Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Home: Residential Geographies of Contained (Re)ordering

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Urban Sustainability through Smart Growth

Part of the book series: The Urban Book Series ((UBS))

  • 1050 Accesses

Abstract

Smart growth is about attacking sprawl, particularly as this involves the (re)ordering of residential development. Yet countering sprawl takes on complex institutional, strategic, and policy forms. While many Federal policies continue to promote low-density forms of development, state-progressives support smart growth policies because they believe that enhanced compactness will improve environmental performance. Whether it does or not, how so, in what ways, and for whom, are nonetheless unresolved, contested questions. This chapter focuses empirically on policy efforts since the early 1990s to counter sprawl using regionally coordinated urban growth boundaries. In order to make the themes more cosmopolitan and comparative, the discussion refers to this overall strategy, institutionalized legally by the Growth Management Act of 1990/1991, as “smart containment.” Particular attention is paid to tensions between the recent, inter-scalar policy pursuit of sustainability through smart containment and older, obdurate problems of segregation, picking up synoptic themes touched upon and developed in earlier chapters.

The fundamental premise of smart growth is that growth is not inherently harmful; rather it is certain patterns of scattered, haphazard development that cause adverse impacts.

—Olivier Pollard (2000)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, simple “linear” trend lines (Lin) in scatterplots are usually sufficient when a variable (e.g., permits per year) changes at a steady rate. In contrast, a polynomial trend line (poly) is more helpful when data fluctuate more dramatically, as indicated by large gains or losses year upon year over the data set. The “order” of the polynomial is then determined by the number of fluctuations in the data or by how many “hills and valleys” appear. See: https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Choosing-the-best-trendline-for-your-data-1bb3c9e7-0280-45b5-9ab0-d0c93161daa8.

References

  • Alberti, M. (1999). Urban patterns and environmental performance: What do we know? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(2), 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, J. (2004). Do state growth management regulations reduce sprawl? Urban Affairs Review, 39(3), 376–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bae, J., & Feiock, R. C. (2012). Managing multiplexity: Coordinating multiple services at a regional level. State and Local Government Review, 44(2), 162–168. doi:10.1177/0160323x12446152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, E., & Deakin, E. A. (2012). Smart growth planning for climate protection evaluating California’s Senate Bill 375. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(1), 70–86. doi:10.1080/01944363.2011.645272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bischoff, K., & Reardon, S. (2013). Residential segregation by income, 1970-2009. In J. Logan (Ed.), The lost decade? Social change in the U.S. after 2000. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogart, W. (2006). Don’t call it sprawl: metropolitan structure in the 21st century. Cambidge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bruegmann, R. (2005). Sprawl: A compact history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, T., & Dierwechter, Y. (2007). Effects of urban growth boundaries on residential development in Pierce County, Washington. Professional Geographer, 59(2), 209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carruthers, J. I., & Ulfarsson, G. F. (2003). Urban sprawl and the cost of public services. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30(4), 503–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin, T. S. (2012). Introduction: From growth controls, to comprehensive planning, to smart growth: Planning’s emerging fourth wave. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, S.-H., Poudyal, N., & Lambert, D. M. (2008). Estimating spatially varying effects of urban growth boundaries on land development and land value. Land Use Policy, 25, 320–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choe, M. (2002). Buildable lands program: 2002 Evaluation report; A summary of findings. Olympia, WA: State of Washington, Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling, J. (2009). Thinking beyond place: The responsibilities of a relational spatial politics. Geography Compass, 3(5), 1938–1954. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00262.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewan, S. (2014, April 14). In many cities, rent is rising out of reach of middle class. New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dierwechter, Y. (2008). Urban growth management and its discontents: promises, practices and geopolitics in US city-regions. New York: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dierwechter, Y. (2013). Smart growth and state territoriality. Urban Studies, 50(11), 2275–2292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierwechter, Y. (2014). The spaces that smart growth makes: Sustainability, segregation, and residential change across greater Seattle. Urban Geography, 35(5), 691–714. doi:10.1080/02723638.2014.916905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (2001). What does smart growth really mean? Planning (APA), 67(4), 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (2005). Smart growth: Why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71, 367–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewing, R. H. (2008). Growing cooler : evidence on urban development and climate change. Washington, DC: ULI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishman, R., & Gechter, K. (2004). Smart growth: Overview and issues. Boston: Center for Urban Policy and Research: Northeastern University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galster, G., Hanson, R., Ratcliffe, M., Wolman, H., Coleman, S., & Freihage, J. (2001). Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate, 12(4), 681–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garde, A. M. (2004). New urbanism as sustainable growth? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(2), 154–170. doi:10.1177/0739456x04266606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handy, S. (2005). Smart growth and the transportation-land use connection: What does the research tell us? International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 146–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hepinstall-Cymerman, J., Coe, S., & Hutyra, L. (2013). Urban growth patterns and growth management boundaries in the Central Puget Sound, Washington, 1986–2007. Urban Ecosystems, 16, 109–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joint Center for Housing Studies. (2016). The state of the nation’s housing 2016. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, B. (2000). The federal role in reducing sprawl. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 572(Nov), 66–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelbaugh, D. (1997). Common place: Toward neighborhood and regional design. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotkin, J. (2010). The next hundred million : America in 2050. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, P., & Neiman, M. (2009). Custodians of place: Governing the growth and development of cities. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindstrom, M., & Bartling, H. (2003). Suburban sprawl: Culture, theory and politics. Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Modarres, A. (2009). Immigrants are greening our cities, how about giving them a a break? New Geography. Retrieved from http://www.newgeography.com/content/00958-immigrants-are-%E2%80%98greening%E2%80%99-our-cities-how-about-giving-them-a-break

  • Modarres, A. (2015). Urban studies forum 2015: Jobs & housing in the South Sound. Paper presented at the Urban Forum 2015. Public lecture, University of Washington, Tacoma. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-r-Ht1OarqDwaF43YluA6wo62y_fUDRC

  • Mollenkopf, J. H., Swanstrom, T., & Dreier, P. (2014). Place matters: Metropolitics for the twentyfirst century (3rd ed.). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, S. (2010). More Toronto, naturally’ but ‘too strange for orangeville’: De-universalizing new urbanism in greater Toronto. Cities, 27, 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, A. C. (2013). Reshaping metropolitan America. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, A. C., & Dawkins, C. (2003). Urban containment: American style(s). Alexandria, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, A., Sanchez, T., & Dawkins, C. (2006). The effect of urban containment and mandatory housing elements on racial segregation in US metropolitan areas, 1990–2000. Journal of Urban Affairs 26(3), 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, M. (2005). The compact city fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), 11–26. doi:10.1177/0739456x04270466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, L., Newell, J. P., & Marzluff, J. M. (2005). Twenty-five years of sprawl in the Seattle region: Growth management responses and implications for conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71(1), 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendall, R., & Puentes, R. (2008). Land-use regulations as territorial governance in US metropolitan areas. Boletín de la A.G.E. N., 46, 181–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce County. (2011). Countywide planning policies: Appendix A. Adopted 2030 Population. Housing/employment for Pierce County and its cities and towns. Tacoma, WA: Pierce County Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, O. (2000). Smart growth: The promise, politics, and potential pitfalls of emerging growth management strategies. Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 19, 247–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pozdena, R. (2002). Smart growth and its effects on housing markets: The new segregation. Retrieved from http://www.nationalcenter.org/NewSegregation.pdf

  • Puget Sound Regional Council. (2010). Sustainable communities inititive: Growth Management Policy Board. Seattle: Puget Sound Regional Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, M. (2008). Recapturing democracy. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, P., & Gordon, H. (1998). Prove it! The costs and benefits of sprawl. Brookings Review, Fall, pp. 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, B. (2014). Dead end: Suburban sprawl and the rebirth of American urbanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddiman, E. (2013). Is smart growth fair growth: Do urban growth boundaries keep out minorities? The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, 5(1), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, Q., & Zhang, F. (2007). Land-use changes in a pro-smart-growth state: Maryland, USA. Environment and Planning A, 39(6), 1457–1477. doi:10.1068/a3886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siedentop, S., & Fina, S. (2012). Who sprawls most? Exploring the patterns of urban growth across 26 European Countries. Environment and Planning A, 44(11), 2765–2784. doi:10.1068/a4580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soja, E. (2000). Postmetropolis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, Y. (2012). Suburban sprawl and smart growth. In R. Weber & R. Crane (Eds.), Handbook on urban planning. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staley, S., & Gilroy, L. (2002). Smart growth and housing affordability: Evidence from Statewide Planning Laws. Retrieved from http://reason.org/news/show/127566.html#sthash.nNieHKVk.dpuf

  • Swanstrom, T. (2016). Reflections on place matters: Poverty, politics, and power in the modern metropolis. Urban Affairs Review. doi:10.1177/1078087416628686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talen, E., & Knaap, G. (2003). Legalizing smart growth. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(4), 345–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trudeau, D. (2013). A typology of New Urbanism neighborhoods. Journal of Urbanism, 6(2), 113–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trudeau, D., & Molloy, P. (2011). Suburbs in disguise? Geographies of New Urbanism. Urban Geography, 32(3), 424–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veninga, C. (2004). Spatial prescriptions and social realities: New urbanism and the production of northwest landing. Urban Geography, 25, 458–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wassmer, R. W. (2006). The influence of local urban containment policies and statewide growth management on the size of United States urban areas. Journal of Regional Science, 46(1), 25–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weir, M. (2011). Creating justice for the poor in the new metropolis. In C. Hayward & T. Swanstrom (Eds.), Justice and the American metropolis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitz, J., & Moore, T. (1998). Development inside urban growth boundaries: Oregon’s empirical evidence of contiguous urban form. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(4), 424–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, C., & Moe, R. (1997). Changing places: Rebuilding community in the age of sprawl (1st ed.). New York: Henry Holt & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, B. (2007, December 11). South Lake Union growth goes full throttle. Seattle P-I.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urban Studies Program, University of Washington, Tacoma, Tacoma, Washington, USA

    Yonn Dierwechter

Authors
  1. Yonn Dierwechter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dierwechter, Y. (2017). Home: Residential Geographies of Contained (Re)ordering. In: Urban Sustainability through Smart Growth. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54448-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation