Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Smart growth

Smart growth is an urban planning approach that promotes compact, mixed-use development patterns designed to concentrate growth in existing urban areas, reduce automobile dependency, and preserve peripheral open spaces through policies favoring density, walkable neighborhoods, and multimodal transportation. Originating in the United States in the 1990s as a response to post-World War II suburban sprawl, it emphasizes ten core principles, including mixing land uses, creating diverse housing opportunities, fostering distinctive and attractive communities, and providing varied transportation choices. Proponents highlight potential benefits such as lower infrastructure costs, enhanced environmental protection through reduced habitat fragmentation, and improved public health via increased physical activity in pedestrian-oriented designs, with some empirical evidence linking smart growth features to higher walking rates. However, implementation often involves regulatory tools like urban growth boundaries and zoning reforms that limit developable land, which critics argue causally restrict housing supply and drive up prices, as evidenced by studies showing growth management practices correlate with reduced affordability and higher per-unit costs in affected regions. Empirical outcomes on traffic congestion are similarly contested, with some analyses indicating intensified urban travel demands despite reduced vehicle miles traveled per capita, while defenses claim net positives through efficient land use. Notable examples include Portland, Oregon's early adoption of urban growth boundaries in the 1970s, which influenced broader smart growth adoption, though long-term evaluations reveal trade-offs like elevated housing costs amid constrained supply. Despite widespread policy uptake in states like Maryland, Oregon, and Florida, the paradigm faces ongoing debate over its net societal value, with academic reviews underscoring mixed evidence on promised economic and environmental gains relative to market-driven alternatives.

Definition and Principles

Definition

Smart growth is an urban planning approach to development and conservation that seeks to protect public health and the natural environment while enhancing community resilience and economic vitality. It emphasizes strategies such as directing growth to compact, walkable areas; preserving open spaces and farmland; and integrating mixed land uses to reduce reliance on automobiles. This framework, formalized through partnerships like the Smart Growth Network established in 1996, counters patterns of low-density urban sprawl by prioritizing infill development and redevelopment of existing urban and suburban sites over greenfield expansion. Central to smart growth is the promotion of diverse transportation options, including public transit, biking, and walking, alongside housing choices that range from single-family homes to higher-density apartments, thereby fostering inclusive neighborhoods. Proponents, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), argue it aligns land use with infrastructure capacity to minimize fiscal burdens on local governments, though implementation varies by locality and often involves policy tools like zoning reforms and impact fees. Empirical analyses, such as those from EPA case studies, indicate it can lower infrastructure costs by 20-50% compared to sprawl patterns in select U.S. regions, based on data from communities like Arlington, Virginia, and Portland, Oregon.

Core Principles

The core principles of smart growth were articulated by the Smart Growth Network, a partnership involving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in the late 1990s and early 2000s, drawing from urban planning practices observed in communities nationwide. These ten principles emphasize integrated land use, infrastructure efficiency, and community-oriented development to address perceived inefficiencies in low-density suburban expansion. They are intended to apply across diverse community sizes and contexts, prioritizing measurable outcomes like reduced infrastructure costs and preserved natural areas over prescriptive zoning mandates. The principles include:
  • Mix land uses: Integrate residential, commercial, and recreational developments within close proximity to reduce travel distances and support local economies, as evidenced by reduced vehicle miles traveled in mixed-use zones compared to segregated developments.
  • Take advantage of compact building design: Employ higher-density structures to maximize land efficiency, lowering per-unit infrastructure costs; for instance, compact designs have been associated with 20-40% reductions in public service expenses in adopting municipalities.
  • Create a range of housing opportunities and choices: Offer diverse housing types, sizes, and price points to accommodate varying demographics, countering single-family dominance in suburbs that has contributed to affordability constraints, with data showing increased supply correlates to stabilized median home prices.
  • Create walkable neighborhoods: Design street networks and building placements to facilitate pedestrian access to amenities, promoting shorter commutes; studies indicate walkable areas yield 10-30% lower obesity rates linked to active lifestyles.
  • Foster distinct communities with a strong sense of place: Preserve local character through context-sensitive design, avoiding uniform sprawl aesthetics; this principle has supported revitalization in areas like historic districts, where place-based identity boosts property values by up to 15%.
  • Provide a variety of transportation choices: Support multimodal options including transit, biking, and walking alongside roads, reducing reliance on automobiles; implementation has led to 15-25% drops in per capita vehicle emissions in networked systems.
  • Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas: Protect undeveloped land from fragmentation, maintaining ecological functions; conservation easements under this principle have safeguarded over 2 million acres nationwide by 2020, mitigating habitat loss.
  • Direct development toward existing communities: Focus infill and redevelopment on underutilized urban and suburban sites to leverage existing infrastructure, avoiding greenfield expansion; this approach has cut new road construction needs by 30% in targeted programs.
  • Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective: Establish clear regulatory frameworks to minimize uncertainty and litigation, ensuring fiscal prudence; streamlined processes have accelerated approvals by 20-50% while aligning costs with long-term revenues.
  • Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration: Involve residents, businesses, and officials in planning to build consensus and equity; participatory models have increased project success rates, with surveys showing 70% higher public support in collaborative versus top-down initiatives.
These principles are not legally binding but have influenced local policies, with adoption varying based on empirical local data rather than ideological mandates. Critics note potential trade-offs, such as density-induced congestion without corresponding infrastructure upgrades, underscoring the need for site-specific validation over blanket application.

Historical Development

Origins in Urban Planning

The foundational concepts underlying smart growth emerged from mid-20th-century urban planning responses to uncontrolled suburban expansion following World War II, which prioritized automobile-dependent development and led to infrastructure strains in rapidly growing areas. Early efforts focused on growth management techniques to coordinate land use with public facilities, rather than halting development outright. These approaches contrasted with traditional Euclidean zoning, which separated uses and permitted low-density sprawl without regard for fiscal or service impacts. A landmark precedent was established in 1969 when the Town of Ramapo, New York, amended its zoning ordinance to implement a phased growth program. This ordinance introduced a point-based system assigning numerical values to infrastructure elements—such as 1 point per 100 feet of arterial road, 10 points per 1,000 feet of sewer line, and 20 points per school—requiring a minimum of 240 points for residential development approvals in each of six sequential zoning districts. The mechanism aimed to ensure that subdivisions could only proceed as capacity expanded, preventing premature building on raw land without supporting services. Challenged by developers, the plan was upheld by the New York Court of Appeals in Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo (1972), affirming that such timing controls constituted a valid exercise of police power when tied to a comprehensive plan. Building on Ramapo's model, other localities adopted similar tools in the early 1970s, including Petaluma, California's 1971 ordinance capping annual residential permits at 500 units to manage growth rates. At the state level, Oregon's Senate Bill 100, enacted in 1973, mandated urban growth boundaries to concentrate development within designated areas, preserving farmland and limiting sprawl—a policy that influenced over 24 statewide planning programs by the 1990s. These pre-1990s innovations emphasized empirical sequencing of growth with fiscal capacity, laying the groundwork for smart growth's later advocacy of compact, infill-oriented patterns, though early implementations often prioritized exclusionary controls over broader urbanist principles like mixed uses.

Emergence and Formalization (1990s)

The smart growth concept crystallized in the mid-1990s amid growing concerns over urban sprawl's environmental and fiscal costs, evolving from 1980s precedents in local growth management and new urbanism movements that emphasized denser, pedestrian-oriented designs. Proponents, including urban planners and environmental advocates, framed it as a pragmatic alternative to unchecked low-density expansion, prioritizing mixed-use development, public transit investments, and preservation of green spaces to foster economically viable communities without halting growth. Formalization accelerated through institutional adoption, with Maryland pioneering comprehensive state-level implementation in 1997 under Governor Parris N. Glendening. The Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act, signed that year, established "priority funding areas" comprising existing cities, towns, and planned developments, directing over $1 billion in annual state infrastructure spending—such as sewers, roads, and schools—exclusively to these zones while prohibiting subsidies for development outside them. This approach aimed to curb farmland loss, which had exceeded 1,000 acres weekly in the state, and redirect growth to revitalize urban cores rather than subsidize peripheral expansion. By the late 1990s, smart growth represented a "third wave" in U.S. growth management, shifting from earlier regulatory focuses on land-use controls toward incentive-based strategies that integrated economic development with anti-sprawl measures, influencing policy discourse in states like Oregon and Washington. Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, began aligning programs with these principles, though state initiatives like Maryland's provided the primary models for operationalizing compact growth amid debates over property rights and market distortions.

Expansion and Policy Adoption (2000s–2010s)

During the 2000s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency intensified federal support for smart growth through the Smart Growth Network, a partnership of public and private organizations promoting compact development and preservation of open spaces, building on earlier initiatives like the 1997 EPA program. From 2005 to 2015, the EPA's Smart Growth Implementation Assistance program provided technical aid and funding to 40 communities, facilitating policy development in areas such as transit-oriented development and mixed-use zoning to curb urban sprawl. These efforts aligned with broader goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions via denser land use, as outlined in federal guides emphasizing low-cost strategies for compact growth. At the state level, adoption accelerated with targeted legislation. Colorado created its Office of Smart Growth in 2000 to coordinate anti-sprawl policies, including incentives for infill development and regional planning. Wisconsin's 1999 Comprehensive Planning Law, effective from 2000, mandated participatory planning processes across municipalities to integrate land use, transportation, and environmental goals, influencing over 1,800 local plans by the mid-2000s. In 2008, California enacted Senate Bill 375, requiring metropolitan planning organizations to develop sustainable communities strategies linking regional housing needs to transportation investments, aiming to cut vehicle miles traveled and emissions through growth boundaries and priority funding for urban cores. Local governments increasingly incorporated smart growth elements, driven by interest group advocacy and institutional factors, with adoption rates rising notably between 2000 and 2010. Cities like Portland, Oregon, expanded urban growth boundaries and light rail investments, spurring $3 billion in transit-oriented projects by the late 2000s. Similarly, Arlington, Virginia, advanced mixed-use redevelopments around Metro stations, while EPA-recognized initiatives in places like El Paso and Normal, Illinois, highlighted zoning reforms for pedestrian-friendly designs. By the 2010s, surveys indicated over 200 U.S. cities had formalized sustainability plans incorporating smart growth principles, though implementation varied by local political dynamics and economic pressures.

Recent Trends (2020–2025)

The prompted a reevaluation of smart growth's emphasis on , as heightened risks in compact settings led to public surveys showing diminished support for policies favoring smaller housing units and higher population concentrations. trends enabled greater suburban migration between 2020 and 2022, with U.S. data indicating a 1.5% net population shift from dense metro cores to peripheral areas, challenging traditional anti-sprawl rationales. However, by 2023, planning responses refocused on resilient designs incorporating , such as expanded public spaces and , with Biden administration investments via the allocating over $100 billion for enhancements supporting . Zoning reforms advanced as a core smart growth strategy to combat housing shortages, with states like California enacting Senate Bill 9 in 2021 to permit lot splits and up to two units on single-family parcels, followed by similar "missing middle" allowances in Oregon, Montana, and Virginia by 2023. The Berkeley Zoning Reform Tracker documented over 20 state-level interventions from 2020 to 2025 aimed at reducing exclusionary land-use restrictions, enabling accessory dwelling units and multifamily housing in low-density zones. These measures aligned with smart growth principles of infill development, though empirical outcomes showed limited supply gains; California's SB 9 generated approximately 2,000 applications by 2023 but resulted in fewer than 500 completed units due to local permitting hurdles and construction costs exceeding $500,000 per unit in high-demand areas. The YIMBY movement, emphasizing abundant housing supply, converged with smart growth advocacy in the early 2020s, influencing policy through grassroots campaigns and events like YIMBYtown conferences, which by 2025 highlighted successes in cities such as Austin and Minneapolis where upzoning increased multifamily permits by 15-20% annually. Smart Growth America integrated YIMBY tactics, advocating for reformed zoning to prioritize "homes in the right places" amid a national affordability crisis, where median home prices rose 47% from 2020 to mid-2025 per Federal Housing Finance Agency indices. Despite these efforts, critics noted persistent implementation gaps, as restrictive local overlays and environmental reviews often nullified reforms, contributing to ongoing supply constraints documented in Harvard's 2025 State of the Nation's Housing report, which reported a 5.5 million unit shortfall relative to demand.

Rationales for Adoption

Environmental Arguments

Proponents of smart growth contend that it counters the environmental harms of urban sprawl, particularly the conversion of natural habitats into low-density developments, which fragments ecosystems and reduces biodiversity. Urban expansion under sprawl patterns has been linked to significant habitat loss, with projections estimating 11–33 million hectares of natural habitat conversion globally by 2100 under various socioeconomic scenarios. By concentrating development in existing urban areas through compact, infill strategies, smart growth aims to minimize per capita land consumption and protect open spaces, farmland, and wildlife corridors. For instance, regional plans emphasizing mixed-use zoning and growth boundaries have been credited with preserving thousands of acres of natural lands, as seen in initiatives like Envision Lancaster County, which safeguarded 82,000 acres of farmland and 6,000 acres of parks by 2009. A core environmental rationale involves reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution via decreased vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Advocates assert that transit-oriented and walkable designs lower automobile dependency, potentially cutting VMT by 20–40% compared to sprawling suburbs, which could translate to a 7–10% national reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions by 2050 under aggressive implementation. Empirical analyses, such as those reviewing compact developments, support modest per capita emission declines through shorter trips and multimodal transport, with high-density areas like parts of Toronto emitting over twice less transport-related GHGs per capita than low-density counterparts. However, systematic reviews of 34 studies reveal mixed outcomes, with only moderate evidence for emission reductions and 34% of cases showing negative environmental effects, often due to unaccounted factors like rebound travel or increased local congestion exacerbating stop-and-go pollution. Additional arguments highlight benefits for water quality and resource efficiency, as smart growth's emphasis on redevelopment reduces impervious surface expansion per capita, mitigating stormwater runoff and erosion compared to dispersed sprawl. Densification also curtails infrastructure sprawl, lowering the environmental footprint of roads and utilities that fragment landscapes. Yet, evidence for these gains remains weak, with habitat preservation studies showing negative biodiversity correlations in some densified areas and limited geospatial validation of broader claims, underscoring that smart growth's environmental validity often relies on modeling rather than comprehensive causal assessments.

Public Health and Lifestyle Claims

Proponents of smart growth assert that its emphasis on compact, walkable communities fosters healthier lifestyles by increasing opportunities for physical activity through active transportation modes such as walking and cycling, thereby reducing reliance on automobiles and sedentary behavior. These claims posit that mixed-use developments and pedestrian-friendly designs lead to lower obesity rates and improved cardiovascular health, as residents in denser, transit-oriented areas reportedly engage in more moderate-to-vigorous physical activity compared to those in sprawling suburbs. For instance, a 2011 systematic review of built environment factors found consistent associations between smart growth-like features—such as higher residential density, land-use mix, and street connectivity—and increased physical activity, particularly recreational walking, while also linking lower walkability to higher obesity risk. However, empirical evidence supporting causal links remains limited and often confounded by selection effects, where healthier or higher-income individuals self-select into walkable neighborhoods, inflating observed correlations. Cross-sectional studies dominate the literature, showing positive associations between walkability indices and physical activity levels—for example, residents moving to walkable communities reported improved daily steps and social interactions—but fail to isolate urban form from socioeconomic factors like education and income, which independently drive health outcomes. Longitudinal data is scarce; one analysis of regional smart growth strategies indicated potential increases in physical activity but also unintended rises in pollution exposure from denser traffic, potentially offsetting respiratory health gains. Critiques further highlight that smart growth's health benefits may be overstated, as national obesity trends have risen despite urban densification efforts, and suburban residents often exhibit comparable or better overall health metrics after adjusting for demographics. A study questioning the sprawl-obesity nexus found that sprawl measures explain little variance in body mass index once commuting patterns and lifestyle choices are controlled, suggesting that individual behaviors and economic status, rather than urban form alone, are primary drivers. Lifestyle claims of enhanced social cohesion and mental well-being in smart growth areas also rely on self-reported surveys prone to bias, with limited randomized or quasi-experimental evidence demonstrating sustained improvements over time. Thus, while smart growth may modestly encourage incidental activity in supportive environments, its public health impacts appear incremental at best and not transformative absent broader behavioral interventions.

Economic and Fiscal Justifications

Proponents of smart growth argue that compact development patterns lower public infrastructure expenditures by concentrating growth in areas with existing utilities, thereby reducing per capita costs for roads, sewers, water lines, and other facilities. Empirical analyses indicate average upfront savings of 38% for such infrastructure compared to conventional low-density sprawl, as higher densities allow for shared systems and economies of scale in service provision. For instance, fiscal impact models applied to U.S. communities show that infill and mixed-use projects generate positive net fiscal impacts, with revenues exceeding service costs by leveraging proximity to minimize extension of linear infrastructure. On the fiscal side, smart growth enhances municipal revenues through increased property tax bases without proportional rises in service demands, as denser development yields more taxable value per acre of serviced land. Studies of U.S. metropolitan areas demonstrate that sprawl-oriented patterns elevate per capita public service costs by failing to capitalize on density-driven efficiencies, leading to deficits estimated at 10% higher annually in sprawling jurisdictions. In contrast, smart growth strategies in places like California have been associated with net economic benefits, including job growth and GDP contributions from revitalized urban cores, though these outcomes depend on local implementation and market conditions. Broader economic justifications emphasize that smart growth fosters agglomeration effects, where clustered economic activities enhance productivity, innovation, and consumer access, potentially reducing household transportation expenditures by 10-60% through shorter trips and multimodal options. However, while advocacy analyses highlight these efficiencies, empirical evidence from peer-reviewed fiscal models underscores that benefits accrue primarily in regions with strong transit integration and regulatory support, rather than universally across all adoption contexts.

Response to Alleged Sprawl Subsidies

Critics of urban sprawl, including some smart growth advocates, allege that federal policies such as interstate highway funding, the mortgage interest deduction, and exclusions of imputed rent from taxable income disproportionately subsidize low-density suburban development over compact urban forms. These claims posit that such subsidies lower the relative costs of sprawling development, encouraging automobile-dependent expansion at the urban fringe. However, quantitative evidence linking these policies directly to sprawl patterns remains limited and inconclusive. A 1999 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) analysis found scant research demonstrating that federal water, sewer, or highway assistance causes sprawl, noting that tax provisions favoring owner-occupied housing apply equally to urban and suburban locations without evidence of inducing outward migration. Similarly, the mortgage interest deduction and imputed rent exclusion primarily incentivize homeownership rather than density-specific outcomes, as urban homeowners benefit comparably, and sprawl often reflects consumer preferences for larger lots and lower densities amid abundant land availability. Highway investments, while enabling longer commutes, support economic productivity across development types, including dense areas where traffic volumes are higher per mile of road. Assertions that central cities subsidize suburban infrastructure through fiscal transfers are also overstated, as suburban jurisdictions frequently generate sufficient tax revenue to cover local services, with variations attributable to zoning and land-use choices rather than inherent cross-subsidization. Empirical critiques highlight that sprawl's alleged external costs, such as infrastructure expenses, are often offset by benefits like reduced per-capita public service demands in lower-density areas and consumer-driven agglomeration efficiencies. In contrast, smart growth initiatives themselves rely on targeted subsidies, including federal transit grants exceeding $100 billion since 1980, which have not proportionally increased ridership but have inflated urban development costs through regulatory constraints. From a causal standpoint, sprawl correlates more strongly with household preferences for affordable space, improved quality of life, and escape from urban regulatory burdens than with distorted federal incentives. Dismantling general mobility and housing supports would likely raise costs economy-wide without guaranteeing denser outcomes, as evidenced by persistent suburbanization in low-subsidy environments. Thus, framing sprawl as uniquely subsidized overlooks broader market dynamics and the neutral or pro-density effects of many contested policies.

Empirical Evidence and Assessments

Environmental Impacts

A systematic review of 53 peer-reviewed articles on smart growth principles found that only 8 provided empirical evidence supporting purported environmental benefits, such as reduced urban heat island effects or improved air quality through densification, while assumptions of broad positive outcomes often lacked validation. In contrast, 18 studies (34%) identified negative environmental consequences, particularly for biodiversity, where compact infill development fragmented habitats and increased pressure on remaining green spaces more than dispersed sprawl in some contexts. This limited evidentiary base underscores that smart growth's environmental claims are frequently theoretical rather than empirically robust, with outcomes varying by local implementation. On land conservation, urban growth boundaries—a core smart growth tool—have demonstrably curbed sprawl in select cases; for instance, Maryland's 1990s program preserved over 300,000 acres of farmland and forest by 2010 through prioritized infill, reducing net habitat loss compared to unregulated expansion scenarios. However, broader assessments indicate mixed success, as redirected development often intensifies pressure on urban-adjacent ecosystems, leading to higher per-capita biodiversity decline in dense zones than in low-density peripheries. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions from transit-oriented development correlate with lower greenhouse gas emissions in regional models; a California study estimated that smart growth scenarios could cut transportation emissions by 10-15% by 2050 through 20% VMT decreases, assuming effective multimodal shifts. Yet, empirical data reveal trade-offs: higher densities increase local exposure to tailpipe pollutants, elevating health risks for residents in mixed-use areas by up to 5-10% in exposure-adjusted metrics, particularly affecting lower-income groups. Water quality impacts remain inconclusive; while concentrating development theoretically minimizes total impervious surfaces and runoff, peer-reviewed analyses question net benefits, noting that high-density impervious areas generate more polluted stormwater per acre due to intensified urban activities, with limited evidence of superior outcomes over managed sprawl with green infrastructure. Overall, smart growth's environmental efficacy hinges on site-specific factors, with no universal empirical consensus favoring it over alternatives like dispersed conservation.

Health, Congestion, and Transportation Outcomes

A meta-analysis of 200 studies on the built environment and travel behavior found that higher population and job densities, associated with smart growth principles, correlate with a 10-30% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, alongside shifts toward non-auto modes like walking, cycling, and transit. Transit-oriented development (TOD), a core smart growth strategy, similarly yields lower VMT among residents, with empirical data from U.S. station areas showing 20-40% fewer car trips compared to auto-oriented suburbs, driven by proximity to services and transit access. However, these reductions are often modest in absolute terms and depend on robust transit supply; in low-transit contexts, induced demand from denser populations can offset gains, leading to no net VMT decline region-wide. On congestion, compact mixed-use developments generate fewer vehicle trips per household—up to 25% lower than sprawled areas—easing local roadway loads, as evidenced by analyses of U.S. metropolitan planning organization data. Yet, broader implementation of smart growth has yielded mixed results; while per-capita VMT drops, total regional traffic volumes may rise due to population concentration, adhering to the "fundamental law of road congestion" where capacity expansions or density shifts induce equivalent demand increases over time. Studies of regional smart growth plans, such as those in California, confirm reduced emissions from lower driving but highlight unintended spikes in congestion during peak hours from multimodal convergence. Health outcomes link primarily to increased physical activity from walkable designs, with reviews indicating smart growth features like shorter blocks and mixed uses boost daily steps by 20-50% among residents, potentially lowering obesity risks. Empirical longitudinal data from Portland, Oregon's urban growth boundary policies show modest declines in BMI among those in denser zones, attributed to active transport. Countervailing factors include elevated air pollution exposure in high-density areas, which can negate activity gains; one simulation of smart growth scenarios found net health improvements from less driving but higher respiratory risks for vulnerable groups near concentrated traffic. Overall, causal evidence remains associative rather than definitive, with randomized or quasi-experimental studies scarce and often confounded by self-selection into walkable neighborhoods.

Economic, Housing, and Fiscal Effects

Empirical assessments of smart growth's economic effects reveal mixed outcomes, with some studies indicating enhanced productivity through denser development but others highlighting constraints on overall growth. A 2023 analysis of U.S. metropolitan areas found that higher urban sprawl levels correlate with lower average labor productivity, suggesting compact patterns may support efficiency gains across industries. However, critics argue that restrictive policies limit land availability, potentially stifling job creation and business expansion; for instance, urban growth boundaries in Portland, Oregon, have been linked to elevated costs that hinder low-income economic participation. On housing, smart growth policies frequently elevate prices and erode affordability by curtailing land supply and development flexibility. In markets with prescriptive land-use controls, such as San Diego and Boston, median new home prices exceeded market ceilings by 84% on average between 2000 and 2006, with regulatory premiums rising from 14% to over 100% in some cases, doubling mortgage burdens relative to income. Peer-reviewed research confirms that growth management practices reduce housing supply, thereby increasing costs and lowering affordability, particularly for low- and moderate-income households, as compact development limits options for lower-density, cost-effective units. These effects disproportionately impact ethnic minorities, who face extended income multiples for homeownership in constrained markets. Fiscal impacts vary by locality and service type, with evidence pointing to potential infrastructure savings from density but offset by elevated urban service demands. County-level data from 2007 indicate that reducing sprawl through 25% greater compactness could yield annual public expenditure savings of $3.63 billion to $6.56 billion, primarily via lower roadway and utility costs, though benefits differ across categories like housing development (higher elasticity to density) and parks (to development extent). A national study estimated sprawl contributes to 10% higher annual fiscal deficits ($4.2 billion) compared to managed growth patterns, driven by extended infrastructure needs. Nonetheless, denser configurations often raise per-capita costs for education, policing, and fire services, leading to net fiscal neutrality or strain in some implementations, as low-density alternatives spread fixed costs more thinly without proportionally increasing revenues. Local analyses, such as those in Berks County, Pennsylvania, underscore that fiscal outcomes hinge on density, location, and occupant profiles rather than policy alone.

Key Elements

Compact and Mixed-Use Development

Compact development within smart growth principles involves concentrating urban growth at higher densities to minimize land consumption per capita, typically through mid- to high-rise structures and efficient site design that supports a greater population on existing or redeveloped land. This approach contrasts with low-density sprawl by prioritizing infill and redevelopment over peripheral expansion, aiming to preserve agricultural lands and natural habitats. Mixed-use development complements compactness by integrating residential, commercial, retail, and sometimes institutional uses within the same buildings or neighborhoods, reducing travel distances for daily activities and fostering vibrant, self-contained communities. Proponents argue that these strategies lower per-capita infrastructure costs, such as roads and utilities, by spreading fixed expenses over more users; for instance, compact forms can reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by enhancing proximity to jobs and services. Empirical studies indicate that well-planned compact developments with grid-pattern streets and mixed uses correlate with increased walking and public transit use, potentially improving public health outcomes through higher physical activity levels. However, evidence on broader sustainability benefits remains mixed, as higher densities can exacerbate urban heat islands and strain existing services without adequate green space integration. Critics contend that mandating compact and mixed-use forms through zoning can inflate housing prices by restricting supply in desirable areas, leading to affordability challenges rather than equitable growth. In practice, outcomes vary; Seattle's mixed-use experiments showed viability in accessible locations but highlighted dependencies on market demand and transit infrastructure for success. While reducing sprawl's environmental footprint in theory, real-world implementations often face congestion and higher municipal service demands, underscoring the need for causal analysis beyond correlational data.

Transit-Oriented and Multimodal Strategies

Transit-oriented development (TOD) constitutes a foundational element of smart growth by concentrating higher-density residential, commercial, and retail uses within approximately 0.5-mile walking distance of frequent public transit stations, aiming to boost ridership and diminish reliance on personal vehicles. This approach integrates land-use planning with transportation infrastructure to foster compact nodes that prioritize accessibility via walking and transit over automobile access, often incorporating reduced parking requirements and traffic calming measures. Empirical analyses, such as a comparison of a TOD neighborhood versus a non-TOD area in Carlsbad, California, reveal that TOD residents exhibit lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT), with averages of 14.6 daily miles per capita in the TOD site compared to 22.4 in the control, though self-selection—where transit-preferring individuals choose to live in such areas—complicates causal attribution. Multimodal strategies in smart growth extend TOD principles by advocating interconnected networks that seamlessly blend rail, bus rapid transit, cycling infrastructure, and pedestrian pathways, exemplified by "complete streets" designs reallocating roadway space to accommodate diverse users and reduce modal silos. These strategies emphasize integrated fare systems, real-time information sharing across modes, and priority signaling for transit vehicles to enhance efficiency and user convenience. A synthesis of cross-sectional studies indicates that TOD combined with multimodal enhancements correlates with higher transit mode shares (up to 20-30% in mature implementations) and active transport utilization, yet regional VMT reductions remain modest, typically 5-15%, as induced demand from population growth and limited TOD scale offset localized gains. Critiques grounded in broader metropolitan data highlight that while TOD elevates station-area ridership—evidenced by increases of 20-50% in areas like Arlington, Virginia's Rosslyn-Ballston corridor—its congestion-relief effects are negligible at the regional level, given that TOD often comprises less than 5% of urban land and attracts higher-income households with potentially higher overall travel demands. Multimodal integrations show promise in shifting short trips to non-motorized modes, with some evaluations reporting 10-25% drops in local car trips, but long-term success hinges on sustained transit frequency and avoidance of over-reliance on subsidies that distort market signals. Overall, these strategies advance location-efficient development but yield causal impacts tempered by socioeconomic sorting and incomplete network coverage.

Pedestrian- and Bicycle-Friendly Design

Pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly design in smart growth emphasizes street layouts and infrastructure that prioritize non-motorized travel, such as wide sidewalks, protected bike lanes, traffic-calming measures like speed bumps and narrowed roadways, and interconnected street grids to shorten travel distances. These elements aim to create environments where walking and cycling are safer and more convenient than driving for short trips, often integrated with mixed-use zoning to place residences, shops, and services within walking distance. Complete Streets policies, a core implementation strategy, require accommodations for all users including pedestrians and cyclists in road projects, contrasting with traditional auto-centric designs. Key features include buffered or separated bicycle paths to reduce crash risks, raised crosswalks for pedestrian priority, and reduced lane widths to slow vehicle speeds, with studies showing such interventions can increase cycling rates by 20-50% in treated corridors depending on network connectivity. Empirical assessments indicate that residents in walkable smart growth developments drive 20-40% fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to suburban counterparts, partly due to shorter trip lengths and viable alternatives to cars. However, broader modal shifts remain modest in U.S. contexts, with one analysis finding no strong causal link between walkability scores and reduced driving propensity when controlling for socioeconomic factors. Health outcomes from these designs show correlations with higher physical activity levels; for instance, moving to walkable neighborhoods has been associated with increased daily steps and lower obesity rates in longitudinal studies tracking residents over 2-5 years. Cycling infrastructure expansions, such as protected lanes, correlate with fewer bicycle-motor vehicle collisions per trip, enhancing safety and encouraging uptake among novice riders. Yet, effectiveness varies by city scale and integration: mid-sized U.S. cities with fragmented networks see smaller usage gains than dense European counterparts, and induced traffic from denser development can offset some VMT reductions without complementary transit investments. Critics argue that overemphasis on bike lanes in low-demand areas yields high costs per rider, with return-on-investment analyses questioning scalability in car-reliant regions. Overall, while these designs support localized active transport, systemic car dependence limits transformative impacts absent broader policy shifts.

Open Space Preservation

Open space preservation constitutes a foundational objective of smart growth policies, which seek to curb urban sprawl by channeling development into existing urban footprints, thereby shielding peripheral lands from conversion to built uses. Proponents contend this strategy sustains agricultural viability, biodiversity, watershed integrity, and recreational access while mitigating infrastructure costs associated with scattered development. Empirical assessments indicate mixed outcomes: while some implementations correlate with reduced per capita land consumption, broader reviews reveal limited rigorous validation of environmental gains, with only 34% of pertinent studies affirming smart growth's role in curbing land use expansion or enhancing ecological functions. Key mechanisms include urban growth boundaries (UGBs), conservation easements, and public land acquisitions funded via bonds or taxes. UGBs delineate fixed perimeters beyond which urban-scale development is prohibited, compelling infill and densification within. Oregon's UGB mandate, enacted in 1973 under Senate Bill 100, has demonstrably constrained sprawl in the Portland metropolitan area, where the boundary—spanning approximately 635 square miles as of expansions through 2024—has preserved agricultural and forested lands by limiting outward expansion to planned increments tied to population forecasts. A 2024 analysis of global UGB cases found they sustain ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration and habitat connectivity, at rates 20-30% higher and more stably over decades compared to unconstrained urban expansions. Complementary tools like transfer of development rights (TDRs) and land trusts redirect growth pressures from sensitive areas; for instance, Maryland's smart growth initiatives, bolstered by TDR programs since 2004, have conserved over 500,000 acres of farmland and forest through 2023 via incentives that compensate owners for forgoing development. State-level smart growth legislation correlates with elevated local preservation efforts, particularly where environmental advocacy groups, measured by land trust density, amplify outcomes—counties with higher trust activity preserved 15-25% more open space per capita from 1990-2010. Notwithstanding these achievements, causal evidence underscores trade-offs: UGBs often intensify internal open space losses through accelerated infill, as seen in Portland where urban-area greenfield consumption persisted despite boundary constraints, contributing to density gains but also higher land values that indirectly pressure remaining undeveloped parcels. Critics, drawing from hedonic pricing models, highlight that preservation mandates can exacerbate housing scarcity without proportionally boosting net open space, particularly in high-demand regions where preserved lands near urban edges command premiums without offsetting development elsewhere. A Reason Foundation analysis of UGB effects posits that effective boundaries merely relocate, rather than eliminate, land conversion pressures, with empirical data from U.S. metros showing no net reduction in total developed acreage over 20-year horizons in many cases.

Implementation Tools

Zoning and Regulatory Reforms

Zoning and regulatory reforms constitute a primary mechanism for implementing smart growth by modifying conventional land-use regulations that historically segregated residential, commercial, and industrial uses, enforced large minimum lot sizes, and required ample off-street parking, thereby contributing to urban sprawl. These reforms prioritize flexibility to accommodate higher densities, mixed land uses, and pedestrian-oriented designs while preserving community character through standards focused on building form and performance metrics rather than rigid separation of uses. Form-based codes (FBCs), a key reform, regulate development by emphasizing physical form—such as building placement, massing, and street frontage—over primary land-use categories, enabling mixed-use districts that integrate housing, retail, and offices in compact arrangements. Originating in the late 1980s alongside New Urbanism principles, FBCs gained traction in the 2000s; for instance, Arlington County, Virginia, adopted FBC elements for its Columbia Pike corridor in 2010 to foster transit-supportive redevelopment without sprawling single-use zones. By 2023, over 400 U.S. communities had implemented FBCs or hybrids, often as overlays to traditional zoning, to promote infill development and reduce reliance on automobiles. Performance zoning represents another reform, evaluating projects based on outcomes like environmental impact, traffic generation, and open space provision rather than prescriptive use districts, allowing developers to achieve density targets through innovative designs. Adopted in various forms since the 1970s but integrated into smart growth frameworks in the early 2000s, it has been applied in places like Boulder, Colorado, where ordinances since 2005 tie allowable densities to measurable performance in stormwater management and habitat preservation. Such approaches contrast with Euclidean zoning's rigidity, potentially increasing development efficiency but requiring clear metrics to avoid subjective approvals. Additional reforms include reductions or eliminations of minimum parking requirements, which traditional codes often mandate at ratios like one space per bedroom plus visitor spots, inflating land consumption for surface lots. Cities like Minneapolis reformed parking minima in 2015 for new constructions near transit, correlating with higher multifamily development rates without proportional traffic increases. Mixed-use zoning allowances, permitting vertical integration of uses, have been enacted in over 100 U.S. jurisdictions since 2010, often via density bonuses for projects incorporating affordable units or green features, as seen in California's 2017 laws easing local restrictions on multifamily housing near job centers. These changes aim to align regulations with market demands for walkable neighborhoods, though empirical assessments indicate varied success in curbing sprawl without elevating housing costs.

Urban Growth Boundaries

Urban growth boundaries (UGBs) delineate the outer limits of permissible urban development, designating land inside the boundary for higher-density uses while restricting or prohibiting expansion beyond it to preserve agricultural lands, forests, and natural resources. Enacted through local or state legislation, UGBs aim to curb urban sprawl by concentrating growth within existing infrastructure, thereby reducing the need for costly peripheral extensions of roads, utilities, and services. In practice, boundaries are periodically reviewed and adjusted based on projected population growth and land needs, often requiring compensatory measures like density bonuses or infrastructure investments inside the line to accommodate demand. Oregon's statewide UGB mandate, established in 1973 under Senate Bill 100, exemplifies this approach, compelling metropolitan areas to define boundaries that ensure a 20-year supply of developable land while protecting rural resources. Portland, Oregon, provides the most prominent U.S. case, where the region's UGB, managed by Metro since 1992, has contained urbanized land to approximately 250,000 acres as of 2024, directing growth toward infill and higher densities. Proponents credit the policy with limiting low-density suburban expansion and preserving over 1 million acres of farmland and forests in the surrounding counties since its inception. However, empirical analyses indicate mixed results on sprawl containment; while urban form has become more contiguous inside the boundary, development pressures have sometimes led to densification shortfalls or boundary expansions, such as the 2019 addition of 3,739 acres to address housing shortages. Studies using spatial regression models on Portland's data show that the UGB has increased urban densities but not proportionally reduced per capita land consumption compared to unconstrained regions. Environmentally, UGBs have demonstrably protected open spaces in select cases, with Oregon's policy correlating to a 20-30% reduction in farmland conversion rates relative to national averages from 1973 to 2000. Yet, causal evidence linking UGBs to broader ecological benefits, such as lower vehicle miles traveled or emissions reductions, remains weak, as complementary policies like zoning reforms are often required for measurable outcomes. Economically, by artificially constraining land supply, UGBs elevate inside-boundary prices; quantile regression analyses across U.S. implementations find house price premiums of 10-20% attributable to the policy, with land values inside rising up to 230% in areas like King County, Washington, post-boundary adoption. These effects exacerbate housing unaffordability, particularly for lower-income households, as reduced supply stifles construction: Portland's median home price surged from $150,000 in 1990 to over $500,000 by 2023, outpacing wage growth. Critics argue UGBs infringe on property rights by devaluing exterior lands—often rendering them economically idle for agriculture—without just compensation, effectively transferring value to insiders via regulatory fiat. Libertarian analyses, such as those from the Reason Foundation, contend that such boundaries distort markets, increasing fiscal burdens through higher infrastructure costs per unit inside while failing to deliver promised density without overriding local zoning preferences. Although some studies suggest minor offsetting density gains can temper price hikes in elastic markets, the preponderance of hedonic and difference-in-differences research confirms net inflationary pressures, prompting calls for abolition to restore affordability, as evidenced in regions where boundary relaxations correlated with 5-10% price drops.

Transfer of Development Rights and Incentives

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs enable property owners in designated "sending areas"—typically rural, agricultural, or environmentally sensitive lands—to sell their development rights to developers in "receiving areas" where denser urban or infill development is encouraged, thereby concentrating growth while compensating preservation efforts. This mechanism severs development potential from protected parcels via conservation easements or deed restrictions, transferring it as a marketable commodity to areas aligned with smart growth objectives, such as reducing sprawl and promoting compact communities. TDR operates as a voluntary, market-driven tool, avoiding outright takings by preserving landowners' equity through financial incentives rather than mandates. In smart growth applications, TDR directs development away from low-density fringe expansion toward higher-density nodes, supporting goals like open space preservation and infrastructure efficiency; for instance, receiving areas often receive density bonuses, allowing up to 25-50% additional building capacity beyond baseline zoning to incentivize participation. Programs may incorporate public subsidies or banking systems to store unused rights, enhancing liquidity and developer uptake, though success depends on strong market demand in receiving zones and clear regulatory frameworks to prevent underutilization. Notable U.S. implementations include Montgomery County, Maryland's agricultural reserve program, established in 1980, which has preserved over 40,000 acres of farmland through TDR transfers valued at millions annually, channeling growth into urban clusters. Similarly, King County, Washington's voluntary TDR initiative, launched in 2005, targets rural conservation while incentivizing urban density bonuses, resulting in the permanent protection of thousands of acres by 2020 via private transactions. In New Jersey, statewide TDR policies since 2004 have safeguarded over 100,000 acres of farmland and open space, with incentives like expedited approvals for receiving-site projects to offset higher urban land costs. Beyond TDR, smart growth incentives often pair with financial tools like tax credits for preservation easements or low-interest loans for receiving-area infrastructure, as seen in federal programs under the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, which supplemented local TDRs with $300 million in matching funds from 2009-2018 to amplify open space retention. Density bonuses and impact fee waivers in TDR-enabled zones further encourage mixed-use projects, though empirical reviews indicate variable effectiveness, with programs preserving land at rates up to 80% of targeted areas when paired with urban demand, but faltering in low-growth markets due to insufficient buyer interest.

Infrastructure Provision and Assessments

In smart growth frameworks, infrastructure provision emphasizes directing public investments toward compact, infill development rather than peripheral expansion, aiming to leverage existing capacity and minimize new extensions of utilities, roads, and services. This approach often incorporates developer-funded mechanisms such as impact fees, which are one-time charges levied on new construction to offset the marginal costs of additional infrastructure demand, including water, sewer, transportation, and parks. By 2001, approximately 60% of U.S. cities with populations over 25,000 had adopted impact fees for housing-related infrastructure, reflecting a shift from general tax subsidies to user-pays principles that internalize growth costs. Concurrency requirements complement this by mandating that local governments assess and ensure adequate public facilities—defined by level-of-service (LOS) standards for traffic, schools, and utilities—prior to development approval, preventing overload on systems and promoting phased, efficient provision. Assessments of infrastructure adequacy in smart growth contexts typically involve fiscal impact analyses that quantify per-capita costs, revealing potential savings from denser patterns; for instance, national examinations indicate that smart growth development can reduce upfront costs for roads, sewers, water lines, and other utilities by an average of 38% compared to conventional suburban models, due to economies of scale in serving higher densities. Empirical reviews further substantiate that compact forms lower overall public service expenditures, with infrastructure costs per household declining as density rises, though these benefits assume coordinated planning to avoid underutilized capacity in legacy systems. However, such assessments must account for implementation challenges, as impact fees and concurrency can elevate short-term development costs—often passed to homebuyers, contributing to affordability pressures—and may deter investment if LOS thresholds are rigidly applied without flexibility for multimodal alternatives like transit upgrades. Proponents argue that these tools enhance long-term fiscal sustainability by aligning provision with actual demand, supported by studies showing sprawl's higher per-capita infrastructure burdens, such as extended utility lines costing up to 25% more than infill equivalents. Critics, however, highlight evidentiary gaps, noting that while cost-saving projections are common, real-world outcomes vary due to political influences on fee structures and assessments, with some jurisdictions experiencing revenue shortfalls or inequitable burdens on lower-income areas. Rigorous evaluations, including those incorporating value capture from rising land values near improved infrastructure, underscore the need for transparent, data-driven metrics to validate effectiveness beyond advocacy claims.

Case Studies and Outcomes

U.S. Domestic Examples

Arlington County, Virginia, implemented smart growth principles starting in the 1970s by prioritizing transit-oriented development (TOD) along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor after halting a proposed freeway extension through the area. This approach transformed low-density suburbs into a dense urban center, with over 28 million square feet of commercial space and 15,000 new housing units added by 2010 near Metro rail stations. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita remained flat at around 12,000 miles annually from 1980 to 2000 despite a 50% population increase, attributed to high transit mode share exceeding 30% for work trips. Portland, Oregon, adopted an urban growth boundary (UGB) in 1973 pursuant to state law (Senate Bill 100), delineating 234 square miles for urban uses to curb sprawl and safeguard 16 million acres of farmland and forestland statewide. The policy encouraged infill development and multimodal investments, including the Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) light rail system launched in 1983, which catalyzed $3 billion in private investment near stations by 2000. Population density within the UGB rose from 2,500 to over 4,000 persons per square mile between 1990 and 2010, preserving approximately 60% of the region's open space. However, Portland's UGB has been linked to elevated housing costs, with median home prices increasing 120% from 1990 to 2000—double the national average—due in part to constrained land supply, as evidenced by hedonic price models showing a 10-20% premium for properties inside the boundary. Traffic congestion, measured by the Texas Transportation Institute's index, worsened comparably to peer cities without UGBs, rising from 1.15 in 1982 to 1.45 by 2000, suggesting limited impact on reducing vehicle dependency. Boulder, Colorado, enforced strict growth management since the 1959 Blue Line water allocation limit, later formalized with open space acquisition funding 45% of its land as preserved areas by 2015 through dedicated sales taxes. This model supported compact development, achieving a 25% bike/pedestrian mode share for commutes, but correlated with regional housing prices 50% above national medians by 2020, prompting debates over supply restrictions.

Comparative International Applications

In Europe, compact city policies function as analogs to smart growth principles, prioritizing urban infill, mixed land uses, and efficient public transport to curb sprawl and enhance resource efficiency. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) highlights implementations in countries such as Denmark, France, Japan, and Korea, where policies promote higher densities and transit-oriented development to reduce infrastructure costs and carbon emissions from commuting. For example, Denmark's finger plan around Copenhagen, formalized in 1947 and updated through zoning laws, channels growth along radial transport corridors while preserving green wedges, resulting in transit modal shares exceeding 50% in the capital region by 2010. These approaches differ from U.S. smart growth by integrating national-level mandates with local execution, often yielding lower per capita land consumption—Denmark's urban areas averaged 1.2 hectares per 1,000 residents in 2012 compared to higher U.S. suburban norms—but facing challenges like elevated urban heat islands in denser cores. In Canada, smart growth strategies mirror U.S. models through provincial growth management acts that enforce urban growth boundaries and intensification targets. Ontario's Places to Grow Act of 2005 established plans for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, mandating 40% of new housing within existing urban areas by 2031, which increased regional density from 1,200 to over 1,500 persons per square kilometer in targeted nodes by 2020 while expanding greenbelt protections covering 2 million acres. Vancouver's Livable Region Strategic Plan, updated in 2011, similarly promotes transit villages along SkyTrain lines, achieving a 25% rise in ridership since 2000 but contributing to housing costs doubling in core areas between 2010 and 2020 due to supply constraints. Compared to U.S. applications, Canadian efforts benefit from federal transit investments like the $20 billion Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (2017–2028), fostering multimodal integration, yet empirical analyses indicate mixed environmental gains, with sprawl reduction offset by higher infrastructure retrofit expenses in retrofitting older suburbs. Australia employs urban containment policies akin to smart growth, with states like Victoria implementing growth boundaries around Melbourne since 2002 to concentrate development and safeguard peri-urban farmland. The Melbourne 2030 plan targeted 70% infill growth, raising inner-city densities to 30 persons per hectare by 2016 and boosting public transport use to 20% of trips, supported by dedicated rail investments totaling AUD 50 billion from 2006–2021. Sydney's metropolitan strategy similarly uses precinct planning for transit nodes, limiting fringe expansion and preserving 5.7 million hectares in agricultural reserves. These policies have curbed greenfield consumption—Melbourne's urban footprint grew only 10% from 2006–2016 despite 20% population increase—but studies note unintended rises in peripheral commuting and affordability pressures, with median house prices escalating 150% in constrained zones over the same period, contrasting U.S. experiences where local resistance often dilutes enforcement. In Latin America, Curitiba, Brazil, exemplifies integrated smart growth through its pioneering bus rapid transit (BRT) system, launched in 1974, which aligns land-use zoning with exclusive bus lanes and high-capacity vehicles to promote linear development corridors. By 2010, the system served 2.3 million daily passengers—75% of motorized trips—eliminating 27 million annual car journeys and reducing emissions equivalent to 25% of the city's vehicle fleet, complemented by 52 public squares preserving 15% green space. This model, evolving into hybrid-electric fleets under the 2020s Sustainable Mobility Program, influenced over 200 global BRT adoptions but reveals limitations in scalability; rapid urbanization led to informal peripheral settlements, straining integration and prompting upgrades costing USD 75 million in 2023 for rideability enhancements. Unlike North American variants, Curitiba's success stems from low-cost implementation (initial BRT at 5% of subway costs) and hierarchical feeder routes, though causal evaluations link it to sustained density without proportional affordability erosion seen elsewhere.

Measured Successes and Failures

Smart growth policies have demonstrated measurable success in curbing urban sprawl in select implementations, particularly through urban growth boundaries (UGBs). In Portland, Oregon, the UGB established in 1973 has constrained development to a defined metropolitan area, resulting in lower land consumption per new resident compared to non-smart growth states; for instance, smart growth states lost an average of 0.5 acres per new resident from 1982 to 1997, versus 1.3 acres in other states. This approach preserved approximately 1.2 million acres of farmland and open space in the Portland region by 2015, redirecting growth toward infill and higher-density development. Empirical analyses confirm that diversified land uses and enhanced transit access under such policies correlate with modest reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, with Portland experiencing a 10-15% lower VMT growth rate than comparable sprawling metros from 1990 to 2010. Conversely, smart growth has frequently failed to deliver on affordability and congestion relief, often exacerbating these issues through supply restrictions. Growth management techniques, including UGBs and density mandates, have been linked to housing price inflation in multiple studies; a review of 30 empirical analyses found that such policies reduce housing supply elasticity, raising median home prices by 5-15% in affected markets, with Portland's prices increasing 200% faster than the national average from 1990 to 2005. In Portland, the implementation of smart growth since the 1970s contributed to a housing affordability index dropping below 3.0 (severely unaffordable) by 2020, as measured by Demographia, prompting legislative reforms like HB 2001 in 2019 to allow more middle housing but with limited immediate impact on costs. Traffic outcomes reveal further shortcomings, as higher densities have intensified congestion without proportional mode-shift gains. Portland's metro area ranked 7th worst for congestion in the U.S. in 2023, with drivers losing 52 hours annually to delays, up from 40 hours in 2000 despite transit investments; average commute times rose slightly from 24.4 minutes in 2019 to 25.2 minutes by 2023, contradicting projections of reduced auto dependency. While per-capita VMT reductions of 5-10% have been observed in compact developments, total regional VMT grew 20% from 2000 to 2020 due to population increases and induced demand, highlighting a causal disconnect between density-focused policies and comprehensive traffic mitigation. These patterns underscore systemic challenges: successes in spatial containment often trade off against economic pressures, with pro-smart growth analyses (e.g., from advocacy groups) emphasizing long-term efficiencies while market-oriented critiques highlight verifiable cost burdens on households.

Criticisms and Controversies

Housing Affordability and Cost Increases

Smart growth policies, including urban growth boundaries (UGBs) and stringent zoning regulations, have been criticized for constraining the supply of developable land, thereby driving up housing prices and exacerbating affordability challenges. By limiting peripheral expansion and prioritizing infill development, these measures reduce the overall availability of housing units relative to demand, particularly in regions experiencing population growth. Empirical analyses indicate that such restrictions elevate land costs, which are passed on to homebuyers and renters, with studies estimating that growth management can increase housing prices by 5-15% in affected areas. In Portland, Oregon, the implementation of a UGB in the 1970s, intended to curb sprawl, correlated with accelerated housing price growth compared to peer cities without similar boundaries. Housing prices in the Portland metro area rose by approximately 80% in real terms between 1990 and 2000, outpacing regional averages, with econometric models attributing 10-20% of the premium directly to the UGB's supply constraints. Critics, including economists, argue this outcome stems from artificially scarce land, as the boundary's rigidity prevented adequate response to demand surges, transforming Portland from a relatively affordable market to one of the nation's pricier ones within a decade. Similar patterns appear in California, where smart growth-aligned policies like Senate Bill 375 (2008), which incentivized compact development to reduce emissions, coincided with severe housing shortages and cost escalations. Median home prices in the state reached $859,900 by mid-2025, more than double the national median, with regulatory barriers—including density bonuses offset by impact fees and inclusionary zoning—contributing to underproduction of 1-2 million units annually. Research highlights that these supply-side interventions, while promoting transit-oriented projects, fail to offset the price inflation from limited land availability, as evidenced by higher per-unit costs in constrained coastal metros versus inland areas with looser rules. Proponents counter that smart growth lowers long-term costs through reduced infrastructure spending and promotes affordable multifamily housing via upzoning, yet peer-reviewed evidence predominantly supports the supply-restriction critique, with economists like Edward Glaeser emphasizing that regulatory impediments, not demand alone, explain most urban unaffordability. In high-regulation jurisdictions, affordability indices have deteriorated faster, with price-to-income ratios exceeding 5:1 in many smart growth hubs by 2025, underscoring the causal link between constrained supply and elevated costs.

Property Rights and Individual Freedoms

Critics of smart growth contend that its core policies, such as urban growth boundaries and restrictive zoning ordinances, infringe on private property rights by limiting owners' ability to develop land according to their economic interests, often without just compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. These measures designate certain areas for preservation or low-density use, effectively downzoning rural or peripheral parcels and depriving owners of their reasonable investment-backed expectations, which can constitute a regulatory taking under precedents like Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), where regulations rendering property valueless trigger compensation obligations unless the use was a preexisting nuisance. In Portland, Oregon, the implementation of a regional urban growth boundary since 1973 exemplifies these concerns, as it has confined development to existing urban footprints, resulting in a 63.8% rise in housing costs between 1990 and 1995 while stranding land outside the boundary with diminished development potential and no offsetting payments to affected owners. Legal analyses argue that such boundaries shift infrastructure and growth costs onto private landowners inside the limits, violating principles from Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), which mandates "rough proportionality" between exactions—like mandatory open space dedications or impact fees—and the specific burdens imposed by a project. For instance, Portland's impact fees, averaging $1,000 per job created, exemplify how smart growth transfers public infrastructure burdens to developers and buyers, potentially amounting to uncompensated takings when fees exceed proportional impacts. Beyond takings, these policies curtail individual freedoms by supplanting voluntary market transactions with coercive government directives, compelling denser development patterns that may conflict with owners' preferences for low-density or single-family uses. Proponents of property rights, including scholars from law reviews, assert that smart growth's emphasis on collective environmental or anti-sprawl goals overrides the autonomy inherent in ownership, akin to "social engineering" that prioritizes planners' visions over personal liberty in land use decisions. This tension has fueled litigation and backlash, as seen in challenges to growth management acts that politicize real estate markets and distort owner incentives without empirical justification for overriding constitutional protections.

Unintended Consequences and Paradoxes

Smart growth policies, particularly urban growth boundaries (UGBs), have frequently led to elevated housing prices by constraining the supply of developable land, countering intentions of fostering efficient, accessible urban forms. In Portland, Oregon, following UGB implementation in the 1970s and expansions, median home prices rose from 71.7% of the national median in 1988 to 100.7% in 1994, with lot prices doubling between 1990 and 1995 while the Consumer Price Index increased by only 52.5%; this transformed the region from relatively affordable to one of the least affordable on the West Coast within a decade. Similarly, empirical analyses indicate UGBs exert upward pressure on land and house prices, with one study finding significant price trajectories in bounded urban regions due to reduced supply. This paradox arises as supply restrictions, aimed at curbing inefficient expansion, exacerbate affordability challenges for lower-income households, often displacing them outward and undermining equity goals. Another unintended outcome is leapfrog development, where strict boundaries within jurisdictions prompt growth to bypass into adjacent or peripheral areas, perpetuating or relocating sprawl rather than eliminating it. In San Diego, California, UGBs have caused development to jump into neighboring jurisdictions, evading containment while increasing infrastructure costs across fragmented areas. Portland's policies similarly pushed middle-class families to exurban zones, contributing to regional sprawl beyond the boundary despite local densification efforts. This dynamic reveals a causal mismatch: containment in core areas incentivizes inefficient, low-density expansion elsewhere, raising per-capita vehicle miles traveled and undermining anti-sprawl objectives. On transportation, smart growth's emphasis on density and mixed uses seeks to lower vehicle dependency but often intensifies local congestion by concentrating trips without commensurate infrastructure scaling. International and U.S. data link higher densities to increased congestion levels, as seen in projections where compact policies elevate traffic volumes in constrained networks. While per-capita delays may decline due to reduced overall miles traveled, absolute congestion rises in infill zones, creating a paradox where environmental aims for modal shifts clash with lived experiences of gridlock. In smart growth-adopting states, average annual congestion increases (1.73 hours per driver) outpaced non-adopting peers (1.31 hours), highlighting implementation gaps. Environmentally, smart growth's compaction strategy yields mixed validation, with paradoxes emerging from rebound effects and shifted burdens. Although intended to cut emissions via shorter trips, empirical reviews find inconsistent reductions in vehicle miles or pollutants, as denser forms sometimes amplify local air quality issues or fail to offset induced demand. Regional strategies have displaced environmental harms—such as pollution or health risks—to peripheral or underserved areas, raising justice concerns unsupported by initial equity rationales. This underscores a core tension: while theoretical models predict sustainability gains, real-world applications often reveal causal pathways where policy-induced densities generate unforeseen ecological trade-offs, including higher energy use in vertical structures.

Doubts on Overall Effectiveness

Empirical evaluations of smart growth policies have raised doubts about their ability to achieve core objectives such as curbing urban sprawl and reducing automobile dependence. In Portland, Oregon, which implemented an urban growth boundary (UGB) in 1973 to limit sprawl, the metropolitan area expanded outward while internal densities failed to materialize as planned; commute times increased due to congestion, with regional planners projecting a quintupling by 2020 despite density targets. Public transit accounted for less than 3% of passenger miles traveled, even after diverting 66% of transportation funds to light rail, which underperformed ridership goals and reduced bus services. Housing affordability has similarly deteriorated in smart growth jurisdictions, contradicting claims of equitable development. Analysis of U.S. markets from 1996 to 2006 showed median house prices in smart growth areas like Portland, Boston, and San Diego rising by $231,000—driven largely by regulatory constraints on supply—while prices in responsive markets like Atlanta and Dallas increased by only $11,000; mortgage costs as a share of income doubled in constrained markets (from 23% to 46%), exacerbating unaffordability for middle- and lower-income households. Economists attribute these outcomes to prescriptive land-use regulations, including UGBs, which restrict developable land and elevate costs without proportionally increasing housing stock. Critics argue that smart growth fails to address underlying drivers of sprawl, such as consumer preferences for low-density living, and instead amplifies problems like congestion and pollution concentration. Higher densities correlate with greater traffic bottlenecks and stop-and-go driving, leading to elevated smog levels—Portland projected a 10% increase despite policies—while farmland loss remains minimal nationally (urbanization consuming just 1/10th of agricultural land converted since 1950 due to productivity gains). In regions without strict boundaries, like Las Vegas, affordability persisted amid faster population growth than Portland, suggesting market-driven development better accommodates demand without mandates. Studies in areas like Maryland and Virginia indicate that designated growth zones and smart growth incentives have not halted suburban expansion, with sprawl continuing apace due to enforcement gaps and local resistance to densification. Overall, while proponents cite potential benefits in theory, longitudinal data from implementations reveal persistent auto reliance (88-92% of trips in Portland), economic distortions from subsidized high-density projects, and no clear superiority over decentralized patterns in preserving resources or enhancing livability.

Alternatives and Market Perspectives

Correcting Subsidies Without Mandates

Public policies have long subsidized low-density, automobile-dependent development patterns through mechanisms such as underpriced highway and road infrastructure, where users pay only a fraction of maintenance and expansion costs via general taxes rather than direct fees. For instance, in the United States, federal highway funding distributed through formulas like the Interstate Highway System has historically prioritized new suburban connections without full user pricing, effectively lowering the perceived cost of peripheral expansion. Correcting this involves shifting to performance-based pricing, such as electronic tolling or mileage-based fees, which reflect marginal congestion and wear costs without requiring density mandates. Another distortion arises from tax policies like the mortgage interest deduction, which disproportionately benefits owners of larger, single-family homes prevalent in sprawling suburbs, as these structures generate higher deductible interest amounts compared to urban apartments or condos. In 2023, this deduction cost the U.S. Treasury approximately $30 billion annually, incentivizing homeownership patterns that favor expansive lots over compact housing. Reforming or capping the deduction to neutralize its bias toward sprawl—while preserving it for primary residences—would align fiscal incentives with actual development costs, allowing consumer preferences to drive location choices based on unsubsidized prices. Utility and infrastructure extensions to fringe areas often rely on cross-subsidies from denser urban taxpayers, where flat-rate pricing fails to recover the higher per-capita costs of serving dispersed populations. A market-oriented correction entails adopting marginal cost pricing for water, sewer, and electricity lines, charging developers the full incremental expense of remote hookups, as demonstrated in partial implementations in states like Florida where impact fees approximate true costs. Such reforms, implemented without urban growth boundaries or inclusionary zoning, have shown potential to reduce peripheral incentives; for example, higher utility fees in exurban Texas counties since the 2000s have moderated unchecked subdivision growth by increasing upfront developer burdens. Economic development subsidies, including tax abatements and low-interest loans targeted at suburban industrial parks, further entrench sprawl by diverting funds from infill opportunities. From 2000 to 2020, U.S. states awarded over $80 billion in such incentives, often prioritizing greenfield sites for their lower land acquisition costs subsidized by public coffers. Neutralizing these through performance-neutral criteria—tying awards to job creation regardless of location, or eliminating them entirely—avoids mandates while curbing inefficient dispersion, as evidenced by post-reform analyses in Michigan where subsidy caps since 2011 shifted more investments toward existing urban nodes without regulatory compulsion. These subsidy corrections promote causal efficiency by internalizing externalities like increased vehicle miles traveled (estimated at 20-50% higher in subsidized sprawl scenarios) and infrastructure demands, fostering development patterns that emerge from genuine price signals rather than policy favoritism. Empirical models indicate that full road pricing alone could reduce urban land consumption by 10-20% in major metros by elevating the effective cost of low-density living, though outcomes vary by local preferences and without guarantees of "smart growth" densities. Critics from market perspectives, such as those at the Cato Institute, argue this approach respects property rights more than mandate-heavy strategies, potentially yielding hybrid forms that balance accessibility with fiscal sustainability.

Consumer Preference-Driven Development

Consumer preference-driven development emphasizes constructing housing and infrastructure in response to market signals of buyer demand, rather than prescriptive urban planning mandates that favor density or transit-oriented designs. This approach relies on revealed preferences—evidenced by where households choose to live and the premiums they pay for certain features—allowing developers to supply single-family detached homes, larger lots, and automobile-accessible locations when those align with consumer choices. In the United States, surveys consistently show that 75% to 89% of homebuyers select single-family homes, with 79% of younger adults idealizing detached single-family housing despite current living arrangements often constrained by supply shortages. Empirical data from housing markets reinforces this, as over 50% of Americans reside in suburban areas characterized by lower densities and single-family dominance, with 175 million people in suburbs and small metros as of recent estimates. Prices in these locations command significant premiums, indicating willingness to pay for space, privacy, and vehicle dependency over compact urban forms; for instance, zoning restrictions limiting density in preferred low-rise areas exacerbate shortages, driving up costs where demand for such housing persists. Studies on household valuation further demonstrate a distaste for higher densities, with buyers trading higher rents or prices for lower-density neighborhoods, even when controlling for other amenities like schools or safety. In contrast to smart growth policies that often curtail peripheral expansion to enforce infill and mixed-use, preference-driven models advocate deregulating land use to enable supply in exurban or greenfield sites where families with children disproportionately seek larger homes—preferences shown stable across age groups, with 77% under 35 and 83% over 35 favoring detached units. Markets like Houston exemplify this, where lighter regulations have permitted abundant single-family construction, maintaining relative affordability compared to density-mandated regions like California. Proponents argue this avoids paradoxes of forced densification, such as persistent demand spillover into pricier, undersupplied suburbs, and aligns with causal drivers like family size and privacy needs over ideologically driven compactness.

Pricing Mechanisms for Infrastructure

Pricing mechanisms for infrastructure emphasize user fees, tolls, and value-based charges to allocate resources efficiently, reflecting the marginal costs of usage rather than relying on general tax subsidies or regulatory mandates. These approaches internalize externalities such as congestion and environmental impacts, incentivizing denser, transit-oriented development characteristic of smart growth principles by discouraging low-density automobile-dependent sprawl. For instance, congestion pricing schemes charge vehicles entering high-demand urban zones during peak times, generating revenue while reducing traffic volumes; London's 2003 cordon-based system decreased peak-hour traffic by approximately 30% and increased average speeds by 33%, funding public transit improvements that supported compact urban growth. Road user fees, such as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) charges, replace declining fuel taxes with per-mile levies, ensuring users bear the full cost of road wear, maintenance, and congestion they impose. This user-pays principle enhances efficiency by signaling true infrastructure costs, potentially reducing overinvestment in highways that exacerbate sprawl; a 2024 analysis estimated that shifting to VMT fees could raise up to $300 billion annually in the U.S. for highway funding while promoting alternatives like walking, cycling, and transit in dense areas. Unlike flat subsidies, which distort usage by underpricing driving and encouraging suburban expansion, VMT systems adapt to electric vehicles and variable road conditions, fostering market-driven urban densification. Value capture mechanisms leverage property value uplifts from infrastructure investments to finance projects, aligning developer contributions with benefits received and reducing taxpayer burdens. In transit-oriented developments, tax increment financing or joint development agreements capture 10-30% of land value gains; the U.S. Federal Highway Administration's toolkit highlights examples like Denver's FasTracks program, which used value capture to fund $7.8 billion in rail expansions, spurring mixed-use nodes that embody smart growth without broad mandates. Empirical studies indicate these tools improve fiscal sustainability, as infrastructure-induced value increases—often 20-50% near new transit—provide dedicated revenue streams, though success depends on clear legal frameworks to avoid under-recovery. Critics argue pricing can be regressive, disproportionately affecting lower-income drivers, but evidence from Stockholm's 2006 congestion charge—reaffirmed by referendum after a trial—shows net benefits when revenues fund rebates or transit subsidies, yielding a 20% traffic reduction and positive welfare gains estimated at $500-700 per commuter annually. Overall, these mechanisms outperform subsidies by promoting causal efficiency: users adjust behaviors based on real costs, yielding measurable reductions in vehicle miles traveled (5-15% in priced zones) and supporting smart growth's goals of reduced infrastructure sprawl.

References

  1. [1]
    About Smart Growth | US EPA
    Feb 14, 2025 · Smart growth is an approach to development and conservation that protects health, environment, and makes communities stronger and resilient. It ...EPA and Smart Growth · Environmental Benefits of... · Air Quality · Climate Change
  2. [2]
    Key principles - Smart Growth America
    Smart growth is an approach to building neighborhoods that provides people with different types of housing at affordable levels, ways to get where they need ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] The Rise and Fall of Smart Growth - The Reading Room
    May 7, 2022 · Smart growth, conceived in the 1990s, aimed to change urban development's form and location, as an antidote to urban sprawl.Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
  4. [4]
    10 principles of smart growth | Upstate Forever
    Jul 31, 2020 · 1. Mix land uses · 2. Take advantage of compact building design · 3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices · 4. Create walkable ...
  5. [5]
    Implications for Smart Growth Urban Planning - PMC - NIH
    This review suggests that several features of the built environment that are typically associated with smart growth planning may promote physical activity.
  6. [6]
    Smart Growth and Housing Affordability - Carey Addison, Sumei ...
    Jan 23, 2013 · In summary, growth management practices tend to reduce land and housing supply, thereby increasing housing costs, and lowering affordability. On ...
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Smart Growth and Housing Affordability - Demographia
    3.26 Smart growth is associated with greater traffic congestion, longer commute times and more intense air pollution. 3.27 Smart growth is associated with ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Evaluating Criticism of Smart Growth
    Sep 5, 2024 · Academic studies indicate that Smart Growth has mixed or positive impacts on housing affordability (Nelson, et al. 2002). Much of the empirical ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] How Smart Has Smart Growth Been? | Counselors of Real Estate
    Smart Growth refers to urban design and transportation planning agendas which its adherents believe create vibrant, high density urban centers.
  10. [10]
    Urban Sprawl, Smart Growth, and Deliberative Democracy - PMC
    In the 1970s, Portland, Oregon, was the first major city in the United States to establish smart-growth urban planning by limiting urban growth to an area ...
  11. [11]
    [PDF] Evaluating Smart Growth - Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
    The analysis focused on four states with well-established statewide smart growth programs (Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, and. Oregon) and four states (Colorado ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  12. [12]
    The Link Between Growth Management and Housing Affordability
    This paper is a comprehensive review of academic literature on the link between growth management and housing affordability.Missing: empirical outcomes
  13. [13]
    Smart Growth Illustrated | US EPA
    Dec 13, 2024 · Twenty case studies provide visual examples of smart growth techniques as they have been used across the country.
  14. [14]
    Examples of Smart Growth Communities and Projects | US EPA
    Mar 27, 2025 · Smart growth is generally defined by 10 principles developed in 1996 by the Smart Growth Network, a partnership of real estate and development, ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Smart Growth Guide - EPA
    Based on the experience of communities around the nation, the Smart Growth Network developed a set of 10 basic principles: • Mix land uses. • Take advantage of ...
  16. [16]
    APA Policy Guide on Smart Growth - American Planning Association
    Smart Growth is an approach to achieving communities that are socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable.
  17. [17]
    10 Smart Growth Principles - REALTOR Party
    ... Smart Growth Network developed a set of ten basic principles: Mix land uses; Take advantage of compact building design; Create a range of housing ...
  18. [18]
    Smart Growth Principles - Vermont Natural Resources Council
    These ten principles, identified by Smart Growth Vermont, relate to how communities should plan for their future, and reinforce those plans through public ...
  19. [19]
    What is smart growth? - Idaho Smart Growth
    1. Mix land uses · 2. Take advantage of compact design · 3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices · 4. Create walkable neighborhoods · 5. Foster ...<|separator|>
  20. [20]
    Principles of Smart Growth - Osceola County
    Smart Growth is a method in which a community can create a balance between livability, economic viability, and environmental sensitivity.
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Smart Growth Checklist - nysdot
    These guiding principles are set out below. ✓ Locate near existing development and infrastructure. ✓ Increase the range of housing opportunities.
  22. [22]
    [PDF] 10 principles BASE - Urban Land Institute
    Smart growth—no matter where it occurs—is based on the characteristics defined above. It is not just a design principle but a development principle that lasts ...<|separator|>
  23. [23]
    Smart Growth | US EPA
    Sep 3, 2025 · EPA's smart growth work helps communities grow in ways that expand economic opportunity while protecting human health and the environment.About · Smart Growth Network · Technical Assistance · Tools
  24. [24]
    Big Burdens from Growth Management - Cato Institute
    Sep 30, 2008 · Although American cities have been planning and zoning since before 1920, growth management only began in the 1960s, when a few cities and ...
  25. [25]
    Fifty years of local growth management in America - ScienceDirect
    This article examines local growth management programs in the US since the 1970s, starting with Ramapo in 1969, and over 1000 local governments have ...
  26. [26]
    [PDF] Golden v Ramapo Lessons in Growth Management | Tom Knipe
    , and between 1966 and 1969 the Town developed a plan which undertook a number of important changes to its land use laws, including a set of 1969 amendments ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Golden v. Planning Bd. of Ramapo Revisited
    I. Introduction. The importance of protecting the rights which attach to the ownership of land has been recognized since the inception of this country.
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Learning from Land Use Reforms--The Case of Ramapo, New York
    May 3, 2023 · 5 Then, in 1969, town authorities went further. The town implemented a points-based growth management plan which tied building permits to ...
  29. [29]
    The New Feudalism: Why States Must Repeal Growth-Management ...
    Oct 18, 2016 · Between 1970 and 2000, 11 more states passed statewide planning laws, most of which ended up requiring urban-growth boundaries around most or ...<|separator|>
  30. [30]
    [PDF] the big tent of growth management: smart growth as a movement
    The movement emerged in the mid-1990s, as several large institutional actors in urban development began to promote an alternative growth paradigm they came to ...
  31. [31]
    Smart Growth - Urban Studies - Oxford Bibliographies
    Oct 15, 2020 · Proponents of smart growth aimed to change the focus from stopping or slowing growth to assuring that growth was “smarter” in location, intensity, and form.
  32. [32]
    [PDF] governor parris n. glendening
    Smart Growth. In 1997, as the crisis of urban sprawl was settling firmly in the national consciousness, the State of Maryland launched a innovative effort ...
  33. [33]
    About Smart Growth - Preservation Maryland
    Maryland was an early leader in the movement, with Governor Paris Glendening signing the Maryland Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Action in 1997.
  34. [34]
    MD.'S PLAN FOR GROWTH REQUIRES SMART MOVES
    Apr 4, 1997 · Thus the smart growth policy would channel new development into targeted growth areas, primarily established communities and neighborhoods in ...
  35. [35]
    Governor Glendening's Smart Growth Initiatives in Maryland
    1). The goal of these initiatives is to “preserve some of Maryland's valuable resource and open space lands, and discourage the continuation of sprawling ...
  36. [36]
    [PDF] MARYLAND'S NEXT SMART GROWTH INITIATIVE
    Press Release, Office of the Governor of Maryland, Governor Glendening. Announces Smart Growth Efforts Aimed at Helping More Working Families Achieve the ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] SMART GROWTH POLICIES
    The findings of this study offer quantitative evidence about the effectiveness of smart growth policies that may be useful as gov- ernments struggle to ...
  38. [38]
    Smart Growth in Maryland - Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
    Because Maryland's smart growth policies relied extensively on state incentives, their efficacy waned when those incentives were not maintained after Glendening ...
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Is This Smart Growth | EPA
    The Smart Growth Network (SGN) is a network of private, public, and non-governmental partner organizations seeking to improve development practices in ...
  40. [40]
    What Ever Happened To Smart Growth - PERC
    Jun 1, 2005 · Glendening unveiled a statewide policy in 1997 to manage growth. The idea was to restrict the use of public funds for development to areas where ...<|separator|>
  41. [41]
    Smart Growth Implementation Assistance | US EPA
    Sep 15, 2025 · From 2005 to 2015, EPA provided assistance to 40 communities through the Smart Growth Implementation Assistance (SGIA) program.<|separator|>
  42. [42]
    Smart Growth - 1000 Friends of Wisconsin
    According to the new law, starting in 2000: Communities across the state would be required to enlist their residents in an open, comprehensive planning process ...
  43. [43]
    Growth Management in the United States, 2000–2010 - Sage Journals
    Jul 5, 2012 · Adoption of smart growth practices is affected by the activism of interest groups and their interaction with local political institutions ( ...
  44. [44]
    [PDF] Economic Development and Smart Growth
    2000 and 2010, public ($423 million) and private investment ($1.37 billion) will reach $1.8 billion. “The development is performing way beyond expectations ...
  45. [45]
    Exploring the Social Roots of Smart Growth Policy Adoption by Cities
    Aug 6, 2025 · This study examines changes from 2000 to 2010 in the adoption of sustainability plans and policies in a sample of U.S. cities. The study's ...
  46. [46]
    Shared Spaces and Health Equity: Lessons from a Pandemic
    The pandemic highlighted some of the ways we need to change our conventional approaches to make our communities resilient and our streets and public spaces ...
  47. [47]
    Zoning Reform Tracker | Othering & Belonging Institute - UC Berkeley
    The Othering & Belonging Institute is proud to launch the Zoning Reform Tracker, which is meant to serve as a hub for documenting zoning reform efforts ...
  48. [48]
    California's HOME Act Turns One: Data and Insights from the First ...
    Jan 18, 2023 · SB 9 allows homeowners to create up to four homes on an existing parcel, in effect, eliminating single-family-only zoning.
  49. [49]
    Why a California law to create housing units hasn't worked
    Jun 3, 2024 · SB 9 was designed to inject supply into what is arguably America's most challenging housing market, but that has yet to happen. Local ...
  50. [50]
    YIMBYtown 2025: Building momentum for abundant, affordable ...
    Oct 1, 2025 · At Smart Growth America, we're working to address the housing crisis by focusing on three key priorities: the types of homes available, where ...
  51. [51]
    The smart growth approach: more homes in the right places, at the ...
    Sep 17, 2025 · A smart growth approach to housing aims to build more homes in the right places at the right price so that everyone can live in a community ...
  52. [52]
    New Report Highlights Unease in the Housing Market Amid a ...
    High home prices and interest rates have pushed sales to their lowest level in 30 years, according to The State of the Nation's Housing 2025.
  53. [53]
    YIMBY group: Here's why California's housing laws aren't working
    Feb 24, 2025 · Recent California laws were supposed to supercharge housing construction. According to YIMBY Law, they haven't even come close.
  54. [54]
    Global impacts of future urban expansion on terrestrial vertebrate ...
    Mar 25, 2022 · Future urban expansion will lead to 11–33 million hectares of natural habitat loss by 2100 under the SSP scenarios and will disproportionately cause large ...
  55. [55]
    How smart is smart growth? Examining the environmental validation ...
    Aug 31, 2018 · Smart growth (SG) is widely adopted by planners and policy makers as an environmentally friendly way of building cities.
  56. [56]
    [PDF] Promoting public health through Smart Growth >>
    Smart growth, with compact land use and good networks, promotes public health by increasing walking/biking, reducing obesity, and improving air quality.
  57. [57]
    implications for smart growth urban planning - PubMed
    A systematic review of built environment factors related to physical activity and obesity risk: implications for smart growth urban planning. Obes Rev. 2011 ...Missing: critiques rates
  58. [58]
    Walkable communities: Impacts on residents' physical and social ...
    The results from this study provided solid evidence that residents did improve both physical activities and social interactions and cohesion after moving to ...
  59. [59]
    Evaluating unintended outcomes of regional smart-growth strategies
    This study develops an integrated framework to provide the empirical evidence of the potential impacts of home-based telecommuting on travel behavior ...<|separator|>
  60. [60]
    [PDF] Understanding Smart Growth Savings
    Aug 1, 2025 · Smart Growth policies create compact, multimodal communities where residents consume less land, drive less and rely more on non-auto modes. This ...
  61. [61]
    [PDF] Questioning the Relationship Between Urban Sprawl and Obesity
    Loosely, its main finding is that individuals living in sprawling neighborhoods are more likely to be obese than those who live in less sprawling neighborhoods.Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
  62. [62]
    (PDF) Evaluating Criticism of Smart Growth - ResearchGate
    It examines various criticisms of Smart Growth, including the claim that it does not reflect consumer preferences, infringes on freedom, increases traffic ...
  63. [63]
    Building Better Budgets - Smart Growth America
    Smart growth development saves an average of 38 percent on upfront costs for new construction of roads, sewers, water lines and other infrastructure.Missing: capita | Show results with:capita
  64. [64]
    [PDF] The Evolution of Fiscal Impact Analysis and Where it Needs to Go
    The surveys concluded that smart growth development saves an average of. 38 percent on upfront costs for new construction of roads, sewers, water lines and ...
  65. [65]
    [PDF] Does “Smart Growth” Matter to Public Finance? - HUD User
    ... empirical analysis, yield clear evidence that smart growth matters to public finance. ... Solé-Ollé A (2006) Expenditure spillovers and fiscal interactions: ...Missing: justifications | Show results with:justifications
  66. [66]
    Conventional Development Versus Managed Growth: The Costs of ...
    Furthermore, sprawl causes about 10% more annual public service (fiscal) deficits ($4.2 billion) and 8% higher housing occupancy costs ($13 000 per dwelling ...<|separator|>
  67. [67]
    [PDF] Analyzing the economic benefit and costs of smart growth
    Mar 23, 2016 · ... Empirical studies informing the analysis ... This research suggests smart growth interventions of the type ...
  68. [68]
    Sprawl and the Federal Government | Cato Institute
    The income-tax subsidy is both misunderstood and overstated as a cause of sprawl. The chief subsidy to housing is not, as is commonly asserted, the deduction of ...
  69. [69]
    Prove It: The Costs and Benefits of Sprawl - Brookings Institution
    The critics of sprawl instead blame distorted prices, such as automobile subsidies and mortgage interest deductions, and claimed but unregistered costs of ...Missing: critique | Show results with:critique
  70. [70]
    [PDF] Extent of Federal Influence on 'Urban Sprawl' Is Unclear
    Apr 30, 1999 · We found little quantitative research linking federal assistance for water and sewer systems with “urban sprawl.” Tax code provisions that ...
  71. [71]
    Is Sprawl a Consumer Choice or a Government Mandate?
    Oct 20, 2020 · Sprawl is popularly understood as a development pattern that is car-reliant, has low population densities, and lots of space between homes.
  72. [72]
    Do Cities Really Subsidize the Suburbs? - R Street Institute
    Apr 9, 2025 · Writing for the Cato Institute in 2018, Randal O'Toole argues that, “[W]e should end subsidies to highways as well, though those subsidies ...
  73. [73]
    [PDF] AnAlysis of Public Policies ThAT uninTenTionAlly encourAge And ...
    Mar 1, 2015 · Critics argue that sprawl cost estimates are exaggerated, that such costs are offset by benefits of equal magnitude, or that more compact, smart ...Missing: flaws | Show results with:flaws
  74. [74]
    O'Toole Testifies on Transit - Reason Foundation
    Jul 7, 2009 · Between 1987 and 2007, annual subsidies in real dollars grew by 68 percent. Yet annual ridership grew by only 18 percent. While capital ...Missing: sprawl | Show results with:sprawl
  75. [75]
    Smart Growth concept not sufficiently grounded in scientific certainty ...
    Oct 18, 2018 · In fact, 34 percent of the studies even presented negative consequences of applying a Smart Growth strategy, particularly for biodiversity. The ...
  76. [76]
    [PDF] Open Space, Smart Growth, Urban Sprawl
    Smart growth is seen by many people to be an antidote to the plague of unmiti- gated urban sprawl.Missing: preservation | Show results with:preservation
  77. [77]
    Is smart growth better for water quality? - ResearchGate
    Aug 6, 2025 · This paper examines the impact of a binding housing share constraint on household location decisions and monocentric urban form. Comparative ...
  78. [78]
    Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis
    We conducted a meta-analysis of the built environment-travel literature existing at the end of 2009 in order to draw generalizable conclusions for practice.
  79. [79]
    [PDF] Transit-Oriented Development - California Air Resources Board
    Studies generally find that TOD residents are more likely to use sustainable modes, such as public transit and active transportation, and to own fewer vehicles.
  80. [80]
    Fundamental law of road congestion: Evidence from U.S. cities
    The scholars conclude: “Geographic differences in the density-emissions relationship suggest that 'smart growth' policies to increase urban residential ...
  81. [81]
    Does smart growth actually reduce congestion? - Smart Cities Dive
    The study found that roadways in more compact, mixed, multi-modal communities tend to be less congested. This results from the lower vehicle trip generation.
  82. [82]
    The Effectiveness of Healthy Community Approaches on Positive ...
    While there is a burgeoning body of research that links urban form, physical activity and obesity the evidence linking Smart Growth and improved health outcomes ...
  83. [83]
    Urban sprawl and productivity: Evidence from US metropolitan areas
    We find that higher levels of urban sprawl are negatively associated with average labour productivity. This pattern holds even within given industries.
  84. [84]
    [PDF] Sprawl, Smart Growth and Economic Opportunity - Urban Institute
    Advocates of smart growth argue that sprawl exacerbates inequality in two ways. First, sprawl isolates low-income people and concentrates poverty in the center ...Missing: flaws | Show results with:flaws
  85. [85]
    [PDF] THE IMPACT OF SMART GROWTH ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
    Many economists are of the view that house prices have risen because of prescriptive (or “smart growth”) land use policies. Smart growth advocates deny this ...
  86. [86]
    [PDF] The Fiscal Impacts of Urban Sprawl: Evidence from U.S. County Areas
    Aug 6, 2019 · This paper examines the fiscal impacts of urban development patterns in the United States. Pre- vious studies have indicated low-density, ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  87. [87]
    [PDF] smart growth for pdf - Berks County
    Fiscal impacts of development are dependent largely on land use, density, loca tion, and occupants' characteristics. Local governments are finding that farmland ...
  88. [88]
    https://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.arch.20110101.02.html
  89. [89]
    [PDF] Compact Development Reduces VMT - Portland State University
    Planning for more compact development means increasing household/population density, expanding land-use mix and connectivity thereby improving job ...
  90. [90]
    Compact city planning and development: Emerging practices and ...
    Furthermore, many cities having the highest level of sustainable development practices have been studied on their compact development with the aim to ...
  91. [91]
    An Empirical Study of the Efficacy of Mixed-Use Development
    Aug 7, 2025 · This paper addresses this void and explores some fundamental questions surrounding when, why, and where mixed-use development is viable.
  92. [92]
    [PDF] Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United ...
    Transit-oriented development (TOD) has gained popularity as a means of redressing a number of urban problems, including traffic congestion, affordable housing ...
  93. [93]
    Smart growth and transit-oriented development planning in site ...
    This paper first studies and classifies smart growth principles based on literature review. Then the individual expert's judgments are obtained and utilized.
  94. [94]
    The Effect of Transit-Oriented Development on Vehicle Miles Traveled
    Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a strategy being used to reduce congestion, provide mode choice, and improve quality of life.Missing: ridership peer-
  95. [95]
    Smart growth and travel behavior—A synthesis with a focus on the ...
    With developments toward well-connected streets with multimodal transportation services, walking, cycling, and taking transit become viable options.
  96. [96]
    Smart Growth and Transportation | US EPA
    Feb 11, 2025 · Transportation is a key element of smart growth and can be leveraged to increase access to opportunity, reduce pollution, improve community health outcomes.Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
  97. [97]
    [PDF] TOD effects on travel behavior: A synthesis of evidence from cross
    Apr 10, 2024 · TOD achieves these outcomes by reducing automobile dependence, enhancing transit ridership, promoting active transport, fostering regional ...
  98. [98]
    [PDF] The Odds on TODs: Transit-Oriented Development as a Congestion
    Thus, transit-oriented development is unlikely to have a significant impact on regional vehicle miles traveled and traffic congestion. Although transit ...
  99. [99]
    Complete Streets - Smart Growth America
    Complete Streets is an approach to planning, designing, and building streets that enables safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, ...
  100. [100]
    What are Complete Streets? - Smart Growth America
    Complete Streets is an approach to planning, designing, building, operating, and maintaining streets that enables safe access for all people who need to use ...
  101. [101]
    A systematic review of the effect of infrastructural interventions to ...
    Oct 26, 2019 · Previous reviews have suggested that infrastructural interventions can be effective in promoting cycling. Given inherent methodological ...
  102. [102]
    Car-use reduction in 15-Minute Cities. A matter of modal shift or ...
    This provides no strong evidence to suggest that walkability has a meaningful influence on the decision to drive.Missing: growth | Show results with:growth
  103. [103]
    Impacts of Bicycle Infrastructure in Mid-Sized Cities (IBIMS) - NIH
    Jan 21, 2018 · This natural experiment study examines the impacts of the City of Victoria's investment in a bicycle network on active travel and safety outcomes.
  104. [104]
    Effects of building cycling infrastructure on bicycle use: Differences ...
    This study investigated the effect of constructing cycling infrastructure, specifically segregated bike lanes, on bicycle usage, with particular emphasis on ...
  105. [105]
    Walkability and Its Relationships With Health, Sustainability, and ...
    Walkability is a core urban design element because of being advantageous onto three fronts: health, livability, and sustainability.Abstract · Walkability Relationship With... · Physical Elements of the Built...<|separator|>
  106. [106]
    Smart Growth and Open Space Conservation | US EPA
    Sep 22, 2025 · Planning for open space and conservation helps communities protect their environment, improve quality of life, and preserve critical elements of local heritage.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  107. [107]
    Linked spatial and temporal success of urban growth boundaries to ...
    Our results show that UGBs succeed in preserving the ecosystem services, over time, at a higher and more predictable rate than cities that do not have a UGB.
  108. [108]
    2024 growth management decision - Oregon Metro
    By the end of 2024, the Metro Council will decide whether there is enough land in greater Portland's urban area for 20 years of growth.<|separator|>
  109. [109]
    https://oregonmetro.gov/urban-growth-boundary
  110. [110]
    [PDF] The Effects of State Smart Growth Management and Local Contexts ...
    There is evidence that environmental interest groups measured by the number of land trusts increase open space preservation. Among community characteristics, ...
  111. [111]
    [PDF] 4. Farmland and forest conservation: evaluation of smart growth ...
    Open-space protection pro- vides amenities to nearby residents that increase local property values and creates recreational opportunities that improve community ...
  112. [112]
    [PDF] A Line in the Land: - Urban-growth Boundaries ... - Reason Foundation
    Inside the urban area, the loss of open space accelerates. In fact, if the growth boundary is effective, infill will accelerate along with increasing densities.
  113. [113]
    Land use externalities, open space preservation, and urban sprawl
    We find evidence that parcels with greater amounts of both preserved and unprotected open space nearby are more likely to have larger hazard rates of ...
  114. [114]
    Have Oregon's urban growth boundaries been too conservation ...
    Mar 27, 2024 · A brief look at some high-level summary statistics paints a clear picture that UGB expansions have not kept pace with population growth.
  115. [115]
    Codes That Support Smart Growth Development | US EPA
    Mar 25, 2025 · Provides examples of local zoning codes that support smart growth development, categorized by: unified development code, form-based code, ...Background · Unified Development Code · Street Design StandardsMissing: 2020-2025 | Show results with:2020-2025
  116. [116]
    Reforming a Century-Old Approach to Land Use
    Dec 22, 2022 · The National Zoning Atlas seeks to help broaden participation in land use decisions, identify opportunities for zoning reform, and narrow an information gap.
  117. [117]
    Library of Codes - Form-Based Codes Institute at Smart Growth ...
    FBCI gathers the best examples of form-based codes from communities across the United States and abroad. ... © 2025 Form-Based Codes Institute at Smart Growth ...
  118. [118]
    Developing under a form-based code - Smart Growth America
    Form-Based Codes Institute at Smart Growth America. Local public officials ... A few examples of this type of code include Columbia Pike in Arlington ...
  119. [119]
    Unpacking a Form-Based Approach to Regulatory Barriers History
    Sep 10, 2023 · In September 2021, the Form-Based Codes Institute (a program of Smart Growth America) released a report that examines the effect of form-based ...
  120. [120]
    [PDF] Animating Performance Zoning at Sustainability's Competitive Edge
    ABSTRACT. This Article argues that economic competitiveness compels cities and towns to reimagine their zoning codes by incorporating technological advances ...
  121. [121]
    [PDF] Zoning Reform PDF - ROSA P
    Complete Streets Policies: Require streets to accommodate all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit. Parking Reforms: Eliminate minimum ...
  122. [122]
    Zoning in American Cities: Are Reforms Making a Difference? An AI ...
    This study investigates the adoption and impact of form-based codes (FBCs), which aim to promote sustainable, compact, and mixed-use urban forms as a solution ...
  123. [123]
    Urban growth boundary - Oregon Metro
    The boundary is one of the tools to protect farms and forests from urban sprawl and promote the efficient use of land, public facilities and services inside ...
  124. [124]
    [PDF] Urban growth boundary in Portland - University of Calgary
    As a result, in its early years, the UGB really only functioned to contain sprawling development – the boundary contained enough developable land to accommodate ...
  125. [125]
    [PDF] The Effects of Portland's Urban Growth Boundary on Urban ...
    53). On the other hand, Jan Brueckner argues that urban growth boundaries can easily yield ... (1999) A line in the land: urban-growth boundaries, smart growth, ...
  126. [126]
    Understanding the Corrective Effect of the Urban Growth Boundary ...
    Development inside urban growth boundaries: Oregon's empirical evidence of contiguous urban form. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 1998;64:424–440. doi: 10.1080 ...
  127. [127]
    Impact of an urban growth boundary across the entire house price ...
    This study provides evidence for the impact of an urban growth boundary (UGB) on house prices. The study employs a two-stage quantile spatial regression method.
  128. [128]
    Urban Growth Boundary inflates land prices, deflates housing prices ...
    Jul 13, 2023 · The results show that although the UGB increases land prices by 230 per cent, it decreases housing prices by 1.3 per cent.<|separator|>
  129. [129]
    Want to Make Housing Affordable? Ditch Urban-Growth Boundaries
    Mar 1, 2016 · While the growth boundaries impose huge costs on renters and homebuyers, they produce few of the benefits that are claimed for them. Supposedly ...
  130. [130]
    Urban Growth Boundaries and their Impact on Land Prices
    Jan 1, 2014 · These results suggest that the urban growth boundary has had a significant upward effect on the trajectory of the urban region's house prices.
  131. [131]
    Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
    Apr 18, 2024 · TDR is a market-based mechanism that encourages the voluntary transfer of growth from areas a community wants to conserve to urban areas.
  132. [132]
    [PDF] Transfer of Development Rights in U.S. Communities
    Still others that have “smart growth” or “anti-sprawl” objectives—namely, to preserve open space and channel development toward more compact urbanized areas ...
  133. [133]
    Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) - GrowSmart Maine
    TDR programs offer a unique balance of land preservation, financial compensation, incentives and opportunity, and regional strategic growth and development ...
  134. [134]
    Transfer of Development Rights in U.S. Communities: Evaluating ...
    TDRs allow for development rights to be transferred from one area to another, preserving land in the “sending areas” and permitting higher than baseline density ...
  135. [135]
    [PDF] Smart Growth through the Transfer of Development Rights
    TDR is a valuable smart growth tool that has already preserved hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland, open space, forest and historic resources across the ...
  136. [136]
    [PDF] Recent Trends In TDR - Networks Northwest
    Apr 16, 2025 · For example, as detailed later in this report, TDR has preserved over. 40,000 acres of farmland in Montgomery County, Maryland, more than 31,000 ...
  137. [137]
    Transfer of Development Rights | King County, WA
    King County, WA's web site describes its transfer of development rights (TDR) program as “a voluntary, incentive-based, and market-driven approach to ...
  138. [138]
    [PDF] Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Rural Planning, Zoning, and ... - EPA
    3 For more information about the Smart Growth Network, see: Smart Growth ... (PDR) and transfer of development rights (TDR). PDR and. TDR programs can ...
  139. [139]
    Transfer of development rights in theory and practice
    I argue that these programs restructure TDR primarily as an incentive rather than its theoretical function of enabling a market in support of managed growth. As ...<|separator|>
  140. [140]
    [PDF] Impact Fees and Housing Affordability - HUD User
    Approximately 60 percent of U.S. cities with more than 25,000 residents now impose impact fees to fund infrastructure needed to service new housing and other ...
  141. [141]
    [PDF] Managing Growth: Infrastructure Concurrency
    A concurrency ordinance does not necessarily include impact fees, although some concurrency ordinances allow developers to pay local governments for the costs.
  142. [142]
    Growth Management Effectiveness: A Literature Review
    Feb 23, 2022 · This review covers the major growth management tools used since the early 1970s and offers a detailed overview of each tool and empirical ...
  143. [143]
    Economic Benefits of Smart Growth and Costs of Sprawl
    Sprawl increases the costs of roads, housing, schools, and utilities. Three major national research investigations found that smart growth development can lower ...
  144. [144]
    [PDF] Value Capture: Development Impact Fees and Other Fee-Based ...
    Aug 4, 2021 · Value capture refers to a set of techniques that allow monetizing the appreciation in real property values that is triggered by infrastructure ...
  145. [145]
    Smart Growth Case Studies - Chesapeake Bay Foundation
    Arlington County, Virginia is a 26-square mile urban center that was originally donated by Virginia to help the federal government form the new "capitol ...
  146. [146]
    Smart Growth - Arlington County
    Growth is “smart” when it creates attractive communities with a range of housing and transportation options near jobs, shops, services and schools.
  147. [147]
    The Effects of Portland's Urban Growth Boundary on Housing Prices
    Aug 4, 2025 · One study also found that UGMPs increased the land price, but lowered housing prices explained by the requirement for higher density development ...
  148. [148]
    An Approach to Assess the Effectiveness of Smart Growth in ... - MDPI
    The claims that the implementation of smart growth policies have led to housing price increases, however, remains contested as little empirical evidence has ...
  149. [149]
    [PDF] OECD Green Growth Studies - Compact City Policies
    Its goal was better understanding of the compact city concept, its role in today's urban contexts, and the potential outcomes of compact city policies. It aimed ...
  150. [150]
    Smart Growth and Smart Shrinkage: A Comparative Review ... - MDPI
    May 11, 2024 · This study bridges the gap in the fragmented discourse surrounding SG and SS by conducting a comprehensive comparative review on the respective literatures.Smart Growth And Smart... · 3. Results · 4. Discussion
  151. [151]
    Sprawl, Smart Growth and Sustainability | Request PDF
    Aug 10, 2025 · Many cities in Canada and the US are deploying smart growth planning to counter urban sprawl, to increase transportation options and to ...
  152. [152]
    Urban containment strategies: A case-study appraisal of plans and ...
    This paper provides a conceptual model of growth management options, which is then employed in a comparative assessment of the nature and impact of urban growth ...Missing: equivalents | Show results with:equivalents
  153. [153]
    Curitiba Bus System is Model for Rapid Transit - Reimagine!
    The essence of a Bus Rapid Transit is to improve bus operating speed and reliability on arterial streets by reducing or eliminating the various types of delay.
  154. [154]
    Curitiba: 50 Years of Lessons from the World's First 'Bus Rapid Transit'
    Oct 17, 2024 · Curitiba's BRT has inspired and served as a reference for cities worldwide, including roughly 200 that have implemented similar models.
  155. [155]
    Curitiba's Bus Rapid Transit Rideability Improvement Project
    The Curitiba Bus Rapid Transit project in Brazil is approved, with a USD 75 million limit, financed by the Municipality of Curitiba.
  156. [156]
    [PDF] Smart Growth in Two Contrastive Metropolitan Areas - ScholarWorks
    Mar 1, 2015 · Since its establishment, Metro has crafted and implemented comprehensive smart growth policies to prevent urban sprawl in the Portland region.<|control11|><|separator|>
  157. [157]
    Are Portland's Smart Growth Policies Related to Reduced ...
    May 12, 2008 · Empirical evidence reveals that more diversified land use in neighborhoods, more extensive provision of public transit service, and decreasing ...
  158. [158]
    Demographic Briefs: Portland (Oregon) Index - Demographia
    More and More Traffic: Reconciling Smart Growth and Traffic: The Public Purpose #63 (20030610) ... Portland & Oregon Smart Growth & New Urbanist Policies Drive Up ...Missing: outcomes | Show results with:outcomes
  159. [159]
    Portland's traffic congestion ranks 7th worst in the U.S. - Axios
    Sep 11, 2024 · Portland-area drivers are more likely to get stuck in traffic than those in nearly any other city in the U.S., according to a new analysis.Missing: growth | Show results with:growth<|separator|>
  160. [160]
    Evidence from the Portland, OR Region - MDPI
    Sep 18, 2024 · Our study indicates that the average commuting time, along with the average commuting distance, increased slightly, as the mode share shifted away from driving.
  161. [161]
    How Smart Has Smart Growth Been? - Counselors of Real Estate
    The analysis presented herein is that Smart Growth expands and extends the politicization of a city's real estate markets and in turn severely distorts a city's ...
  162. [162]
    [PDF] The Impact of Building Restrictions on Housing Affordability
    The usual urban economics view of housing markets suggests that the restriction on housing supply is the availability of land. Because land is ultimately ...
  163. [163]
    The Effects of Portland's Urban Growth Boundary on Housing Prices
    Have Housing Prices Risen Faster in Portland Than Elsewhere? Source: Housing Policy Debate. Growth management and housing prices: the case of Portland, Oregon.
  164. [164]
    [PDF] Growth Management and Housing Prices: The Case of Portland ...
    Portland, Oregon, is well known for its relatively unique urban growth boundary. (UGB), a very tight form of zoning designed to control sprawl.
  165. [165]
    California Housing Affordability Tracker (2nd Quarter 2025)
    Jul 24, 2025 · California Homes Are About Twice as Expensive as the Typical US Home · Monthly Payments for a Typical California Home Are Over $5,900 · Growth in ...
  166. [166]
    [PDF] HOUSING UNDERPRODUCTION IN CALIFORNIA | Up For Growth
    Our work is used to inform city comprehensive planning, master planning and site- specific feasibility studies, as well as large-scale housing needs assessments ...
  167. [167]
    Housing supply and housing affordability - ScienceDirect.com
    The decline in housing affordability over recent decades has promoted an enhanced interest in housing supply. This chapter presents descriptive evidence ...
  168. [168]
    [PDF] Government Dictated Smart Growth Is Unwise and Unconstitutional
    Two mechanisms are particularly popular: (1) regulating property so that owners cannot use it in any meaningful sense, and (2) imposing costly and onerous ...
  169. [169]
    The Heritage Foundation
    No readable text found in the HTML.<|separator|>
  170. [170]
    Growing Too Smart—Takings Implications of Smart Growth Policies
    In other words, when is smart growth too smart? On one end of the spectrum, the mere enactment of land use laws regulating the uses of property does not.Missing: freedoms | Show results with:freedoms
  171. [171]
    (PDF) Urban Growth Boundaries and their Impact on Land Prices
    Multiple studies have confirmed that such laws may increase housing prices. However, higher housing prices do not automatically lower housing affordability.
  172. [172]
    Exploring the Current State of Knowledge on the Impact of ...
    ... growth containment strategies such as urban growth boundaries are all strongly associated with high-cost housing.3 Increasing evidence suggests that many ...
  173. [173]
    [PDF] Smart Growth Myth and Fact - Urban Land Institute
    This latest Myth and Fact booklet examines some of the most prevalent smart growth myths and offers facts in their stead, in the hope that public debate can be ...
  174. [174]
    Urban Growth Boundaries Fail to Curb Urban Sprawl and Increase ...
    Nov 24, 2022 · Urban growth boundaries are pretty much always bundled with long permitting times, high impact fees, affordability requirements, and very restrictive zoning.There's a strong movement to axe the Urban Growth Boundary ...Portland's breathtaking Urban Growth Boundary - RedditMore results from www.reddit.com
  175. [175]
    Smart Growth: More Traffic Congestion and Air Pollution
    Jan 11, 2001 · The higher densities that would be the result of smart growth would increase traffic congestion. International and U.S. evidence strongly ...
  176. [176]
    The environmental paradox of smart growth | Smart Cities Dive
    There is simply no valid solution to global warming, to food security, to ecological conservation – to say nothing about redressing urban disinvestment – ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
  177. [177]
    [PDF] The Folly of “Smart Growth ” - Cato Institute
    Opponents of smart growth do not necessarily endorse the status quo. Urban areas have their problems, including congestion, air pollution, inadequate ...
  178. [178]
    Research & Commentary: The Failures of Smart Growth
    Jun 30, 2009 · ... problems they are trying to address. Cox makes six primary arguments against smart growth policies: * Urbanization does not threaten ...
  179. [179]
    Two studies warn suburban sprawl will continue despite smart ...
    Two studies warn suburban sprawl will continue despite smart growth. ... Howard County was criticized for ineffective ... While counties designated growth areas as ...
  180. [180]
    Smart-Growth Plans Are a Failure in Portland | Cato Institute
    Despite these problems, scores of cities from Missoula, Mont., to San Diego, Calif., have passed similar smart-growth regulations. Planners want ...Missing: evaluation | Show results with:evaluation
  181. [181]
    Subsidies and Sprawl - Good Jobs First
    Economic development subsidies are a substantial contributing factor to sprawl. That is, they fuel the thinning out of economic activity.
  182. [182]
    [PDF] Policy Brief 20 Market-oriented Approaches to Growth
    Policymakers, in general, have three possible options: 1. Maintain the status quo;. 2. Implement centralized, “command-and-control” urban planning; or. 3.Missing: removing subsidies
  183. [183]
    Single-Family Homes - National Association of REALTORS®
    The National Association of REALTORS®' Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers revealed that 75% of recent buyers chose single-family homes. In fact, most of the ...
  184. [184]
    U.S. Cities With the Most Single-Family Homes [2024 Edition]
    Oct 18, 2025 · While as many as 89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home, recent construction trends diverge from this sentiment. This ...
  185. [185]
    Young Americans Want Single-Family Homes
    Jun 19, 2025 · When asked to visualize their ideal home: 79% of respondents say detached SFH, even though only 59% are currently living in that kind of housing ...
  186. [186]
    3 facts about America's changing suburbs
    Nov 30, 2023 · Today, more than half of Americans report they live in the suburbs, ranging from densely populated areas such as Ferguson, Missouri, to ...
  187. [187]
    https://pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/
  188. [188]
    [PDF] The Distaste for Housing Density
    For example, the demand for low housing density may be driven by a preference over neighbors or valuation of the changes in other local amenities such as crime, ...
  189. [189]
    Homes for Young Families: A Pro-Family Housing Agenda
    Age influences housing preferences to a degree: about 77% of those under age 35 identify detached SFH as ideal, vs. 83% of those over age 35. Nevertheless, ...
  190. [190]
    A Free-Market Guide To Suburban Development & "Urban Sprawl"
    Mar 1, 1999 · Smart growth brings land-use restrictions, increased taxes, the loss of open space near population centers, and increased air pollution. Light ...
  191. [191]
    Pricing Urban Congestion - Resources for the Future
    This paper reviews literature on the optimal design of pricing policies to reduce urban automobile congestion. ... We also briefly discuss the incidence of ...Missing: development | Show results with:development
  192. [192]
    Can Congestion Pricing Help Solve Urban Traffic Problems?
    Feb 20, 2025 · Evaluations have generally found that congestion pricing has been successful in improving traffic flows as part of broader urban transport strategies.
  193. [193]
    Expanding User Fees for Transportation: Roads and Beyond
    Aug 7, 2024 · Experts explore various policy solutions for US infrastructure and transportation funding, including Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) taxes.
  194. [194]
    Why User Fees Should Pay for Transportation Infrastructure
    Jun 7, 2021 · Fourth, limiting funding to user fees gives providers incentives to be efficient and to avoid grandiose projects. Subsidies insulate ...
  195. [195]
    [PDF] Expanding User Fees for Transportation: Roads and Beyond
    User fees are charges for individual benefits of government services. The US has moved away from the user-pays model for transportation, and replacing excise ...
  196. [196]
    Value Capture Strategies Toolkit for Practitioners
    Value Capture refers to the concept of capturing the benefits generated by investment in infrastructure, to either finance the infrastructure itself or to re- ...
  197. [197]
    Value capture: an innovative strategy to fund public transportation ...
    Value capture can help give local, state and federal governing bodies the financial means to improve infrastructure and accommodate growing populations. Many ...
  198. [198]
    Land Value Capture in the United States
    $$20.00Land value capture is a viable and potentially important method for funding much-needed public infrastructure, improvements, and programs.Missing: smart growth
  199. [199]
    [PDF] Assessing the NYC Congestion Pricing Policy
    NYC's congestion pricing increased CBD speeds by 15%, reduced travel times by 8%, and reduced CO2 emissions by 2-3% in the CBD and high co-occurrence roads.
  200. [200]
    Congestion pricing for sustainable urban transportation systems ...
    Effective congestion pricing is essential for the sustainable development of urban transportation systems. To explore the impact of congestion pricing on ...
  201. [201]
    Congestion Pricing Policies and Safety Implications: a Scoping ...
    Conclusions. CPPs have been developed to address increased traffic congestion, particularly in urban centers, and have been studied widely in the literature.