Land/housing prices and urban growth boundaries
Davis, CA implemented policies for growth control in the mid-20th century. A study found that the introduction of these policies resulted in a relative rise of housing prices. These growth control policies were implemented in the form of a boundary, where housing was made less affordable for families with less than median income. This meant that these policies reduced the quality of housing. “In Davis the decline in affordable housing (new and old) for households earning 80% and 120% of median income was 86% and 56%, respectively, while the comparable decline in the control communities was 79% and 39%.” (Zorn et. al. 1986)
Knox County, TN has maintained an urban growth boundary implemented since 2001. A study in Knox County looking at data from 2001 to 2007 found that the values of newly developed houses after the implementation of a UGB are likely to be higher within the growth area than outside of it (Cho et. al. 2008).
King County, WA has had an urban growth boundary in place since 1992. A 2014 study on the UGB of King County ran three different models to examine housing and land prices inside and outside of the boundary. The study found that the prices of vacant lots inside the UGB did not change as distance from the UGB increased or decreased. These lot prices were 230% higher inside of the UGB. Houses that were not on the municipal water supply were also sold for a lower price. Inside the UGB, land prices were higher, but housing prices were lower, the inverse was true outside of the UGB. This could be due to the fact that developable land inside the UGB is a commodity because it is closer to the city center, where the scarcity of open and developable land is increasing. Homes outside of the UGB were typically large and spacious country estates (Mathur 2014).
Melbourne, Australia implemented an urban growth zone in 2002. A 2014 study conducted in Melbourne analyzed all recorded property transactions made between 1996 and 2007. It found that land prices rose substantially in areas that were inside the urban growth zone, while land prices stayed mostly stagnant outside of the zone. The results suggested that the urban growth zone had a significant upward effect on the increase of housing prices within the growth zone. (Ball et al., 2014)
In the past couple of decades, housing prices in Portland, OR have fluctuated in accordance with population growth. In an analysis of the home price movements of 85 large metro areas in the United States conducted between 1980 and 2000, a study found that housing prices in Portland did not rise as fast as in several other metropolitan areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Denver) without UGBs in place. The study utilized multiple forms of regression analyses, and found that home prices in several regions without UGBs were also rising at a rapid rate. Portland’s UGB only had statistically significant effects on home prices in the first half of the 1990’s in comparison with the Western US median home prices, across the period of time that was under analysis (Downs 2002).
Development
Beijing, China has utilized different forms of urban growth management since the 1970’s. A 2015 study in Beijing that synthesized datasets from various sources, including records of location check-ins, transit card use, taxi meters, and residential travel surveys. In urban areas of China, land is used and developed at a high rate that is difficult to measure. This means that novel methods that could be used in the U.S are not necessarily as applicable. The study found that 96% of urban activity check-ins were done inside the UGB. These results show that the UGB was successful in containing sprawl and limiting transit outside the boundary. (Long et. al. 2015)
A study of Portland, OR conducted in 2004 looked at the effects that the UGB had on different components of urban sprawl. By analyzing patterns of urban development, mobility, and intermetropolitan comparisons, the study found that the implementation of the UGB did not lead to a slowdown of suburban sprawl, infill development and reduced car usage. Furthermore, the study found that Portland’s UGB was a factor in diverting population growth from the metropolitan area into Clark County during the 1980’s and 1990’s. There was also little impact on determining locations for new housing construction projections during the same time period. (Jun 2004).