Assessing the Impacts of Smart Growth Policies on Home Developers in a Bi-state Metropolitan Area: Evidence from the Portland Metropolitan Area

Abstract

While there are many empirical studies examining the effectiveness of smart growth policies, few of them study the perspective of developers, the major urban space producers in US cities. This article assesses the impacts of smart growth policies on home developers in the Portland bi-state metropolitan area by developing home developer location choice models. The study shows that home developers in the region are sensitive to most smart growth policies being implemented in the region, but they react to them differently across the border between Oregon and Washington due to their different land use planning systems. The findings suggest that smart growth policies impact single- and multifamily home developers’ location choices differently and that home developers exhibit strong spatial inertia in their location choice.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott

(1997) The Portland region: where city and suburbs talk to each other and often agree, Housing Policy Debate, 8(1), pp. 11–51.

Abbott

(2002) Planning a sustainable city: the promise and performance of Portland’s urban growth boundary, in: Squires

G. D.

(Ed.) Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Responses, pp. 207–235. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Bierlaire

(2008) Estimation of discrete choice models with BIOGEME 1.8 ( http://biogeme.epfl.ch ).

Downs

(2005) Smart growth: why we discuss it more than we do it, Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), pp. 367–378.

Haider

Miller

E. J.

(2004) Modeling location choices of home builders in the greater Toronto area, Transportation Research Record, 1898, pp. 148–156.

Jun

M. J.

(2004) The effects of Portland’s urban growth boundary on urban development patterns and commuting, Urban Studies, 41, pp. 1333–1348.

McFadden

(1978) Modeling the choice of residential location, Transportation Research Record, 673, pp. 72–77.

Metro (1992) Metro charter. As adopted in November 1992 and amended in November 2000 (http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=629; accessed 2 March 2010).

Metro (1995) 2040 growth concept ( http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=29882 ; accessed 3 March 2010).

10.

Meyer

M. D.

Miller

E. J.

(2001) Urban Transportation Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

11.

Nelson

A. C.

Moore

(1993) Assessing urban growth management: the case of Portland, Oregon, the USA’s largest urban growth boundary, Land Use Policy, 10(4), pp. 293–302.

12.

Nerella

Bhat

C. R.

(2004) Numerical analysis of effect of sampling of alternatives in discrete choice models, Transportation Research Record, 1894, pp. 11–19.

13.

O’Connell

(2009) The impact of local supporters on smart growth policy adoption, Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(3), pp. 281–291.

14.

Richardson

H. W.

Gordon

(2001) Sustainable Portland? A critique, and the Los angles counterpoint. Paper presented at the ACSP Conference, Cleveland, OH, November.

15.

Song

Knaap

G. J.

(2004) Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34, pp. 663–680.

16.

Train

K. E.

(2003) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

17.

US Bureau of the Census (2000) Census 2000. Census Bureau, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

18.

Weitz

(1999) Sprawl Busting: State Programs to Guide Growth. Chicago, IL: Planners Press.