The Social Impacts of Urban Containment

Arthur C. Nelson, Casey J. Dawkins, and Thomas W. Sanchez
2007. Ashgate. 174 pp. $99.95.

Three experts from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University have gathered and updated their research of almost 20 years and assembled what they call “a coherent argument that urban containment planning and policies may make society better off than the status quo” of largely unregulated urban expansion. {xi} The authors distinguish various forms, but “all containment schemes have one thing in common: a line drawn on a map clearly separating urban from rural land uses through urban growth boundaries, urban service limits, greenbelts, or other means.” {xv} Their specific research points:

• Urban containment has not accelerated gentrification in Portland, Oregon — a city where containment has long been policy — “at least into the early 2000s.” {Chapter 5, 71-81}

• Urban containment policies seem to have speeded the pace of racial desegregation. The contrast between Portland and Kansas City is instructive. {Chapter 6, 83-92}

• “Urban containment is associated with higher housing prices, but also with higher supplies of affordable rental housing” — at least in places where metropolitan-wide containment has been coordinated with metropolitan affordable housing programs. Containment policies that don’t extend across a whole metropolitan region — as in Boulder, Colorado, and Montgomery County, Maryland — seem less likely to increase supplies of affordable housing. {Chapter 7, 93-101}

• “Adjusted for population size, metropolitan areas with urban containment had 30 percent more new construction than uncontained areas. The entire difference appears to be attributable to rehabilitation investments.” The authors acknowledge that this finding could use additional work with newer data and more controls for interfering factors. {Chapter 8, 103-107}

• “Central cities located in metropolitan regions with containment programs attracted more development per capita than central cities in regions without containment programs.” This leads the authors to ask, provocatively, “if one effect of this form of containment is to induce the market to pay more attention to opportunities in central cities, is this not potentially a more effective method of revitalization than existing federal programs?” {Chapter 9, 109-118}

• “There appears to be a link between land use patterns and public health quality.” This result is described as “preliminary.” {Chapter 10, 119-131}

• “On the whole, neighborhood quality of life appears to improve over time with respect to the number of years urban containment is in effect.” Trends in perceived neighborhood quality may take twenty years or more to measure. {Chapter 11, 133-142}

This book sets the standard. Those who favor laissez-faire sprawl policies will have to engage the details of the research it presents (not just this summary!).

#