ancient cities

growth management realm. Europe has a much
denser settlement pattern than the United States
such that, in most countries, national land use planning
law mandates that cities set up growth boundaries
distinguishing the settlement area from the
urban fringe. Switzerland, the Netherlands, and
Germany are good examples.
Switzerland has quite strict regulations. As in the
United States, the 1970s marked a shift in planning
toward stronger environmental consciousness and
landscape protection. Switzerland’s response was
mainly on the cantonal (regional) level, with regional
plans that reduced the growth plans of many cities.
Despite growing tensions between the cantons and
the cities over the new regulations, a reverse-zoning
policy that cut back land use areas previously designated
for further urban growth was widely implemented.
This normative approach was considered
successful. Newer policy approaches of Swiss growth
management include denser settlement structures.
This is achieved with incentives provided by the cities
such as higher-density allowances when a developer
provides better quality and better design, and
the shifting of zoning regulations between lots, a
process monitored by a land management system.
Being a small country with a high population
density, the Netherlands has generated nationwide
growth management principles steered by national-level
directives. This policy establishes the basic
regulations and locations for housing, employment,
public transportation, and other land uses.
The aim of the Dutch policy is to enhance the
development of the Randstad, a metropolitan area
consisting of the agglomerations of Amsterdam,
The Hague, Utrecht, and Rotterdam, while at the
same time protecting a large territory within the
Randstad—the Green Heart—from further settlement.
Whereas the central government usually
outlines the planning vision, implementation is
dependent on other planning bodies. For this reason,
there is a close collaboration between the
national government, the provinces (regions), and
the cities as to the future allocation of housing.
The Fourth Report on Physical Planning, “Extra”
from 1990, continued this policy approach and
placed more emphasis on implementation at a
city–regional level. Development directives indicated
that development should take place at the
outer fringes of the Randstad, keeping the Green
Heart free from settlement.
Growth Management
335
The German approach to growth management
is similar to the Swiss regulations. It has a relatively
detailed national planning code and is based
on the consensus that effective growth management
should include legal, regulatory, economic,
and organization-oriented tools. Economic or
market-oriented tools became of interest during
the 1990s when planners claimed that normative
tools were too strict and ineffective to react to land
use changes. The market-oriented tools include
taxes, soil sealing fees, density or infrastructure
incentives, and road pricing. Some of these
approaches have found their way into national
planning law, paving the way for more flexibility
in growth management.
Criticism
When the growth management movement in city
and regional planning started, developers and
property owners opposed it. For most of them,
growth management represented a challenge to
their property rights. One popular argument of the
time (and which is still raised) is that growth management
raises land prices and housing values.
Moreover, contemporary growth management
approaches, like the smart-growth movement, are
criticized for being ineffective at steering land use
expansion. Smart growth has not been sustainable,
with citizens using smart-growth initiatives to disguise
a NIMBY agenda.
Karina M. Pallagst
See also Environmental Policy; Growth Machine; New
Urbanism; Suburbanization; Sustainable Development;
Urban Planning; Urban Village
Further Readings
Evers, David with Efraim Ben-Zadek and Andreas Faludi.
2000. “The Netherlands and Florida: Two Growth
Management Strategies.” International Planning
Studies 5(1):7–23.
Pallagst, Karina. 2007. Growth Management in the U S.:
between Theory and Practice. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Porter, Douglas, R. 1997. Managing Growth in America’s
Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Stein, Jay M., ed. 1993. Growth Management: The
Planning Challenge of the 1990s. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.