The city of Tualatin, a suburb of Portland, zoned about 300 acres of land within its borders in a low-density zone allowing 1 to 6 homes per acre. This raises the specter of up to 300 new homes on one-acre lots, a notion that is sending regional planners into fits.
“We don’t enjoy getting into this type of confrontation,” says planning professor and Metro councilor Carl Hosticka. But “it’s not fair to the other jurisdictions,” meaning the ones the complied with high-density housing goals set by Metro, Portland’s regional planning authority.
Back in the 1970s, Oregon’s Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) established a housing goal to prevent communities from all adopting low-density zoning, as happened in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1970s and the Boston area in the 1980s. If all municipalities within an urban-growth boundary use low-density zoning, and no one is allowed to build outside the boundaries, housing will become unaffordable. Under LCDC rules, all cities above 2,500 people had to allow a full range of housing, including both single- and multi-family housing.
It is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, lowest cost viagra or prevent and disease or health condition Age also is a factor which may limit their working capacity, hence Healthy Energy Drinks are bought. We still fight for equal pay and still find that many career choices are not as reachable as we once cheapest levitra prices thought. Your doctor is likely familiar with all of them, although he may buy tadalafil in australia not perform them all. One factor that also contributes to infertility viagra uk sales is the kind of food that people are eating nowadays. Under Metro’s “grow up, not out” plan, every city in the Portland area was given a population target that they had to meet through zoning. Tualatin will meet its target if developers put 850 homes — an average of less than 3 per acre — on the 300 acres zoned for 1 to 6 units per acre. But Tualatin will fall short if they put in only 300 homes.
What is unfair to other cities, in Hosticka’s mind, is that if Tualatin fails to meet its target, some other city will have to rezone to even higher densities to pick up the slack. Or, worse, Metro will have to expand the urban-growth boundary “into farmland” (horror upon horror!) a little more. (Metro has already expanded the boundary some, but then it told developers it would charge them prohibitive impact fees to build in the newly expanded areas, so nothing has been built in those areas.)
“I don’t know of any other zones” that allow such a wide range of densities, says another suburban mayor and active advocate of Metro planning. Actually, lots of places allow a wide range of densities — they just aren’t in Oregon. Places that allow such a wide range are willing to let developers build for the market, not for planners.
Tualatin’s city council seems ready to do battle against Metro. Tualatin’s mayor thinks that Metro’s rules are “intrusive.” If there is a market for one-acre lots, asks one member of the city council, “Why should we not offer a larger lot?” Sadly, under Oregon’s land-use system, this is a battle Tualatin is likely to lose.
Actually, lots of places allow a wide range of densities  they just aren’t in Oregon.
What places are you thinking of? Surely not many places in metro areas offer developers full rights to develop their land, unencumbered by maximum density and minimum parking requirements. Or are there large areas reasonably close to cities that don’t have these restrictions that I’m not aware of?
Houses on one acre lots are not affordable housing.
Your ideology will have to get its talking points in order. That is: which talking point is it you are going to use to justify your position? Big ol’ houses or affordable housing? The two are incompatible. One or the other.
DS
What places are you thinking of?
I can hear the antiplanner war cry in the distance. Houston, Houston, Houston.
Perhaps it makes me a “bad planner” (or perhaps it’s just regional differences in approach), but wouldn’t these plans be more effective if they’re created as locally as possible? Portland seems stuck in the 1970’s and 1980’s, albeit perhaps not the conventional 70’s and 80’s seen in the rest of the U.S. Good community development and planning (i.e. new urbanism that runs the gamut from extremely-high-density urban zones through sub-urban zones to rural development) is actually marketable (and profitable) nowadays as a product. Let it compete with the other housing options. 1-acre lots can be done well in an urban context, and if the metro is lacking that form of housing, that is indicative of poor planning or imposition, not participatory planning for the public welfare.
Planning in Oregon has nothing to do with local control or the market. So what if some people want to live on one acre lots. If that is what the people in that area prefer let them do it.
We are talking about Tualatin. This was a area that was a sleepy rural suburb before government planners and Metro discovered it and rezoned it, by way of their mandates. You know the people that want to preserve our neighborhoods.
Oregon is a heavily top-down state. When I practiced in WA, that state tried to reach a balance between top-down and bottom-up.
TO brings up the larger, hotly-debated issue about how we plan – do we think at larger scales instead of artificial political boundaries, such as watershed level or landscape level or regional level, or do we leave it up to individual localities and hope somehow they work together to achieve unity at larger scales? OR has decided for the former, WA for the latter. Which one works? When I lived in WA I thought WA’s way worked better.
I also agree with TO about lot sizes, and I prefer them along a transect as in most urbanized areas 1-ac lots are not in context (and built environments are lasting: continued population growth will put pressure on these lot sizes soon for redev).
DS
I’m not as horrified about the one-acre lots as I am about what happened next to my friends’ apartment buildings in Tualatin. There was a nice buffer of trees between their apartment and the freeway. Then the trees were cut down to build a strip mall with a Best Buy, Old Navy, and other stores.
This is the one area where I part company with the AP. Higher density is preferable in my opinion for commercial spaces as it does not eat up as much farm and forest land.
But there’s already a tremendous oversupply of retail space in America, so density might be irrelevant. In fact, the US has 10 times more retail space per capita than France. Vacancies in retail space are increasing at an alarming rate, so in a little time, more of the stores at the new Tualatin strip mall could be vacant.
If we’re going to sacrifice trees to development, the development should be productive and increase wealth and the standard of living. We ought to be manufacturing or growing things on that space rather than selling imports on credit.
At least one-acre lots can still be productive as families, with little effort, could produce food on their land. You can’t eat Chinese electronics or Vietnamese clothing.
Who’s to blame? The Federal Reserve, for encouraging malinvestment in retail space through credit manipulation? The government/Fed for encouraging consumption over savings? Planners for zoning too much space for retail?
I’d be interested to hear the AP’s take on this.
This is interesting, the Anti-Planner is defending planning(aka zoning).
If some one wants to live on a one acre lot that’s fine, but at the same time don’t go blaming your personal problems on railroads & transit.
I agree with Frank in 7.
Much more galvanizing, in my view, is this graphic depiction of just how much more retail space we have than anyone else. Chuck Nelson thinks that when our spending spree ends (will it be soon?), much of this space will be converted to housing.
If you look at how cities get revenue in many states in this country, you can’t blame them for allowing retail, so as to collect taxes for revenue. It can’t last, of course, and revenue will have to come from somewhere else, but the point is that the taxation paradigm in many places is the reason for so much cr*ppy retail space.
DS
Dan wrote: Houses on one acre lots are not affordable housing.
THWM: They are afforadable to some people.
Dan: Your ideology will have to get its talking points in order. That is: which talking point is it you are going to use to justify your position? Big ol’ houses or affordable housing? The two are incompatible. One or the other.
THWM: Dan when are you going to learn that vulgar libertarianism isn’t about making sense, it’s all about grifting.
Randall, impact fees are only a part of why UGB expansion areas are not being developed. I have land in an area that was brought into the UGB in 2002. Before it can be annexed into the nearest city and developed the entire expansion area has to be “planned”. Metro required that cities provide concept plans for these areas quickly but the cities said they had no money. Metro levied a tax on new construction and gave the money to the cities to complete the concept plans. The city I am near used the funds to complete a plan in an area under control of a well connected developer but put off planning in the area my land is in contrary to METRO requirements. The money was spent and the plan was completed this year for the chosen area and the planned area applied for annexation but the city requires annexations to be approved by voters who turned it down. Fun game.
Ha-ha, this is rich. Planner Dan, who loves to find fault with the Antiplanner’s writings, is himself guilty of the either/or fallacy.
“Big ol’ houses or affordable housing? The two are incompatible. One or the other.”
In the world of Planner Dan, this makes sense. In the world of Planner Dan, you cannot possibly see that the Antiplanner has argued for the life of this blog that a) people should have the freedom to choose the kind of house they want to live in AND b) point out that excessive land-use regulations make housing unaffordable.
In the world of Planner Dan, one cannot possibly express two points (the first an ideal; the second an empirical fact). One’s the limit!
Let’s employ a little Planner Dan logic. If you support
Smart Growth, you must either ride the bus or bike to work. Can’t do both! One or the other!
If there is a market for one-acre lots, asks one member of the city council, “Why should we not offer a larger lot?†Sadly, under Oregon’s land-use system, this is a battle Tualatin is likely to lose.
By “market”, are you saying the market in Tualatin wants 1 acre lots, but developers are being forced against their will to develop more densely? In what ways are developers being forced to do unprofitable projects? If that is true, that’s the real scandal!
Or is the “market” you speak of just the density that is zoned by planners, and not the marketplace?
Planner Dan, Planner Dan, Planner Dan, Planner Dan, Planner Dan
Sigh…
I’ll type slowly for you , CO.
The two arguments highlighted in 2 are incompatible (is polysyllaby OK for you, CO?).
If you are going to honor the patriotic one-acre American Dream Home as the ultimate attainment of Rand-toting Nirvana, then that means you can’t whine about house prices becoming unaffordable. Remember: the sainted Glaser says that’s a big reason why home prices are unaffordable in the unaffordable areas.
So, if you are going to complain about home prices going up, you have to point out the land occupied by these Mansionettes is the reason.
That is: highlight cause and effect when you argue for affordable housing.
DS
I can hear the antiplanner war cry in the distance. Houston, Houston, Houston.
Houston has tons of land use restrictions.
MU asks:
By “marketâ€Â, are you saying the market in Tualatin wants 1 acre lots, but developers are being forced against their will to develop more densely?
Developers develop what the zoning allows: the smaller the parcelization, generally the more money – that is: in zoned areas, it is more profitable to subdivide to, say, 6 DU/ac than 1 DU/ac. The reason is obvious. So developers (other than custom or spec) generally like small-lot zoning.
This fact, however, has nothing to do with the market for 1 DU/ac lots.
In what ways are developers being forced to do unprofitable projects? If that is true, that’s the real scandal!
No. No one would force a developer in this particular occurence – these are typical occurrences and developers will bid and make money here.
Or is the “market†you speak of just the density that is zoned by planners, and not the marketplace?
This is complex, as a market is created by Tiebout sorting when zoning occurs. The housing market is also driven by wages, amenities, etc.
DS
… allowing 1 to 6 homes per acre
Allowing or prescribing? There is a big difference. I think the wrong word was chosen here.
That’s a grand display of intelligence, Planner Dan: Double down on your illogic. Maybe if you say it in ALL CAPS PEOPLE WILL THINK IT MAKES MORE SENSE!
DS,
I understand. I was tying to point out the hypocrisy.
Developers wont necessarily build as densely as permitted by zoning. Construction costs rise as density increases, so there is an optimal density for every market given the demand for home buyers to pay for the higher construction costs.
Thus, I’m curious to see if the “anti”planner really thinks the market wants 1 acre lots, or is it actually that planners mandate 1 acre lots?
If the market truly wanted 1 acre lots, you would have to force developers against their will to build more densely than what the market dictated. As you agreed, there are no developers being forced at gunpoint to build more densely than dictated by the market.
Thus, if the market truly demands one acre lots, Tualatin has nothing to worry about by permitting higher density.
for more, here…
Allowing or prescribing? There is a big difference. I think the wrong word was chosen here.
They are used interchangeably. Even in code. Certain ideologies prefer one over the other.
——-
MU, I failed to activate my sarcasm add-on for Firefox. Apologies.
DS
You know….. you just can’t decide how dense you want to build or not without the water/sewer infrastructure and you sure can’t afford to size it for the most dense possibilities unless you want a very expensive hook-up fee.
so you see.. you DO have to actually.. hold on to your hat – PLAN….
I know.. this is such a buzz killer … revelation..
so .. hey.. what’s the answer?
If you have 600 available acres.. for any town.. how would you go about deciding the scope and scale of the infrastructure?
If you have 600 available acres.. for any town.. how would you go about deciding the scope and scale of the infrastructure?
If you are asking me as a town mayor, I wouldn’t make that decision. Let the developers decide how much infrastructure they want to build, but completely at their own expense. (but, I wouldn’t get elected)
If you are asking me as owner of the 600 acres, I would hire engineers and planners to come up with a good plan that maximizes the value. Planning is necessary in all aspects of life, but it doesn’t need to be top down. Planning is best done by the one who’s decisions it will most effect – the owner.
The Code for the Town in question
Quite a lot of work for less than eight square miles. For planners and land-use attorneys, this is fried chicken on Sunday.
If you are asking me as owner of the 600 acres, I would hire engineers and planners to come up with a good plan that maximizes the value.
This is usu how its done, after the engr firm determines the remaining available capacity on the WWTP, and whether (or how long) denser zoning is possible on the site, and how much their client will have to pony up to expand capacity. And whether adjacent arterials/connectors can handle additional traffic.
DS
If you have 600 acres with multiple owners and there is consideration of rezoning it more dense – my point is that you have to commit to a specific number and that number may not be as dense as some want it.
but you have to do this prior to the development…
you cannot have development occur – after the fact – at whatever density that someone might want.
The density is determined ahead of time by people who “plan” the scope and scale of the infrastructure that will be needed to serve that area.
This is not the only way density is determined but the size and scale of the infrastructure needed play as big or bigger role in density than what individual landowners (or property rights folks) “think” is the “right” density.
It’s not a seat-of-the-pants, spur-of-the-moment ad-hoc type decision. It does require – P L A N N I N G.
Oh, looky – another example of how Randal and the ideological adherents here are wrong, wrong, wrong:
Shocking, surely, that the ideology has it all wrong.
DS