While the work done in this project is important as a base to addressing this problem, it is evident that the scope of this project could not go into too much detail on any one of the problems addressed. There are also, possibly more importantly, several overarching issues that we were not able to touch on in areas of this project- such issues are addressed in the following.
UGBs and other growth management policies have been in place throughout cities for several decades. It’s important to assess the relative successes of such programs in accordance with their goals, as well as their long-term effects. How does the implementation of the UGB affect or control sprawl vs. other systems of growth management? Are UGB’s purely responsible for economic growth/decline, or are they only a contributing factor in larger schemes of models for urban development?
More broadly, we see that growth control policies have inevitably come to shape the state of cities around the globe and have almost inadvertently created dynamics of inequality in urban culture. This culture will come to shape the ways in which people interact with their built environments for some time to come and also contribute to the creation of future ideas and technologies, which tend to come out of the heart of major cities. Planning, as the word suggests, molds our future. UGBs contribute to gentrification not necessarily through direct effects on land values, but rather through their existence as part of a larger set of urban strategies.
Not only do different growth management strategies need to be addressed and re-studied 30-40 years after their implementation, but inherent in this work is also the question of smart growth plans. Bigger picture conceptualizations to “smart growth” includes assessing the importance of gentrification and issues of racial justice in urban environments. To what extent should smart-growth policies incorporate the needs of minority groups? How does reinvesting in city centers actually contribute to gentrification? These are all questions that are being asked but are yet to be studied in enough depth to be answered. Interestingly, it is found that international studies of smart growth have little to no relevance with racial justice, so could it be that these issues are not necessarily universal and are symptomatic of larger socio-political issues in the Pacific Northwest and/or the United States.
In addition, we can question if displacement itself is problematic. Or, is it really the inequality that displacement creates the main problem? Further, we can question if displacement is almost planned, if urban planners are either consciously or subconsciously racist or otherwise biased. What can be done to monitor these issues? Is displacement inevitable as more people migrate to urban areas, as gentrification becomes more prominent in nearly all American cities? Or is this symptomatic of poor planning?
Even farther beyond the scope of this project, one can come to question equity in the realm of planning. To what extent should governments utilize planning and social services to equally enhance the livelihoods of everyone? Ideally equity, or at least equal opportunity and access to municipal resources should be the goal, but is this always the best route for a city to take in their goals and planning measures? To some extent issues of equality are opposed to commercial interests and many economic forces. Perhaps we need to question to what extent equality can exist in conformity with commercial interests? Should equity always be the goal? We believe that more equality not only helps to lessen some social issues inherent in economic and racial inequality, but studies have shown that when there is more equality, people are happier, more productive, more creative, and the economy thrives (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010). So, why not shoot for equality? The question that is left however is how to best go about achieving this seemingly unachievable outcome.
Looking Forward
The efficacy of the UGB vs. other growth control measures has not been studied much, and was not covered in our project. An interesting study could compare other planning tools, such as green belts, with UGBs to shed a light on which strategies are better and in what contexts. An interesting field of inquiry into the growth management field could see what effects different control measures have on different demographic groups as well as on the region’s economy.
It would similarly be interesting to see if it is possible to incorporate the well-being of disadvantaged groups into the planning process through urban policies. How can low-income housing be advocated for? And how should cities monitor for housing discrimination and violations? It is proposed that planners can take additional measures to support racially integrated neighbourhoods that consist of a variety of housing options such as subsidized and affordable renting (Ruddiman, 2013). There have been many articles about effects of rising housing prices on black vs. white populations, but most do not consider other races or mixed-race people. Further studies can look at the gentrification of other ethnic neighborhoods as well.
It is also interesting to consider the hegemony of the UGB in cities in which one has been established. Why are cities not re-evaluating zoning and administrative boundaries as they move farther along into the 21st century and continue to expand? A critique of current planning systems and strategies, how cities review past measures, may be in order and could provide more of a context and an interesting lens from which to view this project and continue work in the areas of growth management and gentrification in the future.