Speaker
Description
Scholars have documented the failure of local land use planning efforts to protect industrial uses from encroachment and displacement from other uses, especially in “strong market” cities where redevelopment pressures are strong (Ferm and Jones 2017; Grodach 2022). Regional planning regimes offer the prospect of a broader vision to protect from localized land use pressures, but have been prone to post-industrial “sustainable city” orientations that shunt manufacturers to the urban periphery (Leigh and Hoelzel 2012; Chapple 2015). This paper examines regional planning efforts in Portland, Oregon (USA) to sustain a vital urban manufacturing economy. Portland is in a state (Oregon) with the most stringent land use and growth management planning program in the United States, with substantial power vested in a regional planning authority (Metro) to ensure that local planning efforts align with a regional growth framework (“2040 Growth Concept”) developed in the 1990s. Specifically, Title 4 of Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan delineates three categories of employment-related land use as part of the 2040 Growth Concept, including “regionally significant industrial areas,” which require approval of the regional authority to change.
In this paper we assess the significance and impact of Portland’s regional planning approach in multiple ways. First, we track changes in Title 4-designated lands over time and analyze industrial employment trends within those areas. Second, through archival analysis and key informant interviews, we examine how this regional planning framework has worked in practice to support industrial land preservation. We find that Portland’s strong regional planning regime has generally helped to mitigate industrial displacement, but the lack of a coherent regional vision of urban manufacturing has engendered conflict in practice between local and regional officials, especially as redevelopment pressures have increased over time. And at the same time, Metro’s focus on land preservation has been largely disconnected from other policy and planning areas seeking to promote industrial revitalization, including innovation, workforce development and entrepreneurship. However, because of the fundamental importance of land availability in strong-market cities, we conclude that Portland metro’s regional planning efforts have been a critical tool for sustaining a “productive city.”
References
Chapple, Karen. 2015. Planning Sustainable Cities and Regions: Towards More Equitable Development. New York: Routledge Earthscan.
Ferm, Jessica, and Edward Jones. 2017. “Beyond the Post-Industrial City: Valuing and Planning for Industry in London.” Urban Studies 54 (14): 3380–98.
Grodach, Carl. 2022. “The Institutional Dynamics of Land Use Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 88 (4): 537–49.
Leigh, Nancey Green, and Nathanael Z. Hoelzel. 2012. “Smart Growth’s Blind Side: Sustainable Cities Need Productive Urban Industrial Land.” Journal of the American Planning Association 78 (1): 87–103.
| Keywords | Regional planning; Industrial land; Urban manufacturing |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
