green belt. As a result property prices are sky high and sprawl has spilled over to commuter towns in the periphery.

[@LightbulbTedbear2]

@@HardShooter76 Someone who lives in a walkable commuter town and gets the train into London every day probably pollutes less than someone who lives in a suburban wasteland on the edge of London and has to drive everywhere.

[@mfaizsyahmi]

> a video about that on youtube wouldn't do well with the algorithm and could actually harm my channel At least you aren't egregious enough to use the phrase in the likes of "the video *will* get demonetized and you *will never* see it" which is outright falsehood. I wish all the folks on Nebula can agree to stop spewing that BS of a justification. It's just as crummy as VPN ads' talking points of the past, which Tom Scott himself (a fellow Nebula creator!) made a video of.

[@czenkusm]

Thank god I live in the beautiful Upper Peninsula of Michigan, with a massive plot of land, over 100 acres and right up in the Hiawatha National Forest area.

[@DiscoverWithDima]

I visited the city a few years ago and I really enjoyed my visit! Portland is a beautiful city

[@lesliengo8347]

The Vancouver Metro area has a Urban Containment Boundary, similar to what is discussed here. Its intentions is to protect agriculture and promote land conservation as well as predict and track growth and transportation planning. In Vancouver itself, there is very limited land to expand, and housing is so expensive not just because of limited space geographically but also of spectators, foreign investments and "luxury" developments.

[@SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

I think that is precisely the huge caveat with UGB. It’s not a perfect solution in and of itself. Rather, it needs to be paired up with other solid solutions or else it’ll definitely just cause housing prices to sky rocket.

[@jandraelune1]

UGB also plays along with: city taxes and voter polling booths. Look at smaller communities or zoom in closer with sat-view on and you can see this. You'll see things like: a farmland outside, but the house inside, a school outside, a park outside, a factory inside while the parking outside.

[@chinookandnasellelutheranc4266]

My grandfather, Hector Macpherson, was one of the main legislators who got SB 100 passed. He was only a state senator for one term, but he was always proud of that bill.

[@ikurasake]

What you didn't see around the corner east on NW Springville Road to NW Joss Avenue and north, was brand new neighborhoods of expensive single-family houses in a recently expanded part of the urban growth boundary known as North Bethany. So much of the new areas are devoted to luxury single-family houses, not the three-story townhouses you show on NW 185TH Ave at Springville

[@Ali-rb1mq]

The opening few minutes of this video sum up most of the housing problems in south metro florida

[@jonathanpritchard6464]

I grew up in Portland in the 90's and moved back in 2019. It's far from perfect, but it's far better laid out than other cities I've lived in that have absolutely no plans to contain ugly, unsustainable, car dependent sprawl that makes up the majority of land use outside of downtown areas. I live in inner South East in a small complex that was converted from an old shoe factory. I can walk to most of my daily needs, and take transit everywhere else I need to go, so I thankfully don't need to own a car. Unlike other cities, downtown Portland is not the most interesting part of the city. The east side of the river is far more interesting with its walkable neighborhoods, mixed use commercial streets, and compact feel thanks to half-size blocks. Now if only all the people that have moved here in the past 2 decades would get rid of their second and third cars that clog up residential street parking, and learn to walk to destinations that are less than a mile a way instead of driving to them.

[@wadethomas6952]

I live next to a bigger city and they don't have any of that map and what I noticed is it's getting bigger and bigger and single housing but other areas are getting run down

[@lordoftheflings]

housing is so expensive in the US because of rampant speculation and no price control. In Germany for example cities are rent controlled and speculation is squashed because if you buy a property in Germany you have to hold onto it for at least 7 years before you can sell it. This stabilizes housing costs and makes cities livable, beautiful, affordable and vibrant places. Cities where students, artists, musicians, and your service workers can afford to live in and not just the middle managers at one of the big 4 tech firms like in places like Seattle, San Fran, or New York. The US is a total rip off in nearly every way.

[@eboulangerie89]

There’s quite an interesting story why Tennessee has an UGB and it (probably) has nothing to do with reasons OR and WA did them. Back in the 90’s, cities could basically annex territories wherever they wanted, and residents didn’t have a say so. During a legislative session, the speaker of the house from one county tried to slip in a provision in a bill which would allow one community to incorporate so that it wasn’t annexed by another community. It passed without fanfare. Then one guy saw this loophole and it forever became known as the “tiny towns bill.” It essentially allowed areas with 1500 people or more to incorporate, regardless of where they were. In Shelby County (Memphis), overnight you suddenly had like a dozen subdivisions incorporate to avoid being annexed. One apartment complex in East TN famously incorporated. The law was struck down as unconstitutional, so this allowed cities to resume annexing again. However, that next year is when TN created these UGB’s, or here they’re referred to also as annexation reserves. All cities in a region essentially set aside areas for cities to annex at a later day vs a land grab or tiny towns forming in an area reserved to be annexed by another city already. Of course now they’re somewhat pointless form the original intent, as residents now have to agree to be annexed, but they are still in place. Point being though is the only reason it was required is so that residents moving to an area knew or should have know in advance they could become part of another city, and cities know where they can extend services to for future development. Beyond that it doesn’t really seem to have an effect per se to contain sprawl (as someone said, look at Nashville and it’s exurbs) but instead policies along with the lines in the map seem to be doing it more so than areas themselves. (Note…not saying they don’t work at all or do work…I just wanted to tell TN’s story as to why it’s statewide and lumped in with two Pacific Northwest states 😊)

[@RandallSlick]

In the UK we have another, older name for Urban Growth Boundary. It's the Green Belt. I rather like ours. Keep up the good work.

[@RyanRuark]

Another aspect left out here - UGB only works if old buildings are bulldozed - by the city. Lots of derelicts in Portland need to go.

[@Hi_Its_Chris]

A friend from grad school was visiting Oregon (to renew his drivers license) so we went to Portland for some sightseeing. We were shocked at how bad it got. It’s just disgusting now. Fortunately, we were staying at Edgefield, so we didn’t have to be surrounded by it all night.

[@patterbay]

Videos like this make me proud to have grown up in Oregon.

[@JonathanB00K3R]

Welp, another city planning channel. Looks like I'm subscribing and becoming an amateur city planner

[@Yadu36748]

Another great example is Seminole county rural boundary but we're seeing spill over into orange and Volusia

[@KamiInValhalla]

Hopefully the same collaboration that was seen in the past can happen again in the present and future

[@WeyounSix]

Portland native and resident here, the rent is absolutely insane here and we can barely make the cost to survive without roomates, having a family is insane with both parents HAVING to work.

[@colormedubious4747]

One generally unstated objection to UGBs is that it looks a bit like typical political kicking of the can down the road (but what isn't?). I've long maintained that there is a massive amount of unrealized affordable housing that can be unlocked by implementing a single federal law: Allowing owner-occupied single-family homes to offer garage apartments, mother-in-law suites, or casitas for rental no matter what outdated zoning ordinances and HOAs say about it. Making owner occupancy of the primary residential space a requirement should allay the most common objections. The rental spaces would have to be up to code. There's already a surplus of parking in most suburban neighborhoods. It's not a magic bullet, but it would help.

[@airpodsmurf6175]

i like the boundaries but its useless if they dont demolish the suburbs and replace with higher density

[@SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

Exactly. I don’t know why people thought suburbs could just be built and never changed. It’s obviously a recipe for disaster.

[@Hi_Its_Chris]

How on earth would tearing down existing housing help anything?

[@SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

@@Hi_Its_Chris I believe they’re getting at tearing down existing housing AND building denser housing in its place.

[@Hi_Its_Chris]

@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet why tear down hood housing though? That’s profoundly wasteful. Not to mention, I’m certain that the people living there wouldn’t love the idea of their homes being bulldozed. There are tons of derelict lots in cities that are prime for infill. Ripping down people’s homes is monstrous.

[@airpodsmurf6175]

@@Hi_Its_Chris replacing suburbs with higher density creates more homes for more people and makes them more affordable.

[@b_uppy]

These still allow major sprawl because what thes cities are disallowed, the counties make up for. The problem is how 'in the name of saving the environment' we've made sprawl 10 times worse, as well as the added pollution, loss of natural habitat and farmland, etc...

[@faridjafari6356]

I guess it is time to make a video about urban infill projects.

[@ABCantonese]

If you ever go to Hong Kong, visit the whole city! You can see as you go from HKI to Kowloon and then the New Territories, how city planning has evolved, at least for that city. And the awesome bike lanes too.

[@johnanders2739]

In Berlin it works similar but for different reasons. As it is not only a city but a state of Germany (a so called city-state) it cant just expand its bounderies outwards but instead needs to focus on efficient land use. Thats one of the reasons that it has mostly middle to high density housing with only a few single family areas. It has still plenty of space to grow inwards but they do not intend to waste it.

[@andrewlindstrom9599]

Boulder is such a good example of a bad Urban Growth boundary use. Basically the entire city is single family homes, then there's the greenbelt, and then a ton of sprawl out towards Longmont. I really want to like Boulder, but man Boulder NIMBYism is truly out of control

[@RyanRuark]

Maybe if they were condos instead of apartments, “NIMBYs” wouldn’t be so concerned about the development.

[@davidbauer1485]

Don't worry, this guy would not touch the subject of the history of Boulder land use with a ten foot cattle prod. Supreme Court rulings, liberal hypocrisy, greed through government restrictions, Gand Jury cover ups at Rocky Flats, failed beltway construction, light rail, new development and sprawl in adjacent communities. There goes the "Message" he is trying to convey. So many skeletons in the closet that any Millenial will have to run to a safe space and grab the therapy dog when they even try to discover what the good ole boys did back in the day. Delvopement pressure is immense. Gobs of money to be made. People will forget. Hush hush, keep it down now, voices carry. Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!

[@linuxman7777]

The new urbanists are against greenbelts good urbanism should be provided regardless of location. James Howard Kuntsler also would disagree with these boundries, instead of sprawling on a big Metropolis, why not work on revitalizing many of the towns across america, that were abandoned at the 2nd half of the 20th century

[@KoriThompson1]

I really liked finding out that San Jose has a UGB. It’s notorious for sprawl. But their land use policies 😭

[@philipbyrne3037]

I’m from Australia and we have a limited legacy from Urban Growth Boundaries. Melbourne has one that is consistently amended. Sydney has legacy National Parks in the North, South and West. In Sydney sprawl tends to follow old agricultural areas and then Sydney has unusual ribbon developments through the road and rail corridors adjacent to National Parks. These are often the most desirable ex urban real estate but when you hear about devastating bushfires these communities are typically on the front line. Basically a planning mess with a small number of amazing private homes with amazing bushland and/or water views.

[@LucasFernandez-fk8se]

No no no. It always increases the cost of housing. Look at cities with growth boundaries and cities without. London, Portland, LA and SF all have way more expensive houses then Dallas or Houston or Atlanta or Charlotte

[@Hi_Its_Chris]

Unaffordable housing is the medicine the rich want to give to the poor. They want to put everyone in a studio apartment across the street from a needle exchange.

[@Hi_Its_Chris]

I grew up on the Oregon coast and I am only 39, so I didn’t live in the state before the advent of the UGB. I know that it was wildly unpopular in small towns, which were already suffering from the loss of the timber and commercial fishing industries. People in rural Oregon felt neglected by Portland and Salem. Moreover, there was an overwhelming sense that the population center in the Willamette Valley was actively strangling the south coast with regulations. Even worse, once the industry had died out, (relatively) wealthy Portlanders and Californians started retiring on the south coast, or worse, just bought vacation homes there. This put the cost of living even more out of reach for middle class or working poor locals. On top of that, rural Oregon didn’t see any of the benefits of urbanization, like a slick light rail train, hip breweries, or well-paying jobs.

[@aidanpeairs1967]

I live in Longmont, CO (right next to boulder but the same county). The UGB makes the rural land in boulder county much more valuable to the neighboring counties, and there’s plenty of county pride because we know our rural lands will not be gone with sprawl!

[@johnkirstein333]

Cities sprawled because governments stopped building transit (and actually removed transit in a lot of cases). So peoples' only transportation option became the car, which resulted in lower density development. Then they used the property tax revenue from the new neighbourhoods to pay for the infrastructure maintenance of the older neighbourhoods. Eventually the municipalities ran out of new land to develop inside their boundaries, which meant that they would soon start running out of money to maintain their aging infrastructure. What they needed was a way to force people to redevelop the existing urban fabric with higher density without them having to build things such as train networks and bike paths which would attract high density organically. All UGBs are is a lazy way for politicians to solve a revenue problem. But no one would vote for "we mismanaged zoning and property taxes for 70 years and the alternative is that we need to raise your property taxes". So instead they say it's about "sustainability" to save the environment. If they really cared about sustainability these metro areas would have much better public transit. The vast majority of people in Portland, Ottawa and Toronto still drive everywhere, despite the increased density. Meanwhile, the housing prices have sky-rocketed due to the artificial scarcity, so people have to take out mountains of debt just to afford a place to live. Not very sustainable if you ask me.

[@Hi_Its_Chris]

Tacoma ripped out its electric rail system almost 100 years ago. I saw a map of the system and was shocked by how much better it was than what is being constructed here now.

[@Obloms]

The issue is that public transportation is still not happening, and even with higher housing density most areas still don't allow businesses mixed-in.

[@rkbelmont1138]

Speculation is another problem. Some people and companies accumulating properties pnly to use them as airbnb and rents. People should only own the properties they actually use to live in, and not as business.

[@ThePoliticalAv]

As a Coloradan, all I know is Boulder's ridiculous Green Belt where they arrogantly try to pretend they're not part of the Denver Metro area and force people who work there to commute from Longmont, Lafayette, Louisville, or Superior

[@Felix-nz7lq]

Urban growth boundaries are great because they allow citizens to have close, accessible reach of (relatively) undisturbed nature. In Oslo I can take the metro up to Frognerseteren at 450m elevation and walk around the lovely forests and mountains within 30 minutes of the city centre. Even less should I take it east or northeard into the forest or lakes.

[@hhs_leviathan]

It's great, as long as you don't run out of housing supply: UGB+NIMBYs is THE elderich nightmare scenario...

[@laurencefraser]

@@hhs_leviathan UGBs are fine, so long as the Rest of your planing properly accounts for them. NIMBYs just need beating with a stick

[@gerritvalkering1068]

One of the things I dislike most about many discussions on topics like this is the black and white view many people take. "If it doesn't work perfectly, it doesn't work". Seriously, it's not a 'this will fix everything solution'. UGB encourages denser development of an area, which stimulates ... a lot of things. It's better for the city than sprawl. But as you said, it is a complicated issue and your video on the corner store ties in nicely - local shops will help too. And also yes - if the problem moves to the neighbors, doesn't mean your solution is ineffective, it means the neighbors don't have their business in order

[@jaimecrawkel5880]

As a planner, I think you pointed on the main point of concern - a regional outlet via Vancouver and the Boise area. There’s also a concern about over-emphasizing redevelopment within a UGB/City center. The state rules allow a lot of discretion for redevelopment that cities can account for drafting their housing needs analysis. It’s a delicate balance of identifying housing need and supply, without having a market or housing specific education. And who really does know the market in 20, and 50 years? You’re required to use a state projection for population via PSU

[@OddsandEnds]

The funny thing is I can bike to that example you use we have it all over our place

[@My-nl6sg]

take a look at Eastern Bloc cities which were developed with mass planning of highrise public housing. you can see where a city composed of high-rise apartment blocks abruptly ends bordering a completely rural or forested area, for example in Kyiv or Leningrad (St. Petersburg)

[@jameshansenbc]

I find the biggest problem I have observed with Metro Vancouver's boundaries is residents simply are unaware Urban Growth Boundaries exist, so don't understand the land scarcity that begins to develop near the edge. People in outer lying communities still think Canada has plenty of available land, and believe they can hold on to that semi-rural lifestyle where they expect big estate lots or single family homes for all, and complain about and reject rezoning and other pro-density measures that create a more city-like urban style of development. This leads to a problem where housing starts to run out and residents are not on board with more efficient land use, and is a huge factor in the housing affordability crisis in Vancouver. City councils and staff are so afraid to upset residents, they will not challenge this issue, and put forward plans that still have single family homes on huge lots.

[@MrAnonymousRandom]

Canada still has plenty of land, as long as we aren't talking about urban areas. The real problem is immigrants have a tendency to settle in urban areas and that's where all the population growth pressure is. Density and transit doesn't do anyone any good if the net result is shitty apartments where the average person can't even qualify for a mortgage. You might as well become homeless to qualify for government housing. And we haven't even started talking about home owners opposed to development yet. Higher property values equals higher property taxes. That makes their housing less affordable. In addition, the few additional services that municipal governments promise with new development don't always materialize. People who bought condos in the Olympic Village are still waiting for the school that was promised 10 years ago. I can easily see a repeat of this problem with the apartments in the River District.

[@jameshansenbc]

@@MrAnonymousRandom > Canada still has plenty of land, as long as we aren't talking about urban areas. People generally want to live where there are jobs, and also the land outside of urban areas is usually protected parkland, farmland or crown land, so you’re limited in what you can do. > The real problem is immigrants have a tendency to settle in urban areas and that's where all the population growth pressure is. Not just immigrants, but Canadians migrating to cities for more money and opportunities. > Density and transit doesn't do anyone any good if the net result is shitty apartments where the average person can't even qualify for a mortgage. The problem is actually the opposite, we pile density in very small areas, most land in our major cities is Single Family housing and zoning prevents anything bigger being built. If more neighbourhoods allowed townhomes and small apartment blocks, we’d see more affordable options for people. > You might as well become homeless to qualify for government housing. And we haven't even started talking about home owners opposed to development yet. Yes this is a real problem but it’s ultimately our zoning laws more than homeowners who stand in the way. > Higher property values equals higher property taxes. That makes their housing less affordable. Actually property taxes are adjusted down when values increase. > In addition, the few additional services that municipal governments promise with new development don't always materialize. People who bought condos in the Olympic Village are still waiting for the school that was promised 10 years ago. I can easily see a repeat of this problem with the apartments in the River District. This is true, developers often get away with not paying for or accounting for these needed services.

[@MrAnonymousRandom]

@@jameshansenbc You sound like you've never been on a road trip before. Small towns don't have the same draw as a big city, but it doesn't mean that they are ghost towns with no opportunities. Canada's population is already over 80% urban. Chances are a migrating Canadian will be moving from one urban area to another. "More" affordable options don't mean anything when they are still unaffordable. If you can't even get a mortgage, that's your bank telling you it's unaffordable. Planners who think that textbook answers are enough to deal with real world problems should stick with playing City Skylines. There are loads of factors outside their control in the real world like funding for affordable housing projects and politicians who would rather sell land to developers than reserve it for affordable housing. At the end of the day, the municipal government is to blame for any broken promises, not the developers. It's up to the municipal government to vet/enforce any deals that they sign and to smack down hard on any developers who violate them. I am definitely voting to fire the entire school board and park board this election.

[@buckyhermit]

Ever consider doing a video on Point Roberts WA and how it's essentially a weird rural "island" attached to suburban Vancouver BC? (If you wanna do a video, I can take footage for you. I live nearby and go there sometimes.)

[@stevengordon3271]

In Arizona the only boundaries that have any affect are National Parks and Indian Reservations.

[@akshaymoorthy1477]

I live 10 minutes away from that farmland and apartments mentioned in the video. I always wondered why there was farmland right next to apartments.

[@standardannonymousguy]

Very nice video City Beautiful. I'm glad that Portland is now allowing for four plexes and in some cases six plexes now. Thank you for showcasing that, hopefully we will begin to see more urban development in cities and less urban sprawl.

[@JeffVoss]

I appreciate you making these videos. I find cities to be fascinating.

[@Palpatine001]

My home town of Auckland (New Zealand) has what is called the Rural Urban Boundary set in both our Auckland Spatial Plan, and the Unitary (Land Use) Plan - effectively your Urban Growth Boundary. The RUB dictates the maximum limits the City can grow to over the next 50 years with Rural preserved on the other side of the side. It can also dictate Greenbelts between the main urban area and a Satellite centre like where I reside at the moment. Is it effective? So far it is proving to be at 80% of all new consents are for intensification rather than sprawl. However, the full verdict wont be in for 50 years. Meantime I have given a few via Cities Skylines tutorials and overviews of growth boundaries and what can theoretically happen.

[@Itwillgrowback]

I see this in and around the Visalia/Fresno area. Ag land is precious here, but we’re quickly growing in population

[@robvegas9354]

It is spun out flying over the residential area of las vegas. The houses just stop at the edge of the suburbs and then the desert is over peoples back fence.

[@rileyfehr9598]

In my opinion Canada is a good example of dense cities, especially cities in Ontario where they have apartments up to 10-20 stories at the edge of their urban growth boundary. I think it’s due to the fact of Ontario being a hotspot for newcomers to our country. I heard out of 1000 plus tower cranes up in North America, over half is in the Toronto area. I know my city, London, which is only a population of 450,000 and has probably 20 tower cranes up and there is plans of more to be erected.

[@rogerwilco2]

You might want to look into policies like the Dutch "Groene Hart": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groene_Hart And how it limits the urban sprawl of the cities in the Randstad: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randstad

[@captainpog]

Edinburgh has a green wall, it's not particularly controversial, you cross it and then get to a commuter town.

[@regamadelbajio8934]

Hi, I live in Queretaro, Mexico. And if you are interested to make a video about urban sprawl in Mexico and how is it different from US, I d be happy to help.