Lexington-Fayette County as a Study Area for Examining Urban Growth Management Policies - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

lexington fayette county as a study area for examining urban growth management policies n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Lexington-Fayette County as a Study Area for Examining Urban Growth Management Policies PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Lexington-Fayette County as a Study Area for Examining Urban Growth Management Policies

play fullscreen
1 / 15
Lexington-Fayette County as a Study Area for Examining Urban Growth Management Policies
125 Views
Download Presentation
cascata
Download Presentation

Lexington-Fayette County as a Study Area for Examining Urban Growth Management Policies

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Lexington-Fayette Countyas a Study Area forExamining Urban Growth Management Policies Meaghan Mroz-Barrett Faculty Advisor: Dr. Brian Lee University of Kentucky Department of Landscape Architecture

  2. Overview • Introduction • Urban Growth Management Policies • Urban Growth Boundaries • State of Current Research • Sample Papers • Current Questions and Issues • How does Lexington Fit? • Location • History • Size • Growth Rate • Findings • Procedure • Affect on Housing Price • Conclusions

  3. Introduction:Background URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES • Rules that govern: • When • When • How • Variety • Density Limits • Building Standards • Cost Shifting • Land Withdrawal • Direct or Indirect Growth Controls • (adapted from Quigley, J.M. and Rosenthal, L.A. (2004)) URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES • Type of Urban Growth Management Policy • Direct Growth Control • Delineates Urban from Rural • Development in Urban • Very Low Density in Rural • Often used with other policies • Critics often argue that this type of policy raises housing prices due to a reduction in the available supply

  4. State of Current Research:Sample Papers Nelson, et al, 2002 Bengston, et al, 2004 Landis, 2006 Jun, 2004, 2006 Ihlanfeldt, 2007 Nelson, et al, 2002 Bengston, et al, 2004 Landis, 2006 Jun, 2004, 2006 Ihlanfeldt, 2007 Nelson, et al, 2002 Bengston, et al, 2004 Landis, 2006 Jun, 2004, 2006 Ihlanfeldt, 2007 Nelson, et al, 2002 Bengston, et al, 2004 Landis, 2006 Jun, 2004, 2006 Ihlanfeldt, 2007 Nelson, et al, 2002 Bengston, et al, 2004 Landis, 2006 Jun, 2004, 2006 Ihlanfeldt, 2007 • Literature Review • Examined housing price effects • Supply and demand too simple to determine housing price affects • Housing price is determined by market demands not land constraints • Empirical Study • Land Use Regulation’s affects on Housing Price • Examined Florida municipalities due to range of policies • Found Regulation: • Increases housing price • Decreases land prices • Increases house size • Literature Review • Examined policies and implementation • Found: • Lack of empirical studies • Importance of administration • Need for complimentary policies • Coordination is a key component in effectiveness • Significance of stakeholder participation • Re-examination of Growth Policies • Used California cities due to their diversity of Growth Management methods • Found: • Growth management can limit population growth • If they constrain growth to below their demand, housing prices are affected • Increase the chance of infill development • Empirical Studies on Portland, OR’s Urban Growth Boundary • Used a regression model to test affects on housing prices • Determined that housing price was affected by: • Household Income • Vacancy Rates • Density • Professional Workers • Households with Children • Commute Time

  5. State of Current Research:Issues • Majority of studies done in Portland or in California • Not representative of most cities in terms of: • Size • Growth Rate • State Mandated Growth Management • Portland is further complicated by a state border • California has a wide range of unique constraints • Earthquakes • Wildfires • Habitat • Current Studies Lack: • Empirical Studies • Standard Protocol • Clear Consensus • Complications to Research: • Lack of counterfactual knowledge • Lag time in affects • Separation of effects of overlapping policies • Unclear policy goals

  6. How does Lexington-Fayette Fit:Location

  7. How does Lexington-Fayette Fit:History Source: LFUCG Planning Department, http://www.lexingtonky.gov/index.aspx?page=328

  8. How does Lexington-Fayette Fit:Size

  9. How does Lexington-Fayette Fit:Size Source: 2000 Census Data File 3: http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t3/index.html

  10. How does Lexington-Fayette Fit:Growth Rate Source: 2000 Census Data File 3: http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t3/index.html

  11. Findings:Procedure • Duplicate Jun, 2006 procedure from Portland, Oregon in Lexington, KY • Regression model using a hedonic price framework • Housing Price as a function of: • Structure • Housing Market • Accessibility • Model predicts independent variable (Housing Price) from a series of independent variables • Structural Variables • Number of bedrooms • Percentage owner occupied • Housing Market Variables • Median Household Income • Vacancy Rate • Housing Density • Sociodemographics • Percentage Managerial or Professional Workers • Percentage Households with Children • Mean Commuting Time • Dummy Variables • Urban Growth Boundary • Three County Specific (Different in this study)

  12. Findings:Results • Similar to Jun’s findings: • Urban Growth Boundary had no affect on housing price • Main difference is commute time had no affect on housing price • Housing price is positively affected by increased: • Bedrooms • Owner Occupied Units • Increased Median Income • Managerial and Professional Workers • Housing price is negatively affected by increased: • Vacancy Rates • Density • Children • No Affect: • Commute Time • Urban Growth Boundary

  13. Conclusions:Further Research • Urban Growth Boundaries do not affect housing price • Housing price is a function of a more complex set of variables than simple supply and demand • Lexington can help fill in the research gaps for Urban Growth Boundaries • Further studies should be conducted to gain a wider understanding of the affects of Urban Growth Boundaries in different areas and situations.

  14. Sources: • Bengston, David N., Jennifer O. Fletcher, and Kristen C. Nelson. 2004. Public Policies for Managing Urban Growth and Protecting Open Space: Policy Instruments and Lessons Learned in the United States. Landscaper and Urban Planning 69(2-3):271–286. • Gabaix, X. (1999) Zipf’s law for cities: An explanation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 3, 739-767. • Ihlanfeldt, K.R. (2007) The effect of land use regulation on housing and land prices. Journal of Urban Economics, 61(3), 420-435. • Nelson, Arthur C., Rolf Pendall, Casey J. Dawkins, and Gerrit J. Knaap. 2002. The Link Between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence. A Discussion Paper Prepared for The Brookings Institution - Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Retrieved March 31, 2009 from http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/growthmanagexsum.htm • Quigley, J.M., and Rosenthal, L.A. (2004). The Effects of Land-Use Regulation on the Price of Housing: What Do We Know? What Can We Learn?. UC Berkeley: Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy. Retrieved March 14, 2010, from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/90m9g90w • Torrens, P. (2000). CASA Working Paper 28: How cellular models of urban systems work. Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London — Retrieved January 11, 2010, from http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/working_papers/paper28.pdf • U.S. Department of the Interior. United States National Atlas. – Retrieved April 15, 2010 from http://www.nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html • U.S. Census Bureau. Ranking Tables for Metropolitan Areas. – Retrieved April 15, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t3/index.html • Lexington—Fayette Urban County Government Department of Planning. 2007 Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved April 15, 2010 from http://www.lexingtonky.gov/index.aspx?page=333

  15. ANY QUESTIONS?