(Urbanization: the ‘Key Goal’, along with Economy,Housing,Util-
ities, and Transportation) range against the Agricultural Goalfor
which (De Grove 1984: 256) ‘disallows the treatment of these
lands as left-over areas available for (urban) development, and
instead stresses their [for ever and ever] economic and social [aes-
thetic and recreational] value to the state’. The established Oregon
experience ‘mandate[s] that all urban areas designate urban
growth boundaries (Goal 14) andexclusive farm use zoning (Goal
3) as soon as possible’.^24 Notable is the need for ‘acceptability’ –
whole-government political commitment, whole-picture quality
management, whole-region land-use designation, and an all-
agencies-together funding; and the utility of PDR (Purchase of
Development Rights), of TDR (Transfer of Development Rights),
and SSZ (Sliding Scale Zoning) (box 5.6, chapter 5).
What is notable is that extensive sprawl leads to car depend-
ence, social problems, and environmental impacts. Operational
strictures have been assembled by John DeGrove and Deborah
Miness in their New Frontier for Land Policy(1992: 161, reordered
and summarized) which expresses six benchmark principles
for Growth Management responsibilities, of which four are
‘outcome-oriented’.First, getting serious with the curtailment of urban sprawl
through a mandatory application of rural subdivision stand-
ards – variable sizing as appropriate to the quality and extent
of the rural resource – but seldom less than 20 acre (8 ha) sub-
division blocks; the denial of urban sprawl to be concomitantly
linked to compact urban development clusters at some discrete
rural sites.
Secondthe inclusion of affordable housing as a major urban
element thereby countervailing the rural shanty syndrome.
Thirdprotecting the greatest of all assets, wholesome natural
systems, by focusing on a conservation of wetlands, woodland,
and viable farm and forestry holdings, along with urban con-
tainment within defined city limits and designated growth
settlements.
Fourthpromotion of overall win-win beneficial outcomes for both
the urban and rural sectors as a broadly beneficial consequence
of ‘managing growth’.The following two ‘procedurally focused’ principles are, arguably,
the capstone arrangements for keying in the DeGrove–Miness
strictures.Fifththe ‘concurrency’ proposition wherein all the component parts of growth,
particularly urban growth, are mandated ‘all of a territorial piece’: constituting162 Practice
The USA and Canada
contain about 45
metropolitan areas with
populations in excess of
one million. Soja (2000)
lists the ten largest, each
with a population
exceeding three million,
in ranked order:
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
San Francisco-Oakland
Philadelphia
Detroit
Boston
Washington
Dallas-Fort Worth
Houston
Heywood (1994) shows
that two-thirds of the
population of Australia
and New Zealand will
be concentrated into
only six polycentric
cities:
Perth
Sydney
Brisbane
Adelaide
Auckland
Melbourne
The problems facing
urban Australia are
reviewed in Australian
Citiesedited by Patrick
Troy, 1995.
‘Regional planning has
emerged time and again
in Canada as the best
perspective from which
to to approach extra-
municipal problems as
well as sub-provincial
and subnational
dilemmas.’
Hodge and Robinson,
Planning Canadian
Regions, 2001