This study compares urban landscapes in the Portland and Los Angeles metropolitan areas at the neighbourhood level by operationalising six smart growth indices and mapping their spatial distribution patterns and time trends. Analysis results show that the two metropolitan areas have both strengths and weaknesses in different aspects of smart growth. Most neighbourhoods in both regions do not excel in all six smart growth measures: they are at the high ends of some smart growth indices but at the low ends of others. Some smart growth features such as mixed land use and mixed housing are already pervasive in suburban areas. Density in some mature suburban neighbourhoods is also relatively high. A large number of neighbourhoods in suburban and exurban areas exhibit high levels of socioeconomic diversity. Time trend analyses suggest that in both regions, older neighbourhoods tend to be ‘smarter’ than newer ones, except for racial/ethnic diversity.
AbbottC (1997) The Portland region: Where city and suburbs talk to each other – And often agree. Housing Policy Debate8(1): 11–51.
2.
AbbottC (2002) Planning a sustainable city: The promise and performance of Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary. In: SquiresGD (ed.) Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, pp. 207–235.
3.
AnthonyJ (2003) The effects of Florida’s growth management act on housing affordability. Journal of the American Planning Association69(3): 282–295.
4.
AnthonyJ (2006) State growth management and housing prices. Social Science Quarterly87(1): 122–141.
5.
CutsingerJGalsterGWolmanH. (2005) Verifying the multi-dimensional nature of metropolitan land use: Advancing the understanding and measurement of sprawl. Journal of Urban Affairs27(3): 235–259.
6.
DongHGliebeJ (2012) Assessing the impacts of smart growth policies on home developers in a bi-state metropolitan area: Evidence from the Portland metropolitan area. Urban Studies49(10): 2219–2235.
7.
DownsA (2005) California’s Inland Empire: The leading edge of Southern California growth. California Counts: Population Trends and Profiles7(2): 1–18.
8.
EkersMHamelPKeilR (2012) Governing suburbia: Modalities and mechanisms of suburban governance. Regional Studies46(3) 405–422.
FainsteinS (2000) New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review35(4): 451–478.
11.
FultonWClickfeldMMcMurranG. (1998) A Landscape Portrait of Southern California’s Structure of Government and Growth. Claremont Graduate University Research Institute.
12.
GlickfeldMFultonWMcMurranG. (1999) Growth Governance in Southern California. Claremont Graduate University Research Institute.
IcelandJ (2004) Beyond black and white: Residential segregation in multiethnic America. Social Science Research33(2): 248–271.
15.
Joassart-MarcelliPFultonWMussoJ (2001) Can growth control escape fiscal and economic pressures? City policy before and after the 1990s recession. In: WolchJ. (eds) Up Again Sprawl: Public Policy and the Making of Southern California. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 255–278.
16.
JohnsonPReedDHayesJ (2008) The Inland Empire in 2015. Public Policy Institute of California.
17.
MilesRSongY (2009) ‘Good’ neighborhoods in Portland, Oregon: Focus on both social and physical environments. Journal of Urban Affairs31(4): 491–509.
18.
MilesRSongYFrankL (2010) Social diversity and construction era of neighborhoods with traditional design features: Portland and Atlanta compared. Journal of Urbanism3(1): 19–38.
19.
MillerB (2012) Not all suburbs are the same: The role of character in shaping growth and development in three Chicago suburbs. Urban Affairs Review49(5): 652–677.
20.
MoudanAHessP (2000) Suburban clusters: The nucleation of multifamily housing in suburban areas of the Central Puget Sound. Journal of the American Planning Association66(3): 243–264.
21.
PendallRCarruthersJ (2003) Does density exacerbate income segregation? Evidence from U.S. metropolitan areas, 1980 to 2000. Housing Policy Debate14(4): 541–589.
22.
PfeifferD (2012) Has exurban growth enabled greater racial equity in neighborhood quality? Evidence from the Los Angeles Region. Journal of Urban Affairs34(4): 347–371.
23.
QuinnLMPawasaratJ (2003) Racial Integration in Urban America: A Block Level Analysis of African American and White Housing Patterns. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Employment and Training Institute.
24.
RichardsonHWGordonP (2001) Sustainable Portland: A critique and the Los Angeles counterpoint. Paper presented at the American Collegiate School of Planning Annual Conference, Cleveland, OH. Available at: http://www-bcf.usc.edu/∼pgordon/pdf/SUSTAINABLE_PORTLAND.pdf (accessed 28 December 2012).
25.
SongY (2005) Smart growth and urban development pattern: A comparative study. International Regional Science Review28(2): 239–265.
26.
SongYKnaapG (2004) Measuring urban form: Is Portland winning the war on sprawl. Journal of the American Planning Association70(2): 210–225.
27.
SongYKnaapG (2007) Quantitative classification of neighborhoods: The neighborhoods of new single-family homes in the Portland metropolitan area. Journal of Urban Design12(1): 1–24.
28.
TalenE (2006) Neighborhood-level social diversity. Journal of the American Planning Association72(4): 431–446.
29.
TalenE (2013) Zoning for and against sprawl: The case for form-based codes. Journal of Urban Design18(2): 175–200.
30.
WheelerS (2003) The evolution of urban form in Portland and Toronto: Implications for sustainability planning. Local Environment8(3): 317–376.
31.
WheelerS (2008) The evolution of built landscapes in metropolitan regions. Journal of Planning Education and Research27: 400–416.
32.
WheelerSBeebeC (2011) The rise of the postmodern metropolis: Spatial evolution of the Sacramento metropolitan region. Journal of Urban Design16(3): 307–332.
33.
WilsonBSongY (2009) Comparing apples with apples: How different are recent residential development patterns in Portland and Charlotte. Journal of New Urbanism2(1): 51–74.
